What is the creation science theory of the origin of light?

Hi IamJoseph,First, you're expected to support your position in your own words, not via cut-n-pastes. Your own words must be outnumbered by the cut-n-pastes by at least 10 to 1.Second, the cut-n-pastes you provided do not by themselves support your position, and you provided no accompanying explanation for how they might do so.I think you should go off and think through how you're going to gather evidence supporting your position that light was the first entity in the universe, and additional evidence for how that light came to be, as well as thinking through how you're going to present that evidence to successfully make your case. To give you some time to do that I'm suspending you for 24 hours.Please, no replies to this message.

Read your Bible!Geez. You have exactly ONE source material. I'm talking about only the first 2 sentences in that source material and you can't be bothered to read it?Seriously?If you are going to reference the Bible, you should at least be familiar with it.

Nuggin argued at one point that IamJoseph wasn't following the Bible. I read backward a bit through the chain of messages but couldn't find the details of this point, so I looked up the beginning of Genesis. The only part I clearly recall is, "Let there be light," and I thought God must have created light first since that's what IamJoseph is claiming. But after reading the beginning of Genesis I find that this isn't true. Here is the beginning of Genesis cut-n-pasted from one of a billion Christian websites, I don't know which version of the Bible this is: So God first created the heavens and the earth, and there was also water. Only then did God create light. IamJoseph's idea that light was the first entity in the universe cannot have a Biblical origin.Even though this is a science thread where positions must be supported by relevant evidence, moderators understand that creationist views are based upon sincerely held religious beliefs and try to treat these views with respect. But if IamJoseph's views have no Biblical foundation, and they have no evidential foundation, then the patience of this moderator to entertain much discussion about such views is in short supply.IamJoseph should take this into account when his suspension expires.

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.

I have to say I agree. There was never going to be a scientific answer for a question directed at creation science.But IamJoseph was suspended for not moving the debate forwards, more than anything.

Edited by Admin, : Hide content.

Hello all,I started this topic because I read many claims from many websites advising that Creation Science was working on scientific evidence to support Biblical creation. Many of these websites specifically mention Creation and Genesis as their biggest area of study. Everyone here would be able to name the bigger groups. I included a lot of examples of this close to the beginning of the thread. I had actually wrapped up my question fairly quickly with tha help of individuals like Chuck77 who offered a very good answer. It is possible that there can be no theory for many reasons. It could be that Gods ways are so unknowable and powerful that he is outside any scientific enquiry, it could be that the whole Genesis creation narrative is metaphorical, or it could be that the Genesis creation narrative is a myth. I assumed that as these groups were claiming they were performing scientific research in the field I was interested in, they would at least have a hypotheses. But they dont. Noone does. I can assume that this is the case for the entire creation narrative. This makes it a bit hard to take the title "Creation Science" seriously.The only reason the thread went on for so long is there was a latecomer who assured me that he had a solid scientific theory for the creation of light when God uttered the words 'let there be light'. After a huge amount of back and forth, this turned out to be a pretty disappointing dead end.The only place this question could have been put is in the science thread. As it was asking for a scientific answer. Everyone knows what the non scientific answer is. I dont think there is anything wrong with asking creation scientists a scientific question. If I wanted a religious answer, I would have asked a priest. If they want to pose as scientists, they should expect to be asked scientific questions.Not having anything coming close to a scientific explanation for creation seems to be a very large hole in the case for creation. It should also be a serious issue for any group claiming to be creation scientists.Thank you for your answers.cheers,BT Edited by Butterflytyrant, : No reason given.Edited by Butterflytyrant, : No reason given.

Hello everyone,Sometimes coordination between moderators isn't what it should be. Adminnemooseus and I will work to get back in sync.I was already very actively moderating the thread, and it was my intention that it remain open until 300 messages, at which time I will request summations.

Hi Chuck,The Free For All forum is for threads that become impossible to moderate.Why don't you check with IamJoseph (send him a PM) and see if agrees with you that his claims aren't science.EvC Forum exists to examine the claims of conservative Christians that Bible-based theories are legitimate science. There is little to disagree about with any Christian who wants to concede up-front that creationism isn'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?

You're failing to draw a distinction between what IamJoseph is claiming and how he is supporting what he claims. He has claimed throughout this thread that his position is scientific, for example, this from Message 231: But he is using religious texts to support his scientific claims, and that's the problem.Why don't you PM IamJoseph and ask him why he believes his claim of "light being the first product" is scientific? You could at the same time ask him why he thinks this claim is consistent with Genesis.

quote:

---

First, you're expected to support your position in your own words, not via cut-n-pastes. Your own words must be outnumbered by the cut-n-pastes by at least 10 to 1.

---

I did, by header statements placed before each response to the claims made, and by providing links and references from 'scientific' definitions. They do not need to surpass the link wordage with superfluous words if the point is made succinctly. I try to save my virtual ink:

quote:

---

That the first product was an irreducible and indivisible entity ['singularity']:

---

and here:

quote:

---

That the universe age is calculated by light:

---

And here:

quote:

---

Light and the Age of the Universe - Re Cosmic Microwave Background:

---

Go back and check.

quote:

---

Second, the cut-n-pastes you provided do not by themselves support your position, and you provided no accompanying explanation for how they might do so.

---

Yes they do. Where I asserted the SINGULARITY factor for example, the link provided affirms this. A science thread's participants should know a singularity refers to one indivisible and irreducible entity with no other products around. No energy, space or heat applies.

quote:

---

I think you should go off and think through how you're going to gather evidence supporting your position that light was the first entity in the universe, and additional evidence for how that light came to be, as well as thinking through how you're going to present that evidence to successfully make your case. To give you some time to do that I'm suspending you for 24 hours.

---

I do that. Go back and check.

quote:

---

Please, no replies to this message.

---

How can one learn without pointing out at least to a clarification of response - to charges made when one is also barred from responding - its not even scientifically possible?

quote:

---

But he is using religious texts to support his scientific claims, and that's the problem.

---

You fail to include I back this up with 'SCIENTIFIC' reasoning and refs. I refer not to religious texts but the first recording of a premise - a significant factor and incumbent accreditisation. E.g. if I say the uni is finite, I back this up with:The uni is expanding; it was not infinite 10 seconds ago. [Scientific, not religious, reasoning].That light is measured by light [backed by science links and opinions, not religious texts].A lie by omission is - surprise, surprise - a lie.

Pls tell us, without using any religious texts: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?Pls provide your scientific links when quoting your sources. Thanks.

quote:

---

Nuggin argued at one point that IamJoseph wasn't following the Bible. I read backward a bit through the chain of messages but couldn't find the details of this point, so I looked up the beginning of Genesis. The only part I clearly recall is, "Let there be light," and I thought God must have created light first since that's what IamJoseph is claiming. But after reading the beginning of Genesis I find that this isn't true. Here is the beginning of Genesis cut-n-pasted from one of a billion Christian websites, I don't know which version of the Bible this is:
Genesis writes:
Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2 The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.
3 Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light.

​

So God first created the heavens and the earth, and there was also water. Only then did God create light. IamJoseph's idea that light was the first entity in the universe cannot have a Biblical origin.

---

You make a good point - good because it is at least dealing with the issue, not because it is correct. A correct reading says a follow-up verse is the qualification factor, made ater a frst statement in any technical or judiciary writings.The first verse says the universe and the earth appeared. Then it goes on to say there were yet no identifiable products in V2 [yes/no?]; then it goes on to say which was the first product in the universe, namely LET THERE BE LIGHT [yes/no?]. Otherwise, your demanding the first product in the universe be stated without mentioning the universe as existant. Is that logica!? Its like asking which sprinter came first at the olympics - before the universe existed!Yes, I grant you it does say water and darkness already existed. But this is stated in context of the first product and qualified with the next verse. E.g. it does not say LET THERE BE WATER and DARKNESS, it says LET THERE BE LIGHT. The only grammatical conclusion is that water was also created the same way as was light, namely via the separation factor - but not precedently; else the text makes no sense - proof it is read incorrectly. However, I agree you have a reasonable point here, but one which does not negate my own.