Radioactive dating

[Loudmouth]

That which you fail to post.

Define evidence.

 

[Loudmouth]

There is no evidence for a same state past.

No what? Please explain what this evidence is.

 

[dad]

I don't have a Star Destroyer, so it's what you asked for. If you want something else you'll have to define the word "evidence" as you've been asked to do several times now.

The context is evidence for the state of the past, particularly that it was the same as science claims. There IS no evidence for that so nothing to define. We are just here apparently to hear Loudmouth ballyho about what it might look like if it existed!

 

[dad]

No what? Please explain what this evidence is.

A quick google search found this

ev·i·dence
(ĕv′ĭ-dəns)
n.
1.
a. A thing or set of things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment:
b. Something indicative; an indication or set of indications:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/evidence

You have no thing you have fables. Hoo ha.

 

[Loudmouth]

A quick google search found this

ev·i·dence
(ĕv′ĭ-dəns)
n.
1.
a. A thing or set of things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment:
b. Something indicative; an indication or set of indications:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/evidence

You have no thing you have fables. Hoo ha.

You have nothing but childish insults. Hoo ha.

So what ratios should we see in rocks if there was a same state past? What should the evidence be?

 

[dad]

You have nothing but childish insults. Hoo ha.

So what ratios should we see in rocks if there was a same state past? What should the evidence be?

The question is not what to expect if an unproven fantasy past existed as you claim. The question is can you begin to prove your foolish clsims. The answer is clearly no. You hwve resoundingly failed.

 

[Loudmouth]

The question is not what to expect if an unproven fantasy past existed as you claim.

Then how do you determine that there wasn't a same state past if you can't even determine what a same state past would look like?

The question is can you begin to prove your foolish clsims.

The beginning of that proof is to determine what evidence a same state past would produce. I will ask again. What evidence would a same state past produce?

 

[dad]

Then how do you determine that there wasn't a same state past if you can't even determine what a same state past would look like?



The beginning of that proof is to determine what evidence a same state past would produce. I will ask again. What evidence would a same state past produce?

Same as a different state past, since the same materials are involved, so that can't help you. Nowthen, what method can you use to determine whether or not the radioactive daughter isotopes we now see were here or not when this state started?! You better have an answer.

 

[Loudmouth]

Same as a different state past, since the same materials are involved, so that can't help you.

Why would a different state past produce the same ratios as a same state past?

 

[dad]

Why would a different state past produce the same ratios as a same state past?

How would you know whether or not the daughter and parent isotopes were here when our nature started? How would you know what crestion started off with in the wayof ratios? Face it you are 8gnorant of these things and so your uninformed opinion of the state of the past is irrelevant. You be hooped man.

 

[Loudmouth]

How would you know whether or not the daughter and parent isotopes were here when our nature started? How would you know what crestion started off with in the wayof ratios?

A different state past would not produce the same patterns of isotopes as a same state past. That is how. If you see patterns of isotopes that match a same state past, then you have evidence that those ratios were produced by a same state past. That's how evidence works.

 

[dad]

A different state past would not produce the same patterns of isotopes as a same state past. That is how. If you see patterns of isotopes that match a same state past, then you have evidence that those ratios were produced by a same state past. That's how evidence works.

Now you are telling us what a different unknown state in the past would produce!!!!!? We see you specialize in raw fiction!

 

[Loudmouth]

Now you are telling us what a different unknown state in the past would produce!!!!!?

If it was a different state, then it would be different, would it not? It wouldn't produce the same ratios of isotopes, by definition.

 

[dad]

If it was a different state, then it would be different, would it not? It wouldn't produce the same ratios of isotopes, by definition.

You're way ahead of yourself in your fantasy. Before we can determine how much stuff did anything in any state we must know how much if any of the stuff was here! You do not. You cannot even reach the starting gate!!

 

[Loudmouth]

You're way ahead of yourself in your fantasy. Before we can determine how much stuff did anything in any state we must know how much if any of the stuff was here! You do not.

If it wasn't put there by a same state past, then it shouldn't produce patterns of ratios that match a same state past, correct?

 

[dad]

If it wasn't put there by a same state past, then it shouldn't produce patterns of ratios that match a same state past, correct?

The world was not put here by any state! Nor were ratios that go beyond the last several thousand years. It is wrong to assume that just the laws of nature...former or present nature dunnit.

 

[Loudmouth]

The world was not put here by any state!

If it was not put here through the processes we see in the present state, then it shouldn't match the pattern of ratios that the present state produces, correct?

Nor were ratios that go beyond the last several thousand years.

Evidence?

It is wrong to assume that just the laws of nature...former or present nature dunnit.

I am not assuming any such thing. Nothing in the measurement of isotopes assumes a different or same state past.

 

[dad]

If it was not put here through the processes we see in the present state, then it shouldn't match the pattern of ratios that the present state produces, correct?

No way to know thst unless you can measure what was both here from creation wnd the former state.

I am not assuming any such thing. Nothing in the measurement of isotopes assumes a different or same state past.

You assume it all got here by decay.

 

[Loudmouth]

No way to know thst unless you can measure what was both here from creation wnd the former state.

So you can't come up with a single reason that a different state past would produce ratios that are identical to a same state past?

You assume it all got here by decay.

Nothing in the measurement of isotopes assumes that they got there by decay.

 

[dad]

So you can't come up with a single reason that a different state past would produce ratios that are identical to a same state past?



Nothing in the measurement of isotopes assumes that they got there by decay.

I know...just you! You and your religion. Creation and the former state explain it fine.