Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 107 (8805 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 12-12-2017 2:45 PM
355 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Post Volume:
Total: 824,053 Year: 28,659/21,208 Month: 725/1,847 Week: 100/475 Day: 10/37 Hour: 0/0

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
151617
18
1920Next
Author Topic:   What is the creation science theory of the origin of light?
Admin
Director
Posts: 12536
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 256 of 297 (627750)
08-03-2011 8:16 PM
Reply to: Message 252 by IamJoseph
08-03-2011 7:18 PM


IamJoseph Suspended One Week
IamJoseph writes:

quote:
Please, no replies to this message.

How can one learn without pointing out at least to a clarification of response - to charges made when one is also barred from responding - its not even scientifically possible?

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.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 252 by IamJoseph, posted 08-03-2011 7:18 PM IamJoseph has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 282 by Chuck77, posted 08-07-2011 7:39 AM Admin has responded

    
Panda
Member (Idle past 1324 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


(2)
Message 257 of 297 (627751)
08-03-2011 8:20 PM
Reply to: Message 254 by IamJoseph
08-03-2011 7:33 PM


Re: Call for final comments - Closing soon
IamJoseph writes:

Which is the first recording dealing with a finite universe?
Which is the first recording Light was the first product in the universe?
Which is the first recording which introduced the DAY & WEEK?
Which is the first recording of life form groupings by category?


What is the creation science theory of the origin of light?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by IamJoseph, posted 08-03-2011 7:33 PM IamJoseph has not yet responded

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3580
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 4.3


Message 258 of 297 (627775)
08-04-2011 3:55 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Butterflytyrant
06-28-2011 10:52 AM


The creationist scientific theory of the origin of light
Please supply the scientific theory of how God created light when he said "let there be light".

God was involved in initiating the process that is the mainstream scientific explanation of the origin of light.

Please include the testable elements of the process by which light was created.

The same thing that is the mainstream scientific process of doing such.

Include evidence supporting this theory.

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Butterflytyrant, posted 06-28-2011 10:52 AM Butterflytyrant has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 259 by Butterflytyrant, posted 08-04-2011 6:30 AM Minnemooseus has responded
 Message 263 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-04-2011 10:33 AM Minnemooseus has responded

    
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 2034 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


(1)
Message 259 of 297 (627779)
08-04-2011 6:30 AM
Reply to: Message 258 by Minnemooseus
08-04-2011 3:55 AM


Re: The creationist scientific theory of the origin of light
Hey Moose,

God was involved in initiating the process that is the mainstream scientific explanation of the origin of light.

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.

The same thing that is the mainstream scientific process of doing such.

What is the mainstream scientific process for testing magic?

It's he same evidence that mainstream science supplies to support their theory.

What evidence does mainstream science use for magic? What evidence do they use to support magic?

So, the creation science theory and the mainstream science theory is the same thing, except the creationist belief is that God was involved.

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by Minnemooseus, posted 08-04-2011 3:55 AM Minnemooseus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 260 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 08-04-2011 9:08 AM Butterflytyrant has responded
 Message 273 by Minnemooseus, posted 08-04-2011 10:48 PM Butterflytyrant has responded

    
Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 1579 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 260 of 297 (627797)
08-04-2011 9:08 AM
Reply to: Message 259 by Butterflytyrant
08-04-2011 6:30 AM


Re: The creationist scientific theory of the origin of light
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.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by Butterflytyrant, posted 08-04-2011 6:30 AM Butterflytyrant has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 261 by Straggler, posted 08-04-2011 9:14 AM Alfred Maddenstein has responded
 Message 262 by Butterflytyrant, posted 08-04-2011 9:41 AM Alfred Maddenstein has not yet responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10198
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 261 of 297 (627799)
08-04-2011 9:14 AM
Reply to: Message 260 by Alfred Maddenstein
08-04-2011 9:08 AM


Re: The creationist scientific theory of the origin of light
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 08-04-2011 9:08 AM Alfred Maddenstein has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 264 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 08-04-2011 11:08 AM Straggler has responded

  
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 2034 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


(1)
Message 262 of 297 (627803)
08-04-2011 9:41 AM
Reply to: Message 260 by Alfred Maddenstein
08-04-2011 9:08 AM


Re: The creationist scientific theory of the origin of light
Hey Alfred,

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.

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 08-04-2011 9:08 AM Alfred Maddenstein has not yet responded

    
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11840
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 263 of 297 (627810)
08-04-2011 10:33 AM
Reply to: Message 258 by Minnemooseus
08-04-2011 3:55 AM


Re: The creationist scientific theory of the origin of light
So, the creation science theory and the mainstream science theory is the same thing, except the creationist belief is that God was involved.

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by Minnemooseus, posted 08-04-2011 3:55 AM Minnemooseus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 272 by Minnemooseus, posted 08-04-2011 10:32 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 1579 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 264 of 297 (627817)
08-04-2011 11:08 AM
Reply to: Message 261 by Straggler
08-04-2011 9:14 AM


Re: The creationist scientific theory of the origin of light
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.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by Straggler, posted 08-04-2011 9:14 AM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 265 by Larni, posted 08-04-2011 1:20 PM Alfred Maddenstein has not yet responded
 Message 267 by Straggler, posted 08-04-2011 1:36 PM Alfred Maddenstein has responded

  
Larni
Member
Posts: 3951
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 265 of 297 (627837)
08-04-2011 1:20 PM
Reply to: Message 264 by Alfred Maddenstein
08-04-2011 11:08 AM


Re: The creationist scientific theory of the origin of light
None of what you said makes any sense.

Please clarify.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 08-04-2011 11:08 AM Alfred Maddenstein has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 266 by fearandloathing, posted 08-04-2011 1:30 PM Larni has responded

    
fearandloathing
Member (Idle past 1757 days)
Posts: 990
From: Burlington, NC, USA
Joined: 02-24-2011


Message 266 of 297 (627839)
08-04-2011 1:30 PM
Reply to: Message 265 by Larni
08-04-2011 1:20 PM


Re: The creationist scientific theory of the origin of light
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.


"No sympathy for the devil; keep that in mind. Buy the ticket, take the ride...and if it occasionally gets a little heavier than what you had in mind, well...maybe chalk it off to forced conscious expansion: Tune in, freak out, get beaten."
Hunter S. Thompson

Ad astra per aspera

Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by Larni, posted 08-04-2011 1:20 PM Larni has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 268 by Larni, posted 08-04-2011 3:34 PM fearandloathing has acknowledged this reply

    
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10198
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 267 of 297 (627841)
08-04-2011 1:36 PM
Reply to: Message 264 by Alfred Maddenstein
08-04-2011 11:08 AM


Re: The creationist scientific theory of the origin of light
AM writes:

Mindless physical processes involve no magic only when it is something inside the Universe that is being the nature of those processes.

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

AM writes:

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.

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 08-04-2011 11:08 AM Alfred Maddenstein has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 269 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 08-04-2011 4:41 PM Straggler has responded

  
Larni
Member
Posts: 3951
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 268 of 297 (627850)
08-04-2011 3:34 PM
Reply to: Message 266 by fearandloathing
08-04-2011 1:30 PM


Re: The creationist scientific theory of the origin of light
What is it about nut jobs?

Zi ko, IamJoseph and Alfred rarely, if ever make any sense.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by fearandloathing, posted 08-04-2011 1:30 PM fearandloathing has acknowledged this reply

    
Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 1579 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 269 of 297 (627855)
08-04-2011 4:41 PM
Reply to: Message 267 by Straggler
08-04-2011 1:36 PM


Re: The creationist scientific theory of the origin of light
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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by Straggler, posted 08-04-2011 1:36 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 270 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-04-2011 5:01 PM Alfred Maddenstein has not yet responded
 Message 271 by Straggler, posted 08-04-2011 5:40 PM Alfred Maddenstein has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11840
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 270 of 297 (627857)
08-04-2011 5:01 PM
Reply to: Message 269 by Alfred Maddenstein
08-04-2011 4:41 PM


Colliding branes is strictly speaking no Big Bang theory already.

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 added

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ekpyrotic_universe


This message is a reply to:
 Message 269 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 08-04-2011 4:41 PM Alfred Maddenstein has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
151617
18
1920Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017