Radioactive dating

[dad]

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

Not sure who you are trying to address in that request. My belief system is that Jesus created life on earth, and man. I have illustrated here that science has nothing but beliefs that are used for the basis of it's origins models.

 

[dad]

Radioactive decay is observed to occur in the distant past every time a supernova blows up.

Stop preaching. Many of us have our own beliefs, such as Scripture. You would need to prove time exists where far stars are exactly as it does on and near earth for starters. Then you would need to solidly evidence that this exact time was merged in with space (timespace) exactly the same way! If you could do that, we could roll up the sleeves, and start to contest earnestly. You ain't even at the starting gate. I kid you not.

The resulting super heavy atoms decay, as they must, and that accounts for the light of the supernova.

The way we determine decay is wrapped around seeing light here on and near earth. That also involves time.

Explain with an example (why do I get the feeling it might be sn1987a?) how we determine that decay exists.

Remember, if you want to claim distance based on parallax, then we must have time and space equal in all parts of the triangle we use for the measure. In other words we cannot take a little slice of space, and time from earth and area and use it as a baseline!!
You see that would be a measure NOT of distance, but a statement of faith that space and time exist the same all the way to the star. You must admit you do not know. When you do admit that, all s lost for you. Checkmate.

And we know that occurs in the distant past because of how far away the various supernova are, and the finite speed of light.

Hilarious. Hopefully lurkers see that you are definitely peddling belief.

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

Wax and wane? Explain exactly what this is supposed to mean?

 

[dad]

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.

This is news?? What, you thought you had a chance against God and His word??

Present your arguments and evidence, point out biblical errors and contradictions, it all is worthless in the face of this faith in a book.

You have no evidence just bad religion. The so called errors or contradictions are nothing but evidence of a shallow understanding and love of what God said to man.

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.

Those who ignore the age old history permeating and dominating evidences God gave us in Scripture apparently have some psychosis or delusions that nothing is real but what they wish to be. Gong!

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Stop preaching. Many of us have our own beliefs, such as Scripture. You would need to prove time exists where far stars are exactly as it does on and near earth for starters. Then you would need to solidly evidence that this exact time was merged in with space (timespace) exactly the same way! If you could do that, we could roll up the sleeves, and start to contest earnestly. You ain't even at the starting gate. I kid you not.

The way we determine decay is wrapped around seeing light here on and near earth. That also involves time.

Explain with an example (why do I get the feeling it might be sn1987a?) how we determine that decay exists.

Remember, if you want to claim distance based on parallax, then we must have time and space equal in all parts of the triangle we use for the measure. In other words we cannot take a little slice of space, and time from earth and area and use it as a baseline!!
You see that would be a measure NOT of distance, but a statement of faith that space and time exist the same all the way to the star. You must admit you do not know. When you do admit that, all s lost for you. Checkmate.
Hilarious. Hopefully lurkers see that you are definitely peddling belief.

Wax and wane? Explain exactly what this is supposed to mean?

See? Denial of evidence again! That's all you've got, over and over. Hence, you may be safely ignored. Scripture even assures us of that much . . . see my signature quote below.

 

[Zosimus]

See? Denial of evidence again! That's all you've got, over and over. Hence, you may be safely ignored. Scripture even assures us of that much . . . see my signature quote below.

Actually I think dad makes a lot of sense.

(Post #1500).

 

[Loudmouth]

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

Yes, we do know what it was like then because of the evidence those laws produce that survived until the present.

 

[Loudmouth]

Stop preaching.

He isn't preaching. He is pointing to things we can see with our own eyes.

You would need to prove time exists where far stars are exactly as it does on and near earth for starters.

We already have done those things, and you refuse to accept it.

 

[dad]

See? Denial of evidence again! That's all you've got, over and over. Hence, you may be safely ignored. Scripture even assures us of that much . . . see my signature quote below.

You are exhibiting signs of delusional denial. No one denies we see light from stars here.

 

[JackRT]

At the moment science makes the "uniformitarianism" presumption that the laws of physics and chemistry presently observed were the same in past times. Nothing, NOTHING, has ever been observed to suggest otherwise. Until that happens, the presumption remains valid. As soon as there is evidence to the contrary, THAT is the time to reconsider --- not before.

 

[dad]

Yes, we do know what it was like then because of the evidence those laws produce that survived until the present.

In other words, you openly admit the obvious, that your sole basis is the way things now work in this state. Hilarious. Checkmate to you.

 

[dad]

At the moment science makes the "uniformitarianism" presumption that the laws of physics and chemistry presently observed were the same in past times.

This must be Christmas, people are lining up to admit utter defeat.

Nothing, NOTHING, has ever been observed to suggest otherwise.

Name anyone alive that was ever living in the former nature!!?? How in tarnation would we now observe anything but our current nature?? Have you guys ever heard of logic?

 

[dad]

He isn't preaching. He is pointing to things we can see with our own eyes.

Yes he was, stop cheerleading preachers.

 

[Loudmouth]

You know NOTHING about the relationship of the ratios in the past. as far as what caused them. That is all that matters.

I do know what caused them. They were caused by the same radioactive decay we see today because the ratios in those rocks fall on the line in this graph.

Those are the ratios of isotopes that current decay rates would produce, and by your own admission a different state past would not produce those ratios of isotopes. Same state past wins.

 

[JackRT]

This must be Christmas, people are lining up to admit utter defeat.
Name anyone alive that was ever living in the former nature!!?? How in tarnation would we now observe anything but our current nature?? Have you guys ever heard of logic?

As already has been ably pointed out, we can observe the distant past by simply going out on a clear night and study the stars.

 

[Loudmouth]

Yes he was, stop cheerleading preachers.

No, he wasn't. He was describing observations.

 

[Loudmouth]

You are exhibiting signs of delusional denial. No one denies we see light from stars here.

That light comes from the star, not from here. Therefore, we are observing what conditions are like there, not here.

 

[dad]

At the moment science makes the "uniformitarianism" presumption that the laws of physics and chemistry presently observed were the same in past times. Nothing, NOTHING, has ever been observed to suggest otherwise. Until that happens, the presumption remains valid. As soon as there is evidence to the contrary, THAT is the time to reconsider --- not before.

Too bad for you nothing nothing nothing has ever been observed to suggest any state in the past, it is as you admitted, assumed!!! You lose.

 

[dad]

I do know what caused them.

Talk is cheap. You believe real hard.

They were caused by the same radioactive decay we see today because the ratios in those rocks fall on the line in this graph.

Not unless you prove there was radioactive decay at that time in that former nature. No graph assuming there was has the smallest value.

Those are the ratios of isotopes that current decay rates would produce,

A flimsy woulda coulda shoulda...

and by your own admission a different state past would not produce those ratios of isotopes.

Don't make stuff up. It is one thing to offer fantasy doodle graphs based on beliefs with no merit, but another to claim I said what you claim. Creation and the former state would be responsible for ratios (as well as this state for a minute part of them). Be honest.

Same state past wins.

As desperate and shrill as you might be to prop up your exposed and flat as a flounder belief system, you get your usual here...GONG!

 

[dad]

That light comes from the star, not from here.

It is seen here and only here and never anywhere else. You cannot get out of checkmate.

Therefore, we are observing what conditions are like there, not here.

You observe here and assume here and paint evidence here, and dream here, and do all things at all times here and never anywhere else. Act accordingly!!

 

[JackRT]

Too bad for you nothing nothing nothing has ever been observed to suggest any state in the past, it is as you admitted, assumed!!! You lose.

It is assumed for the very reason that nothing has been observed.