Radioactive dating

[Paul of Eugene OR]

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

The "screaming" you hear is only your own denial mechanisms kicking into gear. They should be ignored, and the rest of us sensible people ignore them.

 

[[serious]]

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

Right, so Fredrick Douglass didn't exist since no one alive today saw those photos of him taken. Just because we have those photos now doesn't prove anything right? Not that seeing them on a computer screen means anything since that computer screen could be a in a different state 3 feet away.

 

[dad]

...that computer screen could be a in a different state 3 feet away.

Behold what is left of the 'opposition' here!

 

[dad]

The "screaming" you hear is only your own denial mechanisms kicking into gear. They should be ignored, and the rest of us sensible people ignore them.

People who do not believe Jesus created the world can believe what they like. Ignore what they like. However we must draw the line at post what you like. You actually should be debating substantive logical points.

Work on that.

 

[dad]

The amount of time doesn't matter.

When people claim that decay existed since ever the world was...as science is wont to do, then time matters. Decay involves time.

If the evidence matches the isotope ratios that a same state past would produce then it is evidence for a same state past.

If one assumed that the present state produced the daughter isotopes, and ignored creation, and the former state, then such a fantasy might ring true inside their head I suppose..

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. Nothing remotely similar to that actually. Creation produced a lot of stuff, then the former state did a number on it. Later our present state took over and all you do is pretend that nothing else ever existed.

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

Not true. It is moot to discuss what a non existent state 'would have' produced.

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

Your case is that you cling to a fantasy and belief system that is baseless, godless, and strange.

 

[dad]

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

Prove they are tiny

For all you know they could be any size, because you know not how big or far they are. That does not mean I do or that I should prove what you are ignorant about.

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

I asked for proof time existed as it does here in the far universe. You ran from the facts. Stop preaching and face facts.

 

[dad]

We don't see light that has changed from one spacetime to another.

?? YOU CLAIM THERE IS ONE SPACE TIME TO ANOTHER!!? No matter what you blather about, let's face it you do not know. You see light only here in time. Our time Our space. Our space time. There is NO way out of that simple fact and truth. Checkmate.

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.

meaningless. In other words what we see here looks normal to you. Whooopee doo.

If the laws were different then the transition between spacetimes would not change those different features.

Let me get this straight...how would there be a spacetime if there were no time exactly?

Tell you what, wave the white flag, and I'll try to go easy on you and help you save some face.

 

[[serious]]

Behold what is left of the 'opposition' here!

You are saying one distance and time is constant while another is not.

 

[dad]

You are saying one distance and time is constant while another is not.

I am asking if time exists in the unknown expanses of the universe at all, or if it exists along with space exactly as it does here. I am not doing what science does, and claiming it is one way of the other exactly.

 

[[serious]]

I am asking if time exists in the unknown expanses of the universe at all, or if it exists along with space exactly as it does here. I am not doing what science does, and claiming it is one way of the other exactly.

I'm asking you how you know time exists in your computer. You aren't in your computer after all.

If the emitted photons we observe from an object as sufficient to establish that time exists normally for one, why not the other?

 

[dad]

I'm asking you how you know time exists in your computer.

My computer is in the spacetime continuum of earth. You seem to be stuck in a rut.

If the emitted photons we observe from an object as sufficient to establish that time exists normally for one, why not the other?

Because photons are not what time is. This is news?!

 

[[serious]]

My computer is in the spacetime continuum of earth. You seem to be stuck in a rut.
Because photons are not what time is. This is news?!

The stars we see are in the space time continuum of the visible universe.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

People who do not believe Jesus created the world can believe what they like. Ignore what they like. However we must draw the line at post what you like. You actually should be debating substantive logical points.

Work on that.

Asserting that seeing a galaxy 3 million light years away implies that 3 million years ago there were stars is a logical point. I stick to that, its evidence based after all.

Your schtick is to deny logical points, we all see that.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

I am asking if time exists in the unknown expanses of the universe at all, or if it exists along with space exactly as it does here. I am not doing what science does, and claiming it is one way of the other exactly.

Actually, you are denying, not asking. You are not open to the answer we have already supplied, based on observations. You think that if you don't agree with the inference from the observations, that's enough reason to say its wrong. Its not. You have no alternate explanation for the observations.

 

[dad]

The stars we see are in the space time continuum of the visible universe.

In your head, maybe. Fact is you have no possible clue. If you did you would do more than make silly proclamations.

 

[dad]

Actually, you are denying, not asking. You are not open to the answer we have already supplied, based on observations. You think that if you don't agree with the inference from the observations, that's enough reason to say its wrong. Its not. You have no alternate explanation for the observations.

Observations are ALL here. Nowhere else. Ever. So you can take your religious 'inference' and peddle it to someone else.

 

[dad]

Asserting that seeing a galaxy 3 million light years away implies that 3 million years ago there were stars is a logical point.

You see nothing years away unless there were time THERE. You only know here. You only see here. The denizens of fishbowl earth see only the fishbowl.

I stick to that, its evidence based after all.

You stick to that all right.

Your schtick is to deny logical points, we all see that.

Saying a star is millions of years away means that you claim time exists there. Do you get that much?

 

[[serious]]

In your head, maybe. Fact is you have no possible clue. If you did you would do more than make silly proclamations.

How do you know if your computer and your head are in the same space time continuum?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

In your head, maybe. Fact is you have no possible clue. If you did you would do more than make silly proclamations.

Most people consider seeing the stars in the sky and taking pictures of them are possible clues.

 

[Loudmouth]

Behold what is left of the 'opposition' here!

What is left of you? All you can do is insult people, and think that the insult functions as a refutation of the facts.