Taking questions of the Different state past (2)

[Kylie]

You have religion. Learn the difference. Prove that the daughter materials all got here by decay.

Prove that it didn't.

You should demonstrate that you have some comprehension of the issues, rather than moan.

I will when you do.

 

[dad]

Prove that it didn't.

Strawman. The issue is what laws existed in the past, when the material had it's origin. Your claim that it all originated by present state laws demands evidence that there was a present state, it is not evidence there was. You are hooped.

 

[dad]

I proclaim that dad has been officially defeated.

You proclaim that you are clueless and love it.

1. He has been unable to demonstrate that the observations presented are in any way inconsistent with a same state past.

Show us the observed missing stuff!!

You have religiously believed and preached that all the daughter materials got here solely by present state mechanisms rather than even address the issue as to what laws existed and how you know.

2. He can't explain any of the observations using a different state past.

False. No observations of your missing and vanished materials have been shown here. What is to explain? You dreamt them up based on a belief that there 'golly gee just had to be a same state past'. Period.

As for the ratios of isotopes that exist as per creation, and now exist in this state, you merely looked at how things now must work and insanely declared that is how they always did, and how all the stuff got here! Ridiculous. The wisdom of this world is foolishness to God...and even me!

 

[dad]

Then why do I get the same t when using different isotope pairs, just as we would expect to see with a same state past?

WHERE IS YOUR EXPLANATION????

Evidence for a same state past are observations that are consistent with a same state past. That is exactly what have I have presented, and you have been unable to refute it.

That is fooishness. You simply mean that one can explain what we see using laws of this state, if we invoke enough magical missing stuff, and time, and believe for NO REASON that this present state also existed in the unknown past. (and of course that there is no God)

I don't need faith. I just showed you that all of the observations are consistent with a same state past. That is evidence.

No it is evidence that you color stuff with your foolish godless religion. The operation of forces and laws in this state would have to be consistent with what existed and what exists!! Duh. One cannot look just at the processes in this state, and try to pretend that that represents a consistence for the total time being in this state. You seem to like to forget that a consistent creator would be responsible for all changes in nature in the future or any in the past since creation. You want us to bow the knee to current state processes as the very creator!! No. I am exposing that you have religion only here. I like that. You are welcome to it. Many of us have our own beliefs, thanks.

Then why are the observations consistent with a same state past?

Rather than say things over and over as if there was a sliver of truth in them, slow down here, and, put the goods on the table. Let's have a looksee. For example, the missing stuff you claim existed, but is not here now. Any proof it was actually here?? Let's see what you got.

Then why do the equations still work when you go back billions of years?

The numbers you use are meant to represent present state things, and are merely used to account for all things. When this nature started, one assumes that there was daughter material already if creation is where we all came from. So, how could a smart God change nature that included that daughter material, in some way that was not smooth, and consistent?? That is EVIDENCE that the change was not random, or ill planned! It is NOT evidence that there was never any change as your godless little belief system preaches on the rooftops. Hey, get a sign and walk the sidewalks!! Goat herders have more sense.

They work right now. The equation produces the same t right now.

Yes, they work right NOW!! Get it?

Why would only the short lived isotopes be absent from the initial creation?

Who says they were part of creation???? You? You DO claim they are missing!! What a farce. How unobserved!!! How lacking in evidence!!

Because there is no reason why ratios at the start of creation in a different state past would be consistent with billions of years of a same state past as evidenced by you inability to produce such a reason.

Absurd. The reason that things exist in rations need not be determined by how present state forces and laws make them behave now.

And when I do so, the results of the equation are consistent with a same state past which you still can't explain.

Hey, for you, no doubt the tooth fairy is also consistent. So?

 

[FoxyRoxy]

HI, so I just discovered this thread. I'd like to give my opinion about this idea of different state past. I see three problems with it.

Firstly, to assume that laws of nature were different in the past is to assume that God was trying to trick us into thinking something happened that didn't... Why would He do that?

Secondly, this idea is completely outside the realm of science because the entire process of acquiring knowledge rests on uniformitarianism... Without it, you can't know anything about anything because for all you know it might be different tomorrow.

Thirdly, my personal belief is that nature in so finely tuned for a reason. What better way for God to show us His power than to allow us to uncover the secrets of reality through science. But nature is completely unknowable under this different state past idea.

 

[FoxyRoxy]

double post.

 

[Loudmouth]

You simply mean that one can explain what we see using laws of this state, if we invoke enough magical missing stuff, and time, and believe for NO REASON that this present state also existed in the unknown past.

1. He has been unable to demonstrate that the observations presented are in any way inconsistent with a same state past.

No it is evidence that you color stuff with your foolish godless religion. The operation of forces and laws in this state would have to be consistent with what existed and what exists!! Duh. One cannot look just at the processes in this state, and try to pretend that that represents a consistence for the total time being in this state.

Why not? Why can't we predict what we should see if there was a same state past, and then see if observations match those predictions?

Isn't that exactly how one would look for evidence of a same state past? If this isn't how one looks for evidence of a same state past, then please tell us how it is done.

Until you do so, you have absolutely no basis for claiming what is or isn't evidence. None.

 

[Loudmouth]

Show us the observed missing stuff!!

Do you even engage your brain before typing? If it is missing, how can I show it to you?

You have religiously believed and preached that all the daughter materials got here solely by present state mechanisms rather than even address the issue as to what laws existed and how you know.

I have already addressed how I know that there was a same state past. You ignore it.

No observations of your missing and vanished materials have been shown here.

That's because they are missing.

How do you explain their absence? Why are we only missing the short lived isotopes?

As for the ratios of isotopes that exist as per creation, and now exist in this state, you merely looked at how things now must work and insanely declared that is how they always did, and how all the stuff got here!

Another complete logical failure on your part.

If there was a same state past, then we should see agreement between different isotope pairs as I have shown over and over and over. This is a basic prediction made by the same state hypothesis. We then measure these isotopes, and see if they match the predictions. If they do, then it is evidence of a same state past.

That's how evidence works.

 

[dad]

HI, so I just discovered this thread. I'd like to give my opinion about this idea of different state past. I see three problems with it.

Firstly, to assume that laws of nature were different in the past is to assume that God was trying to trick us into thinking something happened that didn't... Why would He do that?

That actually doesn't follow. How would God changing nature in the future and heaven mean He was being 'tricky'? How would big differences before the fall mean God was tricky because it was changed later? Who said laws were the same pre flood? Not God. In fact things like man living near 1000 years indicate some big changes did happen. The tricky part comes from those who have claimed it was always the same, and concocted ungodly scenarios as a result.

Secondly, this idea is completely outside the realm of science because the entire process of acquiring knowledge rests on uniformitarianism...

Glad you admitted that!!

Without it, you can't know anything about anything because for all you know it might be different tomorrow.

That is where science is. Thanks for that.

Thirdly, my personal belief is that nature in so finely tuned for a reason. What better way for God to show us His power than to allow us to uncover the secrets of reality through science. But nature is completely unknowable under this different state past idea.

To uncover some of how present nature works does not mean there is not more to reality! You only play in one part of the playground.

 

[dad]

1. He has been unable to demonstrate that the observations presented are in any way inconsistent with a same state past.

Since you use a uniform state to explain all things, anything else seems inconsistent to you. However your fantasy state past is inconsistent with the records of man and God. You need to do more than say 'gee it seems like there must have been a same state past'.

Why not? Why can't we predict what we should see if there was a same state past, and then see if observations match those predictions?

You tell us!? Why can't you prove the missing stuff you claim existed did exist? You should stop abusing the word 'observations'.

Isn't that exactly how one would look for evidence of a same state past? If this isn't how one looks for evidence of a same state past, then please tell us how it is done.

One would need to find some proof of what laws did exist, rather than model things based on assuming a uniform state past, and then claiming it seems to fit well enough for you!

You can't prove what state existed, simply admit it.

 

[dad]

Do you even engage your brain before typing? If it is missing, how can I show it to you?

Unless you show us something, I guess the answer is that you can't. So stop claiming it existed.

I have already addressed how I know that there was a same state past. You ignore it.

Overruled. Making a construct based on faith in a uniform past, and then declaring you observed it is silly. There was none. You saw none. Your missing stuff is a joke.

That's because they are missing.

Then stop claiming they were here unless you can prove it.

How do you explain their absence? Why are we only missing the short lived isotopes?

Who cares why God never created the silly junk?? It is either here or not! It ain't. You want me to believe it was just so your uniform state past religion can look good.

If there was a same state past, then we should see agreement between different isotope pairs as I have shown over and over and over.

By itself it means nothing.

This is a basic prediction made by the same state hypothesis. We then measure these isotopes, and see if they match the predictions. If they do, then it is evidence of a same state past.

No, it is evidence you insist on describing created stuff in terms of time, just because you want to sell the lie that a same state past dunnit rather than a good God. You wouldn't know evidence if it bit your toe, and your idea of observations are pipe dreams that fit your religion.

 

[Kylie]

Strawman. The issue is what laws existed in the past, when the material had it's origin. Your claim that it all originated by present state laws demands evidence that there was a present state, it is not evidence there was. You are hooped.

Why is it a strawman when you use exactly the same thing?

Or are you admitting that you use weak arguments and can't discuss this topic without using logical fallacies?

 

[dad]

Why is it a strawman when you use exactly the same thing?

Be honest, I do not do the same thing. That thing is precisely claiming science knows what state existed. That thing is claiming that the present nature and laws in action doing things like radioactive decay processes tell us that these processes always existed and are totally responsible for all the materials we see including all the daughter materials. This you do. Correct? Not me.

I claim science does not know either way. I advocate looking at the record of Scripture. That is nothing like what you do actually. The future in the bible is totally unlike the future predicted by man's science, which is based on this current nature only! Science claims the universe will go dark, the sun also, because of present state earth law causes and imagined great time. That is all they ever do when speaking of the future or the far past...try to interpret how it was or will by solely by using this state as the big measure.

This I do not do, your point is utterly overthrown.



"
So how will the Universe end? The force of dark energy will continue to accelerate the expansion of the Universe until distant galaxies disappear. Galaxies will use up all the gas and dust for stars and go dark, perhaps becoming black holes. Those black holes will decay and maybe matter itself will decay into pure energy. The entire Universe will become a cold, quiet place, where single photons are stretched across light years of space.
Don’t worry, though, that won’t be for quadrillions of years from now."


http://www.universetoday.com/105588/how-will-the-universe-end/

Welcome to Zombie science prophesies!

 

[Loudmouth]

Since you use a uniform state to explain all things, anything else seems inconsistent to you.

I use a uniform state to PREDICT all things, and what we observe matches those predictions. Therefore, we have evidence for a uniform state.

It really is that simple.

However your fantasy state past is inconsistent with the records of man and God.

The map is not the territory. If the facts contradict the writings of man, then it is the writings of men that are wrong, not the facts.

 

[dad]

I use a uniform state to PREDICT all things, and what we observe matches those predictions. Therefore, we have evidence for a uniform state.

You do not predict all things, get a grip!

The predictions of the bible are known to have happened. The predictions that
"Galaxies will use up all the gas and dust for stars and go dark, perhaps becoming black holes. Those black holes will decay and maybe matter itself will decay into pure energy. The entire Universe will become a cold, quiet place.." are foolishness and death obsessed nonsense, that is directly opposed to the bible. You couldn't predict your way out of a paper bag. It really is that simple.

The map is not the territory.

Not that lunacy again! The map is bigger than the physical and earth and the present laws and state. Your map is about as valid as a map of Disneyland. Your territory ranks with that of an ant colony.

If the facts contradict the writings of man, then it is the writings of men that are wrong, not the facts.

The writings of man that have been called science falsely and wrongly contradict themselves, and are constantly needing a makeover. The writings from God have demonstrated power and bring life and happiness and peace and love and salvation. Your zombie predictions are not to be taken seriously. They bring death, and doubt, and despair, and doom and denial and delusion.

 

[Kylie]

Be honest, I do not do the same thing. That thing is precisely claiming science knows what state existed. That thing is claiming that the present nature and laws in action doing things like radioactive decay processes tell us that these processes always existed and are totally responsible for all the materials we see including all the daughter materials. This you do. Correct? Not me.

Oh rubbish. Of course it is the same thing.

Person A: "I make a particular extraordinary claim."
Person B: "I request evidence to support your claim."
Person A: "You can't prove that my claim is false, therefore it must be considered as a possibility."

I claim science does not know either way.

Science has a ton of evidence and it also has a lot of things which do not make any sense if your version is correct. You have never presented any evidence to support your position, nor have you shown how to explain the things which do not make sense under your idea.

How about you do one of these (preferably both) and then we'll talk.

I advocate looking at the record of Scripture. That is nothing like what you do actually. The future in the bible is totally unlike the future predicted by man's science, which is based on this current nature only! Science claims the universe will go dark, the sun also, because of present state earth law causes and imagined great time. That is all they ever do when speaking of the future or the far past...try to interpret how it was or will by solely by using this state as the big measure.

This I do not do, your point is utterly overthrown.

Yeah, and your source is deeply flawed and requires human interpretation. You've got nothing solid.

And you aren't able to overthrow anything when you dismiss it without even understanding it.

 

[Mainframes]

You do not predict all things, get a grip!

The predictions of the bible are known to have happened.

Which predictions are these then? And btw you cannot state predictions that arein one part of the bible and then come true later in that same bible. Anyone can write that.

 

[dad]

Of course it is the same thing.

Person A: "I make a particular extraordinary claim."
Person B: "I request evidence to support your claim."
Person A: "You can't prove that my claim is false, therefore it must be considered as a possibility."

Person A claims a certain nature by faith alone, and models the past based on that. You are person A. Person B looks at what God said, and interprets evidence accordingly, rather than in the outrageous godless methodology and philosophical way that person A insists that we all must do for no reason.

Science has a ton of evidence

Nonsense. We all have evidences, so called science merely assaults them with it's antichrist zombie belief system of death.

and it also has a lot of things which do not make any sense if your version is correct.

Must be tough having that sort of undefined mental anguish I guess. Probably such tormented thoughts would be caused by them being locked into a cultish belief system, where they allow only certain evil interpretations of things. Hard to diagnose exactly when you are so vague.

You have never presented any evidence to support your position,

God's position is a record that is unchallenged by man and his wisdom. No one can run off and check out the future (or far past) as to whether it is like God says. Obviously. Why pretend?? You are in absolutely no position to claim He is wrong! All the models of science, such as the future cold dark dead universe are based on demonic inspiration, and self imposed info lobotomy!

nor have you shown how to explain the things which do not make sense under your idea.

You have failed to name them! Top that!

How about you do one of these (preferably both) and then we'll talk.

How about you stop talking in vague circles?? Chose one side of your mouth, and go for it!

Yeah, and your source is deeply flawed and requires human interpretation. You've got nothing solid.

God requires no human interpretation. He gave us stuff we could interpret out of love and mercy.

And you aren't able to overthrow anything when you dismiss it without even understanding it.

I can see why you need to remain comically vague. Whatever you are specif about is easy to overthrow.

 

[dad]

Which predictions are these then? And btw you cannot state predictions that arein one part of the bible and then come true later in that same bible. Anyone can write that.

You cannot state that the record of Scripture is inferior or inadmissible. It is the best man has by far. God does not use any other. If you self lobotomize Scripture from what you chose to allow your little brain to accept, you will be left with precious little, and an inability to know what is true or false within that debris field of confused and garbled info circling around in a godless orbit in your head!

There are consequences for man when he leans on his own understanding.

 

[Loudmouth]

You do not predict all things, get a grip!

Things that have been predicted:

1. Ratios of different isotope pairs produce consilient dates using modern decay rates.

2. Presence and absence of nuclides based on their source and half life.

Both of those are accurate predictions. Therefore, they are evidence for a same state past.

The predictions of the bible are known to have happened.

As shown, your interpretation of the Bible can not explain the observations. You are wrong.

Not that lunacy again! The map is bigger than the physical and earth and the present laws and state.

Your map makes false predictions, therefore it is not accurate.