Radioactive dating

[SelfSim]

There are zero lines of evidence anywhere.

In fact, there are multiple lines of results from objective tests which serve as the basis for science's knowledgebase of objective reality (from which you also reap the benefits). There is abundant evidence of this .. for example, science uses only operational definitions which have already been tested .. these operational definitions are distinguished from 'truths' by virtue their own objective tests having been performed.

You offered evidences soaked and painted and immersed and sprayed with your beliefs.

Not so. Beliefs are notions held as being true for any reason. Science doesn't rely upon untestable truths .. therefore your statement is logically false.

Then you offer a religious opinion of how that all seems wonderful enough for you. Religion. You see and experience nothing ever out of the fishbowl, and you interpret...religiously..accordingly.

Falsified waffle ...

 

[GlabrousDory4]

God made the creation claim

So is God typing your posts?

Not where 'making sense' means calling God a liar and disrespecting everything He said!

Do you think God directly wrote the Bible Himself?

Not where 'making sense' means viewing it exclusively through YOUR religious lens!
Yes we know, you redefined that phrase to mean 'anyone that does not blindly swallow my religion is special pleading'!

Nope. Not even close, Dad.

How about the same way everyone else in the bible reads it? Even the angels!

Are you an angel?

I love how resistant you are to discussing your own position. It's almost like you don't even understand your own position and you have to defend it come hell or high water. Which makes your "defense" of your position almost meaningless.

It's like watching a kid who is new to Debate Club being told he has to defend a position he doesn't at all understand but he knows that he cannot brook ANY criticism.

This is why it is a waste of time for people to debate your position with you.

 

[GlabrousDory4]

What is special about your pleadings about the future and past is that they all rest on one belief.

Dude, just stop while you're ahead. Can you really not understand what "special pleading" means? Really? This is embarrassing to watch.

One belief binds them. That belief is something you both consider special and above normal standards of evidences like historical records, as well as something that you hold exempt from your own criteria!!!! 'Oh, we don't need to prove or support the very basis for all models of the past and present, you see once we accept them, it all seems to make sense viewed that way!' Would you call that special pleading?

Wow, that reads like you were using a Markov Chain generator. And no, since that doesn't characterize science and it doesn't really relate to the definition of "special pleading", I wouldn't call it special pleading.

Really, just re-read the link or re-read the definition YOU dug up as well. Put some thought into it.

Are you really not understanding this at all????

The God that 'created' mankind and Adam and Eve and brought the flood cannot grow weak, despite the little faith of some.

Are you "speed reading" these posts and just randomly picking out words?

You pick out random words and do some riff on them that has nothing to do with the point that was read.

Only to those in your religion does it look like something it wasn't. To me, the world looks fine. I realize heaven is coming and that this present word is temporary as we know it now. Looking at the far past in the same light involves no deception at all. The deception was in trying to say that this present nature was the key to the past and future!

-yawn- Sorry, I dozed off there. Yeah, I get it, you love God. You REALLY LOVE GOD. That's FANTASTIC! I am sure God knows it! In case He didn't pick up on it I'm going to reinforce it for Him on your behalf: GOD, DAD REALLY LOVES YOU! HE TRULY AND HONESTLY BELIEVES IN YOU! HE WORSHIPS YOU! THERE IS LITERALLY NO THOUGHT THAT HAS EVER GONE THROUGH HIS MIND THAT COULD IN ANY WAY BE TERMED "QUESTIONING" HIS FAITH. IT IS PURE, IT IS STRONG.

Got it! Check! 100%.

 

[dad]

A prerequisite of assessing the level of comprehension in others is the ability of the assessor of thinking for themselves.
You do not appear to possess this facility as the Bible does the thinking for you

So those who think according to your religion think for themselves. If I had a nickel for every time I heard that one.

I will give you the opportunity however of proving me wrong.
Since you believe we know absolutely nothing about the spectrum of 3C-273 at the source, then for all intents and purposes the spectrum should be random.

Wrong. The light that enters our area does tell us something, as I have said, when we see an element in the spectra, I assume it does exist out there. Hydrogen for example exists out there.

Yet when we compare this spectrum to a laboratory spectrum of hydrogen we get a remarkable connection and a magical number.

Big problem in your logic. You offer to compare that which is in the fishbowl to that which is...in the fishbowl! Then you find it remarkable it is similar!!!!!?

Alternatively if we took the laboratory spectrum for hydrogen (which is located in your “fishbowl“) and for each wavelength we multiplied this magical number by the wavelength and added the result to the wavelength we reproduce the wavelengths in the 3C-273 spectrum.
Explain to us how this relationship is consistent in the context of knowing nothing about the spectrum of 3C-273 at the source.

That is not 'alternately'! That is looking at 2 samples both in the fishbowl!

Time outside your fishbowl is different because no one can prove it is the same as time inside the fishbowl.

I think of it more like this 'time cannot be shown to be as science claims it is in the same deep space that they model things as if it was'!

Now try and come back with a rational response.

 

[dad]

In fact, there are multiple lines of results from objective tests which serve as the basis for science's knowledgebase of objective reality (from which you also reap the benefits). There is abundant evidence of this .. for example, science uses only operational definitions which have already been tested .. these operational definitions are distinguished from 'truths' by virtue their own objective tests having been performed.

This paragraph was supposed to list things science does in the present world that depend on a same nature in the past?? All I see is some pretense that science tested something somewhere that supposedly supports your religion! Try telling us what!

Not so. Beliefs are notions held as being true for any reason. Science doesn't rely upon untestable truths .. therefore your statement is logically false.

Please test time in the far universe then? Also test the former nature. Get back to us with results...rather than bluster.

 

[dad]

So is God typing your posts?

Hey, He might be reading them!

Do you think God directly wrote the Bible Himself?

Of course, by using men He chose.

Are you an angel?

No. Glad you had to ask!

I love how resistant you are to discussing your own position. It's almost like you don't even understand your own position and you have to defend it come hell or high water. Which makes your "defense" of your position almost meaningless.

My position is that science doesn't know, and that is what we are discussing. My position also is that God does know, but that is above science's paygrade.

It's like watching a kid who is new to Debate Club being told he has to defend a position he doesn't at all understand but he knows that he cannot brook ANY criticism.

The first step in 'brooking' something is for that something to exist. Your posts lack any brooks to cross as far as any defense of the basis of scientific models of the past goes.

This is why it is a waste of time for people to debate your position with you.

The only people for whom it may be a waste of time is those in your religion that refuse to abandon ship and surrender and admit defeat. For lurkers who may be honest and seeking truth, it is valuable to see so called science busted and hung out to dry.

 

[dad]

Dude, just stop while you're ahead. Can you really not understand what "special pleading" means? Really? This is embarrassing to watch.

Your religion ain't so special. Pleading for it won't help. You see, there are a variety of ways we can use words that really have little meaning and are abused anyhow.

You pick out random words and do some riff on them that has nothing to do with the point that was read.

Don't belittle points that may be above your head. Just try to focus on posting some cohesive defense of your religion.

How about radioactive dating, for example? You know there was radioactivity in the far past...because...? Hit us with your best shot.

 

[SelfSim]

I think of it more like this 'time cannot be shown to be as science claims it is in the same deep space that they model things as if it was'!

Now try and come back with a rational response.

The operational model of time is held in mind the mind of the observer of some remote object .. there ya go.

 

[SelfSim]

... Please test time in the far universe then? Also test the former nature. Get back to us with results...rather than bluster.

sjastro already gave you the example in the remote Hydrogen spectrum instance, although you clearly didn't recognise it, nor did you understand that frequency is inversely related to time - by operationally tested definition.

 

[GlabrousDory4]

Your religion ain't so special. Pleading for it won't help. You see, there are a variety of ways we can use words that really have little meaning and are abused anyhow.

More random word selection followed by an unrelated riff on those words.

Don't belittle points that may be above your head

Trust me, Dad, you aren't likely to be posting anything "above my head". LOL. It would require a lot more education on your part, and a lot more understanding.

How about radioactive dating, for example? You know there was radioactivity in the far past...because...? Hit us with your best shot.

Why would the rate of decay need to be significantly different in the past?

OK: C-14 dating can be correlated with tree-rings. WHY would they both happen to change in exactly the same way over time? (https://journals.uair.arizona.edu/index.php/radiocarbon/article/viewFile/3496/3012)

ALSO: let's assume the earth is really only about 10,000 years old per the literal Bible description. If radioactive decay rates for things that take, say 4.5billion years to decay to 50% of their original actually decayed to 50% of their original levels in only 10,000 years it would basically cook all life on earth. Unless you want to invoke another magic solution ("Adam was made of asbestos and was thermally stable at those temperatures". "Noah was mostly a super engineered silicone so he could stand up to high temperatures and able to survive massive radiation doses.") .

You are really a lot safer to just say God used a miracle and subverted all known science at this time to make the earth look like something it isn't.

 

[dad]

The operational model of time is held in mind the mind of the observer of some remote object .. there ya go.

Would that be time operating in deep space or the fishbowl? Would that be the mind of one observing in or out of your religion?

 

[dad]

sjastro already gave you the example in the remote Hydrogen spectrum instance, although you clearly didn't recognise it, nor did you understand that frequency is inversely related to time - by operationally tested definition.

Show us how it is related to time in deep space? Remember you are talking about light here. Not there. Anything to do with time or testing involves only here!

 

[dad]

Why would the rate of decay need to be significantly different in the past?

Why would there be any decay in the past? Forget slow or fast. You seem to be imaginal some change IN OUR nature.

OK: C-14 dating can be correlated with tree-rings. WHY would they both happen to change in exactly the same way over time?

The radioactive dates were adjusted by some centuries if I recall to make them fir the tree ring dates! IF one looks at a tree with 6000 rings assuming the rings represent a seasonal/yearly cycle as they now do, they would date the tree somewhere near 6000 years old. That is based on the belief the trees grew only in the present nature. Now if nature changed and suddenly trees only started to grow slow like they do today say, about 4250 years ago, then that tree would be way less than 6000 years old. In the nature recorded in the ancient past by the bible a tree grew in weeks. Not years. The rings in a tree grown in months or weeks would not have rings representing years! ONLY the rings grown since this nature started would have rings that represented the yearly seasonal cycle. Therefore looking at the rings as if they were present state nature grown is a belief based thing. The so called states are belief based dates. Now once we get further in the past, the radioactive dating of science goes wildly wildly wildly wrong very very fast.

ALSO: let's assume the earth is really only about 10,000 years old per the literal Bible description. If radioactive decay rates for things that take, say 4.5billion years to decay to 50% of their original actually decayed to 50% of their original levels in only 10,000 years it would basically cook all life on earth. Unless you want to invoke another magic solution ("Adam was made of asbestos and was thermally stable at those temperatures". "Noah was mostly a super engineered silicone so he could stand up to high temperatures and able to survive massive radiation doses.") .

Correct. If we imagine a present nature merely changing or being tweaked, it would not work. What changed was not this nature...we are the change! As the OP asks, how do we even know there was any radioactive decay at all in the far past? One could not look at the parent to daughter ratios as if they came about BY decay in the former nature. One could only look at the daughter material that would have been added to the existing material since decay started in this nature!

You are really a lot safer to just say God used a miracle and subverted all known science at this time to make the earth look like something it isn't.

It was not God that was the trickster who subverted what is called science. He already told us all about our origins. It was another spirit that was behind the deception that resulted in people thinking there was no creation.

 

[sjastro]

So those who think according to your religion think for themselves. If I had a nickel for every time I heard that one.
Wrong. The light that enters our area does tell us something, as I have said, when we see an element in the spectra, I assume it does exist out there. Hydrogen for example exists out there.
Big problem in your logic. You offer to compare that which is in the fishbowl to that which is...in the fishbowl! Then you find it remarkable it is similar!!!!!?
That is not 'alternately'! That is looking at 2 samples both in the fishbowl!

Unbelievable.
By changing the goal posts by now admitting 3C-273 is within your fishbowl amounts to a total capitulation and contradiction on your part.
I could have easily submitted the spectrum of the most distant object known GN-z11 and made the same argument except the magic number is now z=11.09 not z = 0.158 for 3C-273 in which case your response would be GN-z11 is inside the radius of your fishbowl.
The point being that since every observable object in the universe is now within your fishbowl there are no discrepancies with regards to time and their spectra.
It makes your ridiculous fishbowl redundant.

I think of it more like this 'time cannot be shown to be as science claims it is in the same deep space that they model things as if it was'!

Funny isn't it how the tooth fairy argument seems to have disappeared without a trace.
Science cannot show tooth fairies don't exist either; until a theory comes up that predicts the existence of tooth fairies, the concept of tooth fairies is as idiotic as your fishbowl.

Now try and come back a rational response.

Irony overload.

 

[dad]

Unbelievable.
By changing the goal posts by now admitting 3C-273 is within your fishbowl amounts to a total capitulation and contradiction on your part.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you are new, or at least new to the idea of the area of the solar system sometimes called the fishbowl.
You see, all light is seen here on earth (or at least in the area of the solar system. Not like you travel out to the stars to see light there. So it does not matter from how distant a star light came or how close...in all cases we only see the light after it gets HERE!

I could have easily submitted the spectrum of the most distant object known GN-z11 and made the same argument except the magic number is now z=11.09 not z = 0.158 for 3C-273 in which case your response would be GN-z11 is inside the radius of your fishbowl.
The point being that since every observable object in the universe is now within your fishbowl there are no discrepancies with regards to time and their spectra.
It makes your ridiculous fishbowl redundant.

Not to embarrass you, but as explained it doesn't matter how far in the universe light comes from we only see it AFTER it gets here!

Try to regroup and refocus and cook up some argument that relates to the conversation.

 

[sjastro]

Show us how it is related to time in deep space? Remember you are talking about light here. Not there. Anything to do with time or testing involves only here!

Since your have capitulated and inadvertently admitted your numbskull inspired fishbowl spans the our observational limits there is no case to answer.

Where as z is related to wavelength, the expansion factor (1+z) explains the time dilation of light curves of supernovas in distant galaxies.

 

[sjastro]

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you are new, or at least new to the idea of the area of the solar system sometimes called the fishbowl.
You see, all light is seen here on earth (or at least in the area of the solar system. Not like you travel out to the stars to see light there. So it does not matter from how distant a star light came or how close...in all cases we only see the light after it gets HERE!
Not to embarrass you, but as explained it doesn't matter how far in the universe light comes from we only see it AFTER it gets here!

Try to regroup and refocus and cook up some argument that relates to the conversation.

Good grief.
The John Cleese take on the D-K effect is yet again demonstrated.

OK we now have another change in the goalposts.
The nonsense this time around is refuted by your fishbowl having solar system dimensions where cosmological redshift cannot occur at this scale.
Since photons originate from the fishbowl as we can only see them from within this boundary, why is redshift even observed in the spectra?
The answer is ridiculously simple, there is no fishbowl boundary and the photons come directly from very distant objects.

While you can change the goalposts, the constant is your inability to show how this idiotic fishbowl actually works.
It's the case of making up a story and childishly putting it on others to prove you are wrong.
I am still waiting on your explanation how your fishbowl argument is any different to showing tooth fairies exist.

 

[dad]

Since your have capitulated and inadvertently admitted your numbskull inspired fishbowl spans the our observational limits there is no case to answer.

Where as z is related to wavelength, the expansion factor (1+z) explains the time dilation of light curves of supernovas in distant galaxies.

Wrong again. The solar system and area is hardly the limits of observation. As for what causes redshifting in the far universe, we would need to know something of the time and space there first. We are not all blindly believing your claims for no reason here.

 

[dad]

Good grief.
The John Cleese take on the D-K effect is yet again demonstrated.

OK we now have another change in the goalposts.
The nonsense this time around is refuted by your fishbowl having solar system dimensions where cosmological redshift cannot occur at this scale.

No. You don't even know what red shifts light out there. You have assigned fishbowl reasons.

Since photons originate from the fishbowl as we can only see them from within this boundary, why is redshift even observed in the spectra?

Who said photons originate here?? Photons must exist here a certain way in accordance to our time and space and laws. That does ot mean that when they are somewhere else with a different time and space that they obey our fishbowl rules. You look at things like light in the fishbowl and assume that reflects what the whole universe is like.

While you can change the goalposts, the constant is your inability to show how this idiotic fishbowl actually works.

Think of the fishbowl as just a term to show the limits of where man or his probes have been. The limits of our experience in the universe. The furthest probe is not even a light day away! Yet you seek to tell us what is beyond the limits of our experience? Time can't be seen, Nor can space. What you see is here in our space and time.

It's the case of making up a story and childishly putting it on others to prove you are wrong.
I am still waiting on your explanation how your fishbowl argument is any different to showing tooth fairies exist.

It is the limit of your experience argument. Admit you have limits. When you do..you lose. If you don't...you lose.

 

[sjastro]

Wrong again. The solar system and area is hardly the limits of observation. As for what causes redshifting in the far universe, we would need to know something of the time and space there first. We are not all blindly believing your claims for no reason here.

There you go again, rather than defending your fairy tale you substitute with it another tale which is symptomatic of your failure in comprehending the counterarguments to your fishbowl.

What’s with the “we” business?
Are you that deluded to think you are representing the general population or the scientific community?
Where’s all your massive support in this thread, the likes, the agrees, the supportive posts?
Every response to your posts is one of disagreement whether it be from a cosmological, earth science or logic perspective, all of which have a common denominator, they point out you have zero comprehension and rely on unfalsifiable fairy tales as a substitute.