Real time or evo time?

[dad]

So...

Baseless claims aside, it is amazing to consider that science has the times all wrong for the flood and...about everything. Totally unsupportable religious drivel.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Totally unsupportable religious drivel.

Can't do it, eh?

 

[dad]

Can't do it, eh?

Could we ask you to address the topic and discuss the basis for dates used in science?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Could we ask you to address the topic and discuss the basis for dates used in science?

Those dates can only be verified if the universe is not made out of strawberry custard. Can you help us out and show that to be the case?

 

[AirPo]

Long as you do not advocate or try to defend the origins lies and fables of science here, that is fine. Wave to your heart's content.
If and when you ever do, we'll see how you fare.

Better than The HI Theory

 

[AirPo]

Poor excuse for not being able to defend the lies of so called science. Nice to know that the big bad wolf has no teeth.

No lie to defend, execpt those of The HI Theory. But, by definition, they don't need defending.
3rd law.

 

[AV1611VET]

No lie to defend, execpt those of The HI Theory. But, by definition, they don't need defending.
3rd law.

What is the HI Theory?

 

[AirPo]

What is the HI Theory?

Really dude? You've been here long as I have, you should know. but if you are really interested, start here -->

 

[AV1611VET]

Really dude? You've been here long as I have, you should know. but if you are really interested, start here -->

Okay, thank you.

But what is Hyperactive Imagination Theory?

 

[AirPo]

Okay, thank you.

But what is Hyperactive Imagination Theory?

The entire collection of dad's science fiction.

 

[AV1611VET]

The entire collection of dad's science fiction.

Okay.

 

[Loudmouth]

Since you have no DNA whatsoever for Adam or Noah or any man pre KT layer...you are totally ignorant of what the DNA de jour was st that time.

If we had DNA and it matched, would that be evidence?

 

[dad]

Those dates can only be verified if....

They can't be verified by science. The assumption is simply made that present laws existed and therefore radioactive decay. That is the foundation for their so called dates.

"
The mathematical expression that relates radioactive decay to geologic time is[11][14]

D = D0 + N(t) (eλt − 1)
where

t is age of the sample,
D is number of atoms of the daughter isotope in the sample,
D0 is number of atoms of the daughter isotope in the original composition,
N is number of atoms of the parent isotope in the sample at time t (the present), given by N(t) =Noe-λt, and
λ is the decay constant of the parent isotope, equal to the inverse of the radioactive half-life of the parent isotope[15] times the natural logarithm of 2."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating#The_age_equation

Tell us how we know the number of the daughter isotope in the 'original composition'? Tell us how we know a decay constant exists unless we do more than assume the isotopes came about by decay!! Ha.

 

[dad]

Okay.

Guess he doesn't use that scary word when criticizing your posts. Maybe he'll start with calling them the Ai theory?!

 

[dad]

If we had DNA and it matched, would that be evidence?

We would need to look at that. Keep working on it. Remember the circular closed minded loop to loop nature of science though. They might look at present DNA and try to use that to talk about ancient DNA they do not have. The assumption of course being that it golly gee must have been the same.

 

[TLK Valentine]

They can't be verified by science. The assumption is simply made that present laws existed and therefore radioactive decay. That is the foundation for their so called dates.

The assumption is simply made that there was no Strawberry Custard -- the bounders!

 

[Loudmouth]

We would need to look at that.

Need to look at what?

If the DNA is the same in the past as it is in the present, then why wouldn't you conclude that the DNA comes from a same state past?

Do we have to assume a suspect is guilty in order to get a DNA match?

Remember the circular closed minded loop to loop nature of science though. They might look at present DNA and try to use that to talk about ancient DNA they do not have.

All of the DNA used in forensics within our court system comes from the past.

Do they have to assume the suspect is guilty in order to get a DNA match? No, they don't. Yet that is the argument you are making for the evidence I have presented.

When the evidence matches a same state past, then it isn't circular because you aren't assuming the match. You are observing the match.

 

[dad]

The assumption is simply made that there was no Strawberry Custard -- the bounders!

The assumption is simply made that present laws existed and therefore radioactive decay. That is the foundation for their so called dates.

"
The mathematical expression that relates radioactive decay to geologic time is[11][14]

D = D0 + N(t) (eλt − 1)
where

t is age of the sample,
D is number of atoms of the daughter isotope in the sample,
D0 is number of atoms of the daughter isotope in the original composition,
N is number of atoms of the parent isotope in the sample at time t (the present), given by N(t) =Noe-λt, and
λ is the decay constant of the parent isotope, equal to the inverse of the radioactive half-life of the parent isotope[15] times the natural logarithm of 2."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating#The_age_equation

Tell us how we know the number of the daughter isotope in the 'original composition'? Tell us how we know a decay constant exists unless we do more than assume the isotopes came about by decay!! Ha.

 

[dad]

Need to look at what?

If the DNA is the same in the past as it is in the present, then why wouldn't you conclude that the DNA comes from a same state past?

You would need both to compare...got any?!

Do we have to assume a suspect is guilty in order to get a DNA match?

We must assume there is a suspect. Show us the suspect exactly?

All of the DNA used in forensics within our court system comes from the past.

No. All from the present state. Going back a little IN the present state is not what we would call the past here. The time of Adam and Noah would be the past.

When the evidence matches a same state past, then it isn't circular because you aren't assuming the match. You are observing the match.

It is not evidence to first assume a same state past, and then claim one!

 

[Loudmouth]

You would need both to compare...got any?!

DNA is compared all of the time in court. No one considers it circular reasoning just because no one was there to see the suspect leaving the DNA at the crime scene.

You are the only one who can't seem to understand what evidence is.

We must assume there is a suspect. Show us the suspect exactly?

We don't have to assume there are rocks. We can directly see them. When the ratios in those rocks matches the ratios that a same state past would produce, then it is evidence for a same state past. That's how evidence works.

No. All from the present state.

How do you know that?

Going back a little IN the present state is not what we would call the past here.

What's the difference?

It is not evidence to first assume a same state past, and then claim one!

It isn't being assumed. If the past were different, then it would produce a different set of isotope ratios in rocks that we could see in the present. Those different ratios are not seen.