The Big Bang Theory is dead.

[TagliatelliMonster]

(1)The 1st law means that the universe did not come from nothing.
(2)the 2ns law means that it has not always existed.
(3)So, God must have created it.

1 and 2 are false.

And even if we bend over backwards and assume 1 and 2 are correct, then still 3 doesn't follow.

 

[Subduction Zone]

1 and 2 are false.

And even if we bend over backwards and assume 1 and 2 are correct, then still 3 doesn't follow.

I do have to admit that he is currently our most fractally wrong person posting on this topic at least.

 

[F1fan]

The 1st law means that the universe did not come from nothing.
the 2ns law means that it has not always existed.

These two laws actually exist in reality.

So, God must have created it.

What God exists in reality? Thus far we can observe natural laws, but no gods.

So what is the problem with you showing us clear facts of a God existing, and that it created anything?

And if a God were to exist, what makes you asume it couldn't have been created itself?

 

[metis]

Considering that Hawking's Grand Design was not a book of evolution yet it said mankind was about 200,000 years old but that without anything but their statement as if the reader should accept that. Then the time changed later on to 300,000+ because of a few fossils found elsewhere.

As time has gone on, there's been more human fossils found that predate previous finds. In my anthropology course, I had to regularly update such dates.

Oh, I had a really good date one evening but I'll not get into that.

 

[Polymath257]

There are two ways to account for the time differences between Genesis and the Big Bang/Evolutionary theories. The first is connected to Relativity. If God was in a reference, close to the speed of light; God is light, he would be like the moving twin in the twin paradox. His clock would be going much slower. As such, one God day could be a billion earth years in our reference. The current science models time from the POV of the stationary twin; earth, and assumes the moving twin is aging the same way. The stationary twin will be surpassed when his moving twin returns.

This is a misunderstanding of relativity.

For one, motion is not an absolute concept. if God is moving with respect to us at close to the speed of light, then we are also moving with respect to God at close to the speed of light. So, while one day for God could be billions of years on Earth (and different locations), a day on Earth would also be billions of years for God (under this explanation).

This does not resolve any of the usual issues.

We use the earth day as our reference of convenience, even though there was no earth reference during the first 7-8 billion years of the universe. The earth is not that old. Our earth day is based on the sun, which is also not as old as the universe. This could cause problems and create time illusions.

This is outdated. The terms 'day' and 'year' were *originally* based on the motion of the Earth. But the *modern* view bases them off the concept of a second, which is defined in terms of the rate of vibration of a particular wavelength of light.

This eliminates any (imagined) time illusions.

If you assume there was a primordial atom for the BB; singularity, from which all the mass and gravity of the universe will appear, there would also initially be extreme General Relativity based time dilation in the early universe, so earth reference time would not apply.

The reference from to be used is that of a 'comoving' frame in the expansion. The time would be proper time in that frame, so not subject to dilation.

The odd spacing of days in Genesis, appear to take into account an observational reference that goes from extreme time dilation; longer duration events, to get shorter and shorter time scale events, until one finally reaches the earth reference; rest day 7.

Or it is simply due to an outdated view of how the universe works.

The other alternative way to explain the time difference is to look at science evidence for what happened 6000 years ago. The two critical changes were the invention of written language and the formation of sustainable civilization.

Domesticated cities existed as far back as 10,000 years ago (Jericho is one of the oldest). maybe a bit before that. Written language happened independently in different places at different times. There is no evidence of any evolutionary leap at that time.

These two factors would alter nature and evolution, extending natural selection to include manmade selection; breaking the age old connection of the pre-humans to nature; loss of the tree of life. The change would favor man made knowledge and selection; tree of knowledge of good and evil.

This is wrong. For one, humans were using tools for a long time before either written language or settled civilization. The domestication of animals and plants happened before the first cities. So your timeline is completely off.

At 6000 year ago, a new clock starts, for a new type of human with will and choice, apart from natural instinct. The Julian calendar is 2023 years old and the zero marks a changing of the times.

Um, no. The Julian calendar goes back to, you guessed it, Julius Caesar, who died in 46 BC. The original calendar did NOT start at our 'year 0' (which doesn't exist). It was only later, when the Christians took over the Roman empire that the numbers associated with the years were changed.

This calendar became much more common when the Europeans spread it through their conquests. Nonetheless, Islamic nations is a calendar which starts at a significant event for them: the Hijira.

The 6000 years ago time=0, appears to be connected to a secondary center of human consciousness appearing, called the ego. The ego has will and choice apart from the primary center connected to instinct; inner self, which is guided by genetic based instinct.

You will need to give evidence for these claims.

But the tree of life is seal, meaning access to the inner self is still out of reach to the ego, less the mess up the operating system with knowledge of good and evil. That is not how instinct works. It is 3-D and 4-D or spatially integrated in space and time instead of temporal fad for the ego.

This sounds like work salad to me.

 

[YoursTrue]

As time has gone on, there's been more human fossils found that predate previous finds. In my anthropology course, I had to regularly update such dates.

Oh, I had a really good date one evening but I'll not get into that.

Yeah probably better that you don't.

 

[YoursTrue]

This is a misunderstanding of relativity.

For one, motion is not an absolute concept. if God is moving with respect to us at close to the speed of light, then we are also moving with respect to God at close to the speed of light. So, while one day for God could be billions of years on Earth (and different locations), a day on Earth would also be billions of years for God (under this explanation).

This does not resolve any of the usual issues.

This is outdated. The terms 'day' and 'year' were *originally* based on the motion of the Earth. But the *modern* view bases them off the concept of a second, which is defined in terms of the rate of vibration of a particular wavelength of light.

This eliminates any (imagined) time illusions.

The reference from to be used is that of a 'comoving' frame in the expansion. The time would be proper time in that frame, so not subject to dilation.

Or it is simply due to an outdated view of how the universe works.

Domesticated cities existed as far back as 10,000 years ago (Jericho is one of the oldest). maybe a bit before that. Written language happened independently in different places at different times. There is no evidence of any evolutionary leap at that time.

This is wrong. For one, humans were using tools for a long time before either written language or settled civilization. The domestication of animals and plants happened before the first cities. So your timeline is completely off.

Um, no. The Julian calendar goes back to, you guessed it, Julius Caesar, who died in 46 BC. The original calendar did NOT start at our 'year 0' (which doesn't exist). It was only later, when the Christians took over the Roman empire that the numbers associated with the years were changed.

This calendar became much more common when the Europeans spread it through their conquests. Nonetheless, Islamic nations is a calendar which starts at a significant event for them: the Hijira.

You will need to give evidence for these claims.


This sounds like work salad to me.

Honest...me too. And I think I'd prefer not going into what might be meant.

 

[YoursTrue]

As time has gone on, there's been more human fossils found that predate previous finds. In my anthropology course, I had to regularly update such dates.

First of all, to read dates without any references to exactly how the item was dated and categorized is not too good. In my opinion of course. And from my experience reading textbooks about evolution, that's what happens.

 

[YoursTrue]

Why is that relevant? Humans don't lay eggs. Nor do they make nests from leaves.

Humans have a well developed brain that allows for abstract thought. We are the only species that we can verify such abstract thought for. But other species also have complex brains (less complex than ours, but similar in many ways).

Why do you see that as relevant as to whether humans evolved from animals that had brains that were less complex?

Ok let's say humans have a well developed brain. I do not disagree. But...other beings cannot/do not communicate their perceptions of the universe and/or god(s) to humans. And we cannot think, imo of course, that gorillas, bees, cats (which I particularly like) understand anyone explaining to them about God.

 

[Polymath257]

First of all, to read dates without any references to exactly how the item was dated and categorized is not too good. In my opinion of course. And from my experience reading textbooks about evolution, that's what happens.

Well, you usually won’t get that kind of detail in a popular article or even a lower level textbook. I doubt even graduate level textbooks would have such. The original research article would have it, though.

 

[YoursTrue]

Well, you usually won’t get that kind of detail in a popular article or even a lower level textbook. I don’t even graduate level textbooks would have such. The original research article would have it, though.

I guess.

 

[Polymath257]

First of all, to read dates without any references to exactly how the item was dated and categorized is not too good. In my opinion of course. And from my experience reading textbooks about evolution, that's what happens.

Usually, the dates for the oldest rocks are obtained by Uranium-Lead dating of zircon crystals. Zircons are good for this because they exclude lead when they form (it doesn't fit into the crystal structure) and so any lead in them today is due to radioactive decay. Furthermore, different isotopes of uranium have different half lives and different lead isotopes as decay products. So it is possible to 'check' the results of one isotope with the results of a different one. This gives higher confidence in the results.

Some aspects that can lead to incorrect ages: if the rock that the zircon crystal is in is heated enough, it can partially or totally melt the crystal, resetting the 'clock'. This can lead to an incorrectly *young* age for a rock. Similarly, radiation damage to the zircon can lead to some of the lead leaking out of the rock. This will also give an age that is too *young*.

I looked at a report of some early fossils (from about 3.46-3.47 billion years ago). The dates of the layers above and below the sedimentary rock containing the fossils were obtained by this method, which gave the range I stated.

http://www.its.caltech.edu/~bi1/Bi1__Micro-_to_Macro-Biology/Additional_Readings_files/Microfossils%20of%20the%20Early%20Archean%20Apex%20Chart-%20New%20Evidence%20of%20the%20Antiquity%20of%20Life.pdf

Again, the dating methods used are likely to appear only in the original research articles describing the geology of the area.

if you would like to read more about how dates for very old rocks are obtained by radioactive dating, here are a couple of links. Feel free to ask questions.

Uranium–lead dating - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Rubidium–strontium dating - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Here is another article claiming to find carbon related to life (biogenic carbon) dated to 4.1 billion years ago. It describes in some detail how the dates were obtained.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4664351/pdf/pnas.201517557.pdf

 

[YoursTrue]

Usually, the dates for the oldest rocks are obtained by Uranium-Lead dating of zircon crystals. Zircons are good for this because they exclude lead when they form (it doesn't fit into the crystal structure) and so any lead in them today is due to radioactive decay. Furthermore, different isotopes of uranium have different half lives and different lead isotopes as decay products. So it is possible to 'check' the results of one isotope with the results of a different one. This gives higher confidence in the results.

Some aspects that can lead to incorrect ages: if the rock that the zircon crystal is in is heated enough, it can partially or totally melt the crystal, resetting the 'clock'. This can lead to an incorrectly *young* age for a rock. Similarly, radiation damage to the zircon can lead to some of the lead leaking out of the rock. This will also give an age that is too *young*.

I looked at a report of some early fossils (from about 3.46-3.47 billion years ago). The dates of the layers above and below the sedimentary rock containing the fossils were obtained by this method, which gave the range I stated.

http://www.its.caltech.edu/~bi1/Bi1__Micro-_to_Macro-Biology/Additional_Readings_files/Microfossils%20of%20the%20Early%20Archean%20Apex%20Chart-%20New%20Evidence%20of%20the%20Antiquity%20of%20Life.pdf

Again, the dating methods used are likely to appear only in the original research articles describing the geology of the area.

if you would like to read more about how dates for very old rocks are obtained by radioactive dating, here are a couple of links. Feel free to ask questions.

Uranium–lead dating - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Rubidium–strontium dating - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Here is another article claiming to find carbon related to life (biogenic carbon) dated to 4.1 billion years ago. It describes in some detail how the dates were obtained.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4664351/pdf/pnas.201517557.pdf

Before I look at the articles I am going to ask you if they address two questions: one is the classification of categories of human bones, in other words on what basis they are classified as human, and the second is about soil that may have leached into the bones. It's the human categorization I am most interested in.

 

[YoursTrue]

Usually, the dates for the oldest rocks are obtained by Uranium-Lead dating of zircon crystals. Zircons are good for this because they exclude lead when they form (it doesn't fit into the crystal structure) and so any lead in them today is due to radioactive decay. Furthermore, different isotopes of uranium have different half lives and different lead isotopes as decay products. So it is possible to 'check' the results of one isotope with the results of a different one. This gives higher confidence in the results.

Some aspects that can lead to incorrect ages: if the rock that the zircon crystal is in is heated enough, it can partially or totally melt the crystal, resetting the 'clock'. This can lead to an incorrectly *young* age for a rock. Similarly, radiation damage to the zircon can lead to some of the lead leaking out of the rock. This will also give an age that is too *young*.

I looked at a report of some early fossils (from about 3.46-3.47 billion years ago). The dates of the layers above and below the sedimentary rock containing the fossils were obtained by this method, which gave the range I stated.

http://www.its.caltech.edu/~bi1/Bi1__Micro-_to_Macro-Biology/Additional_Readings_files/Microfossils%20of%20the%20Early%20Archean%20Apex%20Chart-%20New%20Evidence%20of%20the%20Antiquity%20of%20Life.pdf

Again, the dating methods used are likely to appear only in the original research articles describing the geology of the area.

if you would like to read more about how dates for very old rocks are obtained by radioactive dating, here are a couple of links. Feel free to ask questions.

Uranium–lead dating - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Rubidium–strontium dating - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Here is another article claiming to find carbon related to life (biogenic carbon) dated to 4.1 billion years ago. It describes in some detail how the dates were obtained.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4664351/pdf/pnas.201517557.pdf

OK, I'll look the reports over. Thanks. (When I have more time.) I just read a fabulous article about how difficult it is to put things together (electronic and otherwise) when they come unassembled. And especially if the directions are written from a person that may have learned English but is from another country of origin. In other words, it's easy to give up when assembling something because it is so -- complicated.
Today I was driving behind a car and noticed the license plus the car and I thought -- all this was manufactured by people and put together by people. (That's it. Except then I thought about the metals, wondering where they came from.)
So to think that something (like the universe) might have come from nothing without someone producing it is more than amazing. I believe it is impossible. But that's me. Obviously Dr. Hawking thought that's how it could have happened. Something from nothing. (Nope. I do not believe it.)
Back to human timetable.

 

[Polymath257]

Before I look at the articles I am going to ask you if they address two questions: one is the classification of categories of human bones, in other words on what basis they are classified as human, and the second is about soil that may have leached into the bones. It's the human categorization I am most interested in.

No. These are only about the dating methods, not specific situations. The others are specific but only for very early life, not human (which is very late).

 

[YoursTrue]

No. These are only about the dating methods, not specific situations. The others are specific but only for very early life, not human (which is very late).

Ok thanks. I'll look anyway.

 

[YoursTrue]

Usually, the dates for the oldest rocks are obtained by Uranium-Lead dating of zircon crystals. Zircons are good for this because they exclude lead when they form (it doesn't fit into the crystal structure) and so any lead in them today is due to radioactive decay. Furthermore, different isotopes of uranium have different half lives and different lead isotopes as decay products. So it is possible to 'check' the results of one isotope with the results of a different one. This gives higher confidence in the results.

Ok I give up.

 

[YoursTrue]

No. These are only about the dating methods, not specific situations. The others are specific but only for very early life, not human (which is very late).

I want to thank you for your kind and helpful answers. May God bless you.

 

[gnostic]

First of all, to read dates without any references to exactly how the item was dated and categorized is not too good. In my opinion of course. And from my experience reading textbooks about evolution, that's what happens.

Sorry but what makes you think archaeologists don't know how to "dated and categorized" items?

And you say "to read dates without any references"…but how would you know, as you clearly are not a scientist of in the fields of biology, in stratigraphy, or in nuclear science (eg radiometric dating)?

Dating and cataloging objects, would be what professional archaeologists do, when they find and examine the evidence (eg tools, weapons, pottery, figurines, dwelling materials, altars, etc).

And it would be the same for paleontologists, who work with fossils and rocks.

if you are going to make claims about archaeologists and/or paleontologists not doing their works, then you should be presenting examples by citing their works falling short. You haven’t that, all you have been doing are making bogus claims, WITH NO REFERENCES whatsoever.

Show evidence or cite sources that they are not doing their jobs.

like every other creationists , you have been making claims that you cannot support.

 

[gnostic]

The 1st law means that the universe did not come from nothing.
the 2ns law means that it has not always existed.
So, God must have created it.

This is one of the most absurd “logic” in a claim.

Neither your first premise, nor the second premise, lead to your conclusion that ”God did it”.

it isn’t logic at all. Another “God did it” claim, have only exposed more of your superstitions, which are worthless, and your science illiteracy.