Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What is the creation science theory of the origin of light?
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


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


Re: LET THERE BE LIGHT.
Is the universe you exist in - finite or infinite? If its not a stupid question.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by Panda, posted 07-21-2011 7:01 AM Panda has replied

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

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


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


Re: Judiciary laws
quote:
Code of Hammurabi
The code is post-Abraham and post-Mosaic, as per its own declarations, and which are not accurate to small margin periods. Its proof is you cannot produce a contuinity of the Hamurabi documents - you can with the Hebrew. Also, the Hebrew is seen containing a few common laws, however the absence of some 90% of the Hamurabi codes in the Hebrew says it is not a lift-off, as inferred. The Hebrew bible remains the most comprehensive source of laws the world follows - all world accepted laws are found only in the Hebrew bible; anything not in the Hebrew bible is not a law. Sounds prepostrous I know.
quote:
Roman Law
English Common Law
The only Roman law said to be new is the claim referring to allowing Romans to take a foreign wife. This is a bogus law because the forbiddence of the marraige was wrong in the first place. The rest of laws allocated to Rome are derivities only and not laws but can be called as regulatory and derived. E.g. a speeding fine is a derivitive law relating to safety; it is not a new law.
Common law are allowences made and sanctioned of customs which are traditional and culture related. They can be considered lawless or offensive in other areas.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by Theodoric, posted 07-21-2011 10:05 AM Theodoric has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 167 of 297 (625095)
07-21-2011 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 163 by Theodoric
07-21-2011 9:59 AM


Re: Tel Dan stele? Really?
quote:
Any findings at Tel Dan do nothing to confirm or deny anything in the bible about a david. There is one inscription with a mention of Israel and David.
This is a translation of the actual text
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
king of Israel, and I killed iahu son of g of the House of David
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Any more than this is additions made by modern scholars.
There is nothing here that eliminates the possibility that the biblical David was a mythical character. There is also nothing in it that eliminates the possibility that the biblical David is based upon an historical character and the bible stories are myth.
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:
Then came the Tel Dan find - and those scholars have never recovered from their shame.
Care to show anyone that was shamed by this find?
Here you are - another find confirming King David, and a study which answers those who questioned this find:
quote:
David Inscription
The House of David Inscription
David Inscription | Tel Dan Excavations
By far the most celebrated find from Dan, the House of David inscription is a late ninth-century BCE victory text inscribed on basalt stone in the Aramaic language. Why is this inscription so important historically?
More importantly perhaps is the fact that the Aramaean king refers to the kingdom of Judah by its dynastic name, a name frequently used in the Hebrew Bible as well: the House of David. This not only indicates that the family of David still sat on the throne of Jerusalem, but this inscription represents the oldest textual reference to the historical King David ever discovered!
Another find confirming David:
Tel Dan Inscription and Andr Lemaire
Tel Dan Inscription and Andr Lemaire
Monday, February 14, 2005 (19:37) by Stephen C. Carlson | Archaeology
The Tel Dan inscription was found at an archeological site in Israel in 1993 and contains what may be the earliest reference to the historical David.
In our post-Albrightian world, its significance, of course, is immense, and it should come to no surprise that its authenticity has been questioned; see Giovanni Garbini, The Aramaic inscription from Tel Dan (trans. I. Hutchesson from the original Italian cited as Atti della Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei 9 (1994): 461-471) and some seminar materials by Niels Peter Lemche, ‘House of David’: The Tel Dan Inscriptions (Aug. 2001-present), which is hosted by Jim West at Biblical Theology: Lemche on Tel Dan (Feb. 4, 2005). However, see also Jim West’s The IAA Replies to my Tel-Dan Query (Jan. 2, 2005), which contains an email stating: We don’t have any reason to suspect the autenticity of the Tel Dan inscription. It had been found during a licenced excavation by an honored archaeologist.
At any rate, some may find this connection interesting between the Tel Dan Inscription and Andr Lemaire, who examined the epigraphy of the James Ossuary Inscription. Lemaire, ‘House of David’ Restored in Moabite Inscription:
A new restoration of a famous inscription reveals another mention of the House of David in the ninth century B.C.E., BAR 20.3 (May/June 1994), wrote:
This fragment from the Tel Dan stela has been hailed because it contains the name David, supposedly for the first time in ancient Semitic epigraphy. But this claim is not true—or at least not quite true. I believe these same words—the House of David—appear(ed) on the famous Moabite inscription known as the Mesha stela, also from the ninth century B.C.E. While for most scholars the reference to the House of David on the Tel Dan fragment was quite unexpected, I must confess I was not surprised at all. I have been working on the Mesha stela for the past seven years, and I am now preparing a detailed edition of the text. Nearly two years before the discovery of the Tel Dan fragment, I concluded that the Mesha stela contains a reference to the House of David. Now the Tel Dan fragment tends to support this conclusion.
quote:
As an aside.
I was at Tel Dan in the early 80's. At that time there was not an active dig in progress. I may have walked right over the stele. I spent a couple summers at Tel Gerisa near Tel Aviv.
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:
Over 70% has been scientifically proven.
Can you provide evidence and your calculations, or are you pulling this out of your ass?
I am sure I could get a higher % for Tom Sawyer. Therefore according to your reasoning Tom Sawyer is completely factual.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by Theodoric, posted 07-21-2011 9:59 AM Theodoric has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 168 of 297 (625097)
07-21-2011 11:09 AM
Reply to: Message 166 by Admin
07-21-2011 10:38 AM


Re: Topic Reminder
I was only responding to posts to me, not intending to post such things on my own.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by Admin, posted 07-21-2011 10:38 AM Admin has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by Butterflytyrant, posted 07-26-2011 11:44 PM IamJoseph has replied

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


Message 170 of 297 (626092)
07-27-2011 3:24 AM
Reply to: Message 169 by Butterflytyrant
07-26-2011 11:44 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by Butterflytyrant, posted 07-26-2011 11:44 PM Butterflytyrant has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by Butterflytyrant, posted 07-27-2011 4:57 AM IamJoseph has replied

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


Message 175 of 297 (626104)
07-27-2011 6:35 AM
Reply to: Message 171 by Butterflytyrant
07-27-2011 4:57 AM


Re: Topic Reminder
Edited by Admin, : Under a message title of "Topic Reminder", IamJoseph posts off-topic. Content hidden.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by Butterflytyrant, posted 07-27-2011 4:57 AM Butterflytyrant has not replied

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


Message 176 of 297 (626107)
07-27-2011 6:50 AM
Reply to: Message 174 by Admin
07-27-2011 6:28 AM


Re: Topic Reminder
quote:
1.A description of the theory.2.How the theory is testable.
3.The evidence supporting the theory.
As this is a science thread, the Bible cannot serve as evidence. It can be your inspiration, the source of ideas, a guide for where to look for evidence, but it cannot itself be evidence.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by Admin, posted 07-27-2011 6:28 AM Admin has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 177 of 297 (626108)
07-27-2011 6:59 AM
Reply to: Message 173 by Larni
07-27-2011 6:11 AM


Re: Genesis is right on about species (kinds)
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by Larni, posted 07-27-2011 6:11 AM Larni has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by Admin, posted 07-27-2011 7:16 AM IamJoseph has not replied

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


Message 183 of 297 (626652)
07-30-2011 8:25 PM
Reply to: Message 180 by Butterflytyrant
07-27-2011 7:41 AM


Re: IamJoseph Suspended 24 Hours
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by Butterflytyrant, posted 07-27-2011 7:41 AM Butterflytyrant has not replied

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


Message 184 of 297 (626653)
07-30-2011 8:32 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by Butterflytyrant
07-29-2011 10:22 PM


Re: Failed attempt to make new threads
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by Butterflytyrant, posted 07-29-2011 10:22 PM Butterflytyrant has not replied

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


Message 185 of 297 (626659)
07-30-2011 8:58 PM


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...

Replies to this message:
 Message 186 by Larni, posted 07-30-2011 9:09 PM IamJoseph has not replied
 Message 187 by Panda, posted 07-30-2011 9:12 PM IamJoseph has replied

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


Message 188 of 297 (626667)
07-30-2011 9:29 PM
Reply to: Message 187 by Panda
07-30-2011 9:12 PM


quote:
IamJoseph writes:
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.
Could you provide a link to a web-site showing that this is what the big bang theory states?
Perhaps you could point me to the relevant passage on Big Bang Theory - Wikipedia?
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:
Big Bang - Wikipedia
The Big Bang model, or theory, is the prevailing cosmological theory of the early development of the universe.[1] The theory purports to explain some of the earliest events in the universe. According to the theory, the universe was once in an extremely hot and dense state that expanded rapidly (a "Big Bang"). As there is little consensus among physicists about the origins of the universe, the Big Bang theory explains only that such a rapid expansion caused the young universe to cool and resulted in its present continuously expanding state. According to recent measurements, the original state of the universe existed around 13.7 billion years ago (see age of the Universe),[2][3] to which some physicists refer as the time that the Big Bang occurred.[4][5] Physicists have attempted to establish the theory's validity through scientific evidence and observations.[6][7]
Georges Lematre proposed what became known as the Big Bang theory of the origin of the universe; he called it his "hypothesis of the primeval atom".
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by Panda, posted 07-30-2011 9:12 PM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by Panda, posted 07-30-2011 9:43 PM IamJoseph has replied

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


Message 189 of 297 (626672)
07-30-2011 9:42 PM
Reply to: Message 187 by Panda
07-30-2011 9:12 PM


quote:
IamJoseph writes:
Consider that the age of the universe is measured by light, such as the residual radiation speed derived time period
Do you consider all electromagnetic radiation to be light?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by Panda, posted 07-30-2011 9:12 PM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by Panda, posted 07-30-2011 9:49 PM IamJoseph has not replied

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


Message 191 of 297 (626676)
07-30-2011 9:47 PM
Reply to: Message 190 by Panda
07-30-2011 9:43 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by Panda, posted 07-30-2011 9:43 PM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by Panda, posted 07-30-2011 9:50 PM IamJoseph has replied

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


Message 194 of 297 (626689)
07-30-2011 10:24 PM
Reply to: Message 193 by Panda
07-30-2011 9:50 PM


The last two posts are problematic in identifying any specific issues.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by Panda, posted 07-30-2011 9:50 PM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by Panda, posted 07-30-2011 10:37 PM IamJoseph has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024