Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8936 total)
33 online now:
Captcass, dwise1, jar, Tanypteryx, Taq (5 members, 28 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?
Coyote
Member (Idle past 362 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 97 of 297 (624263)
07-16-2011 10:25 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by IamJoseph
07-16-2011 10:06 PM


Re: LET THERE BE LIGHT.
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.

You forgot to include "Amen" at the end of your post, because it certainly does not reflect what science is investigating or theorizing.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by IamJoseph, posted 07-16-2011 10:06 PM IamJoseph has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by IamJoseph, posted 07-16-2011 10:35 PM Coyote has responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 362 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 100 of 297 (624271)
07-16-2011 11:47 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by IamJoseph
07-16-2011 10:35 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.

The universe observed and described by scientists, what else?

In the Science Forum, what other universe is there to discuss?


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by IamJoseph, posted 07-16-2011 10:35 PM IamJoseph has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by IamJoseph, posted 07-17-2011 12:47 AM Coyote has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 362 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 144 of 297 (624963)
07-20-2011 10:17 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by IamJoseph
07-20-2011 10:06 PM


LET THERE BE WATER (or not)
But you have not negated genesis in any way what so ever, even using the best of today's sciences.

If you include all of genesis, the global flood ca. 4,350 years ago has been totally refuted. This refutation happened about 200 years ago, and the evidence since then has only accumulated that Noah's flood was a myth, and never really happened.

If you want to defend this, let's go to an appropriate thread. I can provide evidence for my statement from my own archaeological research.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by IamJoseph, posted 07-20-2011 10:06 PM IamJoseph has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by IamJoseph, posted 07-21-2011 12:58 AM Coyote has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 362 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 275 of 297 (627889)
08-04-2011 11:36 PM
Reply to: Message 274 by Butterflytyrant
08-04-2011 11:28 PM


Re: The creationist scientific theory of the origin of light
If the creator was a highly advanced form of alien life, then it would not be magic.

Clarke's Three Laws are three "laws" of prediction formulated by the British writer and scientist Arthur C. Clarke. They are:

  • When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.
  • The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.
  • Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

Source


This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by Butterflytyrant, posted 08-04-2011 11:28 PM Butterflytyrant has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 276 by Butterflytyrant, posted 08-04-2011 11:44 PM Coyote has responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 362 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 277 of 297 (627894)
08-05-2011 12:19 AM
Reply to: Message 276 by Butterflytyrant
08-04-2011 11:44 PM


Re: The creationist scientific theory of the origin of light
Something being indistingishable from magic does not actually make it magic. So the aliens starting the universe, while indistinguishable from magic, does not actually make it magic.

Of course!

That's the point of Clarke's Third Law.

The Cargo Cult folks immediately after WWII in the Pacific used imitative magic to try to get the cargo to return. It didn't of course.

But that is another good example of Clarke's Third Law.

And I guess this is another good example of a well-reasoned but off-topic post, eh?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by Butterflytyrant, posted 08-04-2011 11:44 PM Butterflytyrant has acknowledged this reply

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019