Science claims the present is the key to the past.You seem to miss the very important element that the burden of proof lies with he who makes the claim!
Upvote
0
Science claims the present is the key to the past.You seem to miss the very important element that the burden of proof lies with he who makes the claim!
Well if the present really is the key to the past it should be easy to prove it...or you make stuff up.And you absolutely make stuff up
Science claims the present is the key to the past.
Ratios are not evidence for what you try to preach here at all. That is merely evidence that God made stuff in a proportionate way!
You seek to look at the present nature and how we have decay here now, and then try to attribute that as the cause of all the stuff in the former nature.
That tells us that the ratios are in a pattern. That pattern involves parent and daughter isotopes. (now in a daughter parent relationship because they exist here in this present state). If we look back to the time of the flood or thereabouts (which I currently assume was somewhere near the KT layer) we see the pattern of a certain proportion of isotopes.
You want to assign meaning (ages) to these ratios based on looking at current decay half lives.
I didn't make up either the bible, or what science uses as a basis for it's methodology. Having denial issues eh?No, no, no. You make stuff up.
It is not rude at all actually to point out what should be obvious, that science does not really KNOW what the core of the sun is.You are very rude.
Internal consistency in a fantasy only shows that the fantasy was constructed around some reality. There are ratios for example....now if one constructs a new past reality to be wrapped around the belief that the ratios represent ages, because of something that happens in this state ... they will end up with a fantasy that seems good to the deluded mind. Naturally.Why, out of all the proportions that God could have created, did he create the exact proportions that are consistent with a same state past?
Whoopee do. You look at the patterns that exist, and can 'predict' that the patterns will continue. The issue is not the patterns or ratios but what they really mean and how they got there. You want to force your belief system on us.No, I don't. I predict what the ratios should be, and then see if those ratios fit the prediction. It's called science. You should look into it.
The pattern clearly is that parent material increased further into the past. So? The issue is how much of that material was here when our state started? You want to insist our state is all that ever was. Get over it.Out of the trillions of possible combinations of K, Ar, U, Pb, Rb, and Sr, the one combination we get over and over and over is the select few combinations that are consistent with a same state past. How do you explain that?
Patterns of creation cannot be stopped. They can adapt to the current nature though...and then some folks will try to explain all those patterns only by this nature!! This is where you are. Come on up to the rational side.What is stopping those patterns from being different such that K/Ar, U/Pb, and Rb/Sr dating methodologies do not produce the same dates? Why can't we have a K/Ar ratio that is nearly 0, and a U/Pb ratio that is nearly 50/50?
It would be funny that you totally don't get it the first time or two. After years however of impenetrable fogginess on the concept that it was NOT OUR DECAY RATES that changed, it gets ridiculous.If decay rates were different in the past, then doing so would produce different dates for each method. They don't.
Science suggests only one thing and that is the thing it preaches and assumes and believes, that there was the same state in the past as now. Total fairy tale since it can't be proven.Science makes no claims about there being any need to envisage a 'different past'. Why? BECAUSE THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO SUGGEST SUCH A THING!
The bible is clear enough on that. Science doesn't know either way. I simply prevent some over zealous supposed reps from science from pretending that they do know! They don't. I do. How sweet it is.If you have evidence that there WAS a different "past state", then you should SUPPORT YOUR CLAIM WITH THAT EVIDENCE!
Those who model godless alternate creations and past nightmare dreamscapes must show us that what they use to model them is true. What they use is a same state past! They must be exposed as little fraudsters.But you can't can you? Instead, you take the intellectually lazy coward's way out - you pretend that you have no responsibility and that it is the OTHER person's burden to prove you wrong!
Internal consistency in a fantasy only shows that the fantasy was constructed around some reality. There are ratios for example....now if one constructs a new past reality to be wrapped around the belief that the ratios represent ages, because of something that happens in this state ... they will end up with a fantasy that seems good to the deluded mind. Naturally.
Whoopee do. You look at the patterns that exist, and can 'predict' that the patterns will continue. The issue is not the patterns or ratios but what they really mean and how they got there. You want to force your belief system on us.
The pattern clearly is that parent material increased further into the past.
So? The issue is how much of that material was here when our state started? You want to insist our state is all that ever was. Get over it.
Patterns of creation cannot be stopped. They can adapt to the current nature though...and then some folks will try to explain all those patterns only by this nature!! This is where you are. Come on up to the rational side.
It would be funny that you totally don't get it the first time or two. After years however of impenetrable fogginess on the concept that it was NOT OUR DECAY RATES that changed, it gets ridiculous.
What changed would be the former nature, and what we now have...decay at any rate and etc...is a feature of this state!
It is not rude at all actually to point out what should be obvious, that science does not really KNOW what the core of the sun is.
You are not the only poster here. Ansewring someone else's question is not changing the subject. Get over yourself!Changing the subject, are we?
We can directly observe U decaying into lighter elements, ending with Pb. You won't accept it.
Prove there was the forces snd laws in the far past thatcause this!?
Science suggests only one thing and that is the thing it preaches and assumes and believes, that there was the same state in the past as now. Total fairy tale since it can't be proven.
The bible is clear enough on that.
Those who model godless alternate creations and past nightmare dreamscapes must show us that what they use to model them is true. What they use is a same state past! They must be exposed as little fraudsters.
No. That is just the pattern of creation. Your beliefs must be separated with a crowbar if needed so that they are not confused with facts!I already did. The agreement between independent isotope pairs proves that they were the same in the past.
The real age is the issue. In the case of the KT layer for example the real age is probably about 4500 years ago. What is your age..66 million?!That doesn't explain why different isotope pairs produce the same age.
Why didn't He make squirrels that eat whales? It is what it is. The ratios are just that...ratios...not ages. The only way we could get the ages you cite would be IF there was a same state past. You can't use ratios to prove a same state past. You are engaging in totally circular logic.Can you tell us why God couldn't create a rock with a K/Ar ratio near zero and a U/Pb ratio near 50/50?
Totally inaccurate, and absolutely bogus years. Nice try. Now if you want a pat on the back for having imaginary years meet up somewhat cohesively in an imaginary same state past fantasy, well, I suggest you grow up.You still can't explain why my supposed belief system is able to make such accurate and repeatable predictions.
You can't. You could predict a certain amount of isotopes of certain kinds based on the patterns we see. But that is not ages in the way you claim at all. That just means that several thousand years ago there was a certain amount of isotopes already here! You want to claim they GOT here by decay and therefore claim great time. First you must prove a same state past, not go round and round a merry go round.If there wasn't a same state past, then how am I able to make such accurate predictions about the ratio of isotopes in rocks based on a same state past?
Of course not, but it has to do with you assuming that the daughter all got here from the parent because you believe real hard in no creation and a same state past. There were both isotopes before the nature change I assume. They do not represent great age. (the only age would be the decay since the state change- very little)It has nothing to do with the amount of parent material all by itself.
Nope. Young.A zircon with 1 mg of both U and Pb is quite old.
Both are under 6000 years old so I guess it is young.A zircon with 50 mg of U and no Pb is quite young.
Wrong. That is evidence that you ascribe patterns of ratios to decay only..in other words a same state past. There was no 66 million years ago get over it. That is religion. Nothing really meets up and agrees there at all.Why are those patterns exactly what we should see with a same state past? When we find patterns that fit exactly what our model says they should be, that is evidence for that model.
Easy. The fossils were from before the time the lava flowed! So, for example if lava flowed at the time of the rapid continental separation, naturally it would cover some pre flood fossils.Then how do we find very old lava flows that solidified in place above sediments that have fossils in them?
Who says there was any decay or decay rates? Prove it! How would you know? By looking at what are now daughter isotopes and applying you belief in a same state past, and claiming all that daughter material came to exist by present state decay rather than having existed before this state started!If the decay rates were the same, then none of them should have minerals that have high levels of daughter isotope.
Because they now ARE a product of decay! Not before this state started though I assume!Then why do we find daughter isotopes that are the product of decay?