Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8936 total)
22 online now:
DrJones*, dwise1, Tanypteryx (3 members, 19 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Post Volume: Total: 861,614 Year: 16,650/19,786 Month: 775/2,598 Week: 21/251 Day: 21/23 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What is the creation science theory of the origin of light?
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 1922 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 151 of 297 (624984)
07-21-2011 1:31 AM
Reply to: Message 150 by Butterflytyrant
07-21-2011 1:22 AM


Re: LET THERE BE LIGHT.
quote:
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.


Feel free to post anything from any scripture, e.g. from the Gospels or Quran. If it meets scientific enquirey, why should you care who says it or where?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by Butterflytyrant, posted 07-21-2011 1:22 AM Butterflytyrant has not yet responded

    
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 2676 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 responded

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

    
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 1922 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 153 of 297 (624986)
07-21-2011 1:35 AM
Reply to: Message 150 by Butterflytyrant
07-21-2011 1:22 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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by Butterflytyrant, posted 07-21-2011 1:22 AM Butterflytyrant has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by Butterflytyrant, posted 07-21-2011 1:52 AM IamJoseph has responded

    
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 1922 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 154 of 297 (624989)
07-21-2011 1:49 AM
Reply to: Message 152 by Butterflytyrant
07-21-2011 1:33 AM


Re: LET THERE BE WATER (or not)
quote:
Let me know when you are going to introduce your scientific theory. I keep asking for it and you keep not supplying it.

These are more than theories:

THE UNIVERSE HAD A BEGINNING.

LIGHT IS THE FIRST PRODUCT IN THE UNIVERSE.

A SEED SHALL FOLLOW ITS OWN KIND.

MAN AND WOMEN CREATED HE THEM

HUMANS ARE THE ONLY LIFE FORMS REQUIRING CLOTHING.

ADAM IS THE FIRST RECORDING OF A HUMAN NAME.

SPEECH ENDOWED HUMANS ARE 6000 YEARS OLD - 5771 TO BE EXACT.

quote:
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?


Yes.

quote:

Got any evidence for that. Of course not because you are pulling stats out of your arse. Judiciary stats? What exactly is that?


Judiicary laws come from the Hebrew bible - exclusively.Name one from another source?

quote:

Over 70% has been scientifically proven huh? Got any evidence of that. Of course not BECAUSE YOU ARE PULLING STATS FROM YOUR ARSE.


Yes, I have. Start another thread.

quote:

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.


You will find errors in math and telephone books. Consider this:

In a diarised span of 3000 years, there is one of the 10 Commandments which says REMEMBER 'THIS' DAY AS THE SABBATH. That 'THIS' day [today] was actually the Sabbath [Saturday], and this can be calculated from the entire 3000 years of writings, which lists 1000's of dates and numbers strewn across its verses. Beat that for accuracy! I was flabbergasted how such accuracy was possessed by an ancient group - yet you dismiss it as myth? How many telephone numbers are listed inaccurately?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by Butterflytyrant, posted 07-21-2011 1:33 AM Butterflytyrant has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by Theodoric, posted 07-21-2011 10:05 AM IamJoseph has responded

    
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 2676 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 responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by IamJoseph, posted 07-21-2011 2:01 AM Butterflytyrant has not yet responded
 Message 157 by Panda, posted 07-21-2011 7:01 AM Butterflytyrant has acknowledged this reply

    
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 1922 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 156 of 297 (624993)
07-21-2011 2:01 AM
Reply to: Message 155 by Butterflytyrant
07-21-2011 1:52 AM


Re: LET THERE BE LIGHT.
quote:
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.

How about questioning your own grasp of reality. Any of those sources will qualify - based on one simple criteria. Whoever said it first - not by repeating it. If Kermit said it first, he wins. Your manipulation does not work as an example of your reality grasp!

quote:

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.


No 'a' diety, no shape, no image. Here, we find only an indescribable and indefinable source as the creator. BTW - that is vindicated: NO MAN SHALL KNOW ME AND LIVE. A universe maker for a manifest universe is not myth - its reverse is myth, based on no science whatsoever. Your abounding confidence in your haughtiness is mythical.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by Butterflytyrant, posted 07-21-2011 1:52 AM Butterflytyrant has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by Admin, posted 07-21-2011 7:44 AM IamJoseph has responded

    
Panda
Member (Idle past 1967 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 157 of 297 (625013)
07-21-2011 7:01 AM
Reply to: Message 155 by Butterflytyrant
07-21-2011 1:52 AM


Re: LET THERE BE LIGHT.
Butterflytyrant writes:

Is your grasp on reality that slim?


You seem to be getting frustrated, so I suggest taking a break from replying to IamJoseph.
No-one will think less of you for not wanting to roll around with IamJoseph in his incoherent pit of ignorance, superstition and madness.
Trying to pull meaning out of his paralogical spaghetti is a pointless task.

(I wonder how many people will have to criticise his language skills before he realises that he may have a problem...)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by Butterflytyrant, posted 07-21-2011 1:52 AM Butterflytyrant has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by IamJoseph, posted 07-21-2011 8:10 AM Panda has responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12620
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002


Message 158 of 297 (625024)
07-21-2011 7:44 AM
Reply to: Message 156 by IamJoseph
07-21-2011 2:01 AM


Re: LET THERE BE LIGHT.
Hello IamJoseph,

This thread seeks information about the creation science theory of the origin of light, specifically how God created light when he said, "Let there light." The opening post specifically asks how the theory that God created light is testable, and what evidence has been gathered that successfully satisfies these tests.

You believe God created light, but that God created light was a given from the opening post. You also believe the Bible is a scientific document, and maybe it is, but whether it is or isn't the topic of this thread. A Biblical account is not scientific evidence. Facts, observations, experiments, mathematical calculations, etc., these are all part of building scientific evidence. You need this kind of scientific support for your assertions.

What the OP requests and what you haven't provided is any evidence in support of the theory that God created light, or that tells us how God created light. You have made a large number of bare assertions that, if true, might support the theory that God created light, but you have provided no evidence for those assertions. You also have not explained how God created light and the scientific evidence we have that tells us how God created light.

You need to begin supplying the evidence behind your beliefs rather than just asserting what you believe, and you need to tell us how we know, scientifically from the evidence gathered by our observations, how God created light.

By the way, a perfectly legitimate scientific answer is that there is insufficient evidence for answering any given scientific question, but in that case of course it cannot be claimed as something you scientifically know to be true.

--Percy


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by IamJoseph, posted 07-21-2011 2:01 AM IamJoseph has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by IamJoseph, posted 07-21-2011 8:06 AM Admin has responded

    
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 1922 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 159 of 297 (625030)
07-21-2011 8:06 AM
Reply to: Message 158 by Admin
07-21-2011 7:44 AM


Re: LET THERE BE LIGHT.
quote:

By the way, a perfectly legitimate scientific answer is that there is insufficient evidence for answering any given scientific question, but in that case of course it cannot be claimed as something you scientifically know to be true.

Insufficient evidence is not an acceptable answer. We can now fathom a millionth nano sec of the universe - why then the improvised fire wall when we get to just another millionth of a second further - what bars our minds?

quote:
You have made a large number of bare assertions that, if true, might support the theory that God created light, but you have provided no evidence for those assertions.

There is a not an unexpected variance of thinking here; mostly, this is because for 2000 and 2600 years, the Hebrew bible has been grotesquely mis-represented by two new religions, who promoted only that which they could align with their own doctrines; the finer details were never considered, and we have a twisted understanding of genesis. That both those religions totally contradict each other in everything, including descriptions of the same space-time requires no further affirmation of the fact. The mis-rep has seeped into dictionaries and encyclopedia and history and science books - many still believe Genesis says the earth is 6000 years old - which is a European Christian preaching!

I don't agree I have not presented adequate evidence, at least not so of evidence which is aligned with science and logic: I have done this. What is forgotten is that laws never existed at one time, or that they could not be the factors which enabled the universe to happen. To say that the laws we know and which are based specifically for the earth, says that one day man will be able to create universes in vases in labs. Here, the demand for empirical proof becomes a mute point - as has been well evidenced by the manipulations and backtrackings when responses are made and when my responses are deemed inadequate, usually with more colorful adjectives.

There is no alternative to ex-nehilo; not because I am deficient in science, but because I am not - and thus I concluded the universe could not have emerged via our empiracal laws. The latter clearly emerged later. Analogy: the car was preceded by car laws; the car laws were in turn preceded by raw base metals in the ground which have no relationship to the car laws. That is what I believe occured with the universe. If someone thinks their science is better than mine - let them give a scientific answer which makes more sense. I'm listening?

Which laws are we to look for? Laws of gravity apply to this universe, and would not be needed when no stars existed. So we are talking of a scenario where no tools, elements, laws yet existed - and it is this POV which must apply - not the emperical laws we know.

Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by Admin, posted 07-21-2011 7:44 AM Admin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by Admin, posted 07-21-2011 9:41 AM IamJoseph has not yet responded

    
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 1922 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 160 of 297 (625031)
07-21-2011 8:10 AM
Reply to: Message 157 by Panda
07-21-2011 7:01 AM


Re: LET THERE BE LIGHT.
Is the universe you exist in - finite or infinite? If its not a stupid question.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by Panda, posted 07-21-2011 7:01 AM Panda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by Panda, posted 07-21-2011 9:21 AM IamJoseph has not yet responded

    
Panda
Member (Idle past 1967 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 161 of 297 (625057)
07-21-2011 9:21 AM
Reply to: Message 160 by IamJoseph
07-21-2011 8:10 AM


Re: LET THERE BE LIGHT.
IamJoseph writes:

Is the universe you exist in - finite or infinite? If its not a stupid question.


You clearly didn't understand what I wrote - which is not a surprise.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by IamJoseph, posted 07-21-2011 8:10 AM IamJoseph has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12620
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002


Message 162 of 297 (625063)
07-21-2011 9:41 AM
Reply to: Message 159 by IamJoseph
07-21-2011 8:06 AM


Re: LET THERE BE LIGHT.
IamJoseph writes:

Insufficient evidence is not an acceptable answer. We can now fathom a millionth nano sec of the universe - why then the improvised fire wall when we get to just another millionth of a second further - what bars our minds?

This is a reference to the Big Bang theory, and this thread is not about the Big Bang. It's about the creation science theory of the origin of light, specifically, how God created light?

IamJoseph writes:

I don't agree I have not presented adequate evidence, at least not so of evidence which is aligned with science and logic: I have done this.

Here is a list of assertions and conclusions from your post that are not supported by any evidence or rationale:

  1. "...laws never existed at one time..."

  2. "...[laws] could not be the factors which enabled the universe to happen."

  3. "There is no alternative to ex-nehilo."

  4. "I concluded the universe could not have emerged via our empiracal laws."

If I were go back to go back to your other messages the list would be far longer. In the future please describe what scientific observations, experiments, facts, etc., support your assertions and conclusions.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by IamJoseph, posted 07-21-2011 8:06 AM IamJoseph has not yet responded

    
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6551
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 163 of 297 (625067)
07-21-2011 9:59 AM
Reply to: Message 149 by IamJoseph
07-21-2011 1:13 AM


Tel Dan stele? Really?
Any findings at Tel Dan do nothing to confirm or deny anything in the bible about a david. There is one inscription with a mention of Israel and David.
This is a translation of the actual text

quote:
king of Israel, and I killed iahu son of g of the House of David

Any more than this is additions made by modern scholars.

There is nothing here that eliminates the possibility that the biblical David was a mythical character. There is also nothing in it that eliminates the possibility that the biblical David is based upon an historical character and the bible stories are myth.

Then came the Tel Dan find - and those scholars have never recovered from their shame.

Care to show anyone that was shamed by this find?

As an aside.

I was at Tel Dan in the early 80's. At that time there was not an active dig in progress. I may have walked right over the stele. I spent a couple summers at Tel Gerisa near Tel Aviv.

Over 70% has been scientifically proven.

Can you provide evidence and your calculations, or are you pulling this out of your ass?

I am sure I could get a higher % for Tom Sawyer. Therefore according to your reasoning Tom Sawyer is completely factual.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by IamJoseph, posted 07-21-2011 1:13 AM IamJoseph has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by IamJoseph, posted 07-21-2011 11:06 AM Theodoric has acknowledged this reply

    
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6551
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 164 of 297 (625070)
07-21-2011 10:05 AM
Reply to: Message 154 by IamJoseph
07-21-2011 1:49 AM


Judiciary laws
Judiicary laws come from the Hebrew bible - exclusively.Name one from another source?

Code of Hammurabi
Roman Law
English Common Law


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by IamJoseph, posted 07-21-2011 1:49 AM IamJoseph has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by IamJoseph, posted 07-21-2011 10:35 AM Theodoric has acknowledged this reply

    
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 1922 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 165 of 297 (625086)
07-21-2011 10:35 AM
Reply to: Message 164 by Theodoric
07-21-2011 10:05 AM


Re: Judiciary laws
quote:
Code of Hammurabi

The code is post-Abraham and post-Mosaic, as per its own declarations, and which are not accurate to small margin periods. Its proof is you cannot produce a contuinity of the Hamurabi documents - you can with the Hebrew. Also, the Hebrew is seen containing a few common laws, however the absence of some 90% of the Hamurabi codes in the Hebrew says it is not a lift-off, as inferred. The Hebrew bible remains the most comprehensive source of laws the world follows - all world accepted laws are found only in the Hebrew bible; anything not in the Hebrew bible is not a law. Sounds prepostrous I know.

quote:

Roman Law
English Common Law


The only Roman law said to be new is the claim referring to allowing Romans to take a foreign wife. This is a bogus law because the forbiddence of the marraige was wrong in the first place. The rest of laws allocated to Rome are derivities only and not laws but can be called as regulatory and derived. E.g. a speeding fine is a derivitive law relating to safety; it is not a new law.

Common law are allowences made and sanctioned of customs which are traditional and culture related. They can be considered lawless or offensive in other areas.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by Theodoric, posted 07-21-2011 10:05 AM Theodoric has acknowledged this reply

    
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019