Different state past

[dad]

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

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.

 

[Tiberius]

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.

Well, why should things created in a DSP look like they have always existed in the present state?

Bingo...same state all!!!

If you actually knew what you were talking about, you'd realise that you are a) mistaken and b) making a fool of yourself.

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

I call em as the evidence shows.

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

I don't think anyone else reading this has had any trouble understanding what I am saying.

But let's find out for sure, okay? Has anyone other than Dad found it difficult to comprehend what I have been saying?

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?

Do you know what half life is?

Do you realise that a single rock sample may be subjected to several different kinds of dating technique?

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

How do you not understand the basics of English comprehension?

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.

Wrong about "this"?? Be more clear.

You seriously don't know what I am referring to when I say "this"?

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!

No wonder you can't make a coherent argument. You can't even keep track of what the topic is!

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?

Right, so things that were formed in the different state can remain existing in the present state, are we agreed? Yes or no please.

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.

Prove that no rock has ever been subjected to two different radiometric dating techniques. Until you can do this, you will have failed.

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.

That is not an explanation. Explain to us what these process were and how they differed from the processes that occur today.

THEN it will be an explanation.

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

I've already explained it to you, only a little while ago, actually. But of course, you don't listen. Let me repeat it for you.

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.

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

Typical. You go to all the effort of making a point, then when I prove you wrong you act like it means nothing...

 

[dad]

Well, why should things created in a DSP look like they have always existed in the present state?

Why look at all things here in this state as if they always existed here?

If you actually knew what you were talking about, you'd realise that you are a) mistaken and b) making a fool of yourself.

I realize you don't know what you are talking about by the things said so far.

I call em as the evidence shows.

Such as?

Do you know what half life is?

Yes, why?

Do you realise that a single rock sample may be subjected to several different kinds of dating technique?

I asked about a specific example.

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.

Call it whatever you like. If is still a big word.

You seriously don't know what I am referring to when I say "this"?

That depends it it is used in some context.

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!

Ha! Then this is something you can't prove and that is nonsense.

Right, so things that were formed in the different state can remain existing in the present state, are we agreed? Yes or no please.

Yes. They can and many did. Noah for example! So?

Prove that no rock has ever been subjected to two different radiometric dating techniques. Until you can do this, you will have failed.

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?

That is not an explanation. Explain to us what these process were and how they differed from the processes that occur today.

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.

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.

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!

Typical. You go to all the effort of making a point, then when I prove you wrong you act like it means nothing...

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!

 

[NGC 6712]

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.

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.

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.

It's one big appeal from personal incredulity on your part. Nothing more than that.

 

[dad]

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.

Lie.

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.

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.

It's one big appeal from personal incredulity on your part. Nothing more than that.

You doubt a different state in the past as the bible and history indicate? Personal incredulity. Ho hum.

 

[Tiberius]

Why look at all things here in this state as if they always existed here?

Because you say some of them existed in a past state!

I realize you don't know what you are talking about by the things said so far.

I know more about science than you do.

Such as?

The whole radio dating thing.

Yes, why?

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 asked about a specific example.

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.

Call it whatever you like. If is still a big word.

Shame you can't apply it to your "old stories". IF the stories are true. IF people really lived that long back then...

That depends it it is used in some context.

Are you incapable of figuring out what the context of this discussion is?

Do you think it's your grandmother's favorite recipes? The context is obvious.

Ha! Then this is something you can't prove and that is nonsense.

I have explained how a present state past is testable. You have never explained how a DSP is testable.

Explain it now.

Yes. They can and many did. Noah for example! So?

Glad we agree on that!

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?

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?

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.

You see, 40 billion years is more then three times MORE than the age of the universe! The oldest rocks on Earth are about 4 billion years or so, if my memory serves. You are out by an entire order of magnitude!

I thought you said you knew what half life meant.

But anyway, let's say you said something reasonable. Let's say you said three billion years instead of forty.

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!

Why would they all have this value for X, dad? You;ve never explained it.

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.

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. 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!

Doesn't matter. The fact that we expect a certain ratio is not what creates that ratio.

You are completely ignorant about science.

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!

Seems like a form of solipsism to me! You actually do not prove anyone wrong by citing a few old stories about people living a long time or whatever, without even a point!

 

[Elendur]

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

No, what you're doing is circular reasoning. You've assumed DSP and strengthen that assumption by reasons build upon that assumption.

Says you. I call it proof.

Again, you don't know the term 'proof'.

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.

This is something that I can mirror exactly.
I have presented evidence.
I have presented reasons, in most replies.
I have answered to most of what you've written.

Therefore I expect you to be equally polite to answer in a similar fashion, but you haven't.

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

Per definition, all evidence.
(Also, I'll tell you again, SSP isn't assumed)


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?




Challenge repeated seventh 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]

No, what you're doing is circular reasoning. You've assumed DSP and strengthen that assumption by reasons build upon that assumption.

No. I looked at the evidences and the record and was forced to come to the logical conclusion.

Per definition, all evidence.
(Also, I'll tell you again, SSP isn't assumed)

Of course it is, and believed. Nothing whatsoever more. That is why you have not presented anything.

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?

My conclusion is that you are not qualified to construct a half interesting and relative thought experiment. Keep working on that.

And, yes, I do enjoy being truly undefeated.

 

[dad]

Because you say some of them existed in a past state!

Not as is


They way things here are now, is the way stuff is in this state.

I know more about science than you do.

False bravado?

The whole radio dating thing.

..is hooey. Yes I think we established that.

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.

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!

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.

I gave you a rock. Deal with it.

Shame you can't apply it to your "old stories". IF the stories are true. IF people really lived that long back then...

Until you know, no comments from the uninformed gallery needed then I guess.

Are you incapable of figuring out what the context of this discussion is?

From sentences like this??

I have explained how a present state past is testable. You have never explained how a DSP is testable.

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.

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?

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!

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.

The rock they do not claim is that old.

But anyway, let's say you said something reasonable. Let's say you said three billion years instead of forty.

I wasn't talking age (imaginary claimed age) of the rock! I was referring to the rate of decay.

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!

That is irrelevant if the material was already here, and not representative of time!

Why would they all have this value for X, dad? You;ve never explained it.

If rocks of a certain type have a lot of material X in them at the onset of this state, so what?

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.

False. You probably mean if OUR laws had changed. Our laws are the change.

Doesn't matter. The fact that we expect a certain ratio is not what creates that ratio.

No so the question becomes...what did create it!!!?

 

[Tiberius]

Not as is

So they were different. But you can tell us absolutely nothing about how they were different. Your DSP idea is useless.

They way things here are now, is the way stuff is in this state.

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?

False bravado?

No, fact.

..is hooey. Yes I think we established that.

No, we never established anything. You merely made the claim many times, didn't back it up with anything valid, and then pretended you were right.

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!

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.

You, on the other hand, are like the guy who decides to time the Olympic 50meter sprint by bringing a calendar to count off the days, and then complaining that your timing method isn't accurate and all the athletes finished at the same time.

I gave you a rock. Deal with it.

I did. The rock didn't show what you wanted it to show.

Until you know, no comments from the uninformed gallery needed then I guess.

You've never explained how YOU know. All you;ve done is say, "The stories say this, and I believe them."

From sentences like this??

Any person with intelligence can follow the discussion.

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.

You are wrong. I have used the SSP idea to make an easily testable prediction.

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!

Probably?

PROBABLY!?! Don't you KNOW?

Ah well. Here's a rock that was formed recently.

This rock was formed about a decade ago.

The rock they do not claim is that old.

No, you claimed it is that old.

I wasn't talking age (imaginary claimed age) of the rock! I was referring to the rate of decay.

The rate of radioactive decay is not measured in years.

That is irrelevant if the material was already here, and not representative of time!

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!

If rocks of a certain type have a lot of material X in them at the onset of this state, so what?

It's not the fact that they have a lot dad, which you;d see was my point if you;d actually bothered to pay attention to what I say.

It's the fact that the AMOUNT of daughter material is the same as what radioactive decay predicts.

False. You probably mean if OUR laws had changed. Our laws are the change.

Sigh. Are you being deliberately stubborn?

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?

No so the question becomes...what did create it!!!?

Which you;ve never explained.

 

[Elendur]

No. I looked at the evidences and the record and was forced to come to the logical conclusion.

Then please, guide me through your logical process.

Of course it is, and believed. Nothing whatsoever more. That is why you have not presented anything.

I, and several others, have presented plenty.

For a small gathering:
http://www.christianforums.com/t7639776-44/#post60140831

My conclusion is that you are not qualified to construct a half interesting and relative thought experiment. Keep working on that.

Could you tell me the reason?

And, yes, I do enjoy being truly undefeated.

I'll support this claim if you respond to the challenge by its rules.



Challenge repeated eight 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]

So they were different. But you can tell us absolutely nothing about how they were different. Your DSP idea is useless.

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 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?

They are not identical any more than a man with a lifespan of 1000 years is the same as you.

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.

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!

I did. The rock didn't show what you wanted it to show.

It has a certain amount of x and y...which can't help you.

Any person with intelligence can follow the discussion.

If one shows up I will ask them then.

You are wrong. I have used the SSP idea to make an easily testable prediction.

False. You can't even discuss a rock put under your nose.

Probably?

PROBABLY!?! Don't you KNOW?

I assume it was.

Ah well. Here's a rock that was formed recently.

This rock was formed about a decade ago.

So? What about it? You need a point, not just a pic.

No, you claimed it is that old.

Some misunderstanding...I think posters here including me know how old you imagine the earth to be.

The rate of radioactive decay is not measured in years.

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.

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!

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??

It's the fact that the AMOUNT of daughter material is the same as what radioactive decay predicts.

Then apply that to the rock in question. Let's see you at work here...in action.

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?

I doubt they are the same? Proof?


Which you;ve never explained.[/quote]

 

[Trogool]

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.

[/QUOTE]

I lol'ed at the state nonsense and the satanic conspiracy stuff.

Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner

 

[dad]

Then 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

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'll support this claim if you respond to the challenge by its rules.

The challenge is be clear and defend your present state past belief.

 

[dad]

I lol'ed at the state nonsense and the satanic conspiracy stuff.

Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner

That's nice.

 

[Elendur]

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 am debating honestly, that's why I asked you to guide me through your logical process.
I will assume you didn't respond to that, since the last part was circular reasoning.
Also, I am saying something myself, you're just content with ignoring it.

The challenge is be clear and defend your present state past belief.

I don't understand what you're trying to write here, the grammar i messed up.
If you're protesting against my challenge because it's defending SSP I need to ask you why you're protesting. This is a sort of debate after all, it's fully legitimate to point out flaws to the other side. Your biggest flaw right now is you not presenting any objective evidence to support your arguments (nor even a detailed reasoning).




Challenge repeated ninth 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]

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.

Your DSP can tell us NOTHING that is verifiable! You cannot prove a DSP and therefore you fail!

They are not identical any more than a man with a lifespan of 1000 years is the same as you.

So old granite is very different to young granite then?

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!

And why would the two different techniques give EXACTLY THE SAME RESULT?

It has a certain amount of x and y...which can't help you.

Man, you are woefully ignorant of how science works, aren't you?

If one shows up I will ask them then.

Shame you can't recognise them.

False. You can't even discuss a rock put under your nose.

Man, you love just declaring things false, doncha? Maybe one day you'll scare the snot out of everyone and actually explain why it's false!

I assume it was.

And you know what ASSuming makes you, doncha?

So? What about it? You need a point, not just a pic.

lol, typical. I provide exactly what you asked for, and you dismiss it.

Some misunderstanding...I think posters here including me know how old you imagine the earth to be.

But that's not what we were talking about, was it?

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 process is very well understood, and it explains perfectly the amounts of parent and daughter materials we see in rock samples.

Pray tell, how could it explain it so perfectly IF IT WAS WRONG?

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??

We are talking about YOUR proposed explanation, which you have never provided.

Although "fantasy" would be an accurate term for it.

Then apply that to the rock in question. Let's see you at work here...in action.

If you had even the most basic understanding of the procedure of radiometric dating, you would understand what I am talking about. Since you do not understand how it works, explaining the evidence to you is wasted. If you would actually LEARN about it, then you'd understand. But you don't. You value your ignorance, and so you declare it wrong, thus justifying your choice to not learn about it, and since you know nothing about, you keep making embarrassing mistakes about it.

I doubt they are the same? Proof?

Proof is simple. If granite that formed during the DSP was significantly different to granite formed recently, why would they both have the same name?

 

[Trogool]

Has anyone ever explained to dad that his "different past state" stuff is a logical fallacy?

 

[Elendur]

Has anyone ever explained to dad that his "different past state" stuff is a logical fallacy?

The question is how many times...

 

[Tiberius]

And the answer is "Too many to count".