Understanding through Discussion


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


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What is the creation science theory of the origin of light?
Panda
Member (Idle past 1969 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 157 of 297 (625013)
07-21-2011 7:01 AM
Reply to: Message 155 by Butterflytyrant
07-21-2011 1:52 AM


Re: LET THERE BE LIGHT.
Butterflytyrant writes:

Is your grasp on reality that slim?


You seem to be getting frustrated, so I suggest taking a break from replying to IamJoseph.
No-one will think less of you for not wanting to roll around with IamJoseph in his incoherent pit of ignorance, superstition and madness.
Trying to pull meaning out of his paralogical spaghetti is a pointless task.

(I wonder how many people will have to criticise his language skills before he realises that he may have a problem...)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by Butterflytyrant, posted 07-21-2011 1:52 AM Butterflytyrant has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by IamJoseph, posted 07-21-2011 8:10 AM Panda has responded

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 1969 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 161 of 297 (625057)
07-21-2011 9:21 AM
Reply to: Message 160 by IamJoseph
07-21-2011 8:10 AM


Re: LET THERE BE LIGHT.
IamJoseph writes:

Is the universe you exist in - finite or infinite? If its not a stupid question.


You clearly didn't understand what I wrote - which is not a surprise.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by IamJoseph, posted 07-21-2011 8:10 AM IamJoseph has not yet responded

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 1969 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 187 of 297 (626662)
07-30-2011 9:12 PM
Reply to: Message 185 by IamJoseph
07-30-2011 8:58 PM


IamJoseph writes:

Consider that the age of the universe is measured by light, such as the residual radiation speed derived time period


Do you consider all electromagnetic radiation to be light?

IamJoseph writes:

Consider that the BBT displays a BANG/EXPLOSION as the first action - this also says light was the first product, because no stars, radiation or torch batteries yet existed.


Could you provide a link to a web-site showing that this is what the big bang theory states?
Perhaps you could point me to the relevant passage on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang_Theory?

Also, it now seems that you are saying that light is not radiation. I would help if you were a little more consistent.

Edited by Panda, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by IamJoseph, posted 07-30-2011 8:58 PM IamJoseph has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by IamJoseph, posted 07-30-2011 9:29 PM Panda has responded
 Message 189 by IamJoseph, posted 07-30-2011 9:42 PM Panda has responded

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 1969 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 190 of 297 (626674)
07-30-2011 9:43 PM
Reply to: Message 188 by IamJoseph
07-30-2011 9:29 PM


IamJoseph writes:

This is an abuse of the proof criteria; however all descriptions of the BBT use the term BANG and EXPLOSION, which infers only a flash of light before any other result; namely because light has a transcendent velosity and will be seen/percieved before any other factor.


Why make claims about what the BBT implies?
Why not read what it actually says?
So ... please provide a link to a source that says that the BBT involves an explosion.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by IamJoseph, posted 07-30-2011 9:29 PM IamJoseph has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by IamJoseph, posted 07-30-2011 9:47 PM Panda has responded

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 1969 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 192 of 297 (626677)
07-30-2011 9:49 PM
Reply to: Message 189 by IamJoseph
07-30-2011 9:42 PM


I keep forgetting that you do not believe us when we say your English is appalling.
Why do you not believe us?
Ask a friend to read your posts: see what they say.

Edited by Panda, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by IamJoseph, posted 07-30-2011 9:42 PM IamJoseph has not yet responded

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 1969 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 193 of 297 (626679)
07-30-2011 9:50 PM
Reply to: Message 191 by IamJoseph
07-30-2011 9:47 PM


IamJoseph writes:

How about "BANG!"


How about you go and actually read what the BBT is, and not just guess what it is from its name.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by IamJoseph, posted 07-30-2011 9:47 PM IamJoseph has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by IamJoseph, posted 07-30-2011 10:24 PM Panda has responded

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 1969 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 195 of 297 (626691)
07-30-2011 10:37 PM
Reply to: Message 194 by IamJoseph
07-30-2011 10:24 PM


IamJoseph writes:

The last two posts are problematic in identifying any specific issues.


How are they problematic?
The specific issue is your poor grasp of English.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by IamJoseph, posted 07-30-2011 10:24 PM IamJoseph has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by IamJoseph, posted 07-30-2011 10:49 PM Panda has responded

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 1969 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 197 of 297 (626706)
07-30-2011 11:49 PM
Reply to: Message 196 by IamJoseph
07-30-2011 10:49 PM


IamJoseph writes:

Its not specific at all. Which part?


All of it.
quote:
The issue of electricity and magnetic forms of energy are later derivitive factors; namely these are effects of actions measurable. The magnetic & electric forces depend on mass drag and interactions of later existing products, similar to the force of gravity which depends on mass [stars] acting in a mode [rotation drag] which causes fords and dips in space. So yes, I see light as precedent of these factors. Light is produced by numerous interactions. For sure, light prevailed at the beginning point - prior to the products mentioned.

Why is it an issue that light was the first primordial product? If we nominate forces instead, then light would not be existing unless those forces had other products to interact with - but this will negate any notion of a first atom; as well it will render an effect preceding the cause!


It sounds like a complicated sentence badly translated into Englsih by Babel Fish.
But you need not re-word your post.
Life is too short to spend it repeatedly asking you for clarification on what you think each word means.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by IamJoseph, posted 07-30-2011 10:49 PM IamJoseph has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by IamJoseph, posted 07-31-2011 12:19 AM Panda has responded

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 1969 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 199 of 297 (626715)
07-31-2011 12:27 AM
Reply to: Message 198 by IamJoseph
07-31-2011 12:19 AM


As I said in my last post:

Panda writes:

Life is too short to spend it repeatedly asking you for clarification on what you think each word means.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by IamJoseph, posted 07-31-2011 12:19 AM IamJoseph has not yet responded

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 1969 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 201 of 297 (626765)
07-31-2011 9:31 AM
Reply to: Message 200 by Admin
07-31-2011 6:20 AM


Re: Moderator Comment
Admin writes:

Science postulates a quark soup at the beginning, and certainly electromagnetic radiation would have been part of that soup.


Which I think IamJ addressed with:

IamJospeph writes:

The issue of electricity and magnetic forms of energy are later derivitive factors;


*scratches head*
*gives up and walks away*
This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by Admin, posted 07-31-2011 6:20 AM Admin has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 202 by IamJoseph, posted 07-31-2011 10:02 AM Panda has not yet responded

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 1969 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 229 of 297 (627344)
08-02-2011 5:53 AM
Reply to: Message 228 by IamJoseph
08-02-2011 5:43 AM


Re: *** ***
Read the next post...

Edited by Panda, : ButterflyTyrant did it better.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by IamJoseph, posted 08-02-2011 5:43 AM IamJoseph has not yet responded

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 1969 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 234 of 297 (627354)
08-02-2011 7:42 AM
Reply to: Message 232 by IamJoseph
08-02-2011 7:31 AM


Re: *** ***
IamJoseph writes:

Hm. The age of your universe is calculated by jelly; not from residual light imprints? Very interesting but not funny.


It is not funny.
It is not meant to be funny.

Clearly you are unable to prove the jelly statement false and you are left with only ridicule.
The age of the universe is calculated from residual jelly imprints and has nothing to do with light.

Absolutely check mate is in order and you are sweating. Ridiculing what you cannot counter is a good indication.

Edited by Panda, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by IamJoseph, posted 08-02-2011 7:31 AM IamJoseph has not yet responded

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 1969 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 235 of 297 (627355)
08-02-2011 7:43 AM
Reply to: Message 233 by IamJoseph
08-02-2011 7:34 AM


Why jelly cannot have a true definition.

If it is a first product, it cannot be described by aligning it with other products: those never yet existed. One cannot speak of light or lemons here - these never existed yet - else you violate the finite factor of this universe. Is the message getting through at all!?

Edited by Panda, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by IamJoseph, posted 08-02-2011 7:34 AM IamJoseph has not yet responded

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 1969 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 237 of 297 (627358)
08-02-2011 7:55 AM
Reply to: Message 236 by IamJoseph
08-02-2011 7:46 AM


Re: Scientific theory of Genesis
IamJoseph writes:

You forgot to mention jelly is also ageless and massless and how scientists measure light by it.


All we did was change your word 'light' to our word 'jelly' and repeat exactly you said.
Do you not find it strange that you cannot actually argue against what we are writing?
Instead you have to resort to ridicule.

Why not argue against our statements?
Show them to be less evidenced than your statements - go on, I dare you.
I bet you cannot.

Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

Edited by Panda, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by IamJoseph, posted 08-02-2011 7:46 AM IamJoseph has not yet responded

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 1969 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


(2)
Message 257 of 297 (627751)
08-03-2011 8:20 PM
Reply to: Message 254 by IamJoseph
08-03-2011 7:33 PM


Re: Call for final comments - Closing soon
IamJoseph writes:

Which is the first recording dealing with a finite universe?
Which is the first recording Light was the first product in the universe?
Which is the first recording which introduced the DAY & WEEK?
Which is the first recording of life form groupings by category?


What is the creation science theory of the origin of light?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by IamJoseph, posted 08-03-2011 7:33 PM IamJoseph 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