|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 4422 days) Posts: 415 From: Australia Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: What is the creation science theory of the origin of light? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3668 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
What do you want me to prove - specify it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3668 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3668 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3668 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: The premise the earth is 6000 years old is a distortion of the Genesis texts, is what I was referring to.
quote: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: The seed factor rules. Science, when examined close up, aligns only with Genesis.
quote: 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 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: 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: Evidenced and manifest science, observable w/o waiting billions of years for verification.
quote: Please!
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3668 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: Knock-knock! You forgot to list which part of Genesis is not scientific. Pls prove your case!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3668 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
Butterfy:
quote: I gave you mine. Now you give yours?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3668 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: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: 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: 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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3668 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3668 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3668 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3668 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3668 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3668 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: 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: Yes.
quote: Judiicary laws come from the Hebrew bible - exclusively.Name one from another source?
quote: Yes, I have. Start another thread.
quote: 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3668 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: 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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3668 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: 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: 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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024