|
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: |
Is the universe you exist in - finite or infinite? If its not a stupid question.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3668 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: 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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3668 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: That is a terrible appraisal. The entire text is made by another nation in their own language. It tells of a war which has been historically proven and David's grandchildren, who were referred to as names + House of David. This is proof David existed, at the precise time and the same war mentioned in the book of Kings.
quote: Here you are - another find confirming King David, and a study which answers those who questioned this find:
quote: quote: Then you should know a whole array of relics have been found here, including one from the period of the book of Esther and coins and pottery. Its not all a co-incidence. I know of no 3,300 year historical person being proven, other than the stone ethchings on the Pyramids. We have no proof of Jesus, the apostles [just 2000 years ago] or of Buddha [2,500 years ago].
quote: I read such an article, which included relative number of finds from different periods of the most iconic figures and events of the Hebrew bible. Its safe to say no other scripture has equivalent proof by a big margin, despite its more ancient dating. David is a mere 250 years from Moses - this is impressive proof in any language. His son K Solomon and the temple he built, with coins of that period have also been found. It is important to me that such minor factors are being proven, because it says the Hebrew bible, like it or not, is a very believable writing, and this adds credence to its other exaggerated sounding stories about floods and an exodus. Nothing in these writings have ever been disproven - which is a feat in itself, with everyone obsessed with targeting these books and people.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3668 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
I was only responding to posts to me, not intending to post such things on my own.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3668 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: I don't see why it should go in a special thread if it is factually proven as deriving from Genesis and posited in a scientific mode, however you can start such a thread if you like. These are among the factors introduced in Genesis chaper 1, and if you need back-up textual references for any I can give them. I do not know of any recording where these factors are mentioned elsewhere prior to Genesis. 1 declares the universe as finite, namely that there was a beginning. V2 says no laws existed at this time, and everything was a formless void. Of recent, this has also become a scientific theory, but Plank states it back to front, going back in time, instead of assuming at the start-up point. The premise of laws breaking down is incorrect; better that laws once never existed [Genesis]; that is why stars emerged later - not because laws broke down, but because the laws had yet not came into being to form stars. V3 shows the point when laws [science] came into being and the formless became formed. There was no science before this point, which obviously would include theories such as evolution. V4. Says, agree or disagree, that the first primordial product of the universe was Light, appearing ammediately after formation laws were initiated, and before the advent of stars. This verse also says how the light occured, namely via the laws embedded [in particles like quarks?], which became 'SEPARATED' from all else - this is the meaning of becoming a 'FORMED' entity, which contrasts with the un-formed. The laws allowed things to become independent entities via separations. Photons would arguably not have existed at this time, as the light was either not visible [e.g. radiation] or there was none to envision the light as yet. Photons would have emerged in V14, which speaks of Luminosity. The DAY & the WEEK is also introduced here. V5 onwards speaks of other actions beside light, focusing now on earth, as anticipatory actions of forthcoming life, namely the critical separations of day and night, and water from land. This says life could not emerge without these actions, appearing ammediately prior to mentioning life forms, and IMHO making Darwinian evolution deficient and not comprehensive in its theories how life emerged. Species [Kinds]. The first recording of life form groupings and sub-groupings are now introduced for the first time, categorised via terrain and habitat, as opposed to skeletal features and fossils, namely as vegetation, water borne, air borne, land borne, speech endowed kinds. In these verses 'ALL' of the factors mentioned in Darwinian evolution can be found, including DNA and cross-speciation of the life forms belonging to the same terrain. The variance with Darwin is that all life stemmed from one life - while Genesis posits that each specie was specifically designed and they appeared in their completed forms, derived solely from the seed and have no impact from the environment. Also in this first creation chapter is the premise that all life was initiated in a positive/negative gender duality, then separated as independent positive and negative genders. Darwin does not explain the gender variances, nor accounts the pivotal factor of the host seed. My personal vew is that Genesis is better aligned with real science and evidenced reality.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3668 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: I would not enter them in a science thread unless they were the first recording - this makes them premptive premises of science. Many of those items are commonly known, thus I asked which one are you unsure of? I gave you verse numbers.
quote: Others have said my english is an issue, but I don't see problems of confusion here. Real science has to be vindicated for a long period; not all held by science is agreed upon, many are theories, many become negated, and many are explained only theoretically - this is what I mean by real science - accepted and evidenced in our midst, thus our evidenced [proven] reality, as opposed millions of years ago. An example relates to the Darwinian premise all life forms stem from one life form; how is this evidenced? Does it align with what we see and have known since recorded time? If not, then the premise of Genesis prevails, that a life form emerged fully completed in its origins, and that it follows its own kind. Both are premises of science which may or not be agreed by all; but only one of them can be evidenced in our reality and in our midst without waiting for eons of years. I have previously shown that an on-going process is at all times unaffected by the time factor, which appears the substantial reasoning used by evolutionists. The other factor used are fossils. Matched against what we see in our midst is a greater evidence than fossils, which can be either doctored, or the billions of other similar fitting fossils be ignored. I also say that 'ALL' factors claimed by Darwin and provable as correct observances, are listed in Genesis, and are not the result of the factors claimed by Darwin. The host output [seed] transcends any and all evolutionary impacts. But its a bad career move to admit this today. Edited by Admin, : Under a message title of "Topic Reminder", IamJoseph posts off-topic. Content hidden.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3668 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: I see the premises given are scientific and follow an imtelligent sequence of patterns of cause and effect. Ignore the term theology for an instant when reading, and account for the fact the writings must comply with all generation's sciences. Of note there is no error - no flat earth declared - this makes this writings varied from any other theology! That light is the first product of the universe is already vindicated by science: the universe's very age is measured by light [background radiation]; the BBT, in discussing the first point of the universe's initiation, relies on a BANG - which aligns with a flash of light; the age [and distance] of a star is discernable only by its light and the estimation how much time has elapsed; the age of the universe [13.5B years] is likewise reliant on light as the first product. Such factors are scientific and better than theories. But to better contest me, one has to produce an alternative candidate instead of light - not simply demand this of me when the subject matter is so delicate as to only be explained theoretcally and by reasoning of the text today. I believe this is what is vindicated with no other alternatives presented.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3668 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: How would you be if someone found a bone fossil of an ass' jawbone which exactly fits your own? Would you then negate the chimp connection? And why do we have to wait for millions of years in an on-going process?
quote: Well put. No one is asking anyone to believe in a Creator; only that there does not appear any scientific alternative. Never mind what I want.
quote: Pls tell us your accounting of a time period for separating water from land? Of note, this is listed "BEFORE' the advent of any life. Catch the ball!
quote: How much more time is reasonable? And would all changes of all species occur at the same time - if not, then some changes MUST be manifested last friday and next friday. Its about math #101. Edited by Admin, : It is perplexing that IamJoseph can't follow simple requests to discuss light instead of species, but I just don't think he can help himself. I still have to follow the Forum Guidelines, so I'm hiding the content and suspending for 24 hours.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3668 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
I was trying to promote the premise it does not matter where a statement comes from, as long as it is scientifically debatable in a science thread. If, for example, one limits a scientific theory such as the universe is finite being unacceptable because it is from a document seen as a theology, then we have a one sided view of science. Consider that in a theological discussion someone mentions the first recording of Mount Ararat or Mount Nebo - and it is rejected as not theological but geographical; consider if one mentions the Philistines and it is rejected because it is not theological but historical? Is this not happening here when one argues Light as the first property emerging in the universe, and gives scientific reasoning why this is so, and how this is in fact backed by major science conclusions today?
I am not interested in theology; however if someone makes a statement from a theological document, and proves itself as viable today in scientific, historical and logical reasoning, I will accept it - whether it comes from Buddhism, Islam, Gospels or any other source. I have not witnessed such in most theologies other than in Genesis and I have looked for such alignments. Yet I also understand the monitor's problem here: theologies bind its followers in a straight jacket and a sane discussion is not feasible; and this also applies to non-theologists who deny blatant factual scientific recordings, such as the first record of species and evolution is in Genesis. Ultimately, we have to confront such denials and concur - because they are not deniable.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3668 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
Absolutely I can respond to all those issues in another thread, and I will do so in a scientific, historical and factual mode with logical references.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3668 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
Light can be reasoned as the first product in the universe. Consider that the age of the universe is measured by light, such as the residual radiation speed derived time period; this says the universe is some 14B years; and that subsequently says light is the first product. Consider that light can be produced by stars and an AA torch battery, but these actions could not produce light if light was not already existing as a precedent factor per se. Consider that the BBT displays a BANG/EXPLOSION as the first action - this also says light was the first product, because no stars, radiation or torch batteries yet existed.
That this statement is first recorded in Genesis does not negate its value. Here is a link which is backed by the world's greatest scientists which denies a random universe, pre- and parallel universes [because that would violate this universe's finite factor], and that the universe appears a result of scientific step by step anticipatory laws and actions which result in specific products - this is also what is stated in Genesis, namely that life emerged after such specific anticipatory actions which cater only to forthcoming life: this can thus be seen as the proto-thesis of science. Check it out - this aligns only with Creationism, namely that the universe is the result of a universe maker - read, not by evolution: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9feXeL-3XA&feature=rec-L...
|
|||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3668 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: This is an abuse of the proof criteria; however all descriptions of the BBT use the term BANG and EXPLOSION, which infers only a flash of light before any other result; namely because light has a transcendent velosity and will be seen/percieved before any other factor. Note:
quote: The last sentence, a 'primeval atom' is what I see as a scientific glitch - it is not possible to effect a result based on a singular atom [as in an indivisible and irreducible atom]. A singular atom can have numerous internal components, such as electrons, quarks, bison particles; these can harbour a directive program as in a mobile phone chip; this says subsequently that there are also no external factors at this point [e.g. evolution]. In fact, there is no 'ONE' in the universe; 'ONE' of itself cannot produce an action. This leaves no other alternative to an independent, precedent and transcendent force responsible for the universe, and this applies from a scientific, not a theological, premise. Genesis appears correct that light is the first product, and is backed by state of art science today.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3668 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: The issue of electricity and magnetic forms of energy are later derivitive factors; namely these are effects of actions measurable. The magnetic & electric forces depend on mass drag and interactions of later existing products, similar to the force of gravity which depends on mass [stars] acting in a mode [rotation drag] which causes fords and dips in space. So yes, I see light as precedent of these factors. Light is produced by numerous interactions. For sure, light prevailed at the beginning point - prior to the products mentioned. Why is it an issue that light was the first primordial product? If we nominate forces instead, then light would not be existing unless those forces had other products to interact with - but this will negate any notion of a first atom; as well it will render an effect preceding the cause! Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3668 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
How about "BANG!"
After all, an explosion is a burst and the first product which is percieved here is the one which can travel fastest. In fact, one cannot percieve anything, not even radiation or explosions, without light per se being already an existing phenomenon.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3668 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
The last two posts are problematic in identifying any specific issues.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024