Real time or evo time?

[dad]

Because it is a different state past. Different physical laws produce different ratios of isotopes.

Why invent insane little rules you have no proof for?

Different laws means different ratios.

Repeat it 100 times, maybe it will start to resonate for you.

Then what do you mean by evidence?

Evidence of your claimed laws in the past. Obviously you would not use the present state laws for that.

Even when all of the observed facts exactly match what a same state past would produce, you refuse to accept it as evidence. Why?

Because God is behind all states. The nature change was a change in laws not a change of universes or planets or people etc etc.

We know by the ratios themselves how they got there.

By this you mean you know how decay works now. Irrelevant to a different state past.

Since they match what a same state past would produce, they are evidence for a same state past. That's how evidence works.

In other words you have none and offer belief. We get it.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Why invent insane little rules you have no proof for?

We've been asking you that for years, dad -- are you going to answer?

 

[AirPo]

Why invent insane little rules you have no proof for?

The rest of us are not the ones inventing reality.

 

[dad]

The rest of us are not the ones inventing reality.

That depends on whether you claim reality in the future must follow today's rules. Science does that and the result is false prophesy from false prophets that are not of God. One cannot relegate the past and future realities to the little bylaws of the present state simply because one wants to wave them in. Knowledge is about more than a desire to deny truth and God.

Oh, and if someone wants to say 'I am a christian, and I put out those false prophesies about the future, and also deny creation and Scripture' - I say it doesn't matter at all. The lies are still what they are and false prophesies are still what they are, and false prophets are still what they are. Naturally false prophets want to wear a 'I am not a false prophet' tee shirt. Snakes like grass. No news there.

The devil loves to use believers where possible to prophesy falsely, as we saw in the story of Baalam and his uknowwhat.

 

[AirPo]

The rest of us are not the ones inventing reality.

QED

That depends on whether you claim reality in the future must follow today's rules. Science does that and the result is false prophesy from false prophets that are not of God. One cannot relegate the past and future realities to the little bylaws of the present state simply because one wants to wave them in. Knowledge is about more than a desire to deny truth and God.

Oh, and if someone wants to say 'I am a christian, and I put out those false prophesies about the future, and also deny creation and Scripture' - I say it doesn't matter at all. The lies are still what they are and false prophesies are still what they are, and false prophets are still what they are. Naturally false prophets want to wear a 'I am not a false prophet' tee shirt. Snakes like grass. No news there.

The devil loves to use believers where possible to prophesy falsely, as we saw in the story of Baalam and his uknowwhat.

 

[Loudmouth]

Why invent insane little rules you have no proof for?

So you are saying that radioactive decay was the same in the past as it is now?

Repeat it 100 times, maybe it will start to resonate for you.

I see that you still can't refute this evidence.

Evidence of your claimed laws in the past.

What do you mean by that? What would you accept as evidence?

Because God is behind all states. The nature change was a change in laws not a change of universes or planets or people etc etc.

If nature was different, then nature would produce different ratios of isotopes in rocks.

By this you mean you know how decay works now. Irrelevant to a different state past.

Then you agree that the production of isotope ratios would be different in a different state past?

 

[Loudmouth]

That depends on whether you claim reality in the future must follow today's rules. Science does that and the result is false prophesy from false prophets that are not of God.

The only false prophet I see here is you.

 

[Freodin]

I hate to admit it, but dad has a point here.

If you assume that you are not limited by "current" natural rules, if you assume that every process gives you exactly the results you desire... nothing observable can dissuade you.

Of course, such a worldview is rather unreliable and cannot be backed up by anything but sheer stubborness.

But if you know God is on your side... why would you bother with such pesky things as "reality"?

 

[Loudmouth]

I hate to admit it, but dad has a point here.

If you assume that you are not limited by "current" natural rules, if you assume that every process gives you exactly the results you desire... nothing observable can dissuade you.

Of course, such a worldview is rather unreliable and cannot be backed up by anything but sheer stubborness.

But if you know God is on your side... why would you bother with such pesky things as "reality"?

It's a bit like a defense attorney making the claim God planted all of the evidence at the crime scene, so all of the forensic evidence should be dismissed. That is, in effect, what dad is arguing for.

 

[Freodin]

It's a bit like a defense attorney making the claim God planted all of the evidence at the crime scene, so all of the forensic evidence should be dismissed. That is, in effect, what dad is arguing for.

Exactly. He proposes a method that doesn't follow any rules at all, except "give me the wanted results".

And that means there is no way that you can use observations to falsify his claims. Every observation that you can make is compatible with his explanation. Even contradicting observations could be explained this way.

And because he doesn't make any predictions that could fail him, he doesn't need to follow any rules.

Of course it is galling to see him of all people rant about people being "false prophet" and calling science imaginary. But he hasn't anything to offer - neither positive nor negative, neither a better model nor valid criticisms.

 

[Loudmouth]

Exactly. He proposes a method that doesn't follow any rules at all, except "give me the wanted results".

And that means there is no way that you can use observations to falsify his claims. Every observation that you can make is compatible with his explanation. Even contradicting observations could be explained this way.

And because he doesn't make any predictions that could fail him, he doesn't need to follow any rules.

Of course it is galling to see him of all people rant about people being "false prophet" and calling science imaginary. But he hasn't anything to offer - neither positive nor negative, neither a better model nor valid criticisms.

The emptiness of his arguments is laid bare by simply asking dad what observations would be inconsistent with a different state past. He can't name one. When asked what he means by "evidence", he can only answer "evidence". He can't even define what evidence is.

 

[lesliedellow]

We've been asking you that for years, dad -- are you going to answer?

Some chance.

 

[TLK Valentine]

That depends on whether you claim reality in the future must follow today's rules.

And in your reality, that doesn't follow. We get that.

 

[dad]

So you are saying that radioactive decay was the same in the past as it is now?

No. I am saying that if you claim any decay at all in the past, then prove it. That would be a start. Seems to me we would need our present laws for that. So you assume, rather than prove, and believe rather than know.

I see that you still can't refute this evidence.

Ratios do not need refuting.

What do you mean by that? What would you accept as evidence?

? Good question. A bit like the old movie, field of dreams....'if you build it, they will come'. In your case, if you get any evidence we will come take a look!

If nature was different, then nature would produce different ratios of isotopes in rocks.

Nature didn't produce it! Creation and the different nature, as well as what we call nature now did.

Then you agree that the production of isotope ratios would be different in a different state past?

?? Prove ANY radioactive activity happened or radioactive isotopes decayed in the far past?? Otherwise don't claim it, or expect anyone to show it was going on at some other rate etc.

 

[dad]

The only false prophet I see here is you.

I am not the one claiming that the sun will burn out in billions of years and ad nauseam...science is! I simply hide myself in God's record of the future, which cannot be called false--except by false prophets!

 

[dad]

And in your reality, that doesn't follow. We get that.

I'll take what Jesus said and Scripture says for reality regarding the future and past. Heck, the present confirms it is right by the fulfilled prophesies we see around us and have all through history. Any other version of reality is a dark dream.

 

[dad]

Some chance.

Try asking the question.

 

[dad]

The emptiness of his arguments is laid bare by simply asking dad what observations would be inconsistent with a different state past. ...

Absurd strawman. You do not know what the DSP was like! How could you claim either consistency or inconsistency with today??

 

[dad]

Exactly. He proposes a method that doesn't follow any rules at all, except "give me the wanted results".

And that means there is no way that you can use observations to falsify his claims. Every observation that you can make is compatible with his explanation. Even contradicting observations could be explained this way.

And because he doesn't make any predictions that could fail him, he doesn't need to follow any rules.

Of course it is galling to see him of all people rant about people being "false prophet" and calling science imaginary. But he hasn't anything to offer - neither positive nor negative, neither a better model nor valid criticisms.

Jesus laid out the future in some detail actually. The past too. It is science that has offered some claims that He was a dirty rotten liar. I simply try to put them in their little place.

 

[dad]

It's a bit like a defense attorney making the claim God planted all of the evidence at the crime scene, so all of the forensic evidence should be dismissed. That is, in effect, what dad is arguing for.

The crime scene for the future is not here yet! So admit you have nothing but belief and prophesy about the future! Science has nothing else when it comes to the future. Once you cede the future the far past is also in the bag! Better find some while sheet to rip up and make a white flag, kid.