context, context, context.
that would seem to be disproven in my previous posts
funny, but thats not what the definition says, it says the actual purpose of science is to determine the truth of facts
Except for near black holes, where sometimes one of the virtual sillitron/antisillitron pair goes into the black hole and the other escapes into free space. Similar to Hawking rediation, but sillier.
Even though this thread has closed, here my response, not to leave you confused about the Buddhist belief I shared.
I have just discussed everything I know about this topic. I don’t know if it helps to write 500 pages trying to explain the same thing. I’m not good at that sort of thing.
In that case conversion to Buddhism, Hinduism and Jainism and even perhaps Sikhism (all religions of Indian origin believe in reincarnation) is no option for you.
Hello SJ:
Agreed. My bad for not being precise about the 75 trillion years minus ten billion years. Since the next Big Bang is around the corner ten billion years from now, when I referred to 75 trillion years from now, with the products of our Big Bang a Big Cold Dark Nothing, I couldn’t possibly have been referring to the earth we now live in. And if we are living on some kind of earth to discuss this topic 75 trillion years from now, it would of necessity have to be a new one. At least that is what I thought, even if I didn’t put it in so many words.
Yep. Ask the Dalai Lama if you don’t believe me about what they believe. Buddhists find the whole idea of a Creator God funny. But they don’t find it funny to believe in cyclical universes. To each one his/her idea of funny.
has anyone addressed the fallacy in Carbon dating prior to a few thousand years ago if Genesis is correct about the vapor that watered the earth prior to the flood?
Welcome to CAF, firmfoundation . . . glad you are here.
What makes you think that according the cyclic universe hypotheses you referenced the next Big Bang is 10 billion years from now? It’s trillions of years away according to that hypothesis. Perhaps you misunderstood something you read.
They have to satisfy projections from current conditions using understood physics.
A friend of mine who was a PhD at Stanford Research Institue wrote a book detailing (and I may get a little of it mixed up) that If indeed the earth was watered by a vapor before Noah’s flood (It had never rained prior to that) then the earth would have been protected from the ultraviolet rays that bombard it now from the sun. Those rays are what create the isotope they measure in Carbon dating. So if they found something that was say 100 years older than the flood (6000 years old?) It would appear to be maybe millions of years old, because it would contain very little of the Carbon 14. Do you follow?
