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

quote:

---

Light was not the first product of the Universe.

​

Not even you can support that claim. Light was, AT BEST, the 4rd product.

​

And that's WITHOUT any definition of the term.

---

At least you agree there is a first product. So which is the first three prior to light?

Hey IamJoseph,jelly was the first product.Feel free to refute that.Keep in mind though, I will not be supplying a definition of the word jelly.You have said you are not using any theology to back up your claims so I wont need to.

quote:

---

Hey IamJoseph,
jelly was the first product.

​

Feel free to refute that.

​

Keep in mind though, I will not be supplying a definition of the word jelly.

​

You have said you are not using any theology to back up your claims so I wont need to.

---

Its not easy anymore is it? Your response shows you are sweating and deflecting to reduced it with ridiculing the question.The fact remains, the premise of light being first is a reasonably logical one with reasonable scientific vindication, with none able to provide another equally reasonable alternative. Its getting close to check mate time.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

Read the next post...Edited by Panda, : ButterflyTyrant did it better.

Hello IamJoseph,First of al HAHAHAHAhhaha hahaha HAHAHA ahahhahah ha he hee.Oh mercy.Well. Thats better.Sweating and deflecting. You are so far from anything like check mate.You have not even supplied a valid premise to actually start a logical debate. Let alone even begun to introduce science into your posts.You have as yet, not even entered the game.Allow me to demonstrate by saying a few things in response to your reply.1. Its not easy anymore is it? Your response shows you are sweating and deflecting by not proving that jelly was not the first product. The fact remains, the premise of jelly being first is a reasonable logical one with a reasonable scientific vindication, with none able to provide another equally reasonable alternative.2. To put this in better perspective, the first point is that jelly as a created entity, as well as being one of the primodial products of the universe - is first recorded in a book I read.Re its scientific theory. The term science yet did not exist; the book i read is the first allusion to the faculty of science and cosmology. Rather than use the term science, I would suggest the use of logic and coherence, and the absence of any alternatives applying. The book i read not only says jelly is the first product in the universe [plausable and logical], but also shows how it was created. According to the book i read, the universe is finite [there was a BEGINNING] - perhaps the first and most impacting scientific premise ever recorded. Next the book i read says there was the universe but no laws yet existed: It says that there was yet no form in the universe. Namely, nothing was identfiable and all was one mush. Here, there was no jelly and no peanut butter; no energy, space, time, matter. Of course we cannot imagine this state, but we cannot deny it either: if there was no universe once, then everything universe contained would also not yet exist - not even laws. This is scientifically credible and encumbent.Next up we are told LAWS were embedded; namely, the 'formless' was turned to the 'formed'. This then is the point of science ushering into the universe, because science is based on laws. There was no science or laws before this point. It is 100% a viable premise, laws being a result of cause & effect. No alternatives can apply.Next we get to what was created and in which order - and also how and why! The book i read then says the first created product was jelly. How? Based on laws being ushered in the universe; and by seperating jelly from all else [He seperated the jelly from the peanut butter]. Here, the 'seperation' is most impacting: when delved into, a created thing is nothing other than something seperated from other things - because all things already existed, only applied differently. We can accept jelly predating sandwich: a sandwich cannot produce jelly unless jelly pre-existed. The WHY factor of jelly is also clearly stated in the book i read: as a pre-requisite for life, jelly, and as enegy to drive the whole construct; jelly is agreless and the transcendent velosity, able to cater to all other universal components. This why factor becomes more clarified when we check the follow-up products listed in the book i read. These are:
Seperation of the day [introducted to humanity for the first time, as was the 'week'] and night. Here we see a focusing on our solar system instead of the universe, because of the subject matter - it is now addressing this planet and its life forms. Here, our jelly was critically focused to produce specifically sufficient sandwiches aniticipating a host of life forms. We get closer to earth with the next seperation of water from land - the pre-requisite for the variety of life and terrains.Jelly could not have occured by other elements or processes - these never existed at this point. Jelly is a result of seperation, by virtue of laws initiated for the first time in the universe, and their embedding in the mush [void] with specific attributes to attain a pre-directed result. How else!?My claim [view] is based on both the BBT as well the document which first recorded Jelly is the primodial product of the universe. The BB claims there was an explosion [bang]; this is analogous to LET THERE BE JELLY. The latter clarifies the former, while the former does not clarify what point jelly emerged from, instead either ignoring this factor or assuming it just happened by virtue of the bang. But we know that jelly, being part of a finite universe, never existed before. jelly can also be invisible to the eye [radiation, etc] w/o fusion.One point of knowledge is that the universe could not have been initiated with a singular, indivisible, irreducible entity: it takes two to tango applies. This premise is from a book i read, and from the responses I recieve, it is a premise not sufficiently contemplated by the masses, and ridiculed as mythical theology - w/o any logical responsa why so. I have studied what others are resting their claims on, and after logical thought it arrived in the book i reads favor - and from a scientific POV.Its a very appropriate answer, unless you are looking for new 250 year terms such as science and fusion. Both light and fusion are based on laws; you ignored this fundamental scientific premise or rejected it: why is it called THE 'LAW' OF GRAVITY? I answered correctly, going further, including that laws never existed at one time, which demands an initiating point: its alternative is in fact the non-answer. I have no limited grasp of science - I doubt you know something I don't.You say that light being unique from all other products is a non-answer; I say why do you then say light is a product of fusion: wherefrom did light derive a transcendent velosity - from the far under-rated fusion - that is impossible!? Can you not see your own non-answer and non-science here?Where there are no laws - there is no science. But more impacting is that laws and science never existed once - nor did the environment or nature. Understand the scenario which is relevant and impacting here, and open your mind to other POV's. There is no alternative the universe had to be initiated in a duality construct and an external precedent trigger factor applying. Your response was we do not know what laws applied - as if you have by that produced some scientific scenario which justifies your case - or negated mine. No sir.Now, do you see what I just did there?I filled up a heap of space with unverifiable, illogical, unscientific, unsupported untested, unprovable word salad.My debate begins from an a premise made from an unwarranted assumption. i have not got any verifiable sources to back up anything I say. Half of what I have said does not even make sense.But remember, I have not given you the definition of jelly. So, my position is as solid as yours.Feel free to keep trying though.Edited by Butterflytyrant, : typo

quote:

---

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.

---

There is no science where there is no comprehension of texts. A correct reading of Genesis says billion and millions of years would be relevant with the actions listed in the text prior to the emergence of life: how long does it take to separate light from darkness and water from land? The later days are not 24 hour days either; the Hebrew calendar begins 'AFTER' these creational epochs of time: ever wonder why?

quote:

---

Creationists formulate theories based on the presupposition of creation, just as evolutionists formulate theories on the presupposition of naturalism.

---

Who can wear a straight face and say a universe maker for a manifest universe is less scientific than NATURE [?] for a manifest universe?

quote:

---

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.

---

Science is based on laws [Gen v2]; laws are the #1 criteria applying in Genesis [all life frms were initiated in a dual-gender]. Light being the first product is a sceintific statement; the first grouping of life forms comes from Genesis - not from Darwin; the most accurate and oldest active calendar is from Genesis - guess why you cannot produce a 'NAME' of a historical human older than 6000? A 6000 year earth is an embarrassing view from Christians, whose understanding of Genesis is below par - at least well below the Jews. We have no scientific alternative to creationism according to the greatest scientists [including Newton; Einstein & Rogers]: why are you laughing?

Hm. The age of your universe is calculated by jelly; not from residual light imprints? Very interesting but not funny.Absolutely check mate is in order and you are sweating. Ridiculing what you cannot counter is a good indication.

Why light cannot have a true definition.If it is a first product, it cannot be described by aligning it with other products: those never yet existed. One cannot speak of energy or quarks here - these never existed yet - else you violate the finite factor of this universe. Is the message getting through at all!?Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

It is not funny.
It is not meant to be funny.Clearly you are unable to prove the jelly statement false and you are left with only ridicule.
The age of the universe is calculated from residual jelly imprints and has nothing to do with light.Absolutely check mate is in order and you are sweating. Ridiculing what you cannot counter is a good indication. Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

Why jelly cannot have a true definition.If it is a first product, it cannot be described by aligning it with other products: those never yet existed. One cannot speak of light or lemons here - these never existed yet - else you violate the finite factor of this universe. Is the message getting through at all!?Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

You forgot to mention jelly is also ageless and massless and how scientists measure light by it.This thread is now degenerated. I issue this response:CHECK MATE JELLY BEANS.

All we did was change your word 'light' to our word 'jelly' and repeat exactly you said.
Do you not find it strange that you cannot actually argue against what we are writing?
Instead you have to resort to ridicule.Why not argue against our statements?
Show them to be less evidenced than your statements - go on, I dare you.
I bet you cannot.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

Hi IamJoseph,At around message 300 I will be closing this thread and requesting summations, so time is short to begin making meaningful progress. This is from the OP (in fact, it's the entire content of the OP): That the theory not be illogical goes without saying. What you have to do is provide the evidence and testable aspects of your hypothesis that light was the first entity in the universe.Your next mention of the Bible or Genesis will draw a suspension. This is a science thread. Creation science claims to be science and not religion, so please stop making claims based upon religion. The Bible can serve as the inspiration that led you to the hypothesis that light was the first entity, but only evidence and successfully tested predictions can validate the hypothesis.

hello IamJoseph,This is a little bit awkward.I used your own arguments and you began to attempt to refute them.They are your own arguments. I thought I was making that pretty clear.Perhaps this is a bit of a wakeup call for you.Your arguements have absolutely no validity.None.At all.This has been pointed out to you on dozens of occasions by many different posters.Do you really think that you actually have something here and evry person who reads it is just missing your point.I personally have tried really hard with you.I have tried to help you make your points as best I can.But you have such huge and fundamental errors in your thinking.the biggest one, the one pointed out with the jelly example is that you are trying to prove that an force you cannot identifyis the first product of the universe. You are trying to marry old Testemant theology with the Big bang Theory by saying that 'something' proves a link. But you cannot supply a definition of that something.This is the keystone of your case.You cannot actually show us how the light mentioned in Genesis is the light you are putting forward as the first product in the BBT. You cannot supply even a definition of what light is in relation to the Genesis story of the BB as seperate fields.You have pretty much spent a lot of time doing absolutely nothing at all.To be honest, I am a bit disappointed that I have wasted this much time trying to explain simple things to you for you to just shut your eyes, put your fingers in your ears and say LALALALALALA CHECKMATE.This makes you look like a douche.You are not winning any debate. It has got to the point where noone is bothering to discuss it with you as you clearly have nothing to offer.Do you understand this? Do you actually understand that this is not any type of victory for anyone. You have not yet supplied a valid position for anyone to actually debate about.Like I said in one of my other posts - you may as well have just mashed your face into the keyboard and then pressed submit. Here once again, you are displaying that you do not understand what the word nature means.This is really getting beyond a joke now. I actually spent quaite a bit of time putting together a post trying to explain what this word actually means. I did not do this for fun. I did it for your benefit. I did it to actually help you make more sense. You however have chosen to remain ignorant.Just in case you want to be the only one who has had any positive benefit from our discussions, in case you want to actually come out of this with one small piece of actual beneficial information, here it is again.Hello IamJoseph,I think you have just displayed the language barrier.other posters can correct me if I am wrong in speaking for them but your description of what nature is in no way matches the definition of nature.Nature - The phenomena of the physical world collectively, including plants, animals, the landscape, and other features and products of the earth, as opposed to humans or human creations.It is a simple as that. It just means stuff that is not made by people. There is nothing about how it is created, by whom it is created, why it is creted etc. It is a word that describes all things not made by people.That is the only factor. It is not vague. There are no abstract terms. Either a person made it or they did not. It is really that simple.Mother nature is something different.Mother Nature (sometimes known as Mother Earth) is a common personification of nature that focuses on the life-giving and nurturing aspects of nature by embodying it in the form of the mother. Images of women representing mother earth, and mother nature, are timeless. In prehistoric times, goddesses were worshipped for their association with fertility, fecundity, and agricultural bounty. Priestesses held dominion over aspects of Incan, Algonquian, Assyrian, Babylonian, Slavonic, Germanic, Roman, Greek, Indian, and Iroquoian religions in the millennia prior to the inception of patriarchal religions.
read more here : Mother Nature - WikipediaNatural process is also something different -natural process - a process existing in or produced by nature (rather than by the intent of human beings); "the action of natural forces"; "volcanic activity"There are no contradicting theologies here. Either a person made it or they did not. Theology does not enter into its description at all. This sentence makes it clear that you do not understand the definition of nature. The description says nothing about a creator at all. A hard core creationist is just as capable of identifying a product made by a human being (an aluminium can) as opposed to an object not created by a human being (a rock). It is not non denominational as theology never enters its description. It is either made by a human or not. The Nile River is not made by a human. So it is part of nature. This does not mean that God did or did not make it. It just means that humans did not make it. A tree is not made by a human. Thus, a tree is part of nature. This does not mean that God did or did not make it. It just means that a human did not make it. A car is made by a human. The interaction of God is irrelevant. As it was made by a human, it is not nature. There is plenty of science behind nature. A raindrop falls from a leaf and hits the ground. In that one natural occurance there are many laws and theories. Gravity, physics, hydrogen bonds etc etc etc
There is plenty of science behind natural causes. Take an ice cube out of your freezer and put it in the sun. The ice cube turning to water has a normal, natural (as in without human action) scientific explanation. your comments regarding ecosystems leads me to believe that you dont actually know what an ecosystem is either. Any person can see ecosytems working out of their window. Ecosystems are equally valid regardless of any theological or non theological persepctive one might have. Again, this is showing that you do not know the actual meanings of the words you are using. You have one correct statement in this post and it is that we do not call a car's working nature. It is not, a human made the car. A human did not make the rain and a human did not make the sunshine. So they are nature. Again, it does not matter if you believe that God made the rain or sunlight, or if you have a valid scientific theory about how it was made or if you think the fairys made it. If you believe that it was not made by a human being, then it is classed as nature. There is no need to capture Mr or Mrs nature (whatever that means) or come up with any description of its creation, theological or otherwise. The deciding factor of what is natural and what is not is if it is made by a human being.I dont know if I can explain it any better than that.This post, if you choose to take the english lesson, is the only post between us that has actually provided any intellectual benefit to either of us.

quote:

---

That the theory not be illogical goes without saying. What you have to do is provide the evidence and testable aspects of your hypothesis that light was the first entity in the universe.

---

That the first product was an irreducible and indivisible entity ['singularity']:

quote:

---

Age of the universeFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to: navigation, search
This article is about scientific estimates of the age of the universe.

​

The age of the universe is 13.75 0.11 billion[1] years (433.6 x 1015 seconds in SI units, or 13.75 Gigayears) within the Lambda-CDM concordance model.[2] This is however only the estimated time since the Big Bang. It is not known if something existed before the singularity that we call Big Bang, nor if time is linear, since the expansion estimated by Hubble's law assumed a linear expansion, and later work indicates there may have been variations.[3] The estimated changes in expansion are calculated to be both positive and negative, so Hubble and later estimates broadly agree.

---

That the universe age is calculated by light:

quote:

---

Light and the Age of the Universe - the Cosmic Microwave Background

​

http://www.thelightsideofscience.com/...universe-cosmic.html

​

Our main window to understanding the universe is light and the electromagnetic spectrum. Trapped here on earth, there is very little of the universe that we can actually touch and test with our own hands, but light provides an amazing tool. The Cosmic Microwave Background is perhaps on of the best methods we have of finding the age of the universe.

---

quote:

---

According to general relativity, space can expand faster than the speed of light, although we can view only a small portion of the universe due to the limitation imposed by light speed. Since we cannot observe space beyond the limitations of light (or any electromagnetic radiation), it is uncertain whether the size of the universe is finite or infinite.

​

Universe - Wikipedia

---

That light predates the stars, and that cosmic radiation is the residual 'glow' [light]:

quote:

---

The most precise estimate of the universe's age is 13.730.12 billion years old, based on observations of the cosmic microwave background radiation.[29]

​

In cosmology, cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation (also CMBR, CBR, MBR, and relic radiation) is thermal radiation filling the observable universe almost uniformly.[1]

​

With a traditional optical telescope, the space between stars and galaxies (the background) is completely dark. But a sufficiently sensitive radio telescope shows a faint background glow, almost exactly the same in all directions, that is not associated with any star, galaxy, or other object. This glow is strongest in the microwave region of the radio spectrum. The CMB's serendipitous discovery in 1964 by American radio astronomers Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson[2] was the culmination of work initiated in the 1940s, and earned them the 1978 Nobel Prize.

---

Your very welcome.