Strong Evidence for the Peleg state change

[dad]

You just like arguing for the sake of it.

You lack comprehension.

So let's use different techniques. Each is entirely independent of the others, so if you are right, why would they give the same results?

They are all same state past religion...every method. All. Really.

You don't seem to be comprehending what I said. It is not a belief. It is a fact. It is not a belief to say that there are ratios which will support it and other ratios which will prove it wrong.

Forget the ratios. Obviously we have ratios! Your claims about how they got here are what is belief!

It is also a fact that we only ever find the ratios that support it and we never find the ratios that would prove it wrong.

False. No ratio helps a same state past in any way whatsoever. You really are missing the gist here entirely.

EVERY single example has fit within the idea without problem. If what you say is true, then this could not possibly be the case.

False. If there were isotopes, when this state started, of course they would assume the present state positions, and behavior. Things must obey the laws here.

If the theory was wrong, then we would see examples of radioactive decay where the ratios are impossible if the state has been the same.

Show one example. I think you are deluding yourself.

This never happens. Everything we see is consistent with the laws remaining the same.

Also consistent with them being different, so that says nothing!

A model of decay which could not possibly exist if the laws of physics had changed at some point in the comparatively recent past.

No, not changed...started! What changed was different, not this present state nor IT'S laws! We are the change.

Yes, it would start to obey new rules, but that does not mean that it could accumulate several hundred thousand years of decay in only a few thousand years.

If the old relationship did not involve decay, then you are trying to look at this present state and time and impose it's decay where there was none!

How sweet it is.

 

[Kylie]

You lack comprehension.

Yeah, you tell yourself that. You've never been able to actually EXPLAIN your point of view. You just claim it again and again as though that makes it true.

They are all same state past religion...every method. All. Really.

Here's an example of where you lack comprehension. You do not comprehend that these different techniques could not give the same result if what you say is true. Yet they all give the same result.

Forget the ratios. Obviously we have ratios! Your claims about how they got here are what is belief!

Again, you do not comprehend that the fact that the ratios are exactly what we predict proves that there was no different past state.

False. No ratio helps a same state past in any way whatsoever. You really are missing the gist here entirely.

And yet you never explain why they don't help. I, on the other hand, have explained how they prove that radioactive decay has been going on for millions of years. And you haven't proven me wrong.

False. If there were isotopes, when this state started, of course they would assume the present state positions, and behavior. Things must obey the laws here.

But they wouldn't have the ratios we see!

Show one example. I think you are deluding yourself.

I can't show you an example of where the ratios do not agree with radioactive decay over millions of years because there are none.

Also consistent with them being different, so that says nothing!

No, it is not consistent with a different past state.

Tell me, dad, if we have a lump of parent material and it has a half life of 100,000 years, and we see that half of it has decayed , how could this have happened in less than 50,000 years?

No, not changed...started! What changed was different, not this present state nor IT'S laws! We are the change.

And again, it is IMPOSSIBLE to get hundreds of thousands of years of decay in a few thousand years.

If the old relationship did not involve decay, then you are trying to look at this present state and time and impose it's decay where there was none!

The evidence for decay is there in the ratios being in the EXACT amount that decay would produce!

How sweet it is.

You have nothing. You merely make unsupported claims loudly in the hope that you'll convince people.

 

[dad]

Here's an example of where you lack comprehension. You do not comprehend that these different techniques could not give the same result if what you say is true. Yet they all give the same result.

Vague nonsense. Name them. It will be easy to prove they all depend on the present state.

Again, you do not comprehend that the fact that the ratios are exactly what we predict proves that there was no different past state.

Example of you predicting??

But they wouldn't have the ratios we see!

Yes, identical. All that would be different is the cause.

I can't show you an example of where the ratios do not agree with radioactive decay over millions of years because there are none.

Circular. Show one that agrees.

No, it is not consistent with a different past state.

False. Of course it is. Big time.

Tell me, dad, if we have a lump of parent material and it has a half life of 100,000 years, and we see that half of it has decayed , how could this have happened in less than 50,000 years?

Easy. It never 'happened'. The daughter was here already. The only decay action was in this state, far as we know.

And again, it is IMPOSSIBLE to get hundreds of thousands of years of decay in a few thousand years.

The daughter did not get here by decay. Get it? Only in the last several thousand years would that be true that decay produced daughter material.

The evidence for decay is there in the ratios being in the EXACT amount that decay would produce!

In your dreams.

You have nothing. You merely make unsupported claims loudly in the hope that you'll convince people.

I have God on my side, and the comical abject fail of so called science too! How very sweet it is and will remain.

 

[Kylie]

Vague nonsense. Name them. It will be easy to prove they all depend on the present state.

Radiometric dating - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Example of you predicting??

Scientists. Scientists make the predictions, and their predictions are correct. That would be impossible if what you say is true.

Yes, identical. All that would be different is the cause.

Do you realise that the ratio changes as the sample gets older and decays?

Circular. Show one that agrees.

All of them.

False. Of course it is. Big time.

No. You only think it is because you do not understand it.

Easy. It never 'happened'. The daughter was here already. The only decay action was in this state, far as we know.

Ah yes. The daughter was here already. And amazingly it was here in the EXACT ratio to the parent material to fool us all into thinking it had got here by radioactive decay. And this was the case in EVERY sample ever found across the whole world.

How incredible, doncha think?

The daughter did not get here by decay. Get it? Only in the last several thousand years would that be true that decay produced daughter material.

Then you must explain why the amount of daughter material is in exactly the right ratio to the parent material to make it look like it got here by radioactive decay.

In your dreams.

In reality too.

I have God on my side, and the comical abject fail of so called science too! How very sweet it is and will remain.

Ah yes. And yet you can't even tell me what the laws were in this different past state, can you. Was the law of gravity changed?

 

[biggles53]

Good luck Kylie.....!

Like so many who desperately need to have their fantasies justified, Dad simply refuses to accept any evidence from reality....so he pretends to know what he doesn't know...

Pretty sad isn't it...?

 

[AV1611VET]

Dad simply refuses to accept any evidence from reality....

Evidence would tell Jesus to take a hike, wouldn't it?

 

[dad]

Same state past belief based 'dating'

Your beliefs are noted. No need to spam links.

Scientists. Scientists make the predictions, and their predictions are correct. That would be impossible if what you say is true.

Name one regarding what you claimed about isotopes.

Do you realise that the ratio changes as the sample gets older and decays?

In THIS state, of course. No news there. In fact that is all you look at and know, and herein lies your confusion.

Ah yes. The daughter was here already. And amazingly it was here in the EXACT ratio to the parent material to fool us all into thinking it had got here by radioactive decay. And this was the case in EVERY sample ever found across the whole world.

Patterns in nature. A different past had processes and patterns also. Do not look at how things now are and assume that is all there ever was for no reason.

Man was here in the former state, and trees, for example. They did very well in it. You seem to be looking at things that exist now...say a man....and saying..'gee, he has two arms in this state, so there could never have been another state, because we see man has 2 arms!'

The darn thing is that we also had 2 arms in the former one. Like isotopes, were here, so were arms. The cells and atoms in our arms now must respond to gravity, and atomic forces, and etc etc...... You merely look at the way things respond to these present day laws and forces, and assign this and this alone as the raison d'etre for everything. Try not to be so circular.

Ah yes. And yet you can't even tell me what the laws were in this different past state, can you. Was the law of gravity changed?

Perhaps there was another law that affected gravity, so that it would not be what we know today. After all, how do you think they built the early pyramids?! Who knows, that maybe it was fairly easy compared to today. Think bigger than the present state box.

 

[Golan]

Dad, With all these different states you talk of what do you think happens when we die?

 

[Kylie]

Your beliefs are noted. No need to spam links.

Oh please. You asked for something, I provided it. Stop having a temper tantrum.

Name one regarding what you claimed about isotopes.

Are you even paying attention? EVERY sample that displays radioactive decay shows a RATIO between parent, daughter and grandaughter materials that is best explained by a same state decay.

In THIS state, of course. No news there. In fact that is all you look at and know, and herein lies your confusion.

Yes, in this state. And given that we see the results of this decay as it has been for millions and sometimes even BILLIONS of years, evidence shows that this state has been around for at least that long.

Patterns in nature. A different past had processes and patterns also. Do not look at how things now are and assume that is all there ever was for no reason.

That's rich. You're the one claiming that the ratios are AMAZINGLY, COINCIDENTALLY what we'd expect to see if they'd been the result of decay but not actually caused by decay. Why are they always in this ratio? Oh, just NO REASON. Because you can't give me a reason why we'd have decay ratios in every sample if they weren't decay caused, can you?

Man was here in the former state, and trees, for example. They did very well in it. You seem to be looking at things that exist now...say a man....and saying..'gee, he has two arms in this state, so there could never have been another state, because we see man has 2 arms!'

Speculation. Yawn.

The darn thing is that we also had 2 arms in the former one. Like isotopes, were here, so were arms. The cells and atoms in our arms now must respond to gravity, and atomic forces, and etc etc...... You merely look at the way things respond to these present day laws and forces, and assign this and this alone as the raison d'etre for everything. Try not to be so circular.

So the laws of the universe were completely different, and yet the way we do things today was also, amazingly, the best way to do things back then, huh? Why would this be the case unless we needed to work in the same kinds of limitations?

Perhaps there was another law that affected gravity, so that it would not be what we know today. After all, how do you think they built the early pyramids?! Who knows, that maybe it was fairly easy compared to today. Think bigger than the present state box.

So you don't know. You can tell me nothing about the previous state, can you? This whole idea you depend on, and you can't even tell me what it actually is. You have no evidence, and I don't think you even have a coherent idea.

 

[dad]

Oh please. You asked for something, I provided it. Stop having a temper tantrum.

From your link we see this..
"Radiometric dating (often called radioactive dating) is a technique used to date materials such as rocks, usually based on a comparison between the observed abundance of a naturally occurring radioactive isotope and its decay products, using known decay rates."


So they base everything on decay rates of this present, and the abundance of materials they assume all came from present state decay. Religious quackery.

Are you even paying attention? EVERY sample that displays radioactive decay shows a RATIO between parent, daughter and grandaughter materials that is best explained by a same state decay.

That says nothing! The only decay product shown is that which man can see. Man has only been looking a little while! The atomic arrangement we now have results in decay product, but that doesn't mean that was how it was in the former state, by any stretch of the evo imagination. You do not know.

Yes, in this state.

Bingo. You admitted it. That kills your whole argument.

And given that we see the results of this decay as it has been for millions and sometimes even BILLIONS of years, evidence shows that this state has been around for at least that long.

Foolish talk. You see amounts and try to attribute all materials to this present state which you do not know was around or not! It only would take millions or billions of years IF we were in a present state. You cannot first assume a present state, and then use a present state to try to prove a present state existed! That is absurd, and circular.

That's rich. You're the one claiming that the ratios are AMAZINGLY, COINCIDENTALLY what we'd expect to see if they'd been the result of decay but not actually caused by decay.

Not exactly. Yes, they are what is expected if a different state existed, but that really doesn't involve the imaginary time you invoke.

Why are they always in this ratio?

Wrong question. Why were they in this ratio, is a better question. The answer is you don't know! Why are they now? Easy..because they were and continued to be in the ratios they were in, I would assume. Since they were in that ratio about 4400 years ago, we can be pretty sure the reason was NOT a present state or it's decay.

So the laws of the universe were completely different, and yet the way we do things today was also, amazingly, the best way to do things back then, huh?

?? Such as? What are you talking about? What did Noah do, that was the 'best way' to do something? One thing they did do is live nearly 1000 years.

Why would this be the case unless we needed to work in the same kinds of limitations?

You still need to specify why would WHAT be the case?????

So you don't know. You can tell me nothing about the previous state, can you?

You kidding? I am the different state aficionado. There are some specifics we are given.

http://splitmerge.webs.com/split.pdf

 

[Golan]

Evidence would tell Jesus to take a hike, wouldn't it?

If there was evidence religions would not work, they only work because no one can prove a negative,
why do you think there are so many religions? anyone with half a brain can start a religion.

 

[AV1611VET]

If there was evidence religions would not work, they only work because no one can prove a negative,
why do you think there are so many religions?

I'm not sure how this answered my question.

But then, I don't care, because I think you're consol anyway.

anyone with half a brain can start a religion.

So I notice.

 

[Kylie]

From your link we see this..
"Radiometric dating (often called radioactive dating) is a technique used to date materials such as rocks, usually based on a comparison between the observed abundance of a naturally occurring radioactive isotope and its decay products, using known decay rates."


So they base everything on decay rates of this present, and the abundance of materials they assume all came from present state decay. Religious quackery.

First of all, I love the fact that you use a comparison to religion as a way to insult my opinion. Very nice.

Secondly, let me give you an example...

You see a pool, and it has been emptying water through a drain. The pool can empty 100 liters a minute through the drain. The pool is 500 liters short of being full, and you know the pool started out full because you can see the wetness from the water on the walls. You look in the outlet tank where the water goes, and you see there are 500 liters of water there. The outlet drain is the only way for the pool to empty. Is it possible that the pool was full two minutes ago?

That says nothing! The only decay product shown is that which man can see. Man has only been looking a little while! The atomic arrangement we now have results in decay product, but that doesn't mean that was how it was in the former state, by any stretch of the evo imagination. You do not know.

It says EVERYTHING and it demolishes your idea.

Bingo. You admitted it. That kills your whole argument.

Well, it can't be in any other state because there has never been any other state. You have never provided a single shred of evidence to support this claim, and yet I have provided evidence supporting a same state that withstands any competent examination.

Foolish talk. You see amounts and try to attribute all materials to this present state which you do not know was around or not! It only would take millions or billions of years IF we were in a present state. You cannot first assume a present state, and then use a present state to try to prove a present state existed! That is absurd, and circular.

But I can prove from negation.

Do you know how that works? I first assume that your argument is correct, and examine the consequences of it. For example...

Assume that this state has been around for only 6000 years.

Question: what will samples which decay radioactively look like?

Answer: Any sample of radioactive material that has a half life of 6000 years will have decayed to 50%. Any sample that has a half life LONGER than 6000 years will have decayed by LESS than 50% The longer the half life, the less amount we will see decayed.

Question: What about daughter materials in the samples?

Answer: Daughter materials are produced in a known quantity in this state. They also cannot have been formed in the past state. Therefore any daughter materials we see must have been made in the present state. We can measure the quantity of daughter materials in the sample and compare them to the quantity of parent materials.

Observation: The quantity of daughter materials does not match the amount we expect to see if the daughter material was produced solely by the decay of the parent material.

Hypothesis: Perhaps the daughter material was formed in a different way, a way that was not dependent on the radioactive decay of the parent material. In other words, we have the parent material and the daughter material which is the result of radioactive decay, but we ALSO have daughter material from another source which has contaminated our sample and artificially inflated the amount of daughter material, making it look like the original sample size was larger than it really was.

Conclusion: If the amount of daughter material was at least partially a result of contamination from a source outside the radioactive decay system, then we should see differing amounts of contamination from different locations. In other words, if we test a sample from a particular layer in Location A, then we should see a different ratio of parent/daughter than a sample from the same layer but in location B.

Observation: This never happens. Samples from the same layer always show the same ratio between parent and daughter materials. So, either the amount of external contamination is absolutely identical in all samples across the world (an amazing coincidence, don't you think?) or the daughter material is a result of radioactive decay.

Which do you propose as the most likely explanation? Is it a coincidence? or is it decay?

Not exactly. Yes, they are what is expected if a different state existed, but that really doesn't involve the imaginary time you invoke.

Huh? What are you talking about? If there really was a different past state like you said, the amount of time that appears to have passed plays no part in it.

Wrong question. Why were they in this ratio, is a better question. The answer is you don't know! Why are they now? Easy..because they were and continued to be in the ratios they were in, I would assume. Since they were in that ratio about 4400 years ago, we can be pretty sure the reason was NOT a present state or it's decay.

I do know. I have told you why. They are always in that ratio because they were all caused by radioactive decay.

?? Such as? What are you talking about? What did Noah do, that was the 'best way' to do something? One thing they did do is live nearly 1000 years.

Would the different past state look any different to you? Would it feel any different? What colour was the sky? Was gravity stronger or weaker? Did the chemical reactions that humans use to digest food operate the same way?

You still need to specify why would WHAT be the case?????

Aren't you paying attention? Why would we have the same bodies in the different past state if the universe operated so differently?

You kidding? I am the different state aficionado. There are some specifics we are given.

http://splitmerge.webs.com/split.pdf

More claims that have no support. I want REAL WORLD EVIDENCE.

Here's a simple question for you, dad...

You claim that the world had a different state some thousands of years in the past. I say it didn't. Now, let's say we could compare the two. Let's say we could look at a world that had a different past state (a world like the one you claim is real) and a world that did NOT have a different past state (a world like the one I claim is real). Imagine you could look at these two worlds. What differences would you see between them?

If you answer nothing else from this post, answer that please.

 

[AV1611VET]

and you know the pool started out full because you can see the wetness from the water on the walls.

They see it, or assume it?

Someone sees Rn and assumes it was [sup]238[/sup]U billions of years ago.

This means if God created Radon ex nihilo 6000 years ago, scientists would assume the universe is at least 4 billion years old, because Radon was Uranium back then.

Well if Radon is a daughter of Uranium, then why is Uranium still around?

 

[Kylie]

They see it, or assume it?

Someone sees Rn and assumes it was [sup]238[/sup]U billions of years ago.

This means if God created Radon ex nihilo 6000 years ago, scientists would assume the universe is at least 4 billion years old, because Radon was Uranium back then.

Well if Radon is a daughter of Uranium, then why is Uranium still around?

Do you even understand the concept of a half life?

 

[AV1611VET]

Do you even understand the concept of a half life?

No ... I just made all that up.

 

[dad]

Dad, With all these different states you talk of what do you think happens when we die?

If we are a believer, we go to be with Him. Of course He and us are coming back here one day, and the world will again be different than today in many ways.

 

[dad]

If there was evidence religions would not work, they only work because no one can prove a negative,

The science that is supposed to apply to the past doesn't work. If there was evidence, it would. Why do you think it is only belief?

why do you think there are so many religions?

Religion is a word that those who are religious like to try to paint others with. Belief is a better term probably, and so called science wreaks of belief a mile away.

 

[dad]

First of all, I love the fact that you use a comparison to religion as a way to insult my opinion. Very nice.

A same state past based model is opinion. If you find that bad, come on over to the solid side.

Secondly, let me give you an example...

You see a pool, and it has been emptying water through a drain. The pool can empty 100 liters a minute through the drain. The pool is 500 liters short of being full, and you know the pool started out full because you can see the wetness from the water on the walls. You look in the outlet tank where the water goes, and you see there are 500 liters of water there. The outlet drain is the only way for the pool to empty. Is it possible that the pool was full two minutes ago?

The pool, when compared to earth actually went through some changes, for example the ice age...mountain building...continental separation...etc.

But hey, we can use a pool for the example, if we stick to the recent past.

Well, it can't be in any other state because there has never been any other state.

A voice in your head told you this??

.. I have provided evidence supporting a same state that withstands any competent examination.

Spamming religious links actually didn't do anything like that.

But I can prove from negation.

Do you know how that works? I first assume that your argument is correct, and examine the consequences of it. For example...

Assume that this state has been around for only 6000 years.

Question: what will samples which decay radioactively look like?

Answer: Any sample of radioactive material that has a half life of 6000 years will have decayed to 50%. Any sample that has a half life LONGER than 6000 years will have decayed by LESS than 50% The longer the half life, the less amount we will see decayed.

No.


If something already had say, 2000 years worth of stuff now produced by decay 6000 years ago, your example is destroyed. You must know when the state started before you can talk or make claims intelligently. Until then...we wait.

Question: What about daughter materials in the samples?

Answer: Daughter materials are produced in a known quantity in this state. They also cannot have been formed in the past state. Therefore any daughter materials we see must have been made in the present state. We can measure the quantity of daughter materials in the sample and compare them to the quantity of parent materials.

Observation: The quantity of daughter materials does not match the amount we expect to see if the daughter material was produced solely by the decay of the parent material.

Right, now let's see exactly why you expect this thing to be 6000 years old!!???

Hypothesis: Perhaps the daughter material was formed in a different way, a way that was not dependent on the radioactive decay of the parent material. In other words, we have the parent material and the daughter material which is the result of radioactive decay, but we ALSO have daughter material from another source which has contaminated our sample and artificially inflated the amount of daughter material, making it look like the original sample size was larger than it really was.

Conclusion: If the amount of daughter material was at least partially a result of contamination from a source outside the radioactive decay system, then we should see differing amounts of contamination from different locations. In other words, if we test a sample from a particular layer in Location A, then we should see a different ratio of parent/daughter than a sample from the same layer but in location B.

Forget contamination. I think we can say that IF this present state existed the whole time, we should indeed expect so much daughter material(s). So? Now the question is how long did it exist? You sure can't deduce that by looking at the daughter materials!! That is religion.

Observation: you are in denial.

Observation: This never happens. Samples from the same layer always show the same ratio between parent and daughter materials.

Ratios do not matter. They do not show that decay happened, just that material now in decay exist! Big difference.

Huh? What are you talking about? If there really was a different past state like you said, the amount of time that appears to have passed plays no part in it.

Yes it does. Decay existed for thousands of years ever since this state existed. How could decay play no part? --At least on our end.

I do know. I have told you why. They are always in that ratio because they were all caused by radioactive decay.

No. They are in a ratio because God created things in a pattern, and that pattern is now adjusted to this state!

Would the different past state look any different to you?

Doesn't matter. Unless you know, why talk?

Would it feel any different? What colour was the sky? Was gravity stronger or weaker? Did the chemical reactions that humans use to digest food operate the same way?

Once the atomic level is affected, that affects life processes. It could also affect light. Therefore the sky indeed could be different in color, but who knows? We did see a rainbow in heaven, in the bible, but the color was apparently quite emeraldish.

Aren't you paying attention? Why would we have the same bodies in the different past state if the universe operated so differently?

There could have been some changes. Ever notice 'early man' seems somewhat different? Science agrees with me, that differences were the order of the day long ago! Add to that, the likelihood that man and beast could not fossilize or leave remains for the most part in the former state (we are not in the fossil record)--and we realize that the changes to man and beast in the record represent post split (the state change) changes!


Shortened for brevity....

 

[Kylie]

No ... I just made all that up.

Sarcasm doesn't win you any friends. And you obviously don't know anything about a half life if you think your question is a valid one.