Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What is the creation science theory of the origin of light?
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 166 of 297 (625088)
07-21-2011 10:38 AM


Topic Reminder
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.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by IamJoseph, posted 07-21-2011 11:09 AM Admin has seen this message but not replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 167 of 297 (625095)
07-21-2011 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 163 by Theodoric
07-21-2011 9:59 AM


Re: Tel Dan stele? Really?
quote:
Any findings at Tel Dan do nothing to confirm or deny anything in the bible about a david. There is one inscription with a mention of Israel and David.
This is a translation of the actual text
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
king of Israel, and I killed iahu son of g of the House of David
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Any more than this is additions made by modern scholars.
There is nothing here that eliminates the possibility that the biblical David was a mythical character. There is also nothing in it that eliminates the possibility that the biblical David is based upon an historical character and the bible stories are myth.
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:
Then came the Tel Dan find - and those scholars have never recovered from their shame.
Care to show anyone that was shamed by this find?
Here you are - another find confirming King David, and a study which answers those who questioned this find:
quote:
David Inscription
The House of David Inscription
David Inscription | Tel Dan Excavations
By far the most celebrated find from Dan, the House of David inscription is a late ninth-century BCE victory text inscribed on basalt stone in the Aramaic language. Why is this inscription so important historically?
More importantly perhaps is the fact that the Aramaean king refers to the kingdom of Judah by its dynastic name, a name frequently used in the Hebrew Bible as well: the House of David. This not only indicates that the family of David still sat on the throne of Jerusalem, but this inscription represents the oldest textual reference to the historical King David ever discovered!
Another find confirming David:
Tel Dan Inscription and Andr Lemaire
Tel Dan Inscription and Andr Lemaire
Monday, February 14, 2005 (19:37) by Stephen C. Carlson | Archaeology
The Tel Dan inscription was found at an archeological site in Israel in 1993 and contains what may be the earliest reference to the historical David.
In our post-Albrightian world, its significance, of course, is immense, and it should come to no surprise that its authenticity has been questioned; see Giovanni Garbini, The Aramaic inscription from Tel Dan (trans. I. Hutchesson from the original Italian cited as Atti della Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei 9 (1994): 461-471) and some seminar materials by Niels Peter Lemche, ‘House of David’: The Tel Dan Inscriptions (Aug. 2001-present), which is hosted by Jim West at Biblical Theology: Lemche on Tel Dan (Feb. 4, 2005). However, see also Jim West’s The IAA Replies to my Tel-Dan Query (Jan. 2, 2005), which contains an email stating: We don’t have any reason to suspect the autenticity of the Tel Dan inscription. It had been found during a licenced excavation by an honored archaeologist.
At any rate, some may find this connection interesting between the Tel Dan Inscription and Andr Lemaire, who examined the epigraphy of the James Ossuary Inscription. Lemaire, ‘House of David’ Restored in Moabite Inscription:
A new restoration of a famous inscription reveals another mention of the House of David in the ninth century B.C.E., BAR 20.3 (May/June 1994), wrote:
This fragment from the Tel Dan stela has been hailed because it contains the name David, supposedly for the first time in ancient Semitic epigraphy. But this claim is not true—or at least not quite true. I believe these same words—the House of David—appear(ed) on the famous Moabite inscription known as the Mesha stela, also from the ninth century B.C.E. While for most scholars the reference to the House of David on the Tel Dan fragment was quite unexpected, I must confess I was not surprised at all. I have been working on the Mesha stela for the past seven years, and I am now preparing a detailed edition of the text. Nearly two years before the discovery of the Tel Dan fragment, I concluded that the Mesha stela contains a reference to the House of David. Now the Tel Dan fragment tends to support this conclusion.
quote:
As an aside.
I was at Tel Dan in the early 80's. At that time there was not an active dig in progress. I may have walked right over the stele. I spent a couple summers at Tel Gerisa near Tel Aviv.
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:
Over 70% has been scientifically proven.
Can you provide evidence and your calculations, or are you pulling this out of your ass?
I am sure I could get a higher % for Tom Sawyer. Therefore according to your reasoning Tom Sawyer is completely factual.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by Theodoric, posted 07-21-2011 9:59 AM Theodoric has seen this message but not replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 168 of 297 (625097)
07-21-2011 11:09 AM
Reply to: Message 166 by Admin
07-21-2011 10:38 AM


Re: Topic Reminder
I was only responding to posts to me, not intending to post such things on my own.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by Admin, posted 07-21-2011 10:38 AM Admin has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by Butterflytyrant, posted 07-26-2011 11:44 PM IamJoseph has replied

  
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 4422 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


Message 169 of 297 (626070)
07-26-2011 11:44 PM
Reply to: Message 168 by IamJoseph
07-21-2011 11:09 AM


Re: Topic Reminder
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by IamJoseph, posted 07-21-2011 11:09 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by IamJoseph, posted 07-27-2011 3:24 AM Butterflytyrant has replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 170 of 297 (626092)
07-27-2011 3:24 AM
Reply to: Message 169 by Butterflytyrant
07-26-2011 11:44 PM


Re: Topic Reminder
quote:
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.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by Butterflytyrant, posted 07-26-2011 11:44 PM Butterflytyrant has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by Butterflytyrant, posted 07-27-2011 4:57 AM IamJoseph has replied

  
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 4422 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


Message 171 of 297 (626093)
07-27-2011 4:57 AM
Reply to: Message 170 by IamJoseph
07-27-2011 3:24 AM


Re: Topic Reminder
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by IamJoseph, posted 07-27-2011 3:24 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by Chuck77, posted 07-27-2011 5:43 AM Butterflytyrant has replied
 Message 175 by IamJoseph, posted 07-27-2011 6:35 AM Butterflytyrant has not replied

  
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 172 of 297 (626099)
07-27-2011 5:43 AM
Reply to: Message 171 by Butterflytyrant
07-27-2011 4:57 AM


Genesis is right on
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by Butterflytyrant, posted 07-27-2011 4:57 AM Butterflytyrant has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by Larni, posted 07-27-2011 6:11 AM Chuck77 has not replied
 Message 179 by Butterflytyrant, posted 07-27-2011 7:27 AM Chuck77 has not replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 173 of 297 (626100)
07-27-2011 6:11 AM
Reply to: Message 172 by Chuck77
07-27-2011 5:43 AM


Re: Genesis is right on about species (kinds)
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by Chuck77, posted 07-27-2011 5:43 AM Chuck77 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by IamJoseph, posted 07-27-2011 6:59 AM Larni has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 174 of 297 (626103)
07-27-2011 6:28 AM


Topic Reminder
The topic is creation science's theory about the origin of light. The opening post Message 5 asks for:
  1. A description of the theory.
  2. How the theory is testable.
  3. The evidence supporting the theory.
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.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by IamJoseph, posted 07-27-2011 6:50 AM Admin has seen this message but not replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 175 of 297 (626104)
07-27-2011 6:35 AM
Reply to: Message 171 by Butterflytyrant
07-27-2011 4:57 AM


Re: Topic Reminder
Edited by Admin, : Under a message title of "Topic Reminder", IamJoseph posts off-topic. Content hidden.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by Butterflytyrant, posted 07-27-2011 4:57 AM Butterflytyrant has not replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 176 of 297 (626107)
07-27-2011 6:50 AM
Reply to: Message 174 by Admin
07-27-2011 6:28 AM


Re: Topic Reminder
quote:
1.A description of the theory.2.How the theory is testable.
3.The evidence supporting the theory.
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.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by Admin, posted 07-27-2011 6:28 AM Admin has seen this message but not replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 177 of 297 (626108)
07-27-2011 6:59 AM
Reply to: Message 173 by Larni
07-27-2011 6:11 AM


Re: Genesis is right on about species (kinds)
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by Larni, posted 07-27-2011 6:11 AM Larni has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by Admin, posted 07-27-2011 7:16 AM IamJoseph has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 178 of 297 (626110)
07-27-2011 7:16 AM
Reply to: Message 177 by IamJoseph
07-27-2011 6:59 AM


IamJoseph Suspended 24 Hours
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.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by IamJoseph, posted 07-27-2011 6:59 AM IamJoseph has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by Butterflytyrant, posted 07-27-2011 7:41 AM Admin has seen this message but not replied

  
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 4422 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


Message 179 of 297 (626111)
07-27-2011 7:27 AM
Reply to: Message 172 by Chuck77
07-27-2011 5:43 AM


Re: Genesis is right on
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by Chuck77, posted 07-27-2011 5:43 AM Chuck77 has not replied

  
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 4422 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


Message 180 of 297 (626113)
07-27-2011 7:41 AM
Reply to: Message 178 by Admin
07-27-2011 7:16 AM


Re: IamJoseph Suspended 24 Hours
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by Admin, posted 07-27-2011 7:16 AM Admin has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by IamJoseph, posted 07-30-2011 8:25 PM Butterflytyrant has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024