Creationist model

Lets take a look: Nothing is covered by a seed factor when you fail to define what a 'seed factor' is. You failed to notice all the transmissions of irrelevant, error filled, and incomplete data. Only if you ignore the evidence to the contrary. But thats not true either.Amusing, but hardly scientific. Your 'dust' has underlying particles, how does this support your point? Please explain. What does starlight have to do with light? Are you saying that something else produced light before there where stars? Stars can be explained. What mystery are you attempting to apply to them? No it doesn't. It is reflected sunlight, and it produces tides not seasons. Final implies finished, there are other species and what makes you think this is the end of anything? Each species is seperate, thats what species means. Where? Is this a universal statement? You have any science to back that up? I won't ask. As opposed to before the required elements. Your awareness of what science actually is appears to be lacking.

Now that you have said it, instead of it being told to you, are you showing that you finally understand what Big Bang is actually about? Big Bang is all about the B-Z, I am glad to see that you have evolved.

All true. Again, I would agree. Because people keep making statements about Big Bang that are incorrect. An understanding of the theory would not produce comments such as these: The theory, as you say, is about the b-z. I think now that much of the misunderstandings you once held about Big Bang have been overcome and such simple premises will no longer be debated. *sigh* I spoke too soon.Edited by Vacate, : No reason given.

I must assume that for your analogy that there is no way that I could track down the maker, correct?The question then is what can I do with what I have on hand? I have a car but no label, signature, or photograph of its creator. I can take the car apart, re-build it, analyze its components and construct a model for the purpose of this "car". I conclude then that its either a method for transportation or its a clever carbon monoxide life shortening device. Though I have the ability to construct two models regarding the purpose of this car the models still do not enable me to discern who the creator of the car is. This is very likely true. Given my curiosity its a safe bet that I would contemplate this mystery for a long time - but the mystery would remain regardless of my time spent thinking about it. Regardless of the models that I can devise about this car, regardless of my ability to enjoy the ride in my free gift, I am forever left with the mystery of my benefactor. Yes. I would build a model for the construction and usage of the car. I would leave the ideas about its creator where they belong; in the back of my mind as a curiosity that must remain unproven. I can only investigate with what I have on hand {B-Z} and attempting to insert an unknown {A} would be unscientific. It does not matter if I can figure out who made the car; I still have a car, I have a model regarding its construction and usage, and I am able to enjoy the ride while I contemplate its maker.There is a difference here. You cannot create a model regarding the cars maker as the information is unattainable. He/She/They cannot be observed, studied, or interviewed; this is not so with the car itself. I could produce two papers ragarding this topic; one science, and one philosophy. I don't believe that one is any more important than the other, but there is a very big difference between the two.What impact would my philosophy paper have on my science paper? Or vice versa? Would my ruminations about the maker of the car impact how the car itself functions? Does my building a model or driving the car somehow impact my ability to contemplate its maker? There are two games.The other being: Since I likely cannot catch you; I am just going to drive your car.

How can you not see a problem with this? You are asserting that light came before the wave, before the photon? How? Its the photon moving in a wave at 400-700 nm that makes light. No wave means no light, bigger or smaller waves means no light. Light is simply a wave with the correct hieght for our eyes to interpret it. You are trying to say that our interpretation of a certain wavelength came before the wave itself? That absurd. Incorrect. Luminosity is a wavelength of 400-700 nm. There is no essence. Its a smaller wave than a radio wave, a larger wave than a gamma ray. Its the same thing only a different size. If light is transcendent then so is every other waveThus your talking nonsense. New York does not precede the Earth, the internet does not precede the computer, light does not precede the wave. Right. No wave, no light - you got it backwards.

I am not sure that I am understanding you correctly. Could you possibly reword it? (Duality factor, pre-set interaction facility?) I agree, but in this case you are incorrect. Light cannot precede the wave. Light is nothing but a wave of a certain height. If the effect (light) precedes the cause (wave) then you need to explain why light is somehow special while all other waves are not. It would also help to explain how this is even possible. When testing nature you will find that you have put the cart before the horse.

Ok. I understand that. You said however that "The wave is pervasive and generic, and represents a +/- duality factor underlying all actions". I don't understand where you see a duality in a wave. This is opposite of your previous claim that light precedes the wave. If you are now agreeing with me perhaps the discussion has come to an end? Not really. We are just interpreting that specific wavelength. There is no light, simply our interpretation of the wave. Lets not quibble over the small stuff. How about when testing reality then? I am all for picking another. I believe it was your choice of wording in the first place?ABE: Sorry I missed a portion of your post. I believe that you are trying to say that our vision was prededermined before the creation of light? Is this correct? Even if true, how does this impact your argument? I still claim that the wave precedes the light, your orignial claim was that light precedes the wave... H20 is not a good analogy for what you are trying to say (I don't think). It leaves the impression, to me, that you think light is something that its not. Its simply a wave, stretch it and it will become a radio wave, shrink it and it becomes a gamma ray. Its not like water at all. There is nothing pre-established about light, its simply a word we have created to describe a wave of a certain height (400-700 nm) Edited by Vacate, : No reason given.

There is no light. Don't you see? A wave is not the underlying workings of anything, light is simply a word we have come up with to explain a certain wavelength. No, we invent criteria to describe a certain wavelength that we are quite familiar with and interact with to understand our surroundings. This interaction can be described as "vision", in something else it could be described as "heat". Other wavelengths that we are familiar with have different uses and in an attempt to describe them we apply different criterea. No, this means that the human eye has three cones that are stimulated by certain wavelengths.
S Cones 400-500 nm
M Cones 450-630 nm
L Cones 500-700 nmOur brains interpret this stimulous and convert it into what we see as light and color. Some humans have defective cones and are therefore colorblind. Some animals respond to different wavelengths and "see" in the ultra violet or infared. Light is simply a description of a certain wavelength.You are essentially saying that light was made for the eye, but if this is true then 1 meter waves were made for television, 1 cm waves were made for warming up food, 1 nm waves are made to look at bones, and 1 pm waves are made to give us cancer.So if 400-700 nm waves are special in that they stimulate cones in your eye, what makes those waves more special then the 1 pm waves that stimulate cells mutate and divide? I know you said that. Hence why I disagree with you. You first need to explain what emitted the 400-700nm wave when there where no stars. Before stars there was no light. I will leave it to you to explain why cancer preceded the 1 pm wave, or why microwave dinners preceded the 1 cm wave.

You certainly could be correct. Its unprovable with evidence, but you could be right. This does not show that light precedes the wave however, this only shows that the thought preceded the implimentation. Clever, possibly true, and unprovable. Waves first, eyes later. My assertion cancels yours. Done. Its so tantilizingly possible... but sadly no way to prove it. I am not proving it, I may agree that you could be correct, but thats not proof. I am pointing out the illogical aspect of your assertion. That being: In addition to that I would add red shift. Given enough shift you could say that cancer waves can eventually become food warming waves. Though it is possible that this was the creators intent from the start, it will be difficult to find any proof. (In the OT or science)I will ask again: What makes light special from any other wave?I would add: What makes vision any more special than all the other uses we have for light? Can you prove the creator did not make light so we could have faster internet? My knowledge is much too limited to enter this type of discussion. I would like to say simply "your wrong", but I am at work and limited on reading time. I concede this point to you and simply hope that others on the board and willing to discuss this. Perhaps you are correct - what do I know? The origin of light is a wave. If you change your wording I would accept that we do not know the origin of the 'idea' of light. Your still going to have some serious trouble attempting to include this in a scientific model of the universe. Exactly. Stars produce light like a factory makes nuts. Now is the maker of the factory knowable, testable, and therefore within the realm of science? This is a good first step in the making of a model.