Radioactive dating

[dad]

See? You're wrong again. Of course we know what radioactivity has done. We can compare rocks without radioactivity and those with radioactivity, and see the difference. Your objections are silly and will continue to be ignored.

That is worse than absurd. You do not know what radioactivity has done only what it does now. You then take that to mean that radioactivity was responsible for all the ratios. That is disbelief in creation, and the bible, and absolutely impossible to prove.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

That is worse than absurd. You do not know what radioactivity has done only what it does now. You then take that to mean that radioactivity was responsible for all the ratios. That is disbelief in creation, and the bible, and absolutely impossible to prove.

That is worse than absurd. You know what radioactivity has done, just what it does now. Of course radioactivity was responsible for the decay isotope ratios. That is not disbelief in creation and the Bible, and it is proved.

 

[dad]

That is worse than absurd. You know what radioactivity has done, just what it does now.

That would require our laws, our nature. No one knows what nature was like then.

Of course radioactivity was responsible for the decay isotope ratios. That is not disbelief in creation and the Bible, and it is proved.

That is only known in the recent past. Nowhere else was it observed...only assumed. I kid you not.

 

[[serious]]

See? You're wrong again. Of course we know what radioactivity has done. We can compare rocks without radioactivity and those with radioactivity, and see the difference. Your objections are silly and will continue to be ignored.

Ah, but how do we know they even were rocks in a different state last tuesday?

 

[dad]

Ah, but how do we know they even were rocks in a different state last tuesday?

Give man some credit. We have history, and even science has been around awhile. The issue you cannot deal with is what nature was like in the earlier days of Genesis. Strutting around with off topic coos about last week, or any time period after Genesis does not deal with the topic, or issues here. Such cowardly diversions seem to me to be ample evidence of bankruptcy intellectually as well as a display of low character or honesty.

We should note that the future of earth and the stars and sun as told in the bible are also starkly different than what we have today, and it is painfully obvious here that science could not tell us about that either. You guys are sandwiched between unknowns, and hanging on the horns of a dilemma.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

You guys are sandwiched between unknowns, and hanging on the horns of a dilemma.

Naah. We have confident knowledge that the universe was created 13+ billion years ago and the earth 4+ billion years ago and a history of life for over a billion years.

 

[[serious]]

Give man some credit. We have history, and even science has been around awhile. The issue you cannot deal with is what nature was like in the earlier days of Genesis. Strutting around with off topic coos about last week, or any time period after Genesis does not deal with the topic, or issues here. Such cowardly diversions seem to me to be ample evidence of bankruptcy intellectually as well as a display of low character or honesty.

We should note that the future of earth and the stars and sun as told in the bible are also starkly different than what we have today, and it is painfully obvious here that science could not tell us about that either. You guys are sandwiched between unknowns, and hanging on the horns of a dilemma.

How do we know science has been around a while. Memory could have worked differently in a different state past.

We must either assume that some consistency of reality exists or we can say nothing about even the recent past. If we assume some length of time has consistent rules of reality, how can we in the same breath assume the opposite as well?

 

[JackRT]

How do we know science has been around a while. Memory could have worked differently in a different state past.

We must either assume that some consistency of reality exists or we can say nothing about even the recent past. If we assume some length of time has consistent rules of reality, how can we in the same breath assume the opposite as well?

Well said! Dad's scenario calls everything into question including the biblical narrative itself.

 

[dad]

Naah. We have confident knowledge that the universe was created 13+ billion years ago and the earth 4+ billion years ago and a history of life for over a billion years.

Nah. You talk a big talk.

 

[dad]

Well said! Dad's scenario calls everything into question including the biblical narrative itself.

False. The days of Adam and Noah are when the different nature would have been. No one calls that into question at all..Gong!

 

[dad]

How do we know science has been around a while.

I generally assume people have some grip on reality, and not sucking their thumb worrying about whether there was a last week.

There is a certain bar to reach up to, as low as I thought it was.

 

[[serious]]

I generally assume people have some grip on reality, and not sucking their thumb worrying about whether there was a last week.

There is a certain bar to reach up to, as low as I thought it was.

Instead you wish us to worry about if there was a last Eon?
How is one ridiculous if the other is not?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Nah. You talk a big talk.

Only my talk is backed up by evidence. Your talk is backed up by a universal dismissal of all evidence you don't like . . in other words, contrary to the evidence.

Let me throw in a little evidence here, just to be consistent.

There are galaxies observed at distances so great light requires millions of year to travel from them to us. This is evidence that, millions of years ago, stars existed.

There. Evidence. I await your denial of evidence.

 

[dad]

Instead you wish us to worry about if there was a last Eon?
How is one ridiculous if the other is not?

The times in the debate are clear.

 

[dad]

Only my talk is backed up by evidence.

Only inside your head. Not out here where we can read it.

Your talk is backed up by a universal dismissal of all evidence you don't like . . in other words, contrary to the evidence.

I dismiss nothing but godless beliefs, never evidence.

Let me throw in a little evidence here, just to be consistent.

There are galaxies observed at distances so great light requires millions of year to travel from them to us. This is evidence that, millions of years ago, stars existed.

The evidence is that you religiously assign ages because of certain things. I know the reasons. You pretend time exists in all the universe, and space as we know it, and timespace, and laws. You try to set creation to earth clocks.

 

[[serious]]

The times in the debate are clear.

You said different state past. 5 minutes ago is also the past. If it is silly to speculate about a different state past a week or a year ago, why would it become reasonable just by going back a bit further?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Only inside your head. Not out here where we can read it.
I dismiss nothing but godless beliefs, never evidence.. . . .

Here, let me repeat the evidence that all may see just what you deny. We see galaxies at distances by which light takes millions of years to travel, therefore there were stars (in those galaxies) millions of years ago.

See? That's evidence. And you say I don't give evidence where you can read it. Are we to assume you cannot read?

Do I need to repeat the evidence? Does it take three or more times for evidence to sink in, or is it that evidence can never sink in?

 

[JackRT]

Someone once said "It is impossible to reason someone out of a position they did not arrive at logically." After two decades of trying to reason with creationists and other sorts of fundamentalists I have drawn a conclusion. As long as they are completely convinced that the Bible is "The Word of God" and is both literal and inerrant, they are invincible. Present your arguments and evidence, point out biblical errors and contradictions, it all is worthless in the face of this faith in a book. Although they are intelligent people and are well able to invent plausible "what if?" arguments, they do have one major weakness --- they have no evidence. We see this, of course, but they don't because the Bible is the only evidence they need. "The Bible says it, argument over, we win!" is unassailable in their eyes.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

That would require our laws, our nature. No one knows what nature was like then.

That is only known in the recent past. Nowhere else was it observed...only assumed. I kid you not.

Radioactive decay is observed to occur in the distant past every time a supernova blows up. The resulting super heavy atoms decay, as they must, and that accounts for the light of the supernova. And we know that occurs in the distant past because of how far away the various supernova are, and the finite speed of light.

Seeing a supernova wax and wane in our telescopes is direct observation of radioactive decay.

I kid you not.

 

[Zosimus]

Someone once said "It is impossible to reason someone out of a position they did not arrive at logically." After two decades of trying to reason with creationists and other sorts of fundamentalists I have drawn a conclusion. As long as they are completely convinced that the Bible is "The Word of God" and is both literal and inerrant, they are invincible. Present your arguments and evidence, point out biblical errors and contradictions, it all is worthless in the face of this faith in a book. Although they are intelligent people and are well able to invent plausible "what if?" arguments, they do have one major weakness --- they have no evidence. We see this, of course, but they don't because the Bible is the only evidence they need. "The Bible says it, argument over, we win!" is unassailable in their eyes.

Please summarize your belief system, and then lay out the logical argument that you used to arrive at your belief system.