Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 83 (8942 total)
34 online now:
AZPaul3, Faith (2 members, 32 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: John Sullivan
Post Volume: Total: 863,526 Year: 18,562/19,786 Month: 982/1,705 Week: 234/518 Day: 58/50 Hour: 2/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What is the creation science theory of the origin of light?
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2077
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 42 of 297 (622022)
06-30-2011 6:03 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by Minority Report
06-30-2011 5:42 AM


Re: Moderator on Duty
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.
So it is not science. Yet you guys want to convince people to "teach the controvercy" in science class?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Minority Report, posted 06-30-2011 5:42 AM Minority Report has not yet responded

    
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2077
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 43 of 297 (622024)
06-30-2011 6:15 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by Minority Report
06-30-2011 5:42 AM


Re: Moderator on Duty
Minority Report writes:

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?

As this is a science forum, no, evolutionists won’t have a theory of the origin of light, as light is not a living organism and can’t pass on genes. Physicists do have very convincing and tested theories on where light comes from.

Minority Report writes:

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.

Oh, evolution has got a very solid scientific basis and also a theory on the origin of species. Genes do change with every generation. All observed, even in labs.

You don’t have a theory on how light originates, you don’t want to provide data, but you criticize biologists because they don’t study light?

The object of this thread is to provide a creationist 'scientific' theory on where light comes from, not to criticize biologists who provide a theory on where existing species come from.

Edited by Pressie, : Changed last sentence


This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Minority Report, posted 06-30-2011 5:42 AM Minority Report has not yet responded

    
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2077
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 44 of 297 (622027)
06-30-2011 6:42 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by Minority Report
06-30-2011 5:42 AM


Re: Moderator on Duty
Minority Report writes:

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'. [

Could you give us a description of what they described, as I can’t find any of their research in peer-reviewed scientific publications.

Everybody can write a book if they have enough funds to get it published. The difficult part of science is to get your research critiqued by your peers and then getting your findings accepted by the consensus of specialists. Without that you don’t follow the scientific method. Without that it is not science. Just pseudo-science.

You can write any nonsense without these important steps. But it still isn’t science, no matter how many times you pretend that it is science. It isn’t. It surely cannot be called “a scientific theory” without it. If you describe it as a theory in a scientific thread, you don't tell the truth.

You did describe it as a "creation theory". Not scientific. Why do the people you referred to as writing those books keep on pretending that they do science?'

Edited by Pressie, : Added a sentence

Edited by Pressie, : Added paragraphs


This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Minority Report, posted 06-30-2011 5:42 AM Minority Report has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Minority Report, posted 06-30-2011 10:15 AM Pressie has responded

    
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2077
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 55 of 297 (622134)
07-01-2011 12:52 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by Minority Report
06-30-2011 10:15 AM


Hallo Minority Report

Minority report writes:

They are theories proposed by creation believing scientists,……….

No, what scientists believe have no bearing on science. For example, nearly all Christian physicists, cosmologists, etc. have accepted the standard model. They also are "creation believing" scientists. Therefore I don’t see how the words “creation believing” can have anything to do with what we discuss in a science forum like this. What individual scientists believe or not doesn’t change science. It’s the empirical evidence that matters in science. Beliefs don’t.

Minority report writes:

…. and are published in peer review journals such as TJ. That makes them scientific.

Nope. As has been pointed out to you, The Journal of Creation (formerly TJ) is nowhere near a scientific journal. It also is only ‘peer-reviewed’ by people with a fixed belief. A belief that will never change, regardless of whether the evidence contradicts their belief or not. Therefore a religious publication like TJ surely is not scientific. It is exactly the opposite of what a scientific journal is.

I asked for peer-reviewed scientific journals in Message 44:

Pressie writes:

Could you give us a description of what they described, as I can’t find any of their research in peer-reviewed scientific publications.


You know that peer-reviewed scientific journals are the way research is distributed amongst relevant scientists where they can critique an article and accept or reject the findings? Without publishing in peer-reviewed scientific journals, relevant scientists don't even know about those articles to critique them. The scientific community can therefore not reach any kind of consensus about them. Therefore it can never even be called science.

Then you continue:

Minority report writes:

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

No, any person who doesn’t follow the scientific method, doesn’t do science. The examples you provided were of two people who stopped using the scientific method when they wrote those so-called “articles”. They would therefore be classified as pseudo-scientists in the real world. That’s it.

Would you please answer the questions posted by Butterflytyrant?

Edited by Pressie, : Changed spelling

Edited by Pressie, : More spelling mistakes

Edited by Pressie, : Changed a sentence

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Minority Report, posted 06-30-2011 10:15 AM Minority Report has not yet responded

    
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2077
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 69 of 297 (622573)
07-05-2011 7:22 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by Minority Report
07-02-2011 8:51 AM


Re: Moderator on Duty
No, Minority report.

When scientists communicate in peer-reviewed scientific publications, words do have a very specific significance. This is all done for the simple reason that the thousands of scientists in, for example China, should also be able grasp the implication of the word "evolutionist" when it is translated into Mandarin. The scientific meaning of the word "evolutionist", in science, is "a person who studies evolutionary biology". Nothing else.

Creationists call geologists who date rocks, for example, "evolutionists". It is completely wrong in a scientific sense. The creationists only do it to mislead people.

I know creationists don't have the foggiest about anything scientific, but words do have very specific implications in science.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Minority Report, posted 07-02-2011 8:51 AM Minority Report has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by caffeine, posted 07-05-2011 7:44 AM Pressie 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