- Jan 17, 2005
- 44,905
- 1,259
- Country
- Canada
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
Your ability to tell what the state of the past was is nill. God wins.
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.
Your ability to tell what the state of the past was is nill. God wins.That is why the proper term for dad's "former state" is actually "delusional state". He cannot defend the fact that his "former state" predicts things that we do not observe. In other words his former state is falsified.
So you've finally decided that invoking an amazing coincidence that happened for no reason is the only way to keep your little idea.
In your mind it is coincidence. I see no coincidence in a pattern in materials. I see created order, even though that order may have underwent a nature change! Quit barking at the moon, and admit you have nothing.
If the daughter material was here at the start of this state, as we have been discussing for days now..(unless you were too busy talking to yourself)..then it would only look old to same state past believers. It doesn't look old to me.So now you are saying God intentionally put the extra daughter material there to make it all look like it was older?
If the daughter material was here at the start of this state, as we have been discussing for days now..(unless you were too busy talking to yourself)..then it would only look old to same state past believers. It doesn't look old to me.
Only if the present state were in place...otherwise no decay. No coincidence either..just no present state.You don't get it. The RATIO of daughter to parent could only have been caused by millions of years of decay or an astronomically unlikely coincidence.
Only if the present state were in place...otherwise no decay. No coincidence either..just no present state.
Daughter material that was already here in the former state would not be a product of decay. You simply are welded to your belief system, and so in the box, that you can't seem to even peek out.
Ha. Therein lies your confusion! In a former state the daughter material may have been producing the parent material for all we know!? Whatever it was doing, if anything, it was not involved in this present state atomic norm! Forget thinking of daughter material as related to decay in any way in the former state! Only if you do that, will you need to invoke coincidence for present ratios.And if there was a different state in the past, it would be IMPOSSIBLE for the daughter material to build up to the levels we see and still be in the correct ratio to the parent material in the many different samples we test!
Don't confuse ratio with relationship. What is now daughter material (because it NOW exists in a decay relationship with certain parent materials) was just material in the former state...we know not what it was doing.If it was here before, then why is it always in the same ratio to the parent material?
If it was here before, then why is it always in the same ratio to the parent material? Your only option is to say it is all a huge coincidence!
Ha. Therein lies your confusion! In a former state the daughter material may have been producing the parent material for all we know!? Whatever it was doing, if anything, it was not involved in this present state atomic norm! Forget thinking of daughter material as related to decay in any way in the former state! Only if you do that, will you need to invoke coincidence for present ratios.
Don't confuse ratio with relationship. What is now daughter material (because it NOW exists in a decay relationship with certain parent materials) was just material in the former state...we know not what it was doing.
Let's say we have A, B, and C making up the isotopes in a rock. In this present state the B and C might be produced by decay from A. However, in the former state (say we had the same ratio of ABC) C might have been being rejuvenated by A or B! Whatever processes existed need not be like ours today in this state.
False, because the decay is something that we must have IN this state. The operative question is...was there any decay in the former state at all, and what would that have to do with this present state??? The daughter would not have been produced by decay, but would have been here in some other capacity in the former state.That is entirely possible. However, if that was true, it would not give the consistent decay ratios we see today.
Not at all. What you are saying is merely that there is daughter material in lower layers, and even more in recent layers. Yet since there is almost none produced in the long half lived materials in the last 4400 years, who cares!!??Rocks in lower layers dating to be younger than the rocks in more recent layers. Once again, you are required to claim a huge coincidence.
Great, and how do you know this?? Voices in the head?? Premonition? Belief?I know exactly what it was doing. It was being formed by the decay of the parent.
Of course we would.And once again, we would not see the A B and C in the ratios we see today.
Only predicted in la la land fantasy imaginary time. Show us one prediction of this kind?We see them in the exact ratios predicted.
Great so let's see them then!!!?? Example?There are certain ratios that can never appear if the radioactive decay idea is correct. And we never see those ratios.
Where is this clock, and who set it?it would like seeing a clock where the hour hand was on 12 and the minute hand was on six. That is impossible, as if the minute hand is on six, the hour hand must be halfway between two numbers, not pointing at one.
?? I can reach in and make a silly hour or minute hand point anywhere I like!If your idea is correct, then such limitations would not apply.
Name a ratio predicted? Based on what? I predict the predictions are religion...feel better?It would be a HUGE coincidence if the ratios were only ever those predicted by radioactive decay, despite them being able to be anything.
False, because the decay is something that we must have IN this state. The operative question is...was there any decay in the former state at all, and what would that have to do with this present state??? The daughter would not have been produced by decay, but would have been here in some other capacity in the former state.
Not at all. What you are saying is merely that there is daughter material in lower layers, and even more in recent layers. Yet since there is almost none produced in the long half lived materials in the last 4400 years, who cares!!??
Great, and how do you know this?? Voices in the head?? Premonition? Belief?
If you have anything else at all, now is a good time to show us!
Of course we would.
Only predicted in la la land fantasy imaginary time. Show us one prediction of this kind?
Great so let's see them then!!!?? Example?
Where is this clock, and who set it?
?? I can reach in and make a silly hour or minute hand point anywhere I like!
Name a ratio predicted? Based on what? I predict the predictions are religion...feel better?
Because you impose beliefs on the ratios that involve long imaginary ages! Stop doing that and it looks just fine!Then why is it in the exact ratio we expect to see if it was caused by millions of years of decay?
We shall see. Don't hold your breath.You don't know what I am saying. This proves it. The exact opposite is true.
No. That is not the reason that we know. That is imposing present state reasons for the daughter material. There are many ways we could look at the pattern. One couls assume that the daughter material was the parent in the former state..role reversal. One could assume that the parent daughter ratio happened fast, and worked in either direction in the former state for example. We do NOT know. You can't just look at this state and the decay and try to claim THAT alone is responsible for all things.If you test the same dating method on very old rocks and newer rocks, you'll find that there is daughter material in the lower layers and LESS in the upper layers because the upper layers were formed more recently and have had less time to decay.
You seem to be referring to predictions as the belief in a same state past being used to explain patterns of material. That cannot tell us what state existed. That just tells us how you prefer to color evidence.Every radiodating technique ever devised, dad. They all use these predictions. And they all work.
Try giving an example. What do we not see where exactly, specifically? I could list some examples if you like of missing stuff that science claims decayed away. What they really mean is 'It golly gee must have decayed away, because we find no trace of it'! Then comes the question...'can you prove it was actually ever here!!??'Have you even been reading what I've been writing? I've explained very clearly how we can measure the half lives of the parent and daughter materials and use these to predict what ratios we'd be able to see. We can also use these to predict the ratios that could never arise, and whaddaya know, we never see them!
I see no ratios or materials anywhere that do not make sense. The hands were set fine, thank you very much.Your different past state set it, dad. It set it so the hour hand was halfway between the 11 and the 12 and the minute hand was on the twelve. Now it doesn't make any sense at all.
Why would I post a clock with wonky hands just because you dream it up??Okay, set a clock the way I described. Hour hand on 12 and minute hand on 6. Take a photo and post it.
That explained nothing but your belief set. Your main point seems to have been thisI explained how we can only get certain ratios HERE. Have a read of that post. Using the example I used in that post, it would be impossible to get a ratio of 50% P, 40% D and 10% G.
Because you impose beliefs on the ratios that involve long imaginary ages! Stop doing that and it looks just fine!
We shall see. Don't hold your breath.
No. That is not the reason that we know. That is imposing present state reasons for the daughter material. There are many ways we could look at the pattern. One couls assume that the daughter material was the parent in the former state..role reversal. One could assume that the parent daughter ratio happened fast, and worked in either direction in the former state for example. We do NOT know. You can't just look at this state and the decay and try to claim THAT alone is responsible for all things.
You seem to be referring to predictions as the belief in a same state past being used to explain patterns of material. That cannot tell us what state existed. That just tells us how you prefer to color evidence.
Try giving an example. What do we not see where exactly, specifically? I could list some examples if you like of missing stuff that science claims decayed away. What they really mean is 'It golly gee must have decayed away, because we find no trace of it'! Then comes the question...'can you prove it was actually ever here!!??'
I see no ratios or materials anywhere that do not make sense. The hands were set fine, thank you very much.
Why would I post a clock with wonky hands just because you dream it up??
If any of the letters here in the former state represented material in a different process than the decay we now have, what would it matter how much of any there were?? You are trying to impose present state reasons for existence of all things.
'Gee, they decay now, so they always did, and therefore the stuff that is NOW produced by decay was always produced that way..' yada yada yada circular belief based reasoning.
This all means that you cannot use the present state workings and forces, and laws, in any effort to describe the workings of the former state. You just believe and assume. End of story.
Holw it looks depends on how we chose to view it.Apart from the fact that it looks impossible.
Yes, they do. A different set of forces and laws applied.The problem is that none of those ideas actually explain why the ratios between parent, daughter and granddaughter materials always match what we'd expect to see if they'd been decaying for millions of years.
Not to the honest or informed.A same past state is the best explanation for what we see.
You misunderstand. They claim to expect the stuff should be missing! That is why they claim they can't find it!Okay. Post it. Post an example of something where the ratios were impossible according to current scientific thinking. I bet you can't.
Not sure what ratios of isotopes you think are hard to understand. But you just like to talk for nothing I guess.Well, since you don't understand them, you wouldn't would you?
Because I don't think you can do it like you claimed you could. Not without damaging the clock!
You have been saying there is decay. I agree there is, and science knows. So? Try to apply that to Noah's day.Well, what I've been saying is supported by science.
But if you think it's wrong, explain it. Explain how the ratios could form that way with a different state past. Please go into as much detail as I did, showing numbers and everything, explaining WHY it works.
Holw it looks depends on how we chose to view it.
Yes, they do. A different set of forces and laws applied.
Not to the honest or informed.
You misunderstand. They claim to expect the stuff should be missing! That is why they claim they can't find it!
Not sure what ratios of isotopes you think are hard to understand. But you just like to talk for nothing I guess.
If you are trying to relate a clock to a different state past, that is no good. It was not a change in OUR present state clock. That would damage stuff.
You have been saying there is decay. I agree there is, and science knows. So? Try to apply that to Noah's day.
Science doesn't know how the former state worked. Therefore, your question is flawed. They explain this state the best way they know how. Nothing else. When they try to explain the future or far past, all they do is carry this state in their minds to imaginary places.
Don't pretend you know. It isn't becoming of you.
That's what I say! Yet in Oklo, there is missing stuff, and let's see you show it?If it is really there, you should be able to show it.
Not that we know, actually.Same laws applied.
No need, the bible is pretty clear that there were differences..and science is not even a player, in that it is unable to deal with the issue.You can't even demonstrate that there was a different state!
That's what I say! Yet in Oklo, there is missing stuff, and let's see you show it?
"Although almost all this
material, which has a 24,000-year halflife,
has since disappeared (primarily
through natural radioactive decay),...
"
The Workings of An Ancient Nuclear Reactor - A Two Billion Years African Uranium Deposit
How can we prove it was ever there?
Not that we know, actually.
No need, the bible is pretty clear that there were differences..and science is not even a player, in that it is unable to deal with the issue.
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?