Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8945 total)
34 online now:
Newest Member: ski zawaski
Post Volume: Total: 865,184 Year: 20,220/19,786 Month: 617/2,023 Week: 125/392 Day: 38/87 Hour: 3/8


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What is the creation science theory of the origin of light?
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 297 (621882)
06-29-2011 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Butterflytyrant
06-28-2011 10:52 AM


Re: Scientific theory of Genesis
Please supply the scientific theory of how God created light when he said "let there be light".

God said "let there be light" and then there was light. It would seem to be an ex nihilo emergence from god's will alone.

That cannot be scientifically investigated without repeating the phenomenon. I don't know how you're gonna get god to lay down on the lab bench...

heh, maybe he's a fan of planking

Please include the testable elements of the process by which light was created.

Simply unknown, the Bible doesn't get into it.

include evidence supporting this theory.

Impossible.

There's just not enough meat there for science to sink its teeth into.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Butterflytyrant, posted 06-28-2011 10:52 AM Butterflytyrant has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 297 (621904)
06-29-2011 2:37 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by SecondPeterThreeFive
06-29-2011 1:50 PM


The origin of light is the same whether you are an evolutionist, an atheist, a YEC or an OEC. Light today is generated from an energy source, like when electrons change quantum energy states

It can't be the same for a YEC because they don't allow for the billions of years that the scientific explanation of the origin of light requires.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by SecondPeterThreeFive, posted 06-29-2011 1:50 PM SecondPeterThreeFive has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 32 of 297 (621920)
06-29-2011 3:36 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by SecondPeterThreeFive
06-29-2011 2:48 PM


As to the appearance of the age of light being deceiving, we must recognize that we are assuming several things when we conclude that light is "old."

Such as?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by SecondPeterThreeFive, posted 06-29-2011 2:48 PM SecondPeterThreeFive has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 34 of 297 (621927)
06-29-2011 4:15 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by SecondPeterThreeFive
06-29-2011 3:55 PM


The point I am making is that there is a lot more faith masquerading as science than many will admit.

There's a lot less faith masquerading as science than you seem to think and also alude to.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by SecondPeterThreeFive, posted 06-29-2011 3:55 PM SecondPeterThreeFive has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 50 of 297 (622045)
06-30-2011 10:10 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by Butterflytyrant
06-30-2011 12:37 AM


Re: Creation Light Theory
once a debate has reached a conclusion

You must be new here...

From the amount of reading I have done recently, it appears that creationists (particularly Young Earth Creationists) are muddying the waters and trying to make it seem as if they have an equal or greater amount of work supporting their positions.

Absolutely. Now, its not that all the laypeople are evil, its that they as congregations are being lied to and creationists are breed to be lazy thinkers. An average person claiming that there are Creation Science Theories probably heard it from someone else and never bothered to look for themselves if there actually was. Somewhere at the top, though, there's got to be the evil liars who are propagating it all. Have you heard of the Wedge Document? <-- clicky

But with sufficient digging (I am a researcher, its my thing) a lot of it seems to be the same inofrmation over and over again, or information that has been refuted a number of times.

Correct again, Sir! We even see where the original propagater makes some sort of typo, say writing 1976 instead of 1967, and then every other creationist that uses their work has obviosuly never bothered to check anything because they're all using the wrong number. IIRC (if i remember correctly), they've even based whole calulations that they think refutes evolution on a simple typo that could have easily been found if they simply looked up the orginal source and read it for themselves.

I believe that it would be of benefit to the regular Joe who does not want to wade through all of this info to have a resource like this.

I dunno... The regular Joe who's sitting in church hatin' on evolution with the rest of the congregation is being spoonfed creationist lies faster than you can reach him with a spreadsheet. Besides, if you're not showing creationism in a positive light, then you must be one of them there EVILutionists. So why should he trust it? More than the word of god!?


ABE (added by edit)

The time period before the big bang.

There's no such thing.

Edited by Catholic Scientist, : see ABE


This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Butterflytyrant, posted 06-30-2011 12:37 AM Butterflytyrant has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 263 of 297 (627810)
08-04-2011 10:33 AM
Reply to: Message 258 by Minnemooseus
08-04-2011 3:55 AM


Re: The creationist scientific theory of the origin of light
So, the creation science theory and the mainstream science theory is the same thing, except the creationist belief is that God was involved.

It can't be the same for a YEC because they don't allow for the billions of years that the scientific explanation of the origin of light requires.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by Minnemooseus, posted 08-04-2011 3:55 AM Minnemooseus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 272 by Minnemooseus, posted 08-04-2011 10:32 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 270 of 297 (627857)
08-04-2011 5:01 PM
Reply to: Message 269 by Alfred Maddenstein
08-04-2011 4:41 PM


Colliding branes is strictly speaking no Big Bang theory already.

Not necessarily. The Ekpyrotic model has the Big Bang as a result of the collision of two branes.

quote:
The ekpyrotic model of the universe is an alternative to the standard cosmic inflation model for the very early universe; both models accommodate the standard big bang Lambda-CDM model of our universe.

emphasis added

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ekpyrotic_universe


This message is a reply to:
 Message 269 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 08-04-2011 4:41 PM Alfred Maddenstein has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 278 of 297 (627909)
08-05-2011 8:00 AM
Reply to: Message 272 by Minnemooseus
08-04-2011 10:32 PM


Re: The creationist scientific theory of the origin of light
The start of this topic said nothing of YECism. YECism conflicts with reality right from the Y. Who cares what their theory of the origin of light is.

I think its implicit to the questioning, and to your mention of "creation science".

Its not really worth questioning if the normal scientific explanation is the answer, why even mention creationists in that regard? And the deist creationist aren't limited to explaining what when on in Genesis.

There is an abundant supply of people, including the deists, that believe in some variety of Godly creator without having any problem accepting the scientific explanations of how things came to happen.

And they're irrelevant to the motivation for this topic. From the hidden parts of the original OP:

quote:
I have noticed nearly all of the debates on all evolution vs creation debates seems to be people defending very small elements of evolutionary theory.

...

I would like to see their theory, including back up data and researched, peer reviewed work on each of the steps in the Genesis creation week.


quote:
I am interested in finding out what the scientific basis for creationist theories are.

Deist creationists don't have "Creationist theories", they just go with the science. Most of the "creation science" folks are YEC's.

The topic only makes sense if its for dscussing the YEC explanation for light.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 272 by Minnemooseus, posted 08-04-2011 10:32 PM Minnemooseus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 279 by Minnemooseus, posted 08-06-2011 12:33 AM New Cat's Eye has acknowledged this reply

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019