Different state past

[dad]

Answer to your question:
In post #436 I gave you evidence for a same state past.
( http://www.christianforums.com/t7639776-44/#post60140831 )

You offered Radio dating. That depends on the present laws being in effect, it doesn't prove they were.

I also noticed you haven't answered the question in post #481 (I asked for a source for the claim that people in Sumer etc had long lives).

Genesis and the Antediluvians

Seventh try:
Are you not using the same definition or are you lying?

What is your definition?

 

[Elendur]

You offered Radio dating. That depends on the present laws being in effect, it doesn't prove they were.

Nor did I claim it did.

Genesis and the Antediluvians

Thank you.

What is your definition?

1. A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment.
2. Something indicative; an outward sign.
3. ground for belief or disbelief.



Eight try
Are you not using the same definition or are you lying?

 

[dad]

Nor did I claim it was.

So how would it evidence the same state past then?

Thank you.

Cheers.

1. A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment.
2. Something indicative; an outward sign.
3. ground for belief or disbelief.

Sounds like the bible to me.

Eight try
Are you not using the same definition or are you lying?

Sounds fine to me, any of that stuff for a same state past?

 

[Elendur]

So how would it evidence the same state past then?

My bad, I screwed up the grammar. I meant 'did' not 'was'.

Evidence is not proof.

I claim it is evidence, not proof, and I am backed up by the definition of evidence.

Sounds like the bible to me.

Yes. The bible is evidence.

Sounds fine to me, any of that stuff for a same state past?

See post #436 for evidence.

Do you still think what I've listed there isn't evidence, with the definiton of evidence fresh in mind?

 

[dad]

I asked you to define evidence before, but it seems you forgot what evidence is.

From your description, the bible seems to fit the bill.

There is plenty evidence for same state past (against your flood and instant growth) and very lacking evidence for for different state past (only some interpretations of the bible, if I'm not mistaken).

False. None.

You've also written several times that science assumes same state past, it doesn't.
It's a conclusion derived from several different fields of science. All evidence points to a same state past (or veeeeeeery close to).

False. It is assumed. Nothing more. Name ONE example where it was not assumed but concluded?

What you do, however, when dismissing the evidence given is that you work by the assumption that there was a different state past.

I dismiss no evidence. Name any one bit of evidence that you think I dismiss?

 

[Elendur]

From your description, the bible seems to fit the bill.

The bible is evidence but evidence is not the bible.

False. It is assumed. Nothing more. Name ONE example where it was not assumed but concluded?

It's been mentioned before:
Ice cores

I dismiss no evidence. Name any one bit of evidence that you think I dismiss?

Ice cores.

There's more, but you asked for one.

 

[Tiberius]

Radiacive decay didn't get a top billing, and a name in lights in the bible. It is just a feature of the state that is slated to pass away.

So you just make it up.

Does decay even sound to you like it is something in a forever state?

Something that decays does not last forever, no. But we;re not discussing that, we're discussing whether the laws that apply in the universe today have always applied. And in the 14 billion or so years that this universe has been around, the laws we see today applied for all but the briefest fraction of a second, and that was way back in the split second after the Big Bang.

Yes I do.

If so, you;ve never been able to produce this fabled evidence.

The bible and history as well as agreement with all physical evidence science has.

lol wut? The Bible? You mean that ONE passage that you quoted, which actually STATED that decay occured? Can you produce A SINGLE PASSAGE that suggests that there was ever a point when there was no radioactive decay on Earth?

And what part of history supports your different state past ideas? You've never said that either.

Can't beat that.

Well, I'll have to give you that.

I can't beat your evidence for exactly the same reason that no one has ever beaten me in a marathon. I don't run in marathons, and you don't produce evidence.

You have zilch for a same state past.

I have quite a lot, which I have posted and you've never explained.

Nothing whatsoever and it is opposed to reason, history and the revealed word of God.

There is no use of reason or rationality behind your claims. There is no support for your claims from history, and your ideas aren't supported by the revealed word of God, just your INTERPRETATION of the Bible.

They have isotopes, that are now in a decay arrangement. Obviously our state and nature and forces and laws are required to make decay happen. Rocks are not old. No rock on earth is old, stop freaking.

Then how did they accumulate the decay products that indicate millions of years of decay?

Strange. If this world passes away, how is it that you think that the decay of this world won't? Not a bright point.

Since when did I say that radioactive decay was confined to Earth? As long as the universe exists, and as long as there are radioactive materials in this universe, they will decay.

 

[dad]

The bible is evidence but evidence is not the bible.

Long as the bible is evidence, fine. I'll take it.

It's been mentioned before:
Ice cores


Ice cores.

There's more, but you asked for one.

The present state slow process of making layers cannot be applied to the past unless we know it was present state. Obviously. In the book you cite as evidence, the bible, we have water, and ways a lot of it could be fast frozen to make layers. The treasures of the snow.

 

[dad]

So you just make it up.

No. Since decay is a feature of this state, a subset of it, then we can apply a set to include a subset and be quite correct.

Something that decays does not last forever, no. But we;re not discussing that, we're discussing whether the laws that apply in the universe today have always applied

The future is the key to the past! Also Adam was to live forever, so we can assume that what you claim does not last forever was not a part of that nature. Either way, you are surrounded.

And in the 14 billion or so years that this universe has been around, the laws we see today applied for all but the briefest fraction of a second, and that was way back in the split second after the Big Bang.

Never happened. Myth. No possible proof.

And what part of history supports your different state past ideas? You've never said that either.

The spirits living among men in the early records of Egypt. The long life spans recorded by early Sumer.

I have quite a lot, which I have posted and you've never explained.

Or maybe you missed it? Whooosh?

There is no use of reason or rationality behind your claims. There is no support for your claims from history, and your ideas aren't supported by the revealed word of God, just your INTERPRETATION of the Bible.

It is the quintessential essence of reason. Nothing is supported as much. No evidence exists for the fables science holds up as alternatives. Win/win/win.

Then how did they accumulate the decay products that indicate millions of years of decay?

Thet may have been there already, not accumulated! All that accumulated was the bit since our state started!

Since when did I say that radioactive decay was confined to Earth? As long as the universe exists, and as long as there are radioactive materials in this universe, they will decay.

When you go to infinity and beyond, get back to us Buzz.

 

[rambot]

I am trying to say, ...sorry but so called science hasn't a clue what state existed.

...and yet you claim that science agrees with you (or at least that there is natural evidence).

 

[Elendur]

The present state slow process of making layers cannot be applied to the past unless we know it was present state. Obviously. In the book you cite as evidence, the bible, we have water, and ways a lot of it could be fast frozen to make layers. The treasures of the snow.

The thing is, we don't know whether it was a SSP or DSP.
But since no different states has been observed and/or tested during present time (or what might be called present) we can, relatively safely, assume current states have been in work for an indefinite amount of time.
Unless there were strong indicators otherwise.

The indicators of SSP (unbroken tracing through different fields of study) vastly outnumber the indicators of DSP.

Both SSP and DSP is possible, but to claim DSP is the absolute truth is to close your mind to all other possibilities.

Now, if we were to observe and/or test any different states, I would support DSP, if those different states would support it.


Hope I got my point through, good night, I'll read more tomorrow.

 

[Tiberius]

No. Since decay is a feature of this state, a subset of it, then we can apply a set to include a subset and be quite correct.

And how do you know that decay isn't a feature of ALL states?

The future is the key to the past! Also Adam was to live forever, so we can assume that what you claim does not last forever was not a part of that nature. Either way, you are surrounded.

This has nothing whatsoever to do with the question I asked. You use a lot of words, dad, but you say very little.

Never happened. Myth. No possible proof.

It's no myth. I'd show you why, but you have demonstrated that you have no interest in actually learning. All you do is come here and repeat your unsupported claims. Ironically, you yourself provide people with the best evidence that they are wrong.

The spirits living among men in the early records of Egypt. The long life spans recorded by early Sumer.

While I don't doubt that they had these stories, have you go a link for them?

Or maybe you missed it? Whooosh?

lol, no, I saw each and every one of you attempted rebuttals. They all failed miserably. However, if you think I missed one, feel free to tell me the post number.

It is the quintessential essence of reason. Nothing is supported as much. No evidence exists for the fables science holds up as alternatives. Win/win/win.

lol.

Thet may have been there already, not accumulated! All that accumulated was the bit since our state started!

So how do you explain the presence of them if those daughter materials themselves decay into other elements? How do you explain that the amounts we see PRECISELY match what we'd expect to see if this decay had been going on for millions of years? Or do you think the different materials were just MAGICALLY in exactly the right amounts, in ALL places around the world, to make it look like something happened that never did?

When you go to infinity and beyond, get back to us Buzz.

Once again, you have no response, so you resort to non sequiturs and name calling.

I'd feel sorry for you, but you are doing a better job of convincing people that your claims are wrong than I ever could.

 

[dad]

...and yet you claim that science agrees with you (or at least that there is natural evidence).

Right. It does. Not so called science the sort of stuff that blathers on and on about the future or past they have no clue about.

 

[dad]

The thing is, we don't know whether it was a SSP or DSP.

Bingo! Where the "we" is science.

But since no different states has been observed and/or tested during present time (or what might be called present) we can, relatively safely, assume current states have been in work for an indefinite amount of time.
Unless there were strong indicators otherwise.

False. Only a present state would be expected in the present state!

The indicators of SSP (unbroken tracing through different fields of study) vastly outnumber the indicators of DSP.

False. They are what is mentally projected through the fields of study. They form the basis for all study.

Both SSP and DSP is possible, but to claim DSP is the absolute truth is to close your mind to all other possibilities.

Well, my mind is open to anything that allows God and the bible to be absolutely true.

Now, if we were to observe and/or test any different states, I would support DSP, if those different states would support it.

We have records of those that did! The prophets in the bible that saw the future for example. Or the folks from the DSP. You here in the present can observe only the present. As expected.

Hope I got my point through, good night, I'll read more tomorrow.

Thanks.

 

[dad]

And how do you know that decay isn't a feature of ALL states?

The future is the key to the past! Eternity and forever are not well blended with present state decay, are they?

This has nothing whatsoever to do with the question I asked. You use a lot of words, dad, but you say very little.

I would think that a future and past being DSP would relate to your present state points.

It's no myth. I'd show you why, but you have demonstrated that you have no interest in actually learning. All you do is come here and repeat your unsupported claims. Ironically, you yourself provide people with the best evidence that they are wrong.

Blather. The bible and history and agreement with facts is a good thing.

While I don't doubt that they had these stories, have you go a link for them?

I thinkk that if you google king lists and either Egypt or Sumer you will find stuff.

lol, no, I saw each and every one of you attempted rebuttals. They all failed miserably. However, if you think I missed one, feel free to tell me the post number.

You saw but I suspect you missed a lot. The SSP cannot be supported.

So how do you explain the presence of them if those daughter materials themselves decay into other elements?

Good point. Well, give one example I'll try to tackle it.

How do you explain that the amounts we see PRECISELY match what we'd expect to see if this decay had been going on for millions of years? Or do you think the different materials were just MAGICALLY in exactly the right amounts, in ALL places around the world, to make it look like something happened that never did?

Example?

 

[Tiberius]

The future is the key to the past! Eternity and forever are not well blended with present state decay, are they?

You are not making any sense at all.

I would think that a future and past being DSP would relate to your present state points.

Except that there's no evidence the past was ever in a different state, and no evidence that the future will be in a different state either.

Blather. The bible and history and agreement with facts is a good thing.

Except that nothing that you are saying is agreeing with any facts at all.

I thinkk that if you google king lists and either Egypt or Sumer you will find stuff.

Why don't you do your own homework. I'm not going to waste my own time trying to disprove your nonsense.

You saw but I suspect you missed a lot. The SSP cannot be supported.

It is supported very well.

Good point. Well, give one example I'll try to tackle it.

In Uranium/lead radio dating, Uranium doesn't decay directly to lead. It decays through various other elements before reaching lead. In fact, each sample provides us with two clocks, because there are two different isotopes of uranium which decay into two different isotopes of lead. 238U with daughter nuclides undergo eight total alpha and six beta decays whereas 235U with daughters only experience seven alpha and four beta decays. In essence, the parent material decays into the daughter material, which then decays into a granddaughter material, then a great grand daughter material and so on.

And in each case, we see the amount of daughter, grand daughter, great granddaughter etc materials that we would expect to see if it has been decaying for millions of years. If your different state past idea was correct, then we would not see ratios of parent to daughter to granddaughter to great granddaughter materials that we do see.

Therefore your different state past is wrong.

Example?

Just gave you one.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I think that the idea of a different state past brings out the relevance of Duhem–Quine thesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia . Insofar as I understand it is says scientific hypothesis are not pure but based on background assumptions like uniformity accross space time. Actually science itself seems to prove theat laws can emerge (e.g. gravitation) and that different scales can exibit different behavior.

 

[AV1611VET]

I think that the idea of a different state past brings out the relevance of Duhem–Quine thesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia . Insofar as I understand it is says scientific hypothesis are not pure but based on background assumptions like uniformity accross space time. Actually science itself seems to prove theat laws can emerge (e.g. gravitation) and that different scales can exibit different behavior.

Reps your way --

 

[Farinata]

Well, my mind is open to anything that allows God and the bible to be absolutely true.

Isn't there a rule somewhere that Poes have to reveal themselves when accurately identified?

 

[Elendur]

Well, my mind is open to anything that allows God and the bible to be absolutely true.

Then I tell you this:

Study the bible and take to heart all interpretations and live life according to all of them.