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: 0/1


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 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 129 of 297 (624659)
07-19-2011 9:08 AM
Reply to: Message 127 by Larni
07-19-2011 9:06 AM


Re: Pedantry.
What do you want me to prove - specify it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by Larni, posted 07-19-2011 9:06 AM Larni has not replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 133 of 297 (624773)
07-19-2011 11:11 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by Admin
07-19-2011 9:15 AM


Re: Pedantry.
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.
Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Admin, posted 07-19-2011 9:15 AM Admin has seen this message but not replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 134 of 297 (624774)
07-19-2011 11:21 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by Alfred Maddenstein
07-19-2011 9:28 PM


Re: Pedantry.
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: I know of no theology which can be discussed scientifically aside from Genesis. 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.
Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 07-19-2011 9:28 PM Alfred Maddenstein has not replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 135 of 297 (624783)
07-20-2011 1:19 AM
Reply to: Message 131 by Butterflytyrant
07-19-2011 10:32 AM


Re: LET THERE BE LIGHT.
quote:
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.
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.
quote:
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.
Right, thus I put with or without, namely some may read as the entire universe and its future components and potentials were made instanlty and unfolded later in its due course, say via a command or directive program embedded, or as the universe as it is now. However one reads that part of it, it still refers only to the universe's emergence both readings. The term heaven, IMHO, is said in empierical mode, namely referring to the universe itself - my reason being it is adjacent to the physical earth in the same verse, and all factors which follow appear empirical only. The term universe was yet not coined or understood at this point. Elsewhere, we read the stars in the heavens being innumeral - an emperical statement.
quote:
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?
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. Monotheism is ancient Egypt's antithesis of divine pharoahs and a far more scientific thought which changed our notion of the universe. Today's GUT [grand united theory] is in fact a derivitaion of Monotheism, but headed in a wrong direction: technically there is no ONE in the universe. Having said that, I do see Egyptian and other early notions of the universe as intelligent for its time - humanity had no means to think otherwise: if there was rumblings and thundering it must be the dieties are angry; this was an intelligent pondering for its time. I am not downgrading ancient Egyptian thoughts, just saying it was superceded and discarded by the Hebrew bible, as was Helenism and Romanism, and thereby also earning much of the wratch of dictators who saw one creator and laws of equality as their enemy. The Jews took the brunt of this disdain with numerous existential wars and villifications.
quote:
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.
Fantastic. I fully accept this. But why use this to negate Genesis when it aligns? There is wisdom in all nations and groups of humanity. This is true even if we find an earlier than Genesis writings which says the same thing, but which Genesis does not negate but accepts, such as the law NOT TO STEAL. Consider than many can understand the theory of relativity and quote it - but how many can edit and improve it?
quote:
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.
You've lost me here. Mentioning colors and 'above' losses it, marking the dif with Genesis. The stars on a canopy, seen in ancient drawings, is not Genesis but a discarded flat earth policy which persisted till medevial European times.
quote:
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.
LOL - are u serious - this is ubsurd paganism?! They antithetise the same grounds I refer to. I accept pristine, unqualifiable monotheism and scientifically inclined premises only which stand to scrutinity. You are quting what the Hebrew bible antithetised.
quote:
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?
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?
quote:
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.
False or incorrect. Your comprehension is the problem. I pointed out to you, v14 speaks only of LUMINOSITY - not the stars and moon. Namely, its texts refer only to 'great lights' [luminosity] from the stars and moon - this refers to a critical focusing of the light - the precise amount to sustain life. How else can it be read; how else can anything be scientifically acceptable? There is light everywhere in the universe but no life - so this refers to a critical focusing of the light only.
quote:
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.
The premise the earth is 6000 years old is a distortion of the Genesis texts, is what I was referring to.
quote:
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?
Yes, something like that, and this is correct understanding of how it must be. No such thing as a half life, as opposed to a completed life form. Nor can a life form be alive without being first completed and then ignited to come alive. Its not, as you infer, ridiculous. If you want to make a zebra or a car - first complete the damn thing!
quote:
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.
Your comprehension is challenging, but in a negative form. The notion of shurbs [growth output], yieding of seeds [repro], etc never occured yet and refers only to living matter now, is what Genesis is saying. Things were complete but static. Imagine a car factory where 100's of cars are completed and standing still ready to be ignited- its antithesis says wheels, brakes and car horns were made then the car drove and in time it became a car. Which is more plausible?
quote:
"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.
It aligns with emperical things we see all around us. The entire universe turns via intelligent laws and appears only as a work of wisdom.
quote:
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?
I don't use the term intent here. I do say hydrogen behaves a certain way and interacts only according to the attributes inherent within it. And that such attributes are uniquely applied and seen - which infers only a directed program embedded in the void before such laws were inserted. Anything else is not science anymore. Its not random is also what I am saying. Pineapplies do not emulate hydrogen - not even randomly after billions of years. You may use the word intent or purpose, it does not negate the premise of anticipatory results and that nothing is superfluous in the universe.
quote:
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.
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.
quote:
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?
Yes, that is all I was saying. Whether one agrees or not, it remains a viable, scientific premise by Genesis and I happen to agree with it. I know of no other alternative to it.
quote:
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.
Ok. 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.
quote:
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.
The seed factor rules. Science, when examined close up, aligns only with Genesis.
quote:
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)
A nice sounding statement but it does not apply here. That the universe is finite [with a beginningpoint], and that it is billions of years old [the separation factors listed before life emerged], and that the stars are unaccountable, is seen only in Genesis. If one examines the mechanism of the Genesis calendar, they can conclude only that the earth is not flat but a ball spinning and revolving around the sun, with the moon impacting on its seasons.
quote:
The seed shall follow its own kind. So what. Farmers knew this thousands of years before Genesis was written. What does this prove exactly?
The farmers affirm the Genesis texts - that what it means! The seed rules. Apples and barley come from their own seed kinds, as do zebras and apes.
quote:
"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."
You ignored the glaring deficiency where the seed is not even mentioned in ToE, while Genesis claims it as the primal impacter here! Is evolution even possible w/o the seed factor - or the critical actions listed prior to the advent of life?
quote:
Fully scientific? Whose science are you using?
Evidenced and manifest science, observable w/o waiting billions of years for verification.
quote:
.
How about we get back to the topic.
Please!
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.
According to the text, which I agree with:
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].
A host of other products and actions followed, each corresponding with the attributes embedded within. The subject matter soon focuses on one planet after a background of the universe is described in what can be said are the first cosmological faculties from which science resulted, naely it propelled questions aligned to a finite realm. Abraham is said t be responsible for the first scientific equation, aka Monotheism, namely the kings of nations were not divine, nor was the sun the ruler of the universe. The latter is conducive to the sun being one of many stars, later affirmed by science.
One may accept or reject; but one cannot say these are not scientific descriptions.
Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Butterflytyrant, posted 07-19-2011 10:32 AM Butterflytyrant has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by Butterflytyrant, posted 07-20-2011 9:46 AM IamJoseph has replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 137 of 297 (624801)
07-20-2011 4:22 AM
Reply to: Message 136 by Larni
07-20-2011 3:20 AM


Re: Pedantry.
quote:
The fact that we are in a science forum means the accuracy of the bible is not assumed a priori.
Knock-knock! You forgot to list which part of Genesis is not scientific. Pls prove your case!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by Larni, posted 07-20-2011 3:20 AM Larni has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by Larni, posted 07-20-2011 5:39 AM IamJoseph has not replied
 Message 140 by Admin, posted 07-20-2011 6:38 AM IamJoseph has not replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 138 of 297 (624802)
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?

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by Butterflytyrant, posted 07-20-2011 6:20 PM IamJoseph has not replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 143 of 297 (624962)
07-20-2011 10:06 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by Butterflytyrant
07-20-2011 9:46 AM


Re: LET THERE BE LIGHT.
quote:
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.
No, I cannot condone that. Fact is, the issue is not confusing at all, and none have taken it up, instead deflecting to other non-impacting issue - the only reason for any exhaustion I cited. Once more with feelings:
quote:
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?
If you recall, the topic being the origin of light, and my view this was the first primordial entity in the universe. This strateched to fusion and energy as predating light, namely that light was a by product; I countered that light predates energy, and the means of making light manifest does not mean energy created light per se, that fusion or any other means could notproduce light if it was not pre-existant. The discussion then graduated to what was the first entity, and here I claimed that the first entity, which is widely seen as the BB could not have emerged via a singular entity but a complex construct of items, and that no action can occur only via a singular, ireducible and indivisible item. It is possible some inter-play may have occured of posts in this thread and one other thread, but the issue of a singulairity certainly impacts in this thread - it is not a varrying of the topic IMHO.
quote:
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.
The origin of light is not a result of fusion, as stated, nor that we do not know because laws broke down. Light predates all universal components and has attributes not shared by any other: thus it cannot be a derivitive or newly manufactured product of stars or any other means. If that is not relevent to this thread then what else impacts on light's origins more profoundly?
quote:
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.
No, I say instead that Genesis predates what became known as theologies, but is generically cast away in the same green bag. The new theologies have nothing to say on scientific premises. I am not using theology, instead I am saying that Genesis is humanity's primal scientific treatise, a mysterious document which confounds how a group of savage slaves and desert wanderors could come up with such a set of books; it gave birth to science and is the only ancient document which can stand up to state of art science today. One must argue Genesis on scientific premises, not in a disdain mode referring to all theologies, a common trend with athiests.
quote:
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.
The universe being finite, light being the first product, the first separation of life forms and Monotheism - these are what propelled today's science. Calling it a theology does not change this fact. Show us some other theologies which have the same impact? There is a difference in a writings which depends on laws and those which deend only on NAMES. Genesis is not a belief based document; the terms religion and theology are relatively new.
quote:
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.
Period of time refers to 4000 years of Monotheism and still active; cencus refers to the first scientifically based account of a group of people, numbered in the millions, with scientific sub-totals of gender, ages, tribes and names - the first of its kind recorded in a book.
quote:
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.
No, I never referred to dimensions or sizes, the point was about the universe being finite. When push came to shove, this premise was ultimately violated with novel manipulations: we don't know what laws existed then; energy can still be viable pre-universe, etc. This is why Genesis marks the mode of protocol: first up when discussing the universe, state your preamble which universe you are discussiung - a finite or infinite one; then let every subsequent factor of claim align with the preamble with no wavering or violations. It should be clear the novel violations stem from an utter inability to sustain what is not claimed in the preamble. Anything goes in an infinite realm - one does not even need laws: it was always so!
quote:
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 are of course incorrect in equating those verses with Genesis. The differences are striking, to the extent they become antithetical of each other, which you ignored. Sun gods and flat earths have been discarded only because of Genesis. We have not been referring to Egyptian or Hellenist versions of the universe in this thread: why is that?
quote:
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.
There is no resemblance of a potter's wheel, sun deities, divine emperors, bubling waters and head bashing dieties - with the premise of a finite universe followed by an array of processes which align with both science and logic. Today's science accepts evolution - this comes from Genesis, not from Darwin!
quote:
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.
False. You are following a widespread falsehood. The epic has been re-dated, even still disputed of the new datings and is not a book [multi-page continuing narrative], not alphabetical and is most probably a substantial copy of the Hebrew bible. The epic is post-Mosaic and has no historical figures or points which can be verified as historical; the Hebrew wiritings do this pervasively.
quote:
I have to ask again. Do you believe that the first time that days and weeks were recognised was when genesis was written.
Yes. If you want further proof, only the days and weeks in Genesis is aligned with a scientifically designed calendar able to measure real time and seasons. Where is the babylonian calendar of days and weeks? I am certain the Babylonions contributed other forms of knowledge, but not those which appear in Genesis; the latter could not be a work of duplicity by virtue it contains new stuff, the most striking being Monotheism - a world and universe changer.
quote:
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.
All humans understand time and measure it in various ways, as do all animals also. This is an inherent mechanism. Methods used include hour glasses, the moon, weather patterns, seasons, etc. Egypt used the anoining of emperors to denote cycles of time, erasing all references to previous kings. The Hebrew calendar is 100% scientifically based and marks a striking new table, requiring exacting times of sunrise and sunsets in advance, and remembering specific festival anniversaries: if the sun was 12 p'clock high 3000 years ago on a certain day, the sun would again be at that point 3000 years later on that same day. This is a calendar different in kind. Today's Gregorian calendar comes from Genesis' calendar, replaces according to the birth of Jesus and Sunday as its new input.
quote:
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.
But you have not negated genesis in any way what so ever, even using the best of today's sciences. I pointed out the deficient portrayals of texts in your responses: light is the first product seperated from the void; the universe could not have emerged in a single entity; and everything in the universe operates via magestic laws - that is 100% science. Further, the deliberations of changes and osmosis does not impact there is nowhere else for any componenents to come from but the original construct; the implied variations of intent and purpose does not negate the requirement of anticipatory actions to usher in a result - like light and darkness, and water and land sepeations - these have no other reseasoning than to welcome life:
The dinner table is ready for the guests, applies. Jitterbugging quarks or an old man with a white beard called NATURE does not impact.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by Butterflytyrant, posted 07-20-2011 9:46 AM Butterflytyrant has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by Coyote, posted 07-20-2011 10:17 PM IamJoseph has replied
 Message 145 by Butterflytyrant, posted 07-20-2011 10:24 PM IamJoseph has replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 146 of 297 (624975)
07-21-2011 12:58 AM
Reply to: Message 144 by Coyote
07-20-2011 10:17 PM


Re: LET THERE BE WATER (or not)
Its total humbug. The flood is a regional one, limited to 'NOAH'S POSSESSIONS AND HOUSEHOLD' [the text]; the descriptions of all the mountains being covered and the earth submerged is how it appeared to the people. In ancient times people never left their villages all their lives, and Tasmania never existed then.
Better you hail that writings for the first historical aerial view recording of Mount Ararat in its correct geographical location. No need to discuss this issue, but it shows how misrep this writings has been subjected to; its akin to the widespread belief the Hebrew bible is mythical.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by Coyote, posted 07-20-2011 10:17 PM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by Butterflytyrant, posted 07-21-2011 1:03 AM IamJoseph has replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 148 of 297 (624977)
07-21-2011 1:03 AM
Reply to: Message 145 by Butterflytyrant
07-20-2011 10:24 PM


Re: LET THERE BE LIGHT.
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.
Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by Butterflytyrant, posted 07-20-2011 10:24 PM Butterflytyrant has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by Butterflytyrant, posted 07-21-2011 1:22 AM IamJoseph has replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 149 of 297 (624979)
07-21-2011 1:13 AM
Reply to: Message 147 by Butterflytyrant
07-21-2011 1:03 AM


Re: LET THERE BE WATER (or not)
quote:
The Hebrew bible is mythical.
Myth - a traditional or legendary story
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.
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.
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.
Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by Butterflytyrant, posted 07-21-2011 1:03 AM Butterflytyrant has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by Butterflytyrant, posted 07-21-2011 1:33 AM IamJoseph has replied
 Message 163 by Theodoric, posted 07-21-2011 9:59 AM IamJoseph has replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 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 replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 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 replied

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

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 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 replied

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

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 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 replied

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

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 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 replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by Admin, posted 07-21-2011 9:41 AM IamJoseph 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