Radioactive dating

[dad]

So no matter what the observation is, you would never accept it as evidence for a same state past, correct?

Put it on the table and let's see. Don't be angry that your sleight of hand got busted.

 

[Loudmouth]

Put it on the table and let's see. Don't be angry that your sleight of hand got busted.

What sleight of hand? You haven't been able to show how the evidence I have presented is inconsistent with a same state past.

 

[dad]

What sleight of hand? You haven't been able to show how the evidence I have presented is inconsistent with a same state past.

The sleight of hand that tries to conflate issues, and avoid the central simple question. That question is what state existed in the far past? If it was not the present state then we forget the present state processes and way things now work.

Quit trying to lump in a bunch of ratios together. Look at one material so we get a clear picture. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

 

[Loudmouth]

The sleight of hand that tries to conflate issues, and avoid the central simple question. That question is what state existed in the far past?

The answer to that question is found in the evidence we have in the present. If the evidence we have is consistent with a same state past, then it is evidence for a same state past. That's how evidence works.

You haven't been able to show us a single piece of evidence that is inconsistent with a same state past. Therefore, all of the evidence is consistent with a same state past.

Quit trying to lump in a bunch of ratios together.

You ask for evidence, and then you refuse to address it. Go figure.

 

[dad]

The answer to that question is found in the evidence we have in the present. If the evidence we have is consistent with a same state past, then it is evidence for a same state past. That's how evidence works.

It is consistent with a created different state past also. So? Who gives a rat's petard what seems internally consistent in your fantasy world, that can't be shown true??

You haven't been able to show us a single piece of evidence that is inconsistent with a same state past.

Unless that particular state was proven and known to have existed, why would anyone need to show anything was inconsistent with it? Those who claim almost any belief can say the same!

You ask for evidence, and then you refuse to address it. Go figure.

Your internal vague fantasies are not evidence of anything but delusion.

 

[Loudmouth]

It is consistent with a created different state past also.

Why would a different state past produce the same evidence as a same state past?

Unless that particular state was proven and known to have existed, why would anyone need to show anything was inconsistent with it? Those who claim almost any belief can say the same!

How do you prove what happened in the past without first determining if the evidence is consistent or inconsistent with what you would expect to see? Do you have to prove a defendant guilty before you can use DNA fingerprinting?

Do you understand how evidence works?

 

[CabVet]

No reason to believe it was any different in your imaginary past.

 

[dad]

Why would a different state past produce the same evidence as a same state past?

Why not? There IS no evidence of a same state past, so you can relax.

How do you prove what happened in the past without first determining if the evidence is consistent or inconsistent with what you would expect to see?

In other words you feel you have to start out with presuppositions, beliefs, and such. We get it.

Do you have to prove a defendant guilty before you can use DNA fingerprinting?

Is the guy in this state?

Do you understand how evidence works?

Yes you present it rather than quacking.

 

[dad]

No reason to believe it was any different in your imaginary past.

Who asked you what you believe?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why not? There IS no evidence of a same state past, so you can relax.

Perhaps later on I will try to teach you what scientific evidence is. Scientists had to come up with a specific definition of "evidence" since scientists are human too and they will sometimes make the same sort of laughably ignorant statements as you have just made.

 

[CabVet]

Who asked you what you believe?

1. This has nothing to do with belief.
2. I am free to say whatever I want.
3. I like pie.

 

[Loudmouth]

Why not?

Are you saying that you can't explain why a different state past would produce evidence that is identical to a same state past?

There IS no evidence of a same state past, so you can relax.

Why isn't it evidence? Please explain.

In other words you feel you have to start out with presuppositions, beliefs, and such. We get it.
Is the guy in this state?
Yes you present it rather than quacking.

I already showed you that no such presuppositions are used to measure ratios of isotopes in rocks.

 

[CabVet]

Why not? There IS no evidence of a same state past, so you can relax.

Burden of proof. You should maybe read about it one of these days. You are the one making the claim of a different past, you should be the one providing evidence. Shifting the burden of proof is a fallacy that you commit in every other post.

 

[dad]

Perhaps later on I will try to teach you what scientific evidence is. Scientists had to come up with a specific definition of "evidence" since scientists are human too and they will sometimes make the same sort of laughably ignorant statements as you have just made.

Stop quacking.

 

[dad]

1. This has nothing to do with belief.
2. I am free to say whatever I want.
3. I like pie.

You say you believe something then say it has nothing to do with belief! OK. Keep us posted on the hidden meanings of your queer utterances.

I think there may be a few slices missing in that pie.

 

[dad]

Are you saying that you can't explain why a different state past would produce evidence that is identical to a same state past?

No. I am saying you need to prove a same state past, not quack about how clever it seems to you.

Why isn't it evidence? Please explain.

Evidence? Your bizarre belief system- evidence? Hilarious.

I already showed you that no such presuppositions are used to measure ratios of isotopes in rocks.

Clever. You realize there are ratios! Wow. Now the question arises, what do they mean?. Baby steps...

 

[Loudmouth]

You say you believe something then say it has nothing to do with belief! OK. Keep us posted on the hidden meanings of your queer utterances.

I think there may be a few slices missing in that pie.

Do we have to prove that a suspect is guilty before we can use DNA fingerprinting?

 

[dad]

Burden of proof. You should maybe read about it one of these days. You are the one making the claim of a different past, you should be the one providing evidence. Shifting the burden of proof is a fallacy that you commit in every other post.

Quack quack....prove the same state past ot it will not be permitted to be used in models of the past. Period.

 

[dad]

Do we have to prove that a suspect is guilty before we can use DNA fingerprinting?

If the suspect claims to be Noah...yes.

 

[Loudmouth]

No. I am saying you need to prove a same state past, not quack about how clever it seems to you.

Do we have to prove a suspect is guilty before we can use DNA fingerprinting?

Evidence? Your bizarre belief system- evidence? Hilarious.

Mass spectrometers are a belief system? How so?

Clever. You realize there are ratios! Wow. Now the question arises, what do they mean?. Baby steps...

You refuse to address that question.