Evolution

[Nine]

With magic I guess. Have you seen harry potter?

Of course with our technology we create light and some animals use bio-luminescence. So god made giant torch first?

[Norfolk And Chance]

So by reading all of your comments it seems you ALL have taken the easy way out and not actually addressed the question I asked.

My question was: "If We Can Develop Light Without The Need of Creating A Star, Then Wouldn't It Be Possible For The Being That Created The Stars Could Also Create Light Without The Need For Creating A Star?"

Before we answer the question, we need to establish that there is a being that created the stars.

Their are only two possible answers to this question, of which none of you who chose to respond even approached. It seems when you all are faced with a simple obvious reasonable answer, you'd all rather opt of the question but still participate by attempting to trivialize and dismiss the comment that forces reasonable logical thought, rather than address you own folly for not seeing the obvious.

Nothing is obvious because you are expanding on an unproven premise. Complete bilge.

If any of you had the stones to say yes or even no i would have pointed to scripture that says God Himself radiates light, and that would have concluded a Biblical perspective of a very legitimate question.

There can be no "yes" or "no" unless one can accept a being that creates stars etc.

Why do you all hold me to a different standard than you hold yourselves? What if I had skirted one of your questions?? Just look at how you all react when I simply ask you to define the parameters of the "evidence" you all seem to be looking for. This is a legitimate scientifically based question. (In order to define a variable, one must understand the standard in which it is measured.) Yet you all over look this fact when your arguments run out of spite and harp this point when i ask for something you should be able to provide. Yet when you have an opportunity to provide a direct answer you falter and fail even after I reduce the question to yes or no.(Completely defining the parameters for you again something you all have Failed to do for me) Again why am I held to a standard that you all fail to achieve yourselves?

I am not preaching here as none of this pertains to anything religious. I am simply trying to force the bar of these conversations up a few notches to where you force me to play. May I humbly suggest if you can not participate on this level on a given topic, sit this one out and let those who can do.

I can't personally be bothered to answer that, let's just say I dismissed it.

[Tobie]

So by reading all of your comments it seems you ALL have taken the easy way out and not actually addressed the question I asked.

My question was: "If We Can Develop Light Without The Need of Creating A Star, Then Wouldn't It Be Possible For The Being That Created The Stars Could Also Create Light Without The Need For Creating A Star?"

In modern times, it is possible to create light without stars, such as in light-bulbs. However, the materials needed to make these light-bulbs etc. can only be created as the result of fusion in stars, or by the forces at work in supernovae. So, your question is redundant, because all methods of creating light are the results of stars.

Also, it would be impossible for a being to create light without losing some of it's mass ( Einstein's mass-energy principle), so if a being could create light, it would cause itself to stop existing.

[Drich]

[quote='Norfolk And Chance' pid='260892' dateline='1332689128']

There can be no "yes" or "no" unless one can accept a being that creates stars etc.

If you are asking the question Or apart of the argument that asks How could God create light with out stars? then for the sake of this argument you yourself has established that their is a being who creates stars.

You have done my work for me just by asking the question we are currently discussing.

[Norfolk And Chance]

[quote='Norfolk And Chance' pid='260892' dateline='1332689128']

There can be no "yes" or "no" unless one can accept a being that creates stars etc.

If you are asking the question Or apart of the argument that asks How could God create light with out stars? then for the sake of this argument you yourself has established that their is a being who creates stars.

You have done my work for me just by asking the question we are currently discussing.

The argument is meaningless without agreement that a being exists that created the stars.

I do not agree that there is such a being, it's pointless going forward from here.

[Drich]

In modern times, it is possible to create light without stars, such as in light-bulbs. However, the materials needed to make these light-bulbs etc. can only be created as the result of fusion in stars, or by the forces at work in supernovae. So, your question is redundant, because all methods of creating light are the results of stars.

Also, it would be impossible for a being to create light without losing some of it's mass ( Einstein's mass-energy principle), so if a being could create light, it would cause itself to stop existing.

Did I say God created a light bulb?

We create light without bulbs as well..

So again if we have the wherewith all to create light with out the use of a "light bulb" or a star, then isn't it possible God did the same?

(Hint it is either a yes or no question, if you feel you need to explain your non yes or no answer, then know your answer is wrong no matter what the explanation.)

Plus did you not read the part where i said their is a verse that says God radiates light, that Heaven Radiates light??? Shouldn't this stop all light bulb related responses?

[mediamogul]

[quote='Norfolk And Chance' pid='260892' dateline='1332689128']

There can be no "yes" or "no" unless one can accept a being that creates stars etc.

If you are asking the question Or apart of the argument that asks How could God create light with out stars? then for the sake of this argument you yourself has established that their is a being who creates stars.

You have done my work for me just by asking the question we are currently discussing.

The argument is meaningless without agreement that a being exists that created the stars.

I do not agree that there is such a being, it's pointless going forward from here.

Logical fallacy police: Begging the question.

The argument presupposes its conclusion in one of the premises.

[Drich]

[quote='Norfolk And Chance' pid='260892' dateline='1332689128']

There can be no "yes" or "no" unless one can accept a being that creates stars etc.

If you are asking the question Or apart of the argument that asks How could God create light with out stars? then for the sake of this argument you yourself has established that their is a being who creates stars.

You have done my work for me just by asking the question we are currently discussing.

The argument is meaningless without agreement that a being exists that created the stars.

I do not agree that there is such a being, it's pointless going forward from here.

My point exactly!

How can one ask how many apples do you put in a pie? then turn around and say I do not believe in apples!

Can you see the foolishness in such a statement? If you do not believe in God then why ask someone to explain a potential discrepancy dealing with a passage in the bible about God?

[Norfolk And Chance]

My point exactly!

How can one ask how many apples do you put in a pie? then turn around and say I do not believe in apples!

Can you see the foolishness in such a statement? If you do not believe in God then why ask someone to explain a potential discrepancy dealing with a passage in the bible about God?

Because they do believe in god and to them the bible is true. So it's fair game.

[Drich]

My point exactly!

How can one ask how many apples do you put in a pie? then turn around and say I do not believe in apples!

Can you see the foolishness in such a statement? If you do not believe in God then why ask someone to explain a potential discrepancy dealing with a passage in the bible about God?

Because they do believe in god and to them the bible is true. So it's fair game.

So when "they" answer your question with in the context of scripture, then it should end the discussion.