Different state past

[dad]

It does NOT cover why it is in the exact ratio that we'd expect if it had come from radioactive decay in a SSP.

I don't really expect radioactive anything in the SSP. Not unless I had reason to. Got any??
Meanwhile, let's look at the math here. If x + y = p then the ratio of daughter material is pretty close! How could you even detect a mere 4400 years worth of decay in something with say a half life of over a billion years??

You've NEVER covered this. Why that particular ratio instead of some other? Why do all the rocks show the exact ratio we'd expect to see?

Well, once we drift off into imaginary billions of years the ONLY place anything is exact of course in in your head!!

Let's say you;re right. The daughter material would have had to be in a very specific amount in order for us to see the ratios we see today. Why was it this particular amount?

Who cares?? It is what it is. Why stars? Why a sun so far away as it is? Why anything!!?? Hey, we just have creation as we see it, here in this state. You will need to learn the phrase 'I didn't know after all'.

Typical. Embrace the bits you like, discount the bits you don't. You're criteria for choosing? If it agrees with what you have decided or not.

No. Any bits worth their salt can stand on their own legs.

Do you think you have actually convinced ANYONE with this thread?

Hey, I am getting convinced more and more!

I said that IF there was a SSP, then the universe would need to be old.

Get it?

Well if it was made by a tooth fairy I guess it would need to floss? So? You can't "if" your imaginary state into existence. That is a bad as poofing it.

Your evidence is not testable and is hearsay. My evidence (which I have been posting throughout the thread) is very testable.

Like..? Decay?? Get serious! The only thing testable no one is arguing--that things do decay now.

it's falsifiable too. A single rock in which the ratios of parent material, daughter material, granddaughter material, great-granddaughter material did NOT match what we'd expect them to be due to radioactive decay would prove me wrong very effectively.

Well, they re date stuff often, sometimes throwing millions or hundreds of millions of imaginary years around like confetti at a same sex wedding.

If they were formed in a DSP, then they would not look like they had always existed in a SSP!

They don't look like that to the unbiased eye.

But that's not what you said, is it? You said that if we look at the way the balls are tilted NOW, we can learn something, however small, about the way it was all tilted before.

Exactly. We can learn water is flowing down! Whoopee do. We can know at what rate. So? We can even learn that a certain amount of daughter material was produced (or water falling in the tennis ball thought experiment)--since the tilt!

The laws in action are the same, but that doesn't mean that all rocks will be the same. That's why we have granite, marble and a whole bunch of other different kinds of rocks.

Well, each material works a certain way under our state laws! Just like gravity works on a feather and a brick.

 

[Tiberius]

I don't really expect radioactive anything in the SSP. Not unless I had reason to. Got any??

The existence of radioactive materials in this present state prove that this state can create radioactive materials.

Seriously, dad, is this the best you've got?

Meanwhile, let's look at the math here. If x + y = p then the ratio of daughter material is pretty close! How could you even detect a mere 4400 years worth of decay in something with say a half life of over a billion years??

Because not all of them have half lives of millions of years!

Carbon 14 has a half life of a few thousand years and is accurate for dates up to about 50,000 years old.

Dad, a piece of friendly advice. it's clear that you know absolutely nothing about radiometric dating. So go and learn about it, okay?

Well, once we drift off into imaginary billions of years the ONLY place anything is exact of course in in your head!!

The ratio between parent, daughter, granddaughter, great-granddaughter etc materials is not in my imagination, dad.

Who cares?? It is what it is. Why stars? Why a sun so far away as it is? Why anything!!?? Hey, we just have creation as we see it, here in this state. You will need to learn the phrase 'I didn't know after all'.

Who cares? My goodness! You value your ignorance!

No. Any bits worth their salt can stand on their own legs.

And yours can't.

Hey, I am getting convinced more and more!

It's easy to convince a man of a lie he wants to believe. And it's impossible to convince a man of the truth if he doesn't want to believe it, no matter how much evidence you have. This thread is proof.

Well if it was made by a tooth fairy I guess it would need to floss? So? You can't "if" your imaginary state into existence. That is a bad as poofing it.

My goodness, you are so intent on fighting that you will fight even that stuff that you don't need to. You are being argumentative simply for the sake of arguing.

Like..? Decay?? Get serious! The only thing testable no one is arguing--that things do decay now.

Wrong. we can also measure the ratios to see if they match what we'd expect to see if they had been decaying for millions of years. They match precisely. There is no reason to expect the ratios to match if what you say is true.

Well, they re date stuff often, sometimes throwing millions or hundreds of millions of imaginary years around like confetti at a same sex wedding.

I am not talking about that, I am talking about measuring the ratio of one material to another to another.

And yet, once again, you go on about something completely irrelevant.

They don't look like that to the unbiased eye.

Correction. They don't look like that to YOUR eyes. But you aren't unbiased, are you?

Exactly. We can learn water is flowing down! Whoopee do. We can know at what rate. So? We can even learn that a certain amount of daughter material was produced (or water falling in the tennis ball thought experiment)--since the tilt!

Now you change your tune again.

I've seen acrobats who flip flop less than you!

Well, each material works a certain way under our state laws! Just like gravity works on a feather and a brick.

This doesn't address what I said at all.

 

[Elendur]

Name any piece of evidence and learn why.

You need to accept that science doesn't know the state and laws of the past. Period.

You now have avoided the issue and admitted to your inability to understand the term 'evidence'.

The challenge still stands, would you like to actually respond to it. Until it has been dealt with, you're utterly 'defeated'.

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.

 

[dad]

The existence of radioactive materials in this present state prove that this state can create radioactive materials.

Yes, of course it can and does! No news there. So?

Because not all of them have half lives of millions of years!

And so? Long as it is more than 4400 who cares!?

Carbon 14 has a half life of a few thousand years and is accurate for dates up to about 50,000 years old.

No. It is fairly accurate I would estimate for maybe 3000 to 4000 years. You see if the nature change was about 4400 years ago, then it skews results beyond that. (how much carbon was here, and how things are 'collaborated' like tree rings, etc etc)

The ratio between parent, daughter, granddaughter, great-granddaughter etc materials is not in my imagination, dad.

Nor mine. So? It is what it is. A ratio is after the fact, by the way. For example if this state saw an amount of (what is now daughter) material in a rock when it came to be, then a ratio existed between the daughter and (what is now) a parent. Elementary. The meaning of the ratio is not meaningful unless we know the state!

It's easy to convince a man of a lie he wants to believe. And it's impossible to convince a man of the truth if he doesn't want to believe it, no matter how much evidence you have. This thread is proof.

True, but one hopes that your strong belief system will crumble even in your own mind after seeing that you have lost.

My goodness, you are so intent on fighting that you will fight even that stuff that you don't need to. You are being argumentative simply for the sake of arguing.

The other fable was meant to illustrate the weakness of your fable actually.

Wrong. we can also measure the ratios to see if they match what we'd expect to see if they had been decaying for millions of years. They match precisely. There is no reason to expect the ratios to match if what you say is true.

Give an example

I am not talking about that, I am talking about measuring the ratio of one material to another to another.

There are ratios, yes. You need to work towards a point, though.

And yet, once again, you go on about something completely irrelevant.

The fact that they toss millions of years around has meaning. It mean they are frauds.

Correction. They don't look like that to YOUR eyes. But you aren't unbiased, are you?

I am able to be fair minded on the facts, the very facts that you seek to spray with the odor of your same state past assumptions.

Now you change your tune again.

I've seen acrobats who flip flop less than you!

The problem lies not in changed positions but in flawed comprehension.

This doesn't address what I said at all.

Well yes it does. The laws work all over. You asked why rocks would render similar observations. Connect the dots.

 

[dad]

You now have avoided the issue and admitted to your inability to understand the term 'evidence'.

The challenge still stands, would you like to actually respond to it. Until it has been dealt with, you're utterly 'defeated'.

Blather.

Prove a same state past or admit that evidence is not on your side.

 

[Elendur]

Blather.

Prove a same state past or admit that evidence is not on your side.

Yet again you abuse the word 'prove'. And you're still avoiding the issue.


Challenge repeated third time (at strike ten you're out):
The challenge still stands, would you like to actually respond to it. Until it has been dealt with, you're utterly 'defeated'.

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.

 

[dad]

Yet again you abuse the word 'prove'. And you're still avoiding the issue.

False.

Challenge repeated third time (at strike ten you're out):
The challenge still stands, would you like to actually respond to it. Until it has been dealt with, you're utterly 'defeated'.

Admit defeat. There is no other option. You cannot prove a same state past. Therfore all claims based on it are destroyed without remedy. What about the obvious don't you get?

 

[Elendur]

False.

Not false, proving something is impossible. Therefore you using the criteria 'prove it' is an impossibility, thus you're abusing the term.

This is mainly due to the epistemological factor (you did read up on that, didn't you?) but also due to the fact that one can't provide with a test for an entire natural universe to test each instance of natural occurrence that the theory/hypothesis is describing.
(Not talking about mathematics, those proofs are built upon strictly defined assumptions, making proving a possibility)

Also, you're not applying the same criteria to your own hypothesis (DSP, if you have forgotten).

Admit defeat. There is no other option. You cannot prove a same state past. Therfore all claims based on it are destroyed without remedy. What about the obvious don't you get?

Now you:
1. Abuse the word 'prove' again, see motivation above.
2. Don't ever realize that your own stance is equally destroyed by this unrealistic demand for proof, see motivation above.


Challenge repeated fourth time (at strike ten you're out):
The challenge still stands, would you like to actually respond to it. Until it has been dealt with, you're utterly 'defeated'.

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.

 

[dad]

Not false, proving something is impossible. Therefore you using the criteria 'prove it' is an impossibility, thus you're abusing the term.

No I am pointing out that your claimed state in the past is bogus and unsupported.

This is mainly due to the epistemological factor (you did read up on that, didn't you?) but also due to the fact that one can't provide with a test for an entire natural universe to test each instance of natural occurrence that the theory/hypothesis is describing.

Like you can? Silly red herring.

(Not talking about mathematics, those proofs are built upon strictly defined assumptions, making proving a possibility)

Great. The they can't help you.

Also, you're not applying the same criteria to your own hypothesis (DSP, if you have forgotten).

? How would we do that?

Now you:
1. Abuse the word 'prove' again, see motivation above.
2. Don't ever realize that your own stance is equally destroyed by this unrealistic demand for proof, see motivation above.

False. The proof of God's word to man is here. Has been a long time. Fulfilled prophesy.

Challenge repeated fourth time (at strike ten you're out):
The challenge still stands, would you like to actually respond to it. Until it has been dealt with, you're utterly 'defeated'.

Blather.

 

[Elendur]

No I am pointing out that your claimed state in the past is bogus and unsupported.

You did not, you clearly misused the term 'prove' (see next quote, from previous post):

Prove a same state past or admit that evidence is not on your side.

Like you can? Silly red herring.

I never claimed I can (except in math). If you have misinterpreted it that way, please provide with a quote.

Great. The they can't help you.

I was merely clarifying that I wasn't talking about math since that is a special area. I will from here on try to not include math while writing about proof.

? How would we do that?

You're dismissing all claims of SSP due to the fact that no one can prove anything.
Therefore you should dismiss all claims of DSP due to the fact that no one can prove anything.

False. The proof of God's word to man is here. Has been a long time. Fulfilled prophesy.

Again, abuse of the term 'proof'.



Challenge repeated fifth time (at strike ten you're out):
The challenge still stands, would you like to actually respond to it. Until it has been dealt with, you're utterly 'defeated'.

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.

 

[dad]

You did not, you clearly misused the term 'prove' (see next quote, from previous post):

let's not pretend you could 'sort of almost prove' a same state past either!!!! You cannot in any way, shape or form. Period.

I never claimed I can (except in math). If you have misinterpreted it that way, please provide with a quote.

Then what DO you claim about the laws of earth in the past if anything?

I was merely clarifying that I wasn't talking about math since that is a special area. I will from here on try to not include math while writing about proof.

You're dismissing all claims of SSP due to the fact that no one can prove anything.

Partly, yes! But also because it opposes the facts on the ground of the observers and the record of God.

Therefore you should dismiss all claims of DSP due to the fact that no one can prove anything.

I consider the prophesies fulfilled and the risen Christ proof. Now if all the prophesies said...'God was lying about creation and there will one day ne a same state past known' and Christ rose from the grave saying 'listen to the godless science of man, it will tell of a same state past one day' -heck, you would have the sort of case I now have!

Challenge repeated fifth time (at strike ten you're out):

You an adult? Just asking.

The challenge still stands, would you like to actually respond to it. Until it has been dealt with, you're utterly 'defeated'.

Hey, one could stomp their feet and hold your breath till they turned blue if they liked as well as repeating silliness, it won't change a thing.

The laws and forces that existed on ancient earth science doesn't know. Looking at the laws and forces we have now, does not address that even.

 

[Elendur]

let's not pretend you could 'sort of almost prove' a same state past either!!!! You cannot in any way, shape or form. Period.

Then what DO you claim about the laws of earth in the past if anything?

I claim the laws (as in natural laws) of the past are deduced to be the same, from the available evidence.

Partly, yes! But also because it opposes the facts on the ground of the observers and the record of God.
I consider the prophesies fulfilled and the risen Christ proof. Now if all the prophesies said...'God was lying about creation and there will one day ne a same state past known' and Christ rose from the grave saying 'listen to the godless science of man, it will tell of a same state past one day' -heck, you would have the sort of case I now have!

The risen christ would be evidence, not proof.

You an adult? Just asking.

Yup, are you? Just asking.

Hey, one could stomp their feet and hold your breath till they turned blue if they liked as well as repeating silliness, it won't change a thing.

I am presenting this challenge due to the fact that your arguments doesn't contain more than the wave of a hand.
The reason why I am presenting it several times is that you're avoiding it.

Have you noticed how I present reasons for my argument? That's what I'm trying to get from you.

The laws and forces that existed on ancient earth science doesn't know. Looking at the laws and forces we have now, does not address that even.

True, looking at the laws and forces of today doesn't address the past states laws and forces.
That's why more evidence comes into play.



Challenge repeated sixth time (at strike ten you're out):
The challenge still stands, would you like to actually respond to it. Until it has been dealt with, you're utterly 'defeated'.

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.

 

[Tiberius]

Yes, of course it can and does! No news there. So?

So it gives a very good reason to expect radioactive materials in a SSP!

And so? Long as it is more than 4400 who cares!?

Ah, once again you prove that you know squat about how radio dating works.

No. It is fairly accurate I would estimate for maybe 3000 to 4000 years. You see if the nature change was about 4400 years ago, then it skews results beyond that. (how much carbon was here, and how things are 'collaborated' like tree rings, etc etc)

How does it skew the results? By what process?

Nor mine. So? It is what it is. A ratio is after the fact, by the way. For example if this state saw an amount of (what is now daughter) material in a rock when it came to be, then a ratio existed between the daughter and (what is now) a parent. Elementary. The meaning of the ratio is not meaningful unless we know the state!

Are you refusing to understand?

If you are right, then the amount of daughter material we see today is made up of partly radioactive decay and partly studff that was already there.

Isn't it amazing that we have just the right amount of "stuff that was already there" to make it look like a SSP? Why wasn't there ten times as much stuff already there? That would fit perfectly with your theory, yet prove mine false. And yet we never see this. Or why don't we see samples of rocks in which one rock has ten times the amount already there and another sample has half the amount of stuff already there? My theory could not explain that, and if we found such rocks it would prove me wrong. And yet we never see that.

WHY NOT?

True, but one hopes that your strong belief system will crumble even in your own mind after seeing that you have lost.

Show me valid evidence that I am wrong (such as the examples that I gave above) and I will freely admit it.

But here's another opportunity to show that you are correct:

What do we see in the world today that could only exist if we had a DSP?

The other fable was meant to illustrate the weakness of your fable actually.

The weakness of my fable? I was presenting a HYPOTHETICAL. You need to read a dictionary. You're playing with things you don't understand.

Give an example

Every single rock on the planet that is more than a few thousand years old. Which is most of them.

There are ratios, yes. You need to work towards a point, though.

Have you been ignoring everything I am saying? My point is abundantly clear to anyone who reads and comprehends what I am writing. If you are right, then we would not be seeing the ratios of parent and daughter materials that we do see.

The fact that they toss millions of years around has meaning. It mean they are frauds.

You make these claims, but you never back them up.

I am able to be fair minded on the facts, the very facts that you seek to spray with the odor of your same state past assumptions.

You, fair minded? HA! Is your theory falsifiable at all? Don't bother answering this unless you know what "falsifiable means". Is there some hypothetical evidence that would convince you that you are wrong?

The problem lies not in changed positions but in flawed comprehension.

Which is exactly what you seem to suffer from.

Well yes it does. The laws work all over. You asked why rocks would render similar observations. Connect the dots.

It doesn't address what I said because if your claim was right, every rock of a particular age would be the same.

 

[dad]

I claim the laws (as in natural laws) of the past are deduced to be the same, from the available evidence.

Meaningless! The way that so called science deduces is based ON these laws only...circular.

The risen christ would be evidence, not proof.

Says you. I call it proof.

I am presenting this challenge due to the fact that your arguments doesn't contain more than the wave of a hand.
The reason why I am presenting it several times is that you're avoiding it.

Have you noticed how I present reasons for my argument? That's what I'm trying to get from you.

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.

True, looking at the laws and forces of today doesn't address the past states laws and forces.
That's why more evidence comes into play.

Vague....what evidence is independent of present state law assumptions?? Let's see some.

 

[dad]

So it gives a very good reason to expect radioactive materials in a SSP!

False and circular. Your whole point is that what exists in a temporal state at present here must be (for no reason) exactly how it was in God's yesterday.

How does it skew the results? By what process?

Carbon dating relies on basic assumptions. Once we get a different set of laws and forces working, rather than the ones we now know, all bets are off as to carbon content rates, etc etc. As I mentioned, the so called correlations with things like tree rings are out the window too. If trees gre in weeks rather than in some cases decades or centuries, that skews it something fierce.

Are you refusing to understand?

What?

If you are right, then the amount of daughter material we see today is made up of partly radioactive decay and partly studff that was already there.

No. Once we get the stuff in this state as it is now, your assumptions are void.

Isn't it amazing that we have just the right amount of "stuff that was already there" to make it look like a SSP? Why wasn't there ten times as much stuff already there? That would fit perfectly with your theory, yet prove mine false. And yet we never see this. Or why don't we see samples of rocks in which one rock has ten times the amount already there and another sample has half the amount of stuff already there? My theory could not explain that, and if we found such rocks it would prove me wrong. And yet we never see that.

Give an example of the rock and ratio...

WHY NOT?

Because our state did not get dropped in by the tooth fairy, it is a result of a changed former state! Therefore, the processes we now have would be relative to what we were left with from the former state!

Show me valid evidence that I am wrong (such as the examples that I gave above) and I will freely admit it.

About what are you wrong?

But here's another opportunity to show that you are correct:

What do we see in the world today that could only exist if we had a DSP?

Why would we expect stuff in a present state to be able to exist only in a different one!!?? Makes no sense.

The weakness of my fable? I was presenting a HYPOTHETICAL. You need to read a dictionary. You're playing with things you don't understand.

Stuck me as a fable. Funny that.

Every single rock on the planet that is more than a few thousand years old. Which is most of them.

Great so I'll pick one then.

Rock dated by rubidium decay, a sample of the element Rubidium in the Periodic Table
-------



"The utility of the rubidium-strontium isotope system results from the fact that 87Rb (one of two naturally occurring isotopes of rubidium) decays to 87Sr with a halflife of 48.8 billion years."

Rubidium-strontium dating - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Any more questions!!!!?

If you are right, then we would not be seeing the ratios of parent and daughter materials that we do see.

Yes we would. The meaning of the ratios that a same state believer would put on them is not the real meaning!

You, fair minded? HA! Is your theory falsifiable at all?

Pot...meet kettle. Falsify the same state past...here...now...or all is lost for you as a science claim!!!!!

It doesn't address what I said because if your claim was right, every rock of a particular age would be the same.

Name one that is different? If something is of a particular age, would it not stand to reason that it would be a particular age?? Not a particularly strong argument.

 

[Tiberius]

False and circular. Your whole point is that what exists in a temporal state at present here must be (for no reason) exactly how it was in God's yesterday.

Wrong. My point (if you bothered to actual read what I write and not what you want me to be saying) is that if the state was different in the past, materials that were formed then would bear the evidence of that. They don't.

Carbon dating relies on basic assumptions. Once we get a different set of laws and forces working, rather than the ones we now know, all bets are off as to carbon content rates, etc etc. As I mentioned, the so called correlations with things like tree rings are out the window too. If trees gre in weeks rather than in some cases decades or centuries, that skews it something fierce.

Carbon dating can be calibrated with other techniques.

What?

I say things. You act as though I don't say things. You say things that are not based in science. You say things that are wrong. I explain to you that you are incorrect. You do not listen. You say that I am wrong. But I am not wrong. I have evidence. You do not. You only have old stories. Your claims can't be tested. My claims can be tested.

Please don't make me right all of my posts like I'm talking to a kid, okay? But if you really need to, I will.

No. Once we get the stuff in this state as it is now, your assumptions are void.

Sigh. I have to talk in short sentences again? Okay.

In a rock, we see some daughter material. You say that some of this daughter material was already there to begin with. You also say that the rest of this daughter material is the result of radioactive decay that happened in the present state. Put together, these two ways of making daughter material made all the daughter material we see. But the whole amount of daughter material is what science says there should be if it all got there by radioactive decay. Isn't it lucky that the amount of daughter material that was there to begin with was there in just the right amount to make it look like it got there by radioactive decay?

Give an example of the rock and ratio...

Honestly, I can't be bothered going through a technical journal to find something you're just going to ignore. You have already demonstrated that you are pathetically ignorant of how radioactive dating actually WORKS, and you need to learn that before I start giving you more technical information about it.

Because our state did not get dropped in by the tooth fairy, it is a result of a changed former state! Therefore, the processes we now have would be relative to what we were left with from the former state!

Excuse me, when did I say tooth fairy? You're the one who brought up that nonsense.

About what are you wrong?

I've never seen anything to indicate that I am wrong about this. However, show me SCIENTIFIC, TESTABLE and VERIFIABLE evidence that I am wrong, and I will freely admit it. Old stories about people who lived for centuries doesn't count, because I have no way of verifying that the people really did live to that age, or if the stories just say they did.

Why would we expect stuff in a present state to be able to exist only in a different one!!?? Makes no sense.

Ah, but can stuff from the DSP exist in the present state?

Stuck me as a fable. Funny that.

Yeah. Just goes to show how you can misinterpret anything.

Great so I'll pick one then.

Rock dated by rubidium decay, a sample of the element Rubidium in the Periodic Table
-------



"The utility of the rubidium-strontium isotope system results from the fact that 87Rb (one of two naturally occurring isotopes of rubidium) decays to 87Sr with a halflife of 48.8 billion years."

Rubidium-strontium dating - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Any more questions!!!!?

Why, yes, actually.

According to your sources, Rubidium-strontium dating is used for very old rocks. But there are other methods which can date rocks this old. If I test a rock with Rubidium-strontium testing, and then test the same rock with, say, Uranium lead dating, why will I get the same result?

Yes we would. The meaning of the ratios that a same state believer would put on them is not the real meaning!

You've never proposed an alternative explanation. Please propose your explanation. Make sure it is something testable. Please also include a way to test your explanation.

Pot...meet kettle. Falsify the same state past...here...now...or all is lost for you as a science claim!!!!!

You don't know what the word "Falsifiable" means, do you?

And I'm not going to prove that the SSP is wrong, because it isn't. Do your own homework, lazy.

Name one that is different? If something is of a particular age, would it not stand to reason that it would be a particular age?? Not a particularly strong argument.

Granite is different to feldspar which is different to basalt.

 

[dad]

Wrong. My point (if you bothered to actual read what I write and not what you want me to be saying) is that if the state was different in the past, materials that were formed then would bear the evidence of that. They don't.

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.

Carbon dating can be calibrated with other techniques.

Bingo...same state all!!!

I say things. You act as though I don't say things. You say things that are not based in science. You say things that are wrong. I explain to you that you are incorrect. You do not listen. You say that I am wrong. But I am not wrong. I have evidence. You do not. You only have old stories. Your claims can't be tested. My claims can be tested.

You call em like you see em. Sounds whacked out to me though.

Please don't make me right all of my posts like I'm talking to a kid, okay? But if you really need to, I will.

Just be clear, and pretend a lurker needed to understand it too.

In a rock, we see some daughter material. You say that some of this daughter material was already there to begin with. You also say that the rest of this daughter material is the result of radioactive decay that happened in the present state. Put together, these two ways of making daughter material made all the daughter material we see. But the whole amount of daughter material is what science says there should be if it all got there by radioactive decay. Isn't it lucky that the amount of daughter material that was there to begin with was there in just the right amount to make it look like it got there by radioactive decay?

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?

Excuse me, when did I say tooth fairy? You're the one who brought up that nonsense.

You cited some fable I cited another...either one is not up to the task of being what you need.

I've never seen anything to indicate that I am wrong about this. However, show me SCIENTIFIC, TESTABLE and VERIFIABLE evidence that I am wrong, and I will freely admit it. Old stories about people who lived for centuries doesn't count, because I have no way of verifying that the people really did live to that age, or if the stories just say they did.

Wrong about "this"?? Be more clear.

Ah, but can stuff from the DSP exist in the present state?

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?

According to your sources, Rubidium-strontium dating is used for very old rocks. But there are other methods which can date rocks this old. If I test a rock with Rubidium-strontium testing, and then test the same rock with, say, Uranium lead dating, why will I get the same result?

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.

You've never proposed an alternative explanation. Please propose your explanation. Make sure it is something testable. Please also include a way to test your explanation.

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.

You don't know what the word "Falsifiable" means, do you?

And I'm not going to prove that the SSP is wrong, because it isn't. Do your own homework, lazy.

How could a same state past be falsified? Stop dodging.

Granite is different to feldspar which is different to basalt.

Hard to argue that one...so? A cat is different than a mouse..etc....

 

[NGC 6712]

A form of solipsism and nothing more. Actually delusion might be a better term.

 

[dad]

A form of solipsism and nothing more. Actually delusion might be a better term.

Funny you should bring up delusion. I am not the one positing that this present state having had existed in the far past is the only thing that can be known and verified. In fact I point out that it can't.

 

[NGC 6712]

Funny you should bring up delusion.

When I see your delusions I think the word is being appropriately used.