Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 83 (8942 total)
38 online now:
Heathen, jar, kjsimons, Percy (Admin), Theodoric (5 members, 33 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: John Sullivan
Upcoming Birthdays: Anish
Post Volume: Total: 863,368 Year: 18,404/19,786 Month: 824/1,705 Week: 76/518 Day: 2/74 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What is the creation science theory of the origin of light?
Minority Report
Member (Idle past 1436 days)
Posts: 66
From: N.S.W Australia
Joined: 05-25-2009


Message 46 of 297 (622039)
06-30-2011 8:54 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Butterflytyrant
06-29-2011 3:15 AM


What is this forum about ?
Hello Butterflytyrant,

It is becoming clear that the topic for this debate is just a side issue to what you really want.

What I am looking for is the opposing set of scientific theories...Particularly with relation to the creation of the universe and the creation of the earth

Well then, perhapps the title of this forum should have been 'List of creation scientific theories'.

Would you be interested in 'information theory' as proposed by Werner Gitt.
What about 'An ice Age caused by the Genesis flood' theory, as proposed byMichael Oard.
Let's not forget 'Design theory' originally by Paley but currently presented by Jonathan Sarfati in his book 'By Design'.
Pasteurs Law 'life only comes from life'.
Michael Behe's theory of the irreducible complexity of living organisms.
Catastrophic plate tectonic 'runaway subduction theory' by John Baumgardner.
The 'Floating mat' theory for the origin of coal by Steve Austin.
'Cave formation as the result of the flood' theory by DR Emil Silvestru.
etc.
etc.
etc.

Is this what you really want to know???Then perhapps you need to propose a new topic which reflects what you really want to know, instead of asking a silly question for the sole purpose of establishing your own forum with no focus in particular.

Edited by Minority Report, : No reason given.


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 47 by Admin, posted 06-30-2011 9:11 AM Minority Report has not yet responded
 Message 52 by Butterflytyrant, posted 06-30-2011 10:20 AM Minority Report has not yet responded

    
Admin
Director
Posts: 12630
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002


Message 47 of 297 (622040)
06-30-2011 9:11 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by Minority Report
06-30-2011 8:54 AM


Re: What is this forum about ?
Hi Minority Report,

Butterflytyrant originally proposed a much more broad topic, but I requested that he narrow the focus. If BFT has no objection then I think it would be fine if you shifted the focus onto one the topics you mentioned, but only one of them, or at least only one at a time.

You can also propose your own threads over at Proposed New Topics.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Minority Report, posted 06-30-2011 8:54 AM Minority Report has not yet responded

    
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 2704 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


Message 48 of 297 (622042)
06-30-2011 9:52 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by Minority Report
06-30-2011 5:42 AM


Re: Moderator on Duty
Can one of the mods send me the info on how to include quotes in a post please.

Quote from Minority report

"Let me ask you this. Do evolutionists have a testable theory for what happened in the billion years leading up to the big bang? I'm sorry I didn't hear you, what was that, you don't have a theory, why not? Well then that settles it then, evolution has no scientific basis without a theory to explain what caused the origin of the universe."

Three things.

1. Evolutionists would most likely not be supplying or testing theories regarding the pre big bang period. It is not their field.

2. This would be something that could be included in the spreadsheet i was talking about. The time period before the big bang. This is an equal opportunity idea. I dont see any reason why it could not be included.

3. Creation scientists claim to provide scientific support for the Genesis creation narrative in the Book of Genesis. I am challenging them regarding this claim. If a theory about the origins of our world proves to be wrong (Stephen Hawking has said he was wrong about some of his original thoughts on black holes) that does absolutely nothing to the theory of evolution. The fields are very different. They operate independantly of one another. However, the parts of Genesis do not work independantly. **correct me if I am wrong with any scripture, I admit i am no theology expert** They are one work. If one element of the story of Genesis cannot be proven (or even have a theory suggested by the groups that claim they are creation scientists) then at the very least, it created serious problems of credability for the remaining elements.

But we are getting of topic. I am not on any side here as yet. I support science. Which means I am equally willing to accept scientific theories from any source as long as it can be backed up.

your comment felt a little like a straw man to me.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Minority Report, posted 06-30-2011 5:42 AM Minority Report has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Son, posted 06-30-2011 10:04 AM Butterflytyrant has not yet responded
 Message 57 by Minority Report, posted 07-02-2011 8:51 AM Butterflytyrant has responded

    
Son
Member (Idle past 2112 days)
Posts: 346
From: France,Paris
Joined: 03-11-2009


Message 49 of 297 (622044)
06-30-2011 10:04 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by Butterflytyrant
06-30-2011 9:52 AM


Re: Moderator on Duty
For quotes, you can "peek" at messages that uses them.
What you should be writing is
*name* writes:

*message*


You can peek at my message to see how it's done. To do that, you can press the button at the bottom right of my message.

Edited by Son, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Butterflytyrant, posted 06-30-2011 9:52 AM Butterflytyrant has not yet responded

    
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 50 of 297 (622045)
06-30-2011 10:10 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by Butterflytyrant
06-30-2011 12:37 AM


Re: Creation Light Theory
once a debate has reached a conclusion

You must be new here...

From the amount of reading I have done recently, it appears that creationists (particularly Young Earth Creationists) are muddying the waters and trying to make it seem as if they have an equal or greater amount of work supporting their positions.

Absolutely. Now, its not that all the laypeople are evil, its that they as congregations are being lied to and creationists are breed to be lazy thinkers. An average person claiming that there are Creation Science Theories probably heard it from someone else and never bothered to look for themselves if there actually was. Somewhere at the top, though, there's got to be the evil liars who are propagating it all. Have you heard of the Wedge Document? <-- clicky

But with sufficient digging (I am a researcher, its my thing) a lot of it seems to be the same inofrmation over and over again, or information that has been refuted a number of times.

Correct again, Sir! We even see where the original propagater makes some sort of typo, say writing 1976 instead of 1967, and then every other creationist that uses their work has obviosuly never bothered to check anything because they're all using the wrong number. IIRC (if i remember correctly), they've even based whole calulations that they think refutes evolution on a simple typo that could have easily been found if they simply looked up the orginal source and read it for themselves.

I believe that it would be of benefit to the regular Joe who does not want to wade through all of this info to have a resource like this.

I dunno... The regular Joe who's sitting in church hatin' on evolution with the rest of the congregation is being spoonfed creationist lies faster than you can reach him with a spreadsheet. Besides, if you're not showing creationism in a positive light, then you must be one of them there EVILutionists. So why should he trust it? More than the word of god!?


ABE (added by edit)

The time period before the big bang.

There's no such thing.

Edited by Catholic Scientist, : see ABE


This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Butterflytyrant, posted 06-30-2011 12:37 AM Butterflytyrant has not yet responded

  
Minority Report
Member (Idle past 1436 days)
Posts: 66
From: N.S.W Australia
Joined: 05-25-2009


Message 51 of 297 (622047)
06-30-2011 10:15 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by Pressie
06-30-2011 6:42 AM


Hello Pressie,

Could you give us a description of what they described

Sure. This is from www.conservapedia.com/Starlight_problem which explains what I would struggle to;

In 1994 Dr. Russell Humphreys proposed a new cosmology[13] that includes a bounded universe with a center and an edge, that God had created 6,000 years ago as a much smaller body than today, then stretched it out, making it much larger. In Humphreys' model, because the universe has a center and an edge (unlike the unbounded model of the Big Bang universe), the center of the universe is also the center of a gravity well, meaning that gravity is stronger at the center of the universe than at the edge.

As gravity can affect the rate at which time passes, he calculated that while the six days of creation week were passing on Earth, billions of years' of time was passing at the edge of the universe. According to this idea, the Biblical references to time are according to an observer (real or imaginary) on Earth, so ages are given in "Earth time".

However, this theory is not without problems. The evidence contradicts Humphrey's assumption that the earth is in a large gravity well. If the earth were in such a gravity well, light from distant galaxies should be blue-shifted. Instead, it is red-shifted. Also, gravitational time dilation, if it existed on such a large scale, should be easily observable. On the contrary, we observe (from the periods of Cepheid variable stars, from orbital rates of binary stars, from supernova extinction rates, from light frequencies, etc.) that such time dilation is minor. It is thought that here is some time dilation corresponding with Hubble's law (i.e., further objects have greater red shifts), but this is due to the well-understood expansion of the universe, and it is not nearly extreme enough to fit more than ten billion years into less than 10,000.[14]

This model receives cautious but wide support among creationists.

Dr. John Hartnett, a creationist physicist, spurred by Humphreys' model, has proposed an alternative time dilation model, by theorizing the Earth was in a time-dilation field during the first few days of creation, from Earth's point of view, while billions of years passed for the rest of the universe. According to the Bible, God "stretched out"[15] the heavens (space), and this movement during creation week caused time to travel faster for those objects, in accordance with Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity, adding to the time dilation caused by gravity, per Humphreys, in accordance with Einstein's General Theory of Relativity.[16]

I won't pretent to understand physics, especially relativity, gravity's effect on time etc. I am merely presenting this to demonstrate that there are creationist theories out there by physicists regarding light.

You did describe it as a "creation theory". Not scientific.

They are theories proposed by creation believing scientists, and are published in peer review journals such as TJ. That makes them scientific.

Why do the people you referred to as writing those books keep on pretending that they do science?'

Because they are physicists who have or have had a paid day job to do physics.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Pressie, posted 06-30-2011 6:42 AM Pressie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Theodoric, posted 06-30-2011 4:03 PM Minority Report has responded
 Message 55 by Pressie, posted 07-01-2011 12:52 AM Minority Report has not yet responded

    
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 2704 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


Message 52 of 297 (622050)
06-30-2011 10:20 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by Minority Report
06-30-2011 8:54 AM


Re: What is this forum about ?
Hello Minority report,

I am still interested in the original question. It was an honestly asked question. I did have a larger group of questions but had trouble getting it through to start of with. The opposing set of theories I am looking for are the theories provided by creation scientists that back up and explain the genesis story.

I checked your suggested info - Gitt does not really have any connection with Evolution and the first four links i found when a searched for his work were thorough critiques.
I will continue to read the others though.

As I have said previously, but probably not clearly enough, the bit I am really interested in is the First narrative: creation week. I started with let there be light because that where it starts.

Genesis 1:3–2:4

The creation week consists of eight divine commands executed over six days, followed by a seventh day of rest.

First day: God (Elohim) creates light ("Let there be light!")[Gen 1:3]—the first divine command. The light is divided from the darkness, and "day" and "night" are named.
Second day: God creates a firmament ("Let a firmament be...!")[Gen 1:6–7]—the second command—to divide the waters above from the waters below. The firmament is named "skies".
Third day: God commands the waters below to be gathered together in one place, and dry land to appear (the third command).[Gen 1:9–10] "earth" and "sea" are named. God commands the earth to bring forth grass, plants, and fruit-bearing trees (the fourth command).
Fourth day: God creates lights in the firmament (the fifth command)[Gen 1:14–15] to separate light from darkness and to mark days, seasons and years. Two great lights are made (most likely the Sun and Moon, but not named), and the stars.
Fifth day: God commands the sea to "teem with living creatures", and birds to fly across the heavens (sixth command)[Gen 1:20–21] He creates birds and sea creatures, and commands them to be fruitful and multiply.
Sixth day: God commands the land to bring forth living creatures (seventh command);[Gen 1:24–25] He makes wild beasts, livestock and reptiles. He then creates humanity in His "image" and "likeness" (eighth command).[Gen 1:26–28] They are told to "be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it." The totality of creation is described by God as "very good."
Seventh day: God, having completed the heavens and the earth, rests from His work, and blesses and sanctifies the seventh day.

It was not a side issue, but the first part of a larger issue.

Your title suggestion is not far off what I had in mind but would be way too broad (as was advised by the admin folks). I have actually seen a lot of the sort of information you have suggested i look at. However, I am asking for the theories that I have not already seen. I chose the part of the bible that I thought was one of the most important bits and the part that I have read creation scientists are claiming scientific evidence for. I am asking for the theories and the evidence.

This is not an attack. It seems that my requests quickly make people grumpy. I am not trying to piss anyone off here. I am asking for scientific theories for a particular area of creation that i feel to be very important.

"Is this what you really want to know???Then perhapps you need to propose a new topic which reflects what you really want to know, instead of asking a silly question for the sole purpose of establishing your own forum with no focus in particular."

Was this really necessary? You ask me if this is what i wanted to know, then without an answer attack me. The answer is no. That is not what i wanted to know. And not what I asked about in the original question. My later post regarding a spreadsheet with all of the combined theories was off topic (consider me suitably chastised) but it seemed like a good idea.

My question was not silly. There was a focus. Would you care to have a stab at answering the question rather than running roughshod over the guy with 8 posts?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Minority Report, posted 06-30-2011 8:54 AM Minority Report has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Chuck77, posted 07-01-2011 2:05 AM Butterflytyrant has not yet responded

    
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6654
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 53 of 297 (622092)
06-30-2011 4:03 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Minority Report
06-30-2011 10:15 AM


and are published in peer review journals such as TJ. That makes them scientific.

Nope.

Here are the guidelines for Journal of Creation(formerly TJ)

quote:
Journal of Creation is dedicated to upholding the authority of the 66 books of the Bible, especially in the area of origins. All our editors adhere to the Creation Ministries International (CMI) Statement of Faith and most papers will be designed to support this.

Source

Now lets look at the CMI Statement of Faith.

quote:
What we believe
STATEMENT OF FAITH
(See also “Good News ”)
(A) PRIORITIES

The scientific aspects of creation are important, but are secondary in importance to the proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ as Sovereign, Creator, Redeemer and Judge.
The doctrines of Creator and Creation cannot ultimately be divorced from the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

(B) BASICS

The 66 books of the Bible are the written Word of God. The Bible is divinely inspired and inerrant throughout. Its assertions are factually true in all the original autographs. It is the supreme authority, not only in all matters of faith and conduct, but in everything it teaches. Its authority is not limited to spiritual, religious or redemptive themes but includes its assertions in such fields as history and science.
The final guide to the interpretation of Scripture is Scripture itself.
The account of origins presented in Genesis is a simple but factual presentation of actual events and therefore provides a reliable framework for scientific research into the question of the origin and history of life, mankind, the Earth and the universe.
The various original life forms (kinds), including mankind, were made by direct creative acts of God. The living descendants of any of the original kinds (apart from man) may represent more than one species today, reflecting the genetic potential within the original kind. Only limited biological changes (including mutational deterioration) have occurred naturally within each kind since Creation.
The great Flood of Genesis was an actual historic event, worldwide (global) in its extent and effect.
The special creation of Adam (the first man) and Eve (the first woman), and their subsequent fall into sin, is the basis for the necessity of salvation for mankind.
Death (both physical and spiritual) and bloodshed entered into this world subsequent to, and as a direct consequence of, man’s sin.

(C) THEOLOGY

The Godhead is triune: one God, three Persons—God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.
All mankind are sinners, inherently from Adam and individually (by choice) and are therefore subject to God’s wrath and condemnation.
Freedom from the penalty and power of sin is available to man only through the sacrificial death and shed blood of Jesus Christ, and His complete and bodily Resurrection from the dead.
The Holy Spirit enables the sinner to repent and believe in Jesus Christ.
The Holy Spirit lives and works in each believer to produce the fruits of righteousness.
Salvation is a gift received by faith alone in Christ alone and expressed in the individual’s repentance, recognition of the death of Christ as full payment for sin, and acceptance of the risen Christ as Saviour, Lord and God.
All things necessary for our salvation are set down in Scripture.
Jesus Christ was conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of the virgin Mary.
Jesus Christ rose bodily from the dead, ascended to Heaven, is currently seated at the right hand of God the Father, and shall return in like manner to this Earth as Judge of the living and the dead.
Satan is the personal spiritual adversary of both God and man.
Those who do not believe in Christ are subject to everlasting conscious punishment, but believers enjoy eternal life with God.

(D) GENERAL

The following are held by members of the Boards (Directors) of Creation Ministries International to be either consistent with Scripture or implied by Scripture:

Scripture teaches a recent origin for man and the whole creation.
The days in Genesis do not correspond to geologic ages, but are six [6] consecutive twenty-four [24] hour days of Creation.
The Noachian Flood was a significant geological event and much (but not all) fossiliferous sediment originated at that time.
The ‘gap’ theory has no basis in Scripture. Nor has the day-age idea (so-called ‘progressive creation’), or the Framework Hypothesis or theistic evolution.
The view, commonly used to evade the implications or the authority of Biblical teaching, that knowledge and/or truth may be divided into ‘secular’ and ‘religious’, is rejected.
By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.


Kind of makes it not-Science doesn't it.

No scientific journals have a statement of faith. The Journal of Creation is pure religion, nothing more.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Minority Report, posted 06-30-2011 10:15 AM Minority Report has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Minority Report, posted 07-02-2011 9:24 AM Theodoric has not yet responded

    
Taq
Member
Posts: 8081
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 54 of 297 (622095)
06-30-2011 4:11 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Minority Report
06-30-2011 5:42 AM


Re: Moderator on Duty
There are creationist theories about light, such as that proposed by Russell Humphreys in his book 'Starlight and Time, solving the puzzle of distant starlight in a young universe'. Also another by John Hartnett in his book 'Starlight, time and the new physics'.

What testable predictions do these theories make, and how does one test them? For example, from my experience the theory put forth by Humphreys requires that distant galaxies be blue shifted. They are exactly the opposite. They are red shifted.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Minority Report, posted 06-30-2011 5:42 AM Minority Report has not yet responded

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2077
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 55 of 297 (622134)
07-01-2011 12:52 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by Minority Report
06-30-2011 10:15 AM


Hallo Minority Report

Minority report writes:

They are theories proposed by creation believing scientists,……….

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.

Minority report writes:

…. and are published in peer review journals such as TJ. That makes them scientific.

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:

Pressie writes:

Could you give us a description of what they described, as I can’t find any of their research in peer-reviewed scientific publications.


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:

Minority report writes:

Because they are physicists who have or have had a paid day job to do physics.

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 spelling

Edited by Pressie, : More spelling mistakes

Edited by Pressie, : Changed a sentence

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Minority Report, posted 06-30-2011 10:15 AM Minority Report has not yet responded

    
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 56 of 297 (622143)
07-01-2011 2:05 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by Butterflytyrant
06-30-2011 10:20 AM


Re: What is this forum about ?
**post deleted**

Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Butterflytyrant, posted 06-30-2011 10:20 AM Butterflytyrant has not yet responded

  
Minority Report
Member (Idle past 1436 days)
Posts: 66
From: N.S.W Australia
Joined: 05-25-2009


Message 57 of 297 (622309)
07-02-2011 8:51 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by Butterflytyrant
06-30-2011 9:52 AM


Re: Moderator on Duty
Hello Butterflytyrant,

Butterflytyrant writes:

The time period before the big bang. This is an equal opportunity idea. I dont see any reason why it could not be included.


Butterflytyrant writes:

your comment felt a little like a straw man to me

That's because my comment was a straw man....sort off. Firstly, I think I'd better explain as a few people did not understand what I meant by my question about time before the big bang.

I wrote

Yet after all this, in message 38 your still asking for a theory for the origin of light???? Let me ask you this. Do evolutionists have a testable theory for what happened in the billion years leading up to the big bang? I'm sorry I didn't hear you, what was that, you don't have a theory, why not? Well then that settles it then, evolution has no scientific basis without a theory to explain what caused the origin of the universe.

This was a rhetorical rant. I did not ask this question expecting an answer. I asked this question to highlight the fact that your original question is invalid. It is un-answerable in the same way that theorising about the time before the big bang is impossible. It was asked out of frustration, that you and others do not seem to understand the difference between the supernatural and the natural.

We can formulate theories about natural phenomena that exist within this universe after it started. We cannot formulate theories about supernatural events, or about things outside of our universe, or about things that happened before the universe existed.

I will ask you plainly. Do you now understand that your topic question is invalid?

Do you understand that your question has already been answered multiple times, and in many ways by a number of people, in that it cannot be answered?

Creation scientists claim to provide scientific support for the Genesis creation narrative

You seem to be implying from this and other statements, that creation scientists claim to have, or should have, scientific theories about the actual acts of creation during creation week. Is this what your original question, and this forum, all about?

As a side issue. When I asked do 'evolutionists' have a testable theory...., a few of you got a bit pedantic. I know very well that the term 'evolution' applies to biology. What you guys don't understand, is that this word has not been patented or registered and solely set aside for exclusive use by darwinian biologists. The term 'evolutionist' means simply 'people who believe in biological evolution'. When someone uses the term evolutionist, they are not only referring to biologists who believe in biological evolution, but also scientists from all fields who belive in biological evolution, or anyone who believes it. So to criticize me for asking 'evolutionists' for a theory in the field of physics, is extremely pedantic.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Butterflytyrant, posted 06-30-2011 9:52 AM Butterflytyrant has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Butterflytyrant, posted 07-02-2011 11:33 AM Minority Report has responded
 Message 69 by Pressie, posted 07-05-2011 7:22 AM Minority Report has not yet responded
 Message 71 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 07-12-2011 3:46 PM Minority Report has not yet responded

    
Minority Report
Member (Idle past 1436 days)
Posts: 66
From: N.S.W Australia
Joined: 05-25-2009


Message 58 of 297 (622313)
07-02-2011 9:24 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by Theodoric
06-30-2011 4:03 PM


Hello Theodoric,

Theodoric writes:

Kind of makes it not-Science doesn't it.

In the Basics section you presented it states;

The account of origins presented in Genesis is a simple but factual presentation of actual events and therefore provides a reliable framework for scientific research into the question of the origin and history of life, mankind, the Earth and the universe.

The basis is the Bible yes. But it is the "framework for scientific research into the question of the origin and history of life, mankind, the Earth and the universe". The articles are written by scientists, about scientific evidence supporting creation.

Kind of makes it scientific doesn't it?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Theodoric, posted 06-30-2011 4:03 PM Theodoric has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by jar, posted 07-02-2011 9:49 AM Minority Report has not yet responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 31451
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 59 of 297 (622315)
07-02-2011 9:49 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by Minority Report
07-02-2011 9:24 AM


There can never be "Creation Science"
No.

Creationism can never be scientific no matter how much they would like it to be.

As soon as you place preconditions on a subject, like the pre-condition that the Bible is factual, it stops being science.

Edited by jar, : fix subtitle


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Minority Report, posted 07-02-2011 9:24 AM Minority Report has not yet responded

  
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 2704 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


(1)
Message 60 of 297 (622328)
07-02-2011 11:33 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by Minority Report
07-02-2011 8:51 AM


Re: Moderator on Duty
Hello Minotrity report,

I dont think any question, if honestly asked is invalid. You asked a question about what happened before the big bang as a retorical question to show my question was invalid. Well, I dont think your question was invalid. I think trying to discover what happened before the big bang is a very important and valid question. Stephen Hawking, Paul Davies and may other physicists are actually working on an answer to that question. Google "what happened before the big bang" and you will find some interesting articles on the subject. Theorising about waht happened before the big bang is not only possible, it is occuring.

Creation science groups have declared that they are attempting to provide scientific theories and evidence to support the Genesis Creation narrative. If a group advises that they are attempting to do something, and I ask for information on that attempt, I am not asking an invalid question. I am asking for information that a group has said they can provide.

Let me put it another way, If you said "I am attempting to provide scientific evidence that aliens built the pyramids"
I would say "can i see your theory and its evidence please"

It would be strange to then turn to me ans say "that question is invalid"

I do understand the difference between the supernatural and the natural. Creation science groups are attempting to provide scientific evidence to support Genesis. I was asking for the scientific theory. I was not even asking for proof. All I was asking for is the best current idea they had. It is the creation science groups who have advised that they are working in the natural world. And it was these groups who I assumed would be able to provide me with the information.

Perhaps it is the creation scientists who do not understand the difference between the supernatural and the natural?

You argue (message 58) that a creation science group uses the Bible as the base for their ideas but then say this : "it is the "framework for scientific research into the question of the origin and history of life, mankind, the Earth and the universe". The articles are written by scientists, about scientific evidence supporting creation. Kind of makes it scientific doesn't it? "

Make up your mind.

you asked plainly and I will answer plainly, no, i do not understand why you believe my topic question was invalid, as it is not an invalid question.

You say that my question has been answered multiple times by many people in that it cannot be answered.

Catholic Scientist answered by discussing why he could not answer the question. He advised that the Bible did not provide enough information and it was unlikley a repeat of the phenomenon will occur to investigate.

Chuck77 had two great answers. One of them has been self edited as it was in no way a scientific theory (although it was a very poetic and somehow satisfying to read and think about). The other, the first reply, also lacks scientific validity but goes a lot further than most other replies to answer the question. It is a hypothesis.

There were a few answers where people said things like "There isn't one that I know of" and "I've never seen the YECs propose a scientific explanation for the origin of light". These answers do not mean that no theory exists. It just means that these people do not know of one. If you asked me what time it is and I say I dont know, it does not mean that time no longer exists.

Yes, I am saying that creation scientists should have theories regarding the acts of the creation week. Or at least a workable hypothesis. It seemed to me a fairly important section to have at least some ideas about. If creation scientists do not have any ideas, then that is fair enough. There is nothing wrong with saying that no workable theory currently eists to explain this phenomenon. Nothing wrong with that at all.

Would that be your answer?

That Creation Science has no theory of any kind related to the creation week narrative section regarding the creation of light (let there be light).

Can I assume that this answer goes for all of the other days in creation week also?

Are you confident enough in this answer to answer for all of the creation science world?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Minority Report, posted 07-02-2011 8:51 AM Minority Report has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Minority Report, posted 07-03-2011 5:59 AM Butterflytyrant has 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