Real time or evo time?

[dad]

I've been asking the same honest question for page after page, which you seem to be evading.

Here it is again:

Do you know with certainty whether or not the Moon is in the same state (time and space) now as it was the last time men were there?

Evo time means imaginary old ages, and that does not involve last month or 800 years ago, etc. The knowledge of science about time and the far universe goes only so far also. The moon is not outside the area of man. Now focus.

 

[dad]

Skeptical noises without substance don't impeded real science.

They have a map of what it looks like from the fishbowl. Whoopee do. The distances and basics of space and time and creation are out of their shallow puddle of knowledge. You picked the wrong side.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

They have a map of what it looks like from the fishbowl. Whoopee do. The distances and basics of space and time and creation are out of their shallow puddle of knowledge. You picked the wrong side.

You have know way of knowing what you are talking about, having decided to reject all evidence.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Evo time means imaginary old ages, and that does not involve last month or 800 years ago, etc. The knowledge of science about time and the far universe goes only so far also. The moon is not outside the area of man. Now focus.

That's nice. Now answer the question:

Do you know with certainty whether or not the Moon is in the same state (time and space) now as it was the last time men were there?

 

[Kylie]

The differences in the past had to be big enough to allow us to live many many centuries, and trees to grow in weeks, and spirits to live on earth, and etc etc.

So the laws would have had to be quite different back then, since none of that can happen with the current laws (or anything close to the current laws).

So why would anything operating under such different laws appear similar in any way to what we have today?

Let's call this the Star Trek problem. In Star Trek, you have lots of alien planets with life made of completely different biochemistry than what we have on Earth, and yet nearly ALL the aliens look like people with bumpy foreheads. It just doesn't make sense that something so different would look so similar.

The important thing is not to know exactly what the differences were, but whether things were different.

And the instant you say, "Oh, we don't need to know that," you invite ignorance. Do you want to be ignorant? I sure don't.

Once we know that, all else becomes somewhat minor of an issue. Science needs to be able to prove things were the same..laws, forces...or else it cannot claim they were. The burden of proof is on them, since they use the same state past to model all things regarding future and past.

How about we just decide that we don't need to present any proof at all, like you have?

It's up to you to prove that there was a different state past, or I win by default!

 

[dad]

You have know way of knowing what you are talking about, having decided to reject all evidence.

I do not reject the evidence of the Son of God and His words. Nor do I reject any evidence in the real world..ever. I simply do not allow religious rot to be presented as evidence and science. I also question believers that not only do so, but do so with all their heart and soul.

 

[dad]

That's nice. Now answer the question:

Do you know with certainty whether or not the Moon is in the same state (time and space) now as it was the last time men were there?

If you have a comment about evo time (the topic by the way) let us know. Hint: Old ages are not in the last few weeks or centuries or even thousand years.

 

[dad]

So the laws would have had to be quite different back then, since none of that can happen with the current laws (or anything close to the current laws).

Correct, and the same is true of the future told to us in the bible...different.

So why would anything operating under such different laws appear similar in any way to what we have today?

The key to the past is the future. So let's look at the future. Lions will look like lions...yet they will eat grass, and probably have pre flood style long life spans! So we can't go by looks.

Let's call this the Star Trek problem. In Star Trek, you have lots of alien planets with life made of completely different biochemistry than what we have on Earth, and yet nearly ALL the aliens look like people with bumpy foreheads. It just doesn't make sense that something so different would look so similar.

Since star trek was made by men, it makes sense that they have limited imaginations.

And the instant you say, "Oh, we don't need to know that," you invite ignorance. Do you want to be ignorant? I sure don't.

It is not a matter of people getting a vote whether they know or not! They either do, or do not. It is high time that so called science stopped pulling the con job on us all, that they are not ignorant. They are as ignorant as the day is long.

How about we just decide that we don't need to present any proof at all, like you have?

No choice about it. You have none. All that is needed is a confession of really really really really really really not knowing!

It's up to you to prove that there was a different state past, or I win by default!

I do not need to prove anything, I simply try to deduce what God said, and the record we have from the creator of it all. We then compare that with what we have today, and lo and behold...a difference! Elementary.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

I do not reject the evidence of the Son of God and His words. Nor do I reject any evidence in the real world..ever. I simply do not allow religious rot to be presented as evidence and science. I also question believers that not only do so, but do so with all their heart and soul.

That's rejecting evidence.

 

[dad]

That's rejecting evidence.

Sorry, but that makes no sense. One could never accept the religious or belief based musings of science about creation as evidence.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Sorry, but that makes no sense. One could never accept the religious or belief based musings of science about creation as evidence.

Counting how many atoms of uranium have split and how many remain in a rock is gathering evidence. Calling that a religious based musing is rejecting the evidence.

 

[dad]

Counting how many atoms of uranium have split and how many remain in a rock is gathering evidence. Calling that a religious based musing is rejecting the evidence.

False. You do not know that all daughter isotopes got there BY present state radioactive means, so in no possible way can anyone call that 'evidence' for anything but that they are there! Yes we know that in the present state decay happens, and have evidence for that. I reject NO evidence. Amazing to me that so many have abandoned the faith of out fathers over such silly old wive's tales and absolute misconceptions.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

False. You do not know that all daughter isotopes got there BY present state radioactive means, so in no possible way can anyone call that 'evidence' for anything but that they are there! Yes we know that in the present state decay happens, and have evidence for that. I reject NO evidence. Amazing to me that so many have abandoned the faith of out fathers over such silly old wive's tales and absolute misconceptions.

Asserting "you do not know that all the daughter isotopes got there by present state radioactive means" is denying the evidence. Calling the daughter isotopes "silly old wives tales" is rejecting the evidence.

We know daughter isotopes are actually daughter isotopes because their isotope composition is in a different ratio from the same elements that occur naturally aside from radioactive decay.

Besides that, there are other ways of counting decays besides counting daughter isotopes. For example, we can count the fission tracks left behind by radioactive decay.

Besides that, in certain circumstances, we know there were no daughter isotopes to begin with. Zircon crystals, for example, when formed, exclude lead. They don't exclude uranium. Any lead in a zircon crystal came from decaying uranium.

There's evidence for the conclusions of science. You reject the evidence.

 

[dad]

Asserting "you do not know that all the daughter isotopes got there by present state radioactive means" is denying the evidence.

That would only be true if we what state the past was. You have no idea at all, and no evidence. The fact that you try to pawn of as evidence the mere existence of certain isotopes as evidence of a certain state in the past is proof you have nothing but a circular foolish position.

Calling the daughter isotopes "silly old wives tales" is rejecting the evidence.

No one did that and it is disingenuous to pretend they did. What is the foolish fable is claiming that those isotopes all got there by present state decay with NO proof whatsoever. Looking at the present state and it's decay is not proof that the state was the same in the far past in any way at all.

We know daughter isotopes are actually daughter isotopes because their isotope composition is in a different ratio from the same elements that occur naturally aside from radioactive decay.

In what way is a different ratio evidence that radioactive decay happened?

How would you know how much isotope was here or not? A lot of the stuff you 'expect' in the decay chain is not here at all even, and you can not prove it ever was! That is, the stuff that must have 'decayed away'. Other stuff that is there, supposed was left by decay billions of years in the past! Prove it!

" Lead isotopes are important because two different lead isotopes (207Pb and 206Pb) are produced from the decay series of two different uranium isotopes (235U and 238U). Since both decay series contain a unique set of intermediate radioactive isotopes, and because each has its own half-life, independent age calculations can be made from each (Dalrymple 2004:65). "

http://apps.usd.edu/esci/creation/age/content/current_scientific_clocks/lead_isotopes.html

That is total belief based reasoning. The 'series' could exist only if the present state had existed, and cannot be inferred without first knowing it did. Otherwise, the series was held in another state for all you know!

Besides that, there are other ways of counting decays besides counting daughter isotopes. For example, we can count the fission tracks left behind by radioactive decay.

But can you say that all tracks were caused by decay?! Or is all you can say, 'we think they were because using our same state past religion, we can think of no other way'!

Besides that, in certain circumstances, we know there were no daughter isotopes to begin with. Zircon crystals, for example, when formed, exclude lead.

Stop and think about what you just said. 'When we NOW see crystals FORMED, there is no lead in them' So what!!? That does not tell us whether the same was true in the former state or not, it tells us you obsess on only the present state.

There's evidence for the conclusions of science.

No. So far we see a godless confluence of assumptions all solely resting on the same religion. No science. Real science is here and now.

 

[Kylie]

Correct, and the same is true of the future told to us in the bible...different.

Glad we agree on something. If the laws were different, then they must have been very different.

The key to the past is the future. So let's look at the future. Lions will look like lions...yet they will eat grass, and probably have pre flood style long life spans! So we can't go by looks.

This is meaningless.

How can a lion look like a lion if we agree that differnet laws must be VERY different?

Since star trek was made by men, it makes sense that they have limited imaginations.

Then by the same logic, God has a limited imagination as well, since you claim that lions will still look like lions, despite there being very different laws.

It is not a matter of people getting a vote whether they know or not! They either do, or do not. It is high time that so called science stopped pulling the con job on us all, that they are not ignorant. They are as ignorant as the day is long.

What are you going on about? You claimed that it wasn't important to know. Thus, you are encouraging ignorance.

No choice about it. You have none. All that is needed is a confession of really really really really really really not knowing!

Can you do anything OTHER than this glorified, "I can't hear you! Lalalalalalala!"

I do not need to prove anything, I simply try to deduce what God said, and the record we have from the creator of it all. We then compare that with what we have today, and lo and behold...a difference! Elementary.

So you admit that you are basing your entire worldview on an unproven position?

 

[dad]

Nothing new here, mere repeated denials.

Asserting "you do not know that all the daughter isotopes got there by present state radioactive means" is denying the evidence.

That would only be true if we knew what state the past was. You have no idea at all, and no evidence. The fact that you try to pawn of as evidence the mere existence of certain isotopes as evidence of a certain state in the past is proof you have nothing but a circular foolish position.

Calling the daughter isotopes "silly old wives tales" is rejecting the evidence.

No one did that and it is disingenuous to pretend they did. What is the foolish fable is claiming that those isotopes all got there by present state decay with NO proof whatsoever. Looking at the present state and it's decay is not proof that the state was the same in the far past in any way at all.

We know daughter isotopes are actually daughter isotopes because their isotope composition is in a different ratio from the same elements that occur naturally aside from radioactive decay.

In what way is a different ratio evidence that radioactive decay happened?

How would you know how much isotope was here or not? A lot of the stuff you 'expect' in the decay chain is not here at all even, and you can not prove it ever was! That is, the stuff that must have 'decayed away'. Other stuff that is there, supposed was left by decay billions of years in the past! Prove it!

" Lead isotopes are important because two different lead isotopes (207Pb and 206Pb) are produced from the decay series of two different uranium isotopes (235U and 238U). Since both decay series contain a unique set of intermediate radioactive isotopes, and because each has its own half-life, independent age calculations can be made from each (Dalrymple 2004:65). "

http://apps.usd.edu/esci/creation/age/content/current_scientific_clocks/lead_isotopes.html

That is total belief based reasoning. The 'series' could exist only if the present state had existed, and cannot be inferred without first knowing it did. Otherwise, the series was held in another state for all you know!

Besides that, there are other ways of counting decays besides counting daughter isotopes. For example, we can count the fission tracks left behind by radioactive decay.

But can you say that all tracks were caused by decay?! Or is all you can say, 'we think they were because using our same state past religion, we can think of no other way'!

Besides that, in certain circumstances, we know there were no daughter isotopes to begin with. Zircon crystals, for example, when formed, exclude lead.

Stop and think about what you just said. 'When we NOW see crystals FORMED, there is no lead in them' So what!!? That does not tell us whether the same was true in the former state or not, it tells us you obsess on only the present state.

There's evidence for the conclusions of science.

No. So far we see a godless confluence of assumptions all solely resting on the same religion. No science. Real science is here and now.

If you must bother posting, address the issues. Your pretense of having any evidence is clearly exposed as a farce. You have godless beliefs.

 

[dad]

Glad we agree on something. If the laws were different, then they must have been very different.

True.

How can a lion look like a lion if we agree that differnet laws must be VERY different?

Just because it eats grass doen't mean it looks like a frog.

Then by the same logic, God has a limited imagination as well, since you claim that lions will still look like lions, despite there being very different laws.

Man looks like man too, that is not due to a lack of imagination.

What are you going on about? You claimed that it wasn't important to know. Thus, you are encouraging ignorance.

It is one thing to admit not knowing but another to advocate never knowing. You are on a need to know basis with God. The main thing science needs to know is that they need to know Him!

So you admit that you are basing your entire worldview on an unproven position?

I admit the lying demonic fables of science are based on nothing but a worldview. The actual record of the past has always been here to avail ourselves of. Science chose to lean to their own inspiration and imagination and godless surrender to delusions and demons. The result is Satanic insanity.

 

[dad]

And yet you seem to be claiming that a lion that eats grass in a universe where the laws work very differently to the laws we have today is somehow going to look almost identical to a lion that eats meat today!

I am not sure about 'identical' after all the original kind would have adapted a lot. But I have no real doubt a lion will still be a lion.

And that this same thing will happen to every animal! What an amazing coincidence!

I fail to see how it would be coincidence for life processes to fall into line with the forces and laws that exist?

Nah, that's because of evolution.

As much as you'd like to give credit for mankind existing to some godless vague notion of 'evolution', you would need more than to look at bacteria now and see some evolving and jump to insane conclusions.

You got more than slogans?

Part of slugging sometimes involves slogans.

Wow, name calling and a refusal to actually answer the question or understand the point I was trying to make.

Not sure why you would take some personal offense to having the fools fable factory of science exposed as being not of God and not based on knowledge.

Tell me why I should waste my time with someone who goes out of their way to refuse to understand or learn?

It is not the act of memorizing fables that truly constitutes learning.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

That would only be true if we knew what state the past was. You have no idea at all, and no evidence. The fact that you try to pawn of as evidence the mere existence of certain isotopes as evidence of a certain state in the past is proof you have nothing but a circular foolish position.

No one did that and it is disingenuous to pretend they did. What is the foolish fable is claiming that those isotopes all got there by present state decay with NO proof whatsoever. Looking at the present state and it's decay is not proof that the state was the same in the far past in any way at all.


In what way is a different ratio evidence that radioactive decay happened?

How would you know how much isotope was here or not? A lot of the stuff you 'expect' in the decay chain is not here at all even, and you can not prove it ever was! That is, the stuff that must have 'decayed away'. Other stuff that is there, supposed was left by decay billions of years in the past! Prove it!

" Lead isotopes are important because two different lead isotopes (207Pb and 206Pb) are produced from the decay series of two different uranium isotopes (235U and 238U). Since both decay series contain a unique set of intermediate radioactive isotopes, and because each has its own half-life, independent age calculations can be made from each (Dalrymple 2004:65). "

http://apps.usd.edu/esci/creation/age/content/current_scientific_clocks/lead_isotopes.html

That is total belief based reasoning. The 'series' could exist only if the present state had existed, and cannot be inferred without first knowing it did. Otherwise, the series was held in another state for all you know!


But can you say that all tracks were caused by decay?! Or is all you can say, 'we think they were because using our same state past religion, we can think of no other way'!
Stop and think about what you just said. 'When we NOW see crystals FORMED, there is no lead in them' So what!!? That does not tell us whether the same was true in the former state or not, it tells us you obsess on only the present state.

No. So far we see a godless confluence of assumptions all solely resting on the same religion. No science. Real science is here and now.

If you must bother posting, address the issues. Your pretense of having any evidence is clearly exposed as a farce. You have godless beliefs.

Earlier, I posted this:

Calling the daughter isotopes "silly old wives tales" is rejecting the evidence.

You replied with this comment:

No one did that and it is disingenuous to pretend they did

But the done who called the daughter isotopes was YOU which anyone can SEE by going back to post 1137 in this very thread!

Amazing to me that so many have abandoned the faith of out fathers over such silly old wive's tales and absolute misconceptions

Well, of course you can't be bothered to remember your own words over such an extended period of time . . . was that one day, or two?

The actual content of your part of the discussion continues to be mere denial of the evidence. I'm most pleased to remind folks of the evidence you continue to deny . . .

For example, we have starlight arriving at our telescopes from galaxies so distant that it takes light millions of years to travel so far. This is evidence that, millions of years ago, there were galaxies with stars that shed light.

Go ahead, tell us you deny that as evidence of an old, ancient creation.

 

[RealityCheck01]

We have covered the following rungs on the cosmic distance ladder:

1. Parallax (a concept that children can understand)
2. Parallax applied to clusters of stars
3. Secular Parallax
4. Statistical Parallax
5. Kinematic Distance
6. Expansion Parallax
7. Light Echo Distance
8. Spectroscopic Visual Binaries
9. Expanding Photosphere Method
10. Main Sequence Fitting
11. Spectroscopic Parallax
12. RR Lyrae Distance
13. Cepheid variables (high school level science)
14. Planetary Nebula Luminosity Function
15. Type 1a supernova (first year astronomy students)

This is the real world, not a long (40 items) list of denied science, unanswered questions, fantasies, delusion, etc. started on 4 August 2016 for dad.

The ABC's of Distances

Brightest Stars
When a galaxy is very nearby, individual stars can be resolved. The brightness of these stars can be used to estimate the distance to the galaxy. Often people assume that there is a fixed upper limit to the brightness of stars, but this appears to be a poor assumption. Nonetheless, if a large population of bright stars is studied, a reasonable distance estimate can be made.

For example see the images from Hubble of the Andromeda Galaxy taken in 2015. The reasonable distance estimate is simply that the brightness of light decreases as the inverse square of the source distance. With a estimate of their intrinsic brightness and a measurement of their actual brightness, their distance can be calculated.

Largest H II Region Diameters
Hot luminous stars ionize the hydrogen gas around them, producing an H II region like the Orion nebula. The diameter of the largest H II region in external galaxies has been taken as a "standard rod" that can be used to determine distances. But this appears to be a poor assumption.

Unfortunately Edward L. Wright's reasons are not listed for this being a poor assumption for a standard rod.

Surface Brightness Fluctuations
When a galaxy is too distant to allow the detection of individual stars, one can still estimate the distance using the statistical fluctuation in the number of stars in a pixel. A nearby galaxy might have 100 stars projected into each pixel of an image, while a more distant galaxy would have a larger number like 1000. The nearby galaxy would have +/- 10% fluctuations in surface brightness (1/sqrt(N)), while the more distant galaxy would have 3% fluctuations. A figure [75 kB] to illustrate this shows a nearby dwarf galaxy, a nearby giant galaxy, and the giant galaxy at a distance such that its total flux is the same as that of the nearby dwarf. Note that the distant giant galaxy has a much smoother image than the nearby dwarf.