The Big Bang Theory is dead.

[YoursTrue]

Well, there are many different dating methods. For example, the details of fission tracking dating will be different than the details of C14 dating. Also, different labs will have slightly different procedures, but will give results based on the processes they use.

All are limited to some extent by our technology and the cost. In general, more precision is more costly.

So, for example, it is impossible to count each atom of C14 in a macroscopic sample individually. That is simply beyond what we can do at this point. But we *can* do a chemical analysis and find that the amount of C14 in our atmosphere today is about one C14 atom for every 754 billion carbon atoms. For older samples, the number of C14 atoms left is even smaller. So we are looking at levels of parts per trillion or less.

In fact, for each 5700 years, the amount of C14 is cut in half. After 11400 years, it is cut into a quarter of the original, etc. The sheer difficulty of determining the number of C14 atoms is part of why dates over 50,000 years are unreliable.

The fact that the number of C14 atoms is so small in samples to be dated is one reason why contamination is so important to avoid: even a small amount of modern C14 can overwhelm the amount in a sample, giving a falsely young result.

Different labs will use slightly different procedures: use different cleaning techniques, different extraction techniques, etc. Each lab will then give results based on the methods they used along with error bars: how much uncertainty is there in the results. Recall that ALL measurements have some sort of error bars along with them.

Usually, a sample is sent to a lab. The collection of the sample is the responsibility of the researcher. After the sample is sent to the lab, it is the responsibility of the lab. The research papers will usually say which methods were used in sampling and often say which lab was used to get the results. You can then go to the lab to learn their specific procedures.

The reason there is not much discussion *today* is that this was all debated out long ago. So, for C14 dating, most of the work to learn the necessary processes was done in the 1950's. The discovery that concentrations in the atmosphere can vary was a bit later, with the standard calibration results done by the mid 1980's.

Frankly, I find is somewhat disingenuous for you to ask for details like this given that you aren't going to put the time and energy into learning what needs to be learned in order to understand them. If you consider the *basics* that all things are made of atoms and that radioactivity is a change in the nucleus,

(This post is longer than I like, but anyway, here goes)

I appreciate your answer--BUT--it's not only the dating method I question. Because lots of stuff gets into whatever is being dated. Like I don't think one can really know what happened to that item that's being tested for age. Silt, flooding, rock erosion, corruption of the item itself and more. I recently read that the charcoal was analyzed insofar as figuring how old the tools or writings found in a cave. Can't remember where I read that, but it makes sense although I can't see how an accurate timetable for the humans involved would be drawn from that.

I understand that a 1/2 life estimate has to be given for one dating process, and that is, I hate to say, somewhat reliant on guesswork. I have a lot of things to do but I will try again to go over the dating processes.

I would like to say that I believe the earth is very, very old, not having been created in a 24-hour day period(s).
I do not consider humans animals, and the Bible says animals were created before humans. I know there's a belief that humans are apes. I do not believe that is categorically correct, but that is because my idea about humans and apes really comes from the Bible's description.
So that is my belief about the age of mankind because I believe the Bible's narrative although I cannot explain all of it, that's for sure.
Human dating is my main concern. I know scientists may assert that they found bones or tools of humans of some sort (however they name them--hominids, Neanderthals, Denisovans, saying who knows how old as if they were humans types or precursors of "homo sapiens." There's still a lot of connection with the Biblical narrative as to where Adam and Eve were created that coincides with discoveries of what is considered human remains but since I don't believe humans in the form of what we are now were alive 200-300,000 years ago, I won't go any further with this now. And because I have so many questions about the dating process and categorizing I guess you're right in that it would be a daunting endeavor to look into the statements made by scientists. From the reports I've seen, few cite the dating process used and what they based their dates on.
Again, I do thank you very much for your kindness in your response and I'll stop here, I don't like long posts anyway. So thank you. I'll try to get back to this.

 

[Subduction Zone]

(This post is longer than I like, but anyway, here goes)

I appreciate your answer--BUT--it's not only the dating method I question. Because lots of stuff gets into whatever is being dated. Like I don't think one can really know what happened to that item that's being tested for age. Silt, flooding, rock erosion, corruption of the item itself and more. I recently read that the charcoal was analyzed insofar as figuring how old the tools or writings found in a cave. Can't remember where I read that, but it makes sense although I can't see how an accurate timetable for the humans involved would be drawn from that.

I understand that a 1/2 life estimate has to be given for one dating process, and that is, I hate to say, somewhat reliant on guesswork. I have a lot of things to do but I will try again to go over the dating processes.

I would like to say that I believe the earth is very, very old, not having been created in a 24-hour day period(s).
I do not consider humans animals, and the Bible says animals were created before humans. I know there's a belief that humans are apes. I do not believe that is categorically correct, but that is because my idea about humans and apes really comes from the Bible's description.
So that is my belief about the age of mankind because I believe the Bible's narrative although I cannot explain all of it, that's for sure.
Human dating is my main concern. I know scientists may assert that they found bones or tools of humans of some sort (however they name them--hominids, Neanderthals, Denisovans, saying who knows how old as if they were humans types or precursors of "homo sapiens." There's still a lot of connection with the Biblical narrative as to where Adam and Eve were created that coincides with discoveries of what is considered human remains but since I don't believe humans in the form of what we are now were alive 200-300,000 years ago, I won't go any further with this now. And because I have so many questions about the dating process and categorizing I guess you're right in that it would be a daunting endeavor to look into the statements made by scientists. From the reports I've seen, few cite the dating process used and what they based their dates on.
Again, I do thank you very much for your kindness in your response and I'll stop here, I don't like long posts anyway. So thank you. I'll try to get back to this.

You really need to stop using the false claim of "guesswork". It would be guesswork for you. It would not be so for others. The half life of a radioactive element can be directly measured. No guessing involved.

 

[Polymath257]

I understand that a 1/2 life estimate has to be given for one dating process, and that is, I hate to say, somewhat reliant on guesswork. I have a lot of things to do but I will try again to go over the dating processes.

This is false. All that is required is to measure the rate of radioactivity today. That will give the half life by a fairly simple calculation.

Specifically, if you have A atoms and B decay in a short (relative to the half life) time period T, the half life is (.693*A*T)/B.

The point is that we understand radioactivity pretty well, both on a level and on a theoretical one. For situations with very short half lives, we can do detailed measurements on short time periods to verify our understanding.

 

[gnostic]

The Big Bang theory is a scientific model explaining the origin and development of the universe. According to this theory, the universe originated from a singularity, an extremely hot and dense state, approximately 13.8 billion years ago, and has been expanding ever since. In Islam, there is no inherent conflict between the Big Bang theory and religious beliefs.
Many Muslim scholars find harmony between the scientific understanding of the universe's origins and the Quranic concept of Allah as the Creator. The Quran describes Allah as the one who "created the heavens and the earth in six days" (Quran 7:54), allowing for an interpretation that accommodates the evolutionary process. The latest technology and car models exemplify human progress and innovation, showcasing the compatibility of scientific advancements with religious principles, where the pursuit of knowledge is encouraged as a means of understanding Allah's creation.

The problem with mixing science and religion (more specifically people’s interpretations of their respective scriptures, eg interpretations of the Bible, Torah or the Qur’an) is that exposed the inaccuracies and flaws found in these scriptures, as well as the lack of details that are normally required in logical models of scientific theories.

You are putting your Qur’an under the spotlight - under scrutiny, just as Christian creationists do with their Bible (in particular with Genesis Creation and Flood).

The Qur’an is rather too short and worse, vague in their descriptions of nature, that it is useless…but then you have some Muslims trying to take advantage of the vagueness of passages, and tried to fit the passages into modern scientific theories.

More often not, it make the Muslims look foolish and desperate using the Qur’an in this way.

How is Qur’an 7:54 anymore insightful than Genesis 1:3:5 (creation of night and day) & 1:14-18 (creation of sun, moon & stars)?

it is not. There are no more details here than when I read Enūma Eliš (the Babylonian creation myth), or when I read Egyptian creation myth of Ra, or Hesiod’s Theogony.

If you read the general framework of the latest model of the Big Bang theory (ΛCDM model, Lambda Cold Dark Matter model, late 1990s), then you should know that the passage you cited (7:54) doesn’t describe anything relating to the Big Bang theory.

For one. The passage focused only on the description of the Earth’s day and night, plus only what can be seen in the sky - the Sun, Moon, and only about the stars that can be seen in the night sky in the early 7th century CE (Muhammad’s time). Nothing in the Qur’an described the Universe, what beyond the eyesight of humans can be observed at the time of Muhammad.

Without powerful telescopes, ancient and medieval people can only observe a very tiny fraction of the universe. What 7:54 doesn’t say describing the rest of the Universe.

 

[Polymath257]

(This post is longer than I like, but anyway, here goes)

I appreciate your answer--BUT--it's not only the dating method I question. Because lots of stuff gets into whatever is being dated. Like I don't think one can really know what happened to that item that's being tested for age. Silt, flooding, rock erosion, corruption of the item itself and more. I recently read that the charcoal was analyzed insofar as figuring how old the tools or writings found in a cave. Can't remember where I read that, but it makes sense although I can't see how an accurate timetable for the humans involved would be drawn from that.

OK, so the point is that 'silt, flooding, rock erosion, and ?corruption?' will not affect the radioactive decay. The decay is a process in the nucleus of the atoms and the events listed simply don't affect the nucleus.

I understand that a 1/2 life estimate has to be given for one dating process, and that is, I hate to say, somewhat reliant on guesswork. I have a lot of things to do but I will try again to go over the dating processes.

Dealt with in another post.

I would like to say that I believe the earth is very, very old, not having been created in a 24-hour day period(s).
I do not consider humans animals, and the Bible says animals were created before humans. I know there's a belief that humans are apes. I do not believe that is categorically correct, but that is because my idea about humans and apes really comes from the Bible's description.
So that is my belief about the age of mankind because I believe the Bible's narrative although I cannot explain all of it, that's for sure.
Human dating is my main concern. I know scientists may assert that they found bones or tools of humans of some sort (however they name them--hominids, Neanderthals, Denisovans, saying who knows how old as if they were humans types or precursors of "homo sapiens." There's still a lot of connection with the Biblical narrative as to where Adam and Eve were created that coincides with discoveries of what is considered human remains but since I don't believe humans in the form of what we are now were alive 200-300,000 years ago, I won't go any further with this now. And because I have so many questions about the dating process and categorizing I guess you're right in that it would be a daunting endeavor to look into the statements made by scientists. From the reports I've seen, few cite the dating process used and what they based their dates on.
Again, I do thank you very much for your kindness in your response and I'll stop here, I don't like long posts anyway. So thank you. I'll try to get back to this.

And this shows a basic problem (in my mind): you *start* with your conclusion and anything that goes against that conclusion is deemed to be unacceptable. You never allow for the possibility that your conclusion may be incorrect. You never allow evidence to impact that conclusion. This is the way of faith.

In my mind, though, wisdom requires that you *always* allow for the possibility that you can be wrong. It requires that the *evidence* be above any per-conceived ideas you might have. it requires that you always try to figure out where you might be *wrong* and *try* to find ways to improve your viewpoint. This is the way of skepticism.

And this is exactly what the scientific method does: it *starts* with the evidence. It tries to explain what is seen and *then* tries to figure out how it might be wrong. It takes *every* idea that pushes it until it breaks. And, when/if it *does* break, it modifies or discards the idea that failed. It does NOT start with the conclusion: it looks at the evidence and figures out the best explanation for that evidence and then looks for *more* evidence to see if the idea still works. it *always* allows for the possibility that it may be wrong. But, as an idea is tested, and then retested, and then re-retested, and manages to pass every attempt to prove it *wrong*, then we can have *some* confidence in the result.

So, we have fossils of 'modern humans' from before 100,000 years ago. That you don't 'believe' that 'humans in the form we are now' existed that long ago is completely irrelevant given the *evidence* that they did.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

OK, so the point is that 'silt, flooding, rock erosion, and ?corruption?' will not affect the radioactive decay. The decay is a process in the nucleus of the atoms and the events listed simply don't affect the nucleus.

Dealt with in another post.


And this shows a basic problem (in my mind): you *start* with your conclusion and anything that goes against that conclusion is deemed to be unacceptable. You never allow for the possibility that your conclusion may be incorrect. You never allow evidence to impact that conclusion. This is the way of faith.

In my mind, though, wisdom requires that you *always* allow for the possibility that you can be wrong. It requires that the *evidence* be above any per-conceived ideas you might have. it requires that you always try to figure out where you might be *wrong* and *try* to find ways to improve your viewpoint. This is the way of skepticism.

And this is exactly what the scientific method does: it *starts* with the evidence. It tries to explain what is seen and *then* tries to figure out how it might be wrong. It takes *every* idea that pushes it until it breaks. And, when/if it *does* break, it modifies or discards the idea that failed. It does NOT start with the conclusion: it looks at the evidence and figures out the best explanation for that evidence and then looks for *more* evidence to see if the idea still works. it *always* allows for the possibility that it may be wrong. But, as an idea is tested, and then retested, and then re-retested, and manages to pass every attempt to prove it *wrong*, then we can have *some* confidence in the result.

So, we have fossils of 'modern humans' from before 100,000 years ago. That you don't 'believe' that 'humans in the form we are now' existed that long ago is completely irrelevant given the *evidence* that they did.

Please provide the error range in the 100,000 years date and explain the error range derivation.
That is not science,

 

[Subduction Zone]

Please provide the error range in the 100,000 years date and explain the error range derivation.
That is not science,

When you refuse to learn you lose the ability to demand answers.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

When you refuse to learn you lose the ability to demand answers.

I demand nothing.
I ask questions that no one who believes in evolution and billions of years can answer.
And that also proves evolution and billions of years are false.

 

[Eddi]

I demand nothing.
I ask questions that no one who believes in evolution and billions of years can answer.
And that also proves evolution and billions of years are false.

You don't ask questions

They are not questions as they are not requests to help you understand you have zero interest in learning anything you prize ignorance as a high virtue

 

[Polymath257]

Please provide the error range in the 100,000 years date and explain the error range derivation.
That is not science,

Here is a research article going over Electron Spin Resonance dating, a discussion of error bars, and specifics of particular fossils.

http://in-africa.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Grun-R-Stringer-1991-Archaeometry-ESR_AMH-origins.pdf

Actually, of course, dealing with the fact that NO measurement is perfectly accurate, so error bars are inevitable is an essential part of how science is done.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Here is a research article going over Electron Spin Resonance dating, a discussion of error bars, and specifics of particular fossils.

http://in-africa.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Grun-R-Stringer-1991-Archaeometry-ESR_AMH-origins.pdf

Actually, of course, dealing with the fact that NO measurement is perfectly accurate, so error bars are inevitable is an essential part of how science is done.

The article was interesting .
But there is an assumption that things before the worldwide flood and after the worldwide flood are the same.
God reduced the lifespan of mankind from some living over 900 years to all 120 or less after the flood.
How that happened I have no idea.
So it may be why the electron spin resonance dating would be wrong for things older than say 4500 years.

 

[Polymath257]

The article was interesting .
But there is an assumption that things before the worldwide flood and after the worldwide flood are the same.
God reduced the lifespan of mankind from some living over 900 years to all 120 or less after the flood.
How that happened I have no idea.
So it may be why the electron spin resonance dating would be wrong for things older than say 4500 years.

Sorry, but that is simply a version of Last Thursdayism. Maybe things were different last week. Maybe things were different last year. Maybe thingsa were different last century.

You *start* with the assumption that there was a worldwide flood, even though there is absolutely no evidence of such (as opposed to abundant evidence of local floods).

Yes, unless there is good *evidence* that things were different *in terms of basic physical laws*, we do assume they were the same.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Sorry, but that is simply a version of Last Thursdayism. Maybe things were different last week. Maybe things were different last year. Maybe thingsa were different last century.

You *start* with the assumption that there was a worldwide flood, even though there is absolutely no evidence of such (as opposed to abundant evidence of local floods).

Yes, unless there is good *evidence* that things were different *in terms of basic physical laws*, we do assume they were the same.

I have already proved that there was a worldwide flood.
You have the no God assumption.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have already proved that there was a worldwide flood.
You have the no God assumption.

Why do you post such inanity? You have not even come close to doing that. You do not even know what counts as evidence and to date you are too afraid to learn

 

[Polymath257]

Sorry, but that is simply a version of Last Thursdayism. Maybe things were different last week. Maybe things were different last year. Maybe thingsa were different last century.

You *start* with the assumption that there was a worldwide flood, even though there is absolutely no evidence of such (as opposed to abundant evidence of local floods).

Yes, unless there is good *evidence* that things were different *in terms of basic physical laws*, we do assume they were the same.

I have already proved that there was a worldwide flood.

No, you have not. In fact, the actual evidence shows no such flood ever occurred.

You have the no God assumption.

Correct. I do not assume that there is a God. And, by looking at the evidence, I have concluded that most versions of the concept of God do not actually exist. Of course, if you identity God with the universe or the laws of nature, then God exists, but that seems like misusing the word 'God' to me.

 

[gnostic]

I have already proved that there was a worldwide flood.
You have the no God assumption.

you have proven anything.

all you are doing, have been making unsubstantiated claims about something that have never happened.

there were never any ”world-wide flood” at any time between 4500 and 4000 years ago (2500 & 2000 bce). No such evidence support such global flood in human history.

if it did happen, then you would evidence in every continents that point to a single point in time. No such evidence existed.

plus, in Genesis 10, it say that Egypt and some cities in Shinar (eg Uruk or Erech in Babylonia) and Assyria (Assur and Nineveh) don’t exist until after the so-called Noah’s Flood.

Except that the first pyramid in Egypt, the Step Pyramid of Djoser (3rd dynasty king) in Saqqara, and the Great Pyramid (Khufu’s pyramid, 4th dynasty) in Giza, were built a couple of centuries before your so-called “world-wide flood”. And Erech (Uruk), Nineveh and Assur respectively around 5000 BCE, 6000 BCE & 2600 BCE.

Uruk for instance, underwent urban and cultural growth & development throughout the 4th millennium BCE, as the largest city in the world by 3500 BCE. Many stone structures were built in the Eanna District and in the Anu District (called Kullabu by the Sumerians). An early ziggurat was built in the Anu District, completed by 3500 BCE.

But the oldest layer of Uruk, showed that Neolithic village existed underneath the late Neolithic city, so its earliest foundation have been dated to 5000 BCE, or 7000 years ago. That put a big dent into Genesis 10’s claim about Erech/Uruk being built by the nonexistent mythical Nimrod.

Plus, archaeologically the foundation of Nineveh is 6000 BCE, while Calah (or Kalhu in Assyrian, today, it’s called Nimrud) have been dated to c 1250 BCE, buil during the reign of Shalmaneser I (c 1273 - 1244 BCE). So how could Nimrod possibly built both Nineveh & Calah (Kalhu) when their respective foundations put it over 4700 years apart?

plus, unlike Israel & Judah, there are large numbers of contemporary records from the mid-3rd millennium BCE kings in Sumer and the Akkadian empire, and in the 2nd millennium BCE in Babylonia & in Assyria - there are no such king by the name of Nimrod. Nimrod is a Jewish invention.

not only there were no global flood, Nimrod never existed, and it is very clear to me that whoever composed Genesis have no real knowledge of the history of Egypt and history of Mesopotamia.

For instance, the stories of Abraham and Joseph cannot name either Egyptian kings that ruled at that time. Hence genesis contains no real knowledge about Egypt at those times. Even with Moses being adopted, the exodus gives no names to the princess or to either Egyptian kings.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I have already proved that there was a worldwide flood.

No, you haven't.

I find it strange that you absolutely dominate this forum, flooding it with posts that don't understand basic science or the rules of logic. You continually congratulate yourself, but the truth is, you aren't convincing anyone, because you not only aren't providing evidence, you don't seem to even know what the standard is for evidence.

 

[gnostic]

I find it strange that you absolutely dominate this forum, flooding it with posts that don't understand basic science or the rules of logic.

it is even worse in the Evolution vs Creation forum…they are filled with his threads.

 

[Eddi]

you aren't convincing anyone

Yes, this is remarkably true and very evident but obviously they are oblivious to this

 

[SavedByTheLord]

No, you haven't.

I find it strange that you absolutely dominate this forum, flooding it with posts that don't understand basic science or the rules of logic. You continually congratulate yourself, but the truth is, you aren't convincing anyone, because you not only aren't providing evidence, you don't seem to even know what the standard is for evidence.

I do not dominate this forum and I do understand science and logic very well.
I just post the truth .