24 Jul 11
Originally posted by JS357True, but who said that a material universe needs to exist in order for life to exist as well? There could be other deminsions. One such demension could be spiritual in nature, for example.
Of course it is tautological that the big bang had to be just right (for the whole universe to exist) or the whole universe would not exist.
But if you mean the BB had to be just right for life to exist or the whole universe would not exist, I think that proposition needs examination. For example a universe conceivably might exist between a BB and a big cr ...[text shortened]... is said to cease to exist at the big crunch or other ultimate fate of that particular universe.
The greatest mysteries, if you ask me, are how did the BB come about and how did life arise? What say you?
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
24 Jul 11
Originally posted by whodeyWell, I didn't say that. I don't know what material would mean.
True, but who said that a material universe needs to exist in order for life to exist as well? There could be other deminsions. One such demension could be spiritual in nature, for example.
The greatest mysteries, if you ask me, are how did the BB come about and how did life arise? What say you?
WRT the BB and life, and mystery, what does mystery mean?
24 Jul 11
Originally posted by JS357When I say material I mean a universe made of matter.
Well, I didn't say that. I don't know what material would mean.
WRT the BB and life, and mystery, what does mystery mean?
What does WRT mean?
I just wanted your take on how the BB came about and how life came about. What say you?
24 Jul 11
Originally posted by RJHindsI'm speechless...
A "Big Bang" could not have created the universe. There was sound
involved in the creation of the universe alright; but it was the sound from
the voice of God calling it into existence. It was controlled sound from
the voice of God that created an orderly universe that had a place in it
to support life. God spoke everything He created into existence.
24 Jul 11
Originally posted by sonhouseThat is probably because he agrees with my reply and is waiting for
To Josephw: Do you intend to read my post refuting your statement about the speculative nature of carbon dating? I have seen no reply yet.
you to re-read his post and apologize for misstating him. You think?
24 Jul 11
2 edits
Originally posted by RJHindsMis-stating the idea that carbon dating is speculation? I am suppose to apologize for questioning that or producing refuting evidence? I doubt he even read my reply or looked at the links I provided. Did you? Did you read my post and then look at the actual links? Do you for instance, believe there are such such things as isotopes, that is to say, various versions of elements with different number of neutrons making one heavier than another?
That is probably because he agrees with my reply and is waiting for
you to re-read his post and apologize for misstating him. You think?
24 Jul 11
1 edit
Originally posted by sonhouseI read your reference and here is what it said:
Mis-stating the idea that carbon dating is speculation? I am suppose to apologize for questioning that or producing refuting evidence? I doubt he even read my reply or looked at the links I provided. Did you? Did you read my post and then look at the actual links? Do you for instance, believe there are such such things as isotopes, that is to say, various versions of elements with different number of neutrons making one heavier than another?
"There is little question among those familiar with the topic that the biggest mistake ever made in carbon 14 dating was the Shroud of Turin.
Sadly, this mistake will be understood by some as meaning that carbon 14 dating is prone to error, subject to unexplainable anomalies or plagued by problems of contamination; none of which is true.
Let's be perfectly clear: carbon 14 dating is an excellent and very accurate scientific method for determining the age of many things as old as 50,000 years.
The failure to obtain a reliable date for the Shroud of Turin is not about flaws in carbon 14 dating methods or contamination. It is not about the problems, so often discussed in the media, of mysterious biological polymers growing on the cloth's fibers or new carbon introduced into the Shroud's cloth by a scorching fire in 1532.
It is not about the sloppy work by three very prestigious carbon 14 dating laboratories. And it is not, as some suggest, about conspiracies dreamed up to prove religious or anti-religious arguments (the Shroud is a religious object for some).
It is about a stupid mistake."
So they try to justify the carbon 14 dating error on the Shroud of Turin as
a stupid mistake. Okay, I get it. Carbon 14 dating is a good dating method
until it is discovered to be a mistake.
24 Jul 11
3 edits
Originally posted by RJHindsIn other words, any time a scientist makes a mistake, the entire science based on that work is suspect?
I read your reference and here is what it said:
"There is little question among those familiar with the topic that the biggest mistake ever made in carbon 14 dating was the Shroud of Turin.
Sadly, this mistake will be understood by some as meaning that carbon 14 dating is prone to error, subject to unexplainable anomalies or plagued by problems of con get it. Carbon 14 dating is a good dating method
until it is discovered to be a mistake.
Does that mean that Einstein's worse mistake, as he called it, the cosmological constant, meant that the theory of relativity is now worthless?
You take whatever evidence you find, jumped on that part of it like a dog on a bone. So to you the mistakes made completely invalidates the entire science of carbon dating. That mistake, and the way it was found, btw, is what science is all about, but instead of trying to get to the truth of what the true age of the shroud is, you invalidate the entire science of carbon dating. This was not about invalidating carbon dating, it was about advancing knowledge. Why do you believe they made a mistake anyway? Did you follow up on it to learn anything new about that subject. My guess is no, you are not even slightly interested to know the outcome of that mistake, only that in your biased mind, it invalidates the entire science of carbon dating, never mind the literally thousands of datings that have been verified by many other methods including tree ring data. Of course, tree ring data is also invalid also, right? If a carbon dating of an object inside a tree matches the number of tree rings, say when a prehistoric man 10,000 years ago leaves a bone spear in a tree and it grows around it and the tree rings agree with the carbon dating of them match, I guess that would invalidate the idea that trees grow new rings once a year, right?
What about the recent Casey Anthony trial? There were really big mistakes made by the prosecutors, does that now invalidate the idea she was not involved in the death of her little girl?
Getting back to isotopes, are isotopes not in your belief system? Do you think they don't exist? Do you think I was lying about my work with ion implanters? Did you read my whole post? Do you think one isotope of say Boron, boron 10, is lighter than Boron 11?
My guess is you never studied science past the 8th or 9th grade and don't even know a magnetic field bends the flight path of a moving ion, or indeed what an ion actually is or what an isotope is or what that means to carbon dating.