What is the creation science theory of the origin of light?

So it is not science. Yet you guys want to convince people to "teach the controvercy" in science class?

As this is a science forum, no, evolutionists won’t have a theory of the origin of light, as light is not a living organism and can’t pass on genes. Physicists do have very convincing and tested theories on where light comes from. Oh, evolution has got a very solid scientific basis and also a theory on the origin of species. Genes do change with every generation. All observed, even in labs.You don’t have a theory on how light originates, you don’t want to provide data, but you criticize biologists because they don’t study light?The object of this thread is to provide a creationist 'scientific' theory on where light comes from, not to criticize biologists who provide a theory on where existing species come from. Edited by Pressie, : Changed last sentence

Could you give us a description of what they described, as I can’t find any of their research in peer-reviewed scientific publications.Everybody can write a book if they have enough funds to get it published. The difficult part of science is to get your research critiqued by your peers and then getting your findings accepted by the consensus of specialists. Without that you don’t follow the scientific method. Without that it is not science. Just pseudo-science.You can write any nonsense without these important steps. But it still isn’t science, no matter how many times you pretend that it is science. It isn’t. It surely cannot be called a scientific theory without it. If you describe it as a theory in a scientific thread, you don't tell the truth.You did describe it as a "creation theory". Not scientific. Why do the people you referred to as writing those books keep on pretending that they do science?'Edited by Pressie, : Added a sentenceEdited by Pressie, : Added paragraphs

Hallo Minority Report No, what scientists believe have no bearing on science. For example, nearly all Christian physicists, cosmologists, etc. have accepted the standard model. They also are "creation believing" scientists. Therefore I don’t see how the words creation believing can have anything to do with what we discuss in a science forum like this. What individual scientists believe or not doesn’t change science. It’s the empirical evidence that matters in science. Beliefs don’t. Nope. As has been pointed out to you, The Journal of Creation (formerly TJ) is nowhere near a scientific journal. It also is only ‘peer-reviewed’ by people with a fixed belief. A belief that will never change, regardless of whether the evidence contradicts their belief or not. Therefore a religious publication like TJ surely is not scientific. It is exactly the opposite of what a scientific journal is.I asked for peer-reviewed scientific journals in Message 44: You know that peer-reviewed scientific journals are the way research is distributed amongst relevant scientists where they can critique an article and accept or reject the findings? Without publishing in peer-reviewed scientific journals, relevant scientists don't even know about those articles to critique them. The scientific community can therefore not reach any kind of consensus about them. Therefore it can never even be called science.Then you continue: No, any person who doesn’t follow the scientific method, doesn’t do science. The examples you provided were of two people who stopped using the scientific method when they wrote those so-called articles. They would therefore be classified as pseudo-scientists in the real world. That’s it.Would you please answer the questions posted by Butterflytyrant?Edited by Pressie, : Changed spellingEdited by Pressie, : More spelling mistakesEdited by Pressie, : Changed a sentenceEdited by Pressie, : No reason given.

No, Minority report.When scientists communicate in peer-reviewed scientific publications, words do have a very specific significance. This is all done for the simple reason that the thousands of scientists in, for example China, should also be able grasp the implication of the word "evolutionist" when it is translated into Mandarin. The scientific meaning of the word "evolutionist", in science, is "a person who studies evolutionary biology". Nothing else.Creationists call geologists who date rocks, for example, "evolutionists". It is completely wrong in a scientific sense. The creationists only do it to mislead people.I know creationists don't have the foggiest about anything scientific, but words do have very specific implications in science.