Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8936 total)
22 online now:
caffeine, Faith, kjsimons (3 members, 19 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Upcoming Birthdays: AdminPhat
Post Volume: Total: 861,617 Year: 16,653/19,786 Month: 778/2,598 Week: 24/251 Day: 1/23 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?
Minority Report
Member (Idle past 1408 days)
Posts: 66
From: N.S.W Australia
Joined: 05-25-2009


Message 12 of 297 (621818)
06-29-2011 4:46 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Butterflytyrant
06-28-2011 10:52 AM


Re: Scientific theory of Genesis
Hi Butterflytyrant,

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

This question in it's current form is impossible to answer. Creationists believe that this universe & everything in it was supernaturally created by God out of nothing. So asking for a testable, repeatable scientific theory based on 'natural laws' to explain a 'supernatural creation' (in which these very laws were created), is entirely missing the creationists point.

Believing in a supernatural creation however does not make creation scientific theories impossible. Creationists can form scientific theories about the nature of light, fitting within a creation framework, such as how it could have seemingly travelled millions of light years in a 6000year old universe. Creationists formulate theories based on the presupposition of creation, just as evolutionists formulate theories on the presupposition of naturalism.

So perhapps you need to rephrase the question. Any question asking for a scientific theory of 'how' God created is pointless, as it involves the supernatural and is not testable & therefore no scientific theory can be formulated. 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.


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Larni, posted 06-29-2011 5:30 AM Minority Report has responded
 Message 231 by IamJoseph, posted 08-02-2011 7:27 AM Minority Report has not yet responded

    
Minority Report
Member (Idle past 1408 days)
Posts: 66
From: N.S.W Australia
Joined: 05-25-2009


Message 15 of 297 (621823)
06-29-2011 5:47 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Larni
06-29-2011 5:30 AM


Re: Scientific theory of Genesis
Hi Larni,

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

A bit presumtuous and not really helpfull. There are a few actual scientific theories on this topic, but I'll wait for Butterflytyrant to lead which direction to go on this.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Larni, posted 06-29-2011 5:30 AM Larni has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Larni, posted 06-29-2011 5:58 AM Minority Report has not yet responded
 Message 236 by IamJoseph, posted 08-02-2011 7:46 AM Minority Report has not yet responded

    
Minority Report
Member (Idle past 1408 days)
Posts: 66
From: N.S.W Australia
Joined: 05-25-2009


Message 41 of 297 (622021)
06-30-2011 5:42 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by Admin
06-29-2011 8:38 PM


Re: Moderator on Duty
Hi Percy,

How many times do we have to tell you before you will understand. There is no creationist theory on how God created light. There never will be a theory. There cannot be a theory.

Chuck77 stated in message 7

There isn't one that I know of.

I stated in message 12

perhapps you need to rephrase the question. Any question asking for a scientific theory of 'how' God created is pointless, as it involves the supernatural and is not testable & therefore no scientific theory can be formulated.

mr jack stated in message 14

Why would you imagine there would, or could, be such a thing? I mean, the whole frickin' point of God is that he's supernatural. You can't empirically test the supernatural

catholic scientist stated in message 22

God said "let there be light" and then there was light. It would seem to be an ex nihilo emergence from god's will alone.That cannot be scientifically investigated without repeating the phenomenon

Kbertsche stated in message24

I've never seen the YECs propose a scientific explanation for the origin of light

Yet after all this, in message 38 your still asking for a theory for the origin of light???? Let me ask you this. Do evolutionists have a testable theory for what happened in the billion years leading up to the big bang? I'm sorry I didn't hear you, what was that, you don't have a theory, why not? Well then that settles it then, evolution has no scientific basis without a theory to explain what caused the origin of the universe.

Shame on you admin for even letting this question get promoted in this form.

However.

There are creationist theories about light, such as that proposed by Russell Humphreys in his book 'Starlight and Time, solving the puzzle of distant starlight in a young universe'. Also another by John Hartnett in his book 'Starlight, time and the new physics'.

But these do not answer the actual question posed. So I run the risk of being told by you to stick to answering the question, for even mentioning them.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Admin, posted 06-29-2011 8:38 PM Admin has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Pressie, posted 06-30-2011 6:03 AM Minority Report has not yet responded
 Message 43 by Pressie, posted 06-30-2011 6:15 AM Minority Report has not yet responded
 Message 44 by Pressie, posted 06-30-2011 6:42 AM Minority Report has responded
 Message 45 by Son, posted 06-30-2011 8:05 AM Minority Report has not yet responded
 Message 48 by Butterflytyrant, posted 06-30-2011 9:52 AM Minority Report has responded
 Message 54 by Taq, posted 06-30-2011 4:11 PM Minority Report has not yet responded

    
Minority Report
Member (Idle past 1408 days)
Posts: 66
From: N.S.W Australia
Joined: 05-25-2009


Message 46 of 297 (622039)
06-30-2011 8:54 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Butterflytyrant
06-29-2011 3:15 AM


What is this forum about ?
Hello Butterflytyrant,

It is becoming clear that the topic for this debate is just a side issue to what you really want.

What I am looking for is the opposing set of scientific theories...Particularly with relation to the creation of the universe and the creation of the earth

Well then, perhapps the title of this forum should have been 'List of creation scientific theories'.

Would you be interested in 'information theory' as proposed by Werner Gitt.
What about 'An ice Age caused by the Genesis flood' theory, as proposed byMichael Oard.
Let's not forget 'Design theory' originally by Paley but currently presented by Jonathan Sarfati in his book 'By Design'.
Pasteurs Law 'life only comes from life'.
Michael Behe's theory of the irreducible complexity of living organisms.
Catastrophic plate tectonic 'runaway subduction theory' by John Baumgardner.
The 'Floating mat' theory for the origin of coal by Steve Austin.
'Cave formation as the result of the flood' theory by DR Emil Silvestru.
etc.
etc.
etc.

Is this what you really want to know???Then perhapps you need to propose a new topic which reflects what you really want to know, instead of asking a silly question for the sole purpose of establishing your own forum with no focus in particular.

Edited by Minority Report, : No reason given.


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 47 by Admin, posted 06-30-2011 9:11 AM Minority Report has not yet responded
 Message 52 by Butterflytyrant, posted 06-30-2011 10:20 AM Minority Report has not yet responded

    
Minority Report
Member (Idle past 1408 days)
Posts: 66
From: N.S.W Australia
Joined: 05-25-2009


Message 51 of 297 (622047)
06-30-2011 10:15 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by Pressie
06-30-2011 6:42 AM


Hello Pressie,

Could you give us a description of what they described

Sure. This is from www.conservapedia.com/Starlight_problem which explains what I would struggle to;

In 1994 Dr. Russell Humphreys proposed a new cosmology[13] that includes a bounded universe with a center and an edge, that God had created 6,000 years ago as a much smaller body than today, then stretched it out, making it much larger. In Humphreys' model, because the universe has a center and an edge (unlike the unbounded model of the Big Bang universe), the center of the universe is also the center of a gravity well, meaning that gravity is stronger at the center of the universe than at the edge.

As gravity can affect the rate at which time passes, he calculated that while the six days of creation week were passing on Earth, billions of years' of time was passing at the edge of the universe. According to this idea, the Biblical references to time are according to an observer (real or imaginary) on Earth, so ages are given in "Earth time".

However, this theory is not without problems. The evidence contradicts Humphrey's assumption that the earth is in a large gravity well. If the earth were in such a gravity well, light from distant galaxies should be blue-shifted. Instead, it is red-shifted. Also, gravitational time dilation, if it existed on such a large scale, should be easily observable. On the contrary, we observe (from the periods of Cepheid variable stars, from orbital rates of binary stars, from supernova extinction rates, from light frequencies, etc.) that such time dilation is minor. It is thought that here is some time dilation corresponding with Hubble's law (i.e., further objects have greater red shifts), but this is due to the well-understood expansion of the universe, and it is not nearly extreme enough to fit more than ten billion years into less than 10,000.[14]

This model receives cautious but wide support among creationists.

Dr. John Hartnett, a creationist physicist, spurred by Humphreys' model, has proposed an alternative time dilation model, by theorizing the Earth was in a time-dilation field during the first few days of creation, from Earth's point of view, while billions of years passed for the rest of the universe. According to the Bible, God "stretched out"[15] the heavens (space), and this movement during creation week caused time to travel faster for those objects, in accordance with Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity, adding to the time dilation caused by gravity, per Humphreys, in accordance with Einstein's General Theory of Relativity.[16]

I won't pretent to understand physics, especially relativity, gravity's effect on time etc. I am merely presenting this to demonstrate that there are creationist theories out there by physicists regarding light.

You did describe it as a "creation theory". Not scientific.

They are theories proposed by creation believing scientists, and are published in peer review journals such as TJ. That makes them scientific.

Why do the people you referred to as writing those books keep on pretending that they do science?'

Because they are physicists who have or have had a paid day job to do physics.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Pressie, posted 06-30-2011 6:42 AM Pressie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Theodoric, posted 06-30-2011 4:03 PM Minority Report has responded
 Message 55 by Pressie, posted 07-01-2011 12:52 AM Minority Report has not yet responded

    
Minority Report
Member (Idle past 1408 days)
Posts: 66
From: N.S.W Australia
Joined: 05-25-2009


Message 57 of 297 (622309)
07-02-2011 8:51 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by Butterflytyrant
06-30-2011 9:52 AM


Re: Moderator on Duty
Hello Butterflytyrant,

Butterflytyrant writes:

The time period before the big bang. This is an equal opportunity idea. I dont see any reason why it could not be included.


Butterflytyrant writes:

your comment felt a little like a straw man to me

That's because my comment was a straw man....sort off. Firstly, I think I'd better explain as a few people did not understand what I meant by my question about time before the big bang.

I wrote

Yet after all this, in message 38 your still asking for a theory for the origin of light???? Let me ask you this. Do evolutionists have a testable theory for what happened in the billion years leading up to the big bang? I'm sorry I didn't hear you, what was that, you don't have a theory, why not? Well then that settles it then, evolution has no scientific basis without a theory to explain what caused the origin of the universe.

This was a rhetorical rant. I did not ask this question expecting an answer. I asked this question to highlight the fact that your original question is invalid. It is un-answerable in the same way that theorising about the time before the big bang is impossible. It was asked out of frustration, that you and others do not seem to understand the difference between the supernatural and the natural.

We can formulate theories about natural phenomena that exist within this universe after it started. We cannot formulate theories about supernatural events, or about things outside of our universe, or about things that happened before the universe existed.

I will ask you plainly. Do you now understand that your topic question is invalid?

Do you understand that your question has already been answered multiple times, and in many ways by a number of people, in that it cannot be answered?

Creation scientists claim to provide scientific support for the Genesis creation narrative

You seem to be implying from this and other statements, that creation scientists claim to have, or should have, scientific theories about the actual acts of creation during creation week. Is this what your original question, and this forum, all about?

As a side issue. When I asked do 'evolutionists' have a testable theory...., a few of you got a bit pedantic. I know very well that the term 'evolution' applies to biology. What you guys don't understand, is that this word has not been patented or registered and solely set aside for exclusive use by darwinian biologists. The term 'evolutionist' means simply 'people who believe in biological evolution'. When someone uses the term evolutionist, they are not only referring to biologists who believe in biological evolution, but also scientists from all fields who belive in biological evolution, or anyone who believes it. So to criticize me for asking 'evolutionists' for a theory in the field of physics, is extremely pedantic.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Butterflytyrant, posted 06-30-2011 9:52 AM Butterflytyrant has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Butterflytyrant, posted 07-02-2011 11:33 AM Minority Report has responded
 Message 69 by Pressie, posted 07-05-2011 7:22 AM Minority Report has not yet responded
 Message 71 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 07-12-2011 3:46 PM Minority Report has not yet responded

    
Minority Report
Member (Idle past 1408 days)
Posts: 66
From: N.S.W Australia
Joined: 05-25-2009


Message 58 of 297 (622313)
07-02-2011 9:24 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by Theodoric
06-30-2011 4:03 PM


Hello Theodoric,

Theodoric writes:

Kind of makes it not-Science doesn't it.

In the Basics section you presented it states;

The account of origins presented in Genesis is a simple but factual presentation of actual events and therefore provides a reliable framework for scientific research into the question of the origin and history of life, mankind, the Earth and the universe.

The basis is the Bible yes. But it is the "framework for scientific research into the question of the origin and history of life, mankind, the Earth and the universe". The articles are written by scientists, about scientific evidence supporting creation.

Kind of makes it scientific doesn't it?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Theodoric, posted 06-30-2011 4:03 PM Theodoric has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by jar, posted 07-02-2011 9:49 AM Minority Report has not yet responded

    
Minority Report
Member (Idle past 1408 days)
Posts: 66
From: N.S.W Australia
Joined: 05-25-2009


Message 61 of 297 (622446)
07-03-2011 5:59 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by Butterflytyrant
07-02-2011 11:33 AM


Hello Butterflytyrant,

Butterflytyrant writes:

I dont think any question, if honestly asked is invalid

What if I were to ask for a testable scientific theory to describe how Jesus ascended into the sky, or how he walked on water, or healed the man born blind so that he could see?

Firstly, they are one off historical events that cannot be repeated or tested by any scientific method.

Secondly, they were supernatural events, which means that we cannot demonstrate or test them by natural means.

Thirdly, these are not believed to be true because we can scientifically validate them. They are believed true because of the eyewittness testimony of those who saw them occur. In the same way, creation week is also believed to be true based on the testimony of God himself. Can these actual events be scientifically verified? No, because they are outside the ability of science. So asking for a scientifically testable theory for a supernatural historical event, in my books, is not a valid request.

Stephen Hawking, paul Davies and others may theorise all they like about time before the big bang, but is any of it testable? Are any of them repeatable? Can they be falsified? My understanding of what separates science from philosophy, is physical demonstation.

I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what creation scientists are actually claiming.

You stated

Creation science groups have declared that they are attempting to provide scientific theories and evidence to support the Genesis Creation narrative

and then you state
Yes, I am saying that creation scientists should have theories regarding the acts of the creation week. Or at least a workable hypothesis

You seem to be implying from these and other statements, that creation scientists claim to have scientific support for the actual creative acts of God. This is false. This is not what they mean, or even what they are attempting to do. (I somehow get the feeling from this, that english is not your first language). I am not aware of any creation scientists who make claims such as this. If there are could you please supply a qoute with references.

The following is from Lita Cosner, who is the information officer for Creation Ministries International.(taken from www.creation.com/school-assignment-genesis-1-and-2)

We agree that Genesis is not a scientific book. But it is a historical book, and it makes historical claims. One of the historical claims that it makes is that around 6,000 years ago, God created the universe in 6 ordinary-length days. This is opposed to the secular historical claim that the universe exploded into existence several billion years ago. Science can test some of the evidence which is interpreted one way or the other, but science is powerless to test the claims themselves.

What creation scientists mean, when they claim to have support for creation as described in genesis, is that there is evidence of that creation remaining within this natural world as it exists today. For example, as already listed, there is Design theory, which is based on the argument that complex things such as computors are only ever 'observed' to be made by humans. They do not form naturally as a result of lightening, wind, rain, chemical processes etc. Objects of even greater complexity such as us, have never been 'observed' to form by natural processes, and all complex things have only ever been 'observed' to come about by intentional design. Therefore that clearly suggests that we were designed and made. This theory can be tested, observed, and falsified.

Also related to design theory, is information theory, and yes there is a connection between Gitt's theory & biology. Information theory's basic premise is that information, like complexity, has only ever been observed to originate from an intelligent being, namely us. Gitt has further constrained & defined information by forming ten laws of information. Now it has been discoved that our DNA contains an incredible amount of complex coded information. Therefore this suggests that we were intentionally designed by a very intelligent being. This theory can be tested, observed, and falsified. By the way, in any of those web sites you visited criticizing Gitt, did any of them provide observable testable evidence which refutes any of Gitt's ten Laws of information, or were they just philosophical objections?

Are you confident enough in this answer to answer for all of the creation science world?

Of course not. There are many deluded individuals out there who claim all sorts of things. I personally side with Creation Ministries International, and I have never seen them claim to have scientific evidence for God's actual creative acts in creation week, as clearly stated by their information officer. Nor have I ever seen it claimed by any other reputable organisations associated with them.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Butterflytyrant, posted 07-02-2011 11:33 AM Butterflytyrant has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Percy, posted 07-03-2011 9:22 AM Minority Report has responded
 Message 66 by Butterflytyrant, posted 07-04-2011 9:49 AM Minority Report has not yet responded

    
Minority Report
Member (Idle past 1408 days)
Posts: 66
From: N.S.W Australia
Joined: 05-25-2009


Message 63 of 297 (622491)
07-04-2011 5:50 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by Percy
07-03-2011 9:22 AM


Hello Percy,

Thanks for highlighting that 'Information theory' is a bit different from Gitt's theory of information. Gitt does draw from the original theory though, or perhaps adds to it, or constrains it, depending on your point of view. I perhaps should have clarified that I was only talking about Gitt's version.

That information can only be created by an intelligence is one of Gitt's unsupported claims

Well that also depends on ones point of veiw. I think that it is self evident that information only comes from intelligence. I believe it is supported by such things as books, computer programs, languages etc. When Gitt applies what is known about information, to a code of unknown origin such as DNA and concluded that it must have an intelligent creator, he is just using a standard form of inference.

If you claim that Gitt is wrong, then all you need to do is demonstrate information forming without an intelligence source.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Percy, posted 07-03-2011 9:22 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by frako, posted 07-04-2011 6:01 AM Minority Report has not yet responded
 Message 65 by Percy, posted 07-04-2011 6:28 AM Minority Report has not yet 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