Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8936 total)
30 online now:
Captcass, dwise1, Tanypteryx, Taq (4 members, 26 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Upcoming Birthdays: AdminPhat
Post Volume: Total: 861,696 Year: 16,732/19,786 Month: 857/2,598 Week: 103/251 Day: 56/24 Hour: 1/6


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What is the creation science theory of the origin of light?
Larni
Member
Posts: 3990
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005
Member Rating: 7.2


Message 9 of 297 (621814)
06-29-2011 3:44 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Butterflytyrant
06-29-2011 3:15 AM


Re: Scientific theory of Genesis
You're not going to get much more in this thread other than:

'God said so; and so it was'. Anything else is contraindicated by the Bible.

Or you're going to get a bunch of replies playing devil's advocate.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Butterflytyrant, posted 06-29-2011 3:15 AM Butterflytyrant has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Butterflytyrant, posted 06-29-2011 4:01 AM Larni has responded

    
Larni
Member
Posts: 3990
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005
Member Rating: 7.2


Message 11 of 297 (621817)
06-29-2011 4:30 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Butterflytyrant
06-29-2011 4:01 AM


Re: Scientific theory of Genesis
Well, good luck with that, but if you get replies such as:

Chuck writes:

(again im just amusing you, it's not scientific, so don't ask me to prove it, I can't)

I can't see things going far. We have science and religious forums here for a reason (and this is why sometimes, some posters get banded from the science side because they repeatedly fail to produce evidence).

That said, if Chuck could produce some evidence for the Holy Spirit (or even some basis for belief that it is the Holy Spirit that is the mechanism [I don't know enough about xian theology to debate that] of action it would be a very good start.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Butterflytyrant, posted 06-29-2011 4:01 AM Butterflytyrant has not yet responded

    
Larni
Member
Posts: 3990
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005
Member Rating: 7.2


Message 13 of 297 (621820)
06-29-2011 5:30 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Minority Report
06-29-2011 4:46 AM


Re: Scientific theory of Genesis
. If instead you ask 'If God did create light 6000 years ago, then how can we see distant starlight', then creationist may be able to formulate testable theories which can be debated here.

What you will get here is that the Xian god created light with the appearance of age to fool us.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Minority Report, posted 06-29-2011 4:46 AM Minority Report has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Minority Report, posted 06-29-2011 5:47 AM Larni has responded

    
Larni
Member
Posts: 3990
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005
Member Rating: 7.2


Message 16 of 297 (621825)
06-29-2011 5:58 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Minority Report
06-29-2011 5:47 AM


Re: Scientific theory of Genesis
but I'll wait for Butterflytyrant to lead which direction to go on this.

Or you could post these theories and we could get this thread into high gear.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Minority Report, posted 06-29-2011 5:47 AM Minority Report has not yet responded

    
Larni
Member
Posts: 3990
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005
Member Rating: 7.2


Message 19 of 297 (621857)
06-29-2011 10:43 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Butterflytyrant
06-29-2011 9:54 AM


Re: Scientific theory of Genesis
If both sides will forgive me for being a bit sheltered, am I to understand that both sides are claiming scientific support for their theories, but one side has no theories, no research done on these theories, no experiments and no groups even discussing the ideas of scientific theories to support what is arguably the most important part of the debate?

This is the problem you will see on this site over and over again.

The evidence the creationist will use is the bible and anything that does not align itself with the bible is by definition wrong.

You can demand evidence until you are blue in the face but cdesign proponentsists will default to the bible every time, if you push them hard enough.

They do get pushed hard, here.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Butterflytyrant, posted 06-29-2011 9:54 AM Butterflytyrant has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Butterflytyrant, posted 06-29-2011 11:52 AM Larni has responded

    
Larni
Member
Posts: 3990
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005
Member Rating: 7.2


Message 25 of 297 (621896)
06-29-2011 1:05 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Butterflytyrant
06-29-2011 11:52 AM


Re: Scientific theory of Genesis
I believe, for any rational person, that this should be pretty much case closed.

Welcome to the dark side. May your bullshit detectors never go off line.

As an aside, Carl Sagan's 'A Demon Haunted' world is also an excellent read: it has a lovely section about logical fallacies (vital for bullshit detectors).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Butterflytyrant, posted 06-29-2011 11:52 AM Butterflytyrant has not yet responded

    
Larni
Member
Posts: 3990
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005
Member Rating: 7.2


Message 27 of 297 (621900)
06-29-2011 2:14 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by SecondPeterThreeFive
06-29-2011 1:50 PM


Hi, and welcome to EvC!

I think the point of this thread is for a christian creationist to explain in detail the Christian creationist theory for how light was created.

Implicit in this question (I would suggest) is that the creationist modle posits that creation is but 6k years old. If this is the case why does light reach us from over 6k light years away?

For a creator to create light with the appearance of age is deceptive, no?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by SecondPeterThreeFive, posted 06-29-2011 1:50 PM SecondPeterThreeFive has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by SecondPeterThreeFive, posted 06-29-2011 2:48 PM Larni has responded

    
Larni
Member
Posts: 3990
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005
Member Rating: 7.2


Message 35 of 297 (621934)
06-29-2011 4:37 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by SecondPeterThreeFive
06-29-2011 2:48 PM


Your reply tells me nothing about the creationist theory of the origin of light.

This is a trait of all creationist arguments I have ever seen or heard.

Please present your creation science theory of the origin of light.

Thanks in advance.


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

    
Larni
Member
Posts: 3990
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005
Member Rating: 7.2


Message 88 of 297 (624132)
07-16-2011 6:47 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by Alfred Maddenstein
07-16-2011 6:42 AM


Pony up the maths.
To re iterate Dr A: show us the maths (or math, if you are American).
This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 07-16-2011 6:42 AM Alfred Maddenstein has not yet responded

    
Larni
Member
Posts: 3990
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005
Member Rating: 7.2


Message 91 of 297 (624149)
07-16-2011 8:19 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by Alfred Maddenstein
07-16-2011 7:18 AM


Re: what are the extra dimensions in aid of?
Has it occurred to you that there are some things in this world that you are not equipped to understand?

I know that's true of me.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 07-16-2011 7:18 AM Alfred Maddenstein has not yet responded

    
Larni
Member
Posts: 3990
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005
Member Rating: 7.2


Message 118 of 297 (624490)
07-18-2011 8:01 AM
Reply to: Message 115 by IamJoseph
07-18-2011 5:02 AM


Pedantry.
[Proof: the stars never existed at the beginning as separate entities; they emerged later].

This is not proff. The whole point of this site is that you have to support your assertions with evidence.

I'm being pedantic with this point but I think it is important.

One cannot say 'proof' and simply make an assertion and leave it at that.

You need to provide evidence to support any claim you make: that's where you are going wrong and this is an example of exactly where you are going wrong.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by IamJoseph, posted 07-18-2011 5:02 AM IamJoseph has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by IamJoseph, posted 07-18-2011 10:43 PM Larni has responded

    
Larni
Member
Posts: 3990
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005
Member Rating: 7.2


Message 121 of 297 (624613)
07-19-2011 4:18 AM
Reply to: Message 119 by IamJoseph
07-18-2011 10:43 PM


Re: Pedantry.
You entirely miss my point.

You need to support your position with evidence!

You can't just say 'proof' and leave it at that.

You do know what you need to do to support you assertions, don't you?

For example: you assert the universe being finite but provide no evidence other than your say so.

Edited by Larni, : for example.....


This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by IamJoseph, posted 07-18-2011 10:43 PM IamJoseph has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by IamJoseph, posted 07-19-2011 4:36 AM Larni has responded
 Message 125 by Admin, posted 07-19-2011 9:01 AM Larni has not yet responded

    
Larni
Member
Posts: 3990
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005
Member Rating: 7.2


Message 124 of 297 (624632)
07-19-2011 6:01 AM
Reply to: Message 122 by IamJoseph
07-19-2011 4:36 AM


Re: Pedantry.
The entire attacks on Genesis stem from a cowardly premise of not wanting to expose Christianity and Islam, two non-original replacement theologies which have zero input of these issues. Its easier to attack the Hebrew bible, right? But in not a single instance has this obsessive drive attain any success whatsoever.

What are you talking about? That has nothing to do with the topic!

To reiterate my point for the hard of thinking: you can't just say 'science prooves it' without backing it up with evidence.

Can't you even see that?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by IamJoseph, posted 07-19-2011 4:36 AM IamJoseph has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by IamJoseph, posted 07-19-2011 9:02 AM Larni has responded
 Message 132 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 07-19-2011 9:28 PM Larni has responded

    
Larni
Member
Posts: 3990
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005
Member Rating: 7.2


Message 127 of 297 (624657)
07-19-2011 9:06 AM
Reply to: Message 126 by IamJoseph
07-19-2011 9:02 AM


Re: Pedantry.
Please read the above post by our glorious leader.

I'll say no more on the matter as I can't imagine I need to.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by IamJoseph, posted 07-19-2011 9:02 AM IamJoseph has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by IamJoseph, posted 07-19-2011 9:08 AM Larni has not yet responded
 Message 130 by Admin, posted 07-19-2011 9:15 AM Larni has not yet responded

    
Larni
Member
Posts: 3990
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005
Member Rating: 7.2


Message 136 of 297 (624795)
07-20-2011 3:20 AM
Reply to: Message 132 by Alfred Maddenstein
07-19-2011 9:28 PM


Re: Pedantry.
I get that now, thanks!

But still, it boils down to Jo making assertions that are not supported with evidence or reasoned argument; as per forum rules.

The fact that we are in a science forum means the accuracy of the bible is not assumed a priori.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 07-19-2011 9:28 PM Alfred Maddenstein has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by IamJoseph, posted 07-20-2011 4:22 AM Larni has responded

    
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019