Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 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?
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 4422 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


Message 108 of 297 (624328)
07-17-2011 10:06 AM
Reply to: Message 103 by IamJoseph
07-17-2011 1:28 AM


Re: LET THERE BE LIGHT.
I am going to need you to provide the scripture you are reading to make your claims. Without it, I am going to presume you are just making stuff up.
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.
light can be ignited? what do you mean by this. Nuclear fusion occurs releasing energy that radiates out into space. This energy is in the form of electromagnetic energy and particle radiation. The production of this energy in the form of electromagnetic radiation can be seen as visable light. Cause and effect. There is a nuclear reaction, the product of which can be seen in the form of light (among other products). Are you trying to tell me that the light exists BEFORE the reaction takes place that produces the light? What the hell is a pre-product?
This sentence contradicts itself : "the BBT posits by default light was the first factor issued by an explosion: this also means the light pre-dated that explosion." How can light be the first factor, but also predate? Does the first factor predate itself? Can I get some references to your claims? Both scripture or a scientific ource depending on where you are taking your claims from.
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.
What in Genesis is knowledge not yet seen by science? What scripture do you have that the universe could not have been initiated by a "prestine singular entity"? What is that? You suggest that Genesis introduced the day and the week? What do you think people were doing for the thousands of years before the book was written? Do you not think they would have recognised the difference between day and night? Do you believe that they only noticed that it was dark half the time after someone pointed it out in the bible? Your claim that the bible is the first alphabetical book is a bold one. Can you tell me what you mean by this? Do you believe that the bible was the first book ever written?
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.
What is the very premise of science? Are you telling me that there are laws (scientific laws) that can be applied to the Genesis creation myth? Scientific law : "A scientific law must always apply under the same conditions, and implies a causal relationship between its elements. The law must be confirmed and broadly agreed upon through the process of inductive reasoning. " State the scientific law that applies to "let there be light". What are the laws of morality and ethics? What judical laws are in the Genesis myth? The events occur before the sin, why would there be judicial laws? If Genesis is not a belief based document, what is it?
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.
If Genesis is not a Christian work, what is it? Who does it represent? Why can I not group Genesis with all of the other Craetion myths? What makes your so special? Can you provide the scripture advising that the universe is finite? If you are positing from a scientific premise you should be able to provide the theory, the mechanis and the process you have that explains how light was produce when God said "let there be light".
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.
If you are refering to the recording of a premise, you will have to tell me when you believe that genesis was written (and back it up with a reference). I can think of two ancient faiths that had a finite universe, The Chinese creation myth says the universe was egg shaped. The Egyption myths say the universe was a big box. Many religions do not discuss if it was finite or infinite at all. Can you provide the scripture that states that the universe is finite?
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.
Nature : The phenomena of the physical world collectively, including plants, animals, the landscape, and other features and products of the earth, as opposed to humans or human creations.
It is not a metaphor for the unknown. With regards to cause an effect, plants use sunlight to create energy. The stars, including the sun were not created until the forth day, after the plants. Do you believe that this order makes sense? You are correct that removing the actions of the Genesis creation myth would mean that life would be impossible. The whole point of the various creation myths is to explain how life is possible.
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.
Are you suggesting there is some intent behind the creation of a water molecule? Are you suggesting that hydrogen molecules have an aim? Are you attributing an intelligent purpose to a hydrogen molecule? You stated that you are coming from a scientific perspective yet you now say that the gospel contains no science? Which is it? You seem to be saying you have a scientific foundation taken from the Genesis creation myth but then say there is no science or laws in the Genesis creation myth.
We can accept light predating stars: a star cannot produce light unless light pre-existed.
Again, WE can accept no such thing. I do not accept that the light comes before the object creating the light. Cause and effect. Cause comes before effect. The sausage analogy stands.
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.
Land is not a requirement for life. You will find that current theories postulate that life began in the sea and moved onto land. With no land, they would have remained aquatic. The absence of land does not make life impossible. There are a lot of lifeforms that do not live on land. Your statement is ludicrous.
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.
I really have no idea what you are rambling about in this paragraph. It appears to be getting a fair way from the topic though.
There are many means of producing light. But none can perform that feat if light per se was not pre-existant of those means.
Again, cause and effect. Not the other way around.
Can you get back to the topic?
Can you supply the theory you have that explains what occured when God said "let there be light"? Include as much detail as you can.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by IamJoseph, posted 07-17-2011 1:28 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by IamJoseph, posted 07-18-2011 1:29 AM Butterflytyrant has replied

  
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 4422 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


Message 111 of 297 (624449)
07-18-2011 2:25 AM
Reply to: Message 110 by IamJoseph
07-18-2011 1:29 AM


Re: LET THERE BE LIGHT.
I am starting to seriously doubt that you have any idea what you are talking about.
I will respond to this rambling, illogical crap later tonight.
You have still not supplied any of the scripture that you claim to have to support any of your claims even though I have requested it multiple times. Anything that you are not backing up with scripture I am going to point out and ignore as stuff you are making up.
You have also not supplied an answer to the original question.
Question : What is the creation science theory of the origin of light?
You answer :
"Prior to light, laws were embedded where they never existed before; Light was created via a separation action, making it a new unique product: there was yet no fusion at this time, nor anything else - so there cannot be any other reasoning which applies. One can put this in scientific terms, but that would not be understood by all generations of humans - a feat in itself."
This is not an answer. it is rambling bullshit. You say "once we put this in scientific terms". Why dont you do that? Instead of suggesting it wont be understood. You seem to understand it. With your limited grasp on science (and it appears reality in general) leads me to believe that you theory will be unlikely beyond most people.
Edited by Butterflytyrant, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by IamJoseph, posted 07-18-2011 1:29 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by IamJoseph, posted 07-18-2011 2:54 AM Butterflytyrant has replied
 Message 113 by Chuck77, posted 07-18-2011 3:09 AM Butterflytyrant has replied

  
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 4422 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


Message 114 of 297 (624459)
07-18-2011 3:38 AM
Reply to: Message 113 by Chuck77
07-18-2011 3:09 AM


Re: LET THERE BE LIGHT.
Het Chuck,
I apologise if I seemed a bit harsh to your eyes.
You supplied a great answer. I have shared it and credited you with it to others.
There are people and organisations that are claiming to be working on the scientific side of Genesis, i covered this in Post 66.
From what I can gather, IamJoseph is telling me he has a scientific theory. I just cant seem to drag it out of him.
I will reply to his post in full in a polite manner.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Chuck77, posted 07-18-2011 3:09 AM Chuck77 has not replied

  
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 4422 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


Message 116 of 297 (624477)
07-18-2011 5:28 AM
Reply to: Message 112 by IamJoseph
07-18-2011 2:54 AM


Re: LET THERE BE LIGHT.
I did supply text reference to the universe being finite as the first recording of this premise, namely the opening frist verse in Genesis. It is you that has not acknowledged this as among the greatest scientific basics for humanity, bypassing it as if it is of no consequence or calling it myth. It makes me conclude you are on an auto negate mode.
I will elaborate. Whn I am asking for scripture, I am asking for chapter and verse. Not its in Genesis. Can you provide the chapter and verse. I will ask again for the bits I need when I get to them Dont worry about digging into the previous questions. From what I can recall you provided the phrase "in the beginning" as your evidence that the universe was finite.
I am going to assume that you mean Gen 1.1 (I use the KJB)
Gen 1.1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Where does it say that the universe is finite? Is you God not omnipitant? Could he not create an infinite universe? As far as I can tell from the words "In the beginning", there is no reference to the universe or its size, shape or any other features. Is this the scripture (half of one line) you are putting forward as your concrete evidence that the universe is finite? If not, please provide the chapter and verse in Genesis where it describes the universe as finite. I would point out that many creation myths advise that there was a beginning. The Chinese and Egyption creation myths actually state that the universe had boundaries.
The very opening first verse in Genesis declares the universe is finite - it had a BEGINNING. This was said before the term science was yet coined.
When are you talking about. Are you saying that the time of creation was before the term science was coined? Or the time that Genesis was written? Who are you talking about when you say "this was said"? Are you talking about when God said this? Do you have an estimated time period for this?
Firstly, your reading of the text is faulty. Genesis does not say planets appeared on the 4th day; the text has to be read more deeply. There is no such thing as nature - in actuality.
I did not say planEts, I sid PLANTS.
Gen 1.11 : And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
That was on the SECOND day.
Gen 1.14 : And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
Gen 1.15 : And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
Gen 1.16 : And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
That was on the THIRD day.
From this scripture, the plants were created a day before the light that feeds tham was created. Also, the object that supplies that light, the sun, was created after the light itself. The order is wrong. Gen1.14 states that light was created to seperate night from day. We know that the rotation of the Earth provides the seperation of night and day. The sun was not created until Gen 1.16, AFTER the plants as I originally stated. If I have somehow mixed this up, let me know. Please provide the chapter and verse that refutes the above scripture.
I supplied the definition of 'nature' that I was using when I made the original comment. Here it is again.
Nature : The phenomena of the physical world collectively, including plants, animals, the landscape, and other features and products of the earth, as opposed to humans or human creations.
Using that definition, my comment stands.
Yes, absolutely everything has a purpose, and nothing is superfluous: else the universe would not exist. If water appears before life on this planet, and it is the result of a specific combination, it has a purpose - to the extent there is no alternative understanding of it. What scientific or logical reason can you put up to suggest there is no reasoning?
You did not say purpose. You said INTENT. These are very different words. I agree that everything has a purpose. I do not agree that a water molecule intends to do anything. Intent implies intention. This suggests that the water molecule has a choice.
I will move away from the sausage analogy because you seem to have a problem with it. We are discussing stars. As I explained, a star PRODUCES (cause) electromagnetic radiation that can be seen as light (effect). Are you suggesting that the light (effect) comes before the star (cause).
To use your torch analogy. info from Page Not Found - Department of Physics and Astronomy
"An incandescent bulb uses heat caused by an electrical current. When electrical current passes through a wire, it causes the wire to heat. The wire, or filament, gets so hot that it glows and gives off light. Everyday incandescent light bulbs have a filament made of tungsten. Since the hot tungsten would quickly burn away if it were exposed to oxygen, it must be placed in a sealed glass bulb which is either evacuated or filled with a gas that won’t let it burn. "
I will point out cause and effect again. An electrical current passes through a wire (cause) and The wire gets so hot it glows and gives off light (effect). From what I can tell, you are suggesting that the effect comes before the cause?
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.
I will clarify what I mean by rambling. Can you provide the chapter and verse that you are referring to? "listed in Genesis" is a bit unspecific. 'Both modes'? Both modes of what? "Biolgy is merely the study and observation of the process directed in a program. " Can you clarify this sentence? Particularly the 'directed in a program' part. "The data in the seed [essence] of a male/femle host contains definitive programs aligned with their result. " I have no idea what this sentence means.
Prior to light, laws were embedded where they never existed before; Light was created via a separation action, making it a new unique product: there was yet no fusion at this time, nor anything else - so there cannot be any other reasoning which applies. One can put this in scientific terms, but that would not be understood by all generations of humans - a feat in itself.
this is your theory? What defenition of theory are you using? Can you supply the definiton of theory that fits this claim.
This is the scripture I have that you may be talking about.
Gen 1.3 : And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
Gen 1.4 : And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
You have said : "Light was created via a separation action, making it a new unique product". I cannot work out how the scripture backs this up. Gen 1.3 states, let there be light. Then in Gen 1.4, God sees the light. This means that according to scripture, the light already existed BEFORE the seperation of darkness from the light. It appears that the seperation created darkness, not light. As you have not provided the chapter and verse you are reading, it is hard for me to be sure.
there was yet no fusion at this time, nor anything else - so there cannot be any other reasoning which applies.
There can be other reasoning that applies. How about the reasoning that the book we are getting our scripture from is just another one of the many myths and legends and cant be used as a scientific text.
unless you are looking for new 250 year terms such as science and fusion.
What is a 250 year term?
Both light and fusion are based on laws; you ignored this fundamental scientific premise or rejected it: why is it called THE 'LAW' OF GRAVITY?
When did i ignore or reject the laws of gravity? I am aware that light and fusion are based on laws. One of the Laws you seem to be ignoring is the Law of Causality.
I answered correctly, going further, including that laws never existed at one time, which demands an initiating point: its alternative is in fact the non-answer. I have no limited grasp of science - I doubt you know something I don't.
Fair enough that the current known laws did not exist at one time. I also agree that there must have been an inititiation point. We are in agreement at this point.
You say that light being unique from all other products is a non-answer;
I agree that light is unique from all other products. I was not advising that the light discussed in the Bible when God said 'let there be light' came from a star. I was using a star as an example. As far as I could tell, you were saying that light came before the star. Effect came before a cause. I think that you are getting this from a strict interpretation of the Genesis creation story. The genesis creation story does not fit with the example i gave. The example was targeted at a different point. This may be where we had a misunderstanding.
I say why do you then say light is a product of fusion: wherefrom did light derive a transcendent velosity - from the far under-rated fusion - that is impossible!? Can you not see your own non-answer and non-science here?
You will need to clarify a few things here. What do you mean by 'transendent velosity'? Also, I have explained how a fusion in a star creates light. Are you disputing atomic theory?
Where there are no laws - there is no science. But more impacting is that laws and science never existed once - nor did the environment or nature. Understand the scenario which is relevant and impacting here, and open your mind to other POV's. There is no alternative the universe had to be initiated in a duality construct and an external precedent trigger factor applying. Your response was we do not know what laws applied - as if you have by that produced some scientific scenario which justifies your case - or negated mine. No sir.
Let me rephrase some of this to see if I understand what you are getting at. 'Where there are no laws there is no science', does this mean that you are supplying this reason for not having a scientific theory for the creation of light. I should point out that I am not saying that this is a negative. This is fair enough. I have read some ideas recently about what existed before the current universe. These ideas are discussing a time that existed before the current laws so it can also be said that 'where there are no laws there is no science'. The scenario we are discussing is the big bang. You are suggesting that God saying 'let there be light' is part of the big bang. Which part I am not too sure.
This sentence needs some clarification - " There is no alternative the universe had to be initiated in a duality construct and an external precedent trigger factor applying. " Is this a complicated was of saying that something had to cause the big bang? What is a duality construct? I also have put forward no case at all. I see significant holes in what you are saying. Also, I support the Big bang theory to a limited degree. I am not sure enough is known to be too sure. It appears that you support the Bif bang Theory also, you seem to be alligning the Genesis story with it. If this is true, then I would not be negating your case as we both have the same case.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by IamJoseph, posted 07-18-2011 2:54 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by IamJoseph, posted 07-19-2011 12:21 AM Butterflytyrant has replied
 Message 123 by IamJoseph, posted 07-19-2011 5:21 AM Butterflytyrant has not replied

  
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 4422 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


Message 131 of 297 (624673)
07-19-2011 10:32 AM
Reply to: Message 120 by IamJoseph
07-19-2011 12:21 AM


Re: LET THERE BE LIGHT.
Hmmm Where to start...
Gen 1.1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
There is no other reading of the verse than that the uni is finite.
How did you reach that conclusion? What do you see in that verse that says the universe is finite? I would say it could go either way. God created a finite universe or God created an infinite universe. The God of the Bible being capable of anything would mean he could do either.
The verse refers only to the heavens
With and or without any galaxies? The stars were not made until Gen 1.16, the third day : And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
So it would be without galaxies.
Comparing with Egyptian texts is not acceptable, there are no cosmological accounts there which aligns with today's scientific premises such as the protocol of the first promordial items [light], followed by actions which anticipate a host of various life form species.
Not acceptable? really? Acceptable to who? You get to use your favoured myth, why dont I get to use any creation myth I want?
So the Egyptian creation myth contains no cosmological accounts that align with todays scientific knowledge. How about this...
This is the Heiopolis Creation myth, take note of the order. Oh and this is circa 3000BCE.
quote:
In the beginning there was only water, a chaos of churning, bubbling water, this the Egyptians called Nu or Nun. It was out of Nu that everything began.
- Then the sun god Ra emerged out of primeval chaos, he came out of a blue giant lotus flower that appeared on the surface of the water.
- Ra gave light to the universe.
Creation of Earth and Sky - Shu and Tefnut gave birth to the sky- goddess Nut and the earth god Geb, and so the physical universe was created.
- Ra seems to rest while his sons and daughters are completing the task of creation, this is in accordance with the polytheistic beliefs of ancient Egyptians
Creation of Calendar - Against Ra's orders, Geb and Nut married. Ra was incensed and ordered Shu to separate them, which he did. But Nut was already pregnant, although unable to give birth as Ra had decreed she could not give birth in any month of any year.
- Thoth, the god of learning, decided to help her and gambling with the moon for extra light, was able to add five extra days to the 360-day calendar. On those five days Nut gave birth to Osiris, Horus the Elder, Seth, Isis, and Nephthys successively.
- Even the heavenly bodies are seen as serving human needs, by providing the basis for a calendar.
Creation of Life - Khnum created the living creatures on his potter's wheel.
- He modeled the animals, plants and people of the earth.
- A detailed description of how he created humans is found at Esna Temple. It describes how he orders the bloodstream to cover the bones, and makes the skin enclose the body. He then makes the respiratory system and the food digestion.
- In contrast with the Hebrew mythology, the work of Khnum was seen as a continuous task, he was seen as a deity sitting on his potter's wheel constantly working in creating life.
(Sources: http://www.aldokkan.com/religion/creation.htm; philae.nu – Mytologi i dtid och modern tid)
Would that be acceptable now? How about you research it before you refute it. That is a creation myth, with all of the elements of Genesis, in the correct order for life, written well before the Biblical version. Does that cover all of your points?
Notice it also covers the days of the week that you claim were first written in Genesis. I would say it is a better version. Most of this is also taken directly from stone carvings that can still be seen today in the original form.
How about I show you some other creation myths that have scientifically accurate information. All are prechristian or prechristian influence.
quote:
The Apache creation myth -
In the beginning nothing existed -- no earth, no sky, no sun, no moon, only darkness was everywhere. Suddenly from the darkness emerged a thin disc, one side yellow and the other side white, appearing suspended in midair. Within the disc sat a small bearded man, Creator, the One Who Lives Above. As if waking from a long nap, he rubbed his eyes and face with both hands.
When he looked into the endless darkness, light appeared above. He looked down and it became a sea of light. To the east, he created yellow streaks of dawn. To the west, tints of many colors appeared everywhere. There were also clouds of different colors.
Creator wiped his sweating face and rubbed his hands together, thrusting them downward. Behold! A shining cloud upon which sat a little girl. "Stand up and tell me where are you going," said Creator. But she did not reply. He rubbed his eyes again and offered his right hand to the Girl-Without-Parents.
"Where did you come from?" she asked, grasping his hand.
"From the east where it is now light," he replied, stepping upon her cloud.
"Where is the earth?" she asked.
"Where is the sky?" he asked, and sang, "I am thinking, thinking, thinking what I shall create next." He sang four times, which was the magic number.
Creator brushed his face with his hands, rubbed them together, then flung them wide open! Before them stood Sun-God. Again Creator rubbed his sweaty brow and from his hands dropped Small-Boy.
All four gods sat in deep thought upon the small cloud. "What shall we make next?" asked Creator. "This cloud is much too small for us to live upon." Then he created Tarantula, Big Dipper, Wind, Lightning-Maker, and some western clouds in which to house Lightning-Rumbler, which he just finished.
Creator sang, "Let us make earth. I am thinking of the earth, earth, earth; I am thinking of the earth," he sang four times.
All four gods shook hands. In doing so, their sweat mixed together and Creator rubbed his palms, from which fell a small round, brown ball, not much larger than a bean. Creator kicked it, and it expanded. Girl-Without-Parents kicked the ball, and it enlarged more. Sun-God and Small-Boy took turns giving it hard kicks, and each time the ball expanded. Creator told Wind to go inside the ball and to blow it up.
Tarantula spun a black cord and, attaching it to the ball, crawled away fast to the east, pulling on the cord with all his strength. Tarantula repeated with a blue cord to the south, a yellow cord to the west, and a white cord to the north. With mighty pulls in each direction, the brown ball stretched to immeasurable size -- it became the earth!
Creator scratched his chest and rubbed his fingers together and there appeared Hummingbird. "Fly north, south, east, and west and tell us what you see," said Creator. "All is well," reported Hummingbird upon his return. "The earth is most beautiful, with water on the west side."
But the earth kept rolling and dancing up and down. So Creator made four giant posts -- black, blue, yellow, and white to support the earth. Wind carried the four posts, placing them beneath the four cardinal points of the earth. The earth sat still. Creator sang, "World is now made and now sits still," which he repeated four times. Then he began a song about the sky. None existed, but he thought there should be one. After singing about it four times, twenty-eight people appeared to help make a sky above the earth. Creator chanted about making chiefs for the earth and sky.
He sent Lightning-Maker to encircle the world, and he returned with three uncouth creatures, two girls and a boy found in a turquoise shell. They had no eyes, ears, hair, mouths, noses, or teeth. They had arms and legs, but no fingers or toes. Sun-God sent for Fly to come and build a sweathouse. Girl-Without-Parents covered it with four heavy clouds. In front of the east doorway she placed a soft, red cloud for a foot-blanket to be used after the sweat. Four stones were heated by the fire inside the sweathouse. The three uncouth creatures were placed inside. The others sang songs of healing on the outside, until it was time for the sweat to be finished. Out came the three strangers who stood upon the magic red cloud-blanket. Creator then shook his hands toward them, giving each one fingers, toes, mouths, eyes, ears, noses and hair.
Creator named the boy, Sky-Boy, to be chief of the Sky-People. One girl he named Earth-Daughter, to take charge of the earth and its crops. The other girl he named Pollen-Girl, and gave her charge of health care for all Earth-People.
Since the earth was flat and barren, Creator thought it fun to create animals, birds, trees, and a hill. He sent Pigeon to see how the world looked. Four days later, he returned and reported, "All is beautiful around the world. But four days from now, the water on the other side of the earth will rise and cause a mighty flood." Creator made a very tall pinon tree. Girl-Without-Parents covered the tree framework with pinon gum, creating a large, tight ball. In four days, the flood occurred. Creator went up on a cloud, taking his twenty-eight helpers with him. Girl-Without-Parents put the others into the large, hollow ball, closing it tight at the top.
In twelve days, the water receded, leaving the float-ball high on a hilltop. Girl-Without-Parents led the gods out from the float-ball onto the new earth. She took them upon her cloud, drifting upward until they met Creator with his helpers, who had completed their work making the sky during the flood time on earth. Together the two clouds descended to a valley below. There, Girl-Without-Parents gathered everyone together to listen to Creator.
"I am planning to leave you," he said. "I wish each of you to do your best toward making a perfect, happy world.
"You, Lightning-Rumbler, shall have charge of clouds and water.
"You, Sky-Boy, look after all Sky-People.
"You, Earth-Daughter, take charge of all crops and Earth-People.
"You, Pollen-Girl, care for their health and guide them.
"You, Girl-Without-Parents, I leave you in charge over all."
Creator then turned toward Girl-Without-Parents and together they rubbed their legs with their hands and quickly cast them forcefully downward. Immediately between them arose a great pile of wood, over which Creator waved a hand, creating fire. Great clouds of smoke at once drifted skyward. Into this cloud, Creator disappeared. The other gods followed him in other clouds of smoke, leaving the twenty-eight workers to people the earth. Sun-God went east to live and travel with the Sun. Girl-Without-Parents departed westward to live on the far horizon. Small-Boy and Pollen-Girl made cloud homes in the south. Big Dipper can still be seen in the northern sky at night, a reliable guide to all.
(source : http://www.indigenouspeople.net/creation.htm)
quote:
Bantu Creation Myth - In the beginning there was nothing but Nzame. This god is really three: Nzame, Mebere, and Nkwa. It was the Nzame part of the god that created the universe and the earth, and brought life to it. While the three parts of Nzame were admiring this creation, it was decided to create a ruler for the earth. So was created the elephant, the leopard, and the monkey, but it was decided that something better had to be created. Between the three of them they made a new creature in their image, and called him Fam (power), and told him to rule the earth. Before long, Fam grew arrogant, he mistreated the animals and stopped worshipping Nzame.
Nzame, angered, brought forth thunder and lightning and destroyed everything that was, except Fam, who had been promised immortality. Nzame, in his three aspects, decided to renew the earth and try again. He applied a new layer of earth to the planet, and a tree grew upon it. The tree dropped seeds which grew into more trees. Leaves that dropped from them into the water became fish, those that dropped on land became animals. The old parched earth still lies below this new one, and if one digs deep enough it can be found in the form of coal. Nzame made a new man, one who would know death, and called him Sekume. Sekume fashioned a woman, Mbongwe, from a tree. These people were made with both Gnoul (body) and Nissim (soul). Nissim gives life to Gnoul. When Gnoul dies, Nissim lives on.
(Source : High Speed Internet | Business Phone | Syracuse, Utica, Oneida, Rome)
quote:
Miao People creation song -
Who made heaven and earth?
Who made insects?
Who made men?
Made male and made female?
I who speak don't know.
Heavenly King made heaven and earth,
Ziene made insects,
Ziene made men and demons,
Made male and made female.
How is it you don't know?
How made heaven and earth?
How made insects?
How made men and demons?
Made male and made female?
I who speak don't know.
Heavenly King was intelligent,
Spat a lot of spittle into his hand,
Clapped his hands with a noise,
Produced heaven and earth,
Tall grass made insects,
Stories made men and demons,
Made men and demons,
Made male and made female.
How is it you don't know?
The legend proceeds to state how and by whom the heavens were propped up and how the sun was made and fixed in its place.
(Source : http://www.pitt.edu/~dash/chinaflood.html)
quote:
Enuma Elish Babylonian Creation myth -
The Divine Spirits and cosmic matters
coexist and are coeternal. There is a
primeval chaos in which the gods war
against the deep (Tiamat).
Day 1. Light emanates from the gods
Day 2. creation of the firmament (dome
Day 3. creation of dry land
Day 4. creation of heavenly lights
Day 6. creation of man
Day 7. the gods rest and celebrate with a banquet
(Source : Gensis & Babylonian Creation Myths Compared; http://www.sacred-texts.com/ane/blc/blc07.htm; Comparing the Genesis and Babylonian stories of creation)
Each of those myths covers the same ground as yours.
There is total alignment here with our state of art science estimations. The 14B year and 5B year ages of the universe and the earth is well prepresented by the period for the separation of light; for our solar system by the critical focusing of luminosity [day and night], and for the age of the earth reflected by the separation of water from land. It must be remembered the notion of billions and millions never existed at this time, so epochs of time are inferred. But the principle and unfolding of the universe is correct.
Are you telling me that the Genesis creation myth is alligned with the current theories of how the univese formed?
I have one pretty glaring problem with that idea. In Genesis, the Earth is created before the sun. Gen 1.1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. Then later Gen 1.16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
Current scientific theory has the planets being formed around the sun. The sun pretty much created the planets, including the Earth. That is a gross oversimplification but you can read the full story here : Page not found - Novan
The Genesis story does not match scientific theory.
Allow me to illustrate the correct reading of the text, which is much distorted by the masses. Examine the verse 14 you quoted. This refers only to LUNIMOSITY [light being adjusted/critically focused on the earth]. Here, a 24 hour day does not apply before this event, namely it should be read as epochs of time and cosmic days. Human reflected historical time begins after the creational days, namely the Genesis calendar begins after these cosmic days as 5771 years today [chech it out!], whereby we have no names or history per se before this time.
Wow. 'allow me to illustrate the correct reading of the text which is much distorted by the masses'??? There is a fair bit of arrogance dripping of that particular sentence dont you think? I assume what you meant to say was this : Allow me to supply my particular interpretation of the text that is in opposition to many peoples interpretation. As far as I am aware, there is no 'correct reading of the text'. There is a whole lot of opinions. The rest of the paragraph is your interpretation of the text to try to wedge it into current scientific knowledge. This is not Genesis matching science. This is you trying to shoehorn your theory into the current scientific model. You can argue your opinions about if the 24 hour day not applying to this event with the Answers in Genesis folks. Good luck with that. They have the correct interpreation too. I am not going to argue the theology with you. Once your team has worked it out amongst yourselves, let me know.
If you refer to how the vegetation can subsist without the sun's luminosity applying, it is a very good question. However, the answer and correctness I found resting solidly with genesis when the text are closely examined. It is qualified in the following chapter, namely genesis is saying the life forms [including vegetation] were in their completed form, yet they were not yet ALIVE [animated; able to move and live]. This is a variant and less considered view, however there is no alternative to it. [cut] The same applies to the life forms - they were completed but yet were not alive; its 100% logic. Genesis lists the trigger cycle which made the already completed life a living entity here: "Gen 2/ 5 No shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no herb of the field had yet sprung up; for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground; 6 but there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground. 7 Then the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."
More of your 'correct' interpretations huh. This does not fly either. You say that the plants were created but not alive. They were in some sort of stasis?
Gen 1.11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
If they were "not yet ALIVE [animated; able to move and live]" then how were they yielding seed and yielding fruit? I would say that a plant needs to be alive in order to do this.
"they were completed but yet were not alive; its 100% logic." The plants were held is stasis is 100% logical? Thats were your logic took you? Stasis?
That idea is a huge leap in interpretation. Imaginative though.
Choice can only refer to an inherent directive program. Its like the function of our lungs; involuntary and aligning only with an internal directive program applying
Are you applying this to a hydrogen molecule? Are you suggesting that the hydrogen molecule has the intent, makes a choice to bond with oxygen to make water?
Only a critical focusing of our particular star’s luminosity impacts here. Here, both the stars and its light could have existed, but no life existed on earth; this changed only when the star’s light [luminosity] was adjusted/focused to produce and allow life to exist, same as with the separation of water from land. Life could not emerge without such factors, as is seen with other planets which have light but no life. It is a bona fide scientific reasoning and premise, and I agree with it.
There is no scientific reasoning or premise that says that the suns light
"was adjusted/focused to produce and allow life to exist". The sun made no adjustments or focusing changes to allow life to exist. Our planet exists on an orbit that allows life. No adjustments or focusing required. It is true that the sun is a requirement for life on our planet. We agree on this point. What we disagree on is the method of creation and I disagree with your attempts to distort and imaginatively interpret Genesis to fit with scientific theory and then claim that this interpretation lends support to Genesis.
I am suggesting the light could not be produced by an electrical current unless the light was pre-existing as its own force, and that there is no other conclusion possible. The means does not affect the product nor can it be seen as its cause. The electricity only induces the required state for light to be produced and made manifest, which means both the pre-existing light and the mode of its manifestation must be pre-embedded with attributes which allow this to occur. It is why a pineapple and an electric current will not attain the same result.
I think I may understand what you are getting at. I think you are trying to tell me that light itself must have existed in some form for light to exist? I was talking about the specific cause and effect of one light source creating light. This was probably just a misunderstanding of each others arguements. I believe we are on the same page. I agree that the pre existing force of light as you put it would have had to exist before a torch would create it.
What I referred to by both modes is that both the seed and the environment cannot be equally responsible for the production of life. The seed from the host rules here; Genesis wins. There is no life w/o the seed factor. This is well kniwn as stated in the texts and requires no demand for proof: the text famously says a seed shall follow its own kind, while ToE says it is the environment which does the work. My position lies with genesis, and made from a fully scientific view.
"Genesis wins." Seriously? Wins what? Certainly not this debate. Or any other debate I have read.
As to this : "This is well kniwn as stated in the texts and requires no demand for proof" That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence (Thank you Christopher Hitchens)
The seed shall follow its own kind. So what. Farmers knew this thousands of years before Genesis was written. What does this prove exactly?
"ToE says it is the environment which does the work" I dont know if this is general ignorance or some sort of a drastic oversimplification or what. But it certainly does not seem to fit as the opposition of this statement : "the text famously says a seed shall follow its own kind"
"My position lies with genesis, and made from a fully scientific view."
Fully scientific? Whose science are you using?
How about we get back to the topic.
Can you complete the following statement:
My scientific theory for the mechanism of the creation of light that occured when God said 'let there be light' is :
If you can, please do so.
Edited by Butterflytyrant, : typo
Edited by Butterflytyrant, : typo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by IamJoseph, posted 07-19-2011 12:21 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by IamJoseph, posted 07-20-2011 1:19 AM Butterflytyrant has replied

  
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 4422 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


(1)
Message 141 of 297 (624842)
07-20-2011 9:46 AM
Reply to: Message 135 by IamJoseph
07-20-2011 1:19 AM


Re: LET THERE BE LIGHT.
I made a pointed premise here [or was it some other thread?] the universe could not have initiated with a singular one entity, namely a irreducible, indivisible entity [a pristine 'ONE']. No one has yet responded to this issue, and instead deflected on numerous issues not connected with the point made at all - even my english has been attacked, and that I am not making any sense. It is a primal issue of discussion for the universe's occurence. Not very science minded responsa going on here. I'll pursue only little more than go buy some ice cream on the beach and talk with the magpies instead.
This might be why I have no idea what you are talking about half the time. And why i keep asking you to repeat points. It seems you have half of a debate on some other thread. It explains why you keep hammering away at a point that is irrelevent to the question.
Your point : "the universe could not have initiated with a singular one entity, namely a irreducible, indivisible entity [a pristine 'ONE']." has nothing to do with the topic we are discussing. I do not even really understand what it is you are getting at. Your point is very nice. Would you like to make a point about the thread you are currently on?
You other point : "No one has yet responded to this issue, and instead deflected on numerous issues not connected with the point made at all - even my english has been attacked, and that I am not making any sense. "
Want to know why I have not responded to this point? Because it is not what this thread is about. Of course people are deflecting and discussing numerous issues not connected with the point you made. It is because your point does not address this thread.
I have not said anything about your english. I do have trouble understanding some of your points because the language used does not always make sense.
You say your point is a "primal issue of discussion for the universe's occurence." Thats great. Discuss it in some other thread. This thread is not about the occurance of the universe.
I don't make this premise in ridiculing mode or to downgrade science and great minds. I do say we cannot discard superior premises which are vindicated in thought and science because they are called theological:
Your point : "I do say we cannot discard superior premises which are vindicated in thought and science because they are called theological" The biggest mistake in this sentance is that you have a superior premise. As this thread is not even about your point and we have not been debating it, I have no problem with discarding it.
I know of no theology which can be discussed scientifically aside from Genesis. Genesis is not theological
You say in one sentence that Genesis is theology, then in the next that it is not.
Genesis : The Book of Genesis (from Greek γένεσις meaning "origin"; Hebrew: בְּרֵאשִׁית‎, Brʾeiyt, "In the beginning"), is the first book of the Hebrew Bible and the Christian Old Testament.
Theology : Theology is the systematic and rational study of religion and its influences and of the nature of religious truths.
The study of the Book of Genesis is theology. It does not matter if you see that the story fits with some science, the Bible is still a religious document and its study is theology.
Genesis is not theological, predates the notion, is not discussing names or belief in its creational descriptions, but appears varied from every theological writings - consider it and reject it scientifically minus the phobia: it is humanity's most mysterious document by impact, period of time and cencus. There is only creation and non-creation; scientifically, there is only a universe with a universe maker - or not. Period. Just two premises.
The first sentence in this paragraph does not make sense. As to your description of the Book of Genesis. The most mysterious document? This is a subjective opinion. I do not see any 'mystery' in Genesis. I dont know what you mean by it being mysterious by period of time or cences? That sentence does not make sense.
I did respond adequately and see my premise as correct, else we can discuss it forever. Its very clear, it could not go either way grammatically else it becomes superfluous [wrong reading]; the BEGINNING is directed at 'EVERYTHING' and when NOTHING yet was existant; all else appearing later. Later on we are told the definition of infinity in a most advanced and concise mode: this means not being subject to CHANGE. I ask that the stats in Genesis be seen from the POV the universe is absolutely finite as the preamble and protocol, as does Genesis, which is really incumbent in any discussion of the universe origins.
You have not provided any information to support your point. Gen 1.1 "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth ". You say that there is something in these 10 words about the dimensions of the universe. There is no such information in that sentence. It says : In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. You could just as easily say that it says that God created the world purple, or out of jelly. It does not say that the universe is finite or infinite. But, as this point and with the rest of the paragraph, it is not relevant to the topic of this thread.
Unacceptable and a divergence. The Egyptian notes of first there was bubbling water, potter's wheel, etc is Zeus like myth as is its head butting deities and sun gods. The DAY & WEEK were introduced in Genesis, the world's first advanced alphabetical book: you are quoting an unstanding which is theorised as the text's inference only. This does not impact Genesis is declaring the universe as finite - the entire premise of the Hebrew bible which follows rests only on this factor - to the extent any other reading negates everything in its texts.
I was not putting the Egyptian myth forward as a challenge to genesis. You claimed that the Genesis story was the first time any faith had mentioned anything that matches science. You put forward the creation of light and the words "in the beginning" as you evidence of this. i supllied several prechristian stories that also include thses elements. you said that no other text had this information. I refute that, with references, multiple times.
You also complain that the myth says a potters wheel and bubbling water. Your creation myth is that God said it, so it happened. Neither of those suggestions is any more valid.
The Day and the week. When you say : The day and the week were introduced in Genesis, the worlds first alphabetical book. First of all, The Book of Genesis was not the worlds first book. The Epic of Gilgamesh was written circa 2500 BCE. I have to ask again. Do you believe that the first time that days and weeks were recognised was when genesis was written. I also do not understand your insistance that Genesis introduced the day and the week. Do you think that people did not notice that it got dark, then light, then dark again? Many prechristian civilisation had calendars. There is a Sumarian calendar of 12 months, 360 days was used prior to 2500 BCE. (source : 77Dragon adalah situs judi slot online dan judi online terpercaya dengan slot online, slot88, agen slot online,game slot, judi bola, serta live casino online) I dont really want to argue this point with you though because I dont care. I did not start a thread about that.
I am not using any of these stories to negate Genesis. You claimed that your creation story was unique. I supplied others with the same things. I dont care to use one theology against another. I am an athiet. I would use science to negate Genesis. But not on this thread as that is not what this thread is about.
Are you telling me that the Genesis creation myth is alligned with the current theories of how the univese formed?
Absolutely. This includes evolution, aphabetical books, the world's most accurate and oldest active calendar, the first human cencus, the first historically identifiable mountains, rivers, nations, genealogies and earliest recorded 'names' of speech endowed modern man. You neglect that all your postings of other nations fail to give a single historical item or figurehead which is historically traceable! I hope that responding to your posts in good manner is not a run away from the thread's topic, namely the first recording that light was the first product separated from the lawless void. Remarkably, Genesis says light appeared 'AFTER' laws were ushered in and is the first product thereafter. It makes good sense - how else can it be - it just happened is hardly science anymore
Wow. There are so many things wrong with what you have written here. Do you research any of your claims before you make them or do you just make them up as you go along?
You claim that the Genesis creation myth is alligned with current scientific theories regarding evolution, aphabetical books, the world's most accurate and oldest active calendar, the first human cencus, the first historically identifiable mountains, rivers, nations, genealogies and earliest recorded 'names' of speech endowed modern man.
Lets deal with them one at a time.
Evolution : Genesis says that God created all living things at one time. Evolutionary theory says that all current living things evolved from common ancestors. From single celled organisms to all of the planst and animals alive today. Genesis does not fit with current scientific theory.
Alphabetical books : This does not make sense in the sentence you have used. Care to rephrase?
the world's most accurate and oldest active calendar: What a load of shit. There are many older calendars. The Sumerian one I mentioned above is one. Also, if the calendar in Genesis was the most accurate in the world, why did Pope Gregory introduce the Gregorian calendar in 1582. Thats the one we use now by the way.
The first human census : Where the hell is a census in genesis??? Even if it was there it would not be the first. Egyption census' have been taken before 3000BCE. China have recorded census' prior to 2000BCE.
the first historically identifiable mountains, rivers, nations, genealogies : Are you serious? The Nile in Egypt has a recorded name in heiroglyphics from prior to the writing of Genesis. The Himalayas have been named in sanskrit prior to the writing of Genesis. I wont even deal with this claim any further as it is absolutely ridiculous. And of topic.
except for this bit : You neglect that all your postings of other nations fail to give a single historical item or figurehead which is historically traceable!
What do you mean historically traceable? Are the heiroglyphics that you can go and look at with your own eyes not traceable enough. You can view the original document.
the first recording that light was the first product separated from the lawless void (was in genesis).
The Egyptian Myth, the Apache Myth and the Babylonian Myth all record this, earlier than the writing of Genesis. I have provided the documentation and the source for this above.
I am going to ignore the next few paragraphs as I dont give a fuck about your interpretation of theology.
You contradict yourself in every sentence. Orbit inclines, rotations and revolving earth are conducive only to a critical focusing, whereby its light and darkness is conducive to anticipating life forms. Its not random by a ratio of 1 VS all other planetary bodies in the known universe. Of note, the text is contextual only to life forms and their sustainence, making only one reading coherent here.
Either we have a language barrier problem or you are out of your mind. I dont care which. I dont think it has anything to do with the thread so I will ignore it.
But are you also saying, aside from the misunderstanding, than Genesis is not saying something highly intelligent? Is the notion of light being pre-existing before its manifestation by any means, an unscientific premise? You have thus far rejected everything I said,with no acknowledgement of anything being right in genesis. I hold the exact reverse view.
Yes, I am saying that Genesis is not saying something highly intelligent. Saying that light preexisted before its manifestation by natural means is unscientific. I dont have to aknowledge that anything is right in Genesis. That is not what the thread is about. If you want to bang that drum, start a thread about it. There are plenty of scientists on this page and I would say a fair few creationists who will disagree with you.
The seed factor rules. Science, when examined close up, aligns only with Genesis.
No it does not. I will repeat. That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence (Thanks again Mr Hitchens) Also, feel free to start a thread about this as it is off topic.
The next few paragraphs are more off topic crap.
Then we get to your theory:
My scientific theory for the mechanism of the creation of light that occured when God said 'let there be light' is :
V1. The universe was created or it came into being; it never existed before, nor anything universe contained ever existed before, not even laws or science existed before.
V2. The universe was inserted with laws [science], namely the formless was turned to form via directive programs which give new form products where there was none, with attributes embedded. No laws existed before this point; namely there was no science and no environment at one time.
V3/4. The new products became identifiable and separated from the lawless void by virtue of the laws. The first product was LIGHT [the term SEPARATED is used].
That is a description of the first four verses of Genesis.
THAT IS NOT A THEORY. Have you seriously wasted this much of my time to give me a discription of four verses of Genesis?
This is the original question for this thread:
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.
Can you see how you copying the first four verses of Genesis does not answer the question?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by IamJoseph, posted 07-20-2011 1:19 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by IamJoseph, posted 07-20-2011 10:06 PM Butterflytyrant has replied

  
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 4422 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


Message 142 of 297 (624945)
07-20-2011 6:20 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by IamJoseph
07-20-2011 4:36 AM


Butterfy:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Can you complete the following statement:
My scientific theory for the mechanism of the creation of light that occured when God said 'let there be light' is :
If you can, please do so.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I gave you mine. Now you give yours?
This is not a thread comparing theories. You have not supplied a scientific theory.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by IamJoseph, posted 07-20-2011 4:36 AM IamJoseph has not replied

  
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 4422 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


Message 145 of 297 (624965)
07-20-2011 10:24 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by IamJoseph
07-20-2011 10:06 PM


Re: LET THERE BE LIGHT.
I am going to assume we have a language barrier here.
Your continued claims that Genesis is a scientific document are laughable.
A supernatural entity is involved.
As soon as a supernatural entity, acting outside any testable field is involved, it is no longer science.
A fair few of your sentences do not even make sense.
I dont even know if we are having the same discussion anymore.
You are providing scripture as the basis of your claims. Scripture is not scientific fact.
Genesis is negated as scientific fact in the first line Gen 1.1 : "In the begining God created". There it is. Game over. By the fifth word, the scientific validity of Genesis is destroyed.
As soon as it says GOD CREATED, it is no longer scientific.
The God I have read about would be a lesser being if he had to act inside scientific laws and be scientifically testable anyway.
I prefer to think of him as Godlike. Not scientist like.
Feel free to reply to the rest of my post.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by IamJoseph, posted 07-20-2011 10:06 PM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by IamJoseph, posted 07-21-2011 1:03 AM Butterflytyrant has replied

  
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 4422 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


Message 147 of 297 (624976)
07-21-2011 1:03 AM
Reply to: Message 146 by IamJoseph
07-21-2011 12:58 AM


Re: LET THERE BE WATER (or not)
The Hebrew bible is mythical.
Myth - a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, especially one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature.
Yep, thats a myth allright. It is not a widespread belief that it is mythical. The defenition of the word myth describes the Hebrew Bible perfectly. Belief does not enter into the defenition. The defenition fits.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by IamJoseph, posted 07-21-2011 12:58 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by IamJoseph, posted 07-21-2011 1:13 AM Butterflytyrant has replied

  
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 4422 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


Message 150 of 297 (624982)
07-21-2011 1:22 AM
Reply to: Message 148 by IamJoseph
07-21-2011 1:03 AM


Re: LET THERE BE LIGHT.
What the bloody hell are you talking about?
Do you even know what this thread is about?
Scripture and writings are the same
If I knew what this was referring to it would be great.
You can provide any scripture - as long as it meets a scientific, emperical criteria, it is fine.
Why does this restriction not apply to you?
"God said" does not meet any scientific criteria. It is exactly the opposite!
What is so hard for you to undersatnd about this?
You have not shown anything I said as not evidenced.
2 things.
1. I have, many times. GEN 1.1 In the beginning . God created the heavens and the earth. <<< See that <<<< You have no evidence for that. You could not possible have any evidence for that.
2. It is not my job to provide a point of view on some random topic that you want to hammer on about that is barely related to the question. You have a question you have not come close to answering. It is your job, if you choose to answer the question, to provide evidence for your position. That is how it works. I asked a question, then you answer it with backing evidence. We can then debate that evidence. This is how it works.
A universe maker for a universe is a 100% scientific premise; its reverse is not.
What is the reverse? A universe without a universe maker? What is not scientific about that position. Read The Grand Design by Stephen Hawking. That book disusses how it is possible. I am not going into it as it is not on topic.
[qs] You are assuming as if you have proven your criteria the universe cannot have a universe maker: you have not, so you cannot use this as a bona fide attack.
Scripture and writings are the same - none are immune from providing evidence and logic. You can provide any scripture - as long as it meets a scientific, emperical criteria, it is fine. You have not shown anything I said as not evidenced. A universe maker for a universe is a 100% scientific premise; its reverse is not. You are assuming as if you have proven your criteria the universe cannot have a universe maker: you have not, so you cannot use this as a bona fide attack.
You are assuming as if you have proven your criteria the universe cannot have a universe maker: you have not, so you cannot use this as a bona fide attack.
I am not assuming this. I have not even discussed this! What the hell are you talking about??? I have not p

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by IamJoseph, posted 07-21-2011 1:03 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by IamJoseph, posted 07-21-2011 1:31 AM Butterflytyrant has not replied
 Message 153 by IamJoseph, posted 07-21-2011 1:35 AM Butterflytyrant has replied

  
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 4422 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


Message 152 of 297 (624985)
07-21-2011 1:33 AM
Reply to: Message 149 by IamJoseph
07-21-2011 1:13 AM


Re: LET THERE BE WATER (or not)
You are acting as a fool in a science oriented thread. Was King David a mythical figure? This was claimed by a host of scholars. Then came the Tel Dan find - and those scholars have never recovered from their shame.
Let me know when you are going to introduce your scientific theory. I keep asking for it and you keep not supplying it.
One can find millions of evidenced historical, geographical, scientific and judiciary stats in the verses of the Hebrew bible - more so than any other book in existence. Over 70% has been scientifically proven. Try to nominate anything which can measure against those stats.
Millions huh? Got any evidence for that. Of course not because you are pulling stats out of your arse. Judiciary stats? What exactly is that? Over 70% has been scientifically proven huh? Got any evidence of that. Of course not BECAUSE YOU ARE PULLING STATS FROM YOUR ARSE.
Want a book that can have a better than 70% proven information. Go grab any maths book from any shelf. That should do it. Should be in the order of 100% proven information.
Or pretty much any science textbook from any shelf.
I have successfully refuted the claim a single entity can perform an action; that light is post-energy; which is the first alhabetical book; and that evolution is a direct lift off from a mythical writings. That's where its at.
You have successfully proven exactly ZERO. Nothing.
How could you refute a claim I HAVE NOT EVEN MADE???
"the claim a single entity can perform an action" I have not made this claim. You have refuted nothing.
" that light is post-energy" What the fuck does that mean? I have not made this claim. You have refuted nothing.
"which is the first alhabetical book" ALso bullshit. You have proven nothing.
"evolution is a direct lift off from a mythical writings." That is one of the most ridiculous things you have said so far. And that includes the bits that dont even make grammatical sense. We have not even discussed this in any depth and it is not what this thread is about. You have refuted and proven nothing.
You may as well have just mashed the keypad with your forehead for each of your replies.
Thats where its at.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by IamJoseph, posted 07-21-2011 1:13 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by IamJoseph, posted 07-21-2011 1:49 AM Butterflytyrant has not replied

  
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 4422 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


Message 155 of 297 (624991)
07-21-2011 1:52 AM
Reply to: Message 153 by IamJoseph
07-21-2011 1:35 AM


Re: LET THERE BE LIGHT.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"God said" does not meet any scientific criteria. It is exactly the opposite!
What is so hard for you to undersatnd about this?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No sir. It depends what was said that determines what is correct or not. LET THERE BE LIGHT, said as the first act of an action in the universe, is hardly unscientific. Its in fact a profound statement which is making you sweat as we speak.
Is your grasp on reality that slim? Do you think that any old random statement is scientific if it happens to match reality.
Let me use an example. I said "let there be light". God said "let there be light". Kermit the frog said "let there be light". See if you can spot whay none of those statements is a scientific one.
As soon as you involve a deity it is no longer scientific. It does not matter if the statement is correct. It is still not scientific if God is involved.
It is not a profound statement. It is the same as any other statement.
I am not sweating over your random gibberish. You cannot put together a cohesive argument about the topic of the thread.
I will let you have one more go at trying to pull yourself together and concentrate on trying to answer the question. I have given you all of the resources to do this. I know it will be hard for you but try it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by IamJoseph, posted 07-21-2011 1:35 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by IamJoseph, posted 07-21-2011 2:01 AM Butterflytyrant has not replied
 Message 157 by Panda, posted 07-21-2011 7:01 AM Butterflytyrant has seen this message but not replied

  
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 4422 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


Message 169 of 297 (626070)
07-26-2011 11:44 PM
Reply to: Message 168 by IamJoseph
07-21-2011 11:09 AM


Re: Topic Reminder
IamJoseph,
You have made a lot of claims that I am interested in discussing.
Most of them are in relation to Genesis being the first book, the fist examples of days and weeks, the first calendar, the first census, the first time rivers, mountains, nations etc were named etc etc etc.
Can you please start a thread with your claims of the things that the Book of Genesis was the first at?
I have seen you make these claims on many threads with no evidence.
I would like to see you back up your claims.
Edited by Butterflytyrant, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by IamJoseph, posted 07-21-2011 11:09 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by IamJoseph, posted 07-27-2011 3:24 AM Butterflytyrant has replied

  
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 4422 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


Message 171 of 297 (626093)
07-27-2011 4:57 AM
Reply to: Message 170 by IamJoseph
07-27-2011 3:24 AM


Re: Topic Reminder
IamJoseph,
I cant start the thread. I cant put words into your mouth.
There would have to two threads.
One that Genesis is the first of all of the things you believe it is first at. I dont know all of these, only you do.
And a second thread where you back up this statement with evidence :
Genesis is better aligned with real science and evidenced reality.
You would have to improve that sentence though as is does not quite make grammatical sense.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by IamJoseph, posted 07-27-2011 3:24 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by Chuck77, posted 07-27-2011 5:43 AM Butterflytyrant has replied
 Message 175 by IamJoseph, posted 07-27-2011 6:35 AM Butterflytyrant has not replied

  
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 4422 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


Message 179 of 297 (626111)
07-27-2011 7:27 AM
Reply to: Message 172 by Chuck77
07-27-2011 5:43 AM


Re: Genesis is right on
Hey Chuk77,
This is why I want IamJoseph to start the thread. Your comments will be valuable in that thread. I would like IamJoseph to start the thread because he has some views about the Book of Genesis that I think need to be pursued. He has made some very big statements and I am interested in finding out how he has reached his position.
I am not asking this to prove the the Theory of Evolution. I am asking for more information on IamJosephs claims. His claims very well may end up being very well supported. I dont know if they will disporve Evolution but it will be interesting to see what comes up.
Also, you have only mentioned one small part of Genesis. I am interested in IamJosephs claim the the Genesis creation stroy is 100% scientifically accurate. He has claimed that it is in fact superior to any current scientific theories. I would like him to put his claims in his own words and then back them up with his evidence. He has advised that he has scientific evidence and his position has been reached through scientific study. I am interested in what he has to say.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by Chuck77, posted 07-27-2011 5:43 AM Chuck77 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024