Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8936 total)
26 online now:
PaulK, Percy (Admin), RAZD, Tangle, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat) (5 members, 21 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?
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 2676 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


Message 1 of 297 (621768)
06-28-2011 4:36 AM


Thread proposal is in Message 5.

I have noticed nearly all of the debates on all evolution vs creation debates seems to be people defending very small elements of evolutionary theory. The creationists have a large body of work with listed scientific theory fully explained to pick apart. As creationists are trying to enter the argument from a scientific perspective, they would need to provide a similar model. They would need to supply a a working theory of what god actually did when he said 'let there be light'. I would like to see their theory, including back up data and researched, peer reviewed work on each of the steps in the Genesis creation week. If we are to have a scientific debate between creation and evolution, then both scientific groups of theories need to be stated in the same manner.

Is there any group of creationists who would be able to point me to this resource or supply one? (read the bible is not sufficient)

Edited by Butterflytyrant, : Topic was too broad

Edited by Admin, : Admin change.

Edited by Admin, : No reason given.

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Add "(FINAL MESSAGE TIME)" to topic title.

Edited by Admin, : Remove "Final Message" note from the title.


Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Admin, posted 06-28-2011 7:39 AM Butterflytyrant has responded
 Message 292 by aman777, posted 01-28-2013 11:50 AM Butterflytyrant has not yet responded

    
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 2676 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


Message 3 of 297 (621770)
06-28-2011 8:39 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by Admin
06-28-2011 7:39 AM


Question updated
Thread proposal is in Message 5.

Hello,

I have rephrased my question.

I am interested in finding out what the scientific basis for creationist theories are. I know there are lots of pages devoted to combating current scientific theory. Lots of the current flood theories of geology are examples. They seem to be only debating about subjects that they choose. I would like to take some of the things that they do not discuss and see what they say.

Thank you

Edited by Admin, : Admin change.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Admin, posted 06-28-2011 7:39 AM Admin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Admin, posted 06-28-2011 10:43 AM Butterflytyrant has responded

    
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 2676 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


Message 5 of 297 (621772)
06-28-2011 10:52 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Admin
06-28-2011 10:43 AM


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

Please include the testable elements of the process by which light was created.

include evidence supporting this theory.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Admin, posted 06-28-2011 10:43 AM Admin has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Chuck77, posted 06-29-2011 2:46 AM Butterflytyrant has responded
 Message 12 by Minority Report, posted 06-29-2011 4:46 AM Butterflytyrant has not yet responded
 Message 14 by Dr Jack, posted 06-29-2011 5:33 AM Butterflytyrant has not yet responded
 Message 22 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-29-2011 11:59 AM Butterflytyrant has not yet responded
 Message 24 by kbertsche, posted 06-29-2011 1:01 PM Butterflytyrant has not yet responded
 Message 258 by Minnemooseus, posted 08-04-2011 3:55 AM Butterflytyrant has responded
 Message 289 by kofh2u, posted 01-02-2013 9:24 PM Butterflytyrant has not yet responded
 Message 296 by justatruthseeker, posted 05-06-2013 8:54 PM Butterflytyrant has not yet responded

    
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 2676 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


Message 8 of 297 (621810)
06-29-2011 3:15 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Chuck77
06-29-2011 2:46 AM


Re: Scientific theory of Genesis
gee Chuck, i dont know why you apologised. That was the start of a great answer.

I did have a much more in depth question, part of a series of questions but I had trouble getting through the adminstrator. So i shortened it to the smallest amount of info i could.

I have no desire to "point and laugh" at anyones theories.

That is a poor method of debating. It does not prove anything and shows little respect for your opponent.

I also dont want to "force" anyone to come up with a theory.

Your second paragraph gets to the crux of the problem for me. The majority of the debates I read about evolutionary theory are based on attacks on sections of theories. This is fair enough. With science, if you are not questioning your work, then you are not doing it right. However, the same targeted analysis is all but impossible as there is no opposing theory. A lot of people direct the discussion towards the fields that they find they can argue about. eg. ID, the Great Flood etc.

What I am looking for is the opposing set of scientific theories. There seem to be a lot of creation scientists out there, but no body of work I can view as an alternative theory or set of theories. Particularly with relation to the creation of the universe and the creation of the earth, its residents and the systems that support life here.

I have no issue with theories that sound wild or implausible. I am sure that when the first person drew a dinosaur from the bones collected he/she was a bit reluctant to show anyone. The first proponents of germ theory probably sounded a bit nuts when they said that there were invisible little animals everywhere that could make you sick.

I am a research scientist. When i am given a problem, i look for the current bodies of work that are being done to resolve the problem. With the issues of creation, there seems to be one body of scientific work (and associated internal debates) but no other alternative theories. I figured that the best chance I had was with the Christian creationists as they have a lot of people debating in the field. There is also the scientoligists but i dont know if i am properly equipped to debate with them.

I, as a scientist am totally open to having my mind changed by alternate theories when they are supported and I can understand them. The problem is that I cant find the alternate theories.

a bit of background - I was brought up Catholic, my father is Jewish, my stepfather is an athiest and my brother is Taoist (we have a complicated family).

The best you have is great start. It will give me a place to start reading.

Thanks again


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Chuck77, posted 06-29-2011 2:46 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Larni, posted 06-29-2011 3:44 AM Butterflytyrant has responded
 Message 17 by Son, posted 06-29-2011 9:01 AM Butterflytyrant has responded
 Message 46 by Minority Report, posted 06-30-2011 8:54 AM Butterflytyrant has responded

    
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 2676 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


Message 10 of 297 (621816)
06-29-2011 4:01 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Larni
06-29-2011 3:44 AM


Re: Scientific theory of Genesis
Hello Larni,

I do expect that from a lot of replies (if I get a lot of replies anyway).

My hope is that the replies I get do one of two things.

1. If the reply is "God said so, God did it" etc with no explanation at all, it will point out that whatever creation science the poster has used is not science at all. This should help with several current debates where individuals have said that they have reached their poition through scientific reasoning or study.

2. If the reply does have a theory of some sort, then this theory can be debated upon with the same analytical manner as any other theory.

If creationists want to put forward a position based on science, they will need to back it up. The same rules need to apply to anyone.

I believe that if they can come up with some workable theories, it will help support their positions. I dont see any reason they would not do it.

At this point, Chuck77's answer has the basis for a theory of the mechanics of one part of the Genesis story.

I would like to see the creationists work up the rest of Genesis in the same, but more developed manner.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Larni, posted 06-29-2011 3:44 AM Larni has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Larni, posted 06-29-2011 4:30 AM Butterflytyrant has not yet responded

    
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 2676 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


Message 18 of 297 (621851)
06-29-2011 9:54 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Son
06-29-2011 9:01 AM


Re: Scientific theory of Genesis
I apologise for using Wikipedia as a source but I needed a definition that I thought would be acceptable by most people.

This description of Creation Science seems to be supported by groups like Answers in Genesis, Creation Ministries International, The Creation Research Society, The Institute for Creation Research and the Centre for Scientific Creation among many others.

"Creation Science or scientific creationism[1] is a branch of creationism, which attempts to provide scientific support for the Genesis creation narrative in the Book of Genesis and disprove generally accepted scientific facts, theories and scientific paradigms about the history of the Earth, cosmology and biological evolution."
The area I am interested in is "scientific support for the Genesis creation narrative".

It appears that if a creationist can find a way to question a section of a theory supplied by a scientist, they believe that this not only damages or destroys the entire theory but also validates their position. Is it possible to level this playing field. There are many webpages that openly discuss the discipline of Creation Science. I have read many comments about how Creation Scientists are not able to discuss their theories because of censorship or lack of opportunity. I am not only putting the offer on the table. I am making a request to be informed. I cannot establish my position without hearing as many sides as possible.

It should also help to establish if creation science is science or religion using the word science in a misleading manner. There seems to be some debate over this issue. If the creationists can supply their theories, then they will have done a lot to win this battle.

I would have thought that Genesis would be the cornerstone of creation. I have noticed on this forum that there are many attacks against evolution or other scientific theories (including the Big Bang Theory and Abiogenesis Theories) because scientists cannot prove with 100% certainty, some sections of that theory. I am not asking for this level of certainty at all. All I am asking for is a theory. Any theory to begin with.

How is it possible to have so many groups claiming to be offering the best possible version of events, and claiming that their position is backed up by scientific evidence if they do not even have a theory to put forward.

This should be taken as a great opportunity by the Creationists. There must be other people out there who want to view this information.

My reason for being here was that an Evangelist associate of mine told me in no uncertain terms that "Evolution is so full of holes it should be illegal to teach it in schools" and that I should "do a little research" and see just how much scientific evidence there was supporting Creation.

I decided to start from the biggest question of all. The creation of the universe and all of its contents plus the generation of all living things. Genesis as opposed to the Big Bang and Evolution.

If both sides will forgive me for being a bit sheltered, am I to understand that both sides are claiming scientific support for their theories, but one side has no theories, no research done on these theories, no experiments and no groups even discussing the ideas of scientific theories to support what is arguably the most important part of the debate?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Son, posted 06-29-2011 9:01 AM Son has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Larni, posted 06-29-2011 10:43 AM Butterflytyrant has responded
 Message 20 by jar, posted 06-29-2011 10:43 AM Butterflytyrant has not yet responded
 Message 23 by Son, posted 06-29-2011 1:00 PM Butterflytyrant has not yet responded

    
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 2676 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


Message 21 of 297 (621879)
06-29-2011 11:52 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Larni
06-29-2011 10:43 AM


Re: Scientific theory of Genesis
wow.

I am at best an amatuer with regards to this level of debate. I am in my final year of an environmental science degree. Throughout this degree I have been exposed to Evolution but not in any great depth. My other research, my current job, is all based on chemistry so again, has not covered Evolution in any depth.

I presumed, incorrectly it seems, that there was a great body of work that I was merely unaware of. I have come to a stage in my life where I feel old and mature enough (I am 31) as well as patient enough to give this issue some very serious thought. I thought that I owed it to my children to be well educated in this issue in order to give them the knowledge that they deserve.

It seems that it is totally irrelevant that a certain group may come up with a scientifically plausible theory regarding Noahs flood if the hypothesis regarding the flood comes from a body of work that has such a major short coming. If the body of work, in the original example, Genesis in the Bible, the important bit in my eyes, has no scientific grounding of any sort, then the rest seems to fall like a house of cards.

I would not be able to use a source to substantiate a claim to any of my clients if a major section of that source was based on nothing but magic. I can imagine the length of time my employment would continue for would be rather short.

I have ordered a series of books that have been mentioned by users in this forum. The Origin of Species, the Blind Watchmaker, the Greatest Show on Earth, Life Ascending, Why Evolution is True among others. I hope that these books, as well as the discussion on this site helps to educate me and arm me to support the side of science.

For me, the limited amount of Evolutionary theory studied in my degree, the few weeks I have been reading on the net and this discussion today have only left the one option.

I believe, for any rational person, that this should be pretty much case closed. (at least until someone comes up with a valid opposing theory anyway)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Larni, posted 06-29-2011 10:43 AM Larni has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Larni, posted 06-29-2011 1:05 PM Butterflytyrant has not yet responded

    
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 2676 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


Message 40 of 297 (621997)
06-30-2011 12:37 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by Taq
06-29-2011 9:21 PM


Creation Light Theory
Thank you admin, your comment should help clear the air.

This conversation is going quite well.

I would like to try to establish a spreadsheet. I do a lot of this for work.

One one side, the current scientific theory for an issue, with links to references and on the other, the current with creation theory with links to any references and scripture.

This spreadsheet could be chronologically listed as much as possible.

This would provide a very simple to navigate list of current theory.

A group would need to provide their theory, and their evidence, for peer review. A totally fair and open playing field.

Each time a theory is suggested, that theory can be discussed and debated upon in these forums. From what I have seen, the moderators here are strict but fair.

once a debate has reached a conclusion, it would be possible to rate the theory giving it one of several agreed upon result.

for example -

Theory supported by significant evidence.

Theory currently disputed on xxxxx grounds

Theory refuted

No current theory established

I know this would need some work.

From the amount of reading I have done recently, it appears that creationists (particularly Young Earth Creationists) are muddying the waters and trying to make it seem as if they have an equal or greater amount of work supporting their positions. To the casual observer this seems to be the case. But with sufficient digging (I am a researcher, its my thing) a lot of it seems to be the same inofrmation over and over again, or information that has been refuted a number of times.

I believe that it would be of benefit to the regular Joe who does not want to wade through all of this info to have a resource like this.

It would be possible to look at an example like the theory of superposition. Science would have this listed as one of the group of theories behind the geological formation of the earth. Creationists would have flood geology listed on their side. Listed with these theories would have to be the supporting evidence. This supporting evidence would have to be reviewed and accepted or rejected by the opponent. The opponent would have to have a credible reason to refute the evidence.

I think this would be a good

A casual observer being able to see a table, with a large amount of theory with supporting evidence on one side and large sections with "no current theory established" or "theory currently disputed on xxxx grounds" on the other side should help to educate the masses.

What do you guys think?

PS. I am still looking into the light theory question with the info i have received from some people.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Taq, posted 06-29-2011 9:21 PM Taq has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-30-2011 10:10 AM Butterflytyrant has not yet responded

    
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 2676 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


Message 48 of 297 (622042)
06-30-2011 9:52 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by Minority Report
06-30-2011 5:42 AM


Re: Moderator on Duty
Can one of the mods send me the info on how to include quotes in a post please.

Quote from Minority report

"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."

Three things.

1. Evolutionists would most likely not be supplying or testing theories regarding the pre big bang period. It is not their field.

2. This would be something that could be included in the spreadsheet i was talking about. The time period before the big bang. This is an equal opportunity idea. I dont see any reason why it could not be included.

3. Creation scientists claim to provide scientific support for the Genesis creation narrative in the Book of Genesis. I am challenging them regarding this claim. If a theory about the origins of our world proves to be wrong (Stephen Hawking has said he was wrong about some of his original thoughts on black holes) that does absolutely nothing to the theory of evolution. The fields are very different. They operate independantly of one another. However, the parts of Genesis do not work independantly. **correct me if I am wrong with any scripture, I admit i am no theology expert** They are one work. If one element of the story of Genesis cannot be proven (or even have a theory suggested by the groups that claim they are creation scientists) then at the very least, it created serious problems of credability for the remaining elements.

But we are getting of topic. I am not on any side here as yet. I support science. Which means I am equally willing to accept scientific theories from any source as long as it can be backed up.

your comment felt a little like a straw man to me.


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 49 by Son, posted 06-30-2011 10:04 AM Butterflytyrant has not yet responded
 Message 57 by Minority Report, posted 07-02-2011 8:51 AM Butterflytyrant has responded

    
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 2676 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


Message 52 of 297 (622050)
06-30-2011 10:20 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by Minority Report
06-30-2011 8:54 AM


Re: What is this forum about ?
Hello Minority report,

I am still interested in the original question. It was an honestly asked question. I did have a larger group of questions but had trouble getting it through to start of with. The opposing set of theories I am looking for are the theories provided by creation scientists that back up and explain the genesis story.

I checked your suggested info - Gitt does not really have any connection with Evolution and the first four links i found when a searched for his work were thorough critiques.
I will continue to read the others though.

As I have said previously, but probably not clearly enough, the bit I am really interested in is the First narrative: creation week. I started with let there be light because that where it starts.

Genesis 1:3–2:4

The creation week consists of eight divine commands executed over six days, followed by a seventh day of rest.

First day: God (Elohim) creates light ("Let there be light!")[Gen 1:3]—the first divine command. The light is divided from the darkness, and "day" and "night" are named.
Second day: God creates a firmament ("Let a firmament be...!")[Gen 1:6–7]—the second command—to divide the waters above from the waters below. The firmament is named "skies".
Third day: God commands the waters below to be gathered together in one place, and dry land to appear (the third command).[Gen 1:9–10] "earth" and "sea" are named. God commands the earth to bring forth grass, plants, and fruit-bearing trees (the fourth command).
Fourth day: God creates lights in the firmament (the fifth command)[Gen 1:14–15] to separate light from darkness and to mark days, seasons and years. Two great lights are made (most likely the Sun and Moon, but not named), and the stars.
Fifth day: God commands the sea to "teem with living creatures", and birds to fly across the heavens (sixth command)[Gen 1:20–21] He creates birds and sea creatures, and commands them to be fruitful and multiply.
Sixth day: God commands the land to bring forth living creatures (seventh command);[Gen 1:24–25] He makes wild beasts, livestock and reptiles. He then creates humanity in His "image" and "likeness" (eighth command).[Gen 1:26–28] They are told to "be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it." The totality of creation is described by God as "very good."
Seventh day: God, having completed the heavens and the earth, rests from His work, and blesses and sanctifies the seventh day.

It was not a side issue, but the first part of a larger issue.

Your title suggestion is not far off what I had in mind but would be way too broad (as was advised by the admin folks). I have actually seen a lot of the sort of information you have suggested i look at. However, I am asking for the theories that I have not already seen. I chose the part of the bible that I thought was one of the most important bits and the part that I have read creation scientists are claiming scientific evidence for. I am asking for the theories and the evidence.

This is not an attack. It seems that my requests quickly make people grumpy. I am not trying to piss anyone off here. I am asking for scientific theories for a particular area of creation that i feel to be very important.

"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."

Was this really necessary? You ask me if this is what i wanted to know, then without an answer attack me. The answer is no. That is not what i wanted to know. And not what I asked about in the original question. My later post regarding a spreadsheet with all of the combined theories was off topic (consider me suitably chastised) but it seemed like a good idea.

My question was not silly. There was a focus. Would you care to have a stab at answering the question rather than running roughshod over the guy with 8 posts?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Minority Report, posted 06-30-2011 8:54 AM Minority Report has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Chuck77, posted 07-01-2011 2:05 AM Butterflytyrant has not yet responded

    
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 2676 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


(1)
Message 60 of 297 (622328)
07-02-2011 11:33 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by Minority Report
07-02-2011 8:51 AM


Re: Moderator on Duty
Hello Minotrity report,

I dont think any question, if honestly asked is invalid. You asked a question about what happened before the big bang as a retorical question to show my question was invalid. Well, I dont think your question was invalid. I think trying to discover what happened before the big bang is a very important and valid question. Stephen Hawking, Paul Davies and may other physicists are actually working on an answer to that question. Google "what happened before the big bang" and you will find some interesting articles on the subject. Theorising about waht happened before the big bang is not only possible, it is occuring.

Creation science groups have declared that they are attempting to provide scientific theories and evidence to support the Genesis Creation narrative. If a group advises that they are attempting to do something, and I ask for information on that attempt, I am not asking an invalid question. I am asking for information that a group has said they can provide.

Let me put it another way, If you said "I am attempting to provide scientific evidence that aliens built the pyramids"
I would say "can i see your theory and its evidence please"

It would be strange to then turn to me ans say "that question is invalid"

I do understand the difference between the supernatural and the natural. Creation science groups are attempting to provide scientific evidence to support Genesis. I was asking for the scientific theory. I was not even asking for proof. All I was asking for is the best current idea they had. It is the creation science groups who have advised that they are working in the natural world. And it was these groups who I assumed would be able to provide me with the information.

Perhaps it is the creation scientists who do not understand the difference between the supernatural and the natural?

You argue (message 58) that a creation science group uses the Bible as the base for their ideas but then say this : "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? "

Make up your mind.

you asked plainly and I will answer plainly, no, i do not understand why you believe my topic question was invalid, as it is not an invalid question.

You say that my question has been answered multiple times by many people in that it cannot be answered.

Catholic Scientist answered by discussing why he could not answer the question. He advised that the Bible did not provide enough information and it was unlikley a repeat of the phenomenon will occur to investigate.

Chuck77 had two great answers. One of them has been self edited as it was in no way a scientific theory (although it was a very poetic and somehow satisfying to read and think about). The other, the first reply, also lacks scientific validity but goes a lot further than most other replies to answer the question. It is a hypothesis.

There were a few answers where people said things like "There isn't one that I know of" and "I've never seen the YECs propose a scientific explanation for the origin of light". These answers do not mean that no theory exists. It just means that these people do not know of one. If you asked me what time it is and I say I dont know, it does not mean that time no longer exists.

Yes, I am saying that creation scientists should have theories regarding the acts of the creation week. Or at least a workable hypothesis. It seemed to me a fairly important section to have at least some ideas about. If creation scientists do not have any ideas, then that is fair enough. There is nothing wrong with saying that no workable theory currently eists to explain this phenomenon. Nothing wrong with that at all.

Would that be your answer?

That Creation Science has no theory of any kind related to the creation week narrative section regarding the creation of light (let there be light).

Can I assume that this answer goes for all of the other days in creation week also?

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Minority Report, posted 07-02-2011 8:51 AM Minority Report has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Minority Report, posted 07-03-2011 5:59 AM Butterflytyrant has responded

    
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 2676 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


(2)
Message 66 of 297 (622507)
07-04-2011 9:49 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by Minority Report
07-03-2011 5:59 AM


Hello Minority report,

To begin I want to respond to your comment that you believe that English is my second language. Not only is English my first language, but I have a degree in Secondary Education with English being my primary subject area. I somehow get the feeling from this comment that you are arrogant.

Your arrogance is supported by your final statement.

"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."

You have your one source and you believe it to be correct. You believe that any other individuals in the creation science world who do not agree with your point of view are deluded. That is pretty damn arrogant.

To deal with your statements individually...

"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?"

I would say that no theory exists for any of these events. I would follow up with a reason why. I would say that they are one off historical events that cannot be repeated or tested by any scientific method. I would also add that they were supernatural events, which means that we cannot demonstrate or test them by natural means. I would follow up with advice that the events may be mythical and may have never actually occurred.

You questioned work on the theories of events before the Big Bang. You asked some questions about whether they were testable, repeatable, falsifiable. The you assumed they were not. How about you have a read about the research and see if they are before jumping to conclusions. I am not going to go into it for you as that is not the direction of my post.

Your quotes:
"I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what creation scientists are actually claiming."
and
"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. "
and
"I am not aware of any creation scientists who make claims such as this. If there are could you please supply a quote with references."

Ok, I will start with you selected source, Creation Ministries International.

In the Creation Ministries Statement of Faith.
" 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. "

http://creation.com/about-us#who_we_are

This would lead me to believe that they are doing " for scientific research into the question of the origin and history of life, mankind, the Earth and the universe ". I would include the Genesis creation week in the "Genesis" they describe?

In the Creation Ministries 'What we are' section.

"Our role is to support the church in proclaiming the truth of the Bible and thus its gospel message. We provide real-world answers to the most-asked questions in the vital area of creation/evolution, where the Bible is most under attack today—Genesis."

http://creation.com/about-us#who_we_are

This would lead me to believe that Creation Ministries are providing " real-world answers to the most-asked questions in the vital area of creation/evolution, where the Bible is most under attack today—Genesis ". I asked for a real world answer to a question in the vital area of creation - Genesis.

The 'Who We Are' section of the Creation Ministries page lists a large number of scientists including their scientific qualifications.

Another statement on the page states : " Long before this site existed, many millions searched on the word “creation”. When they do that now they will get to know this site exists and read the evidence that God is Creator. "

http://creation.com/about-us#who_we_are

These things combined would suggest to me that Creation Ministries are doing scientific research to help prove the events in Genesis. I started at the start of Genesis. It would appear that they are not. They are working on some specific parts of Genesis and leaving out some very important sections. Like the Creation bit.

Here are some more references from other Creation Science pages and books that lead me to believe that they were performing scientific study on Genesis.

I will start with many standard definitions of 'creation science'

" The effort to provide scientific evidence supporting the account of the creation of the universe related in the Bible. " Yourdictionary.com

" an effort to give scientific support for the truth of the account of Creation given in the Book of Genesis " The freedictionary.com

" An effort to give scientific evidence for the literal truth of the account of Creation in the Bible. " Dictionary.com

" Creation Science or scientific creationism[1] is a branch of creationism, which attempts to provide scientific support for the Genesis creation narrative in the Book of Genesis and disprove generally accepted scientific facts, theories and scientific paradigms about the history of the Earth, cosmology and biological evolution. " Wikipedia

Notice how these standard definitions advise that creation science is attempting to provide some scientific support for the creation account in the bible? I believe, and correct me if I am wrong, but the creation narrative, the week including the phrase 'let there be light' is part of the account of creation and is titled Genesis. Is that incorrect?
here are some more...

Def of creation science used in McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education.
" " 'Creation-science' means the scientific evidences for creation and inferences from those scientific evidences. Creation-science includes the scientific evidences and related inferences that indicate:
1. Sudden creation of the universe, energy, and life from nothing;
2. The insufficiency of mutation and natural selection in bringing about development of all living kinds from a single organism;
3. Changes only within fixed limits of originally created kinds of plants and animals;
4. Separate ancestry for man and apes;
5. Explanation of the earth's geology by catastrophism, including the occurrence of a worldwide flood; and
6. A relatively recent inception of the earth and living kinds.""
http://www.antievolution.org/...n/new_site/legal/act_590.htm

Notice how creation is in there, that the creation week from genesis right?

The creation research society has this to say...

" The Creation Research Society is a professional organization of trained scientists and interested laypersons who are firmly committed to scientific special creation. "

http://www.creationresearch.org/about_crs.htm

although from what I understand, special creation is supernatural, but they advise they are looking into scientific special creation.

The website Genesis-creation proof has this to say...

" This website has one main purpose: To help Christians and others with an honest desire to get to the bottom of what the truth really is. We show that not all faith is “blind” and that there really IS Genesis Creation Proof. "

That same website does on to say...

" And additional good news is that whether you are a Christian or not, this site includes truth that proves the creation story of the Book of Genesis. "

http://www.genesis-creation-proof.com/creationism.html

They mention proof several times in relation to the Book of genesis. Just to clarify, the Book of Genesis includes the creation week that include the phrase "let there be light" right? That is a pretty important part is it not? The creation?
The Answers in Creation website advises they are "bringing the bible and science together".

They also advise...

" Answers In Creation has two main purposes. First, we provide a Christian witness to the scientific community."

http://www.answersincreation.org/

Creationresearch.net advises: " Creation Research exists to seek evidence for the biblical account of creation, to investigate and to promote such evidence, as we glorify Christ and build His church.".

http://www.creationresearch.net/

The biblical account of creation is Genesis right? The bit that I got the "let there be light" line from right?

The creation science association has this to say : " Our mission is to compile scientific as well as Biblical evidence which supports creation"

http://www.creationbc.org/

The Biblical Creation Society has this to say: " BCS is a Christian society that advances and defends the Biblical teaching on creation. Founded in 1976, we seek to think through issues related to origins from a coherent Biblical and scientific standpoint. "

http://www.biblicalcreation.org.uk/

Just to be clear, creation is the bit in Genesis?

Creation Science Evangelism says this

" Creation Science Evangelism (CSE) is a leading Christian-apologetics ministry, defending the literal interpretation of the Genesis creation account from the theory of evolution (see our Statement of Faith). CSE was founded in 1989 by Dr. Kent Hovind, from a desire to spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ through the science of God’s creation."

http://www.drdino.com/about-cse/at-a-glance/

The Genesis creation account includes the creation week I have mentioned does it not?

The Institute for Creation Research says this :

"For over four decades, the Institute for Creation Research has equipped believers with evidence of the Bible's accuracy and authority through scientific research, educational programs, and media presentations, all conducted within a thoroughly biblical framework. "

They go on to make this statement of fact :

" All things in the universe were created and made by God in the six literal days of the Creation Week described in Genesis 1:1-2:3, and confirmed in Exodus 20:8-11. The creation record is factual, historical, and perspicuous ."

http://www.icr.org/discover/

Look at the first statement, then look at the second one. Do you see how they say they are equipping believers with evidence of the bibles accuracy. The second paragraph is one of the things that they are claiming to be fact.

I have looked at creation claims advising that they were doing scientific research on the Genesis story. I started with the start of the story. If Creation scientists only had research for some select parts of Genesis, perhaps they should not make broad sweeping claims.

The centre for scientific creation webpage says this :

" scientific evidence overwhelmingly supports creation and a global flood." and discusses a book called " In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood"

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/

See how the web page is called "creation science" and discusses how they have compelling evidence for creation?

The creation museum advises they have a section on the six day creation story, The Six Days of Creation Theatre. This museum states that they supporting are a scientifically researched information.

http://creationmuseum.org/whats-here/theater-presentations/

The meaning of creation: Genesis and modern science
By M. Conrad Hyers
has a chapter on scientific creationism. I could not view it as it was a limited preview only.

Secrets of the Biblical Story of Creation
By Rudolf Steiner discusses the creation story in detail. he does say that no valid theories can be supplied as it was special creation. He did not think the question was invalid.

New Scientist 12 Mar 1981
has an article discussing how a guy tried to sue because the state would not teach the creation week narrative in biology classes.

The Young Earth: The Real History of the Earth: Past, Present, and Future
By John Morris makes some attempts to use scientific theory to discuss elements of the creation narrative. Just not the bit I was asking about.

the list goes on but I am sure you get the picture.

My claim - Creation Scientists have clearly stated that they are conducting scientific research into the creation story. This include the first section of Genesis. This includes the line "let there be light"

Are there sufficient quotes to support my claim? They cover most of the largest creation science organisation including your source. They may well have sections (like the one you quoted) where they state something a bit contradictory. This is fairly standard across all of the creation science pages. I believe it is pretty misleading. They claim to be doing the research, I ask about it and then I get told by people like you that they are only doing research on specific sections of the Genesis story, and not on the whole creation section of the genesis story. Seems a bit odd to call it Creation Science then does it not?

I won't critique Gitt's information theory, someone well versed in this area is already doing so.

I also won't be trying to prove to you that my question was valid anymore. It is irrelevant as you have given me an answer. The answer you have given me is clear enough.

Creation Science does not have (for reasons you and others have supplied) any theory of any kind related to the creation week narrative section regarding the creation of light (let there be light).

Thank you for answering my question.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Minority Report, posted 07-03-2011 5:59 AM Minority Report has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by AdminPD, posted 07-05-2011 7:11 AM Butterflytyrant has not yet responded

    
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 2676 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


Message 67 of 297 (622508)
07-04-2011 9:51 AM


TO ALL...
Cheers for your input.

I believe that my question has been answered.

Thank you


    
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 2676 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


Message 99 of 297 (624269)
07-16-2011 11:38 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by IamJoseph
07-16-2011 10:06 PM


Re: LET THERE BE LIGHT.
Genesis not only says light is the first product in the universe [plausable and logical]

How is it plausible or logical that light is the first product of the universe?

Light is electromagnetic radiation. It is emitted from many sources. But it alsways has a source. So it would be illogical to say that light was created without a source.

Also, plausible, as in seeming reasonable, is a relative term. I do not see Genesis as plausible at all. I would say it is totally implausible.

The term science yet did not exist

This makes no difference. Just because the word did not exist does not change anything. The word science did not exist when gravity became a factor on the planet, but this does nothing to change the fact that gravity was present.

Genesis is the first allusion to the faculty of science and cosmology

Seriously? You believe that Genesis is the first reference to science and cosmology? There have been myths and legends regarding the sun and stars more than a thousand years before the Christian era. Google cosmology timeline for more info. In ancient Sumer, in 3500 BCE, people were recording observations with accurate numerical data.

According to Genesis, the universe is finite [there was a BEGINNING] - perhaps the first and most impacting scientific premise ever recorded.

Do you really believe that anything in the bible is the first scientific premise ever recorded? Or indeed the premise that has the most impact? If tomorrow, it is proven either way, that the univese in finite or infinite, what impact do you believe this will have? At the moment, it is unknown and it is not making much of an impact. Who do you believe that this is imacting so significantly? Do you believe that the bronze age people in the bible would have been impacted by this knowledge?

Next we get to what was created and in which order - and also how and why!

This is what i am interested in, the how part. I dont need to know the why part really. Are you refering to why as in intent? In nature there is no intent. Rain does not weather a rock with intent.

How? Based on laws being ushered in the universe/V2; and by seperating light from all else [He seperated the light from the darkness/V3]. Here, the 'seperation' is most impacting: when delved into, a created thing is nothing other than something seperated from other things - because all things already existed, only applied differently.

Can you explain this in more detail please. based on laws ushered into the universe is a bit broad. A created thing is nothing other than something seperated from other things? What about the things that you are saying were created from nothing or the things that are created form the combinations of other things?

We can accept light predating stars: a star cannot produce light unless light pre-existed.

whoa!!! Hold on there! Can WE accept that? I cant. Tht does not make any sense at all. A star cannot produce light unless light pre-existed? That is like saying a suasage machine cannot create a sausage without sausages pre-existing. Light is a product. Your statement is not even logical let alone plausible.

The WHY factor of light is also clearly stated in Genesis: as a pre-requisite for life, stars, galaxies and as enegy to drive the whole construct; light is agreless and the transcendent velosity, able to cater to all other universal components. This why factor becomes more clarified when we check the follow-up products listed in Genesis.

Can you provide the scripture? Can you provide where it states that light was created for the purpose of sustaining life? Can you provide the scripture that states that light was created for stars and galaxies? What does "light is agreless (ageless?) and the transcendent velosity, able to cater to all other universal components" mean? I am not sure that makes sense. Can you clarify and elaborate please?

Here, our sun's light was critically focused to produce specifically sufficient light and darkess aniticipating a host of life forms.

Can you eloborate please. What does critically focused mean? It looks like you are suggesting that sufficient light was created in anticipation of animals and plants? Do you not think that the plants an animals are a product of the amount of light supplied by the sun? Does this not make more sense?

We get closer to earth with the next seperation of water from land - the pre-requisite for the variety of life and terrains.

Who is to say that the seperation of land and water is a prerequisite for life? I do not believe this to be true. I do not believe your version of events at all.

Indeed, not evolution, but the seperation factors listed in genesis becomes the pivital factors for life: there was yet no evolution, nor can life exist without the Genesis listings

Some of this I agree with. There was no evolution in the Genesis myth. Biological Evolution is has nothing to do with the creation of the universe. What do you mean by " the pivital factorsfactors of life" and whay do you seem to believe that Evolution has made claims to them? Life can exist without the Genesis listings, it does. Perhaps you could rephrase that as I may be misunderstanding what you are saying.

Light could not have occured by other elements or processes - these never existed at this point. Light is a result of seperation, by virtue of laws initiated for the first time in the universe, and their embedding in the mush [void] with specific attributes to attain a pre-directed result. How else!?

seriously? how about nuclear fusion?

There cannot be evidences outside of the genesis premise: else the finite factor would be violated. Evidences infer pre-uni entities and observers.

Can you clarify? Are you suggesting that there cannot be evidence for any other theory other than the Genesis creation myth?


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 103 by IamJoseph, posted 07-17-2011 1:28 AM Butterflytyrant has responded

    
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 2676 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


Message 102 of 297 (624276)
07-17-2011 12:53 AM
Reply to: Message 101 by IamJoseph
07-17-2011 12:47 AM


Re: LET THERE BE LIGHT.
How about my post?

Coyotes post was merely pointing out that your last paragraph did not reflect current scientific theories or investigations. I happen to agree with that statement.

Ignoring his (her?) post wont change his point.

Edited by Butterflytyrant, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by IamJoseph, posted 07-17-2011 12:47 AM IamJoseph has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by IamJoseph, posted 07-17-2011 1:39 AM Butterflytyrant 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