Creationist model

quote:

---

Don't say anything else in response. Just give us the chapter and verse.

---

Genesis 1/1.

quote:

---

You haven't even shown an inkling of a clue that you have any vague notion of what a model is.

---

Nothing vague about the genesis model:Look at the screen: there is a singular particle [source unknown] - and nothing else save for the one particle; it explodes/expands in a flash of blinding light; from inside that particle, wherein is compressed 'all things', which start spewing out in all directions - harmogenously. We are one of the 'things' which spewed out, and we are somewhere within the expanded particle. Current size of that particle: of universal proportions.One can show great FX movies here.There is no *OTHER* model! And the genesis one remains the only one on the table.

What took so long to decide!

Which part? You will find every correct scientific term emploayed today is represented and catered to in genesis - inclusing BB, EXPANSION, SPECIATION, ADAPTATION, etc.

quote:

---

Since there was no light in the beginnings of the universe as revealed by science then this assertion is incorrect on its face.

---

Chapter 1/1 is the beginning chapter which describes creation, catering to its fundamental factors. Light is well catered to as one of the primal entities, precedent of the stars. Light and fire are very closely related. When one examines the premise, stars could not produce light unless it was a precedent and independent entity, at least in its essence form. I see it as, gravity and light were both precedent, anticipatory elements. IOW, the blueprint precedes the house that jack built.

quote:

---

Light {electromagnetic waves} were not a part of the universe immediately upon its formation and it was not until approximately 380,000 years of age when the temperatures had cooled enough electrons and nuclei to combine and radiation to escape. This point is what is known as the Cosmic Microwave Background.

---

I see no contradiction with light being a primal entity. The photon content is a later action, which makes light vision friendly [luminosity], as opposed to the essence of light. Light has a transcendent velosity, which is not explainable by any less transcendent entity, such as a star. Thus the essence of light preceded the sun and moon, as the essence of H2O preceded the tap which produces water.The premise of temp and electrons is not the factor which rules here, by the precedent program which allows both the temp and electon factors conform to its end product. Nothing happens without a precedent intergrating mechanism: temp variances and electrons won't produce light from a pineapple.

quote:

---

What do you mean a transcendent velocity IaJ? You are claiming an essence but not explaining what an essence is.And the essence of H2,O means what?

---

Transcendent because its speed is greater than all else; and this is not accounted for by the inergy input. The speed is not subsequent of its energy boosting, and the latter only acts as a triggering. By essence I mean its core, original first factor. Water can be said to have H2O as its precedent factors, and each of those gasses can be further reduced.Similarly, we can speak of light before the stars appeared. The aspect of luminosity has no operative factor other than being vision friendly [gravity operates in the dark too], while we can say there are no superfluous factors in a critically operating universe. A photon does not make light, but triggers an action; the proton and the light enjoy a reciprocal interaction. Stars do not produce light until they surpass an enbryotic stage and reach a critical mass; some stars do not attain this stage. Light is also producable independently of stars.

quote:

---

Nothing happens without a precedent intergrating mechanism: temp variances and electrons won't produce light from a pineapple.

​

-----------------
Ok now you have drifted into the realm of nonsense and I would ask that you come down to a level where you are clearly communicating what you are attempting to describe OK ?
What is the precedent integrating mechanism?

---

The precedent intergrating mechanism can be seen all places, eg: the precedent intergration of H2 & O, which results in water. When one disregards that both those gasses enjoy an interactive receptability, they can get lost only in the minutae peripheral equation, and neglecting the matrix of interaction in display here. Why is it that we cannot produce water from two other gasses?

The wave is pervasive and generic, and represents a +/- duality factor underlying all actions. Rather than allocating a photon to light, it is more correct to allocate this to a pre-set interaction facility: any tinkering with the photon or the nm, will negate this pre-set interaction mechanism.Different conclusions are derived, depending on the preamble criteria. Genesis subscribes itself to the universe being finite; all works are intergrated; and that the universe is created in wisdom. Science allocates the manifest complexity of gravity to 'nature', as opposed to the controverisal term of wisdom [wise workings], for its internal doctrinal factors and PC reasonings. However, when one zooms out the picture, they have to be impressed with both the manifest display of wisdom and of the hovering interaction here, which must be accounted for. I mean, what is this thing called 'NATURE' - there is no such thing - actually! But there is manifest works of wisdom and manifest intergration.

(Duality factor, pre-set interaction facility?)The genesis model subscribes to all things being created in a duality, that there is no ONE per se in creation. Eg: heaven/earth, light/darknes, day/nite, male/female, etc. Here, two is the minimum requirement for any action. Interaction is that a particular receptivity is and must prevail between two partys, and the resultant premise is its effect; so the interaction facility is precedent. Eg: a car is made to cater to a driver, and the driver's traits are factored in - but this is not the case where a precedent interactive facility was not factored in. Thus the interaction is precedent. Similarly, and subsequently, H interacts with O to produce water when combined in a certain pre-established order.

quote:

---

Light cannot precede the wave. Light is nothing but a wave of a certain height.

---

This shows the light follows the wave provisions, thus it is subsequent of it. A wave represents a duality.

quote:

---

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.

---

These reflect the wave input, eg. Radio waves have different wave lengths, again signifying the wave rules, and this precedent. IOW, the light is doing what the waves tell it.

quote:

---

When testing nature you will find that you have put the cart before the horse.

---

There is no such thing as nature. Examine what happens when this term is eliminated.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

quote:

---

I don't understand where you see a duality in a wave.

---

One tail end is negative, the other a positive polarity; eg: up/down, where the ascent is one direction, and the descent is its opposiite. Ultimately, the wave represents the duality, and is not a ONE.

quote:

---

This shows the light follows the wave provisions, thus it is subsequent of it.
-------

​

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?

---

The wave represents the underlying workings of the light, and is not itself light. The whole point is, there are unending layers of structurismsThe wave represents the underlying workings of the light, and is not itself light but is part of the blueprint. The whole point is, there are unending layers of structurisms, and these are based on a definitive matrix of directives.

quote:

---

the light is doing what the waves tell it

​

Not really. We are just interpreting that specific wavelength. There is no light, simply our interpretation of the wave.

---

We see the criteria of the wave input which directs the resultant types of light, and its manipulation gives different forms of light.

quote:

---

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...

---

Yes, vision has no relevence aside from enabling another entity [eyes] to connect with it. This means the eye and the visible light were created with counter receptive traits.What I said was that light per se preceded stars.

quote:

---

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)

---

Stretching the wave = manipulating the conrol factor. Thus the wave rules, or better, a duality which is adaptive to a pre-established directive. The macro and micro reflect the same laws; the seen reflects the unseen.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

quote:

---

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.

---

My position is that criticality impacts here. We can only see light when it is within certain margins of criticality: too much heat or too liittle = no vision. This, to me, shows that both items were afixed with a fore thought; both being receptive to each other, in a critical mode. This is an inescapabale factor, and renders it varied from man belatedly naming something. IOW, light [or heat if you like], and vision - are intergrated, a factor which transcends time, distance and evolutionary impacts. Adaptation is only relative in a life form, and have no impact on mountains and stars.

quote:

---

This means the eye and the visible light were created with counter receptive traits.

​

No, this means that the human eye has three cones that are stimulated by certain wavelengths.

---

That answer has no bearing here, except it confirms the criticality premise. If the length of the wave length impacts, and so does the eye, we have a corresponding interaction, namely an intergrationary phenomenon. The naked eye does no see radio waves, again by a criticality factor, namely the wave length.

quote:

---

Our 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.

---

Our brains would have no impact, unless its caperbility is factored in a corresponding object. My position is, our brains do not interpret stimuli, unless the object is stimuli friendly.

quote:

---

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?

---

The criticality factor. You are proving my case here.

quote:

---

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 did state, not all stars achieve light production, and none when they first emerge. The force which propels light is not even a wave: we know that no energy can produce the transcendent velosity of light, whereby this velosity is more than the energy input: an AA battery will produce a ray which travels 186K MPS, which means there is a seperate inherent force in light which transcends any power in the universe.Fact is, we do not know the origin of anything, and light is certainly in this category, even more so that matter, because light displays a power which is greater than matter [transcedent velosity] and is, unlike matter, ageless. The notion stars produce light, is only akin to a factory producing nuts and bolts, a process which can be emulated elsewhere. Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Actually it precisely accounted for by the formula E=hf. A quantum of light {photon energy} is equal to planck's constant times the frequency of the electromagnetic event of each photon.

---

This affirms a criticality factor.

quote:

---

Water can be said to have H2O as its precedent factors, and each of those gasses can be further reduced.

​

Water is H2O. 2 hydrogen atoms in chemical bond with a single oxygen atom. And no,Hydrogen and oxygen cannot be further reduced as they are elements of nature.
It is the change in energy management that accounts for the hydrogen gas and oxygen gas to chemically bond as a liquid at the correct temperature. Since the chemical bonding affects the way in which the electron configuration operates an new substance with different properties emerges.That new property manifests itself in the qualities of water.

---

Here we see that more than the equations apply, there is a recepticity and reciprocity at work of both the H and the O, which feat cannot be performed elsewhere by other gasses. The equations factor tells how how it works, but it does not account for the reciprocity - so this requires some hovering thought what is happening here.

quote:

---

The precedent intergrating mechanism can be seen all places, eg: the precedent intergration of H2 & O, which results in water.

​

This does nothing to explain what the integrating mechanism is.

---

I agree. But there is clearly one, is the first point.

quote:

---

Why is it that we cannot produce water from two other gasses?

---

IMHO, it is obviously because of a critical intergration at work here, which points to a precedent, hovering control factor. This means, IMHO, there is no adaptation: the environment we prevail and survive in, is precedent and anticipatory of our prevailing therein. 'THE DINNER TABLE IS READY FOR THE GUESTS' applies.The ToE view of adaptation is deficient, namely saying we enter the scene after we can adapt, as opposed the environment and us both enjointly enter the scene, not by their chronological emergences, but by the cirteria seen in each counterparts, namely a critical reciprocity on display here. Lets analogise, which came first, a chipmunk or the walnut, or the chipmunk's ideal environment - or the chip? Why?

quote:

---

Because we get a different reaction between the electron energies that make up the bonds between other different elements and thus,produce different qualities.

---

But do you see criticality and intergration here?

quote:

---

You really don't understand. There are fractals in nature. Order can come from chaos. You are simply wrong.
There are many other examples as well, crystal growth, Buckie Balls as two examples.

​

You are simply incorrect in much you assert and the rest is trivial.

​

You have no model.

---

There are two different kinds of universes: a finite one, and an infinite one. Which one do you inhabit - because nothing said is the same for both universes?All debates become cyclical unless that critical preamble is first declared. If the uni is deemed to have a beginning - then that is an action, namely it is a VERB, which has not just an objective factor, but also a subjective. Without the subjective factor, the issue of chaos existing becomes more complicated than order.I think a thread is required, based on the preamble the uni is FINITE, and thereby science is explained within that criteria only. Why not - we will be in good company: both Einstein and Hawkings subscribe to a finite universe. Plus, it will be a scientific debate in the science sector, and one based on manifest reality - not sci-fi!Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

quote:

---

by the understanding of this law, the universe is as finite, or infinite, as the first energy deigns it to be.

---

I don't think so. The term 'first' does not apply, because it inferes a precedent; better, the term 'ONE' be applied. 'First energy' also cannot apply, because it infers the energy was infinite/eternal, negating the descretionary option you have given it.I find that creationism as per genesis, whether one subscribes to it or not, boldly declares its preamble criteria; thus one must judge its subsequent factors in accordance with its declared criteria of a finite universe only; here, infinite derived factors cannot apply nor be introduced. Contrastingly, I see a definitive retreating from the preamble criteria in your response - this makes everything said thereafter very pliable, and never definitive, and subseuently requires no evidencing, allowing even unscientific and non-plausable premises to become validated.The point of it all is, that which is subscribed to an infinite universe, cannot allign with a finite one equally. These are two totally seperate universes!Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

quote:

---

but ill believe that God knows better than i. and not lay my trust in men.

---

Then try this for size:'IN THE BEGINNING GOD' [Genesis]My book says God says the universe is finite - it had a beginning. This where science is introduced also.

Bobby Darin.