Real time or evo time?

[dad]

The consistent ratios in rocks demonstrates that we have at least a 4.5 billion year history of the physical laws being the same here on Earth.

They are not consistent with anything tangible only by faith.

We do find the same nature. We find the same ratios of isotopes in rocks that we find from the current state of physics.

No, simply seeing amounts of isotopes in a ratio does not even address what the laws were that existed in the far past or what started at creation. Not at all. You seek to make the past conform to the laws of the present by insinuating with no proof whatsoever that the present laws dunnit.

Independent evidence? Ha. Let's see some for some date say a billion years or so in your imaginary past? Name something else beside your oft repeated belief in some unproven same state past and decay there?

 

[dad]

You don't know either -- and you don't even have the imagination to come up with your own imaginings, so you latch on the other people's and defend them with... what, exactly?

So evo time needs no proof to the die hard believer. We get it. Ho hum.

 

[dad]

You'd be wrong -- ask AV yourself... he doesn't say it looks billions of years old, he says it isbillions of years old, created 6,000 years ago.

So if something was made on day three, or four, it is billions of years old? Or it just would look that old to science?

 

[dad]

But that's all that the HI Theory is. Remember, it's easy to make things up.

Not things that fit science and the bible. Try it.

 

[dad]

Try 187 in a row.
"There are several important things to note about these results. First, the Cretaceous and Tertiary periods were defined by geologists in the early 1800s. The boundary between these periods (the K-T boundary) is marked by an abrupt change in fossils found in sedimentary rocks worldwide. Its exact location in the stratigraphic column at any locality has nothing to do with radiometric dating — it is located by careful study of the fossils and the rocks that contain them, and nothing more. Second, the radiometric age measurements, 187 of them, were made on 3 different minerals and on glass by 3 distinctly different dating methods (K-Ar and 40Ar/39Ar are technical variations that use the same parent-daughter decay scheme), each involving different elements with different half-lives. Furthermore, the dating was done in 6 different laboratories and the materials were collected from 5 different locations in the Western Hemisphere. And yet the results are the same within analytical error. If radiometric dating didn’t work then such beautifully consistent results would not be possible."
http://ncse.com/rncse/20/3/radiometric-dating-does-work

The isotope ratios changed over time. In the years of the former state they changed. Now tell us what was created to start with? What were the forces and laws in place in the former state? In what way is changing isotopes under the former laws inconsistent with the different state past?

 

[Loudmouth]

The isotope ratios changed over time. In the years of the former state they changed. Now tell us what was created to start with?

In a former state, what was created to start with would not match the same state ratios if a former state is true. The fact that the isotopes from the past match the same state ratios is evidence that they were formed in a same state past.

What were the forces and laws in place in the former state?

According to you, they were different. Therefore, they would produce different ratios than those observed for a same state. The ratios of isotopes we find from those time periods matches a same state, meaning that a different state past is false.

In what way is changing isotopes under the former laws inconsistent with the different state past?

They aren't changed. They are the same relationship between ratios that we find in the present day.

 

[The Barbarian]

At this point there is no evidence, absolutely none, to suggest that the physical constants and the laws of nature were ever different in the past.

No, there isn't. And it's wrong to base an argument on the assumption that it was. If one can call in a non-scriptural miracle anytime it's needed to patch up a flaw in one's argument, then anything is possible.

 

[AirPo]

They are not consistent with anything tangible only by faith.

Things tangible only by your faith are not consistant with reality.

 

[AirPo]

Not things that fit science and the bible. Try it.

Who said anything about fitting both science and the Bible? Oh, it was the HI Theroiest. See, it is easy to make things up.

 

[dad]

In a former state, what was created to start with would not match the same state ratios if a former state is true.

?? What a strange claim. How would you determine what was created?

The fact that the isotopes from the past match the same state ratios is evidence that they were formed in a same state past.

Everything matches in a religious made up past. Where is that independent evidence (other than a belief decay existed at all due to our present laws back then) ??

In every facet of data that science looks at or touches all we ever ever ever ever ever see is a religious ceremony of molestation of evidence. Routine, systematic, methodological molestation.

"...
when the core froze, leading to a stronger magnetic field, the researchers said in the statement.

But exactly when this process occurred was never sorted out. To answer this question, Biggin and his colleagues looked at a database that tracked the orientation and intensity of magnetic particles in ancient rocks. Based on that data, they found a huge increase in the Earth’s magnetic field between 1.5 billion and 1 billion years ago."

http://news.discovery.com/earth/earths-frozen-center-formed-a-billion-years-ago-1510091.htm

Total religion.

According to you, they were different.

?? Ratios were by and large the same, one assumes, except for the minuscule bit we know we can attribute to this state and present decay!

Therefore, they would produce different ratios than those observed for a same state.

No way science could know what a different set of forces and laws would produce! You also have no way of knowing what God created to start with, what ratios may have existed due to being created that way. You truly are in the dark.

The ratios of isotopes we find from those time periods matches a same state, meaning that a different state past is false.

You label ratios dates based on present decay caused by present laws. Let's be perfectly clear here whenever you say dates you are talking about religious fantasy.

They aren't changed. They are the same relationship between ratios that we find in the present day.

Not at all. The relationship today is based on OUR laws. The decay relationship exists between ratios today. The same ratios without our laws or decay would obviously not have any such same relationship as far as decay goes. What are you missing here?

 

[dad]

Who said anything about fitting both science and the Bible?

That is what you must do here. Leave your Hi cloud and come down to reality.

 

[TLK Valentine]

So if something was made on day three, or four, it is billions of years old? Or it just would look that old to science?

Once again, don't take my word for it -- ask AV yourself. He'll tell you that it doesn't look billions of years old, it is billions of years old.

 

[dad]

Once again, don't take my word for it -- ask AV yourself. He'll tell you that it doesn't look billions of years old, it is billions of years old.

Probably only because it looks that way, since it was created some 6000 years or whatever ago.

Recapping, then, evo time is imaginary time based solely on a belief in the idea that the radioactive decay of today is all there ever was. If there were different laws, then all so called dates based on that belief are a joke.

Loudmouth has tried to attribute ratios (some of which are caused by present state decay in this nature of course) ALL to present state decay with no proof. His approach has been ' it probably would have looked like this...woulda coulda shoulda...if the nature were the same, and we had enough imaginary years and no God'.

Occam says it is better to accept the record of the past we actually have, rather than the godless religion that has been called science today.

 

[The Barbarian]

Occam says it is better to accept the record of the past we actually have, rather than the godless religion that has been called science today.

In other words, instead of adjusting the evidence by "God could just have created the world last (Tuesday, Year, Century, Whatever) and made it look like it was much older", why not just accept the evidence for what it is? After all, as you've been reminded numerous times, there's nothing in scripture to make us believe otherwise.

 

[AV1611VET]

After all, as you've been reminded numerous times, there's nothing in scripture to make us believe otherwise.

Except there is.

For one thing, Scripture only allows for some 6000 years of time.

 

[dad]

Once again, don't take my word for it -- ask AV yourself. He'll tell you that it doesn't look billions of years old, it is billions of years old.

Only because it was created that way so it looks that way to you.

Now I have heard some Christians say that God sort of recreated things and it was very old. That doesn't really stand up to Scripture though, and I see that sort of thing as an attempt to please manscience.

 

[dad]

In other words, instead of adjusting the evidence by "God could just have created the world last (Tuesday, Year, Century, Whatever) and made it look like it was much older", why not just accept the evidence for what it is? After all, as you've been reminded numerous times, there's nothing in scripture to make us believe otherwise.

?? What in tarnation are you talking about? You think Scripture supports Noah living millions of years ago or Adam?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Probably only because it looks that way, since it was created some 6000 years or whatever ago.

Nope, nope, nope... he says it is billions of years old... and 6,000 years old.

Am I talking to a wall? Ask. Him. Yourself.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Only because it was created that way so it looks that way to you.

Now I have heard some Christians say that God sort of recreated things and it was very old. That doesn't really stand up to Scripture though, and I see that sort of thing as an attempt to please manscience.

ASK.

AV1611VET.

YOURSELF.

You're only making yourself look foolish getting his shtick wrong.

 

[AirPo]

That is what you must do here. Leave your Hi cloud and come down to reality.

I must have missed that rule. And the HI theory has nothing to do with reality. It's all just made up stuff.