Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 120 (8781 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-20-2017 7:11 PM
352 online now:
Coyote, DOCJ, GDR, Tanypteryx (4 members, 348 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: evilsorcerer1
Post Volume:
Total: 816,573 Year: 21,179/21,208 Month: 1,612/2,326 Week: 67/881 Day: 67/119 Hour: 0/3

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
15161718
19
20Next
Author Topic:   What is the creation science theory of the origin of light?
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10196
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 271 of 297 (627859)
08-04-2011 5:40 PM
Reply to: Message 269 by Alfred Maddenstein
08-04-2011 4:41 PM


Re: The creationist scientific theory of the origin of light
Both quantum fluctuations and colliding branes are conjectures as to how our universe came to be. Neither phenomenon as proposed takes place inside our universe and neither involves any magic.

Both are mindless physical processes.

So your assertion that magic must be involved is basically false.


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 280 by cavediver, posted 08-06-2011 5:02 AM Straggler has not yet responded

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3529
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 272 of 297 (627884)
08-04-2011 10:32 PM
Reply to: Message 263 by New Cat's Eye
08-04-2011 10:33 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.

The start of this topic said nothing of YECism. YECism conflicts with reality right from the Y. Who cares what their theory of the origin of light is.

There is an abundant supply of people, including the deists, that believe in some variety of Godly creator without having any problem accepting the scientific explanations of how things came to happen.

Moose


This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-04-2011 10:33 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 278 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-05-2011 8:00 AM Minnemooseus has responded

    
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3529
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 273 of 297 (627885)
08-04-2011 10:48 PM
Reply to: Message 259 by Butterflytyrant
08-04-2011 6:30 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.

Thats a pretty big difference. One uses magic, so is no longer scientific.

So it is not a scientific theory.

I'm not invoking any magic. My creator hypothesis is something tacked onto the beginning of whatever is the scientific theory - Back in that unknown realm of the ultimate beginning of the universe as we know it.

And yes, I use the term hypothesis. It is a hypothesis without support of any evidence and it is a hypothesis that may not have any possibility of falsification.

Why do you think that a creationist needs to have his own theory? Why can't a creationist be allowed to accept the scientifically supported theory?

Moose


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 274 by Butterflytyrant, posted 08-04-2011 11:28 PM Minnemooseus has acknowledged this reply

    
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 1920 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


Message 274 of 297 (627887)
08-04-2011 11:28 PM
Reply to: Message 273 by Minnemooseus
08-04-2011 10:48 PM


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

It could be argued that introducing a creator is introducing magic depending on that creator. If the creator was a highly advanced form of alien life, then it would not be magic. However, if you are going to introduce the creator described in the Christian Bible, then thats pretty magical. It is the same as saying you are Merlin or Gandalf is the force tacked onto the beginning of the scientific theories.

It is a good hypothesis though. It is one of the better worded and sensible hypotheses put forward, for this I thank you.

Why do you think that a creationist needs to have his own theory? Why can't a creationist be allowed to accept the scientifically supported theory?

Because not all creationists have the same interpretation of creation that you do. There are a large number of creationists who would say that there is no way that the scientifically supported theory could be true as it does not fit with their version. A creationist is perfectly able and welcome to accept scientifically supported theory. Many do not. There are also some who do accept the theory but change it slightly (as I think IamJoseph was attempting to do) to match their theology.

The question was open to all creationists to give their answer as there appears to be a vast amount of different interpretaions of the same single line of text and how it fits into scientific theory (if at all).

You particular hypotheses is but one of many. You accept scientific theory and combine it with your faith in a way that allows both to coexist. A lot of creationists cant or wont do this.

The start of this topic said nothing of YECism. YECism conflicts with reality right from the Y. Who cares what their theory of the origin of light is.

This is an example. I am sure that they would have exactly the same thing to say about your hypothesis. You are suggesting that noone cares about what this creationist groups theories are. Are they any less valid than yours? I am an athiest so I tend to put all of them in the same basket. The topic was equally open to all stripes of Creationist, including Young Earth Creationists. I could argue that all faiths conflict with reality. I could say, who cares about what Mooses theory is?

Edited by Butterflytyrant, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by Minnemooseus, posted 08-04-2011 10:48 PM Minnemooseus has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 275 by Coyote, posted 08-04-2011 11:36 PM Butterflytyrant has responded

    
Coyote
Member
Posts: 5937
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 275 of 297 (627889)
08-04-2011 11:36 PM
Reply to: Message 274 by Butterflytyrant
08-04-2011 11:28 PM


Re: The creationist scientific theory of the origin of light
If the creator was a highly advanced form of alien life, then it would not be magic.

Clarke's Three Laws are three "laws" of prediction formulated by the British writer and scientist Arthur C. Clarke. They are:

  • When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.
  • The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.
  • Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

Source


This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by Butterflytyrant, posted 08-04-2011 11:28 PM Butterflytyrant has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 276 by Butterflytyrant, posted 08-04-2011 11:44 PM Coyote has responded

  
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 1920 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


Message 276 of 297 (627891)
08-04-2011 11:44 PM
Reply to: Message 275 by Coyote
08-04-2011 11:36 PM


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

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

I accept this. But the appearence of magic, or not being able to distinguish technology from magic, does not make it magic.

Lets say I took an genarator and a large, overdone christmas display (complete with brightly lit santa, moving reindeer and 10 000 flashing coloured bulbs) to an island nation in 1800. I know these things did not exist at the time but this is just an example. The island people, who have not seen any of these things would see this as an amazing display of magic. It does not make it magic, they just cannot tell the difference.

Something being indistingishable from magic does not actually make it magic. So the aliens starting the universe, while indistinguishable from magic, does not actually make it magic.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by Coyote, posted 08-04-2011 11:36 PM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 277 by Coyote, posted 08-05-2011 12:19 AM Butterflytyrant has acknowledged this reply

    
Coyote
Member
Posts: 5937
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 277 of 297 (627894)
08-05-2011 12:19 AM
Reply to: Message 276 by Butterflytyrant
08-04-2011 11:44 PM


Re: The creationist scientific theory of the origin of light
Something being indistingishable from magic does not actually make it magic. So the aliens starting the universe, while indistinguishable from magic, does not actually make it magic.

Of course!

That's the point of Clarke's Third Law.

The Cargo Cult folks immediately after WWII in the Pacific used imitative magic to try to get the cargo to return. It didn't of course.

But that is another good example of Clarke's Third Law.

And I guess this is another good example of a well-reasoned but off-topic post, eh?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by Butterflytyrant, posted 08-04-2011 11:44 PM Butterflytyrant has acknowledged this reply

  
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11665
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 2.5


(1)
Message 278 of 297 (627909)
08-05-2011 8:00 AM
Reply to: Message 272 by Minnemooseus
08-04-2011 10:32 PM


Re: The creationist scientific theory of the origin of light
The start of this topic said nothing of YECism. YECism conflicts with reality right from the Y. Who cares what their theory of the origin of light is.

I think its implicit to the questioning, and to your mention of "creation science".

Its not really worth questioning if the normal scientific explanation is the answer, why even mention creationists in that regard? And the deist creationist aren't limited to explaining what when on in Genesis.

There is an abundant supply of people, including the deists, that believe in some variety of Godly creator without having any problem accepting the scientific explanations of how things came to happen.

And they're irrelevant to the motivation for this topic. From the hidden parts of the original OP:

quote:
I have noticed nearly all of the debates on all evolution vs creation debates seems to be people defending very small elements of evolutionary theory.

...

I would like to see their theory, including back up data and researched, peer reviewed work on each of the steps in the Genesis creation week.


quote:
I am interested in finding out what the scientific basis for creationist theories are.

Deist creationists don't have "Creationist theories", they just go with the science. Most of the "creation science" folks are YEC's.

The topic only makes sense if its for dscussing the YEC explanation for light.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 272 by Minnemooseus, posted 08-04-2011 10:32 PM Minnemooseus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 279 by Minnemooseus, posted 08-06-2011 12:33 AM New Cat's Eye has acknowledged this reply

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3529
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 279 of 297 (627988)
08-06-2011 12:33 AM
Reply to: Message 278 by New Cat's Eye
08-05-2011 8:00 AM


The young Earth creationist ideas of the origin of light
The topic only makes sense if its for dscussing the YEC explanation for light.

Admin supplied a quote of the first three verses of Genesis back in message 243:

Genesis writes:

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2 The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.
3 Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light.

To state that the Earths creation was prior to lights creation is in itself a departure from known reality. This topic is asking for the theory of how light was first created, after the Earths creation. It's asking how something that didn't happen happened. Thus, the topic makes no sense in the context of young Earth creationism.

Now, IF Genesis had started as follows:

Not the real Genesis writes:

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens.
2 Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light.
3 Then God created the Earth.

Then you might have a position in which to discuss the creation science theory of how God created light. And that theory could be such as what I presented back in message 258 - The creation science theory is the same as the mainstream science theory, with the added unsupported hypothesis that God was somehow involved back in the very beginning.

Moose


This message is a reply to:
 Message 278 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-05-2011 8:00 AM New Cat's Eye has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 281 by Butterflytyrant, posted 08-06-2011 10:21 AM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

    
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1141 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


(2)
Message 280 of 297 (628008)
08-06-2011 5:02 AM
Reply to: Message 271 by Straggler
08-04-2011 5:40 PM


Re: The creationist scientific theory of the origin of light
Neither phenomenon as proposed takes place inside our universe and neither involves any magic.

You're getting caught up on usage of "Universe". Alfred's use could be phrased "physical existence". What he is saying about magic is not unreasonable. Where he goes wrong is thinking that when we refer to the Big Bang, he assumes that we imagine some "pre-Big Bang" nothingness within which the Big Bang is initiated. This would be magic. As I often repeat, the Big Bang is not "caused", it is simply one end of the Universe. Thinking that it requires a prior-cause is a category error. Cause and effect are simply a result of the casual structure of the space-time of which our Universe is made. To suggest that they should apply to the Universe as a whole (or indeed to the point of the Big Bang) is to ask at what latitude and longitude can we find the Earth.

The Big Bang could of course be embedded in some larger space, as we have in nearly all post-classical scenarios: colliding branes, eternal/chaotic inflation, etc. But this merely pushes out the boundaries of physical existence, and the Big Bang is no longer an origin/boundary/limit.

But whether the Universe has an infinte past or a finite past, two things remain: physical existence does not require a "cause" (in any sense being talked about here), and we still have no clue as to why it is here!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 271 by Straggler, posted 08-04-2011 5:40 PM Straggler has not yet responded

  
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 1920 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


Message 281 of 297 (628036)
08-06-2011 10:21 AM
Reply to: Message 279 by Minnemooseus
08-06-2011 12:33 AM


Re: The young Earth creationist ideas of the origin of light
Hello Moose,

I wish you had started to post during the discussion with IamJoseph, as he very strongly disagrees with your position. I disagree with his position but for different reasons.

To state that the Earths creation was prior to lights creation is in itself a departure from known reality. This topic is asking for the theory of how light was first created, after the Earths creation. It's asking how something that didn't happen happened. Thus, the topic makes no sense in the context of young Earth creationism.

I think a lot of the Biblical textx are a departure from known reality. They would be pretty bland and would not have gotten very far if they were scientifically accurate. Miracles would not be miracles if they alligned with reality. The good bit of all of the faiths texts is the non scientific bit.

My topic did ask for the creationist theory of what happened when God said let there be light. I did not say it had to be before or after Earths creation. I am also not asking how something that did not happen happened. Light came from somewhere. There are scientific theories. There are religious theories. Your theory appears to allign with the scientific theory with God as the force that started it all. This is one theory taken from one interpretation of the information you choose to use. There are plenty of people who would say that your interpretation is incorrect, therefore your version of events is incorrect. IamJoseph would no doubt be one of them. I would say that he would disagree with interpretation of the Genesis text or direct you to another oassage that clarified the issue. I know this because he tried this with me. I have included the original question again.

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

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

include evidence supporting this theory.

This question is open to all creationists, regardless of their affiliation. I have received a variety of answers, all of them I would say supplied by people assuming they have the correct interpretation. Your interpretation is one of many. It is a good answer. As good as most that I have received. You will have to argue with the others with regards to who is right.

Might I suggest you start with IamJoseph as he believes that the Genesis Creation story has light as the first product, and that this alligns exactly with the Big Bang Theory (the first product of the universe was light) and also that his interpretation of scripture and science knowledge is 100% correct. I am not saying I agree with any of what he says, I am just saying that the postition that you have put forward is not the only one and is equally valid as the rest.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by Minnemooseus, posted 08-06-2011 12:33 AM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

    
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 282 of 297 (628173)
08-07-2011 7:39 AM
Reply to: Message 256 by Admin
08-03-2011 8:16 PM


Understanding Joseph
Admin writes:

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?

Well, no I havn't. Im not sure I need to.

Joe is taking the approach all believers take, but some don't express. That the Bible is true. It can be trusted for it's historical value.

It cannot be "proven" by the Scientific method as it's not set up to test the SN. I think Joe is saying the way light came into existance being the first thing "manifested" is Scientific because it was first. How else can something come into existance from nothing without direction from something/someone.

I think, im not sure. I never claimed to understand his arguments but I know it's harder to understand them when he's suspended and not explaining them due to his poor english that apparently really bothers everyone.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by Admin, posted 08-03-2011 8:16 PM Admin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 283 by Admin, posted 08-07-2011 8:12 AM Chuck77 has responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12523
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 1.9


(5)
Message 283 of 297 (628176)
08-07-2011 8:12 AM
Reply to: Message 282 by Chuck77
08-07-2011 7:39 AM


Re: Understanding Joseph
Chuck77 writes:

I think, im not sure. I never claimed to understand his arguments but I know it's harder to understand them when he's suspended and not explaining them due to his poor english that apparently really bothers everyone.

You just got here. IamJoseph has been here for 4 years and 2000 posts, and he is as incoherent today as he was when he first arrived. Moderator tolerance was exhausted long ago. Moderators discourage his participation, he goes away for a while, and when he comes back he is unchanged. The problems he has with communication and comprehension cause threads to become extended efforts at understanding what he is trying to say, instead of discussing the topic.

The Forum Guidelines that moderators enforce are neutral with regard to the creation/evolution debate. What is being singled out in this case is inarticulateness and incoherence and an inability to comprehend. These qualities are seen almost exclusively on the creation side of the debate, though they do occasionally appear in those of a science bent, Alfred Maddenstein being a recent example, but it does sometimes make it appear as if the religious side is being targeted by moderators.

You don't understand IamJoseph's posts, and neither does anyone else, but I'm wondering if the posts from the science side are as difficult for you to understand as IamJoseph's. If this is the case then you're left trying to make judgments between posts that don't make sense to you, and it is understandable that you would be left thinking there's a bias against the religious side.

EvC Forum exists to examine the claim that evolution and creation are equally scientific. Few in science would take any notice of the beliefs of religious fundamentalists if they didn't claim that their religious beliefs had scientific validity and that they should therefore be included in public school science curriculums.

Do these religious beliefs have scientific validity? That's what we're here to find out, but before one can discuss something one must know what one is talking about and be able to express it clearly.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 282 by Chuck77, posted 08-07-2011 7:39 AM Chuck77 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 284 by Chuck77, posted 08-09-2011 6:02 AM Admin has responded

    
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 284 of 297 (628369)
08-09-2011 6:02 AM
Reply to: Message 283 by Admin
08-07-2011 8:12 AM


Re: Understanding Joseph
Admin writes:

You don't understand IamJoseph's posts, and neither does anyone else, but I'm wondering if the posts from the science side are as difficult for you to understand as IamJoseph's. If this is the case then you're left trying to make judgments between posts that don't make sense to you, and it is understandable that you would be left thinking there's a bias against the religious side.

I underatand it perfectly Percy. Come on tho, there are a few "science" guys who say some off the cuff stuff here.

Joseph maybe more but he is kinda, egged on, dontcha think? The blame can go to all the others who instigate him when they know they don't understand it and still pry for explanations having to get the last word in.

They obviously want to debate him or they would leave him alone(and debate is the whole point here) and who would he debate (if they didn't egg on) until he started making more sense? The blame can be shared I think.

What are your thoughts on the subject? You know there was no light theory but still promoted it. Why? You're the one who promoted this topic so you must have thought since there wasn't a light theory you were gonna get some far out replies, especially from the Bible quoters, me included. So maybe (like I said before) IMO it should have been in the "free for all" not Science.

Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 283 by Admin, posted 08-07-2011 8:12 AM Admin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 285 by Admin, posted 08-09-2011 9:12 AM Chuck77 has responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12523
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 285 of 297 (628384)
08-09-2011 9:12 AM
Reply to: Message 284 by Chuck77
08-09-2011 6:02 AM


Re: Understanding Joseph
Chuck77 writes:

I underatand it perfectly Percy.

If this is true then you could perform a wonderful service by acting as interpreter. It would be very helpful if you could post a message explaining IamJoseph's position and the evidence supporting it.

But sadly I doubt you can do this, because the evidence indicates you don't really understand IamJoseph. You've been arguing that IamJoseph's position isn't science and that he knows it isn't science, yet IamJoseph has stated unequivocally that he believes his position is science (Message 231: "Light being the first product is a sceintific statement").

What are your thoughts on the subject? You know there was no light theory but still promoted it. Why? You're the one who promoted this topic so you must have thought since there wasn't a light theory you were gonna get some far out replies, especially from the Bible quoters, me included.

As moderator my opinions about the validity of claims must be left aside. EvC Forum exists to examine the claims of both sides, and the examination of claims is not carried out during the thread proposal process by moderators. The responsibility of moderators is to enforce the Forum Guidelines and make sure that thread proposals are clear and rational and focused.

So maybe (like I said before) IMO it should have been in the "free for all" not Science.

Again, I suggest you ask IamJoseph if he believes his claim isn't science.

It is understandable that you feel moved to object to what you perceive as unfair treatment, but in defending IamJoseph you haven't been able to muster any statements that are actually true. I understand your sense of fairness is offended, but in order to actually make your case that IamJoseph has been treated unfairly you have to show that he didn't fail to follow the Forum Guidelines and that is isn't inarticulate and incoherent. That you claim you understand IamJoseph perfectly when the evidence is clear that you don't is more evidence of the difficulty everyone has understanding him. Communication is a two-way street, and IamJoseph is going to have to improve on making himself understood if he is to avoid the attention of moderators.

The Free For All forum is not for unscientific discussions but for threads that have attracted a great deal of interest but which have become impossible to moderate. As moderator I have not yet given up on this thread.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 284 by Chuck77, posted 08-09-2011 6:02 AM Chuck77 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 286 by Chuck77, posted 08-10-2011 12:37 AM Admin has responded

    
RewPrev1
...
15161718
19
20Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017