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.
No man has evidence of where created things came from, and least of all science.
No man has evidence of where created things came from, and least of all science. You claim that all daughter materials came not by God creating, but by the present state process of decay. Is that not right?
If that is right you sure as hell will not be able to prove it.
You showed imaginary missing stuff, and a religious view of where created daughter material came from. Pathetic.I just showed you that evidence.
You have never offered any evidence that this is true, or that you could prove. None. All you do is repeat the claim.You have never offered any evidence that this is true. None. All you do is repeat the claim.
You showed imaginary missing stuff,
and a religious view of where created daughter material came from. Pathetic.
You have never offered any evidence that this is true, or that you could prove. None. All you do is repeat the claim.
They don't. They produce ratios that represent what was left from creation.Why do dates based on different isotope pairs with different half lives produce the same dates?
Right, thanks for admitting it. All is lost for your case! You look at present decay and attribute creation itself to that. Sick and twisted religion.Where is your explanation for this?
Here is the equation used for determining the age of a rock.
They result in imaginary time in you head only! You assign time to the ratios and represent the created reality with imaginary time. You would have us believe that this present state and it's decay were here and are what is responsible for all daughter material. You also claim a lot is missing, and yet cannot prove it! You are your own worst enemy. This is a good example of why I never really used creation sites as sources, you guys shoot yourselves in the foot much better.For each set of isotopes, the half life and ratio of daughter and parent isotopes are different, yet they all result in the same t, the same age. How do you explain the fact that when we plug in the observed ratios and the observed half lives we get the same t on the other side of the equation for different sets of isotopes?
Who cares why something was not created?? Let's deal in reality it ain't there and you can't prove it ever was!Why wouldn't they be there?
You assign decay origins to stuff, and assign decay causes for stuff that isn't even here and stuff you cannot prove ever was!!!Where is your explanation? Why is the absence of presence of isotopes in the Earth determined by their modern decay rates and modern sources of production? Why do we see this relationship?
Those are great in this state. Not anywhere else. You may date up to 4400 years, or less if you use 'collaboration' such as presumed tree or coral growth time...etc.Then how do you explain the relationships between absence or presence and modern decay rates?
Not to the informed, and honest folks.How do you explain the fact that all of the evidence is consistent with a same state past?
You seem to assume we should find that. You claim stuff vaniched, and then offer the disappearing act as proof of your other fantasies. Get a grip man.Then show me where we find naturally occurring Cesium-135.
If you claim it is imaginary, then show me some naturally occuring Cesium-135.
You assigning the reason for existing of all daughter materials to a present state process is nothing more than a declaration of faith in a same state past.It is an evidenced based view, and you continue to ignore the evidence.
Absurdly false. You showed how you claim stuff vanished that you cannot prove ever existed!!!! Pathetic. For the rest, you want to say that present state decaydunnit. Too bad you can't prove it.I showed you how the presence or absence of nuclides is determined by modern decay rates.
You have religion. Learn the difference. Prove that the daughter materials all got here by decay.We;ve got more evidence for it than you have for any of your quaint ideas.
You should demonstrate that you have some comprehension of the issues, rather than moan.(No doubt you will respond with some "Oh, I am educated, you should come over to the smart team" arrogance like I've seen you do before.)
They don't. They produce ratios that represent what was left from creation.
They result in imaginary time in you head only! You assign time to the ratios and represent the created reality with imaginary time. You would have us believe that this present state and it's decay were here and are what is responsible for all daughter material.
You also claim a lot is missing, and yet cannot prove it!
Who cares why something was not created?? Let's deal in reality it ain't there and you can't prove it ever was!
You seem to assume we should find that. You claim stuff vaniched, and then offer the disappearing act as proof of your other fantasies. Get a grip man.
Why would it occur in this nature?? Focus.
You assigning the reason for existing of all daughter materials to a present state process is nothing more than a declaration of faith in a same state past.
Absurdly false. You showed how you claim stuff vanished that you cannot prove ever existed!!!! Pathetic. For the rest, you want to say that present state decaydunnit. Too bad you can't prove it.
Your only recourse is unconditional surrender.
Why do you call creation ratios dates? Obviously because you use the present state and see how things now decay, and want to claim all daughter material got here that way.Why would those ratios left from creation produce the same dates using modern decay rates?
You have faith that there is no God but that the present state and laws and physics produced all daughter material. Obviously. I have my own faith, thanks.You keep ignoring WHY I reach that conclusion.
Your equation was present state based. You want to extend that to the future and past. No can do.I reach that conclusion because different isotope pairs produce the same age using the equation I gave you.
Why would it occur in this nature? Why babble? Why would God have created it? Get over it.Then show me some naturally occuring Cesium-135 and prove me wrong.
Nothing shows a same state past. Your incessant desire to impose your beliefs on the unknown past does not represent any reality.The reality is that the evidence is consistent with a same state past, and you have offered NOTHING that shows otherwise.
The measured decay is only in this present state. You cannot use that to explain all things we see, unless you first prove there was this present state. You can't. You just use it anyhow by faith also. Period. You are busted.Then explain the relationship between the absence or presence of isotopes and their measured decay rates. I am still waiting for that explanation.
Why do you call creation ratios dates? Obviously because you use the present state and see how things now decay, and want to claim all daughter material got here that way.
You have faith that there is no God but that the present state and laws and physics produced all daughter material. Obviously. I have my own faith, thanks.
Your equation was present state based.
Why would it occur in this nature?
Nothing shows a same state past.
The measured decay is only in this present state. You cannot use that to explain all things we see, unless you first prove there was this present state. You can't. You just use it anyhow by faith also. Period. You are busted.
I do not care why God did not create the stuff you claim was here but vanished!Why wouldn't it???? Focus.
No it sure is not. You showed ratios and a faith that they came from present state processes.Yes, because all of the evidence is consistent with the daughter materials being produced by the parent isotope over millions and billions of years, as I have shown you.
How could we show that your missing stuff ever existed??! The stuff that does exist, you want to claim came to exist only by laws of this state. You have religion. Not science.You have never, ever been able to show that any of this evidence is inconsistent with a same state past.
When you look at all things as if there was a same state past, it may look to you like there was. So?? Evidence needs to be able to stand on it's own two feet!If the observations are consistent with a same state past, then those observations are EVIDENCE of a same state past. That's how evidence works.
You have shown you have no evidence but want to claim it all due to your godless fanatical religion.I have shown that all of the evidence is consistent with my claims. You have been unable to refute that argument.
No one needs refute imaginary pixies, or states. Just because you chose to disbelieve God Almighty and deny creation, by offering a silly supplanted belief system, does not mean we must observe all things the way you want. True observations are absent of your belief system. We see daughter materials, yes. We do not see your missing stuff, nor a same state past that you claim created the stuff.Why should I surrender when ALL of the observations are consistent with a same state past which you have never been able to refute.
I do not care why God did not create the stuff you claim was here but vanished!
No it sure is not. You showed ratios and a faith that they came from present state processes.
How could we show that your missing stuff ever existed??! The stuff that does exist, you want to claim came to exist only by laws of this state. You have religion. Not science.
When you look at all things as if there was a same state past, it may look to you like there was. So?? Evidence needs to be able to stand on it's own two feet!
You have shown you have no evidence but want to claim it all due to your godless fanatical religion.
No one needs refute imaginary pixies, or states.
Why would creation ratios produce the same t when I plug in the observed ratios and observed decay rates into this equation?
Where am I using faith?
I am using the OBSERVED RATIOS AND OBSERVED DECAY RATES. No faith.
Because you use time in explaining it. You do not even know what time it, let alone what time it is. Time is involved in this present time and nature, in the processes and way things exist here! One cannot extend that beyond this time and nature.Why do I get the same t just as a same state past predicts I should see?
It works here, as far as that things really are now in a decay relationship. No further!Yes, AND IT WORKS!!!!
You misuse the word 'works' if you try to apply it to the far past. You would need to use the word 'worked'.How do you explain the fact that it works just as it should if there was a same state past?
Not all things that could decay need have been created! You assume a same state past.Why wouldn't it? Why would God include or exclude isotopes based on decay rates that you claim didn't exist?
Why would things not look old if we assumed they were all made by slow processes of the present? You simply look at the present state decay, and write that into your formulas for the past and creation.Why do these equations produce the exact results one would expect from a same state past?
Big problem for you is that the 'missing stuff' you claim is consistent by not existing is NOT observed at all! Is it?IOW, you can't explain why the observations are consistent with a same state past.
False. I showed that the observed ratios and observed decay rates are consistent with a same state past. You have not been able to refute this argument.
False. You are not showing ANY missing isotopes!! You are claiming based on belief that they once existed and up and disappeared. Yeah right. You thought we need to refute that hogwash??I am showing you that the absence and presence of different isotopes is consistent with a same state past, and you have been unable to refute it. Therefore, it stands as evidence.
It does stand on its own two feet as shown by your inability to refute it. You can't show any inconsistencies with a same state past. None.
You have not given observations of a claimed bunch of missing stuff! You have not given observations that this present state existed which would be required to claim credit for daughter materials. You are confused and fanatical, and call blind faith observations!I have given you observations. There is nothing imaginary about them.
What creation produced later existed in this decay state. One cannot use the rate of decay here, in this present nature, as the reason the parent material exists!
No faith is needed as far as how fast things decay. That faith comes in claiming that BY this decay, ALL daughter material came to exist.
Because you use time in explaining it. You do not even know what time it, let alone what time it is. Time is involved in this present time and nature, in the processes and way things exist here! One cannot extend that beyond this time and nature.
It works here, as far as that things really are now in a decay relationship. No further!
You misuse the word 'works' if you try to apply it to the far past. You would need to use the word 'worked'.
Not all things that could decay need have been created! You assume a same state past.
Why would things not look old if we assumed they were all made by slow processes of the present?
You simply look at the present state decay, and write that into your formulas for the past and creation.
Big problem for you is that the 'missing stuff' you claim is consistent by not existing is NOT observed at all! Is it?
It is only consistent if you use a same state past to explain them! Circular.
You are not showing ANY missing isotopes!!
You are claiming based on belief that they once existed and up and disappeared. Yeah right. You thought we need to refute that hogwash??
No parent or daughter material can be proven to have been produced bt decay except in this present state, period. There can be no denying that. Any consistencies are in your head therefore!
You have not given observations of a claimed bunch of missing stuff!
You have not given observations that this present state existed which would be required to claim credit for daughter materials. You are confused and fanatical, and call blind faith observations!
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?