Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 75 (9011 total)
56 online now:
PaulK, Pollux, Tangle (3 members, 53 visitors)
Newest Member: Burrawang
Post Volume: Total: 881,566 Year: 13,314/23,288 Month: 244/795 Week: 40/33 Day: 0/12 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 2324 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 96 of 297 (624261)
07-16-2011 10:06 PM


LET THERE BE LIGHT.
quote:
Please supply the scientific theory of how God created light when he said "let there be light".

To put this in better perspective, the first point is that light as a created entity, as well as being one of the primodial products of the universe - is first recorded in Genesis.

Re its scientific theory. The term science yet did not exist; Genesis is the first allusion to the faculty of science and cosmology. Rather than use the term science, I would suggest the use of logic and coherence, and the absence of any alternatives applying. Genesis not only says light is the first product in the universe [plausable and logical], but also shows how it was created. According to Genesis, the universe is finite [there was a BEGINNING] - perhaps the first and most impacting scientific premise ever recorded. Next Genesis says there was the universe but no laws yet existed: V2 says that there was yet no form in the universe. Namely, nothing was identfiable and all was one mush. Here, there was no light and no darkness; no energy, space, time, matter. Of course we cannot imagine this state, but we cannot deny it either: if there was no universe once, then everything universe contained would also not yet exist - not even laws. This is scientifically credible and encumbent.

Next up we are told LAWS were embedded; namely, the 'formless' was turned to the 'formed'. This then is the point of science ushering into the universe, because science is based on laws. There was no science or laws before this point. It is 100% a viable premise, laws being a result of cause & effect. No alternatives can apply.

Next we get to what was created and in which order - and also how and why! Genesis then says the first created product was light. How? Based on laws being ushered in the universe/V2; and by seperating light from all else [He seperated the light from the darkness/V3]. Here, the 'seperation' is most impacting: when delved into, a created thing is nothing other than something seperated from other things - because all things already existed, only applied differently. We can accept light predating stars: a star cannot produce light unless light pre-existed. The WHY factor of light is also clearly stated in Genesis: as a pre-requisite for life, stars, galaxies and as enegy to drive the whole construct; light is agreless and the transcendent velosity, able to cater to all other universal components. This why factor becomes more clarified when we check the follow-up products listed in Genesis. These are:
Seperation of the day [introducted to humanity for the first time, as was the 'week'] and night. Here we see a focusing on our solar system instead of the universe, because of the subject matter - it is now addressing this planet and its life forms. Here, our sun's light was critically focused to produce specifically sufficient light and darkess aniticipating a host of life forms. We get closer to earth with the next seperation of water from land - the pre-requisite for the variety of life and terrains.

Indeed, not evolution, but the seperation factors listed in genesis becomes the pivital factors for life: there was yet no evolution, nor can life exist without the Genesis listings. These seperations also account for billions and millions of years in time, negating any suggestion Genesis refers to 6000 years as the life of earth.

Genesis then goes to show where evolution comes in, an after the fact process as its hard wiring of precedent laws, including the correct protocol of life forms from veg to humans; the first listing of life forms by terrain [more fundamental than skeletal and dna factors], the seed acting as the chip of the host, able to transmit its data and the ability to continue the process. All of Darwin's premises become a direct lift-off from Genesis!

quote:

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


Light could not have occured by other elements or processes - these never existed at this point. Light is a result of seperation, by virtue of laws initiated for the first time in the universe, and their embedding in the mush [void] with specific attributes to attain a pre-directed result. How else!?

quote:

include evidence supporting this theory.


There cannot be evidences outside of the genesis premise: else the finite factor would be violated. Evidences infer pre-uni entities and observers. Understand the hedy thresholds depicted by Genesis correctly - it is deceptively simple to cater to all generations; it transcends our current meagre knowledge which will most surely change in 50 years. Genesis is 1000's of years old and the first alphabetical book.

Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by Coyote, posted 07-16-2011 10:25 PM IamJoseph has responded
 Message 99 by Butterflytyrant, posted 07-16-2011 11:38 PM IamJoseph has responded

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 2324 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 98 of 297 (624265)
07-16-2011 10:35 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by Coyote
07-16-2011 10:25 PM


Re: LET THERE BE LIGHT.
Have you not forgotten to state which universe you are discussing - a finite or infinite one? State your preamble before the amen.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Coyote, posted 07-16-2011 10:25 PM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by Coyote, posted 07-16-2011 11:47 PM IamJoseph has responded

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 2324 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 101 of 297 (624275)
07-17-2011 12:47 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by Coyote
07-16-2011 11:47 PM


Re: LET THERE BE LIGHT.
Better I should ignore your posts. You contribute nothing to the thread with your cynical one liners like say amen.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Coyote, posted 07-16-2011 11:47 PM Coyote has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by Butterflytyrant, posted 07-17-2011 12:53 AM IamJoseph has responded

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 2324 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 103 of 297 (624279)
07-17-2011 1:28 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by Butterflytyrant
07-16-2011 11:38 PM


Re: LET THERE BE LIGHT.
quote:
How is it plausible or logical that light is the first product of the universe?

Light is electromagnetic radiation. It is emitted from many sources. But it alsways has a source. So it would be illogical to say that light was created without a source.


The fact that light can be ignited by certain interactions does not mean those interactions produced light per se. Unless light was an already existing pre-product the sun's nuclear interactions would be unable to produce light. We know that light can be produced by numerous means, including a simple torch battery: but we did not create the light. Even the BBT posits by default light was the first factor issued by an explosion: this also means the light pre-dated that explosion. Of all the processes which produce light, we find that the light alone has attributes not shared by any others: it is ageless and of a transcendent velosity greater than any energy input. Consider how much energy is required to attain the speed of light?

quote:
Also, plausible, as in seeming reasonable, is a relative term. I do not see Genesis as plausible at all. I would say it is totally implausible.

I have learnt most from Genesis in understanding the sciences. It contains knowledge not yet seen in science or ignored: like the universe could not have been initiated with a pristine singular enetity. I listed many factors of Genesis in my post, including the introduction of a finite universe, the DAY & the WEEK and the first advanced alphabetical book. These are very impacting.

quote:

The term science yet did not exist

This makes no difference. Just because the word did not exist does not change anything. The word science did not exist when gravity became a factor on the planet, but this does nothing to change the fact that gravity was present.


IMHO, the very premise of science was ushered in with Genesis, which is a document based only on laws as the fulcrum factor. This is also seen in its laws of Judiciary, Morality, ethics, etc. It is not a 'belief' based document.

quote:

Genesis is the first allusion to the faculty of science and cosmology

Seriously? You believe that Genesis is the first reference to science and cosmology? There have been myths and legends regarding the sun and stars more than a thousand years before the Christian era. Google cosmology timeline for more info. In ancient Sumer, in 3500 BCE, people were recording observations with accurate numerical data.


Firstly, Genesis is not a christian work, although Christianity upholds it as sacred [theologically]. One cannot describe Genesis as myths - that is why we are not discussing Zeus, head bashing dieties and a flat earth in this forum. We are discussing a finite universe, the advent of laws and which document lists light as the primodial entity. However, I am not posing these issues theologically, which I don't subscribe to; instead I am positing them only from a scientific premise.

quote:
According to Genesis, the universe is finite [there was a BEGINNING] - perhaps the first and most impacting scientific premise ever recorded.

Do you really believe that anything in the bible is the first scientific premise ever recorded? Or indeed the premise that has the most impact? If tomorrow, it is proven either way, that the univese in finite or infinite, what impact do you believe this will have? At the moment, it is unknown and it is not making much of an impact. Who do you believe that this is impacting so significantly? Do you believe that the bronze age people in the bible would have been impacted by this knowledge?


I refer to the 'recording' of a premise; if you can nominate an earlier recording, than your point prevails. It is not my opinion but a fact: the first recording the unverse as finite is from Genesis. And this is the most important factor which must be the preamble when discussing the universe. Apples and oranges apply: one can get away with anything in an infinite realm, but not so with a finite one. In an infinite universe one does not have to ponder how laws emerged - they were always there; not so in a finite realm.

quote:

Next we get to what was created and in which order - and also how and why!

This is what i am interested in, the how part. I dont need to know the why part really. Are you refering to why as in intent? In nature there is no intent. Rain does not weather a rock with intent.


There is no such thing as nature; this is just a metaphor we use to subscribe to the unknown; nature is the processing material, as in the wiring in a mobile chip. There is cause & effect, but the causer factor is elusive. However, when reading the list of actions which predate life on this planet as per Genesis, the intent becomes clear - and we find that life is listed ammediately following those actions. Remove those actions and life cannot exist; earth becomes another lifeless planet; evolution becomes a mute factor.

quote:

How? Based on laws being ushered in the universe/V2; and by seperating light from all else [He seperated the light from the darkness/V3]. Here, the 'seperation' is most impacting: when delved into, a created thing is nothing other than something seperated from other things - because all things already existed, only applied differently.

Can you explain this in more detail please. based on laws ushered into the universe is a bit broad. A created thing is nothing other than something seperated from other things? What about the things that you are saying were created from nothing or the things that are created form the combinations of other things?


Something created from the combinations of other things, again affirms the other things were already part of the mush - the unformed void before the laws were impacted. There is no alternative to this: everything which is universe contained now, never existed once. We see this in everything. Water is H20 - both those gases existed before water existed, and nothing is pre-universe. When we ask why H20, and N20 produces water, we must conclude there is intent and specificity here, no matter how distant one wants to be from anything which may resemble a theology. I know of no science or laws in the Gospels and Quran - do you?.

We can accept light predating stars: a star cannot produce light unless light pre-existed.

quote:

whoa!!! Hold on there! Can WE accept that? I cant. Tht does not make any sense at all. A star cannot produce light unless light pre-existed? That is like saying a suasage machine cannot create a sausage without sausages pre-existing. Light is a product. Your statement is not even logical let alone plausible.


Yes a sausage machine cannot produce sausage if the premise of shredded sauges was not possible. Your anaology is more frivolous than applicable.

quote:

The WHY factor of light is also clearly stated in Genesis: as a pre-requisite for life, stars, galaxies and as enegy to drive the whole construct; light is agreless and the transcendent velosity, able to cater to all other universal components. This why factor becomes more clarified when we check the follow-up products listed in Genesis.

Can you provide the scripture? Can you provide where it states that light was created for the purpose of sustaining life? Can you provide the scripture that states that light was created for stars and galaxies? What does "light is agreless (ageless?) and the transcendent velosity, able to cater to all other universal components" mean? I am not sure that makes sense. Can you clarify and elaborate please?


Here, our sun's light was critically focused to produce specifically sufficient light and darkess aniticipating a host of life forms.

Can you eloborate please. What does critically focused mean? It looks like you are suggesting that sufficient light was created in anticipation of animals and plants? Do you not think that the plants an animals are a product of the amount of light supplied by the sun? Does this not make more sense?

We get closer to earth with the next seperation of water from land - the pre-requisite for the variety of life and terrains.

Who is to say that the seperation of land and water is a prerequisite for life? I do not believe this to be true. I do not believe your version of events at all.

Indeed, not evolution, but the seperation factors listed in genesis becomes the pivital factors for life: there was yet no evolution, nor can life exist without the Genesis listings

Some of this I agree with. There was no evolution in the Genesis myth. Biological Evolution is has nothing to do with the creation of the universe. What do you mean by " the pivital factorsfactors of life" and whay do you seem to believe that Evolution has made claims to them? Life can exist without the Genesis listings, it does. Perhaps you could rephrase that as I may be misunderstanding what you are saying.

Light could not have occured by other elements or processes - these never existed at this point. Light is a result of seperation, by virtue of laws initiated for the first time in the universe, and their embedding in the mush [void] with specific attributes to attain a pre-directed result. How else!?

seriously? how about nuclear fusion?

There cannot be evidences outside of the genesis premise: else the finite factor would be violated. Evidences infer pre-uni entities and observers.

Can you clarify? Are you suggesting that there cannot be evidence for any other theory other than the Genesis creation myth?

Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Butterflytyrant, posted 07-16-2011 11:38 PM Butterflytyrant has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by Butterflytyrant, posted 07-17-2011 10:06 AM IamJoseph has responded

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 2324 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 104 of 297 (624280)
07-17-2011 1:39 AM
Reply to: Message 102 by Butterflytyrant
07-17-2011 12:53 AM


Re: LET THERE BE LIGHT.
quote:
Coyotes post was merely pointing out that your last paragraph did not reflect current scientific theories or investigations.

No sir. There was no factor in my post which was referred to in any context. Let him first produce another recording the universe is finite, then discuss science. Cherry picking and making cynical open rejections serve no purpose.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Butterflytyrant, posted 07-17-2011 12:53 AM Butterflytyrant has not yet responded

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 2324 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 105 of 297 (624285)
07-17-2011 2:36 AM


quote:
Who is to say that the seperation of land and water is a prerequisite for life? I do not believe this to be true. I do not believe your version of events at all.

If this sepration was not actioned, the earth would be covered with water, or land only would be on the surface. This would make it impossible for all life forms to sustain themselves. Contrastingly, the only way the different habitat life froms can exist is with the action listed in Genesis.

quote:

Indeed, not evolution, but the seperation factors listed in genesis becomes the pivital factors for life: there was yet no evolution, nor can life exist without the Genesis listings

Some of this I agree with. There was no evolution in the Genesis myth. Biological Evolution is has nothing to do with the creation of the universe. What do you mean by " the pivital factorsfactors of life" and whay do you seem to believe that Evolution has made claims to them? Life can exist without the Genesis listings, it does. Perhaps you could rephrase that as I may be misunderstanding what you are saying.


Evolution does not prevail w/o the seed factor listed in Genesis. The environment today is different from say millions of years ago - both modes cannot have the same impact. Biological factors have a lot to do with the actions on the earth, such as the separation of day and night, and land and water. Biolgy is merely the study and observation of the process directed in a program. The data in the seed [essence] of a male/femle host contains definitive programs aligned with their result.

quote:

Light could not have occured by other elements or processes - these never existed at this point. Light is a result of seperation, by virtue of laws initiated for the first time in the universe, and their embedding in the mush [void] with specific attributes to attain a pre-directed result. How else!?

seriously? how about nuclear fusion?


There are many means of producing light. But none can perform that feat if light per se was not pre-existant of those means.


  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 2324 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 110 of 297 (624448)
07-18-2011 1:29 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by Butterflytyrant
07-17-2011 10:06 AM


Re: LET THERE BE LIGHT.
quote:
light can be ignited? what do you mean by this. Nuclear fusion occurs releasing energy that radiates out into space.

That starts at a later point than I referred to. I referred to the expansion/bang of a singular first entity. Here, one cannot say 'energy build-up' [fusion] was a factor, as this would contradict the BB's initiation as a first point. IMHO, it must be a program which allows the expansion and thereby subsequent fusion: pineapples do not perform the same feat because they are embedded with a different program. All of science rests on this premise.

quote:
Are you trying to tell me that the light exists BEFORE the reaction takes place that produces the light? What the hell is a pre-product?

Correct - that is exactly what I am saying. Fusion could not produce light unless the light was a precedent product. I mentioned that light is producible via a host of means - but light possesses unique transcendent traits not shared by any of those means. The torch which produced light is not the result of its AA battery; the same applies with fusion.

quote:
This sentence contradicts itself : "the BBT posits by default light was the first factor issued by an explosion: this also means the light pre-dated that explosion." How can light be the first factor, but also predate? Does the first factor predate itself? Can I get some references to your claims? Both scripture or a scientific source depending on where you are taking your claims from.

My claim [view] is based on both, the BBT as well the document which first recorded light is the primodial product of the universe [Genesis]. The BB claims there was an explosion [bang]; this is analogous to LET THERE BE LIGHT. The latter clarifies the former, while the former does not clarify what point light emerged from, instead either ignoring this factor or assuming it just happened by virtue of the bang. But we know that light, being part of a finite universe, never existed before. Light can also be invisible to the eye [radiation, etc] w/o fusion.

quote:

What in Genesis is knowledge not yet seen by science? What scripture do you have that the universe could not have been initiated by a "prestine singular entity"? What is that?


One point of knowledge is that the universe could not have been initiated with a singular, indivisible, irreducible entity: it takes two to tango applies. This premise is from Genesis, and from the responses I recieve, it is a premise not sufficiently contemplated by the masses, and ridiculed as mythical theology - w/o any logical responsa why so. I have studied what others are resting their claims on, and after logical thought it arrived in Genesis' favor - and from a scientific POV.

quote:
You suggest that Genesis introduced the day and the week? What do you think people were doing for the thousands of years before the book was written? Do you not think they would have recognised the difference between day and night? Do you believe that they only noticed that it was dark half the time after someone pointed it out in the bible? Your claim that the bible is the first alphabetical book is a bold one. Can you tell me what you mean by this? Do you believe that the bible was the first book ever written?

I referred to the first 'recording' of these two terms, and then subsequently the same source incorporates it in a diarised calendar of amazing accuracy, spanning 3000 years, based on the solar, lunar and earth movements, measuring days, weeks, years, anniversaries and seasons, accurate to nominating a sunset 100K years in thto the future. This is new; this is advanced futuristic science.

quote:
IMHO, the very premise of science was ushered in with Genesis, which is a document based only on laws as the fulcrum factor. This is also seen in its laws of Judiciary, Morality, ethics, etc. It is not a 'belief' based document.

What is the very premise of science? Are you telling me that there are laws (scientific laws) that can be applied to the Genesis creation myth? Scientific law : "A scientific law must always apply under the same conditions, and implies a causal relationship between its elements. The law must be confirmed and broadly agreed upon through the process of inductive reasoning. " State the scientific law that applies to "let there be light".


Genesis changed the universe, declaring it finite: this opens the door to an unending series of questions and deductions, such as when, how, who, etc. The laws we accept today are its derivitives. We accept evolution; but this is a direct lift-off from Genesis - every facet of ToE can be seen here. Where Darwin listed life form groups by skeletal structure, Genesis lists them by terrain: non-mobile vegetation; sea borne, air, land based, speech endowed - this is the first 'recording' of life form groupings, in categories more fundamental than skeletal and dna. Insects, bacteria and virus are also catered to. While ToE lists the environment as the impacter, Genesis claims this as the seed of the host parents, able to transmit data and form new combinations of the same specie [kind], with the ability to continue the program embedded in the seed output: this is new and exremely advanced of its times. Even cross-speciation is catered to in Genesis: life forms from the same terrain can follow their kind; this allows a human to evolve from another land based animal. So what is new with ToE not seen in Genesis - I'm listening? While these amazing stats are mostly ridiculed, I chalenge anyone to put forth a better, earlier description.

quote:

What are the laws of morality and ethics? What judical laws are in the Genesis myth? The events occur before the sin, why would there be judicial laws? If Genesis is not a belief based document, what is it?


I do not want to divert from the topic, but 'ALL' laws the world follows come exclusively from the 613 hebrew laws - to the extent any party which does not follow those laws is deemed outside of the law. All animal rights laws come from here, as does laws if liberty, inlienable human rights, all judciary laws, environmental laws, worker's right instead of slaves, etc. The world does not follow a single law from any other sector: name one? However, I suggest you open another thread if you wish to contest me on this.

quote:

If Genesis is not a Christian work, what is it? Who does it represent? Why can I not group Genesis with all of the other Craetion myths? What makes your so special?

Genesis is from the Hebrew bible, which predates Christianity by 2000 years. The creation myths of the past were busted by Genesis. Today, there are only two scenarious for the emergence of the universe, and one of them is Genesis' Creationism. I know of no scientific alternative to it; do you?

quote:
Can you provide the scripture advising that the universe is finite? If you are positing from a scientific premise you should be able to provide the theory, the mechanis and the process you have that explains how light was produce when God said "let there be light".

The very opening first verse in Genesis declares the universe is finite - it had a BEGINNING. This was said before the term science was yet coined. It changes the universe for humanity, by impact, cencus and today's state of art scientific knowledge by its pursuit.

quote:

If you are refering to the recording of a premise, you will have to tell me when you believe that genesis was written (and back it up with a reference). I can think of two ancient faiths that had a finite universe, The Chinese creation myth says the universe was egg shaped. The Egyption myths say the universe was a big box. Many religions do not discuss if it was finite or infinite at all. Can you provide the scripture that states that the universe is finite?

I did. You can show us an older one than say 300 BCE, the scientifically dated age of the dead sea scrolls, though this dating also says the work itself must have been made much earlier.

quote:
There is no such thing as nature; this is just a metaphor we use to subscribe to the unknown; nature is the processing material, as in the wiring in a mobile chip. There is cause & effect, but the causer factor is elusive. However, when reading the list of actions which predate life on this planet as per Genesis, the intent becomes clear - and we find that life is listed ammediately following those actions. Remove those actions and life cannot exist; earth becomes another lifeless planet; evolution becomes a mute factor.

Nature : The phenomena of the physical world collectively, including plants, animals, the landscape, and other features and products of the earth, as opposed to humans or human creations.

It is not a metaphor for the unknown. With regards to cause an effect, plants use sunlight to create energy. The stars, including the sun were not created until the forth day, after the plants. Do you believe that this order makes sense? You are correct that removing the actions of the Genesis creation myth would mean that life would be impossible. The whole point of the various creation myths is to explain how life is possible.


Firstly, your reading of the text is faulty. Genesis does not say planets appeared on the 4th day; the text has to be read more deeply. There is no such thing as nature - in actuality.

quote:

Are you suggesting there is some intent behind the creation of a water molecule? Are you suggesting that hydrogen molecules have an aim? Are you attributing an intelligent purpose to a hydrogen molecule? You stated that you are coming from a scientific perspective yet you now say that the gospel contains no science? Which is it? You seem to be saying you have a scientific foundation taken from the Genesis creation myth but then say there is no science or laws in the Genesis creation myth.

Yes, absolutely everything has a purpose, and nothing is superfluous: else the universe would not exist. If water appears before life on this planet, and it is the result of a specific combination, it has a purpose - to the extent there is no alternative understanding of it. What scientific or logical reason can you put up to suggest there is no reasoning?

[quote]We can accept light predating stars: a star cannot produce light unless light pre-existed.

quote:
Again, WE can accept no such thing. I do not accept that the light comes before the object creating the light. Cause and effect. Cause comes before effect. The sausage analogy stands.

No sausage w/o the phenomenon of grinding. Besides its a ridiculous attemot for an anaolgy. You are thereby claiming an AA battery as the source of light per se.

quote:

Land is not a requirement for life. You will find that current theories postulate that life began in the sea and moved onto land. With no land, they would have remained aquatic. The absence of land does not make life impossible. There are a lot of lifeforms that do not live on land. Your statement is ludicrous.


Your reading of my post is incorrect. I meantion the critical separation of land and water, to cater to 'all' the varied forms f life which emerged - some cannot live on land, some cannot live in water or in the air.

quote:

Evolution does not prevail w/o the seed factor listed in Genesis. The environment today is different from say millions of years ago - both modes cannot have the same impact. Biological factors have a lot to do with the actions on the earth, such as the separation of day and night, and land and water. Biolgy is merely the study and observation of the process directed in a program. The data in the seed [essence] of a male/femle host contains definitive programs aligned with their result.

I really have no idea what you are rambling about in this paragraph. It appears to be getting a fair way from the topic though.


How is the seed being the pivotal factor for an offspring become a rambling? Compared to?

quote:
Can you supply the theory you have that explains what occured when God said "let there be light"? Include as much detail as you can.

I did. Prior to light, laws were embedded where they never existed before; Light was created via a separation action, making it a new unique product: there was yet no fusion at this time, nor anything else - so there cannot be any other reasoning which applies. One can put this in scientific terms, but that would not be understood by all generations of humans - a feat in itself.

Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Butterflytyrant, posted 07-17-2011 10:06 AM Butterflytyrant has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by Butterflytyrant, posted 07-18-2011 2:25 AM IamJoseph has responded

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 2324 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 112 of 297 (624453)
07-18-2011 2:54 AM
Reply to: Message 111 by Butterflytyrant
07-18-2011 2:25 AM


Re: LET THERE BE LIGHT.
quote:
You have still not supplied any of the scripture that you claim to have to support any of your claims even though I have requested it multiple times. Anything that you are not backing up with scripture I am going to point out and ignore as stuff you are making up.

I did supply text reference to the universe being finite as the first recording of this premise, namely the opening frist verse in Genesis. It is you that has not acknowledged this as among the greatest scientific basics for humanity, bypassing it as if it is of no consequence or calling it myth. It makes me conclude you are on an auto negate mode.

quote:

You have also not supplied an answer to the original question.

Question : What is the creation science theory of the origin of light?

You answer :

"Prior to light, laws were embedded where they never existed before; Light was created via a separation action, making it a new unique product: there was yet no fusion at this time, nor anything else - so there cannot be any other reasoning which applies. One can put this in scientific terms, but that would not be understood by all generations of humans - a feat in itself."

This is not an answer. it is rambling bullshit. You say "once we put this in scientific terms". Why dont you do that? Instead of suggesting it wont be understood. You seem to understand it. With your limited grasp on science (and it appears reality in general) leads me to believe that you theory will be unlikely beyond most people.


Its a very appropriate answer, unless you are looking for new 250 year terms such as science and fusion. Both light and fusion are based on laws; you ignored this fundamental scientific premise or rejected it: why is it called THE 'LAW' OF GRAVITY? I answered correctly, going further, including that laws never existed at one time, which demands an initiating point: its alternative is in fact the non-answer. I have no limited grasp of science - I doubt you know something I don't.

You say that light being unique from all other products is a non-answer; I say why do you then say light is a product of fusion: wherefrom did light derive a transcendent velosity - from the far under-rated fusion - that is impossible!? Can you not see your own non-answer and non-science here?

Where there are no laws - there is no science. But more impacting is that laws and science never existed once - nor did the environment or nature. Understand the scenario which is relevant and impacting here, and open your mind to other POV's. There is no alternative the universe had to be initiated in a duality construct and an external precedent trigger factor applying. Your response was we do not know what laws applied - as if you have by that produced some scientific scenario which justifies your case - or negated mine. No sir.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Butterflytyrant, posted 07-18-2011 2:25 AM Butterflytyrant has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by Butterflytyrant, posted 07-18-2011 5:28 AM IamJoseph has responded

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 2324 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 115 of 297 (624470)
07-18-2011 5:02 AM
Reply to: Message 113 by Chuck77
07-18-2011 3:09 AM


Re: LET THERE BE LIGHT.
quote:
I think it has already been established way back in the thread that there is no theory for "and God said".

Its not as basic as you make it sound. Take it from the top:

1. The uni is finite. It emerged, but we have no idea how this occured.

2. The uni had yet no laws; nothing was distinguishable as separate entities at this point [Proof: the stars never existed at the beginning as separate entities; they emerged later].

3. Light occured. The HOW is gven as a command; 'SAID' referring to speech. At this point, at least according to the text's narratives, nothing else existed as identifiable. IOW, there was no fusion or environment; no energy, space or time. No tools or elements.

Now you tell me how light occured, in alignment of the above scenario? Also tell me what part of the above you don't accept or agree with, and compare with my scenario:

There must be an external, precedent factor to the universe as the impacter here; there is no alternatives applying.

The universe could not have emerged with a singular, irreducible, indivisible entity. here had to be more than one entity, and each compinent had to be embedded with a program directive. Now replace the term 'SAID' as 'embedded with a program directive'?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Chuck77, posted 07-18-2011 3:09 AM Chuck77 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by Chuck77, posted 07-18-2011 6:33 AM IamJoseph has not yet responded
 Message 118 by Larni, posted 07-18-2011 8:01 AM IamJoseph has responded

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 2324 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 119 of 297 (624589)
07-18-2011 10:43 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by Larni
07-18-2011 8:01 AM


Re: Pedantry.
quote:
[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.


Of course that is acceptable PROOF. It is based on the universe being finite, which also says the stars never existed at one time, and the ages of stars have been numerously estimated, as with the ages of the universe and the earth; some 13.5B and 5B respectively. This says the universe existed while the earth never did.

One must be reasonable and ask for proof intelligently, instead of abusing this factor.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Larni, posted 07-18-2011 8:01 AM Larni has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by Larni, posted 07-19-2011 4:18 AM IamJoseph has responded

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 2324 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 120 of 297 (624596)
07-19-2011 12:21 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by Butterflytyrant
07-18-2011 5:28 AM


Re: LET THERE BE LIGHT.
quote:

I am going to assume that you mean Gen 1.1 (I use the KJB)

Gen 1.1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Where does it say that the universe is finite? Is you God not omnipitant? Could he not create an infinite universe? As far as I can tell from the words "In the beginning", there is no reference to the universe or its size, shape or any other features. Is this the scripture (half of one line) you are putting forward as your concrete evidence that the universe is finite? If not, please provide the chapter and verse in Genesis where it describes the universe as finite. I would point out that many creation myths advise that there was a beginning. The Chinese and Egyption creation myths actually state that the universe had boundaries.


There is no other reading of the verse than that the uni is finite. All other products are listed thereafter. The verse refers only to the heavens [the expanse with and/or without any galaxies]. Comparing with Egyptian texts is not acceptable, there are no cosmological accounts there which aligns with today's scientific premises such as the protocol of the first promordial items [light], followed by actions which anticipate a host of various life form species. The verse speaks only of the universe and nothing else is alignable here. One must apply intelligent and relevant input when discussing such heady subjects, and it must apply to all generations adequately. What we know today may not appy in 3000 years.

quote:

The very opening first verse in Genesis declares the universe is finite - it had a BEGINNING. This was said before the term science was yet coined.

When are you talking about. Are you saying that the time of creation was before the term science was coined? Or the time that Genesis was written? Who are you talking about when you say "this was said"? Are you talking about when God said this? Do you have an estimated time period for this?


There is total alignment here with our state of art science estimations. The 14B year and 5B year ages of the universe and the earth is well prepresented by the period for the separation of light; for our solar system by the critical focusing of luminosity [day and night], and for the age of the earth reflected by the separation of water from land. It must be remembered the notion of billions and millions never existed at this time, so epochs of time are inferred. But the principle and unfolding of the universe is correct.

quote:

Firstly, your reading of the text is faulty. Genesis does not say planets appeared on the 4th day; the text has to be read more deeply. There is no such thing as nature - in actuality.

I did not say planEts, I sid PLANTS.

Gen 1.11 : And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

That was on the SECOND day.

Gen 1.14 : And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
Gen 1.15 : And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
Gen 1.16 : And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.


Allow me to illustrate the correct reading of the text, which is much distorted by the masses. Examine the verse 14 you quoted. This refers only to LUNIMOSITY [light being adjusted/critically focused on the earth]. Here, a 24 hour day does not apply before this event, namely it should be read as epochs of time and cosmic days. Human reflected historical time begins after the creational days, namely the Genesis calendar begins after these cosmic days as 5771 years today [check it out!], whereby we have no names or history per se before this time.

quote:

From this scripture, the plants were created a day before the light that feeds tham was created. Also, the object that supplies that light, the sun, was created after the light itself. The order is wrong. Gen1.14 states that light was created to seperate night from day. We know that the rotation of the Earth provides the seperation of night and day. The sun was not created until Gen 1.16, AFTER the plants as I originally stated. If I have somehow mixed this up, let me know. Please provide the chapter and verse that refutes the above scripture.


If you refer to how the vegetation can subsist without the sun's luminosity applying, it is a very good question: we are getting closer to the relevant points. However, the answer and correctness I found resting solidly with genesis when the text are closely examined. It is qualified in the following chapter, namely genesis is saying the life forms [including vegetation] were in their completed form, yet they were not yet ALIVE [animated; able to move and live]. This is a variant and less considered view, however there is no alternative to it. A zebra is not a zebra till fully completed as a zebra. Analogy: a car when completed still does not move; it requires an external trigger, such as an ignition action by a key. The same applies to the life forms - they were completed but yet were not alive; its 100% logic. Genesis lists the trigger cycle which made the already completed life a living entity here:

quote:
Gen 2/ 5 No shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no herb of the field had yet sprung up; for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground; 6 but there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground. 7 Then the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

That is the trigger factor for life becoming living, after they were completed. A cycle of luminosity and rains began as well as an X factor ignition was applied. How this works scientifically is not given, as this depends on our contemporary state of knowledge at any given time, not to mention is would require a book of trillions of pages to cater to all generations and all facets of its science. But the fundamental principle is scientifically solid and irrefutable. Life requires to be fully completed to be functionable, and backed up with a sustaining cycle.

quote:
I supplied the definition of 'nature' that I was using when I made the original comment. Here it is again.
Nature : The phenomena of the physical world collectively, including plants, animals, the landscape, and other features and products of the earth, as opposed to humans or human creations.
Using that definition, my comment stands.

Your comment has no actionable meaning. Phenomena of the physical world – what is that!? Why are you rejecting my description, namely as the wiring which process actions based on a directive program? Consider that the offspring is the result of dna and genes transmission: are the genes not the processing wirings here, resultant of a program in the host transmitted seed? It’s a mute argument which serves no purpose other than deflection.

quote:
You did not say purpose. You said INTENT. These are very different words. I agree that everything has a purpose. I do not agree that a water molecule intends to do anything. Intent implies intention. This suggests that the water molecule has a choice.

Choice can only refer to an inherent directive program. Its like the function of our lungs; involuntary and aligning only with an internal directive program applying

quote:
I will move away from the sausage analogy because you seem to have a problem with it. We are discussing stars. As I explained, a star PRODUCES (cause) electromagnetic radiation that can be seen as light (effect). Are you suggesting that the light (effect) comes before the star (cause).

Not so. Only a critical focusing of our particular star’s luminosity impacts here. Here, both the stars and its light could have existed, but no life existed on earth; this changed only when the star’s light [luminosity] was adjusted/focused to produce and allow life to exist, same as with the separation of water from land. Life could not emerge without such factors, as is seen with other planets which have light but no life. It is a bona fide scientific reasoning and premise, and I agree with it.

quote:
I will point out cause and effect again. An electrical current passes through a wire (cause) and The wire gets so hot it glows and gives off light (effect). From what I can tell, you are suggesting that the effect comes before the cause?

I am suggesting the light could not be produced by an electrical current unless the light was pre-existing as its own force, and that there is no other conclusion possible. The means does not affect the product nor can it be seen as its cause. The electricity only induces the required state for light to be produced and made manifest, which means both the pre-existing light and the mode of its manifestation must be pre-embedded with attributes which allow this to occur. It is why a pineapple and an electric current will not attain the same result.

quote:

Evolution does not prevail w/o the seed factor listed in Genesis. The environment today is different from say millions of years ago - both modes cannot have the same impact. Biological factors have a lot to do with the actions on the earth, such as the separation of day and night, and land and water. Biolgy is merely the study and observation of the process directed in a program. The data in the seed [essence] of a male/femle host contains definitive programs aligned with their result.

I will clarify what I mean by rambling. Can you provide the chapter and verse that you are referring to? "listed in Genesis" is a bit unspecific. 'Both modes'? Both modes of what? "Biolgy is merely the study and observation of the process directed in a program. " Can you clarify this sentence? Particularly the 'directed in a program' part. "The data in the seed [essence] of a male/femle host contains definitive programs aligned with their result. " I have no idea what this sentence means.


What I referred to by both modes is that both the seed and the environment cannot be equally responsible for the production of life. The seed from the host rules here; Genesis wins. There is no life w/o the seed factor. This is well kniwn as stated in the texts and requires no demand for proof: the text famously says a seed shall follow its own kind, while ToE says it is the environment which does the work. My position lies with genesis, and made from a fully scientific view.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Butterflytyrant, posted 07-18-2011 5:28 AM Butterflytyrant has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by Butterflytyrant, posted 07-19-2011 10:32 AM IamJoseph has responded

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 2324 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 122 of 297 (624620)
07-19-2011 4:36 AM
Reply to: Message 121 by Larni
07-19-2011 4:18 AM


Re: Pedantry.
quote:
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.


I don't believe I missed your point, nor did I lack adequate proof in my response. Science measures the uni and the earth.

Nor is the evidence of a finite universe require proving: its expanding - which means it was not infinite 10 seconds ago. Hello?

Science is marching towards genesis, and all of the distortions and manipulations are being exposed as bogus by a growing number of scientists - despite the career impacts this places on them.

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Larni, posted 07-19-2011 4:18 AM Larni has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by Larni, posted 07-19-2011 6:01 AM IamJoseph has responded

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 2324 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 123 of 297 (624630)
07-19-2011 5:21 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by Butterflytyrant
07-18-2011 5:28 AM


Re: LET THERE BE LIGHT.
quote:

I am going to assume that you mean Gen 1.1 (I use the KJB)

Gen 1.1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Where does it say that the universe is finite? Is you God not omnipitant? Could he not create an infinite universe? As far as I can tell from the words "In the beginning", there is no reference to the universe or its size, shape or any other features. Is this the scripture (half of one line) you are putting forward as your concrete evidence that the universe is finite? If not, please provide the chapter and verse in Genesis where it describes the universe as finite. I would point out that many creation myths advise that there was a beginning. The Chinese and Egyption creation myths actually state that the universe had boundaries.


There is no other reading of the verse than that the uni is finite. All other products are listed thereafter. The verse refers only to the heavens [the expanse with and/or without any galaxies]. Comparing with Egyptian texts is not acceptable, there are no cosmological accounts there which aligns with today's scientific premises such as the protocol of the first promordial items [light], followed by actions which anticipate a host of various life form species. The verse speaks only of the universe and nothing else is alignable here. One must apply intelligent and relevant input when discussing such heady subjects, and it must apply to all generations adequately. What we know today may not appy in 3000 years.

quote:

The very opening first verse in Genesis declares the universe is finite - it had a BEGINNING. This was said before the term science was yet coined.

When are you talking about. Are you saying that the time of creation was before the term science was coined? Or the time that Genesis was written? Who are you talking about when you say "this was said"? Are you talking about when God said this? Do you have an estimated time period for this?


There is total alignment here with our state of art science estimations. The 14B year and 5B year ages of the universe and the earth is well prepresented by the period for the separation of light; for our solar system by the critical focusing of luminosity [day and night], and for the age of the earth reflected by the separation of water from land. It must be remembered the notion of billions and millions never existed at this time, so epochs of time are inferred. But the principle and unfolding of the universe is correct.

quote:

Firstly, your reading of the text is faulty. Genesis does not say planets appeared on the 4th day; the text has to be read more deeply. There is no such thing as nature - in actuality.

I did not say planEts, I sid PLANTS.

Gen 1.11 : And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

That was on the SECOND day.

Gen 1.14 : And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
Gen 1.15 : And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
Gen 1.16 : And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.


Allow me to illustrate the correct reading of the text, which is much distorted by the masses. Examine the verse 14 you quoted. This refers only to LUNIMOSITY [light being adjusted/critically focused on the earth]. Here, a 24 hour day does not apply before this event, namely it should be read as epochs of time and cosmic days. Human reflected historical time begins after the creational days, namely the Genesis calendar begins after these cosmic days as 5771 years today [chech it out!], whereby we have no names or history per se before this time.

quote:

From this scripture, the plants were created a day before the light that feeds tham was created. Also, the object that supplies that light, the sun, was created after the light itself. The order is wrong. Gen1.14 states that light was created to seperate night from day. We know that the rotation of the Earth provides the seperation of night and day. The sun was not created until Gen 1.16, AFTER the plants as I originally stated. If I have somehow mixed this up, let me know. Please provide the chapter and verse that refutes the above scripture.


If you refer to how the vegetation can subsist without the sun's luminosity applying, it is a very good question. However, the answer and correctness I found resting solidly with genesis when the text are closely examined. It is qualified in the following chapter, namely genesis is saying the life forms [including vegetation] were in their completed form, yet they were not yet ALIVE [animated; able to move and live]. This is a variant and less considered view, however there is no alternative to it. A zebra is not a zebra till fully completed as a zebra. Analogy: a car when completed still does not move; it requires an external trigger, such as an ignition action by a key. The same applies to the life forms - they were completed but yet were not alive; its 100% logic. Genesis lists the trigger cycle which made the already completed life a living entity here:

I will elaborate. Whn I am asking for scripture, I am asking for chapter and verse. Not its in Genesis. Can you provide the chapter and verse. I will ask again for the bits I need when I get to them Dont worry about digging into the previous questions. From what I can recall you provided the phrase "in the beginning" as your evidence that the universe was finite.

I am going to assume that you mean Gen 1.1 (I use the KJB)

Gen 1.1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Where does it say that the universe is finite? Is you God not omnipitant? Could he not create an infinite universe? As far as I can tell from the words "In the beginning", there is no reference to the universe or its size, shape or any other features. Is this the scripture (half of one line) you are putting forward as your concrete evidence that the universe is finite? If not, please provide the chapter and verse in Genesis where it describes the universe as finite. I would point out that many creation myths advise that there was a beginning. The Chinese and Egyption creation myths actually state that the universe had boundaries.

The very opening first verse in Genesis declares the universe is finite - it had a BEGINNING. This was said before the term science was yet coined.

When are you talking about. Are you saying that the time of creation was before the term science was coined? Or the time that Genesis was written? Who are you talking about when you say "this was said"? Are you talking about when God said this? Do you have an estimated time period for this?

Firstly, your reading of the text is faulty. Genesis does not say planets appeared on the 4th day; the text has to be read more deeply. There is no such thing as nature - in actuality.

I did not say planEts, I sid PLANTS.

Gen 1.11 : And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

That was on the SECOND day.

Gen 1.14 : And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
Gen 1.15 : And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
Gen 1.16 : And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

That was on the THIRD day.

From this scripture, the plants were created a day before the light that feeds tham was created. Also, the object that supplies that light, the sun, was created after the light itself. The order is wrong. Gen1.14 states that light was created to seperate night from day. We know that the rotation of the Earth provides the seperation of night and day. The sun was not created until Gen 1.16, AFTER the plants as I originally stated. If I have somehow mixed this up, let me know. Please provide the chapter and verse that refutes the above scripture.

I supplied the definition of 'nature' that I was using when I made the original comment. Here it is again.

Nature : The phenomena of the physical world collectively, including plants, animals, the landscape, and other features and products of the earth, as opposed to humans or human creations.

Using that definition, my comment stands.

Yes, absolutely everything has a purpose, and nothing is superfluous: else the universe would not exist. If water appears before life on this planet, and it is the result of a specific combination, it has a purpose - to the extent there is no alternative understanding of it. What scientific or logical reason can you put up to suggest there is no reasoning?

You did not say purpose. You said INTENT. These are very different words. I agree that everything has a purpose. I do not agree that a water molecule intends to do anything. Intent implies intention. This suggests that the water molecule has a choice.

I will move away from the sausage analogy because you seem to have a problem with it. We are discussing stars. As I explained, a star PRODUCES (cause) electromagnetic radiation that can be seen as light (effect). Are you suggesting that the light (effect) comes before the star (cause).

To use your torch analogy. info from http://www.pa.msu.edu/sciencet/ask_st/061792.html

"An incandescent bulb uses heat caused by an electrical current. When electrical current passes through a wire, it causes the wire to heat. The wire, or filament, gets so hot that it glows and gives off light. Everyday incandescent light bulbs have a filament made of tungsten. Since the hot tungsten would quickly burn away if it were exposed to oxygen, it must be placed in a sealed glass bulb which is either evacuated or filled with a gas that won’t let it burn. "

I will point out cause and effect again. An electrical current passes through a wire (cause) and The wire gets so hot it glows and gives off light (effect). From what I can tell, you are suggesting that the effect comes before the cause?

Evolution does not prevail w/o the seed factor listed in Genesis. The environment today is different from say millions of years ago - both modes cannot have the same impact. Biological factors have a lot to do with the actions on the earth, such as the separation of day and night, and land and water. Biolgy is merely the study and observation of the process directed in a program. The data in the seed [essence] of a male/femle host contains definitive programs aligned with their result.

I will clarify what I mean by rambling. Can you provide the chapter and verse that you are referring to? "listed in Genesis" is a bit unspecific. 'Both modes'? Both modes of what? "Biolgy is merely the study and observation of the process directed in a program. " Can you clarify this sentence? Particularly the 'directed in a program' part. "The data in the seed [essence] of a male/femle host contains definitive programs aligned with their result. " I have no idea what this sentence means.

Prior to light, laws were embedded where they never existed before; Light was created via a separation action, making it a new unique product: there was yet no fusion at this time, nor anything else - so there cannot be any other reasoning which applies. One can put this in scientific terms, but that would not be understood by all generations of humans - a feat in itself.

this is your theory? What defenition of theory are you using? Can you supply the definiton of theory that fits this claim.

This is the scripture I have that you may be talking about.

Gen 1.3 : And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
Gen 1.4 : And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

You have said : "Light was created via a separation action, making it a new unique product". I cannot work out how the scripture backs this up. Gen 1.3 states, let there be light. Then in Gen 1.4, God sees the light. This means that according to scripture, the light already existed BEFORE the seperation of darkness from the light. It appears that the seperation created darkness, not light. As you have not provided the chapter and verse you are reading, it is hard for me to be sure.

there was yet no fusion at this time, nor anything else - so there cannot be any other reasoning which applies.

There can be other reasoning that applies. How about the reasoning that the book we are getting our scripture from is just another one of the many myths and legends and cant be used as a scientific text.

unless you are looking for new 250 year terms such as science and fusion.

What is a 250 year term?

Both light and fusion are based on laws; you ignored this fundamental scientific premise or rejected it: why is it called THE 'LAW' OF GRAVITY?

When did i ignore or reject the laws of gravity? I am aware that light and fusion are based on laws. One of the Laws you seem to be ignoring is the Law of Causality.

I answered correctly, going further, including that laws never existed at one time, which demands an initiating point: its alternative is in fact the non-answer. I have no limited grasp of science - I doubt you know something I don't.

Fair enough that the current known laws did not exist at one time. I also agree that there must have been an inititiation point. We are in agreement at this point.

You say that light being unique from all other products is a non-answer;

I agree that light is unique from all other products. I was not advising that the light discussed in the Bible when God said 'let there be light' came from a star. I was using a star as an example. As far as I could tell, you were saying that light came before the star. Effect came before a cause. I think that you are getting this from a strict interpretation of the Genesis creation story. The genesis creation story does not fit with the example i gave. The example was targeted at a different point. This may be where we had a misunderstanding.

I say why do you then say light is a product of fusion: wherefrom did light derive a transcendent velosity - from the far under-rated fusion - that is impossible!? Can you not see your own non-answer and non-science here?

You will need to clarify a few things here. What do you mean by 'transendent velosity'? Also, I have explained how a fusion in a star creates light. Are you disputing atomic theory?

Where there are no laws - there is no science. But more impacting is that laws and science never existed once - nor did the environment or nature. Understand the scenario which is relevant and impacting here, and open your mind to other POV's. There is no alternative the universe had to be initiated in a duality construct and an external precedent trigger factor applying. Your response was we do not know what laws applied - as if you have by that produced some scientific scenario which justifies your case - or negated mine. No sir.

Let me rephrase some of this to see if I understand what you are getting at. 'Where there are no laws there is no science', does this mean that you are supplying this reason for not having a scientific theory for the creation of light. I should point out that I am not saying that this is a negative. This is fair enough. I have read some ideas recently about what existed before the current universe. These ideas are discussing a time that existed before the current laws so it can also be said that 'where there are no laws there is no science'. The scenario we are discussing is the big bang. You are suggesting that God saying 'let there be light' is part of the big bang. Which part I am not too sure.
This sentence needs some clarification - " There is no alternative the universe had to be initiated in a duality construct and an external precedent trigger factor applying. " Is this a complicated was of saying that something had to cause the big bang? What is a duality construct? I also have put forward no case at all. I see significant holes in what you are saying. Also, I support the Big bang theory to a limited degree. I am not sure enough is known to be too sure. It appears that you support the Bif bang Theory also, you seem to be alligning the Genesis story with it. If this is true, then I would not be negating your case as we both have the same case.

I supplied the definition of 'nature' that I was using when I made the original comment. Here it is again.

Nature : The phenomena of the physical world collectively, including plants, animals, the landscape, and other features and products of the earth, as opposed to humans or human creations.

Using that definition, my comment stands.

Yes, absolutely everything has a purpose, and nothing is superfluous: else the universe would not exist. If water appears before life on this planet, and it is the result of a specific combination, it has a purpose - to the extent there is no alternative understanding of it. What scientific or logical reason can you put up to suggest there is no reasoning?

You did not say purpose. You said INTENT. These are very different words. I agree that everything has a purpose. I do not agree that a water molecule intends to do anything. Intent implies intention. This suggests that the water molecule has a choice.

I will move away from the sausage analogy because you seem to have a problem with it. We are discussing stars. As I explained, a star PRODUCES (cause) electromagnetic radiation that can be seen as light (effect). Are you suggesting that the light (effect) comes before the star (cause).

To use your torch analogy. info from http://www.pa.msu.edu/sciencet/ask_st/061792.html

"An incandescent bulb uses heat caused by an electrical current. When electrical current passes through a wire, it causes the wire to heat. The wire, or filament, gets so hot that it glows and gives off light. Everyday incandescent light bulbs have a filament made of tungsten. Since the hot tungsten would quickly burn away if it were exposed to oxygen, it must be placed in a sealed glass bulb which is either evacuated or filled with a gas that won’t let it burn. "

I will point out cause and effect again. An electrical current passes through a wire (cause) and The wire gets so hot it glows and gives off light (effect). From what I can tell, you are suggesting that the effect comes before the cause?

Evolution does not prevail w/o the seed factor listed in Genesis. The environment today is different from say millions of years ago - both modes cannot have the same impact. Biological factors have a lot to do with the actions on the earth, such as the separation of day and night, and land and water. Biolgy is merely the study and observation of the process directed in a program. The data in the seed [essence] of a male/femle host contains definitive programs aligned with their result.

I will clarify what I mean by rambling. Can you provide the chapter and verse that you are referring to? "listed in Genesis" is a bit unspecific. 'Both modes'? Both modes of what? "Biolgy is merely the study and observation of the process directed in a program. " Can you clarify this sentence? Particularly the 'directed in a program' part. "The data in the seed [essence] of a male/femle host contains definitive programs aligned with their result. " I have no idea what this sentence means.

Prior to light, laws were embedded where they never existed before; Light was created via a separation action, making it a new unique product: there was yet no fusion at this time, nor anything else - so there cannot be any other reasoning which applies. One can put this in scientific terms, but that would not be understood by all generations of humans - a feat in itself.

this is your theory? What defenition of theory are you using? Can you supply the definiton of theory that fits this claim.

This is the scripture I have that you may be talking about.

Gen 1.3 : And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
Gen 1.4 : And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

You have said : "Light was created via a separation action, making it a new unique product". I cannot work out how the scripture backs this up. Gen 1.3 states, let there be light. Then in Gen 1.4, God sees the light. This means that according to scripture, the light already existed BEFORE the seperation of darkness from the light. It appears that the seperation created darkness, not light. As you have not provided the chapter and verse you are reading, it is hard for me to be sure.

there was yet no fusion at this time, nor anything else - so there cannot be any other reasoning which applies.

There can be other reasoning that applies. How about the reasoning that the book we are getting our scripture from is just another one of the many myths and legends and cant be used as a scientific text.

unless you are looking for new 250 year terms such as science and fusion.

What is a 250 year term?

Both light and fusion are based on laws; you ignored this fundamental scientific premise or rejected it: why is it called THE 'LAW' OF GRAVITY?

When did i ignore or reject the laws of gravity? I am aware that light and fusion are based on laws. One of the Laws you seem to be ignoring is the Law of Causality.

I answered correctly, going further, including that laws never existed at one time, which demands an initiating point: its alternative is in fact the non-answer. I have no limited grasp of science - I doubt you know something I don't.

Fair enough that the current known laws did not exist at one time. I also agree that there must have been an inititiation point. We are in agreement at this point.

You say that light being unique from all other products is a non-answer;

I agree that light is unique from all other products. I was not advising that the light discussed in the Bible when God said 'let there be light' came from a star. I was using a star as an example. As far as I could tell, you were saying that light came before the star. Effect came before a cause. I think that you are getting this from a strict interpretation of the Genesis creation story. The genesis creation story does not fit with the example i gave. The example was targeted at a different point. This may be where we had a misunderstanding.

I say why do you then say light is a product of fusion: wherefrom did light derive a transcendent velosity - from the far under-rated fusion - that is impossible!? Can you not see your own non-answer and non-science here?

You will need to clarify a few things here. What do you mean by 'transendent velosity'? Also, I have explained how a fusion in a star creates light. Are you disputing atomic theory?

Where there are no laws - there is no science. But more impacting is that laws and science never existed once - nor did the environment or nature. Understand the scenario which is relevant and impacting here, and open your mind to other POV's. There is no alternative the universe had to be initiated in a duality construct and an external precedent trigger factor applying. Your response was we do not know what laws applied - as if you have by that produced some scientific scenario which justifies your case - or negated mine. No sir.

Let me rephrase some of this to see if I understand what you are getting at. 'Where there are no laws there is no science', does this mean that you are supplying this reason for not having a scientific theory for the creation of light. I should point out that I am not saying that this is a negative. This is fair enough. I have read some ideas recently about what existed before the current universe. These ideas are discussing a time that existed before the current laws so it can also be said that 'where there are no laws there is no science'. The scenario we are discussing is the big bang. You are suggesting that God saying 'let there be light' is part of the big bang. Which part I am not too sure.
This sentence needs some clarification - " There is no alternative the universe had to be initiated in a duality construct and an external precedent trigger factor applying. " Is this a complicated was of saying that something had to cause the big bang? What is a duality construct? I also have put forward no case at all. I see significant holes in what you are saying. Also, I support the Big bang theory to a limited degree. I am not sure enough is known to be too sure. It appears that you support the Bif bang Theory also, you seem to be alligning the Genesis story with it. If this is true, then I would not be negating your case as we both have the same case.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Butterflytyrant, posted 07-18-2011 5:28 AM Butterflytyrant has not yet responded

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 2324 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 126 of 297 (624651)
07-19-2011 9:02 AM
Reply to: Message 124 by Larni
07-19-2011 6:01 AM


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


I did back it with evidence, which you are clearly abusing. The universe is estimated to be around 14B years old. Do you want me to prove that? Why not ask me to prove the P in prove?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by Larni, posted 07-19-2011 6:01 AM Larni has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by Larni, posted 07-19-2011 9:06 AM IamJoseph has responded

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 2324 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 128 of 297 (624658)
07-19-2011 9:07 AM
Reply to: Message 125 by Admin
07-19-2011 9:01 AM


Re: Pedantry.
quote:
Hi IamJoseph,
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.


No, those reasonings related to other points debated. The universe could not start with a pristine one and nothing else around - because an action can only result from an interaction with other items. It takes two to tango applies. None have argued the point intelligently, and the subject got drowned into other areas.

The BB theorests have been looking for a GUT in vain. There is no ONE in the universe - technically speaking.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by Admin, posted 07-19-2011 9:01 AM Admin 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 © 2020