Real time or evo time?

[dad]

You are contradicting yourself.

Not in any way at all actually. You just do not yet get it.

Why would those ratios be the exact ratios that a same state past would produce?

There was no same state past, so the question is more like 'If we take the created isotope materials, and the ones produced by either the former state, and the present state, why would they not now obey present state laws'?

Just read your own post. You are grasping at straws. You claim that the past would be different, and then you say it would be the same.

No. The rock Noah stubbed his toe on might still be here. But the forces that govern atoms which affect cells and life processes and lifespans etc would not have been the same.

You say that creation would start with some ratios, of some kind, but can never explain what they are or why those ratios.

Well, science only sees a small bit of the picture. It sees the total amount of isotopes in ratios now, but only sees the present state processes working in that ratio.

I think we need less Dr Robinson sabotaging the systems and more Will Smiths trying to get us back home to the truth.

 

[dad]

And I told you. The evidence is consistent ratios of parent and daughter isotopes, and it demonstrates a same state past.



What ratios would be "consistent with the creator", and why?

The ratios we have are consistent as far as we know. Science doesn't know very far, that is your problem.

 

[Loudmouth]

Not in any way at all actually. You just do not yet get it.

Then explain it to me. Why would a different state past produce the same exact ratios of isotopes as a same state past?

There was no same state past . . .

The evidence says otherwise.

No. The rock Noah stubbed his toe on might still be here. But the forces that govern atoms which affect cells and life processes and lifespans etc would not have been the same.

Evidence, please.

Well, science only sees a small bit of the picture. It sees the total amount of isotopes in ratios now, but only sees the present state processes working in that ratio.

Those ratios came from the past, did they not?

 

[Loudmouth]

The ratios we have are consistent as far as we know. Science doesn't know very far, that is your problem.

Those ratios came from the past, did they not?

 

[TLK Valentine]

I know that Jesus created the universe and man.

How do you allegedly know this?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Well, science only sees a small bit of the picture. It sees the total amount of isotopes in ratios now, but only sees the present state processes working in that ratio.

What other states are there, dad?

 

[Ophiolite]

False. The fact is that you have not even dealt with or addressed whether we can prove time exists in deep space and ALL things about determining the fine structure constant REQUIRE that. As for Oklo, can you prove the whole site was, at just the right time, dunked miles under? Then some claimed eons later at the right time brought back to the surface? Can you show that the missing isotopes that you would claim have decayed away ever really did so? You have tried to use the Oklo fable as a pillar of support for your religious drivel of a fine structure constant. Anything else?
Run along then. You believe real hard and can't defend the fable. Whooopee do.

Done. Your inability to prove that time exists in deep space and the rubbish fable of Oklo that you can't defend. Ho hum.
Name any that even deal with whether time exists in deep space!? Science does not cover it, they just make Satanic religious claims dressed with a cap and gown, or lab coat.

Ok. I understand. You are afraid of a serious discussion. You are afraid of facts. You are afraid of anything that could disturb your complacent self delusion. Once I've got over my disgust with you I imagine it will turn to pity.

 

[durangodawood]

No way am I going to argue with someone whos "undefeated".

Nor should the rest of you.

Anyone who thinks theyve never "lost" an argument has a sense of their own ego so inflated they cant see beyond it.

 

[dad]

Then explain it to me. Why would a different state past produce the same exact ratios of isotopes as a same state past?

Some created, some produced in the former state, science knows nothing but this state. So it talks. And talks. And talks about it and nothing but it. Then it makes a strange face and demands that anyone who does not blindly and fanatically believe that the same state always will exist and has existed 'prove it'! Science would need to know how a nature worked before knowing how it produced stuff. It only knows one nature. It is in no position to question how either the former nature or/and creation produced stuff. Obsessing on this state does not prove there was never any other. It just proves you don't know.

The evidence says otherwise.

The evidence all screams that I am correct.

Those ratios came from the past, did they not?

They came from creation, and this state and the former state.

 

[dad]

What other states are there, dad?

Ones you know not of.

 

[dad]

Nor should the rest of you.

Anyone who thinks theyve never "lost" an argument has a sense of their own ego so inflated they cant see beyond it.

My faith and general position on creation issues is undefeated. Not all things and I have learned a lot and continue to learn a lot along the journey.

 

[Loudmouth]

Some created, some produced in the former state,

Those would not have the same ratios of isotopes as rocks from the current state, would they?

The evidence all screams that I am correct.

Show me a single piece of evidence that is inconsistent with a same state past.

 

[Loudmouth]

My faith and general position on creation issues is undefeated. Not all things and I have learned a lot and continue to learn a lot along the journey.

I already defeated you when I demonstrated that we have billions of years of history in rocks demonstrating a same state past.

 

[dad]

Ok. I understand. You are afraid of a serious discussion.

Prove time exists in deep space or you cannot use things in space that require time there like red shifting. If you want to talk specs on Oklo, start doing that rather than waving the hands and shouting 'hallelujah, we just need to accept it'..seriously.

You are afraid of facts.

You have none, how could anyone fear? I laugh. And laugh. And smile.

You are afraid of anything that could disturb your complacent self delusion.

You have nothing but delusion on exhibit so far. Produce some fact however small will ya?

 

[dad]

I already defeated you when I demonstrated that we have billions of years of history in rocks demonstrating a same state past.

No you shouted faith over and over and produced nothing but faith. You have zero facts or evidence to prove a same state, but practice sleight of hand and circular religion. You try to make the past guilty by looking only at the present. Guilt by association and insinuation. 'Gee, the past had to be the same, because the present is like this, and if we had enough godless imaginary years, we are pretty sure it would have produced the ratios'.

 

[Loudmouth]

No you shouted faith over and over and produced nothing but faith.

I showed real measurements which you could never refute.

 

[dad]

Those would not have the same ratios of isotopes as rocks from the current state, would they?aq1aaaaaa

Why not? Ratios just mean amounts.

Show me a single piece of evidence that is inconsistent with a same state past.

What is consistent or inconsistent with an invented unproven fantasy doesn't matter.

 

[dad]

I showed real measurements which you could never refute.

I recall a graph you drew that was all fantasy.

 

[Loudmouth]

Why not? Ratios just mean amounts.

1/2 and 3/4 are both ratios, but not the same amounts.

What is consistent or inconsistent with an invented unproven fantasy doesn't matter.

The observed decay rates of isotopes are not a fantasy.

 

[Loudmouth]

I recall a graph you drew that was all fantasy.

They were all real measurements, and you still can't refute them.