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

This is rule 1 from the Forum Guidelines:

1. Follow all moderator requests.

I realize that you are understandably confused about how what you're providing does not satisfy what I am asking, but this is from the concluding paragraph of the Forum Guidelines:

Moderators do not have the time to engage in discussions about violations or to coach members toward proper participation.

Clearly describing your position, providing evidence for your position, giving explanations for how the evidence supports your position, these are all expected of participants at EvC Forum. That you have problems in these areas is not new news for you - providing these things has been a problem for you since your first moments here. Simply denying these problems and asking people to explain yet again where the specific lacks lie just compounds the problem. I already told you that you provided no explanation for how your excerpts supported your position, but you ignored that and repeated the excerpts with no explanation again. How is me explaining to you again what you obviously didn't understand the first several times going to help?I know you don't get it, but it isn't within my available time or my ability to help you get it. Either what you're trying to say makes no sense, or you're unable to express yourself in a way that allows others to make sense of what you're trying to say. The same problems that keep others from understanding you also keep you from understanding others. Since English isn't you're native language I'm inclined to think the problem is yours.I regret having to do this, but we try to avoid nonsense threads here at EvC Forum, and so I am suspending you for a week. When you return, if you want to remain around then describe the evidence for your position in your own words, provide links to the source of the evidence, and explain how the evidence supports your position.Chuck77: Did you PM IamJoseph like I suggested? Do you understand what IamJoseph is trying to say? Can you step in and make it clear to everyone else?Edited by Admin, : Alter title.

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

God was involved in initiating the process that is the mainstream scientific explanation of the origin of light. The same thing that is the mainstream scientific process of doing such. It's he same evidence that mainstream science supplies to support their theory.So, the creation science theory and the mainstream science theory is the same thing, except the creationist belief is that God was involved.Moose

Hey Moose, Can you be a bit more specific? Do you mean a certain stage of the Big Bang Theory? If yes, which part.Also, If this is the answer, it is still not an answer. It leaves the really important part, the actual creation, to magic.It is agreeing with the current scientific model, but adding magic to it. What is the mainstream scientific process for testing magic? What evidence does mainstream science use for magic? What evidence do they use to support magic? Thats a pretty big difference. One uses magic, so is no longer scientific.So it is not a scientific theory.Edited by Butterflytyrant, : No reason given.

Yes, but a theory does not become scientific or creationist by decree. If creation is involved like it is the case with both Genesis and the Big Bang theory, they both assume creation and deal with creation. Dropping the assumption invalidates both in equal measure. Both assume non-existence of the Universe. The difference is that Genesis teaches that God still was in the absence of the Universe, the Big Bang theory that God was not present, ie, both Universe and God were totally absent. That means that nothing was present at all. Now as far as magic is concerned Genesis teaches that it was God doing magic when creating the Universe, the Big Bang theory that magic was doing itself.

Or, as has been the case with regard to every phenomenon once deemed to be caused by magic, it could just be mindless physical processes at work.No magic at all.

Hey Alfred, The first part I agree with. That Genesis teaches that it was God doing magic. I am fine with this. I think that this is a totally valid idea. I actually like this idea. Many posters have put this idea forward. This is much more fitting description of the God that I have read about. He seems to lose something when his actions are reduced to scientifically explainable actions. There are however, members of this forum and larger organisations who say that Gods actions in Genesis are scientifically explainable. That no magic has occured. Have a look through IamJosephs replies for an example. (If you can unravel what he is talking about, please send me a message and let me know)The second part I dont agree with. The Big Bang theory using magic to create itself. Science does not resort to magic. A quite common answer in science is 'we dont know'. This answer is not a bad thing. If we knew everything, we would all be out of the job. I only know the basics of the BBT so I cant go into any depth about it. I do know that there are questions regarding the theory that are answered with 'we dont know'. There are no answers that involve magic.To involve magic is to stop thinking.

It can't be the same for a YEC because they don't allow for the billions of years that the scientific explanation of the origin of light requires.

Mindless physical processes involve no magic only when it is something inside the Universe that is being the nature of those processes. When it is the nothing in a total absence of the universe that is assumed to be behind the processes, it sounds like magic with a vengeance.

None of what you said makes any sense.Please clarify.

Good luck with that, I have read several of his post and have concluded his use of the English language is so far removed from mine that no meaningful exchange could ever take place.

So colliding branes (for example) are a form of "magic"..... So quantum fluctuations (for example) are a form of "magic"....?

What is it about nut jobs?Zi ko, IamJoseph and Alfred rarely, if ever make any sense.

Colliding branes is strictly speaking no Big Bang theory already. It excludes any time zero as colliding, whatever might be meant by that exactly, is certainly doing something. Doing means existing and that introduces all the familiar aspects of existence ie, colliding takes space to occur, that space takes time to measure and energy that is being translated from object to objects and so on. Therefore in this scenario it is meaningless to talk not only about the age of the Universe but about the Universe as such since it is assumed that the local brane is an but an infinitesimal fraction of some indeterminate whole.
The same goes for fluctuations. To fluctuate is a verb denoting motion, while motion takes all the familiar dimensions to occur, so implies the Universe that is very much in existence already.Edited by Alfred Maddenstein, : grammar

Not necessarily. The Ekpyrotic model has the Big Bang as a result of the collision of two branes.

quote:

---

The ekpyrotic model of the universe is an alternative to the standard cosmic inflation model for the very early universe; both models accommodate the standard big bang Lambda-CDM model of our universe.

---

emphasis addedEkpyrotic universe - Wikipedia