Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Such as..? If you had posted anything of substance, maybe people could have seen where you stand. I find it not so brave to have someone merely whine in snippets, saying nothing.When I see your delusions I think the word is being appropriately used.
How would, or why would stuff IN this state 'bear the evidence' of how they were in the former state that you , here could tell?? You seem to have something in your mind that doesn't translate well into posts.
Bingo...same state all!!!
You call em like you see em. Sounds whacked out to me though.
Just be clear, and pretend a lurker needed to understand it too.
Nah, most of that is in your head! As an example the rock I posted! Half life of what was it, 40 something BILLION years!!!!!!? Now how much stuff in that rock in the picture do you claim we should see from the last 4400 years!!!! Get it?
You cited some fable I cited another...either one is not up to the task of being what you need.
Wrong about "this"?? Be more clear.
One assumes that what can exist in this state that was in the former state exists here as part of our present state world. What you thought it would have red dye in it or something?
Because you cook the books when needed to toss around millions of imaginary years?
But hey, look at this rock
Rock dated by rubidium decay, a sample of the element Rubidium in the Periodic Table
Now tell us when it was also tested as you say!? Then we will look at it.
Yes I have. I suggested that the former state had processes for rocks also. Processes that involved the same materials in a different way. Therefore, how would you test anything out of the fishbowl of this earth time we live in now??? That is false criteria.
How could a same state past be falsified? Stop dodging.
Hard to argue that one...so? A cat is different than a mouse..etc....
Why look at all things here in this state as if they always existed here?Well, why should things created in a DSP look like they have always existed in the present state?
I realize you don't know what you are talking about by the things said so far.If you actually knew what you were talking about, you'd realise that you are a) mistaken and b) making a fool of yourself.
Such as?I call em as the evidence shows.
Yes, why?Do you know what half life is?
I asked about a specific example.Do you realise that a single rock sample may be subjected to several different kinds of dating technique?
Call it whatever you like. If is still a big word.I was clearly speaking as a hypothetical. I said, "IF there was a SSP, then the universe would need to be old."
How can you not see that as a hypothetical? The presence of that word IF is a dead giveaway.
That depends it it is used in some context.You seriously don't know what I am referring to when I say "this"?
Ha! Then this is something you can't prove and that is nonsense.What have I been talking about, dad? What's my position been throughout this thread, dad?
"This" refers to the present state having always existed!
Yes. They can and many did. Noah for example! So?Right, so things that were formed in the different state can remain existing in the present state, are we agreed? Yes or no please.
No need. If the sample was subjected, then you may raise the facts about the dating. So far we have 40 something imaginary billion years that is the "Y" in our formula. (where x + y = P -x is the daughter already here at the start of the state, and y is the daughter added by decay in the last 4400 years since the state presumably started, and p is the present total we see) Looks like we have then, over 40 billion in the x pile, and 4400 in the y pile! How would that help your claims?Prove that no rock has ever been subjected to two different radiometric dating techniques. Until you can do this, you will have failed.
The process of a created set of forces and laws that are no longer in place would not be known. That is one reason I call you out when you try to pretend it is all known.That is not an explanation. Explain to us what these process were and how they differed from the processes that occur today.
No. Because the ratios are expected. In no way does it even address the issue of what state the rock used to be in. All we can see is how much of certain stuff is in the rock. Now as my example is clear, let's look at it. You claim that it is about the oldest rock on earth. The half life of one material then is over 40 billion years! That means nothing! How can you say you expected that much? The only reason you 'expect' it, is because it is there. Circular. Prove that this rock is really billions of years old? You claim it because of the ratios, then turn around and claim that the ratios are as expected!If we found a rock in which the ratio of parent to daughter material did NOT match what we expect (such as if the amount of daughter material was ten times what we expected), then this would prove the SSP wrong.
Seems like a form of solipsism to me!Typical. You go to all the effort of making a point, then when I prove you wrong you act like it means nothing...
The points have been made to you myriad times before - on this and other forums. All you do is whine incessantly "that isn't proof" - la la la.Such as..? If you had posted anything of substance, maybe people could have seen where you stand. I find it not so brave to have someone merely whine in snippets, saying nothing.
Lie.The points have been made to you myriad times before - on this and other forums. All you do is whine incessantly "that isn't proof" - la la la.
No, actually. I am laughing as you fail to support this present state having existed in the far past. Really. Ask a lurker. Science doesn't know. The anti Christ attitude of many who are involved in so called science is not of any value here. Facts, maam, just the facts.You are deluded - you don't understand the science and you cannot frame coherent logical arguments. It's all a big waste of your time and everyone else's.
You doubt a different state in the past as the bible and history indicate? Personal incredulity. Ho hum.It's one big appeal from personal incredulity on your part. Nothing more than that.
Why look at all things here in this state as if they always existed here?
I realize you don't know what you are talking about by the things said so far.
Such as?
Yes, why?
I asked about a specific example.
Call it whatever you like. If is still a big word.
That depends it it is used in some context.
Ha! Then this is something you can't prove and that is nonsense.
Yes. They can and many did. Noah for example! So?
No need. If the sample was subjected, then you may raise the facts about the dating. So far we have 40 something imaginary billion years that is the "Y" in our formula. (where x + y = P -x is the daughter already here at the start of the state, and y is the daughter added by decay in the last 4400 years since the state presumably started, and p is the present total we see) Looks like we have then, over 40 billion in the x pile, and 4400 in the y pile! How would that help your claims?
The process of a created set of forces and laws that are no longer in place would not be known. That is one reason I call you out when you try to pretend it is all known.
No. Because the ratios are expected. In no way does it even address the issue of what state the rock used to be in. All we can see is how much of certain stuff is in the rock. Now as my example is clear, let's look at it. You claim that it is about the oldest rock on earth. The half life of one material then is over 40 billion years! That means nothing! How can you say you expected that much? The only reason you 'expect' it, is because it is there. Circular. Prove that this rock is really billions of years old? You claim it because of the ratios, then turn around and claim that the ratios are as expected!
Seems like a form of solipsism to me!You actually do not prove anyone wrong by citing a few different kinds of rocks or whatever, without even a point!
No, what you're doing is circular reasoning. You've assumed DSP and strengthen that assumption by reasons build upon that assumption.Meaningless! The way that so called science deduces is based ON these laws only...circular.
Again, you don't know the term 'proof'.Says you. I call it proof.
This is something that I can mirror exactly.No, I have not seen reasons worth a darn yet for your imagined and unproven state on earth that you claim existed. None. Speaking of challenges, get to it man.
Per definition, all evidence.Vague....what evidence is independent of present state law assumptions?? Let's see some.
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.
No. I looked at the evidences and the record and was forced to come to the logical conclusion.No, what you're doing is circular reasoning. You've assumed DSP and strengthen that assumption by reasons build upon that assumption.
Of course it is, and believed. Nothing whatsoever more. That is why you have not presented anything.Per definition, all evidence.
(Also, I'll tell you again, SSP isn't assumed)
My conclusion is that you are not qualified to construct a half interesting and relative thought experiment. Keep working on that.Thought experiment:
You have a circular box with hundreds of strings coming out perpendicular to the sides, equally distanced from each other, exactly in the middle of the height.
When you pull in one string you see all other strings move a little bit, especially the string on the other side, the strings on the closest half doesn't move at all.
This is what happens with all strings when you pull them, after you've put them back in their original position.
What is your conclusion?
Not as isBecause you say some of them existed in a past state!
False bravado?I know more about science than you do.
..is hooey. Yes I think we established that.The whole radio dating thing.
What are you babbling abut? What I pointed out was that a long half life (time it takes to decay) would mean that it would be hard to tell what was decayed just in the last 4400 years. Go ahead, show us from the rock sample how much that is!Because you seem to be under the very mistaken impression that half life refers to the age that a procedure can date. It has only a rough correlation, and even the Rubidium-strontium method is able to date rocks on Earth accurately.
I gave you a rock. Deal with it.And you;ve been asked for specific examples countless times as well throughout this thread. You go and address all of them, and maybe I'll start playing as well.
Until you know, no comments from the uninformed gallery needed then I guess.Shame you can't apply it to your "old stories". IF the stories are true. IF people really lived that long back then...
From sentences like this??Are you incapable of figuring out what the context of this discussion is?
You were wrong, clearly. I showed it was bad religion. I also have no claim of testing some laws that are not even in place at the moment.I have explained how a present state past is testable. You have never explained how a DSP is testable.
I showed you a rock that was probably from before the split. Now your turn to show one that is from last week or whatever, and we can compare notes!Now, let's say we take something from the different state past. Let's say a lump of granite. So, we take a lump of granite that formed in the DSP. Now, let's take another lump of granite that was formed recently, when the present state had come into effect. So we have two rocks. Granite from a different state, and granite from this present state.
Is there any way we can tell the difference between the two? If so, please explain it in detail. What specific things will be indicators, and why do they act as indicators?
The rock they do not claim is that old.And this proves that you have no idea what you are talking about. Show me ANY rock at all that scientists claim is 40 billion years old and I will admit that you are right about everything.
I wasn't talking age (imaginary claimed age) of the rock! I was referring to the rate of decay.But anyway, let's say you said something reasonable. Let's say you said three billion years instead of forty.
That is irrelevant if the material was already here, and not representative of time!It would help my case because there is absolutely NO reason at all why all the rocks should have a value of 3 billion years worth of daughter material for X!
If rocks of a certain type have a lot of material X in them at the onset of this state, so what?Why would they all have this value for X, dad? You;ve never explained it.
False. You probably mean if OUR laws had changed. Our laws are the change.And you consistently fail to realise that what we see around us today could not exist if the laws of the universe were any different in the past.
No so the question becomes...what did create it!!!?Doesn't matter. The fact that we expect a certain ratio is not what creates that ratio.
Not as is
They way things here are now, is the way stuff is in this state.
False bravado?
..is hooey. Yes I think we established that.
What are you babbling abut? What I pointed out was that a long half life (time it takes to decay) would mean that it would be hard to tell what was decayed just in the last 4400 years. Go ahead, show us from the rock sample how much that is!
I gave you a rock. Deal with it.
Until you know, no comments from the uninformed gallery needed then I guess.
From sentences like this??
You were wrong, clearly. I showed it was bad religion. I also have no claim of testing some laws that are not even in place at the moment.
I showed you a rock that was probably from before the split. Now your turn to show one that is from last week or whatever, and we can compare notes!
The rock they do not claim is that old.
I wasn't talking age (imaginary claimed age) of the rock! I was referring to the rate of decay.
That is irrelevant if the material was already here, and not representative of time!
If rocks of a certain type have a lot of material X in them at the onset of this state, so what?
False. You probably mean if OUR laws had changed. Our laws are the change.
No so the question becomes...what did create it!!!?
Then please, guide me through your logical process.No. I looked at the evidences and the record and was forced to come to the logical conclusion.
I, and several others, have presented plenty.Of course it is, and believed. Nothing whatsoever more. That is why you have not presented anything.
Could you tell me the reason?My conclusion is that you are not qualified to construct a half interesting and relative thought experiment. Keep working on that.
I'll support this claim if you respond to the challenge by its rules.And, yes, I do enjoy being truly undefeated.
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.
On the contrary, my use for the DSP is to find the truth of what happened and why nincompaganpoop science had it very wrong. Nothing else needs be done but to illustrate that you cannot prove a same state past, which is the basis of all your ungodly claims. After that, all that remains is for people to freely chose to believe whatever they want. No longer can science try to cast filthy doubts on the bible. That is quite useful, to have absolute intellectual advantage, and a full knowledge that so called science really was a farce and really truly was a Satanic inspired counterfeit.So they were different. But you can tell us absolutely nothing about how they were different. Your DSP idea is useless.
They are not identical any more than a man with a lifespan of 1000 years is the same as you.So how can things that were created in this state be identical to things that were created in a state where the laws of nature were different?
Ah now trying to obfuscate. OK. Look at the rock I gave as an example. How much daughter material was produced since 4400 years? That is what you have available to date with!Only because you insist on using the technique badly. There are many different radiodating techniques, each one having a range of ages where it is most accurate. Fortunately the age ranges overlap, so we can use two or more different techniques to cross check our findings.
It has a certain amount of x and y...which can't help you.I did. The rock didn't show what you wanted it to show.
If one shows up I will ask them then.Any person with intelligence can follow the discussion.
False. You can't even discuss a rock put under your nose.You are wrong. I have used the SSP idea to make an easily testable prediction.
I assume it was.Probably?
PROBABLY!?! Don't you KNOW?
So? What about it? You need a point, not just a pic.Ah well. Here's a rock that was formed recently.
This rock was formed about a decade ago.
Some misunderstanding...I think posters here including me know how old you imagine the earth to be.No, you claimed it is that old.
It is claimed to represent them. It is also claimed to be responsible for all the daughter product! You can't even tell us how much x and y is in there.The rate of radioactive decay is not measured in years.
The problem lies with the fantasy land expectation. Tell us by the way, how much do you expect to be in the actual rock you were shown??But you have never explained HOW all these rocks just so happened to have EXACTLY the same amount of daughter material that we'd expect from radioactive decay!
Then apply that to the rock in question. Let's see you at work here...in action.It's the fact that the AMOUNT of daughter material is the same as what radioactive decay predicts.
I doubt they are the same? Proof?Let's say you are right (this is one of those hypotheticals that I spoke of, the things that you have trouble understanding. Think of it as a "what if" situation). If you are right, then we have some granite around today that was made back in the DSP. But we also have granite that was made recently, during the present state.
Why would the granite from the DSP be exactly the same as the granite from the same state? After all, the laws of the universe were completely different. How can such different laws create the same exact thing?
[/QUOTE]dad said:On the contrary, my use for the DSP is to find the truth of what happened and why nincompaganpoop science had it very wrong. Nothing else needs be done but to illustrate that you cannot prove a same state past, which is the basis of all your ungodly claims. After that, all that remains is for people to freely chose to believe whatever they want. No longer can science try to cast filthy doubts on the bible. That is quite useful, to have absolute intellectual advantage, and a full knowledge that so called science really was a farce and really truly was a Satanic inspired counterfeit.
They are not identical any more than a man with a lifespan of 1000 years is the same as you.
Ah now trying to obfuscate. OK. Look at the rock I gave as an example. How much daughter material was produced since 4400 years? That is what you have available to date with!
It has a certain amount of x and y...which can't help you.
If one shows up I will ask them then.
False. You can't even discuss a rock put under your nose.
I assume it was.
So? What about it? You need a point, not just a pic.
Some misunderstanding...I think posters here including me know how old you imagine the earth to be.
It is claimed to represent them. It is also claimed to be responsible for all the daughter product! You can't even tell us how much x and y is in there.
The problem lies with the fantasy land expectation. Tell us by the way, how much do you expect to be in the actual rock you were shown??
Then apply that to the rock in question. Let's see you at work here...in action.
I doubt they are the same? Proof?
Which you;ve never explained.
Try to debate honestly. Here is an example of a post in your linksThen please, guide me through your logical process.
I, and several others, have presented plenty.
For a small gathering:
http://www.christianforums.com/t7639776-44/#post60140831
The challenge is be clear and defend your present state past belief.I'll support this claim if you respond to the challenge by its rules.
That's nice.I lol'ed at the state nonsense and the satanic conspiracy stuff.
Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner
I am debating honestly, that's why I asked you to guide me through your logical process.Try to debate honestly. Here is an example of a post in your links
"Radio dating uses the radio active decay of a material to see how old it is.
.."
Nonsense. That is all same state past dependent and does not begin to evidence a same state past. Rather than spamming defeated points in links, just say something yourself.
I don't understand what you're trying to write here, the grammar i messed up.The challenge is be clear and defend your present state past belief.
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.
On the contrary, my use for the DSP is to find the truth of what happened and why nincompaganpoop science had it very wrong. Nothing else needs be done but to illustrate that you cannot prove a same state past, which is the basis of all your ungodly claims. After that, all that remains is for people to freely chose to believe whatever they want. No longer can science try to cast filthy doubts on the bible. That is quite useful, to have absolute intellectual advantage, and a full knowledge that so called science really was a farce and really truly was a Satanic inspired counterfeit.
They are not identical any more than a man with a lifespan of 1000 years is the same as you.
Ah now trying to obfuscate. OK. Look at the rock I gave as an example. How much daughter material was produced since 4400 years? That is what you have available to date with!
It has a certain amount of x and y...which can't help you.
If one shows up I will ask them then.
False. You can't even discuss a rock put under your nose.
I assume it was.
So? What about it? You need a point, not just a pic.
Some misunderstanding...I think posters here including me know how old you imagine the earth to be.
It is claimed to represent them. It is also claimed to be responsible for all the daughter product! You can't even tell us how much x and y is in there.
The problem lies with the fantasy land expectation. Tell us by the way, how much do you expect to be in the actual rock you were shown??
Then apply that to the rock in question. Let's see you at work here...in action.
I doubt they are the same? Proof?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?