This topic proposal has the potential to be far too broad. While you do ask a specific question about descendants of Noah, you also touch on other things, like a catalog of creationist theory.
If you rewrite your proposal (click the edit button for your Message 1) to focus just on the issue of Noah's descendants then it could be reconsidered for promotion. Please post a note when you're done and I'll take another look.
I understand your goal, but you're proposing a thread where literally any topic within the creation/evolution debate could be discussed. You need to propose a topic that is specific and that fits into one of the science forums, not one that spans all of them. Just write a proposal for some area of creation science where you'd like to see a specific theory, flood geology, for example.
Let us assume, for the sake of discussion in this thread, that modern theories of cosmology are wrong. There's no need to discuss or critique these theories here anymore because we know they're wrong.
By making this assumption of the errancy of modern cosmology this thread is now free to focus on its topic, the creationist (or creation science, whichever one might prefer) theory of the origin of light. Specifically, what is the scientific creationist model, and what is the evidence that led to the development of this model?
Butterflytyrant originally proposed a much more broad topic, but I requested that he narrow the focus. If BFT has no objection then I think it would be fine if you shifted the focus onto one the topics you mentioned, but only one of them, or at least only one at a time.
You asserted that "The universe could not have emerged with a singular, irreducible, indivisible entity" (in other words, that the Big Bang could not have happened) in Message 115 and over the course of several messages mentioned the following as evidence:
the stars never existed at the beginning as separate entities; they emerged later
...the universe being finite...
...the ages of stars have been numerously estimated, as with the ages of the universe and the earth; some 13.5B and 5B respectively.
I think all you need to do now is explain how this evidence supports your claim that the Big Bang could not have happened.
IamJoseph has responded, but not in any way illuminating. I do see IamJoseph as citing evidence, but it is usually of a common or general nature, and some portion of it is just unsupported assertions, but the problem is that he is unable to describe how the evidence he cites supports his position. I think your challenge will be finding the sense behind his confusing English.
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!
You cannot assume a priori that the Bible is scientific unless proven otherwise. You cannot assume anything is scientific a priori unless proven otherwise. Something is science if it is in some stage of going through the scientific process of hypothesis, testing, peer review, replication and validation of predictions.
But this thread is not about whether the Bible is scientific. It's about the creation science theory of the origin of light. Any ideas you discuss in this thread must have scientific support, whether inspired by the Bible or not.
About your problems with English, ignoring your handicap in this area will not make it go away. Just because you choose to ignore it doesn't mean everyone else has to, and certainly I won't. I will not allow your issues with communication to operate to the detriment of this or any thread.
This thread seeks information about the creation science theory of the origin of light, specifically how God created light when he said, "Let there light." The opening post specifically asks how the theory that God created light is testable, and what evidence has been gathered that successfully satisfies these tests.
You believe God created light, but that God created light was a given from the opening post. You also believe the Bible is a scientific document, and maybe it is, but whether it is or isn't the topic of this thread. A Biblical account is not scientific evidence. Facts, observations, experiments, mathematical calculations, etc., these are all part of building scientific evidence. You need this kind of scientific support for your assertions.
What the OP requests and what you haven't provided is any evidence in support of the theory that God created light, or that tells us how God created light. 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. You also have not explained how God created light and the scientific evidence we have that tells us how God created light.
You need to begin supplying the evidence behind your beliefs rather than just asserting what you believe, and you need to tell us how we know, scientifically from the evidence gathered by our observations, how God created light.
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?
This is a reference to the Big Bang theory, and this thread is not about the Big Bang. It's about the creation science theory of the origin of light, specifically, how God created light?
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.
Here is a list of assertions and conclusions from your post that are not supported by any evidence or rationale:
"...laws never existed at one time..."
"...[laws] could not be the factors which enabled the universe to happen."
"There is no alternative to ex-nehilo."
"I concluded the universe could not have emerged via our empiracal laws."
If I were go back to go back to your other messages the list would be far longer. In the future please describe what scientific observations, experiments, facts, etc., support your assertions and conclusions.
Please, let's not turn this into a discussion of Biblical reliability. The topic is about the creation science theory of the origin of light. The Bible, or anything else for that matter, can serve as the inspiration for IamJoseph's ideas, but he has to support those ideas with real world evidence.
I don't think you're doing it on purpose or maliciously. I don't think you believe you're doing anything wrong. But I have to enforce the guidelines equally for everyone. Whether you understand why or not, I have to suspend you for persistently going off-topic in the face of repeated requests not to. See you in 24 hours.
If I understand him correctly, IamJoseph makes these points in Message 185 and previous posts:
His views are consistent with science.
Light came into existence before anything else in the universe.
Though not in precise agreement with science, this doesn't seem that radical. Science postulates a quark soup at the beginning, and certainly electromagnetic radiation would have been part of that soup.
At around message 300 I will be closing this thread and requesting summations, so time is short to begin making meaningful progress. This is from the OP (in fact, it's the entire content of the OP):
Please supply the scientific theory of how God created light when he said "let there be light". Please include the testable elements of the process by which light was created.
Include evidence supporting this theory.
That the theory not be illogical goes without saying. What you have to do is provide the evidence and testable aspects of your hypothesis that light was the first entity in the universe.
Your next mention of the Bible or Genesis will draw a suspension. This is a science thread. Creation science claims to be science and not religion, so please stop making claims based upon religion. The Bible can serve as the inspiration that led you to the hypothesis that light was the first entity, but only evidence and successfully tested predictions can validate the hypothesis.