What is the creation science theory of the origin of light?

Thread proposal is in Message 5.Edited by Butterflytyrant, : Topic was too broadEdited by Admin, : Admin change.Edited by Admin, : No reason given.Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Add "(FINAL MESSAGE TIME)" to topic title.Edited by Admin, : Remove "Final Message" note from the title.

Thread proposal is in Message 5.Edited by Admin, : Admin change.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Thread proposal is in Message 5.Edited by Admin, : Admin change.

Thread proposal is in Message 5.Edited by Admin, : Admin change.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Please supply the scientific theory of how God created light when he said "let there be light".Please include the testable elements of the process by which light was created.include evidence supporting this theory.

Thread copied here from the The Theory thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

Do you want us to propose one? Are you forcing us to come up with a "light" Theory? There isn't one that I know of. If you're trying to say we have no proof of what the Bible says fine, but until someone proposes a theory for "and God said" then it's silly to suggest we propose one for you just so you can "point and laugh".We could do the same thing to you (i.e. who are the original common ancestors etc.) but there's enough out there already that will last a lifetime of debating. I can't think of a theory for creationism that hasn't already been brought up. Maybe you should ask Creationist to try and explain already existing "theorys" (ID, The Great flood, etc.) that you don't agree with.Just my thoughts on that, but for the hell of it i'll try to amuse you.God said let there be light. The mechanism behind this "light" is the Holy Spirit. The Holy spirit is the Natural Selection of Creationism. God said, and the Holy spirit moved, The Holy Spirit is the "creative force" in the trinity. All matter which was Created is the result of the Holy Spirit moving on God's command. (again im just amusing you, it's not scientific, so don't ask me to prove it, I can't) the result was light. I guess if you were gonna argue the point (which has no basis scientifically, hence there not being a theory) you could say was light designed or "banged" into existance by chance? If your one for using your imagination then you probably like to think it just happened for no reason. On the other hand, an intelligent Creator would see the need for light in the universe and therefore...supplied it.Sorry, it's the best I got.Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

gee Chuck, i dont know why you apologised. That was the start of a great answer.I did have a much more in depth question, part of a series of questions but I had trouble getting through the adminstrator. So i shortened it to the smallest amount of info i could.I have no desire to "point and laugh" at anyones theories.That is a poor method of debating. It does not prove anything and shows little respect for your opponent.I also dont want to "force" anyone to come up with a theory.Your second paragraph gets to the crux of the problem for me. The majority of the debates I read about evolutionary theory are based on attacks on sections of theories. This is fair enough. With science, if you are not questioning your work, then you are not doing it right. However, the same targeted analysis is all but impossible as there is no opposing theory. A lot of people direct the discussion towards the fields that they find they can argue about. eg. ID, the Great Flood etc.What I am looking for is the opposing set of scientific theories. There seem to be a lot of creation scientists out there, but no body of work I can view as an alternative theory or set of theories. Particularly with relation to the creation of the universe and the creation of the earth, its residents and the systems that support life here.I have no issue with theories that sound wild or implausible. I am sure that when the first person drew a dinosaur from the bones collected he/she was a bit reluctant to show anyone. The first proponents of germ theory probably sounded a bit nuts when they said that there were invisible little animals everywhere that could make you sick.I am a research scientist. When i am given a problem, i look for the current bodies of work that are being done to resolve the problem. With the issues of creation, there seems to be one body of scientific work (and associated internal debates) but no other alternative theories. I figured that the best chance I had was with the Christian creationists as they have a lot of people debating in the field. There is also the scientoligists but i dont know if i am properly equipped to debate with them.I, as a scientist am totally open to having my mind changed by alternate theories when they are supported and I can understand them. The problem is that I cant find the alternate theories.a bit of background - I was brought up Catholic, my father is Jewish, my stepfather is an athiest and my brother is Taoist (we have a complicated family).The best you have is great start. It will give me a place to start reading.Thanks again

You're not going to get much more in this thread other than:'God said so; and so it was'. Anything else is contraindicated by the Bible.Or you're going to get a bunch of replies playing devil's advocate.

Hello Larni,I do expect that from a lot of replies (if I get a lot of replies anyway).My hope is that the replies I get do one of two things.1. If the reply is "God said so, God did it" etc with no explanation at all, it will point out that whatever creation science the poster has used is not science at all. This should help with several current debates where individuals have said that they have reached their poition through scientific reasoning or study.2. If the reply does have a theory of some sort, then this theory can be debated upon with the same analytical manner as any other theory.If creationists want to put forward a position based on science, they will need to back it up. The same rules need to apply to anyone.I believe that if they can come up with some workable theories, it will help support their positions. I dont see any reason they would not do it.At this point, Chuck77's answer has the basis for a theory of the mechanics of one part of the Genesis story.I would like to see the creationists work up the rest of Genesis in the same, but more developed manner.

Well, good luck with that, but if you get replies such as: I can't see things going far. We have science and religious forums here for a reason (and this is why sometimes, some posters get banded from the science side because they repeatedly fail to produce evidence).That said, if Chuck could produce some evidence for the Holy Spirit (or even some basis for belief that it is the Holy Spirit that is the mechanism [I don't know enough about xian theology to debate that] of action it would be a very good start.

Hi Butterflytyrant, This question in it's current form is impossible to answer. Creationists believe that this universe & everything in it was supernaturally created by God out of nothing. So asking for a testable, repeatable scientific theory based on 'natural laws' to explain a 'supernatural creation' (in which these very laws were created), is entirely missing the creationists point.Believing in a supernatural creation however does not make creation scientific theories impossible. Creationists can form scientific theories about the nature of light, fitting within a creation framework, such as how it could have seemingly travelled millions of light years in a 6000year old universe. Creationists formulate theories based on the presupposition of creation, just as evolutionists formulate theories on the presupposition of naturalism.So perhapps you need to rephrase the question. Any question asking for a scientific theory of 'how' God created is pointless, as it involves the supernatural and is not testable & therefore no scientific theory can be formulated. If instead you ask 'If God did create light 6000 years ago, then how can we see distant starlight', then creationist may be able to formulate testable theories which can be debated here.

What you will get here is that the Xian god created light with the appearance of age to fool us.

Why would you imagine there would, or could, be such a thing? I mean, the whole frickin' point of God is that he's supernatural. You can't empirically test the supernatural. At best, you can look for the results of the supernatural act - i.e. we should see evidence of the flood - but, in the case of "let there be light" that light is long gone.

Hi Larni, A bit presumtuous and not really helpfull. There are a few actual scientific theories on this topic, but I'll wait for Butterflytyrant to lead which direction to go on this.