Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8937 total)
28 online now:
AZPaul3, caffeine, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat) (3 members, 25 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Post Volume: Total: 861,822 Year: 16,858/19,786 Month: 983/2,598 Week: 229/251 Day: 0/58 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?
Chuck77
Inactive Member


(3)
Message 7 of 297 (621807)
06-29-2011 2:46 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Butterflytyrant
06-28-2011 10:52 AM


Re: Scientific theory of Genesis
Do you want us to propose one? Are you forcing us to come up with a "light" Theory? There isn't one that I know of. If you're trying to say we have no proof of what the Bible says fine, but until someone proposes a theory for "and God said" then it's silly to suggest we propose one for you just so you can "point and laugh".

We could do the same thing to you (i.e. who are the original common ancestors etc.) but there's enough out there already that will last a lifetime of debating. I can't think of a theory for creationism that hasn't already been brought up. Maybe you should ask Creationist to try and explain already existing "theorys" (ID, The Great flood, etc.) that you don't agree with.

Just my thoughts on that, but for the hell of it i'll try to amuse you.

God said let there be light. The mechanism behind this "light" is the Holy Spirit. The Holy spirit is the Natural Selection of Creationism. God said, and the Holy spirit moved, The Holy Spirit is the "creative force" in the trinity. All matter which was Created is the result of the Holy Spirit moving on God's command. (again im just amusing you, it's not scientific, so don't ask me to prove it, I can't) the result was light. I guess if you were gonna argue the point (which has no basis scientifically, hence there not being a theory) you could say was light designed or "banged" into existance by chance? If your one for using your imagination then you probably like to think it just happened for no reason. On the other hand, an intelligent Creator would see the need for light in the universe and therefore...supplied it.

Sorry, it's the best I got.

Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Butterflytyrant, posted 06-28-2011 10:52 AM Butterflytyrant has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Butterflytyrant, posted 06-29-2011 3:15 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded

  
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 56 of 297 (622143)
07-01-2011 2:05 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by Butterflytyrant
06-30-2011 10:20 AM


Re: What is this forum about ?
**post deleted**

Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Butterflytyrant, posted 06-30-2011 10:20 AM Butterflytyrant has not yet responded

  
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 113 of 297 (624456)
07-18-2011 3:09 AM
Reply to: Message 111 by Butterflytyrant
07-18-2011 2:25 AM


Re: LET THERE BE LIGHT.
ButterFlytyrant writes:

I will respond to this rambling, illogical crap later tonight.

This is not an answer. it is rambling bullshit.

Gee butterfly, you were so sweet when you first got here

I think it has already been established way back in the thread that there is no theory for "and God said". Maybe Joe is trying to present you with the best he's got with answering your OP.

Instead of looking at it from a skeptical approach maybe you can help us develop the theory for "and God said" with the knowledge some are offering you. I dont think you originally wanted ideas just to shoot down everyone of them with " you see I was right! there is no theory!"

Well, we already told you there wasn't so you know this. No one here or anywhere ever claimed there was. People are just trying to answer your OP the best they can and you say " it is rambling bullshit"?

Atleast he didn't say your OP was the same. Try atleast, to respect that.

Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.


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 114 by Butterflytyrant, posted 07-18-2011 3:38 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded
 Message 115 by IamJoseph, posted 07-18-2011 5:02 AM Chuck77 has responded

  
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 117 of 297 (624486)
07-18-2011 6:33 AM
Reply to: Message 115 by IamJoseph
07-18-2011 5:02 AM


Re: LET THERE BE LIGHT.
IamJoseph writes:

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:

Well, it looks like I was a little to harsh on Butterfly

Light occured as God gave the command and His Holy spirit "moved" to accomplish this feat. As I said before in message 7, the Holy Spirit is the "natural selection" of Creationism. The "creative force" in the Trinity so to speak. God said, and He(The Holy Spirit) moved.

I have no idea what your even saying. Try Using this approach to the subject of God and light. You fill in the blanks.

A)Identify a question about God and light, then propose an explanation (hypothesis),

B) conceive a test of the hypothesis (experiments which would include "and God said"),

C) evaluate the efficacy of the proposed experiment,

D) perform the experiment and gather data from it,

E) analyze the data and see if it conforms to the hypothesis.

F) THEN, The hypothesis advances to the state of "theory".

G) Scientists review the data and the proposed conclusions, and evaluate the validity of the conclusion. If all is good, a new theory has arisen.

Joe, im pretty sure what you have doesn't line up with this process. So, you don't have a theory (see the bluegenes challenge in the "Great Debate" threads

It's all interesting and just because it's not a Scientific theory doesn't mean God didn't create light. It just means we cant test the supernatural to find out. That's why we have the Bible and that's why you know where light came from, which is good enough. Until you can test "and God said" no theory from the current Scientific method can be established, no matter how right or wrong it may be.

Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by IamJoseph, posted 07-18-2011 5:02 AM IamJoseph has not yet responded

  
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 172 of 297 (626099)
07-27-2011 5:43 AM
Reply to: Message 171 by Butterflytyrant
07-27-2011 4:57 AM


Genesis is right on
You would have to improve that sentence though as is does not quite make grammatical sense.

Well, for starters, we see exaxtly what Genesis says, that things produce after their own kind. Trees produce trees, dogs produce dogs, whales produce whales, bees produce other bees.

I'd say for a 2000 year old book thats good Science. On the other hand, what we DON'T see are things, kinds, changing into other things, kinds, do we? What am I missing?

I'd rather go with reality that with assumption based on Fairy tales, and un-observable claims as an alternative to the Bible or Creationism because people don't want to believe in a God.

That's their choice but don't tell us that Genesis is false when we can see it in action today. What do you disagree with about it? That Genesis is not peer reviewed ? It doesn't have to be. It's not a paper or research, it's reality.

Things produce after their own kind, simple as that. It's reality. I think at this point you need to disprove that they do not. What are we trying prove?

Plant some seeds, see what happens. That ALONE should falsify the TOE The Bible speaks for itself. It's you who chooses not to believe it. That's not the Bibles fault.

Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by Butterflytyrant, posted 07-27-2011 4:57 AM Butterflytyrant has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by Larni, posted 07-27-2011 6:11 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded
 Message 179 by Butterflytyrant, posted 07-27-2011 7:27 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded

  
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 244 of 297 (627625)
08-03-2011 3:12 AM
Reply to: Message 238 by Admin
08-02-2011 8:12 AM


Thread should be moved
Admin writes:

This is a science thread. Creation science claims to be science and not religion, so please stop making claims based upon religion.

Don't you see the problem here? This thread should NOT be in the Science forums. No one here or anywhere for that matter ever said light was a scientific theory. People are doing their best to explain is a non scientific way, NOT a scientific as is expected.

Why is it taking so long for you to see this is in the wrong forum. It should be in the free for all along with the "existance" thread, respectivley. Then Iam and others can comment freely and likewise.

To me this would be fair, and no one would be getting suspended for answering a non scientific OP with non Scientific responses. You are wanting Scientific responses for a theory that doesn't exist and taking it out on people who do so. It doesn't make sense. It should be moved.

Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by Admin, posted 08-02-2011 8:12 AM Admin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 245 by Larni, posted 08-03-2011 3:18 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded
 Message 246 by Adminnemooseus, posted 08-03-2011 5:08 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded
 Message 249 by Admin, posted 08-03-2011 6:52 AM Chuck77 has responded

  
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 250 of 297 (627645)
08-03-2011 7:03 AM
Reply to: Message 249 by Admin
08-03-2011 6:52 AM


Re: Thread should be moved
Admin writes:

Why don't you check with IamJoseph (send him a PM) and see if agrees with you that his claims aren't science.

So, you're ok with his trying to respond the way he is then? So what's the problem? If you keep suspending Him because he's trying to make certain points you don't agree with as scientific shouldn't I be PM'ing YOU to find out what the problem is and not Joe? You already made up your mind it's not Scientific but you want me to ask him if he thinks it is? Waht will that accomplish?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 249 by Admin, posted 08-03-2011 6:52 AM Admin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 251 by Admin, posted 08-03-2011 7:36 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded

  
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 282 of 297 (628173)
08-07-2011 7:39 AM
Reply to: Message 256 by Admin
08-03-2011 8:16 PM


Understanding Joseph
Admin writes:

Chuck77: Did you PM IamJoseph like I suggested? Do you understand what IamJoseph is trying to say? Can you step in and make it clear to everyone else?

Well, no I havn't. Im not sure I need to.

Joe is taking the approach all believers take, but some don't express. That the Bible is true. It can be trusted for it's historical value.

It cannot be "proven" by the Scientific method as it's not set up to test the SN. I think Joe is saying the way light came into existance being the first thing "manifested" is Scientific because it was first. How else can something come into existance from nothing without direction from something/someone.

I think, im not sure. I never claimed to understand his arguments but I know it's harder to understand them when he's suspended and not explaining them due to his poor english that apparently really bothers everyone.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by Admin, posted 08-03-2011 8:16 PM Admin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 283 by Admin, posted 08-07-2011 8:12 AM Chuck77 has responded

  
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 284 of 297 (628369)
08-09-2011 6:02 AM
Reply to: Message 283 by Admin
08-07-2011 8:12 AM


Re: Understanding Joseph
Admin writes:

You don't understand IamJoseph's posts, and neither does anyone else, but I'm wondering if the posts from the science side are as difficult for you to understand as IamJoseph's. If this is the case then you're left trying to make judgments between posts that don't make sense to you, and it is understandable that you would be left thinking there's a bias against the religious side.

I underatand it perfectly Percy. Come on tho, there are a few "science" guys who say some off the cuff stuff here.

Joseph maybe more but he is kinda, egged on, dontcha think? The blame can go to all the others who instigate him when they know they don't understand it and still pry for explanations having to get the last word in.

They obviously want to debate him or they would leave him alone(and debate is the whole point here) and who would he debate (if they didn't egg on) until he started making more sense? The blame can be shared I think.

What are your thoughts on the subject? You know there was no light theory but still promoted it. Why? You're the one who promoted this topic so you must have thought since there wasn't a light theory you were gonna get some far out replies, especially from the Bible quoters, me included. So maybe (like I said before) IMO it should have been in the "free for all" not Science.

Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 283 by Admin, posted 08-07-2011 8:12 AM Admin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 285 by Admin, posted 08-09-2011 9:12 AM Chuck77 has responded

  
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 286 of 297 (628487)
08-10-2011 12:37 AM
Reply to: Message 285 by Admin
08-09-2011 9:12 AM


Re: Understanding Joseph
Admin writes:

and it is understandable that you would be left thinking there's a bias against the religious side.

If this is true then you could perform a wonderful service by acting as interpreter. It would be very helpful if you could post a message explaining IamJoseph's position and the evidence supporting it.

No, I underastand YOU perfectly. Not Joe. I understand what YOU are saying, is all I meant. I understand the reason as to why you would think I might think there is a bias.

I do not understand Joe, BUT Im still stuck at as long as Joe thinks it Science( which you suggest he thinks it is) then it's cool for the thread to be here mas long as he thinks it's science, and not you?

Well, apperantly it's not cool that he thinks it's science because he's no longer here, since he is suspended.

Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 285 by Admin, posted 08-09-2011 9:12 AM Admin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 287 by Larni, posted 08-10-2011 4:00 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded
 Message 288 by Admin, posted 08-10-2011 8:51 AM Chuck77 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