The Big Bang is nonsense, so why do I defend it?

[mmksparbud]

Thank you again for responding. Finally, would you consider now anwering my original question:given that rigorous application of logic, evidence and reasoned argument thoroughly dispute and refute your view of creation, on what basis do you justify an emotive decision in favour of a 6-day creation over a dispassionate and objective intellectual one in favour of evolution?

But I gave it! There is no rigorous application of logic, evidence and reasoned argument to dissolute what I've said. Most things are dating the rocks around an object--what to do care how many millions of years old the rocks are?
Just for speed and to save my fingers which are numb, yet painful I will post this.

"Until this century, relative dating was the only technique for identifying the age of a truly ancient object. By examining the object's relation to layers of deposits in the area, and by comparing the object to others found at the site, archaeologists can estimate when the object arrived at the site. Though still heavily used, relative dating is now augmented by several modern dating techniques.

Radiocarbon dating involves determining the age of an ancient fossil or specimen by measuring its carbon-14 content. Carbon-14, or radiocarbon, is a naturally occurring radioactive isotope that forms when cosmic rays in the upper atmosphere strike nitrogen molecules, which then oxidize to become carbon dioxide. Green plants absorb the carbon dioxide, so the population of carbon-14 molecules is continually replenished until the plant dies. Carbon-14 is also passed onto the animals that eat those plants. After death the amount of carbon-14 in the organic specimen decreases very regularly as the molecules decay. Carbon-14 has a half-life of 5,730 ± 40 years, meaning that every 5,700 years or so the object loses half its carbon-14.

Samples from the past 70,000 years made of wood, charcoal, peat, bone, antler or one of many other carbonates may be dated using this technique."

Carbon-14 is made when cosmic rays knock neutrons out of atomic nuclei in the upper atmosphere. These displaced neutrons, now moving fast, hit ordinary nitrogen (14N) at lower altitudes, converting it into 14C. Unlike common carbon (12C), 14C is unstable and slowly decays, changing it back to nitrogen and releasing energy. This instability makes it radioactive.

Ordinary carbon (12C)is found in the carbon dioxide (CO2) in the air, which is taken up by plants, which in turn are eaten by animals. So a bone, or a leaf or a tree, or even a piece of wooden furniture, contains carbon. When the 14C has been formed, like ordinary carbon (12C), it combines with oxygen to give carbon dioxide (14CO2), and so it also gets cycled through the cells of plants and animals.

We can take a sample of air, count how many 12C atoms there are for every 14C atom, and calculate the 14C/12C ratio. Because 14C is so well mixed up with 12C, we expect to find that this ratio is the same if we sample a leaf from a tree, or a part of your body.

In living things, although 14C atoms are constantly changing back to 14N, they are still exchanging carbon with their surroundings, so the mixture remains about the same as in the atmosphere. However, as soon as a plant or animal dies, the 14C atoms which decay are no longer replaced, so the amount of 14C in that once-living thing decreases as time goes on. In other words, the 14C/12C ratio gets smaller. So, we have a “clock” which starts ticking the moment something dies.

Obviously, this works only for things which were once living. It cannot be used to date volcanic rocks, for example.

The rate of decay of 14C is such that half of an amount will convert back to 14N in 5,730 years (plus or minus 40 years). This is the “half-life.” So, in two half-lives, or 11,460 years, only one-quarter of that in living organisms at present, then it has a theoretical age of 11,460 years. Anything over about 50,000 years old, should theoretically have no detectable 14C left. That is why radiocarbon dating cannot give millions of years. In fact, if a sample contains 14C, it is good evidence that it is not millions of years old.

However, things are not quite so simple. First, plants discriminate against carbon dioxide containing 14C. That is, they take up less than would be expected and so they test older than they really are. Furthermore, different types of plants discriminate differently. This also has to be corrected for.[2]

Second, the ratio of 14C/12C in the atmosphere has not been constant—for example, it was higher before the industrial era when the massive burning of fossil fuels released a lot of carbon dioxide that was depleted in 14C. This would make things which died at that time appear older in terms of carbon dating. Then there was a rise in 14CO2 with the advent of atmospheric testing of atomic bombs in the 1950s.[3] This would make things carbon-dated from that time appear younger than their true age.

Measurement of 14C in historically dated objects (e.g., seeds in the graves of historically dated tombs) enables the level of 14C in the atmosphere at that time to be estimated, and so partial calibration of the “clock” is possible. Accordingly, carbon dating carefully applied to items from historical times can be useful. However, even with such historical calibration, archaeologists do not regard 14C dates as absolute because of frequent anomalies. They rely more on dating methods that link into historical records.

Outside the range of recorded history, calibration of the 14C "clock is not possible.[4]
https://christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c007.html

Science is always changing it's mind. Up until "invisible light was discovered, it made no sense to people that light was created before the sun. The bible does not say God created sunlight--it says God created light. Look up invisible light. What God can see and what we can see are 2 different things.
It seems silly to people that we believe God spoke and it was so---look up the power of sound waves.
His voice is power. I will wait for "science" to catch up to the bible. I stick with a 6 day creation week.

 

[PsychoSarah]

But I gave it! There is no rigorous application of logic, evidence and reasoned argument to dissolute what I've said. Most things are dating the rocks around an object--what to do care how many millions of years old the rocks are?
Just for speed and to save my fingers which are numb, yet painful I will post this.

"Until this century, relative dating was the only technique for identifying the age of a truly ancient object. By examining the object's relation to layers of deposits in the area, and by comparing the object to others found at the site, archaeologists can estimate when the object arrived at the site. Though still heavily used, relative dating is now augmented by several modern dating techniques.

Radiocarbon dating involves determining the age of an ancient fossil or specimen by measuring its carbon-14 content. Carbon-14, or radiocarbon, is a naturally occurring radioactive isotope that forms when cosmic rays in the upper atmosphere strike nitrogen molecules, which then oxidize to become carbon dioxide. Green plants absorb the carbon dioxide, so the population of carbon-14 molecules is continually replenished until the plant dies. Carbon-14 is also passed onto the animals that eat those plants. After death the amount of carbon-14 in the organic specimen decreases very regularly as the molecules decay. Carbon-14 has a half-life of 5,730 ± 40 years, meaning that every 5,700 years or so the object loses half its carbon-14.

Samples from the past 70,000 years made of wood, charcoal, peat, bone, antler or one of many other carbonates may be dated using this technique."

Carbon-14 is made when cosmic rays knock neutrons out of atomic nuclei in the upper atmosphere. These displaced neutrons, now moving fast, hit ordinary nitrogen (14N) at lower altitudes, converting it into 14C. Unlike common carbon (12C), 14C is unstable and slowly decays, changing it back to nitrogen and releasing energy. This instability makes it radioactive.

Ordinary carbon (12C)is found in the carbon dioxide (CO2) in the air, which is taken up by plants, which in turn are eaten by animals. So a bone, or a leaf or a tree, or even a piece of wooden furniture, contains carbon. When the 14C has been formed, like ordinary carbon (12C), it combines with oxygen to give carbon dioxide (14CO2), and so it also gets cycled through the cells of plants and animals.

We can take a sample of air, count how many 12C atoms there are for every 14C atom, and calculate the 14C/12C ratio. Because 14C is so well mixed up with 12C, we expect to find that this ratio is the same if we sample a leaf from a tree, or a part of your body.

In living things, although 14C atoms are constantly changing back to 14N, they are still exchanging carbon with their surroundings, so the mixture remains about the same as in the atmosphere. However, as soon as a plant or animal dies, the 14C atoms which decay are no longer replaced, so the amount of 14C in that once-living thing decreases as time goes on. In other words, the 14C/12C ratio gets smaller. So, we have a “clock” which starts ticking the moment something dies.

Obviously, this works only for things which were once living. It cannot be used to date volcanic rocks, for example.

The rate of decay of 14C is such that half of an amount will convert back to 14N in 5,730 years (plus or minus 40 years). This is the “half-life.” So, in two half-lives, or 11,460 years, only one-quarter of that in living organisms at present, then it has a theoretical age of 11,460 years. Anything over about 50,000 years old, should theoretically have no detectable 14C left. That is why radiocarbon dating cannot give millions of years. In fact, if a sample contains 14C, it is good evidence that it is not millions of years old.

However, things are not quite so simple. First, plants discriminate against carbon dioxide containing 14C. That is, they take up less than would be expected and so they test older than they really are. Furthermore, different types of plants discriminate differently. This also has to be corrected for.[2]

Second, the ratio of 14C/12C in the atmosphere has not been constant—for example, it was higher before the industrial era when the massive burning of fossil fuels released a lot of carbon dioxide that was depleted in 14C. This would make things which died at that time appear older in terms of carbon dating. Then there was a rise in 14CO2 with the advent of atmospheric testing of atomic bombs in the 1950s.[3] This would make things carbon-dated from that time appear younger than their true age.

Measurement of 14C in historically dated objects (e.g., seeds in the graves of historically dated tombs) enables the level of 14C in the atmosphere at that time to be estimated, and so partial calibration of the “clock” is possible. Accordingly, carbon dating carefully applied to items from historical times can be useful. However, even with such historical calibration, archaeologists do not regard 14C dates as absolute because of frequent anomalies. They rely more on dating methods that link into historical records.

Outside the range of recorded history, calibration of the 14C "clock is not possible.[4]
https://christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c007.html

Science is always changing it's mind. Up until "invisible light was discovered, it made no sense to people that light was created before the sun. The bible does not say God created sunlight--it says God created light. Look up invisible light. What God can see and what we can see are 2 different things.
It seems silly to people that we believe God spoke and it was so---look up the power of sound waves.
His voice is power. I will wait for "science" to catch up to the bible. I stick with a 6 day creation week.

-_- Your issue with radioactive dating methods neglects to account for these things:
1. Thanks to ice cores and other means, we can determine qualities of the atmosphere in the past. If there was a crap ton of carbon in the air messing with carbon dating, we'd easily know it.
2. Multiple methods are used to date items. If the dates derived from different methods are significantly different, the dating is considered inconclusive. Usually, this prompts people to check their equipment for malfunctions and retest dating repeatedly.
3. There's essentially no means by which contamination can result in an item being dated OLDER than it actually is. That is, if overall carbon levels were lower in the atmosphere (not sure how this would influence fossils much, considering that most of the radioactive carbon in the body isn't in a gas form), that would just make for slightly less carbon in both the radioactive and stable forms, so it wouldn't impact the ratio.
4. I can't even fathom how atmospheric conditions could at all influence uranium dating.

 

[mmksparbud]

-_- Your issue with radioactive dating methods neglects to account for these things:
1. Thanks to ice cores and other means, we can determine qualities of the atmosphere in the past. If there was a crap ton of carbon in the air messing with carbon dating, we'd easily know it.
2. Multiple methods are used to date items. If the dates derived from different methods are significantly different, the dating is considered inconclusive. Usually, this prompts people to check their equipment for malfunctions and retest dating repeatedly.
3. There's essentially no means by which contamination can result in an item being dated OLDER than it actually is. That is, if overall carbon levels were lower in the atmosphere (not sure how this would influence fossils much, considering that most of the radioactive carbon in the body isn't in a gas form), that would just make for slightly less carbon in both the radioactive and stable forms, so it wouldn't impact the ratio.
4. I can't even fathom how atmospheric conditions could at all influence uranium dating.

Ice cores do reveal what the atmosphere is like---at the site of where the ice core was taken. What you can or can not fathom doesn't matter. Point is--this is what I believe, you do not have to, and obviously don't. As I said, science is always changing. Science scoffed at this silly doctor who insisted that doctors should wash their hands before touching another patient and before surgery for there were invisible "germs." He was hounded and scoffed at for his ridiculous views. I await further "discoveries"---I will stick with what the bible says. Invisible light and sound waves were a ridiculous thing once.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

This is somewhat off topic, but I must say.... I'm always baffled when people say that God "speaks" things into existance. I mean, what could be more obvious nonsense?

Yes; one wonders who he was speaking to... presumably himself, but why? 'Speaking' as a metaphor, or turn of phrase, seems more plausible.

 

[mmksparbud]

Yes; one wonders who he was speaking to... presumably himself, but why? 'Speaking' as a metaphor, or turn of phrase, seems more plausible.

No--He commanded the elements. What He says is--If He should say--you are green with yellow polka dots--that is what you would be.. His voice is power--in total control of what little we now know about sound waves.

 

[Ophiolite]

-_- Your issue with radioactive dating methods neglects to account for these things:
1. Thanks to ice cores and other means, we can determine qualities of the atmosphere in the past. If there was a crap ton of carbon in the air messing with carbon dating, we'd easily know it.
2. Multiple methods are used to date items. If the dates derived from different methods are significantly different, the dating is considered inconclusive. Usually, this prompts people to check their equipment for malfunctions and retest dating repeatedly.
3. There's essentially no means by which contamination can result in an item being dated OLDER than it actually is. That is, if overall carbon levels were lower in the atmosphere (not sure how this would influence fossils much, considering that most of the radioactive carbon in the body isn't in a gas form), that would just make for slightly less carbon in both the radioactive and stable forms, so it wouldn't impact the ratio.
4. I can't even fathom how atmospheric conditions could at all influence uranium dating.

Well thank you for your response. I now understand that your ability to accept the emotive option, (creationism), over the logical, evidentially based one (evolution) is based upon a woeful misunderstanding, misinterpretation and misapplication of evolutionary theory and related concept. Such an error makes sense, being a simple example of GIGO.

I appreciate the time you have taken to contribute to the thread. Feel free to make further contributions, but be aware I shall not be investing any time in reading them.

 

[mmksparbud]

Well thank you for your response. I now understand that your ability to accept the emotive option, (creationism), over the logical, evidentially based one (evolution) is based upon a woeful misunderstanding, misinterpretation and misapplication of evolutionary theory and related concept. Such an error makes sense, being a simple example of GIGO.

I appreciate the time you have taken to contribute to the thread. Feel free to make further contributions, but be aware I shall not be investing any time in reading them.

LOL! That breaks my heart!! Why in the world you are bothering to try to fathom a book that is about having faith in an all powerful God when you have faith in nothing is beyond me!!

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

No--He commanded the elements. What He says is--If He should say--you are green with yellow polka dots--that is what you would be.. His voice is power--in total control of what little we now know about sound waves.

Sound waves wouldn't exist until he had created the media through which they must propagate... a bit of a Catch-22

 

[Ophiolite]

LOL! That breaks my heart!! Why in the world you are bothering to try to fathom a book that is about having faith in an all powerful God when you have faith in nothing is beyond me!!

Where did you get the idea I was trying to fathom the Bible? (I believe I have it fathomed by pole, plumb and sonar.) I was trying to gain an understanding of why someone like yourself would choose an emotionally based worldview that conflicts with demonstrable reality. You provided the answer for your case: you have a faulty understanding of reality. And I expressed my appreciation of that insight. The appreciation remains.

 

[mmksparbud]

Where did you get the idea I was trying to fathom the Bible? (I believe I have it fathomed by pole, plumb and sonar.) I was trying to gain an understanding of why someone like yourself would choose an emotionally based worldview that conflicts with demonstrable reality. You provided the answer for your case: you have a faulty understanding of reality. And I expressed my appreciation of that insight. The appreciation remains.

It is impossible to fathom a people who believe in a book that we claim as the word of God without understanding that book. Your reality is not the important thing. Our truth is the bible, that is our reality. You place yours on a passing understanding of what science, for the moment, is calling reality. It will change in the future, our reality will not.

 

[mmksparbud]

Sound waves wouldn't exist until he had created the media through which they must propagate... a bit of a Catch-22

He is the power--0period. That is what you can't fathom. He is the creator of everything. His world is not yours---you are in the reality that He created, He is not in what you call your reality.

 

[Ophiolite]

It is impossible to fathom a people who believe in a book that we claim as the word of God without understanding that book. Your reality is not the important thing. Our truth is the bible, that is our reality. You place yours on a passing understanding of what science, for the moment, is calling reality. It will change in the future, our reality will not.

I wish you happiness and contentment in your eternal stasis. I don't think we have anything further to gain from each other.

 

[mmksparbud]

I wish you happiness and contentment in your eternal stasis. I don't think we have anything further to gain from each other.

You have nothing to gain from me---you do from the word of God. I have all I need, and more.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Every living creature on Earth descended from L.U.C.A. except Humans

The bolded part, is demonstrably false.
There's nothing special about humans as opposed to other animals.

We did NOT descend from Apes but from Adam and Eve, the first Humans

Genetics demonstrates this to be a false statement.

 

[DogmaHunter]

He is not in what you call your reality.

I agree there.... Indeed, gods don't seem to be present in what we call reality.

 

[mmksparbud]

I agree there.... Indeed, gods don't seem to be present in what we call reality.

No they don't---like the Russian cosmonauts who said they didn't see God up there anywhere----but then, they didn't step outside without their breathing machines either. God made this reality, one day you will see it.

 

[DogmaHunter]

No they don't---like the Russian cosmonauts who said they didn't see God up there anywhere----but then, they didn't step outside without their breathing machines either.

Not sure how Russian cosmonauts or breathing machines in outer space, are relevant to this point.

God made this reality, one day you will see it.

Or so you say.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

He is the power--0period. That is what you can't fathom. He is the creator of everything. His world is not yours---you are in the reality that He created, He is not in what you call your reality.

Well, when you describe His behaviour in terms that are well-defined in our reality, you should expect to be challenged when you use them incoherently - especially in the Physical & Life Sciences forums.

This is why I suggested 'speak' must be a metaphor.

However, if - as you suggest - this entity is not part of reality, it hardly matters. Unreal entities are of no importance or relevance - except, perhaps, as philosophical or metaphysical hypotheticals (e.g. Laplace's Demon).

 

[Aman777]

Aman777 said: ↑
Every living creature on Earth descended from L.U.C.A. except Humans

The bolded part, is demonstrably false.
There's nothing special about humans as opposed to other animals.

False, since Humans have the superior intelligence of God Gen 3:22 and were made Billions of years before "every living creature that moveth", which came forth from Water. Gen 1:21 Humans were made in God's image and only became flesh, like animals, AFTER Adam disobeyed.

Following is our true image which we will regain at the Rapture. We were made in the likeness of God and here is His Image:

Eze 1:27 And I saw as the colour of amber, as the appearance of fire round about within it, from the appearance of His loins even upward, and from the appearance of His loins even downward, I saw as it were the appearance of fire, and it had brightness round about. Eze 1:28 As the appearance of the bow that is in the cloud in the day of rain, so was the appearance of the brightness round about. This was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the LORD. And when I saw it, I fell upon my face, and I heard a voice of One that spake.

Looks like you have classified Humans as just another animal, instead of one of God's children. Be ashamed of your mis-classification. Your view is the willingly ignorant genesis of Racism. Repent before it's too late.

 

[mmksparbud]

Well, when you describe His behaviour in terms that are well-defined in our reality, you should expect to be challenged when you use them incoherently - especially in the Physical & Life Sciences forums.

This is why I suggested 'speak' must be a metaphor.

However, if - as you suggest - this entity is not part of reality, it hardly matters. Unreal entities are of no importance or relevance - except, perhaps, as philosophical or metaphysical hypotheticals (e.g. Laplace's Demon).

It is really quite impossible to have a real discussion on religious matters with an atheist! It's like going in circles. The reality of an ant is far different from the reality of a human. The ant can not comprehend the world of the human, the stars, the sun, the oceans and so very much more that they simply can not fathom, they would consider it foolishness, not real. It is the same with us and God. Our reality is limited to our abilities to comprehend our own world--He is as high above us as we are to the ant.