Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 83 (8936 total)
63 online now:
dwise1 (1 member, 62 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Post Volume: Total: 861,908 Year: 16,944/19,786 Month: 1,069/2,598 Week: 315/251 Day: 43/43 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What is the creation science theory of the origin of light?
Larni
Member
Posts: 3990
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005
Member Rating: 7.2


Message 16 of 297 (621825)
06-29-2011 5:58 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Minority Report
06-29-2011 5:47 AM


Re: Scientific theory of Genesis
but I'll wait for Butterflytyrant to lead which direction to go on this.

Or you could post these theories and we could get this thread into high gear.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Minority Report, posted 06-29-2011 5:47 AM Minority Report has not yet responded

    
Son
Member (Idle past 2090 days)
Posts: 346
From: France,Paris
Joined: 03-11-2009


Message 17 of 297 (621839)
06-29-2011 9:01 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Butterflytyrant
06-29-2011 3:15 AM


Re: Scientific theory of Genesis
I actually watched your original topic and there were some interesting question but you need to compartmentalize them into several topics. You could do that later after this topic is finished. To get this one started, you could ask creationists how their theory explains how we see stars older than 6000 years old and start from there to get a coherent theory about light, it's propriety and origins. The question is just there to show what a theory is supposed to explain.

Then, for the equivalent to Evolution in a creation theory (in an other topic), you would ask what kinds God started with (beings at the level of species? family? genus? ,etc...) and how did it go from there, giving a rough "history of life" from a creationist perspective. In a different topic, you would ask about geology, etc....

Those are just my proposition though, tell me if it's what you had in mind when you first proposed your topic.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Butterflytyrant, posted 06-29-2011 3:15 AM Butterflytyrant has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Butterflytyrant, posted 06-29-2011 9:54 AM Son has responded

    
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 2682 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


Message 18 of 297 (621851)
06-29-2011 9:54 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Son
06-29-2011 9:01 AM


Re: Scientific theory of Genesis
I apologise for using Wikipedia as a source but I needed a definition that I thought would be acceptable by most people.

This description of Creation Science seems to be supported by groups like Answers in Genesis, Creation Ministries International, The Creation Research Society, The Institute for Creation Research and the Centre for Scientific Creation among many others.

"Creation Science or scientific creationism[1] is a branch of creationism, which attempts to provide scientific support for the Genesis creation narrative in the Book of Genesis and disprove generally accepted scientific facts, theories and scientific paradigms about the history of the Earth, cosmology and biological evolution."
The area I am interested in is "scientific support for the Genesis creation narrative".

It appears that if a creationist can find a way to question a section of a theory supplied by a scientist, they believe that this not only damages or destroys the entire theory but also validates their position. Is it possible to level this playing field. There are many webpages that openly discuss the discipline of Creation Science. I have read many comments about how Creation Scientists are not able to discuss their theories because of censorship or lack of opportunity. I am not only putting the offer on the table. I am making a request to be informed. I cannot establish my position without hearing as many sides as possible.

It should also help to establish if creation science is science or religion using the word science in a misleading manner. There seems to be some debate over this issue. If the creationists can supply their theories, then they will have done a lot to win this battle.

I would have thought that Genesis would be the cornerstone of creation. I have noticed on this forum that there are many attacks against evolution or other scientific theories (including the Big Bang Theory and Abiogenesis Theories) because scientists cannot prove with 100% certainty, some sections of that theory. I am not asking for this level of certainty at all. All I am asking for is a theory. Any theory to begin with.

How is it possible to have so many groups claiming to be offering the best possible version of events, and claiming that their position is backed up by scientific evidence if they do not even have a theory to put forward.

This should be taken as a great opportunity by the Creationists. There must be other people out there who want to view this information.

My reason for being here was that an Evangelist associate of mine told me in no uncertain terms that "Evolution is so full of holes it should be illegal to teach it in schools" and that I should "do a little research" and see just how much scientific evidence there was supporting Creation.

I decided to start from the biggest question of all. The creation of the universe and all of its contents plus the generation of all living things. Genesis as opposed to the Big Bang and Evolution.

If both sides will forgive me for being a bit sheltered, am I to understand that both sides are claiming scientific support for their theories, but one side has no theories, no research done on these theories, no experiments and no groups even discussing the ideas of scientific theories to support what is arguably the most important part of the debate?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Son, posted 06-29-2011 9:01 AM Son has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Larni, posted 06-29-2011 10:43 AM Butterflytyrant has responded
 Message 20 by jar, posted 06-29-2011 10:43 AM Butterflytyrant has not yet responded
 Message 23 by Son, posted 06-29-2011 1:00 PM Butterflytyrant has not yet responded

    
Larni
Member
Posts: 3990
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005
Member Rating: 7.2


Message 19 of 297 (621857)
06-29-2011 10:43 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Butterflytyrant
06-29-2011 9:54 AM


Re: Scientific theory of Genesis
If both sides will forgive me for being a bit sheltered, am I to understand that both sides are claiming scientific support for their theories, but one side has no theories, no research done on these theories, no experiments and no groups even discussing the ideas of scientific theories to support what is arguably the most important part of the debate?

This is the problem you will see on this site over and over again.

The evidence the creationist will use is the bible and anything that does not align itself with the bible is by definition wrong.

You can demand evidence until you are blue in the face but cdesign proponentsists will default to the bible every time, if you push them hard enough.

They do get pushed hard, here.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Butterflytyrant, posted 06-29-2011 9:54 AM Butterflytyrant has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Butterflytyrant, posted 06-29-2011 11:52 AM Larni has responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 31288
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 20 of 297 (621858)
06-29-2011 10:43 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Butterflytyrant
06-29-2011 9:54 AM


Re: Scientific theory of Genesis
If both sides will forgive me for being a bit sheltered, am I to understand that both sides are claiming scientific support for their theories, but one side has no theories, no research done on these theories, no experiments and no groups even discussing the ideas of scientific theories to support what is arguably the most important part of the debate?

There is not, and cannot ever be, something called "Creation Science".

To even make a claim that "Creation Science" is possible is to pervert the English language and lie to the audience.

n the many years I've followed this subject I have never found anyone that has presented any "Creation" model that did not boil down to "magic".


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Butterflytyrant, posted 06-29-2011 9:54 AM Butterflytyrant has not yet responded

  
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 2682 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


Message 21 of 297 (621879)
06-29-2011 11:52 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Larni
06-29-2011 10:43 AM


Re: Scientific theory of Genesis
wow.

I am at best an amatuer with regards to this level of debate. I am in my final year of an environmental science degree. Throughout this degree I have been exposed to Evolution but not in any great depth. My other research, my current job, is all based on chemistry so again, has not covered Evolution in any depth.

I presumed, incorrectly it seems, that there was a great body of work that I was merely unaware of. I have come to a stage in my life where I feel old and mature enough (I am 31) as well as patient enough to give this issue some very serious thought. I thought that I owed it to my children to be well educated in this issue in order to give them the knowledge that they deserve.

It seems that it is totally irrelevant that a certain group may come up with a scientifically plausible theory regarding Noahs flood if the hypothesis regarding the flood comes from a body of work that has such a major short coming. If the body of work, in the original example, Genesis in the Bible, the important bit in my eyes, has no scientific grounding of any sort, then the rest seems to fall like a house of cards.

I would not be able to use a source to substantiate a claim to any of my clients if a major section of that source was based on nothing but magic. I can imagine the length of time my employment would continue for would be rather short.

I have ordered a series of books that have been mentioned by users in this forum. The Origin of Species, the Blind Watchmaker, the Greatest Show on Earth, Life Ascending, Why Evolution is True among others. I hope that these books, as well as the discussion on this site helps to educate me and arm me to support the side of science.

For me, the limited amount of Evolutionary theory studied in my degree, the few weeks I have been reading on the net and this discussion today have only left the one option.

I believe, for any rational person, that this should be pretty much case closed. (at least until someone comes up with a valid opposing theory anyway)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Larni, posted 06-29-2011 10:43 AM Larni has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Larni, posted 06-29-2011 1:05 PM Butterflytyrant has not yet responded

    
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 297 (621882)
06-29-2011 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Butterflytyrant
06-28-2011 10:52 AM


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

God said "let there be light" and then there was light. It would seem to be an ex nihilo emergence from god's will alone.

That cannot be scientifically investigated without repeating the phenomenon. I don't know how you're gonna get god to lay down on the lab bench...

heh, maybe he's a fan of planking

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

Simply unknown, the Bible doesn't get into it.

include evidence supporting this theory.

Impossible.

There's just not enough meat there for science to sink its teeth into.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Butterflytyrant, posted 06-28-2011 10:52 AM Butterflytyrant has not yet responded

  
Son
Member (Idle past 2090 days)
Posts: 346
From: France,Paris
Joined: 03-11-2009


(1)
Message 23 of 297 (621893)
06-29-2011 1:00 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Butterflytyrant
06-29-2011 9:54 AM


Re: Scientific theory of Genesis
I think I understand what you're trying to do. What I advised was to ask about their theory in "smaller chunks" in order to make things clearer. After all, a creationists shouldn't ask for a single theory from scientists about how the universe was created and came species to be there since several theories are needed to cover that (big bang, star generation, abiogenesis, evolution, etc...). So the equivalent from creationists should also be small chunks explaining each things. Of course, I'm speculating only since I've yet to actually see a creationist theory in the scientific science.

Edited by Son, : No reason given.

Edited by Son, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Butterflytyrant, posted 06-29-2011 9:54 AM Butterflytyrant has not yet responded

    
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 391 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 24 of 297 (621894)
06-29-2011 1:01 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Butterflytyrant
06-28-2011 10:52 AM


Re: Scientific theory of Genesis
quote:

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.


Interesting question. My first reaction is that your question is somewhat self-contradictory. Young-earth creationists (YECs) generally see a conflict between science and creation; they want to support creation in part by showing that scientific explanations fail. So why did they invent "creation science"? I think there are a number of political and other reasons, but the term is a bit of an oxymoron.

For their own description of "creation science", see their CreationWiki article: http://creationwiki.org/Creation_science. If you read between the lines (and if you've followed them at all) you will see that they are not trying to generate a comprehensive scientific theory for everything. What they are trying to do is to find errors in the current scientific paradigm so they can dismiss it, and to find scientific support for a fundamentally religious position. With only a few rare exceptions, their "science" consists of collecting isolated data points rather than developing a comprehensive theory.

Back to your question. I've never seen the YECs propose a scientific explanation for the origin of light. As others have said, I believe they want to see it as an unexplainable miracle. OEC (old-earth creationist) proponents, who do not hold to "creation science", tend to accept the dominant scientific paradigm. Hugh Ross, for example, associates the "let there be light" of Gen 1:3 with the end of the "dark ages" in the early universe.


"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein

“I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously.” – Erwin Schroedinger


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Butterflytyrant, posted 06-28-2011 10:52 AM Butterflytyrant has not yet responded

    
Larni
Member
Posts: 3990
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005
Member Rating: 7.2


Message 25 of 297 (621896)
06-29-2011 1:05 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Butterflytyrant
06-29-2011 11:52 AM


Re: Scientific theory of Genesis
I believe, for any rational person, that this should be pretty much case closed.

Welcome to the dark side. May your bullshit detectors never go off line.

As an aside, Carl Sagan's 'A Demon Haunted' world is also an excellent read: it has a lovely section about logical fallacies (vital for bullshit detectors).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Butterflytyrant, posted 06-29-2011 11:52 AM Butterflytyrant has not yet responded

    
SecondPeterThreeFive
Junior Member (Idle past 2916 days)
Posts: 5
Joined: 06-28-2011


Message 26 of 297 (621898)
06-29-2011 1:50 PM


Greetings everybody, I am new to the forum, but look forward to conversing with you all. As you can tell from my user name, I have a strong affinity for God's word, but I respect everyone's right to hold their beliefs.

The origin of light is the same whether you are an evolutionist, an atheist, a YEC or an OEC. Light today is generated from an energy source, like when electrons change quantum energy states.

The question really comes down to "what/who is the 'first mover'?"

Where did the electron come from, what/who instilled its initial energy, what/who created the physical laws that govern the physical relationships, is it possible to have energy before matter, etc.

These questions are all really about the first mover. How would an evolutionist answer these questions?

The creationist's answer is the universe originated from "God."
The atheist's answer is the universe originated from "nothing."

There is nothing particularly scientific about the "nothing" answer, and there is nothing particularly unscientific about the "God" answer.

Edited by SecondPeterThreeFive, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Larni, posted 06-29-2011 2:14 PM SecondPeterThreeFive has responded
 Message 28 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-29-2011 2:37 PM SecondPeterThreeFive has not yet responded

  
Larni
Member
Posts: 3990
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005
Member Rating: 7.2


Message 27 of 297 (621900)
06-29-2011 2:14 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by SecondPeterThreeFive
06-29-2011 1:50 PM


Hi, and welcome to EvC!

I think the point of this thread is for a christian creationist to explain in detail the Christian creationist theory for how light was created.

Implicit in this question (I would suggest) is that the creationist modle posits that creation is but 6k years old. If this is the case why does light reach us from over 6k light years away?

For a creator to create light with the appearance of age is deceptive, no?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by SecondPeterThreeFive, posted 06-29-2011 1:50 PM SecondPeterThreeFive has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by SecondPeterThreeFive, posted 06-29-2011 2:48 PM Larni has responded

    
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 297 (621904)
06-29-2011 2:37 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by SecondPeterThreeFive
06-29-2011 1:50 PM


The origin of light is the same whether you are an evolutionist, an atheist, a YEC or an OEC. Light today is generated from an energy source, like when electrons change quantum energy states

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 26 by SecondPeterThreeFive, posted 06-29-2011 1:50 PM SecondPeterThreeFive has not yet responded

  
SecondPeterThreeFive
Junior Member (Idle past 2916 days)
Posts: 5
Joined: 06-28-2011


Message 29 of 297 (621910)
06-29-2011 2:48 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Larni
06-29-2011 2:14 PM


Once you get past the quantum states change origin for light, I think both sides have a challenge in explaining the origin of light.

As to the appearance of the age of light being deceiving, we must recognize that we are assuming several things when we conclude that light is "old." Over time, we have stopped qualifying our conclusions with the requisite assumptions.

This is like asking the question, "Making the Earth appear to be the center of the universe was deceptive, no?"

Is God really deceiving us, or has man deceived himself with his own false assumptions and speculations?

For example, can we really know or prove that the speed of light is constant? or that the redshift is entirely due to recessional speed and not due to gravity or some other source of energy decay?

A God who could create the universe could create it in any state he wished. Some of you will say, "Well, that's not science," and I agree, but neither is any other speculation on the origins of the universe that are not observed, observable or testable.

Something doesn't "become science" merely because a scientist adopts it as his faith.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Larni, posted 06-29-2011 2:14 PM Larni has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by onifre, posted 06-29-2011 3:05 PM SecondPeterThreeFive has responded
 Message 31 by Son, posted 06-29-2011 3:36 PM SecondPeterThreeFive has not yet responded
 Message 32 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-29-2011 3:36 PM SecondPeterThreeFive has not yet responded
 Message 35 by Larni, posted 06-29-2011 4:37 PM SecondPeterThreeFive has not yet responded
 Message 37 by AZPaul3, posted 06-29-2011 7:48 PM SecondPeterThreeFive has not yet responded

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 1211 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 30 of 297 (621913)
06-29-2011 3:05 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by SecondPeterThreeFive
06-29-2011 2:48 PM


For example, can we really know or prove that the speed of light is constant? or that the redshift is entirely due to recessional speed and not due to gravity or some other source of energy decay?

Yes and yes, quite well actually.

Something doesn't "become science" merely because a scientist adopts it as his faith.

You seem to be equating science with atheism.

You said earlier that people of faith believe god created the universe, and that atheist believe nothing did. Now you're saying scientist have adopted a 'faith' about the origin of the universe.

So are all scientist atheist, and all of science based off of atheism?

- Oni

Edited by onifre, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by SecondPeterThreeFive, posted 06-29-2011 2:48 PM SecondPeterThreeFive has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by SecondPeterThreeFive, posted 06-29-2011 3:55 PM onifre has not yet responded

    
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019