The Big Bang Theory is dead.

[Sargonski]

That is true. But I did not claim that. You are describing the sort of false young age that one would get using C14 improperly. That is what @SavedByTheLord has been nattering about recently. A false young age is when one gets a date of 30,000 years or so in a material that is say 65 million years old.

Again, we are not talking about marine layers with the reservoir effect. That occurs in very young material and it gets a false old date. Often it is applied organisms that died very recently and they still get an age of hundreds of years. Here is an article that make explain the effect better than I did:

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2017RG000588

Sure .. but they date corals back hundreds of thousands of years .. and yes .. I was talking about getting a date of 30k in a Dinosaur fossile .. and explained why the 30 K date is false.. wrong test method with limit at 30K .. when you hit the limit .. you can not say the fossile is only 30K The most you can say is that it is at least this old. is how you read things at the end .. when the amount of active carbon is exceedingly small .. introducing huge error at this end of the scale the closer you get to Zero..

It is a pointless nonsense to talk about dating million year old objects with C-14 .. and C-14 testing does not date these to 30K .. rather "At least 30 K" .. cause someone found Part per Zillion of organic carbon in the sample that floated in when they opened the hole ... as would be concentration of Org C in the air .. or something of that nature.

 

[YoursTrue]

Unless it is your claim that SavedByTheLord is Dr. Hawking, I fail to see any relevance in SavedByTheLords double standard of something being impossible but in the next breath saying it was done.

I respect SBTL's questions.

 

[YoursTrue]

Actually, No.

Stephen Hawking says nothing was around before origin of universe - Xinhua | English.news.cn

www.xinhuanet.com

If you read the whole article, and I quote, It says "There was never a Big Bang that produced something from nothing. It just seemed that way from mankind's perspective," Hawking said.

I believe this is another quote: "I think the universe was spontaneously created out of nothing, according to the laws of science," Hawking, who died in March, wrote. "If you accept, as I do, that the laws of nature are fixed, then it doesn't take long to ask: What role is there for God?" Stephen Hawking's Final Book Says There's 'No Possibility' of God in Our Universe
So he says that he thinks the universe was spontaneously created out of nothing according to the laws of science. Apparently he believes the laws of science were there before the universe was created out of nothing.
(Also @Subduction Zone )
And, as I read the quote you provide, according to Dr. Hawking, there was never a Big Bang that produced something from nothing. Never a Big Bang that produced something from nothing?? No, Dr. Hawking said. It just seemed that way from mankind's perspective. (It just seemed that way?)

 

[Subduction Zone]

I believe this is another quote: "I think the universe was spontaneously created out of nothing, according to the laws of science," Hawking, who died in March, wrote. "If you accept, as I do, that the laws of nature are fixed, then it doesn't take long to ask: What role is there for God?" Stephen Hawking's Final Book Says There's 'No Possibility' of God in Our Universe
So he says that he thinks the universe was spontaneously created out of nothing according to the laws of science. Apparently he believes the laws of science were there before the universe was created out of nothing.
(Also @Subduction Zone )
And, as I read the quote you provide, according to Dr. Hawking, there was never a Big Bang that produced something from nothing. Never a Big Bang that produced something from nothing?? No, Dr. Hawking said. It just seemed that way from mankind's perspective. (It just seemed that way?)

I do believe that I have said that it did not have to be nothing, but the universe popping out of nothing does not violate any laws of physics.

Have you Google searched what the measured total energy of the universe is yet?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sure .. but they date corals back hundreds of thousands of years .. and yes .. I was talking about getting a date of 30k in a Dinosaur fossile .. and explained why the 30 K date is false.. wrong test method with limit at 30K .. when you hit the limit .. you can not say the fossile is only 30K The most you can say is that it is at least this old. is how you read things at the end .. when the amount of active carbon is exceedingly small .. introducing huge error at this end of the scale the closer you get to Zero..

Yes, they can date corals. But they do take into account the false older age that sea water gives them. For some materials contamination becomes less and less of a problem the older that they are. For example a sample of volcanic ash that is very fresh could date as being over a hundred thousand years old if one uses Potassium Argon whole rock dating. But a similar basalt that is a hundred million years old that bit of early contamination would be inconsequential.

And you are mixing the two up. Corals, if you dated very fresh ones would have a false old age. The dinosaurs that you are talking about had a false young age.

A false old age or false young age does not reflect the age given back by the test, but whether it is older or younger than the sample actually is. The dinosaurs actual ages are all over 65 million years old. Yet C14 when it is improperly done, can give an age of 30,000 years. That is a false young age because the rocks are much older than that.

Here with corals the problem could be a false old age, but once again as the samples get older the false age begins to fade in significance.

Here is an article on how they correct for the false old age that seawater C14 gives us:

Dating Corals, Knowing the Ocean - Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution

Coral is a useful tool for scientists who want to understand changes in past climate, but recalling that history presents its own set of challenges.

www.whoi.edu

It is a pointless nonsense to talk about dating million year old objects with C-14 .. and C-14 testing does not date these to 30K .. rather "At least 30 K" .. cause someone found Part per Zillion of organic carbon in the sample that floated in when they opened the hole ... as would be concentration of Org C in the air .. or something of that nature.

Yes, I agree. But creationists like to pretend that those samples are younger than that. And whether by accident or even on purpose contamination can make a sample give a false young age. That is what bunch of creationists did. They did not follow proper protocol and the got a series of false young ages that only convince fellow creationists.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Actually, No.

Stephen Hawking says nothing was around before origin of universe - Xinhua | English.news.cn

www.xinhuanet.com

If you read the whole article, and I quote, It says "There was never a Big Bang that produced something from nothing. It just seemed that way from mankind's perspective," Hawking said.

There was not even a "before the Big Bang" according to many, if not most physicists. Time began with the Big Bang Hawking clearly believed that. In other words the universe is eternal since for all time the universe has existed.

 

[Sargonski]

Yes, they can date corals. But they do take into account the false older age that sea water gives them. For some materials contamination becomes less and less of a problem the older that they are. For example a sample of volcanic ash that is very fresh could date as being over a hundred thousand years old if one uses Potassium Argon whole rock dating. But a similar basalt that is a hundred million years old that bit of early contamination would be inconsequential.

And you are mixing the two up. Corals, if you dated very fresh ones would have a false old age. The dinosaurs that you are talking about had a false young age.

A false old age or false young age does not reflect the age given back by the test, but whether it is older or younger than the sample actually is. The dinosaurs actual ages are all over 65 million years old. Yet C14 when it is improperly done, can give an age of 30,000 years. That is a false young age because the rocks are much older than that.

Here with corals the problem could be a false old age, but once again as the samples get older the false age begins to fade in significance.

Here is an article on how they correct for the false old age that seawater C14 gives us:

Dating Corals, Knowing the Ocean - Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution

Coral is a useful tool for scientists who want to understand changes in past climate, but recalling that history presents its own set of challenges.

www.whoi.edu

Yes, I agree. But creationists like to pretend that those samples are younger than that. And whether by accident or even on purpose contamination can make a sample give a false young age. That is what bunch of creationists did. They did not follow proper protocol and the got a series of false young ages that only convince fellow creationists.

No Mixing ... was talking about old coral .. not the young ones ?! and I get that there are anomalies .. Got my C-14 test training in the lab friend .. albeit 40 years ago -- but the basics are still the basics .. can't date something older than the test limit of the machine and Dino Bones are not 30,000 years old

 

[YoursTrue]

I do believe that I have said that it did not have to be nothing, but the universe popping out of nothing does not violate any laws of physics.

Have you Google searched what the measured total energy of the universe is yet?

I realize that it is posited that the universe is 13.8 billion years old. I'm not interested in what the "measured total energy of the universe is" right now. To me at this point it's almost like playing a game of chess. In other words, it's a game. Meantime, I'll go back to Dr. Hawking's offering of the universe, if I remember correctly, no more Big Bang that produced something from nothing. OK, hopefully this is the correct quote about that: "There was never a Big Bang that produced something from nothing. It just seemed that way from mankind's perspective," Hawking said." So, according to Dr. Hawking, the was never a "Big Bang" that produced something (the universe, perhaps?) from nothing. Nope. WHAT DOES THAT MEAN??? "never was a Big Bang that produced something from nothing. What??????????????????????????????

 

[Subduction Zone]

No Mixing ... was talking about old coral .. not the young ones ?! and I get that there are anomalies .. Got my C-14 test training in the lab friend .. albeit 40 years ago -- but the basics are still the basics .. can't date something older than the test limit of the machine and Dino Bones are not 30,000 years old

Your posts have indicated that you do not understand this topic. And yes, I know that you cannot date dinosaur bones properly. It is rather amazing that you do not seem to understand how if one has bones that are contaminated that a false young age can be shown by the tests.

We both agree that dinosaur bones are over 65 million years old. But what date do you get with C14 dating if someone has painted the fossils with shellac?

 

[McBell]

I respect SBTL's questions.

I fail to what your respecting SBTL's questions has to do with SavedByTheLords double standard of something being impossible but in the next breath saying it was done.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

I fail to what your respecting SBTL's questions has to do with SavedByTheLords double standard of something being impossible but in the next breath saying it was done.

Did the universe come from nothing or was it something?
and if something, what was that and where did that come from?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Did the universe come from nothing or was it something?
and if something, what was that and where did that come from?

I am going to say that I do not know. @Polymath257 may. I think that the math will be far beyond any of the rest of us.

 

[ratiocinator]

Yeah but Dr. Hawking said something can come out of nothing, didn't he?

[citation missing] Again!

 

[Subduction Zone]

[citation missing] Again!

In post 2307 she finally links some quotes. I have not checked them out for context yet.

 

[Esteban X]

Did the universe come from nothing or was it something?
and if something, what was that and where did that come from?

Why did it , (whatever 'it' is/was) have to come from anywhere? We are told to ask "Why is there something rather than nothing?", why ignore the question "Why must there have been nothing rather than something?.
The God proponents point to the "Big Bang" as evidence that nothing existed before the "creation" of the universe. There are two responses to this supposed problem. A. The quantum foam from which the present universe emerged was not "nothing". B. The emergence of the universe was the beginning of TIME and space. So something has existed for all time.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Why did it , (whatever 'it' is/was) have to come from anywhere? We are told to ask "Why is there something rather than nothing?", why ignore the question "Why must there have been nothing rather than something?.
The God proponents point to the "Big Bang" as evidence that nothing existed before the "creation" of the universe. There are two responses to this supposed problem. A. The quantum foam from which the present universe emerged was not "nothing". B. The emergence of the universe was the beginning of TIME and space. So something has existed for all time.

It either came from

a) something
or
b) nothing

Don’t you guys even know that ?

And why the hedge?

 

[ratiocinator]

It either came from

a) something
or
b) nothing

Don’t you guys even know that ?

You really need to drag yourself at least into the 20th century when it comes to your understanding of time. If you did that, you'd realise that this is way too simplistic.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

You really need to drag yourself at least into the 20th century when it comes to your understanding of time. If you did that, you'd realise that this is way too simplistic.

The universe either came from nothing or something.

 

[ratiocinator]

The universe either came from nothing or something.

It's really rather amusing that you think a simple contradiction is enough to counter any point anybody makes.

I can do that too: you're wrong.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

You really need to drag yourself at least into the 20th century when it comes to your understanding of time. If you did that, you'd realise that this is way too simplistic.

The universe either came from nothing or something.