Big Bang and God

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jeff_Yost
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
hugh_miller said:
**DIRECT RADIOCARBON DATING OF DINOSAUR BONES AND OTHER FOSSILS - **same radiocarbon age-range as that for megafauna.

Author: Hugh Miller

Abstract:

The discovery of collagen in a Tyrannosaurus-rex dinosaur femur bone was recently reported in the journal Science. Its geologic location was the Hell Creek Formation in the State of Montana, United States of America. When it was learned in 2005 that Triceratops and Hadrosaur femur bones in excellent condition were discovered by the Glendive (MT) Dinosaur & Fossil Museum this writer asked and received permission to saw them in half and collect samples for RC testing of any bone collagen that might be extracted. Indeed both bones contained collagen and conventional dates of 30,890 +/- 380 for the *Triceratops *and 23,170 +/-170 for the *Hadrosaur *were obtained using the Accelerated Mass Spectrometer. Total organic carbon was then extracted and pretreated to remove potential contaminants and concordant radiocarbon dates were obtained, all of which were similar to radiocarbon dates for megafauna.
Key Words:

Radiocarbon dating, Dinosaur, bone collagen, organic carbon, bone apatite, fossil wood, amber, megafauna
Click to expand...
I’ve seen some validation of this research from pro-evolution sources. The attempts to explain this finding have been contradictory and incoherent.
A 1993 paper published in the journal Nature, that if water was the sole mechanism of decay, DNA could not last longer then 50,000 years. Also, even without water and oxygen, background radiation would erase the information in the DNA.(Lindahl, T., ‘Instability and decay of the primary structure of DNA’, Nature 362(6422):709–715, 1993)
Click to expand...
 
Indeed both bones contained collagen and conventional dates of 30,890 ± 380 radiocarbon years (RC) for the Triceratops and 23,170 ±170 RC years for the Hadrosaur were obtained using the Accelerated Mass Spectrometer (AMS). Total organic carbon and/or dinosaur bone bio-apatite was then extracted and pretreated to remove potential contaminants and concordant radiocarbon dates were obtained, all of which were similar to radiocarbon dates for megafauna. Although the radiocarbon dates are not absolute dates, the fact that dinosaur bones consistently possess the same radiocarbon ages as other megafauna such as mastodons known to have been contemporary with man flatly contradicts the evolutionary time scale according to which dinosaurs became extinct 65 million years ago.
Click to expand...
The fossils contradict evolutionary claims.
 
frodosfoot said:
A theory is not a hypothesis. A hypothesis is a proposal of a possible explanation of a subject or set of observations. A hypothesis is then tested using the scientific method, which is much more than just “…some evidence fitting and testing.” If the hypothesis is proven to be correct, it becomes a theory. A theory is a set of proven principles on a particular subject. The “Theory of Relativity” is not a hypothesis. It is a proven scientific principle.
Click to expand...
I would agree for the most part, but then, what is a Law?

jd
 
:thankyou:Thank you "FuturePriest21 - your post was simple and right to the point. All the theories in the world, from all the wise men in the world make no sense without God as its starting point. It is so simple - Big Bang, Adam & Eve, whatever your belief, as long as you know that it all started with God. :amen:
 
avflf said:
I understand that some dissonant voices in the astronomic field have question the Big Bang theory because of anomalies in the Red Shift and Doppler effect. A new theory - The Electric Universe - seems to contradict much of what is commonly accepted by astronomers and physicists. Has anyone looked into this new approach to the origin of matter?
Click to expand...
Any comments?
 
avflf said:
I understand that some dissonant voices in the astronomic field have question the Big Bang theory because of anomalies in the Red Shift and Doppler effect.
Click to expand...
1966 Hannes Alfven; 1990 H.C. Arp, G. Burbidge, F. Hoyle, J.V.
Narliker, and N.C. Wickramasinghe; on Jean-Claude P.
groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.980824234855.3753B-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu

Bashing Big Bang theory
groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0402061734.3914cb3b%40posting.google.com
1982 Richard Morris, 1992 Antony Flew
groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.990311073639.27782B-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu

The following was part of a discussion about the cosmology of Hoyle, Goeffrey Burbidge, Jayant Narliker, and Eric Lerner, all of whom deny the fact that the big bang happened:

Heeren: “How highly regarded are alternative cosmologies by the
majority of astrophysicists-- steady state or quasi-steady
state theories, plasma cosmology, and so on? Are they dead, or
are there still some people holding on to them?.. So when
those guys go, there aren’t going to be many people around to
support it [probably plasma cosmology].”
Smoot: “Right. Well, Lerner is much younger. So he should be around
for a while. But I certainly don’t think any alternative
cosmologies have any following.”
– 6 May 1994 interview with George Smoot in Fred Heeren’s
Show Me God (1995), 89-90.

Smoot headed up the team that discovered the ripples in the
background radiation in 1992 in what Hawking called “the
discovery of the century, if not all time.”(like this)
avflf said:
A new theory - The Electric Universe - seems to contradict much of what is commonly accepted by astronomers and physicists.
Click to expand...
I haven’t heard of it.
 
reggieM said:
The fossils contradict evolutionary claims.
Click to expand...
No, the radiocarbon analysis yields dates at odds with other dating methods.

This is because radiocarbon dating becomes increasingly inaccurate on things older than 50,000 years or so. It’s the physics of the process. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating#Measurements_and_scales .
As of 2007[update], the limiting age for a 1 milligram sample of graphite is about ten half-lives, approximately 60,000 years[7]. This age is derived from that of the calibration blanks used in an analysis, whose 14C content is assumed to be the result of contamination during processing (as a result of this, some facilities[7] will not report an age greater than 60,000 years for any sample).
Click to expand...
It’s like a pair of glasses – what allows a person with 20/200 vision to see is simply unusable by people with 20/20 vision. Or it’s like trying to use a telescope lens to look at bacteria – it just won’t work.

One radiometric method to use on Mesozoic fossils is uranium-lead dating. They use a wide variety of radiometric dating schemes to establish the ages of things, and if the half-lifes of the isotopes involved permit enough material to be measured accurately, they are all in agreement.

edit: cribbed this quote from here.
To illustrate the problem: imagine that a creationist learns that people generally lose their milk teeth and gain their permanent teeth by around age 10. The creationist then looks in my mouth, observes that I have permanent teeth not milk teeth, and declares me to be ten years old. I point out that I’m over thirty. The creationist declares that I’m a liar. Hilarity ensues.
Click to expand...
 
Touchstone said:
Saying “God created the universe is more plausible than it just coming into existence from nothing or cycling infinitely” is completely unfounded so far as I can see. It only informs us about the speaker’s preferences and desires, rather than anything about reality itself.

-TS
Click to expand...
I would argue that the concept of God creating the universe is way more plausible than the alternative, but not for the reasons you are stating. You are right in saying that the two options are both equally possible in theory (since we really have no way of knowing for sure how matter came into existence), but the reason the God option has the advantage is all of the events that have happened in history that seem to be connected to God: miracles, prophecies, the nearly universal agreement of people that there is a God throughout all of time, and most importantly, JESUS…which leads me to your next comment…
Touchstone said:
Scientifically, plausibility obtains from coherence with physical law. The resurrection, for example, seems implausible based on its contrariness to physical law.

-TS
Click to expand...
You are right in that the resurrection seems implausible when looking at the physical law only. However, when you think about other evidence surrounding it, it seems much more plausible. For example, it seems very clear that Jesus appeared to Paul after he rose from the dead, since Paul used to be a Jew who persecuted Christians and then became one of the most hardcore Christians ever after he claims to have had this vision of Jesus asking him, “Why are you persecuting me?” I can’t think of a really good explanation for why he would have made this up or any other, better, explanation other than Jesus really appearing to him. If you can, let me know.

(p.s. I hope this response didn’t come off as really bitter or angry…I didn’t mean to sound that way, I’m just trying to be frank. Hope you don’t think I am diminishing the value of your arguments or something, because you actually make good points and are quite intelligent. Thank you for at least being honest and thoroughly engaging the questions.)
 
Jeff_Yost said:
Does the Big Bang theory of science indirectly prove that God exists? Since according to the Big Bang theory, the Universe at one time existed as a single point and expanded ever since, this shows the Universe had an origin. Wouldn’t it be more plausible to say that God created it, rather to say the Universe just appeared out of nothing, all on its own? What do you think? Just wondering
Click to expand...
If the existence of the universe is all physical things, then yes, since nothing can come out of nothing.
 
At the very least, the Big Bang is consistent with Genesis in that it porvides a start to the universe. Up until the early 20th century the traditional view of science was that the universe was infinite and eternal. Even Einstein thought so. This was opposed to Genesis. Now it appears that Genesis was right three thousand years before science got it right. Einstein finally admitted the truth that he resisted for a long time, that really grew out of his own theory, and he considered that late admission the greatest blunder of his scientific career. George LeMaitre, a Catholic priest and mathematician, beat him to the punch. That something rarely heralded in the scientific community and never allowed in the mass media. 😉
 
Does the Big Bang trace the origin of the universe back to a singularity?

Right now, the answer is no - the farthest back we can reach theoretically is a point 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 seconds after “time zero” (sorry, I don’t know how to do scientific notation here, so I had to write it out - it’s 10 to the -43). Until we develop a workable theory of quantum gravity, we can’t know what happened “before” that point - whatever we mean by “before”.

In that brief interval of time before the laws of the universe become knowable to us using our current theories, we cannot know what the laws of physics were that governed the stuff that would become our universe. These “laws of physics” include causality, which made no sense (so far as we know) before that point in time. (Causality is a physical principle, and only a metaphysical one by analogy. We see physical matter causing and being caused - but this crude, common-sense notion of causality becomes seriously altered by quantum physics. QED, if I understand it correctly, showed us that the notion of causality as we see it in the physical world is a macroscopic approximation of the sum of an infinite number of probabilities.)

Since physical causality is meaningless for an interval of time immediately after the Big Bang, how can we argue that the Big Bang was “caused” by God?
 
Cecilianus said:
Since physical causality is meaningless for an interval of time immediately after the Big Bang, how can we argue that the Big Bang was “caused” by God?
Click to expand...
Well, since nobody knows for sure what happened before that point, who’s to say God didn’t cause the Big Bang? God can do whatever He wants…
 
per4mer530 said:
Well, since nobody knows for sure what happened before that point, who’s to say God didn’t cause the Big Bang? God can do whatever He wants…
Click to expand...
Because the word “cause” didn’t make any sense back then.
 
Touchstone said:
All of which to say, all things which are logically possibly are casually plausible on this question. The probabilities, though, selections or preferences we might assert, are perfectly inscrutable from our vantage point. Saying “God created the universe is more plausible than it just coming into existence from nothing or cycling infinitely” is completely unfounded so far as I can see. It only informs us about the speaker’s preferences and desires, rather than anything about reality itself.

And that cuts both ways. If I say, “It’s more plausible the universe is an infinite, cyclical universe without cause or beginning” I’m committing the same error, and really just speaking about myself rather than any kind of insight into fundamental reality.

-TS
Click to expand...
Well said 🙂

What people “believe” or say is plausible(about anything really that cannot currently be verified) speaks of the individual making the claim , more so than it ever will about reality.
 
Jeff_Yost said:
Does the Big Bang theory of science indirectly prove that God exists? Since according to the Big Bang theory, the Universe at one time existed as a single point and expanded ever since, this shows the Universe had an origin. Wouldn’t it be more plausible to say that God created it, rather to say the Universe just appeared out of nothing, all on its own? What do you think? Just wondering
Click to expand...
I think the problem with “plausability” has already been answered. Personally I don’t think there’s anything plausible about a “god” creating the universe anymore than it spontaneously errupting.

I do think that investigating these matters is a good idea, since we learn so much about nature and ourselves in the process. Just my opnion of course.

We could(IE the universe) simply be another civilizations petri Dish. The possibilities are no even limited by human imagination.

I tend to sit with what I think is the most honest position I can hold(regardless of plausibility) and say that we do not know at this point, and we may never know.

Cheers
 
Dameedna said:
I tend to sit with what I think is the most honest position I can hold(regardless of plausibility) and say that we do not know at this point, and we may never know.

Cheers
Click to expand...
Perhaps this is pleasing for you?

In the end, its about that which is the most reasonable thing to believe, in response to our existential situation as people. Its not neccesarilly about what we can know.
 
Ooooh, deja vu! I think I’ll quote myself:
learningtheway said:
Like convert said, we may never know while here in the physical, but I personally believe the big bang was just the awesome power of God creating the universe.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top