Radioactive dating

[Loudmouth]

You see nothing years away unless there were time THERE.

If there weren't time there, the photon would never be able to travel here. If time were different there, then the photons would be released at different rates, at different wavelengths, and at different luminosities. They aren't. They are the same as light produced here.

Also, please evidence the fishbowl.

 

[Loudmouth]

When people claim that decay existed since ever the world was...as science is wont to do, then time matters. Decay involves time.

You are picking an arbitrary time point, before which you refuse to accept evidence. That is just pure denial.

You have established zero reasons why evidence from 1 million years ago is not acceptable, but evidence from 2 years ago is acceptable. You just don't like the conclusion the evidence leads to. That's it. That is the ONLY reason you have for ignoring the evidence I have presented.

If one assumed that the present state produced the daughter isotopes, and ignored creation, and the former state, then such a fantasy might ring true inside their head I suppose..

A different state past has already been falsified by your own admission. A different state past would not produce the ratios of isotopes that we see in these rocks. A same state past would. You lose.

 

[dad]

How do you know if your computer and your head are in the same space time continuum?

Those I have no worries about...you, on the other hand....?

 

[Loudmouth]

Those I have no worries about...you, on the other hand....?

You didn't answer the question.

How do you know that your computer screen and your head are in the same spacetime continuum?

 

[dad]

Most people consider seeing the stars in the sky and taking pictures of them are possible clues.

Pictures of little lights far far away can be deceiving to those not grounded in the truth and reality of the Creator and His word to mankind. Your speculations are nothing more than baseless doubts and Christless conjecture.

 

[dad]

What is left of you? All you can do is insult people, and think that the insult functions as a refutation of the facts.

Don't feel insulted by your lack of ideas and substance. Learn from it. Grow. Be happy.

 

[dad]

You didn't answer the question.

How do you know that your computer screen and your head are in the same spacetime continuum?

Asking such dumb questions speaks volumes about folks. Work on that.

 

[[serious]]

Those I have no worries about...you, on the other hand....?

i similarly have no worries about the stars. The difference is my view is internally consistent, yours is not.

 

[dad]

You didn't answer the question.

How do you know that your computer screen and your head are in the same spacetime continuum?

Merry Christmas to you and yours too.

 

[dad]

i similarly have no worries about the stars. The difference is my view is internally consistent, yours is not.

A view regarding what stars are and what time may be like where they are needs more than resonance inside your own head actually.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

A view regarding what stars are and what time may be like where they are needs more than resonance inside your own head actually.

A denial of what stars are needs more than resonance inside your own head, actually.

 

[[serious]]

A view regarding what stars are and what time may be like where they are needs more than resonance inside your own head actually.

No more than your belief about what time may be like at your computer screen.

 

[Loudmouth]

Don't feel insulted by your lack of ideas and substance. Learn from it. Grow. Be happy.

How do you learn from stuff that is made up?

 

[Loudmouth]

Merry Christmas to you and yours too.

You still didn't answer the question.

How do you know that your computer screen and your head are in the same spacetime continuum?

 

[dad]

A denial of what stars are needs more than resonance inside your own head, actually.

What stars are is nothing you know much about at all. Get sonmething worthy of denial, rather than mere disgust.

 

[dad]

You still didn't answer the question.

How do you know that your computer screen and your head are in the same spacetime continuum?

Radioactive decay in the far past would require this set of laws we have, not just an overactive imagination and a penchant to to create religious graphs.

 

[dad]

How do you learn from stuff that is made up?

I would ask you.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Radioactive decay in the far past would require this set of laws we have, not just an overactive imagination and a penchant to to create religious graphs.

And since we have the decay products from that past, it shows the laws we have were operating in that past.

 

[Zosimus]

We have the evidence that it did occur.

It is no different than using forensic evidence to convict a criminal for a crime that no one witnessed.

Exactly.

How reliable is forensic science?
Judge Harry T. Edwards explains.

"I think I, and many of my colleagues, assumed that the forensic disciplines were based on solid scientific methodology, were valid and reliable. I don’t think that we assumed that there was anything seriously amiss.

"We assumed there might be mistakes, but I don’t think that we had been forewarned in any way that there were the serious problems that the committee uncovered. …"

"If some people are saying it works because we’ve gotten convictions, that is to say nothing more than juries and judges have believed that experts knew what they were talking about. And so they bought it and they convicted. That’s not proof that the discipline is undergirded by serious science...."

"For example, there was a report on bite marks recently, … saying there’s just no science to support a lot of what the so-called experts have been assuming with respect to the validity and reliability of bite marks. …"

"I think there have been enough acquittals, post-conviction releases in hair cases, and there has been enough science now to show that if you’re not backing it up, you should not ever use hair. And the report says that you should not use microscopic hair analysis alone to claim a match...."

"There are inconsistent practices and inconsistent standards. Labs in one set of standards that are not followed by labs in another place.

"And one of the biggest problems that the forensic people pointed out to us in the committee is the too-close connections between law enforcement and the … forensic disciplines, and that was news to most of us.

"What they explained to us was in most instances, the labs are controlled by either the police chief, the prosecutor, law enforcement, so to speak. And the forensic people said it’s a mistake because there’s too much pressure put on the forensic people to deliver results and get them done quickly, and introduce the possibility of contextual bias for example. We’re trying to study that. …"

"Right, whatever the context is. You create the context. And now that examiner unknowingly is looking at the same print that he or she previously said [is a] 100 percent match, and in a significant percentage of those cases, they changed...."
-------------------------------
-------------------------------
Forensic science is mostly bull.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Exactly.

How reliable is forensic science?
Judge Harry T. Edwards explains.

"I think I, and many of my colleagues, assumed that the forensic disciplines were based on solid scientific methodology, were valid and reliable. I don’t think that we assumed that there was anything seriously amiss.

"We assumed there might be mistakes, but I don’t think that we had been forewarned in any way that there were the serious problems that the committee uncovered. …"

"If some people are saying it works because we’ve gotten convictions, that is to say nothing more than juries and judges have believed that experts knew what they were talking about. And so they bought it and they convicted. That’s not proof that the discipline is undergirded by serious science...."

"For example, there was a report on bite marks recently, … saying there’s just no science to support a lot of what the so-called experts have been assuming with respect to the validity and reliability of bite marks. …"

"I think there have been enough acquittals, post-conviction releases in hair cases, and there has been enough science now to show that if you’re not backing it up, you should not ever use hair. And the report says that you should not use microscopic hair analysis alone to claim a match...."

"There are inconsistent practices and inconsistent standards. Labs in one set of standards that are not followed by labs in another place.

"And one of the biggest problems that the forensic people pointed out to us in the committee is the too-close connections between law enforcement and the … forensic disciplines, and that was news to most of us.

"What they explained to us was in most instances, the labs are controlled by either the police chief, the prosecutor, law enforcement, so to speak. And the forensic people said it’s a mistake because there’s too much pressure put on the forensic people to deliver results and get them done quickly, and introduce the possibility of contextual bias for example. We’re trying to study that. …"

"Right, whatever the context is. You create the context. And now that examiner unknowingly is looking at the same print that he or she previously said [is a] 100 percent match, and in a significant percentage of those cases, they changed...."
-------------------------------
-------------------------------
Forensic science is mostly bull.

Fingerprints and ballistics and DNA analysis will continue to work and continue to convict people even though you bemoan the fact that evidence works. If you wish to establish that certain lines of evidence are unreliable, you have to do it scientifically, not on mere faith.