Hey maybe on some other thread get someone that does. We can talk.
The information is freely available on the net. If you actually had any interest in learning (instead of just spouting your opinion as fact), you'd go and find it.
The claim that science doesn't know what the state of the past was is a mere observation, that can't be refuted.
It can be refuted, and I have refuted it. If you want to show why my refutation is flawed, you could answer those questions I asked in my previous post.
That's what you think. Only in the near past would it be valid, only as long as our state existed. (not even that long if collaboration of trees or corals is needed/used.
You can't even tell us what laws of nature were changed or how they were different. Don't come in here and say that you know enough about the different past state (if there was such a thing) to say that radioactive decay was different.
Never saw a dime spent on a same state past...you? Bizarre.
Anyone who pays to have radiometric dating done.
So, the petrochemical industry springs to mind. How much money do they spend a year on geological analyses?
Yes you can type stuff. Wow. How about..'I've been to Mars'? That might be a good sig too.
And apparently, you can't refute it.
Source? Details? How do you come up with an age exactly? The movement over the hot spot is no issue. Only when and how fast...in other words what state.
Source? Primary school level geology. As in, "The plate movement for Hawaii is X centimeters per year. Hawaii is currently Y kilometers from the hotspot. To travel Y kilometers and X centimeters per year will take Z years."
But, I'm going to humour you.
Let's say that you are right. There really was a dsp. And this meant that plate movement in the dsp was different to what it is today, so any age we get from looking at the plate movement and assuming it was the same in the past is wrong. And let's also assume that radioactive decay was different in the dsp as well (or even non-existent) so that when we radio date samples today we get wrong results.
Why oh why oh why would two such flawed methods give us the same result, dad?
I dare you to try to defend that nonsense!! Anytime.
That doesn't answer the question.
Try to see if you can detect several present state law requirements in the first sentence of your link..
Do you not see the flaw in assuming that your position is true in your attempt to prove your position is true?
Name the method the sample rock is consistent with? We can look at that.
Younger rocks are at the top. Older rocks are at the bottom. When we date the rocks at the top and the rocks at the bottom, the rocks at the top give ages younger than the rocks at the bottom.
Now, this is simple enough for a five year old to understand it.
And so, summing up, the bible indicates a different state past.
False. YOUR INTERPRETATION of the Bible indicates a DSP, and your interpretation is wrong.
Earliest history agrees by and large.
But we have no way of verifying those stories, do we?
The present state laws are required to give any meaning to radiactive decay dating, and we do not know what laws existed.
If we do not know what laws existed, then ANY laws could have existed - including the laws that we have today!
Three rings and coral dating depend on present laws too as does ALL methods so called science has used.
This is false, as I have explained countless times.
No proof of a same state past exists, rendering the anti bible cliams of so called science null and void.
God was right all along.....
Rejoice oh people of God.
I suspect you suffer from paranoia.
