Radioactive dating

[Loudmouth]

Light production? The only time we see light is here!

The light was produced there.

What we see according to science...is in the past. Then it moves through space, they say, till it finally gets here. That means we can say little about the light before it got into our fishbowl.

What fishbowl?

 

[dad]

All it takes is the observed decay rate of the isotope. Nothing imaginary about it at all.

No decay has EVER been observed 5000 years ago has it? We observe stuff now, and decay now.

There is the process that produced the ratios of isotopes in those rocks.

No, that is total speculation. How would you know if the stuff was there before this state started?

If it matches the current rate of decay, then it is proof that the current rate of decay produced them.

One cannot match the current decay by looking at stuff that one does not now where it came from...created or not. You assume decay dunnit all.

You have already stated that those different laws would not produce rocks with isotope ratios that fall on the line in the graph.

No. I do not take your doodle art seriously enough to claim any such thing.

The measured isotope ratios do fall on that line in the graph. Therefore, your different state past is falsified. A same state past is proven because a same state past would produce rocks with exactly the ratios of isotopes that fall on the line in that graph.

The graph is meaningless. If there was isotopes already here when this state started then your graph is worthless.

Truly.

 

[dad]

The light was produced there.

BUT SEEN HERE.

 

[dad]

Please produce evidence that they are tiny

I don't know if they are big or small. Guess who claims they are a certain size? You.

We know both the size and the distance.

You believe time exists and timespace as we know it here, but have zero evidence.
You just refuse to look at the facts.

 

[[serious]]

Exactly. My eyes are...where..? Here. Time exists here in the way God ordained, and the way it must for us here. The issue is whether you know it also exists at all, or as we know it here...far far far far far beyond where you have been or will go.

Right, your eyes are in your head, not at the computer screen. Light needs to travel a certain distance and a certain time to reach your eye, just like with stars. You assume the time and distance are consistent in one example, but not the other.

 

[[serious]]

No decay has EVER been observed 5000 years ago has it? We observe stuff now, and decay now.


No, that is total speculation. How would you know if the stuff was there before this state started?
One cannot match the current decay by looking at stuff that one does not now where it came from...created or not. You assume decay dunnit all.

No. I do not take your doodle art seriously enough to claim any such thing.



The graph is meaningless. If there was isotopes already here when this state started then your graph is worthless.

Truly.

No photography was observed 100 years ago

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Light production? The only time we see light is here! What we see according to science...is in the past. Then it moves through space, they say, till it finally gets here. That means we can say little about the light before it got into our fishbowl.

Poor dad, leaving himself out of so much of what God has revealed to us in the stars, the rocks, and the genomes. What is it about our species that causes us to, so often, shut our eyes to the light?

 

[Loudmouth]

No decay has EVER been observed 5000 years ago has it?

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.

No, that is total speculation. How would you know if the stuff was there before this state started?

You have already stated that a former state past would not produce the specific ratios we actually see in rocks. That's how we know.

One cannot match the current decay by looking at stuff that one does not now where it came from

The ratios tell us where it came from.

You assume decay dunnit all.

Do you have to assume a criminal is guilty in order to match the suspect's fingerprints to the fingerprints at the crime scene?

No. I do not take your doodle art seriously enough to claim any such thing.

You try to run away from the facts because they disprove your claims.

We will add your inability to deal with the facts as yet more evidence that you are wrong.

 

[Loudmouth]

I don't know

Then don't claim that they are small.

You believe time exists and timespace as we know it here, but have zero evidence.

We can observe time passing in the space around those stars. That is evidence.

 

[Loudmouth]

BUT SEEN HERE.

It is produced there.

 

[dad]

Right, your eyes are in your head, not at the computer screen. Light needs to travel a certain distance and a certain time to reach your eye, just like with stars. You assume the time and distance are consistent in one example, but not the other.

Right, here near and on earth it does involve time. That much we know.

 

[dad]

No photography was observed 100 years ago

OK, so man has less experience that even what I over generously cited.

 

[dad]

Poor dad, leaving himself out of so much of what God has revealed to us in the stars, the rocks, and the genomes. What is it about our species that causes us to, so often, shut our eyes to the light?

God actually spoke, as Jesus clearly pointed out betimes, by Scripture. Anything contradictory is a Satanic misunderstanding.

 

[dad]

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.

Thanks for displaying vividly that you totally miss the point. No forensic case involves the time when the KT layer was put down. We simply we not talking about a few thousand years ago, last year or last century or last week. Focus. Get a grip.

You have already stated that a former state past would not produce the specific ratios we actually see in rocks. That's how we know.

Not at all, I actually said that the former nature likely used the stuff we have now but in a different way. Google honesty.

The ratios tell us where it came from.

No, only if we know the state that affected the isotopes in the past. The ratios of stuff themselves tell us squat about the forces in place in the far past.

You try to run away from the facts because they disprove your claims.

You pretend to have some association with facts because you have no case.

We will add your inability to deal with the facts as yet more evidence that you are wrong.

Your confusion as to what is fact and what is same state past belief screams out at us.

 

[dad]

It is produced there.

Not really. Whatever started out had to come here, and exist here under time and timespace as we have it. So there.

 

[dad]

Then don't claim that they are small.

Lok again at what was said, then google comprehension and honesty. Work on that. A lot.

We can observe time passing in the space around those stars. That is evidence.

Now if you knew how big they were or how far, or what time if any existed where they are and what timespace, etc..you might well be on your way to the beginnings of a weak point.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

God actually spoke, as Jesus clearly pointed out betimes, by Scripture. Anything contradictory is a Satanic misunderstanding.

Unfortunately for the discussion, in your mind that means "anything contradictory as I understand it". You leave no allowance for any mistakes on your own part. The rest of us, following the scriptural injunction you see in my signature quote below, simply ignore your complete rejection of all evidence.

 

[Loudmouth]

Thanks for displaying vividly that you totally miss the point. No forensic case involves the time when the KT layer was put down. We simply we not talking about a few thousand years ago, last year or last century or last week. Focus. Get a grip.

The amount of time doesn't matter. If the evidence matches the isotope ratios that a same state past would produce then it is evidence for a same state past.

Not at all, I actually said that the former nature likely used the stuff we have now but in a different way. Google honesty.

If it was in a different way, then it wouldn't produce the ratios that a same state past would. You are admitting it again.

No, only if we know the state that affected the isotopes in the past.

We do know what that state was because the ratios that we are observing are exactly those that a same state past would produce.

You pretend to have some association with facts because you have no case.

I do have a case, and you still refuse to even address it.

 

[Loudmouth]

Lok again at what was said, then google comprehension and honesty. Work on that. A lot.

"The so called suns might be tiny for all we know."--dad

Prove they are tiny.

Now if you knew how big they were or how far, or what time if any existed where they are and what timespace, etc..you might well be on your way to the beginnings of a weak point.

We do know those things. We have given you the evidence. You run away from it.

 

[Loudmouth]

Not really. Whatever started out had to come here, and exist here under time and timespace as we have it. So there.

We don't see light that has changed from one spacetime to another. The light we see is exactly what we would see if the light coming from those distant stars was produced using the same laws and processes that we have here on Earth. If the laws were different then the transition between spacetimes would not change those different features.