Your nuts dude, talking all this non biblical trash. Almost none of what your talking about is in the bible at all. You must be Catholic..... Catholics say they are Christians, but in the same sentence say they are Catholic. You cannot be both.

The order of importance for basis of truth to a Catholic is this:

The Pope
Traditions of the Church
The Catholic Bible
I Am Sure Something Else Is In Here Before The Bible
The Bible

The order of importance for basis of truth to a Christian is this:

God's Written and Revealed Word - The Bible
God's Written and Revealed Word - The Bible
God's Written and Revealed Word - The Bible

*You're

This is the only thing that has made sense in this thread, and that is the difference between science and religion. If you destroyed all the knowledge and books on science and religion, in 10,000 years all the science books would be back, exactly as they are now, including the above description of photons, color and light.

Exactly zero of the religions would have their books come back, but there would be new ones with completely different history, beliefs and scriptures.

Even with all that said, I actually believe in God, however the Bible is just man’s interpretation of the word and thus fallible and should be questioned just like Aesop’s fables. To put so much stake in the Bible and not God is a mistake if not blasphemous, and to ignore science is to ignore God’s creation.

I’m sure most of you in this thread think you’re intelligent but to the outside world you guys have the scientific and philosophical musings of young teenagers.

1. I'm sure that you think you're intelligent.
2. The "outside world" (whatever that is) probably doesn't spend hardly any time at all reflecting on scientific and philosophical musings.
3. An articulate, smart teenager with scientific and philosophical musings would probably be viewed by the "outside world" as a genius.
4. Your philosophical musings on science and religion are pretty much on the "smart teenager" level.
5. I used to teach philosophy at the community college level, so I know what "smart teenager musing" looks like.

Have a blessed day.

Since this is rather obviously the point you wanted to make, why even bother with the initial question?

Regardless, it just boils to what you claim light is. If you use physics, then darkness is the absence of light. Per reigning theories then darkness came first, since it took some 300 000 years of big bang before there was light. It's not a terribly interesting point to make, because absence isn't really existence, but who cares.

If you use perception they came at the same time, because evidence tells us the mechanics behind light and darkness existed before the first sensory organs.

If you use some linguistic device to just say things you think are pretty, then the question is irrelevant as it's not conveying any relevant information from you to the people reading it. It would be like asking the price of oranges and then proclaiming that those orange fruits are apples and people aren't understanding anything.

I only taught mathematics at the collegiate level before starting my own business, but I’m sure as former community college employee you would be praised and celebrated as an intellectual in places like Alabama.

Only in the most rural, backwoods parts of Alabama.

Hope business is going good for you! Have a blessed day.

You made three major assertions, yet you provided no argument or evidence to back up your assertions. That pretty much epitomizes what happens when a young teenager posts in a religion thread.

Next time, please show your work.

Have a blessed day. (And please let us know when you turn 16 and get your driver's license.)

like this answer

None of us are beyond childish ramblings whether physicists, theologians or a mixture. As a child I wondered what came "before". That question can only be answered by suspending all belief, exposing the ineptitude of human beings to understand the universe/reality/existence etc. Which I guess elevates (or demotes) scientists to the level of religious zealots. So f u richard dawkins, the nut jobs were right.

anyone that has read past "what came first lightness or darek"(is jaded) obv drake cums first cause he got that "getting paid money"

I have no idea what you're saying here.

Simply put:
If you say refrigerators did create humans then others will think you are either mad or you are kidding.
Intelligence must be first before anything can ever exist.

what if you say nothing, not even refrigerators, created humans?

That's just you being blinded by materialism and unable to see the majesty of creation by heat transfer.

As it is RGT discussion thread, I might add

When first there was "body" than "self" then "self" would be the same as "body" hence "self" could never intentionally do what would harm "body". But there are people who intentionally starve to death. They are capable to ignore what body wants.
Sokushinbutsu, its name is classy.

this doesnt disprove what I said.

Before there was anything, there was darkness, and it still dominates the universe, as light has just been born at some part(s) of the universe rather recently (God created it and God is beyond).

That is also how the universe sort of space-ends, when we move ahead anywhere, although it might be just a very large area of darkness (there is nothing but space -- that in a sense doesn't exist), till it runs into another (temporary) area of light, but we don't know that.

^ pretty sure someone already pointed out that visible light is just one small part of a wide spectrum which is propagating through the universe though we cant see it without special equipment.

Jesus is God of the living and not God of the dead and He said;

If we're going to use the Bible to answer OP's question, it is completely clear and impossible to misunderstand. It explicitly states that darkness comes before light. It's literally in the first three passages of the bible.

And no, Jesus didn't say what you claim he said here. Some random internet blogger did and interspersed his hogwash with arbitrary bible passages taken out of context. Stop spamming that site.

Apparently I had misunderstood your response:

How about saying nothing did create the refrigerator? Apparently it would be nonsense.
"Nothing" cannot create, I hope this is clear. So we had to say: Humans are no creations. But this would be the same as saying a painting or a refrigerator are no creations. Of course this would be nonsense. How do we recognize a refrigerator or a painting? Because they follow some rules. Everything that follows rules must be a creation otherwise why should it follow or be determined by any rules? Humans can split atoms because atoms and humans follow some rules.
(For more on this topic see the thread: "Spread the word?")