Radioactive dating

[dad]

You method of doubting the past makes your belief that God did something in the past completely unverifiable.

I don't doubt the past at all.

 

[dad]

Because there is no reason that a former state would produce those ratios. You even said so yourself.

No. There is every reason! That is how we find it!

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

I don't doubt the past at all.

You express those doubts in post after post. You invite the rest of us to join in your doubts. You accuse us of logical failure when we don't.

 

[dad]

You express those doubts in post after post. You invite the rest of us to join in your doubts. You accuse us of logical failure when we don't.

Not doubts about the past, just the invented fantasy past that godless science was inspired to conjure up.

 

[crjmurray]

Not doubts about the past, just the invented fantasy past that godless science was inspired to conjure up.

You make stuff up

 

[dad]

You make stuff up

You do, nya nya

 

[Loudmouth]

No. There is every reason! That is how we find it!

With a different state past, why would you predict that we would see those specific ratios before we observed them?

Or better yet, please show how these ratios would be different if there really were a same state past. Or are you saying that a different state past would produce evidence identical to a same state past for no apparent reason?

 

[Loudmouth]

Not doubts about the past, just the invented fantasy past that godless science was inspired to conjure up.

If it is invented, then tell us what those ratios should really look like with a same state past.

 

[dad]

With a different state past, why would you predict that we would see those specific ratios before we observed them?

It was not laws and/or forces of the past state that is responsible for the ratios. Creation is responsible, and what effect or change in ratios after that point we do not know. One assumes that the nature of that day was working and the forces and laws in place were doing what they do in affecting atoms. No one says we here in this state have to know it all, and the details of how it will work in the future, or the far past.
The issue with you is that you try to insist that this state always existed and nothing else. You then proceed to use this state to explain and accredit all things with. Of course when you use such a belief based set of methods and selective thinking you will end up with strange similar conclusions. You cannnot then turn around and try to impress us that all your mistakenly wrought conclusions seem to agree WITH EACH OTHER--AND ONLY IN A DREAM PAST!! Even there in that weird fantasy dream space in your mind, you yourself admit to wildly different so called dates, that you claim show harmonious agreement!! In the example you posted I showed how there was a 2.3 million year discrepancy for example.
Now forget obsessing on a different state past, focus on proving the same state past science uses and claims!

 

[dad]

If it is invented, then tell us what those ratios should really look like with a same state past.

Nothing could look like a past in which there was no God, or creation. That is a red herring.

 

[Loudmouth]

It was not laws and/or forces of the past state that is responsible for the ratios. Creation is responsible, and what effect or change in ratios after that point we do not know. One assumes that the nature of that day was working and the forces and laws in place were doing what they do in affecting atoms. No one says we here in this state have to know it all, and the details of how it will work in the future, or the far past.
The issue with you is that you try to insist that this state always existed and nothing else. You then proceed to use this state to explain and accredit all things with. Of course when you use such a belief based set of methods and selective thinking you will end up with strange similar conclusions. You cannnot then turn around and try to impress us that all your mistakenly wrought conclusions seem to agree WITH EACH OTHER--AND ONLY IN A DREAM PAST!! Even there in that weird fantasy dream space in your mind, you yourself admit to wildly different so called dates, that you claim show harmonious agreement!! In the example you posted I showed how there was a 2.3 million year discrepancy for example.
Now forget obsessing on a different state past, focus on proving the same state past science uses and claims!

You didn't answer the question. Here it is again.

With a different state past, why would you predict that we would see those specific ratios before we observed them?

 

[Loudmouth]

Nothing could look like a past in which there was no God, or creation. That is a red herring.

You have just admitted that even if there was proof of a same state past that you would ignore it. You have lost the debate.

 

[dad]

You have just admitted that even if there was proof of a same state past that you would ignore it. You have lost the debate.

Dream on. You have none, and never had and and will never have any proof for your godless state past. Trying to pretend that gives you a victory of some sort simply shows how defeated you really are.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Dream on. You have none, and never had and and will never have any proof for your godless state past. Trying to pretend that gives you a victory of some sort simply shows how defeated you really are.

He claims to be an agnostic, which means he is not postulating a godless state past, only that he is not referencing the existence of God in his descriptions of the past. So you might try to describe what he postulates a little more accurately.

 

[dad]

He claims to be an agnostic, which means he is not postulating a godless state past, only that he is not referencing the existence of God in his descriptions of the past. So you might try to describe what he postulates a little more accurately.

Nope. Whether he knows it or not the nature in the past that he postulates has no God, so it is Godless. Christless. Creationless. Clueless!

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Nope. Whether he knows it or not the nature in the past that he postulates has no God, so it is Godless. Christless. Creationless. Clueless!

Ho hum. Your schtick is tiresome and unconvincing.

 

[dad]

Ho hum. Your schtick is tiresome and unconvincing.

It isn't designed for nommies.

 

[dad]

The speed of light in a vacuum is constant.

That depends where the vacuum IS!

 

[dad]

The core of the sun is a giant nuclear fusion reactor, and the sun gives off a ton of radiation. It's one of the biggest, if not the biggest dangerous to astronauts.

Radiation...yes. Now prove that it comes from the core of the sun?

 

[dad]

Does it matter? Where it happened is immaterial when the point is that it happened. The isotopes tell a story of prehistoric radiation.

It matters what they claim! Should there not be a basis to their claims?

Now about the isotopes...they have no meaning without all the things that they claim went on to set up the reactions. They claim uranium was a certain way back then...that enabled reactions...so prove it was that way?? You can't. The whole fable is a long string of invented happenings none of which can be proven in any way whatsoever. They just need it to be so. Period.

What if a reaction happened in the former nature and there was not all the things involved that we would need here now to get one??! That would mean no one needs all the now missing isotopes you claim once existed but decayed away! Prove they ever existed? You just need it.