Methods Of Dating Rock & Fossils

[TheBear]

Yes, unless you can show conclusively that the laws of physics were the same in the past, you shouldn't assume that they were. And if you do assume it, remember it is not real knowledge or science.

At what point did the laws of physics change? Was it 5 minutes ago? 5 weeks ago? Several months ago? A hundred years ago? A thousand years ago? Millions of years ago? Billions of years ago? At what specific time/event did the laws of physics actually change? What has actually changed? What has been observed and tested to support this claim?

Just curious......

 

[Jazer]

At what point did the laws of physics change?

Change from traditional to quantum or quantum to traditional? R we talking pre PBS or post PBS physics?

 

[dad]

At what point did the laws of physics change? Was it 5 minutes ago? 5 weeks ago? Several months ago? A hundred years ago? A thousand years ago? Millions of years ago? Billions of years ago? At what specific time/event did the laws of physics actually change? What has actually changed? What has been observed and tested to support this claim?

Just curious......

4400 years ago, most likely, roughly. Just after the flood about a century and a bit.

 

[dad]

My goodness. You misinterpret geology and physics, and then assume that it proves you right?

No. I don't. Try again.

 

[dad]

Yes, but we have a couple of billion more who would say that last thursday occurred as eyewitnesses.

And they are right. It did.

Yet that's what you are doing, is it not?

No I look at even pagan records and try to glean out bits of truth from them. I also look at God's record. I even look at the poor little records of science.

Your source for this? If you are going to prove me wrong present your evidence.

Easy to do. Pick any date and try to support it. You won't be able to. So it is not proven right to begin with. No need to do much with it then, but laugh at it.

"Matematikens historia" by Bo Göran Johansson
He has a source collection several pages long but for these he lists:

Schmandt-Besserat 2000
Accounting with tokens in the ancient Near East.
www.dla.utexas.edu/depts/lrc/numerals/dsb1.html

Englund 2004
The State of Decipherment of Proto-Elamite.
In: Houston S. (ed): The first writing. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge.

Friberg 1984
Numbers and Measures in the Earliest Written Records.
Scientific American. February 1984.

Friberg 1992
Mesopotamisk matematik 3200-2000 f.kr.
Preprint Series 1992:10 Dept of Math. Chalmers University of Technology, The University of Göteborg

Friberg 1999
Counting and accounting in the proto-literate Middle East.
Journal of Cuneiform Studies 51.

Nissen, Damerow & Englund 1993-1994
Archaic Bookkeeping. Early Writing and Techniques of Economic Administration in the Ancient Near East.
The University of Chicago Press. Chicago and London.

Great so read your links, take notes and get back to us when you can actually post a few sentences or even paragraphs from them that support the dates claimed. Then I will demolish it for you.

 

[Tiberius]

No. I don't. Try again.

Yeah, you do misinterpret science. You just don't realise you do.

Seriously, get an education about these things.

 

[dad]

Yeah, you do misinterpret science. You just don't realise you do.

Seriously, get an education about these things.

Science misrepresents the truth. I represent science right. Repetition will not help you.

 

[TheBear]

4400 years ago, most likely, roughly. Just after the flood about a century and a bit.

Thank you.

What has been observed to have changed.

Please qualify and quantify the discoveries. Thanks.

 

[dad]

Thank you.

What has been observed to have changed.

Please qualify and quantify the discoveries. Thanks.

Problem is this thread is about dating. So one would not want to derail it talking about how science doesn't know what laws were in place. Of course the differences in lifespans and plant growth, thermodynamics etc etc are a matter of biblical record.

So, for this thread, all you need to do is prove that our present state existed long long before science did, or most of history did, and we can then accept that present state decay also existed. Till then, God was right all along.

 

[TheBear]

Well, I don't want to derail the thread either. But, since my remarks were a reply to something you already said in this very thread, I didn't think it qualified as a derail.


Then again, if you want to start another thread on this specific topic, I'd be very interested. Thanks.

 

[Hobz]

Sorry Dad I disagree, I believe the laws change every 3rd day, and our memories are erased and replaced so we don't realise this. It's obvious if we look at the different records which are available. Science is too small to comment it's laws only being valid for a day cannot be relied upon. To prove me wrong all you must do is prove the laws didn't change yesterday (yesterday was the third day).

Since you believe the last time they were changed was thousands of years ago, my theory is 1000x easier to disprove than yours. How about you try and disprove me?

 

[Tiberius]

We've already got a thread on the topic, in which Dad was never able to support his position. You can read it HERE.

 

[Hobz]

*shock and horror*

 

[dad]

Sorry Dad I disagree, I believe the laws change every 3rd day, and our memories are erased and replaced so we don't realise this. It's obvious if we look at the different records which are available. Science is too small to comment it's laws only being valid for a day cannot be relied upon. To prove me wrong all you must do is prove the laws didn't change yesterday (yesterday was the third day).

Since you believe the last time they were changed was thousands of years ago, my theory is 1000x easier to disprove than yours. How about you try and disprove me?

You are right, your theory is pathetic.

 

[dad]

Well, I don't want to derail the thread either. But, since my remarks were a reply to something you already said in this very thread, I didn't think it qualified as a derail.


Then again, if you want to start another thread on this specific topic, I'd be very interested. Thanks.

OK

 

[Hobz]

You can't disprove my theory and neither can science. Since my theory is easier to disprove it is more appealing, so until you can prove me wrong, I'm going with my theory.

 

[dad]

You can't disprove my theory and neither can science. Since my theory is easier to disprove it is more appealing, so until you can prove me wrong, I'm going with my theory.

Date rocks with it then. Meanwhile the presumption of a same state past is what they use for the so called dates. Deal with reality.

 

[Hobz]

Careful Dad, I've heard tomorrow they're turning up the fine structure constant, Carbon may be in short supply, it's time to stockpile.

 

[dad]

Careful Dad, I've heard tomorrow they're turning up the fine structure constant, Carbon may be in short supply, it's time to stockpile.

Relax. Once we learn what this so called FSC really is based on, we would have more worries about Chicken Little swallowing the moon.

 

[Hobz]

The moon is actually made of cheese you know? The past state which we visited the moon is no longer valid, and extrapolation back to the past is wrong. Since we have had many changes of state since we've been there the moon obviously exists in a different state, my guess, cheese.