|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 4450 days) Posts: 415 From: Australia Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: What is the creation science theory of the origin of light? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13042 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Hello, everyone!
Please, let's not turn this into a discussion of Biblical reliability. The topic is about the creation science theory of the origin of light. The Bible, or anything else for that matter, can serve as the inspiration for IamJoseph's ideas, but he has to support those ideas with real world evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3697 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: That is a terrible appraisal. The entire text is made by another nation in their own language. It tells of a war which has been historically proven and David's grandchildren, who were referred to as names + House of David. This is proof David existed, at the precise time and the same war mentioned in the book of Kings.
quote: Here you are - another find confirming King David, and a study which answers those who questioned this find:
quote: quote: Then you should know a whole array of relics have been found here, including one from the period of the book of Esther and coins and pottery. Its not all a co-incidence. I know of no 3,300 year historical person being proven, other than the stone ethchings on the Pyramids. We have no proof of Jesus, the apostles [just 2000 years ago] or of Buddha [2,500 years ago].
quote: I read such an article, which included relative number of finds from different periods of the most iconic figures and events of the Hebrew bible. Its safe to say no other scripture has equivalent proof by a big margin, despite its more ancient dating. David is a mere 250 years from Moses - this is impressive proof in any language. His son K Solomon and the temple he built, with coins of that period have also been found. It is important to me that such minor factors are being proven, because it says the Hebrew bible, like it or not, is a very believable writing, and this adds credence to its other exaggerated sounding stories about floods and an exodus. Nothing in these writings have ever been disproven - which is a feat in itself, with everyone obsessed with targeting these books and people.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3697 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
I was only responding to posts to me, not intending to post such things on my own.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Butterflytyrant Member (Idle past 4450 days) Posts: 415 From: Australia Joined: |
IamJoseph,
You have made a lot of claims that I am interested in discussing. Most of them are in relation to Genesis being the first book, the fist examples of days and weeks, the first calendar, the first census, the first time rivers, mountains, nations etc were named etc etc etc. Can you please start a thread with your claims of the things that the Book of Genesis was the first at? I have seen you make these claims on many threads with no evidence. I would like to see you back up your claims. Edited by Butterflytyrant, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3697 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: I don't see why it should go in a special thread if it is factually proven as deriving from Genesis and posited in a scientific mode, however you can start such a thread if you like. These are among the factors introduced in Genesis chaper 1, and if you need back-up textual references for any I can give them. I do not know of any recording where these factors are mentioned elsewhere prior to Genesis. 1 declares the universe as finite, namely that there was a beginning. V2 says no laws existed at this time, and everything was a formless void. Of recent, this has also become a scientific theory, but Plank states it back to front, going back in time, instead of assuming at the start-up point. The premise of laws breaking down is incorrect; better that laws once never existed [Genesis]; that is why stars emerged later - not because laws broke down, but because the laws had yet not came into being to form stars. V3 shows the point when laws [science] came into being and the formless became formed. There was no science before this point, which obviously would include theories such as evolution. V4. Says, agree or disagree, that the first primordial product of the universe was Light, appearing ammediately after formation laws were initiated, and before the advent of stars. This verse also says how the light occured, namely via the laws embedded [in particles like quarks?], which became 'SEPARATED' from all else - this is the meaning of becoming a 'FORMED' entity, which contrasts with the un-formed. The laws allowed things to become independent entities via separations. Photons would arguably not have existed at this time, as the light was either not visible [e.g. radiation] or there was none to envision the light as yet. Photons would have emerged in V14, which speaks of Luminosity. The DAY & the WEEK is also introduced here. V5 onwards speaks of other actions beside light, focusing now on earth, as anticipatory actions of forthcoming life, namely the critical separations of day and night, and water from land. This says life could not emerge without these actions, appearing ammediately prior to mentioning life forms, and IMHO making Darwinian evolution deficient and not comprehensive in its theories how life emerged. Species [Kinds]. The first recording of life form groupings and sub-groupings are now introduced for the first time, categorised via terrain and habitat, as opposed to skeletal features and fossils, namely as vegetation, water borne, air borne, land borne, speech endowed kinds. In these verses 'ALL' of the factors mentioned in Darwinian evolution can be found, including DNA and cross-speciation of the life forms belonging to the same terrain. The variance with Darwin is that all life stemmed from one life - while Genesis posits that each specie was specifically designed and they appeared in their completed forms, derived solely from the seed and have no impact from the environment. Also in this first creation chapter is the premise that all life was initiated in a positive/negative gender duality, then separated as independent positive and negative genders. Darwin does not explain the gender variances, nor accounts the pivotal factor of the host seed. My personal vew is that Genesis is better aligned with real science and evidenced reality.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Butterflytyrant Member (Idle past 4450 days) Posts: 415 From: Australia Joined: |
IamJoseph,
I cant start the thread. I cant put words into your mouth. There would have to two threads. One that Genesis is the first of all of the things you believe it is first at. I dont know all of these, only you do. And a second thread where you back up this statement with evidence :
Genesis is better aligned with real science and evidenced reality. You would have to improve that sentence though as is does not quite make grammatical sense.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Chuck77 Inactive Member |
You would have to improve that sentence though as is does not quite make grammatical sense. Well, for starters, we see exaxtly what Genesis says, that things produce after their own kind. Trees produce trees, dogs produce dogs, whales produce whales, bees produce other bees. I'd say for a 2000 year old book thats good Science. On the other hand, what we DON'T see are things, kinds, changing into other things, kinds, do we? What am I missing? I'd rather go with reality that with assumption based on Fairy tales, and un-observable claims as an alternative to the Bible or Creationism because people don't want to believe in a God. That's their choice but don't tell us that Genesis is false when we can see it in action today. What do you disagree with about it? That Genesis is not peer reviewed ? It doesn't have to be. It's not a paper or research, it's reality. Things produce after their own kind, simple as that. It's reality. I think at this point you need to disprove that they do not. What are we trying prove? Plant some seeds, see what happens. That ALONE should falsify the TOE The Bible speaks for itself. It's you who chooses not to believe it. That's not the Bibles fault. Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given. Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given. Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
I'd say for a 2000 year old book thats good Science. I'd say that was obvious to the most dullardish bronze age writer.
On the other hand, what we DON'T see are things, kinds, changing into other things, kinds, do we? What am I missing? We do see this. We look at the fossil record. How did you miss that?
because people don't want to believe in a God. I want to beleive in a god. But the evidence stops me. It is not a question of wanting.
What do you disagree with about it? I does not align with the evidence: the evidence suggest the world is 4.5 billion year old. Genesis does not align with that.
I think at this point you need to disprove that they do not. Not the case. The evidence supports the notion that a dog will give birth to a dog: but give it enough time and it will evolve into something that you cannot call a dog. Is a hyena a civet? Not anymore.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13042 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
The topic is creation science's theory about the origin of light. The opening post Message 5 asks for:
As this is a science thread, the Bible cannot serve as evidence. It can be your inspiration, the source of ideas, a guide for where to look for evidence, but it cannot itself be evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3697 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: I would not enter them in a science thread unless they were the first recording - this makes them premptive premises of science. Many of those items are commonly known, thus I asked which one are you unsure of? I gave you verse numbers.
quote: Others have said my english is an issue, but I don't see problems of confusion here. Real science has to be vindicated for a long period; not all held by science is agreed upon, many are theories, many become negated, and many are explained only theoretically - this is what I mean by real science - accepted and evidenced in our midst, thus our evidenced [proven] reality, as opposed millions of years ago. An example relates to the Darwinian premise all life forms stem from one life form; how is this evidenced? Does it align with what we see and have known since recorded time? If not, then the premise of Genesis prevails, that a life form emerged fully completed in its origins, and that it follows its own kind. Both are premises of science which may or not be agreed by all; but only one of them can be evidenced in our reality and in our midst without waiting for eons of years. I have previously shown that an on-going process is at all times unaffected by the time factor, which appears the substantial reasoning used by evolutionists. The other factor used are fossils. Matched against what we see in our midst is a greater evidence than fossils, which can be either doctored, or the billions of other similar fitting fossils be ignored. I also say that 'ALL' factors claimed by Darwin and provable as correct observances, are listed in Genesis, and are not the result of the factors claimed by Darwin. The host output [seed] transcends any and all evolutionary impacts. But its a bad career move to admit this today. Edited by Admin, : Under a message title of "Topic Reminder", IamJoseph posts off-topic. Content hidden.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3697 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: I see the premises given are scientific and follow an imtelligent sequence of patterns of cause and effect. Ignore the term theology for an instant when reading, and account for the fact the writings must comply with all generation's sciences. Of note there is no error - no flat earth declared - this makes this writings varied from any other theology! That light is the first product of the universe is already vindicated by science: the universe's very age is measured by light [background radiation]; the BBT, in discussing the first point of the universe's initiation, relies on a BANG - which aligns with a flash of light; the age [and distance] of a star is discernable only by its light and the estimation how much time has elapsed; the age of the universe [13.5B years] is likewise reliant on light as the first product. Such factors are scientific and better than theories. But to better contest me, one has to produce an alternative candidate instead of light - not simply demand this of me when the subject matter is so delicate as to only be explained theoretcally and by reasoning of the text today. I believe this is what is vindicated with no other alternatives presented.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3697 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: How would you be if someone found a bone fossil of an ass' jawbone which exactly fits your own? Would you then negate the chimp connection? And why do we have to wait for millions of years in an on-going process?
quote: Well put. No one is asking anyone to believe in a Creator; only that there does not appear any scientific alternative. Never mind what I want.
quote: Pls tell us your accounting of a time period for separating water from land? Of note, this is listed "BEFORE' the advent of any life. Catch the ball!
quote: How much more time is reasonable? And would all changes of all species occur at the same time - if not, then some changes MUST be manifested last friday and next friday. Its about math #101. Edited by Admin, : It is perplexing that IamJoseph can't follow simple requests to discuss light instead of species, but I just don't think he can help himself. I still have to follow the Forum Guidelines, so I'm hiding the content and suspending for 24 hours.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13042 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Hi IamJoseph,
I don't think you're doing it on purpose or maliciously. I don't think you believe you're doing anything wrong. But I have to enforce the guidelines equally for everyone. Whether you understand why or not, I have to suspend you for persistently going off-topic in the face of repeated requests not to. See you in 24 hours.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Butterflytyrant Member (Idle past 4450 days) Posts: 415 From: Australia Joined: |
Hey Chuk77,
This is why I want IamJoseph to start the thread. Your comments will be valuable in that thread. I would like IamJoseph to start the thread because he has some views about the Book of Genesis that I think need to be pursued. He has made some very big statements and I am interested in finding out how he has reached his position. I am not asking this to prove the the Theory of Evolution. I am asking for more information on IamJosephs claims. His claims very well may end up being very well supported. I dont know if they will disporve Evolution but it will be interesting to see what comes up. Also, you have only mentioned one small part of Genesis. I am interested in IamJosephs claim the the Genesis creation stroy is 100% scientifically accurate. He has claimed that it is in fact superior to any current scientific theories. I would like him to put his claims in his own words and then back them up with his evidence. He has advised that he has scientific evidence and his position has been reached through scientific study. I am interested in what he has to say.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Butterflytyrant Member (Idle past 4450 days) Posts: 415 From: Australia Joined: |
Hello admin/Percy,
Sorry for wandering off topic so much. I have repeatedly asked for IamJoseph to start a thread for his claims. He seems to have some claims that could be explored. I was actually a bit concerned I would get a suspension for debating his points on this thread. He has points he wants to make, he just keeps making them in multiple other threads.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024