Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8950 total)
32 online now:
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 867,233 Year: 22,269/19,786 Month: 832/1,834 Week: 332/500 Day: 31/64 Hour: 6/10


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


Message 91 of 297 (624149)
07-16-2011 8:19 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by Alfred Maddenstein
07-16-2011 7:18 AM


Re: what are the extra dimensions in aid of?
Has it occurred to you that there are some things in this world that you are not equipped to understand?

I know that's true of me.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 07-16-2011 7:18 AM Alfred Maddenstein has not yet responded

  
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2030
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 92 of 297 (624183)
07-16-2011 1:24 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by Alfred Maddenstein
07-16-2011 7:18 AM


Re: what are the extra dimensions in aid of?
then show how the math is incompatible with the evidence, include your work.


It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds
soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry
Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 07-16-2011 7:18 AM Alfred Maddenstein has not yet responded

  
Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 2310 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 93 of 297 (624252)
07-16-2011 6:54 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by cavediver
07-16-2011 7:33 AM


Re: what are the extra dimensions in aid of?
I read the thread, Crankdriver, and in it you are your usual vague and vacuous self. I am sorry, but you cannot neither define nor explain anything at all.
I defined in an earlier post what the familiar dimensions are in aid of in my view. I repeat: they are simply needed all at once- not one less and not one more- to enable motion and rest. Removing a single one of them gets relative objects stuck in relative motion while making the relative objects at relative rest non-existent. As simple as that. They are the intrinsic aspect of existence as I know it. An object in order to be able to move needs to be surrounded by void on all sides separating it from other relative objects serving as a reference to its motion and its rest.

Circumscribed by a sphere in other words. Defined as a separate physical entity as opposed to the rest of the existing entities and not as just an aspect of some other entities as a virtual particle, energy, field and the rest of similar abstractions are. Simplified that gives just two dimensions- space and time as height, width and depth should really be thought of as three inseparable aspects of a single dimension of space. Lacking any one of them stops all motion and physical existence science can deal with right in its tracks. Specified you get six aspects of these two dimensions- 3 spatial and three temporal. For the purposes of modelling each temporal aspect is orthogonal to one spatial and is parallel to another. That's all the needed and possible coordinates for you. Nothing extra.

You, on the other hand failed to provide any sensible explanation as to what is it exactly all the additional dimensions are adding to the above. Leaking is perfectly happy to take place in the familiar framework. Extra temporal dimension? To measure negative change and motion or what? Negative motion is already fully covered with the familiar positive motion in the opposite direction, I am afraid.

Colliding of brains does not seem to require anything extra either.
Just bash your head against the illustrious cranes of Susskind or Greene to get an observable collision in the common-or-garden fashion.

Now the core,staple postulate of the theory is vibrations while vibrate is again a type of motion fully enabled by the familiar observable dimensions.

Vibration of a string involves that string being attached and is defined by what it is being attached to and is coming from the resulting tension. That is elementary physics, something you learn in school and something you seem to be sadly ignorant of. In the thread there you dismally failed to explain how any purported vibration is possible while intrinsically lacking anything to be attached to. Next, vibration of a height-less objects are possible on theoretical paper only. I observe vibrating strings of my piano to be surrounded with empty space enabling the vibrations. On all sides. Otherwise, all the music is nipped in the bud. Thus whole concept seems to be nothing more but attributing physical existence of a territory to poorly executed maps.

Try travelling through a map from London to New York. Maps are cheap so it saves the price of an air ticket nicely, unfortunately is not possible quite. No justification of tensionless vibration is provided anywhere in the thread. All your descriptions leave with the impression that anything goes as long as it is supported by a set of equations fitting another set of numbers. Not good enough, I am afraid. With that level of vagueness instead of teaching physics you are fit to clean latrines only. There you can move the mop all over the place and satisfy the job requirements without a need for any definitions and further explanations.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by cavediver, posted 07-16-2011 7:33 AM cavediver has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by cavediver, posted 07-16-2011 7:20 PM Alfred Maddenstein has responded

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1986 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 94 of 297 (624253)
07-16-2011 7:20 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by Alfred Maddenstein
07-16-2011 6:54 PM


Re: what are the extra dimensions in aid of?
With that level of vagueness instead of teaching physics you are fit to clean latrines only.

I must admit that my first paid employment was indeed cleaning "latrines" - it must have been this on my CV that led the University of Cambridge to employ me to teach both physics and mathematics. Such insight, Alfred. If only you could apply it to science. Sadly, once again, your muddled verbosity simply reveals yet more ignorance. I would spend time explaining further the basics of String Theory, except that I have always had a policy of only teaching those that have a desire to learn. You know the adage: teaching the pig to sing is futile and furthermore annoys the pig. Of course, should anyone else have any questions, please post them in an appropriate thread and I'll do my best to find time to answer them.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 07-16-2011 6:54 PM Alfred Maddenstein has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 07-16-2011 8:47 PM cavediver has responded

  
Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 2310 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 95 of 297 (624256)
07-16-2011 8:47 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by cavediver
07-16-2011 7:20 PM


Re: what are the extra dimensions in aid of?
That is the only correct criticism, Crankdriver, your bring to the table. I did not have time enough to be succinct. When I have more time I'll find all the geodesics to connect all those points.
Otherwise, note, even if I copiously use ad hominems, my input unlike yours is not confined to them. If I sent you back to latrines anybody can read why. Whereas why you don't want to teach a pig like me to sing remains everybody's guess. You still can't explain to yourself what is the mechanism behind the unattached strings vibrating.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by cavediver, posted 07-16-2011 7:20 PM cavediver has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by cavediver, posted 07-17-2011 5:31 AM Alfred Maddenstein has responded

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 2011 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 96 of 297 (624261)
07-16-2011 10:06 PM


LET THERE BE LIGHT.
quote:
Please supply the scientific theory of how God created light when he said "let there be light".

To put this in better perspective, the first point is that light as a created entity, as well as being one of the primodial products of the universe - is first recorded in Genesis.

Re its scientific theory. The term science yet did not exist; Genesis is the first allusion to the faculty of science and cosmology. Rather than use the term science, I would suggest the use of logic and coherence, and the absence of any alternatives applying. Genesis not only says light is the first product in the universe [plausable and logical], but also shows how it was created. According to Genesis, the universe is finite [there was a BEGINNING] - perhaps the first and most impacting scientific premise ever recorded. Next Genesis says there was the universe but no laws yet existed: V2 says that there was yet no form in the universe. Namely, nothing was identfiable and all was one mush. Here, there was no light and no darkness; no energy, space, time, matter. Of course we cannot imagine this state, but we cannot deny it either: if there was no universe once, then everything universe contained would also not yet exist - not even laws. This is scientifically credible and encumbent.

Next up we are told LAWS were embedded; namely, the 'formless' was turned to the 'formed'. This then is the point of science ushering into the universe, because science is based on laws. There was no science or laws before this point. It is 100% a viable premise, laws being a result of cause & effect. No alternatives can apply.

Next we get to what was created and in which order - and also how and why! Genesis then says the first created product was light. How? Based on laws being ushered in the universe/V2; and by seperating light from all else [He seperated the light from the darkness/V3]. Here, the 'seperation' is most impacting: when delved into, a created thing is nothing other than something seperated from other things - because all things already existed, only applied differently. We can accept light predating stars: a star cannot produce light unless light pre-existed. The WHY factor of light is also clearly stated in Genesis: as a pre-requisite for life, stars, galaxies and as enegy to drive the whole construct; light is agreless and the transcendent velosity, able to cater to all other universal components. This why factor becomes more clarified when we check the follow-up products listed in Genesis. These are:
Seperation of the day [introducted to humanity for the first time, as was the 'week'] and night. Here we see a focusing on our solar system instead of the universe, because of the subject matter - it is now addressing this planet and its life forms. Here, our sun's light was critically focused to produce specifically sufficient light and darkess aniticipating a host of life forms. We get closer to earth with the next seperation of water from land - the pre-requisite for the variety of life and terrains.

Indeed, not evolution, but the seperation factors listed in genesis becomes the pivital factors for life: there was yet no evolution, nor can life exist without the Genesis listings. These seperations also account for billions and millions of years in time, negating any suggestion Genesis refers to 6000 years as the life of earth.

Genesis then goes to show where evolution comes in, an after the fact process as its hard wiring of precedent laws, including the correct protocol of life forms from veg to humans; the first listing of life forms by terrain [more fundamental than skeletal and dna factors], the seed acting as the chip of the host, able to transmit its data and the ability to continue the process. All of Darwin's premises become a direct lift-off from Genesis!

quote:

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


Light could not have occured by other elements or processes - these never existed at this point. Light is a result of seperation, by virtue of laws initiated for the first time in the universe, and their embedding in the mush [void] with specific attributes to attain a pre-directed result. How else!?

quote:

include evidence supporting this theory.


There cannot be evidences outside of the genesis premise: else the finite factor would be violated. Evidences infer pre-uni entities and observers. Understand the hedy thresholds depicted by Genesis correctly - it is deceptively simple to cater to all generations; it transcends our current meagre knowledge which will most surely change in 50 years. Genesis is 1000's of years old and the first alphabetical book.

Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by Coyote, posted 07-16-2011 10:25 PM IamJoseph has responded
 Message 99 by Butterflytyrant, posted 07-16-2011 11:38 PM IamJoseph has responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 449 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 97 of 297 (624263)
07-16-2011 10:25 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by IamJoseph
07-16-2011 10:06 PM


Re: LET THERE BE LIGHT.
There cannot be evidences outside of the genesis premise: else the finite factor would be violated. Evidences infer pre-uni entities and observers. Understand the hedy thresholds depicted by Genesis correctly - it is deceptively simple to cater to all generations; it transcends our current meagre knowledge which will most surely change in 50 years. Genesis is 1000's of years old and the first alphabetical book.

You forgot to include "Amen" at the end of your post, because it certainly does not reflect what science is investigating or theorizing.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by IamJoseph, posted 07-16-2011 10:06 PM IamJoseph has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by IamJoseph, posted 07-16-2011 10:35 PM Coyote has responded

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 2011 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 98 of 297 (624265)
07-16-2011 10:35 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by Coyote
07-16-2011 10:25 PM


Re: LET THERE BE LIGHT.
Have you not forgotten to state which universe you are discussing - a finite or infinite one? State your preamble before the amen.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Coyote, posted 07-16-2011 10:25 PM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by Coyote, posted 07-16-2011 11:47 PM IamJoseph has responded

  
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 2765 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


Message 99 of 297 (624269)
07-16-2011 11:38 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by IamJoseph
07-16-2011 10:06 PM


Re: LET THERE BE LIGHT.
Genesis not only says light is the first product in the universe [plausable and logical]

How is it plausible or logical that light is the first product of the universe?

Light is electromagnetic radiation. It is emitted from many sources. But it alsways has a source. So it would be illogical to say that light was created without a source.

Also, plausible, as in seeming reasonable, is a relative term. I do not see Genesis as plausible at all. I would say it is totally implausible.

The term science yet did not exist

This makes no difference. Just because the word did not exist does not change anything. The word science did not exist when gravity became a factor on the planet, but this does nothing to change the fact that gravity was present.

Genesis is the first allusion to the faculty of science and cosmology

Seriously? You believe that Genesis is the first reference to science and cosmology? There have been myths and legends regarding the sun and stars more than a thousand years before the Christian era. Google cosmology timeline for more info. In ancient Sumer, in 3500 BCE, people were recording observations with accurate numerical data.

According to Genesis, the universe is finite [there was a BEGINNING] - perhaps the first and most impacting scientific premise ever recorded.

Do you really believe that anything in the bible is the first scientific premise ever recorded? Or indeed the premise that has the most impact? If tomorrow, it is proven either way, that the univese in finite or infinite, what impact do you believe this will have? At the moment, it is unknown and it is not making much of an impact. Who do you believe that this is imacting so significantly? Do you believe that the bronze age people in the bible would have been impacted by this knowledge?

Next we get to what was created and in which order - and also how and why!

This is what i am interested in, the how part. I dont need to know the why part really. Are you refering to why as in intent? In nature there is no intent. Rain does not weather a rock with intent.

How? Based on laws being ushered in the universe/V2; and by seperating light from all else [He seperated the light from the darkness/V3]. Here, the 'seperation' is most impacting: when delved into, a created thing is nothing other than something seperated from other things - because all things already existed, only applied differently.

Can you explain this in more detail please. based on laws ushered into the universe is a bit broad. A created thing is nothing other than something seperated from other things? What about the things that you are saying were created from nothing or the things that are created form the combinations of other things?

We can accept light predating stars: a star cannot produce light unless light pre-existed.

whoa!!! Hold on there! Can WE accept that? I cant. Tht does not make any sense at all. A star cannot produce light unless light pre-existed? That is like saying a suasage machine cannot create a sausage without sausages pre-existing. Light is a product. Your statement is not even logical let alone plausible.

The WHY factor of light is also clearly stated in Genesis: as a pre-requisite for life, stars, galaxies and as enegy to drive the whole construct; light is agreless and the transcendent velosity, able to cater to all other universal components. This why factor becomes more clarified when we check the follow-up products listed in Genesis.

Can you provide the scripture? Can you provide where it states that light was created for the purpose of sustaining life? Can you provide the scripture that states that light was created for stars and galaxies? What does "light is agreless (ageless?) and the transcendent velosity, able to cater to all other universal components" mean? I am not sure that makes sense. Can you clarify and elaborate please?

Here, our sun's light was critically focused to produce specifically sufficient light and darkess aniticipating a host of life forms.

Can you eloborate please. What does critically focused mean? It looks like you are suggesting that sufficient light was created in anticipation of animals and plants? Do you not think that the plants an animals are a product of the amount of light supplied by the sun? Does this not make more sense?

We get closer to earth with the next seperation of water from land - the pre-requisite for the variety of life and terrains.

Who is to say that the seperation of land and water is a prerequisite for life? I do not believe this to be true. I do not believe your version of events at all.

Indeed, not evolution, but the seperation factors listed in genesis becomes the pivital factors for life: there was yet no evolution, nor can life exist without the Genesis listings

Some of this I agree with. There was no evolution in the Genesis myth. Biological Evolution is has nothing to do with the creation of the universe. What do you mean by " the pivital factorsfactors of life" and whay do you seem to believe that Evolution has made claims to them? Life can exist without the Genesis listings, it does. Perhaps you could rephrase that as I may be misunderstanding what you are saying.

Light could not have occured by other elements or processes - these never existed at this point. Light is a result of seperation, by virtue of laws initiated for the first time in the universe, and their embedding in the mush [void] with specific attributes to attain a pre-directed result. How else!?

seriously? how about nuclear fusion?

There cannot be evidences outside of the genesis premise: else the finite factor would be violated. Evidences infer pre-uni entities and observers.

Can you clarify? Are you suggesting that there cannot be evidence for any other theory other than the Genesis creation myth?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by IamJoseph, posted 07-16-2011 10:06 PM IamJoseph has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by IamJoseph, posted 07-17-2011 1:28 AM Butterflytyrant has responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 449 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 100 of 297 (624271)
07-16-2011 11:47 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by IamJoseph
07-16-2011 10:35 PM


Re: LET THERE BE LIGHT.
Have you not forgotten to state which universe you are discussing - a finite or infinite one? State your preamble before the amen.

The universe observed and described by scientists, what else?

In the Science Forum, what other universe is there to discuss?


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by IamJoseph, posted 07-16-2011 10:35 PM IamJoseph has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by IamJoseph, posted 07-17-2011 12:47 AM Coyote has not yet responded

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 2011 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 101 of 297 (624275)
07-17-2011 12:47 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by Coyote
07-16-2011 11:47 PM


Re: LET THERE BE LIGHT.
Better I should ignore your posts. You contribute nothing to the thread with your cynical one liners like say amen.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Coyote, posted 07-16-2011 11:47 PM Coyote has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by Butterflytyrant, posted 07-17-2011 12:53 AM IamJoseph has responded

  
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 2765 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


Message 102 of 297 (624276)
07-17-2011 12:53 AM
Reply to: Message 101 by IamJoseph
07-17-2011 12:47 AM


Re: LET THERE BE LIGHT.
How about my post?

Coyotes post was merely pointing out that your last paragraph did not reflect current scientific theories or investigations. I happen to agree with that statement.

Ignoring his (her?) post wont change his point.

Edited by Butterflytyrant, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by IamJoseph, posted 07-17-2011 12:47 AM IamJoseph has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by IamJoseph, posted 07-17-2011 1:39 AM Butterflytyrant has not yet responded

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 2011 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 103 of 297 (624279)
07-17-2011 1:28 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by Butterflytyrant
07-16-2011 11:38 PM


Re: LET THERE BE LIGHT.
quote:
How is it plausible or logical that light is the first product of the universe?

Light is electromagnetic radiation. It is emitted from many sources. But it alsways has a source. So it would be illogical to say that light was created without a source.


The fact that light can be ignited by certain interactions does not mean those interactions produced light per se. Unless light was an already existing pre-product the sun's nuclear interactions would be unable to produce light. We know that light can be produced by numerous means, including a simple torch battery: but we did not create the light. Even the BBT posits by default light was the first factor issued by an explosion: this also means the light pre-dated that explosion. Of all the processes which produce light, we find that the light alone has attributes not shared by any others: it is ageless and of a transcendent velosity greater than any energy input. Consider how much energy is required to attain the speed of light?

quote:
Also, plausible, as in seeming reasonable, is a relative term. I do not see Genesis as plausible at all. I would say it is totally implausible.

I have learnt most from Genesis in understanding the sciences. It contains knowledge not yet seen in science or ignored: like the universe could not have been initiated with a pristine singular enetity. I listed many factors of Genesis in my post, including the introduction of a finite universe, the DAY & the WEEK and the first advanced alphabetical book. These are very impacting.

quote:

The term science yet did not exist

This makes no difference. Just because the word did not exist does not change anything. The word science did not exist when gravity became a factor on the planet, but this does nothing to change the fact that gravity was present.


IMHO, the very premise of science was ushered in with Genesis, which is a document based only on laws as the fulcrum factor. This is also seen in its laws of Judiciary, Morality, ethics, etc. It is not a 'belief' based document.

quote:

Genesis is the first allusion to the faculty of science and cosmology

Seriously? You believe that Genesis is the first reference to science and cosmology? There have been myths and legends regarding the sun and stars more than a thousand years before the Christian era. Google cosmology timeline for more info. In ancient Sumer, in 3500 BCE, people were recording observations with accurate numerical data.


Firstly, Genesis is not a christian work, although Christianity upholds it as sacred [theologically]. One cannot describe Genesis as myths - that is why we are not discussing Zeus, head bashing dieties and a flat earth in this forum. We are discussing a finite universe, the advent of laws and which document lists light as the primodial entity. However, I am not posing these issues theologically, which I don't subscribe to; instead I am positing them only from a scientific premise.

quote:
According to Genesis, the universe is finite [there was a BEGINNING] - perhaps the first and most impacting scientific premise ever recorded.

Do you really believe that anything in the bible is the first scientific premise ever recorded? Or indeed the premise that has the most impact? If tomorrow, it is proven either way, that the univese in finite or infinite, what impact do you believe this will have? At the moment, it is unknown and it is not making much of an impact. Who do you believe that this is impacting so significantly? Do you believe that the bronze age people in the bible would have been impacted by this knowledge?


I refer to the 'recording' of a premise; if you can nominate an earlier recording, than your point prevails. It is not my opinion but a fact: the first recording the unverse as finite is from Genesis. And this is the most important factor which must be the preamble when discussing the universe. Apples and oranges apply: one can get away with anything in an infinite realm, but not so with a finite one. In an infinite universe one does not have to ponder how laws emerged - they were always there; not so in a finite realm.

quote:

Next we get to what was created and in which order - and also how and why!

This is what i am interested in, the how part. I dont need to know the why part really. Are you refering to why as in intent? In nature there is no intent. Rain does not weather a rock with intent.


There is no such thing as nature; this is just a metaphor we use to subscribe to the unknown; nature is the processing material, as in the wiring in a mobile chip. There is cause & effect, but the causer factor is elusive. However, when reading the list of actions which predate life on this planet as per Genesis, the intent becomes clear - and we find that life is listed ammediately following those actions. Remove those actions and life cannot exist; earth becomes another lifeless planet; evolution becomes a mute factor.

quote:

How? Based on laws being ushered in the universe/V2; and by seperating light from all else [He seperated the light from the darkness/V3]. Here, the 'seperation' is most impacting: when delved into, a created thing is nothing other than something seperated from other things - because all things already existed, only applied differently.

Can you explain this in more detail please. based on laws ushered into the universe is a bit broad. A created thing is nothing other than something seperated from other things? What about the things that you are saying were created from nothing or the things that are created form the combinations of other things?


Something created from the combinations of other things, again affirms the other things were already part of the mush - the unformed void before the laws were impacted. There is no alternative to this: everything which is universe contained now, never existed once. We see this in everything. Water is H20 - both those gases existed before water existed, and nothing is pre-universe. When we ask why H20, and N20 produces water, we must conclude there is intent and specificity here, no matter how distant one wants to be from anything which may resemble a theology. I know of no science or laws in the Gospels and Quran - do you?.

We can accept light predating stars: a star cannot produce light unless light pre-existed.

quote:

whoa!!! Hold on there! Can WE accept that? I cant. Tht does not make any sense at all. A star cannot produce light unless light pre-existed? That is like saying a suasage machine cannot create a sausage without sausages pre-existing. Light is a product. Your statement is not even logical let alone plausible.


Yes a sausage machine cannot produce sausage if the premise of shredded sauges was not possible. Your anaology is more frivolous than applicable.

quote:

The WHY factor of light is also clearly stated in Genesis: as a pre-requisite for life, stars, galaxies and as enegy to drive the whole construct; light is agreless and the transcendent velosity, able to cater to all other universal components. This why factor becomes more clarified when we check the follow-up products listed in Genesis.

Can you provide the scripture? Can you provide where it states that light was created for the purpose of sustaining life? Can you provide the scripture that states that light was created for stars and galaxies? What does "light is agreless (ageless?) and the transcendent velosity, able to cater to all other universal components" mean? I am not sure that makes sense. Can you clarify and elaborate please?


Here, our sun's light was critically focused to produce specifically sufficient light and darkess aniticipating a host of life forms.

Can you eloborate please. What does critically focused mean? It looks like you are suggesting that sufficient light was created in anticipation of animals and plants? Do you not think that the plants an animals are a product of the amount of light supplied by the sun? Does this not make more sense?

We get closer to earth with the next seperation of water from land - the pre-requisite for the variety of life and terrains.

Who is to say that the seperation of land and water is a prerequisite for life? I do not believe this to be true. I do not believe your version of events at all.

Indeed, not evolution, but the seperation factors listed in genesis becomes the pivital factors for life: there was yet no evolution, nor can life exist without the Genesis listings

Some of this I agree with. There was no evolution in the Genesis myth. Biological Evolution is has nothing to do with the creation of the universe. What do you mean by " the pivital factorsfactors of life" and whay do you seem to believe that Evolution has made claims to them? Life can exist without the Genesis listings, it does. Perhaps you could rephrase that as I may be misunderstanding what you are saying.

Light could not have occured by other elements or processes - these never existed at this point. Light is a result of seperation, by virtue of laws initiated for the first time in the universe, and their embedding in the mush [void] with specific attributes to attain a pre-directed result. How else!?

seriously? how about nuclear fusion?

There cannot be evidences outside of the genesis premise: else the finite factor would be violated. Evidences infer pre-uni entities and observers.

Can you clarify? Are you suggesting that there cannot be evidence for any other theory other than the Genesis creation myth?

Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Butterflytyrant, posted 07-16-2011 11:38 PM Butterflytyrant has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by Butterflytyrant, posted 07-17-2011 10:06 AM IamJoseph has responded

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 2011 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 104 of 297 (624280)
07-17-2011 1:39 AM
Reply to: Message 102 by Butterflytyrant
07-17-2011 12:53 AM


Re: LET THERE BE LIGHT.
quote:
Coyotes post was merely pointing out that your last paragraph did not reflect current scientific theories or investigations.

No sir. There was no factor in my post which was referred to in any context. Let him first produce another recording the universe is finite, then discuss science. Cherry picking and making cynical open rejections serve no purpose.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Butterflytyrant, posted 07-17-2011 12:53 AM Butterflytyrant has not yet responded

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 2011 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 105 of 297 (624285)
07-17-2011 2:36 AM


quote:
Who is to say that the seperation of land and water is a prerequisite for life? I do not believe this to be true. I do not believe your version of events at all.

If this sepration was not actioned, the earth would be covered with water, or land only would be on the surface. This would make it impossible for all life forms to sustain themselves. Contrastingly, the only way the different habitat life froms can exist is with the action listed in Genesis.

quote:

Indeed, not evolution, but the seperation factors listed in genesis becomes the pivital factors for life: there was yet no evolution, nor can life exist without the Genesis listings

Some of this I agree with. There was no evolution in the Genesis myth. Biological Evolution is has nothing to do with the creation of the universe. What do you mean by " the pivital factorsfactors of life" and whay do you seem to believe that Evolution has made claims to them? Life can exist without the Genesis listings, it does. Perhaps you could rephrase that as I may be misunderstanding what you are saying.


Evolution does not prevail w/o the seed factor listed in Genesis. The environment today is different from say millions of years ago - both modes cannot have the same impact. Biological factors have a lot to do with the actions on the earth, such as the separation of day and night, and land and water. Biolgy is merely the study and observation of the process directed in a program. The data in the seed [essence] of a male/femle host contains definitive programs aligned with their result.

quote:

Light could not have occured by other elements or processes - these never existed at this point. Light is a result of seperation, by virtue of laws initiated for the first time in the universe, and their embedding in the mush [void] with specific attributes to attain a pre-directed result. How else!?

seriously? how about nuclear fusion?


There are many means of producing light. But none can perform that feat if light per se was not pre-existant of those means.


  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019