Different state past

[Tiberius]

The bible is verified by a risen Christ and prophesy.

Which is verified by the Bible, and oh we go around in a big circle!

You prove nothing.

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!

I've already proved it, countless times. You just refuse to use reason at all.

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!!?

You do realise that granite isn't formed from SEDIMENTARY rock, yes?

Granite is formed from molten magma solidifying. Do we have molten magma today? yes? Well there we are!

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

See post 890.

Same state based.

This explains nothing.

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.

Why should I show the difference? There is no difference because it all got there by the same process. You are the one claiming there is a difference, so YOU should be the one to actually SHOW this difference.

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

The rock was formed by processes that operate today.

You can't prove me wrong.

False. A point was required.

Then perhaps you should make 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.

But the daughter material will still be present in measurable amounts.

You really should educate yourself about this stuff.

Blather. Get down to brass tacks.

Nah, it's not blather. There are thousands of people all around the world who make a living from this stuff being able to give them reliable results.

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

I am saying that you have failed to provide any explanation for how this works.

Again, I must ask if you can comprehend basic English, because you seem to be going out of your way to distort my posts.

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

Posted it countless times.

Don't blame me for your unwillingness to comprehend. You intentionally close your mind to reality.

Delusional.

See?

Easy. The name came in this state.

Once again, your complete lack of English comprehension leaves me astounded.

We are talking about the actual ROCK, not the name used to describe it.

You are making yourself look foolish.

 

[Tiberius]

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.

But the fact is that what he says DOES have evidence. The fact that it actually WORKS. Your idea can tell us nothing at all about anything in the universe.

 

[Elendur]

Vague gibberish.

Non-vague specific answer.

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.

Then you're lazy and unwilling to learn something.

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.

That's not the thing. The thing is you basing everything on the assumption, marked in bold. You've already made up your mind, I'm just continuing because I don't think your way of thinking deserves positive promotion.

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

Define point, I used the verb so clearly you don't talk of the same thing I did.



Challenge repeated tenth time (last time now):
The challenge still stands, would you like to actually respond to it. Until it has been dealt with, you're utterly 'defeated'.

Can you present an argument, based on the definition of evidence, why there is no evidence of a same state past?

If you don't I just have to accept that you're avoiding the issue and admitting to your inability to understand this basic term.

 

[dad]

Which is verified by the Bible, and oh we go around in a big circle!

The captivity and many aspects of fulfilled prophesy are history. Welcome to year of our Lord 2012 by the way.

You do realise that granite isn't formed from SEDIMENTARY rock, yes?

I don't care where or how...just when.

Granite is formed from molten magma solidifying. Do we have molten magma today? yes? Well there we are!

The granite formed in the former state does not follow your rules of course. Now, if you have some present state granite now is the time to show us!!!?? Hee hee.

See post 890.

Why?

The rock was formed by processes that operate today.

Says you. Anything based on fact or knowledge?

But the daughter material will still be present in measurable amounts.

So? How much is the sample I provided?

We are talking about the actual ROCK, not the name used to describe it.

What about the rock??

I see you are not serious debater.

 

[dad]

But the fact is that what he says DOES have evidence. The fact that it actually WORKS. Your idea can tell us nothing at all about anything in the universe.

Here is what he said


"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

Is this what you are referring to?

 

[dad]

That's not the thing. The thing is you basing everything on the assumption, marked in bold. You've already made up your mind, I'm just continuing because I don't think your way of thinking deserves positive promotion.

Forget assumption. Prove a same state past or have a hike.

 

[Elendur]

Forget assumption. Prove a same state past or have a hike.

And again you're not using the term 'prove' correct. Science doesn't prove things (I think I need to note that I exclude mathematics again, since you seem prone to forgetting).

And why should I forget that assumption when it's central to everything you're talking about? Is it that you're having second thoughts?

Oh, by the way, new sig.

(For possible future reference: )

This challenge was presented to the user named 'dad' ten times:

Can you present an argument, based on the definition of evidence, why there is no evidence of a same state past?

He hasn't answered yet. This signature is a reminder to him that the challenge still stands, and that he failed it.

 

[DaneaFL]

This thread better start making sense by the 1000th post or I'm out of here...

 

[SkyWriting]

Forget assumption. Prove a same state past or have a hike.

Assumption about the past or future is mandatory.

We even have to assume something is true because we assume that we remember it happening in the past (ie water freezing), and we have to assume it really happened and we assume it will happen again.

Water might not freeze again. But we have to assume that some things will persist. Lucky for us, God made sure that matter doesn't evolve, or that the laws of nature don't evolve. Nothing real actually evolves. But I just changed this post....so it must not be real.

 

[Elendur]

Assumption about the past or future is mandatory.

We even have to assume something is true because we assume that we remember it happening in the past (ie water freezing), and we have to assume it really happened and we assume it will happen again.

Water might not freeze again. But we have to assume that some things will persist. Lucky for us, God made sure that matter doesn't evolve, or that the laws of nature don't evolve. Nothing real actually evolves. But I just changed this post....so it must not be real.

And that fundamental assumption made by science is 'induction' if I'm not mistaken

 

[Tiberius]

Here is what he said


"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

Is this what you are referring to?

Yes, that is what I was referring to.

And given that we can see that happening today, we can see that it works, we can see what it produces and we don't see anything that it can't produce, it IS the simplest explanation.

Forget assumption. Prove a same state past or have a hike.

I already have.

Now you prove a DSP or take a hike.

Old stories aren't proof. They are claims that can't be verified.

 

[dad]

This thread better start making sense by the 1000th post or I'm out of here...

Oh come on, you're just playing hard to get.

 

[dad]

And again you're not using the term 'prove' correct. Science doesn't prove things (I think I need to note that I exclude mathematics again, since you seem prone to forgetting).

And why should I forget that assumption when it's central to everything you're talking about? Is it that you're having second thoughts?

Oh, by the way, new sig.

(For possible future reference: )

This challenge was presented to the user named 'dad' ten times:
He hasn't answered yet. This signature is a reminder to him that the challenge still stands, and that he failed it.

OK, so you are still working on stuff. If you get a grip, give a holler now. Some are interested in the hard evidence for the same state past you sort of seem to allude almost being kinda close to.

 

[dad]

Assumption about the past or future is mandatory.

Not the present earth state one.

We even have to assume something is true because we assume that we remember it happening in the past (ie water freezing), and we have to assume it really happened and we assume it will happen again.

Let's get some focus here. We are talking at least four thousand four hundred real years ago.


Not the martini not on the rocks someone had last week.

 

[dad]

And that fundamental assumption made by science is 'induction' if I'm not mistaken

Because of their godlessness they will be inducted into the hall of flame.

 

[dad]

And that fundamental assumption made by science is 'induction' if I'm not mistaken

Hey congrats on your new sig. Displaying an obsession with the ideas of dad can't be a bad thing

 

[NGC 6712]

Not the present earth state one.
Let's get some focus here. We are talking at least four thousand four hundred real years ago.

No, the Earth and everything on/in it was created last week. It was a different state past 2 weeks ago. All your arguments are trumped by the changes of two weeks ago.

 

[dad]

Yes, that is what I was referring to.

OK then. Let's disect that for you.

You don't seem to get it: I don't NEED evidence for the same past state

Wake up call...science does need evidence!

because that is the simplest and parsimonious assumption

Yes belief....assumption...guess...etc. Sorry sonny, no cigar. You need fact...evidence....proof....etc.

And given that we can see that happening today, we can see that it works, we can see what it produces and we don't see anything that it can't produce, it IS the simplest explanation.

Given that we see....what...the present state!!!???? What else did you think we should see pray tell???

Now you prove a DSP or take a hike.

All we need to do is show that the state is not known. After that, we all take a hike to the woods of belief. There....I walk with a very very big stick.

Old stories aren't proof. They are claims that can't be verified.

Excellent. So try to come up with more. Seems obvious....

 

[dad]

No, the Earth and everything on/in it was created last week. It was a different state past 2 weeks ago. All your arguments are trumped by the changes of two weeks ago.

Well, I happen to believe in Churchill, Stalin, Chaplin, Einstein..etc. Call me traditional...You been lost in astro physical only la la land a while or something?

 

[Elendur]

OK, so you are still working on stuff. If you get a grip, give a holler now. Some are interested in the hard evidence for the same state past you sort of seem to allude almost being kinda close to.

Hard evidence is a term used in legal procedures, but I can tell you plenty of evidence that would stand up in court has been presented.

Because of their godlessness they will be inducted into the hall of flame.

Says who?

Hey congrats on your new sig. Displaying an obsession with the ideas of dad can't be a bad thing

You're reading it wrong, it's not your ideas, it's your inability to respond to the debate.

Can you bring anything to the table in this?