Different state past

[dad]

I am debating honestly, that's why I asked you to guide me through your logical process.
I will assume you didn't respond to that, since the last part was circular reasoning.
Also, I am saying something myself, you're just content with ignoring it.

Vague gibberish.

I don't understand what you're trying to write here, the grammar i messed up.
If you're protesting against my challenge because it's defending SSP I need to ask you why you're protesting.

I Have no idea what your challenge is. When people post cut and paste repeats of insane sounding gibberish, as if they have some point, it tunes me out.

Here is the thing, you cannot defend a same state past. I am not interested in you pretending that you can. We that can read can see a big nothing.

This is a sort of debate after all, it's fully legitimate to point out flaws to the other side. Your biggest flaw right now is you not presenting any objective evidence to support your arguments (nor even a detailed reasoning).

Great find a legitimate point, and get back to us.

 

[dad]

Has anyone ever explained to dad that his "different past state" stuff is a logical fallacy?

Go ahead and try...make my day.

 

[Trogool]

Go ahead and try...make my day.

Why bother? I gather you already know your arguments are illogical nonsense and just don't care.

Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner

 

[dad]

Your DSP can tell us NOTHING that is verifiable! You cannot prove a DSP and therefore you fail!

The bible is verified by a risen Christ and prophesy. You don't need to listen to what a different past is telling you. You merely need to listen to what your total absolute failure to be able to prove the same state past you need and claim is saying!

So old granite is very different to young granite then?

Some of the youngest granite I googled is claimed to be here..

"It reveals Mount Kinabalu as the youngest granite pluton in the world....



In order to understand the geology of this mountain, we must go back 35 million years when Borneo was submerged beneath the sea. Marine sediments began accumulating where Mount Kinabalu now stands."


Mount Kinabalu Borneo.com | The Geology of Mount Kinabalu


You think this was after Noah!!?

Got any that was formed last century or year or week?

And why would the two different techniques give EXACTLY THE SAME RESULT?

Same state based.

Man, you are woefully ignorant of how science works, aren't you?

Illuminate us then? I mentioned the daughter material, where x represents the stuff before the state change and y after it, and asked you to show the difference.

Man, you love just declaring things false, doncha? Maybe one day you'll scare the snot out of everyone and actually explain why it's false!

Easy...just say something relevant to the rock sample that was posted. ...after you blow your nose.

lol, typical. I provide exactly what you asked for, and you dismiss it.

False. A point was required.

But that's not what we were talking about, was it?

The half life of 40 something billion years means that very little daughter is expected..no? From the daughter material that exists now in that sample rock, with it's known rate of decay...how much came since 4400 years!!!? Focus.

The process is very well understood, and it explains perfectly the amounts of parent and daughter materials we see in rock samples.

Blather. Get down to brass tacks.

We are talking about YOUR proposed explanation, which you have never provided.

If it was never provided how could you be talking about it?

If you had even the most basic understanding of the procedure of radiometric dating, you would understand what I am talking about.

If you had even the most basic understanding of the procedure of radiometric dating, you would post what you am talking about.

Since you do not understand how it works, explaining the evidence to you is wasted. If you would actually LEARN about it, then you'd understand. But you don't. You value your ignorance, and so you declare it wrong, thus justifying your choice to not learn about it, and since you know nothing about, you keep making embarrassing mistakes about it.

Delusional.

Proof is simple. If granite that formed during the DSP was significantly different to granite formed recently, why would they both have the same name?

Easy. The name came in this state.

 

[dad]

Why bother? I gather you already know your arguments are illogical nonsense and just don't care.

Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner

My arguments are rock solid, bible and evidence based, and they can dance all over yours any day.

 

[Trogool]

. You don't need to listen to what a different past is telling you. You merely need to listen to what your total absolute failure to be able to prove the same state past you need and claim is saying!

Nobody has to prove the same past state. Fail. Do not pass go, do not collect $200, and go straight back to Introduction to Biology for non-majors where a graduate TA will patiently explain to all of you that science operates using something called parsimony and uniformitarianism.

 

[Trogool]

My arguments are rock solid and evidence based, and they can dance all over yours any day.

That must be why you never post them and your "arguments" are based on logical fallacies.

 

[dad]

The question is how many times...

The present state past is a fallacy.


In logic and rhetoric, a fallacy is usually an improper argumentation in reasoning often resulting in a misconception or presumption.


I avoid that by including the known history and spiritual, and the record of God. You can huff and puff all day, but my house ain't going nowhere. Yours has...

 

[Trogool]

The present state past is a fallacy.

No, it is parsimonious. You might want to review your lecture notes from Logic 101.

 

[dad]

No, it is parsimonious. You might want to review your lecture notes from Logic 101.

False. It is sanctimonious. You might want to review beliefs 101.

The simple answer is to accept the God of Occam, and me. The simple answer is to stop waving all history and spiritual and God away. The simple answer is to face the glaring fact that you do not know. Parsimonious doesn't mean you get to pick based on what you chose to ignore and believe.

 

[Trogool]

False. It is sanctimonious. You might want to review beliefs 101.

The simple answer is to accept the God of Occam, and me. The simple answer is to stop waving all history. The simple answer is to face the glaring fact that you do not know. Parsimonious doesn't mean you get to pick based on what you chose to ignore and believe.

The simple explanation is you literally don't understand the words you are using or the scientific method. You keep rambling about God and parsimony and demonstrate that you don't understand what parsimony is.

Fact is, we DO know. You have given us no reason to believe in your bizarre fantasy.

 

[dad]

The simple explanation is you literally don't understand the words you are using or the scientific method.

Understand this...the physical world and laws we now see and know are the basis for all that.

You keep rambling about God and parsimony and demonstrate that you don't understand what parsimony is.

You don't..nya nya.

Fact is, we DO know. You have given us no reason to believe in your bizarre fantasy.

If you know....show. As for what you believe...this is a science area....

 

[Trogool]

Understand this...the physical world and laws we now see and know are the basis for all that.


You don't..nya nya.

If you know....show. As for what you believe...this is a science area....

That's nice. Were you going to post evidence for your "different past" stuff sometime?

 

[dad]

That's nice. Were you going to post evidence for your "different past" stuff sometime?

The bible. History. Don't you wish you had some for your claimed state?

 

[Trogool]

The bible.

Meaningless. Might as well quote Twilight.

"It seemed silly that this fact – the existence of his soul – had ever been in question, even if he was a vampire. He had the most beautiful soul, more beautiful than his brilliant mind or his incomparable face or his glorious body.

Bella Swan, Breaking Dawn, Chapter 2, p.24"

OH MY ALLAH TWILIGHT IS REAL EDWARD IS REAL AND HE'S GLORIOUS BECAUSE BREAKING DAWN SAYS SO!!!

History.

*drums fingers*

See my response to above.

Were you planning on posting evidence for your different past state sometime?

Don't you wish you had some for your claimed state?

You don't seem to get it: I don't NEED evidence for the same past state because that is the simplest and parsimonious assumption. There is NO REASON for me to assume a different past state.

 

[dad]

Meaningless. Might as well quote Twilight.

Ignorantly absurd. The bible is proven. The prophesies and etc. Real observers and witnesses. Your personal incredulity is baseless and insignificant.

Were you planning on posting evidence for your different past state sometime?

No. Not unless I sensed an honest person was asking. I am happy just to watch so called science dance like a derby.

You don't seem to get it: I don't NEED evidence for the same past state because that is the simplest and parsimonious assumption.

Lurkers....get a load of this!!!!!! Too bad all were not as honest as you. Too bad it is also an unsupportable and godless and anti historical and godless one. If science had been sold like this years ago, it would already be buried.

How sweet it is.

There is NO REASON for me to assume a different past state.

Newsflash: No one cares what you assume.

 

[Trogool]

Ignorantly absurd. The bible is proven. The prophesies and etc. Real observers and witnesses. Your personal incredulity is baseless and insignificant.

No, it isn't. The Bible isn't scientific. It is a collection of thousand year old religious texts subject to personal interpretation. Stop spewing this nonsense.

Lurkers....get a load of this!!!!!! Too bad all were not as honest as you. Too bad it is also an unsupportable and godless and anti historical and godless one. If science had been sold like this years ago, it would already be buried.

It's called "logic". Posters on this forum have been trying to introduce you to it for years now.

How sweet it is.

Newsflash: No one cares what you assume.

...says the guy who has been on this forum for years peddling fallacious pseudocience.

 

[dad]

No, it isn't. The Bible isn't scientific.

It is amazingly scientific.

It is a collection of thousand year old religious texts subject to personal interpretation. Stop spewing this nonsense.

Time is no barrier to the Great Scientist. You betray your boring old tactic of trying to insult your intellectual superiors of long ago.

It's called "logic". Posters on this forum have been trying to introduce you to it for years now.

You apparently are not familiar enough with the concept to use it.

 

[Trogool]

It is amazingly scientific.
Time is no barrier to the Great Scientist. You betray your boring old tactic of trying to insult your intellectual superiors of long ago.

Do you have anything to add to the discussion beyond shrilly insisting your bronze age text is scientific and childish insults?

You apparently are not familiar enough with the concept to use it.

And yet you are the one making arguments from ignorance apparently under the impression that making unnecessary assumptions is a good thing.

 

[dad]

Do you have anything to add to the discussion beyond shrilly insisting your bronze age text is scientific and childish insults?

You never joined a discussion yet. Start anytime.

And yet you are the one making arguments from ignorance apparently under the impression that making unnecessary assumptions is a good thing.

You made my argument for me. Thanks for that. You can go now.



"You don't seem to get it: I don't NEED evidence for the same past state because that is the simplest and parsimonious assumption." trogool