Strong Evidence for the Peleg state change

[dad]

That is why the proper term for dad's "former state" is actually "delusional state". He cannot defend the fact that his "former state" predicts things that we do not observe. In other words his former state is falsified.

Your ability to tell what the state of the past was is nill. God wins.

 

[dad]

So you've finally decided that invoking an amazing coincidence that happened for no reason is the only way to keep your little idea.

In your mind it is coincidence. I see no coincidence in a pattern in materials. I see created order, even though that order may have underwent a nature change! Quit barking at the moon, and admit you have nothing.

How can you tell us where a daughter material came from? If you could do that, it would be worth looking at. All you can tell us is where a daughter material now comes from. That is only valid for as long as we know this state existed.

"
In 1869, just five years after John Newlands put forward his law of octaves, a Russian chemist called Dmitri Mendeleev published a periodic table. Mendeleev also arranged the elements known at the time in order of relative atomic mass, but he did some other things that made his table much more successful.
He realised that the physical and chemical properties of elements were related to their atomic mass in a 'periodic' way, and arranged them so that groups of elements with similar properties fell into vertical columns in his table."


http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebi...xcel/atomic_structure/periodictablerev1.shtml

 

[Kylie]

In your mind it is coincidence. I see no coincidence in a pattern in materials. I see created order, even though that order may have underwent a nature change! Quit barking at the moon, and admit you have nothing.

So now you are saying God intentionally put the extra daughter material there to make it all look like it was older?

 

[dad]

So now you are saying God intentionally put the extra daughter material there to make it all look like it was older?

If the daughter material was here at the start of this state, as we have been discussing for days now..(unless you were too busy talking to yourself)..then it would only look old to same state past believers. It doesn't look old to me.

 

[Kylie]

If the daughter material was here at the start of this state, as we have been discussing for days now..(unless you were too busy talking to yourself)..then it would only look old to same state past believers. It doesn't look old to me.

You don't get it. The RATIO of daughter to parent could only have been caused by millions of years of decay or an astronomically unlikely coincidence.

 

[dad]

You don't get it. The RATIO of daughter to parent could only have been caused by millions of years of decay or an astronomically unlikely coincidence.

Only if the present state were in place...otherwise no decay. No coincidence either..just no present state.

Daughter material that was already here in the former state would not be a product of decay. You simply are welded to your belief system, and so in the box, that you can't seem to even peek out.

It's a brave new world out here for the open minded and honest.

 

[Kylie]

Only if the present state were in place...otherwise no decay. No coincidence either..just no present state.

And if there was a different state in the past, it would be IMPOSSIBLE for the daughter material to build up to the levels we see and still be in the correct ratio to the parent material in the many different samples we test!

Daughter material that was already here in the former state would not be a product of decay. You simply are welded to your belief system, and so in the box, that you can't seem to even peek out.

If it was here before, then why is it always in the same ratio to the parent material? Your only option is to say it is all a huge coincidence!

 

[dad]

And if there was a different state in the past, it would be IMPOSSIBLE for the daughter material to build up to the levels we see and still be in the correct ratio to the parent material in the many different samples we test!

Ha. Therein lies your confusion! In a former state the daughter material may have been producing the parent material for all we know!? Whatever it was doing, if anything, it was not involved in this present state atomic norm! Forget thinking of daughter material as related to decay in any way in the former state! Only if you do that, will you need to invoke coincidence for present ratios.

If it was here before, then why is it always in the same ratio to the parent material?

Don't confuse ratio with relationship. What is now daughter material (because it NOW exists in a decay relationship with certain parent materials) was just material in the former state...we know not what it was doing.

Let's say we have A, B, and C making up the isotopes in a rock. In this present state the B and C might be produced by decay from A. However, in the former state (say we had the same ratio of ABC) C might have been being rejuvenated by A or B! Whatever processes existed need not be like ours today in this state.

 

[Dave Ellis]

If it was here before, then why is it always in the same ratio to the parent material? Your only option is to say it is all a huge coincidence!

Remember.... you are talking to a guy who believes the universe was created after the domestication of the dog....

 

[bhsmte]

Remember.... you are talking to a guy who believes the universe was created after the domestication of the dog....

You gotta admit, it is entertaining.

 

[Kylie]

Ha. Therein lies your confusion! In a former state the daughter material may have been producing the parent material for all we know!? Whatever it was doing, if anything, it was not involved in this present state atomic norm! Forget thinking of daughter material as related to decay in any way in the former state! Only if you do that, will you need to invoke coincidence for present ratios.

That is entirely possible. However, if that was true, it would not give the consistent decay ratios we see today. Rocks in lower layers dating to be younger than the rocks in more recent layers. Once again, you are required to claim a huge coincidence.

Don't confuse ratio with relationship. What is now daughter material (because it NOW exists in a decay relationship with certain parent materials) was just material in the former state...we know not what it was doing.

I know exactly what it was doing. It was being formed by the decay of the parent.

Let's say we have A, B, and C making up the isotopes in a rock. In this present state the B and C might be produced by decay from A. However, in the former state (say we had the same ratio of ABC) C might have been being rejuvenated by A or B! Whatever processes existed need not be like ours today in this state.

And once again, we would not see the A B and C in the ratios we see today. We see them in the exact ratios predicted. There are certain ratios that can never appear if the radioactive decay idea is correct. And we never see those ratios. it would like seeing a clock where the hour hand was on 12 and the minute hand was on six. That is impossible, as if the minute hand is on six, the hour hand must be halfway between two numbers, not pointing at one.

If your idea is correct, then such limitations would not apply. It would be a HUGE coincidence if the ratios were only ever those predicted by radioactive decay, despite them being able to be anything.

 

[dad]

That is entirely possible. However, if that was true, it would not give the consistent decay ratios we see today.

False, because the decay is something that we must have IN this state. The operative question is...was there any decay in the former state at all, and what would that have to do with this present state??? The daughter would not have been produced by decay, but would have been here in some other capacity in the former state.

Rocks in lower layers dating to be younger than the rocks in more recent layers. Once again, you are required to claim a huge coincidence.

Not at all. What you are saying is merely that there is daughter material in lower layers, and even more in recent layers. Yet since there is almost none produced in the long half lived materials in the last 4400 years, who cares!!??

I know exactly what it was doing. It was being formed by the decay of the parent.

Great, and how do you know this?? Voices in the head?? Premonition? Belief?

If you have anything else at all, now is a good time to show us!

And once again, we would not see the A B and C in the ratios we see today.

Of course we would.

We see them in the exact ratios predicted.

Only predicted in la la land fantasy imaginary time. Show us one prediction of this kind?

There are certain ratios that can never appear if the radioactive decay idea is correct. And we never see those ratios.

Great so let's see them then!!!?? Example?

it would like seeing a clock where the hour hand was on 12 and the minute hand was on six. That is impossible, as if the minute hand is on six, the hour hand must be halfway between two numbers, not pointing at one.

Where is this clock, and who set it?

If your idea is correct, then such limitations would not apply.

?? I can reach in and make a silly hour or minute hand point anywhere I like!

It would be a HUGE coincidence if the ratios were only ever those predicted by radioactive decay, despite them being able to be anything.

Name a ratio predicted? Based on what? I predict the predictions are religion...feel better?

 

[Kylie]

False, because the decay is something that we must have IN this state. The operative question is...was there any decay in the former state at all, and what would that have to do with this present state??? The daughter would not have been produced by decay, but would have been here in some other capacity in the former state.

Then why is it in the exact ratio we expect to see if it was caused by millions of years of decay?

Not at all. What you are saying is merely that there is daughter material in lower layers, and even more in recent layers. Yet since there is almost none produced in the long half lived materials in the last 4400 years, who cares!!??

You don't know what I am saying. This proves it. The exact opposite is true.

If you test the same dating method on very old rocks and newer rocks, you'll find that there is daughter material in the lower layers and LESS in the upper layers because the upper layers were formed more recently and have had less time to decay.

Great, and how do you know this?? Voices in the head?? Premonition? Belief?

If you have anything else at all, now is a good time to show us!

Already have! Not my fault you refuse to learn.

Of course we would.

No we wouldn't.

Only predicted in la la land fantasy imaginary time. Show us one prediction of this kind?

Every radiodating technique ever devised, dad. They all use these predictions. And they all work.

Great so let's see them then!!!?? Example?

Have you even been reading what I've been writing? I've explained very clearly how we can measure the half lives of the parent and daughter materials and use these to predict what ratios we'd be able to see. We can also use these to predict the ratios that could never arise, and whaddaya know, we never see them!

Where is this clock, and who set it?

Your different past state set it, dad. It set it so the hour hand was halfway between the 11 and the 12 and the minute hand was on the twelve. Now it doesn't make any sense at all.

?? I can reach in and make a silly hour or minute hand point anywhere I like!

Okay, set a clock the way I described. Hour hand on 12 and minute hand on 6. Take a photo and post it.

Name a ratio predicted? Based on what? I predict the predictions are religion...feel better?

I explained how we can only get certain ratios HERE. Have a read of that post. Using the example I used in that post, it would be impossible to get a ratio of 50% P, 40% D and 10% G.

See what happens when you don't pay attention? You don't learn anything, and that's a shame.

 

[dad]

Then why is it in the exact ratio we expect to see if it was caused by millions of years of decay?

Because you impose beliefs on the ratios that involve long imaginary ages! Stop doing that and it looks just fine!

You don't know what I am saying. This proves it. The exact opposite is true.

We shall see. Don't hold your breath.

If you test the same dating method on very old rocks and newer rocks, you'll find that there is daughter material in the lower layers and LESS in the upper layers because the upper layers were formed more recently and have had less time to decay.

No. That is not the reason that we know. That is imposing present state reasons for the daughter material. There are many ways we could look at the pattern. One couls assume that the daughter material was the parent in the former state..role reversal. One could assume that the parent daughter ratio happened fast, and worked in either direction in the former state for example. We do NOT know. You can't just look at this state and the decay and try to claim THAT alone is responsible for all things.

Every radiodating technique ever devised, dad. They all use these predictions. And they all work.

You seem to be referring to predictions as the belief in a same state past being used to explain patterns of material. That cannot tell us what state existed. That just tells us how you prefer to color evidence.

Have you even been reading what I've been writing? I've explained very clearly how we can measure the half lives of the parent and daughter materials and use these to predict what ratios we'd be able to see. We can also use these to predict the ratios that could never arise, and whaddaya know, we never see them!

Try giving an example. What do we not see where exactly, specifically? I could list some examples if you like of missing stuff that science claims decayed away. What they really mean is 'It golly gee must have decayed away, because we find no trace of it'! Then comes the question...'can you prove it was actually ever here!!??'

Your different past state set it, dad. It set it so the hour hand was halfway between the 11 and the 12 and the minute hand was on the twelve. Now it doesn't make any sense at all.

I see no ratios or materials anywhere that do not make sense. The hands were set fine, thank you very much.

Okay, set a clock the way I described. Hour hand on 12 and minute hand on 6. Take a photo and post it.

Why would I post a clock with wonky hands just because you dream it up??

I explained how we can only get certain ratios HERE. Have a read of that post. Using the example I used in that post, it would be impossible to get a ratio of 50% P, 40% D and 10% G.

That explained nothing but your belief set. Your main point seems to have been this

"So looking at the whole lump, we have 50% P, 25% D and 25% G."


If any of the letters here in the former state represented material in a different process than the decay we now have, what would it matter how much of any there were?? You are trying to impose present state reasons for existence of all things.

'Gee, they decay now, so they always did, and therefore the stuff that is NOW produced by decay was always produced that way..' yada yada yada circular belief based reasoning.


This all means that you cannot use the present state workings and forces, and laws, in any effort to describe the workings of the former state. You just believe and assume. End of story.

 

[Kylie]

Because you impose beliefs on the ratios that involve long imaginary ages! Stop doing that and it looks just fine!

Apart from the fact that it looks impossible.

We shall see. Don't hold your breath.

We've all already seen. Except for you.

No. That is not the reason that we know. That is imposing present state reasons for the daughter material. There are many ways we could look at the pattern. One couls assume that the daughter material was the parent in the former state..role reversal. One could assume that the parent daughter ratio happened fast, and worked in either direction in the former state for example. We do NOT know. You can't just look at this state and the decay and try to claim THAT alone is responsible for all things.

The problem is that none of those ideas actually explain why the ratios between parent, daughter and granddaughter materials always match what we'd expect to see if they'd been decaying for millions of years.

You seem to be referring to predictions as the belief in a same state past being used to explain patterns of material. That cannot tell us what state existed. That just tells us how you prefer to color evidence.

A same past state is the best explanation for what we see.

Try giving an example. What do we not see where exactly, specifically? I could list some examples if you like of missing stuff that science claims decayed away. What they really mean is 'It golly gee must have decayed away, because we find no trace of it'! Then comes the question...'can you prove it was actually ever here!!??'

Okay. Post it. Post an example of something where the ratios were impossible according to current scientific thinking. I bet you can't.

I see no ratios or materials anywhere that do not make sense. The hands were set fine, thank you very much.

Well, since you don't understand them, you wouldn't would you?

Why would I post a clock with wonky hands just because you dream it up??

Because I don't think you can do it like you claimed you could. Not without damaging the clock!

That explained nothing but your belief set. Your main point seems to have been this

"So looking at the whole lump, we have 50% P, 25% D and 25% G."

If any of the letters here in the former state represented material in a different process than the decay we now have, what would it matter how much of any there were?? You are trying to impose present state reasons for existence of all things.

'Gee, they decay now, so they always did, and therefore the stuff that is NOW produced by decay was always produced that way..' yada yada yada circular belief based reasoning.


This all means that you cannot use the present state workings and forces, and laws, in any effort to describe the workings of the former state. You just believe and assume. End of story.

Well, what I've been saying is supported by science.

But if you think it's wrong, explain it. Explain how the ratios could form that way with a different state past. Please go into as much detail as I did, showing numbers and everything, explaining WHY it works.

I bet you can't.

 

[dad]

Apart from the fact that it looks impossible.

Holw it looks depends on how we chose to view it.

The problem is that none of those ideas actually explain why the ratios between parent, daughter and granddaughter materials always match what we'd expect to see if they'd been decaying for millions of years.

Yes, they do. A different set of forces and laws applied.

A same past state is the best explanation for what we see.

Not to the honest or informed.

Okay. Post it. Post an example of something where the ratios were impossible according to current scientific thinking. I bet you can't.

You misunderstand. They claim to expect the stuff should be missing! That is why they claim they can't find it!

Well, since you don't understand them, you wouldn't would you?

Not sure what ratios of isotopes you think are hard to understand. But you just like to talk for nothing I guess.

Because I don't think you can do it like you claimed you could. Not without damaging the clock!

If you are trying to relate a clock to a different state past, that is no good. It was not a change in OUR present state clock. That would damage stuff.

Well, what I've been saying is supported by science.

You have been saying there is decay. I agree there is, and science knows. So? Try to apply that to Noah's day.

But if you think it's wrong, explain it. Explain how the ratios could form that way with a different state past. Please go into as much detail as I did, showing numbers and everything, explaining WHY it works.

Science doesn't know how the former state worked. Therefore, your question is flawed. They explain this state the best way they know how. Nothing else. When they try to explain the future or far past, all they do is carry this state in their minds to imaginary places.

Don't pretend you know. It isn't becoming of you.

 

[Kylie]

Holw it looks depends on how we chose to view it.

Reality does not change according to your choices.

Yes, they do. A different set of forces and laws applied.

No they didn't.

Not to the honest or informed.

The second one counts you out.

You misunderstand. They claim to expect the stuff should be missing! That is why they claim they can't find it!

If it is really there, you should be able to show it.

Not sure what ratios of isotopes you think are hard to understand. But you just like to talk for nothing I guess.

I think it's obvious to everyone reading this thread other than you that I understand this topic a great deal better than you do.

If you are trying to relate a clock to a different state past, that is no good. It was not a change in OUR present state clock. That would damage stuff.

You seem to be incapable of understanding my point.

You have been saying there is decay. I agree there is, and science knows. So? Try to apply that to Noah's day.

Same laws applied.

Science doesn't know how the former state worked. Therefore, your question is flawed. They explain this state the best way they know how. Nothing else. When they try to explain the future or far past, all they do is carry this state in their minds to imaginary places.

You can't even demonstrate that there was a different state!

Don't pretend you know. It isn't becoming of you.

You're the one pretending to know things.

 

[dad]

If it is really there, you should be able to show it.

That's what I say! Yet in Oklo, there is missing stuff, and let's see you show it?


"Although almost all this
material, which has a 24,000-year halflife,
has since disappeared (primarily
through natural radioactive decay),...
"

The Workings of An Ancient Nuclear Reactor - A Two Billion Years African Uranium Deposit

How can we prove it was ever there?

Same laws applied.

Not that we know, actually.

You can't even demonstrate that there was a different state!

No need, the bible is pretty clear that there were differences..and science is not even a player, in that it is unable to deal with the issue.

 

[Kylie]

That's what I say! Yet in Oklo, there is missing stuff, and let's see you show it?


"Although almost all this
material, which has a 24,000-year halflife,
has since disappeared (primarily
through natural radioactive decay),...
"

The Workings of An Ancient Nuclear Reactor - A Two Billion Years African Uranium Deposit

How can we prove it was ever there?

Because it leaves behind daughter materials in the correct ratio.

Not that we know, actually.

Yes we do. YOU may not, but scientists do.

No need, the bible is pretty clear that there were differences..and science is not even a player, in that it is unable to deal with the issue.

Actually, science has proven itself to be the best tool we have for learning about the way the universe works. The Bible is not a valid tool for learning about how the universe works.

 

[bhsmte]

Dad loses again!