Taking questions of the Different state past (2)

[dad]

This thread was split automatically after 1000 replies and this thread has been automatically created.
The old thread automatically closed is here: "Taking questions of the Different state past"

 

[fireof god98]

first comment

 

[Kylie]

Not really. How could I move 60 times faster? You seem to think I would be moving the same, but not notice I was zipping around 60 times faster. Why would radioactive decay, if you think it existed in the former state that you envision was in super fast forward, go millions of times faster than the 60 times faster a man was going on the same planet!? Now you need time zones for different elements and materials. I walk by a rock in the former state...but it is gaining millions of years of daughter material by decay, while I have only been here hundreds of years.

Are you just completely ignoring me? You would be moving faster, but every single frame of reference you had to judge how fast things were going would be sped up as well, so you wouldn't be able to tell.

Honestly, how are you not understanding this? My daughter understands it just fine, and she's ten.

Not really. That depends what they say. If someone really gave it an honest try, they would likely get ideas. The thing is, we would need to fit the bible in a real way, and also evidences. By evidence I mean real factual evidence like fossils, or layers, or uplift, or continental movement etc. (not assumptions of how things were based on belief)

Yeah, vague and nebulous.

But I am always willing to be proved wrong. So here's your chance. Just tell me one specific thing about your DSP. Maybe you could say that gravity was 1.3 times stronger than what it is today, and explain how you know that. (Please note that claiming radioactive decay didn't exist and then invoking an amazing worldwide coincidence doesn't count, because those coincidences just don't happen).

I would prefer to deal with what is known. The laws of thermodynamics as they exist now would create heat if one slid over a continent real fast. Yet sometime after creation they all moved. Also in creation week all the water and land on the planet was moved or separated, and again, no great heat. That seems specific to me. Stars were seen by Adam, because they were made to be seen. Light moving through spacetime as we know it on earth and area just cannot behave that way. That is specific. Etc.

No, that's no specific. You can't explain what different laws of nature had to be in effect in order for things to happen the way you propose. It's just more vague and meaningless nonsense.

 

[dad]

Are you just completely ignoring me? You would be moving faster, but every single frame of reference you had to judge how fast things were going would be sped up as well, so you wouldn't be able to tell.

That would maybe be fine..for me. How about the rest of the world? If the decay in rocks sped up the same rate, then how would they be older than man? We were created the same week.

But I am always willing to be proved wrong. So here's your chance. Just tell me one specific thing about your DSP. Maybe you could say that gravity was 1.3 times stronger than what it is today, and explain how you know that. (Please note that claiming radioactive decay didn't exist and then invoking an amazing worldwide coincidence doesn't count, because those coincidences just don't happen).

The fact you perceive it as coincidence shows that you do not understand the issue. It is not coincidence that creation existed in a certain way, at the time of a state change. The only way it could appear 'coincidence' to someone is if they were wedded to their same state past belief. If X and Y amount of isotopes already existed when the nature change I often refer to as the 'split' happened, then they would simply begin to work as they must here, and assume a parent daughter relationship. You simply want to assume that relationship (caused by present laws) always existed for no particular reason other than you believe it.

No, that's no specific. You can't explain what different laws of nature had to be in effect in order for things to happen the way you propose.

The specifics when added to the full equation of what is known, (in this case that current laws of thermodynamics could not have existed) are what is important! That very fact means that trying to pull a so called science trick of pretending to know exactly why would be dishonest. It is not that the laws of thermodynamics changed, it is that they did not exist as such, I suspect. In the future we see that gravity as we know it can not exist. That is not because gravity will change I suspect, but that gravity, if it exists then, will be in conjunction with other forces, and not 'the big kid on the block'.

This is one reason that when I see otherwise smart men like Steven Hawkings babble on about what gravity did in the early universe ir etc...I cringe.

.

 

[Kylie]

That would maybe be fine..for me. How about the rest of the world? If the decay in rocks sped up the same rate, then how would they be older than man? We were created the same week.

Because ALL time was sped up, EVERYWHERE.

The fact you perceive it as coincidence shows that you do not understand the issue. It is not coincidence that creation existed in a certain way, at the time of a state change. The only way it could appear 'coincidence' to someone is if they were wedded to their same state past belief. If X and Y amount of isotopes already existed when the nature change I often refer to as the 'split' happened, then they would simply begin to work as they must here, and assume a parent daughter relationship. You simply want to assume that relationship (caused by present laws) always existed for no particular reason other than you believe it.

So you are proposing that there is some mechanism which can produce parent/daughter/grand-daughter ratios in the EXACT ratios we'd expect to see if they came about by radioactive decay...

... and yet ISN'T radioactive decay?

Please, describe this mechanism.

The specifics when added to the full equation of what is known, (in this case that current laws of thermodynamics could not have existed) are what is important! That very fact means that trying to pull a so called science trick of pretending to know exactly why would be dishonest. It is not that the laws of thermodynamics changed, it is that they did not exist as such, I suspect. In the future we see that gravity as we know it can not exist. That is not because gravity will change I suspect, but that gravity, if it exists then, will be in conjunction with other forces, and not 'the big kid on the block'.

This is one reason that when I see otherwise smart men like Steven Hawkings babble on about what gravity did in the early universe ir etc...I cringe.

Yeah, you're not actually PROVIDING any of these specifics yet, are you?

Tell me something SPECIFIC about the DSP or you have nothing.

 

[dad]

Because ALL time was sped up, EVERYWHERE.



So you are proposing that there is some mechanism which can produce parent/daughter/grand-daughter ratios in the EXACT ratios we'd expect to see if they came about by radioactive decay...

... and yet ISN'T radioactive decay?

Yes. Of course.


But the proper way to ask the question is "was" a mechanism. The creation of God. There apparently was the daughter and parent materials in the same rations doing whatever they did under the different forces and laws. Whatever that was cannot be assumed to be decay which is a product of present state forces. Naturally when we have our laws in place things start to behave accordingly, in this case..fall into a decay relationship.

Tell me something SPECIFIC about the DSP or you have nothing.

Tell us something specific about heaven and eternity? Do you really think that the inability of science to know anything beyond this state means there is nothing else??!! There are details of both the future and past in the bible, and both are different than the future.

 

[Kylie]

Yes. Of course.


But the proper way to ask the question is "was" a mechanism. The creation of God. There apparently was the daughter and parent materials in the same rations doing whatever they did under the different forces and laws. Whatever that was cannot be assumed to be decay which is a product of present state forces. Naturally when we have our laws in place things start to behave accordingly, in this case..fall into a decay relationship.

You seem to be very sure that radioactive decay only existed in the present state, not the past state. But how can you be so sure. After all, gravity also existed in the past state (or did Adam and Eve go floating around weightless?). So it's also possible that the same laws we have today also operated back then, but a little bit differently.

Tell us something specific about heaven and eternity? Do you really think that the inability of science to know anything beyond this state means there is nothing else??!! There are details of both the future and past in the bible, and both are different than the future.

Don't play immature games. You always avoid this question. You are incapable of telling me anything specific about a DSP because you know nothing about it. All you do is guess.

Come on, give me something specific.

 

[Loudmouth]

Yes. Of course.


But the proper way to ask the question is "was" a mechanism. The creation of God. There apparently was the daughter and parent materials in the same rations doing whatever they did under the different forces and laws. Whatever that was cannot be assumed to be decay which is a product of present state forces.

So what ratios would we expect to find in rocks if the decay rates were the same in the past?

Naturally when we have our laws in place things start to behave accordingly, in this case..fall into a decay relationship.

How can our laws cause U/Pb and Rb/Sr ratios to suddenly give the same date?

 

[dad]

You seem to be very sure that radioactive decay only existed in the present state, not the past state. But how can you be so sure.

We don't know. However when we compare the creation timeframe with the so called dates derived from rocks by using the present state past belief system, they are not right.

So, looking at other things in the future and the bible past, we can determine that it was a different state, and therefore we cannot invoke things directly caused BY this state and it's laws such as decay as we know it!!

After all, gravity also existed in the past state (or did Adam and Eve go floating around weightless?).

Wrong concept and question. Even if there was gravity, it may have been operating in conjunction with another force or forces. And/or, it may be affected by the state, so that if there was gravity it may have been somewhat different in degree. Why claim you know??

So it's also possible that the same laws we have today also operated back then, but a little bit differently.

Well, more than a little! Also, since spirits married women right here on earth and lived here, whatever laws used to exist presumably accommodated them. I don't see that happening in this state..you?

Come on, give me something specific.

Gold is transparent.

 

[RichardT]

if you're going to claim that everything was different in the past and that things will be different in the future, you'll be right in your own mind. But my question to you is: what do you think is more consistent of an objective view of the evidence? You notice that if radio-isotopes had constant, consistent rates of decay that the earth should be around 4.6 billion years old. Why would you need to come up with claims of a different past to explain this away?

 

[Kylie]

We don't know. However when we compare the creation timeframe with the so called dates derived from rocks by using the present state past belief system, they are not right.

And temporal acceleration explains it perfectly.

So, looking at other things in the future and the bible past, we can determine that it was a different state, and therefore we cannot invoke things directly caused BY this state and it's laws such as decay as we know it!!

According to your interpretation of the Bible...

Wrong concept and question. Even if there was gravity, it may have been operating in conjunction with another force or forces. And/or, it may be affected by the state, so that if there was gravity it may have been somewhat different in degree. Why claim you know??

Same reason you claim there was no radioactive decay.

Well, more than a little! Also, since spirits married women right here on earth and lived here, whatever laws used to exist presumably accommodated them. I don't see that happening in this state..you?

I don't see talking lions, so I guess that means Aesop's Fables proves a DSP as well.

Gold is transparent.

I'll assume you mean it is transparent to visible light. Is that something specific about the DSP? If so, how do you reach this conclusion? What is your evidence for this specific claim?

 

[Kylie]

Why would you need to come up with claims of a different past to explain this away?

Because he really wants the Bible to be true, despite the evidence from the real world that goes against it. Coming up with a way to explain it away lets him have real laws and science today while keeping his wish fulfillment intact.

 

[dad]

So what ratios would we expect to find in rocks if the decay rates were the same in the past?

One cannot ask what results a fantasy state would and should produce.

How can our laws cause U/Pb and Rb/Sr ratios to suddenly give the same date?

They find no dates now, similar or different. They find stuff that exists and believe time is why it exists, because they impose a same state past belief on it. They are a way to represent the materials that we see in terms of time units, rather than volume! The issue is the ratios and if they existed before this state they are not any issue. obviously. ONLY in looking at ratios AS IF they got here BY the decay of THIS state does one get confused.

 

[Loudmouth]

One cannot ask what results a fantasy state would and should produce.

How do you know that a same state past is without evidence if you can't even tell us what that evidence would look like?

They find no dates now, similar or different.

You know exactly how radiometric dating works. Don't play dumb.

Why would a different state past produce parent daughter ratios that produce the same dates when using the present decay rates for dating? Explain how that works. Why would K/Ar and Rb/Sr dates derived from modern decay rates be the same if their decay rates were different in the past?

They find stuff that exists and believe time is why it exists, because they impose a same state past belief on it.

They believe that because the dates derived from several independent parent/daughter ratios produce the same dates. How do you explain this?

The issue is the ratios and if they existed before this state they are not any issue. obviously.

Not obvious at all. If the ratios from the past state were produced by different decay rates, then the dates derived from those ratios using modern decay rates.

Not only that, but there shouldn't be a secular equilibrium of decay chain products if the decay rates were different in the past.

Secular equilibrium - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If decay rates were slower or faster, then different elements in the decay chain would be higher or lower than they should be as derived from modern decay rates. That isn't what we see. We find plenty of cases where secular equilibrium is observed, and that balance of decay chain products require long time periods to become established.

 

[dad]

if you're going to claim that everything was different in the past and that things will be different in the future, you'll be right in your own mind.

The issue is what is right in the mind of God which we can see in Scripture?

But my question to you is: what do you think is more consistent of an objective view of the evidence? You notice that if radio-isotopes had constant, consistent rates of decay that the earth should be around 4.6 billion years old. Why would you need to come up with claims of a different past to explain this away?

That says nothing..they 'should be' so old!? Why? Based on what exactly? Circular logic, that's what...other same state past based imaginative flights of fancy. Nothing real at all, and nothing objective.

 

[dad]

And temporal acceleration explains it perfectly.

You need to accelerate all things, not just some rocks. You need to do so at the same acceleration rate. Why would a rock get accelerated to look billions of years old but not man?

According to your interpretation of the Bible...

No, because in the future, for example, there is no way we can have heaven and the new earth and the stars fall from the sky, and etc etc etc with our physics, period.

Same reason you claim there was no radioactive decay.

I claim we don't know if there was decay. If you do know, prove it.

I don't see talking lions, so I guess that means Aesop's Fables proves a DSP as well.

The lions talking in Eden are not here now TO see, nor are the lions of the future who eat grass. The future and past are NOT dependent on what you see!

I'll assume you mean it is transparent to visible light. Is that something specific about the DSP? If so, how do you reach this conclusion? What is your evidence for this specific claim?

Rev 21:21 And the twelve gates were twelve pearls; every several gate was of one pearl: and the street of the city was pure gold, as it were transparent glass.

Since the future state is a different state, this shows that there are differences from what we now know.

 

[Loudmouth]

I claim we don't know if there was decay. If you do know, prove it.

False. Your claim is that you will never accept any evidence for decay in the past.

 

[dad]

How do you know that a same state past is without evidence if you can't even tell us what that evidence would look like?

Put it this way you have shown none yet. Work on that.

You know exactly how radiometric dating works. Don't play dumb.

Right and it includes no dates ever beyond the flood. Period. (even less since the nature change was later presumably).

Why would a different state past produce parent daughter ratios that produce the same dates when using the present decay rates for dating?

They produce no dates. Get over it that is religion only. When you invoke your silly same state past religion and soak evidence in IT, and refer to ratios as 'dates' that means nothing at all in reality.

Explain how that works. Why would K/Ar and Rb/Sr dates derived from modern decay rates be the same if their decay rates were different in the past?

OK, give an example in a rock that was 'dated'.

They believe that because the dates derived from several independent parent/daughter ratios produce the same dates. How do you explain this?

Name the example. If you mean in the same sample rock, then all that means is that there were appropriate ratios of several things and they are now IN this state.

Not obvious at all. If the ratios from the past state were produced by different decay rates, then the dates derived from those ratios using modern decay rates.

It seems to me you need THIS state to have any decay, no? At least in the way we know. You DON"T have THIS state in the past so quit claiming rates of decay!

Not only that, but there shouldn't be a secular equilibrium of decay chain products if the decay rates were different in the past.

Secular equilibrium - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If decay rates were slower or faster, then different elements in the decay chain would be higher or lower than they should be as derived from modern decay rates. That isn't what we see. We find plenty of cases where secular equilibrium is observed, and that balance of decay chain products require long time periods to become established.

Again there needs to BE decay, and for that you need a present state. Prove there was one first and we can look at claims of decay and what it 'caused' Otherwise you come up empty.

 

[Kylie]

You need to accelerate all things, not just some rocks. You need to do so at the same acceleration rate. Why would a rock get accelerated to look billions of years old but not man?

You don't read what I say, do you? I very clearly stated that ALL TIME WAS ACCELERATED.

No, because in the future, for example, there is no way we can have heaven and the new earth and the stars fall from the sky, and etc etc etc with our physics, period.

Except that you are relying on your interpretation of the Bible which says this is LITERALLY going to happen. Maybe it's metaphorical?

I claim we don't know if there was decay. If you do know, prove it.

So you are stating that there COULD have been some kind of radioactive decay in the past?

The lions talking in Eden are not here now TO see, nor are the lions of the future who eat grass. The future and past are NOT dependent on what you see!

I don't see how this has anything at all to do with what I was saying. I think you just like talking. Say enough and maybe we'll get tired? Ha! I have a daughter, I can go on about nonsense for ages.

Rev 21:21 And the twelve gates were twelve pearls; every several gate was of one pearl: and the street of the city was pure gold, as it were transparent glass.

Since the future state is a different state, this shows that there are differences from what we now know.

You'd think that, but no...

From 10 Gold Facts

Fact 5: A sheet of gold can be made thin enough to be transparent.

Gold that is thin enough to be transparent is also talked about here: Researchers develop golden window electrodes for organic solar cells and here: Gold Fact Sheet | Goldrush Resources Ltd.

So we don't need a DSP to get clear gold. Care to try again?

 

[dad]

False. Your claim is that you will never accept any evidence for decay in the past.

Apparently you don't know what evidence is. You have gotten away with calling evidence only that which resides within your same state past belief system too long.