- Jan 17, 2005
- 44,905
- 1,259
- Country
- Canada
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
False. The amount of decayed product is only how much actually decayed since this state started, which is precious little!
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
False. The amount of decayed product is only how much actually decayed since this state started, which is precious little!That does you no good.
It is the amount of decayed product that you have no answer for.
Let's see what you have to teach in this post then!Did you learn nothing from what I've been saying about how half lives work?
Right...and?It has a half life of three weeks. We'd see it all if the universe was a year old.
Doesn't follow unless there was a same state past. You do not prove one existed by assuming one, and believing real hard!!! For the last three weeks yes, we know the state. That is a red herring and not an issue!It lends no support whatsoever to your point. No one has disputed the claim that decay occurs in this state. The point is that the decay product ratios of elements with longer half lives proves that decay has been happening for millions of years.
Don't be insulting to the prophets and holy men and history!No, that is a fairy tale.
Seek help. You seem to have an issue with being defeated. I suggest you accept defeat graciously, learn from it, and rejoice that there really is a God and creator.Look at your sig. You have been defeated constantly and yet the untruthful claim stands.
Refresh my memory.But that was not what was predicted now was it?
Perhaps not all that much. But I try to believe it. Does that count?Don't you ever read your own book of myth?
Let's see what you have to teach in this post then!
Right...and?
Doesn't follow unless there was a same state past. You do not prove one existed by assuming one, and believing real hard!!! For the last three weeks yes, we know the state. That is a red herring and not an issue!
Where is it hiding??Once again, you fail to grasp what I am saying.
There is evidence of a same state past.
If most of the decay products were here before your alleged state change, how do you explain the fact that they are in EXACTLY the right ratios to match millions of years of decay?
That was answered. Honker down and get a grip.Hope you didn't miss it this time. I expect an answer to it in your reply. Coincidence or same state past?
Where is it hiding??Once again, you fail to grasp what I am saying.
There is evidence of a same state past.
Easy. You artificially assign millions or billions of years according to how much daughter product exists! When we do that, it all matches imaginary old ages.If most of the decay products were here before your alleged state change, how do you explain the fact that they are in EXACTLY the right ratios to match millions of years of decay?
That was answered. Honker down and get a grip.Hope you didn't miss it this time. I expect an answer to it in your reply. Coincidence or same state past?
Easy. You artificially assign millions or billions of years according to how much daughter product exists! When we do that, it all matches imaginary old ages.
That was answered. Honker down and get a grip.
You assign millions or billions of years according to how much daughter product exists! When we do that, it all matches old ages.
Where is it hiding??
Easy. You artificially assign millions or billions of years according to how much daughter product exists! When we do that, it all matches imaginary old ages.
That was answered. Honker down and get a grip.
Funny I was not much troubled by whether a u or o was used. But you can have the point. Hunker is fine. Long as the poster does it.Firstly, I think you mean "hunker down". I don't think that honker is a verb. Unless you mean honk, which raises...troubling questions.
Yes thank goodness for our present state. Here we find that things are measurable. Long as you do not claim investigating this state is investigating anything else, Sherlock!It does indeed! Thank goodness for the stable and measurable rate of decay of radioactive isotopes we can use to investigate things like this, no?
I think we all realize there is decay and that some things decay into other things. The issue is whether the things that cause decay (forces and laws) existed in a time that you know nothing about. Because you say you can see, therefore you are making bogus claims.It's not. It's right in front of you. You're just blinkered by your different state past belief and have blinded yourself to it.
We can see the little you say. I thing your point is decaying.Try reading and comprehending what I am saying. A little education will open your eyes.
No forcing needed. Ratios without decay are no problem whatsoever. Your problem is that you can't force decay into the former state!There is no way you can force the ratios we see in the real world into your different state past idea.
In one of the posts where it was explained that decay was not a factor most likely in the former state! If we have x amount of what is now daughter material, that x in the former state could have been parent material, or both, or neither or..who knows what in a different state.Oh did you now? Pray tell, in which post was this? Because I have never seen you say, "It was the result of millions of years of radioactive decay", nor have I seen you say, "It's all a big amazing coincidence." So where exactly did you answer it?
I think we all realize there is decay and that some things decay into other things. The issue is whether the things that cause decay (forces and laws) existed in a time that you know nothing about. Because you say you can see, therefore you are making bogus claims.
We can see the little you say. I thing your point is decaying.
No forcing needed. Ratios without decay are no problem whatsoever. Your problem is that you can't force decay into the former state!
In one of the posts where it was explained that decay was not a factor most likely in the former state! If we have x amount of what is now daughter material, that x in the former state could have been parent material, or both, or neither or..who knows what in a different state.
The only way you can impose deep time on any imagined decaying is to establish there was a same state past FIRST. Merely attributing the very existence of all daughter material to decay is a total belief.
No. I do not think daughter material was daughter material before it started being a result of decay in this state!So you think that the amount of daughter material is caused by contamination, not decay, and all the samples all around the world just magically happen to be contaminated by exactly the right amount to make it look like it's much older than it really is.
You can't explain why anything but a present state cause is coincidence! Absurd.Your problem is that you can't explain why the ratios are what they are without resorting to an amazing coincidence!
...the ratios we see CAN ONLY HAVE BEEN FORMED THROUGH MILLIONS OF YEARS OF DECAY.
False! IF the present state existed that long then it would take millions of years. That says nothing as to whether there was a same state past! You are busted.
No. I do not think daughter material was daughter material before it started being a result of decay in this state!
So how'd we get millions of years worth?
You can't explain why anything but a present state cause is coincidence! Absurd.
Do you even think about what you say? This is just mindless ranting.
False! IF the present state existed that long then it would take millions of years. That says nothing as to whether there was a same state past! You are busted.
So it needed millions of years to happen the way we see it, but that doesn't mean that those millions of years took place.
Does any of this make sense to you, because it's all nonsense from this side.
Come to reality, dad.
So called science is fantasy in drag.All you have is fantasy, dad. Give it up.
We didn't. The amount could not represent time and decay unless the present state existed. That you do not know.So how'd we get millions of years worth?
It needed no millions of years. I said IF there had been a present state THEN it would take millions of years. In a former state that was different, no millions of years are needed at all.So it needed millions of years to happen the way we see it, but that doesn't mean that those millions of years took place.
Come to reality, dad.
So called science is fantasy in drag.
We didn't. The amount could not represent time and decay unless the present state existed. That you do not know.
It needed no millions of years. I said IF there had been a present state THEN it would take millions of years. In a former state that was different, no millions of years are needed at all.
Chant it all day long and repeat the word if you like. It really doesn't associate you with it.
Plenty for so called science. Let us know when a fresh one is needed.La la la, you got anything more than just immature insults?
Prove that? How would you know? That is foolish. So man could not exist in anything but the present state? Rocks...atoms...etc??? Outlandish.It couldn't exist AT ALL unless the present state existed.
Ah yes, once again your magical astonishing coincidence! It operated completely differently, yet somehow, miraculously, it happened to turn out looking just like it had formed from millions of years of decay.
100%How wonderful is it? What are the chances of such a coincidence?
It is not about feelings, or hunches as to whether God is right about His record to man. It is all about what is known. The former state does not depend on a vote. Really.I don't think anyone here associates your different state past claim with reality...
See what I mean..? He knows the answer, I think he has processed it intellectually......but, he mustn't accept it....!
Quite sad really.....especially for an adult mind.....
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?