Taking questions of the Different state past (2)

[Loudmouth]

Don't present it to me, just present it and let it stand on it's own 2 feet.

You first.

Show us how a different state past is falsifiable. This is a thread where we are supposed to ask questions about a different state past. That is the quesiton. How is it falsifiable?

To use decay dates for example invokes a belief that there was decay, therefore our current laws.

So you are saying that we can't even propose a hypothesis about a same state past? We can't test for it?

He did. We saw Him, felt Him ate with Him witnessed His return from the dead, and fulfilling Scripture etc etc. None of this depends on you agreeing or disagreeing.

What's this "we" stuff. You weren't there.

Who cares what results one gets if one assigns imaginary time to ratios?? You might as well assign the ratios to the easter bunny.

If they are imaginary, why do they give the same times?

The decay came with this state, so whatever the stuff was doing in the former state doesn't matter, what matters is that is likely was here.

Of course it matters, since we are looking at the decay rates consistent with the past.

Why would this process produce ratios of U/Pb that match K/Ar ratios for ages? You still haven't explained this.

Wrong question. In other words why do meteors have more parent material?

You are changing the question because you can't answer the ones given to you. Here is the quesiton again:

Why would ALL meteors have a ratio of isotopes that are consistent with 4.5 billion years of modern decay rates? Don't give me a "whatever reason". Give me a reason.

Well, since you don't know where they came from, how far they have been, what they encountered out in space and etc etc...how in tarnation would we know? Why pretend?

We do know all of those things. You refuse to accept the eviedence.

What does this mean? Results of a pattern of daughter and parent material? Obviously because that pattern existed in the former state.

Why would it exist in the former state? Why would the former state cause several different isotope pairs produce the same radiometric age?

Why would rocks not have argon in them?

Because the argon escapes when they are liquid rocks. Ever heard of lava?

No. You predict based on present state laws and based on patterns we know exist for whatever reason. You need to prove your reason is the correct one since you claim it is a matter of science not belief.[/quoet]

The proof is in the consilience of the data, the fact that several independent isotope pairs give the same age. Here are multiple rocks with multiple different methodologies all giving the same results.

"There are several important things to note about these results. First, the Cretaceous and Tertiary periods were defined by geologists in the early 1800s. The boundary between these periods (the K-T boundary) is marked by an abrupt change in fossils found in sedimentary rocks worldwide. Its exact location in the stratigraphic column at any locality has nothing to do with radiometric dating — it is located by careful study of the fossils and the rocks that contain them, and nothing more. Second, the radiometric age measurements, 187 of them, were made on 3 different minerals and on glass by 3 distinctly different dating methods (K-Ar and 40Ar/39Ar are technical variations that use the same parent-daughter decay scheme), each involving different elements with different half-lives. Furthermore, the dating was done in 6 different laboratories and the materials were collected from 5 different locations in the Western Hemisphere. And yet the results are the same within analytical error. If radiometric dating didn’t work then such beautifully consistent results would not be possible."
Radiometric Dating Does Work! | NCSE

How do you explain the consilience of 187 different measurements across 3 different minerals and 3 distinctly different dating methods?

Any tests we do cannot help your belief any more than mine. None.

I do have the tests, the consilience of many independent dating methodologies.

I would have to be brain dead not to! Why would I limit God and history and the future and the far past to the present nature??? That is insane.

Why would you require God's word to contradict God's creation?

 

[dad]

Shall we have a poll to see which one of us presents ideas that are more sound and reasonable?

I do. There are so many strange cats posting here, with a fanatical desire to attack God and His word, that their opinion is worthless.

Now of the Christians that actually believe the bible, as in actually accept God really created Adam, and there really was a flood, etc....go ahead.

 

[dad]

You first.

Show us how a different state past is falsifiable. This is a thread where we are supposed to ask questions about a different state past. That is the quesiton. How is it falsifiable?

Long post part one of reply---

That is a tiny concept that applies to science, not to the actual truth. The truth cannot be false, God cannot lie. Falsification speaks to man's ability to know and test things. That is a salve we can apply on the blind folks who do not know how little they know, and who specialize in doubting God.

So you are saying that we can't even propose a hypothesis about a same state past? We can't test for it?

It was not you that told me about it. If you want to engage your brain in a positive way, maybe you could cook up some tests. However, you would have to work within the little confines of man's ability and knowledge. Science can't so much as detect spirits!!!!!! Science was born in this state, is wholly limited to it, totally concerned with only it, and utterly incapable of thinking beyond that box.

What's this "we" stuff. You weren't there.

We were there. God's people. We were there since ever there was a world or ever there will be one!

If they are imaginary, why do they give the same times?

Because they use time to describe patterns and ratios of stuff that was created, and are too ignorant and pig headed to admit it.

Of course it matters, since we are looking at the decay rates consistent with the past.

No, that is strictly a what if game. FIRST you need to know there was decay.

Why would this process produce ratios of U/Pb that match K/Ar ratios for ages? You still haven't explained this.

Doesn't matter. They were likely here already at the start of this present nature.

Why would ALL meteors have a ratio of isotopes that are consistent with 4.5 billion years of modern decay rates? Don't give me a "whatever reason". Give me a reason.

Why should we guess? Better to be honest. Possibly the meteors have not been on earth since the state change, so have ratios that may reflect that!!?

We do know all of those things. You refuse to accept the eviedence.

No you do not, and the evidence is not your tainted version of evidence.

Why would it exist in the former state? Why would the former state cause several different isotope pairs produce the same radiometric age?

Perhaps they were created that way, and/or were involved in another process in the former times.

Because the argon escapes when they are liquid rocks. Ever heard of lava?

In this state that may be true. How is that relevant to long ago??



end part 1

 

[Loudmouth]

Long post part one of reply---

That is a tiny concept that applies to science, not to the actual truth. The truth cannot be false, God cannot lie. Falsification speaks to man's ability to know and test things. That is a salve we can apply on the blind folks who do not know how little they know, and who specialize in doubting God.

So you are God now? You are saying that you can not lie?

I am asking how YOUR claims can be falsified.

It was not you that told me about it. If you want to engage your brain in a positive way, maybe you could cook up some tests. However, you would have to work within the little confines of man's ability and knowledge. Science can't so much as detect spirits!!!!!! Science was born in this state, is wholly limited to it, totally concerned with only it, and utterly incapable of thinking beyond that box.

I am asking you to work with facts instead of stuff you make up.

We were there. God's people. We were there since ever there was a world or ever there will be one!

You were not there.

Because they use time to describe patterns and ratios of stuff that was created, and are too ignorant and pig headed to admit it.

That doesn't explain why they give the same dates. Try again.

No, that is strictly a what if game. FIRST you need to know there was decay.

Already covered.

Radiohalo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Radiohalos are proof that there was decay.

Doesn't matter. They were likely here already at the start of this present nature.

They why would they give the same dates?

Why should we guess? Better to be honest. Possibly the meteors have not been on earth since the state change, so have ratios that may reflect that!!?

That doesn't explain why multiple different methods give the same dates. You still haven't explained the consilience between methods and the consilience between samples.

No you do not, and the evidence is not your tainted version of evidence.
Perhaps they were created that way, and/or were involved in another process in the former times.

Perhaps? That's all you have is a "perhaps"?

Sorry, but your different state fantasies do not refute direct observations.

In this state that may be true. How is that relevant to long ago??

It is relevant because all of the evidence indicates a same state past.

 

[Kylie]

I do. There are so many strange cats posting here, with a fanatical desire to attack God and His word, that their opinion is worthless.

Now of the Christians that actually believe the bible, as in actually accept God really created Adam, and there really was a flood, etc....go ahead.

You believe you do.

The trouble is you do not have the knowledge to realise that you are wrong. The people who have spent decades studying this stuff say otherwise, and they are more qualified than you.

Now, let me ask again, shall we have a poll to see what the other people here think?

 

[dad]

You believe you do.

The trouble is you do not have the knowledge to realise that you are wrong. The people who have spent decades studying this stuff say otherwise, and they are more qualified than you.

Now, let me ask again, shall we have a poll to see what the other people here think?

People regurgitate what they were fed by dumb evil birds. It is time we started thinking. You don't seem to be saying much, why call for a national referendum on it!?

 

[dad]

The proof is in the consilience of the data, the fact that several independent isotope pairs give the same age.

Making the same mistake because of your predetermined biases on more than one item doesn't mean anything...except you are slow to learn!

Here are multiple rocks with multiple different methodologies all giving the same results.

The patterns then show that there is more parent material in many rocks, which some fanatics want to pretend represents time.

"There are several important things to note about these results. First, the Cretaceous and Tertiary periods were defined by geologists in the early 1800s. The boundary between these periods (the K-T boundary) is marked by an abrupt change in fossils found in sedimentary rocks worldwide. Its exact location in the stratigraphic column at any locality has nothing to do with radiometric dating — it is located by careful study of the fossils and the rocks that contain them, and nothing more.

Bingo. So don't date it by your past decay belief system.

Second, the radiometric age measurements, 187 of them, were made on 3 different minerals and on glass by 3 distinctly different dating methods (K-Ar and 40Ar/39Ar are technical variations that use the same parent-daughter decay scheme), each involving different elements with different half-lives. Furthermore, the dating was done in 6 different laboratories and the materials were collected from 5 different locations in the Western Hemisphere. And yet the results are the same within analytical error. If radiometric dating didn’t work then such beautifully consistent results would not be possible."

There is more parent material, no dates. So??


You think we should be amazed that you attribute great time to a little parent and daughter material!?


Obviously, the pattern should exist across the board. Discerning what that pattern means is the issue.

How do you explain the consilience of 187 different measurements across 3 different minerals and 3 distinctly different dating methods?

I expect that a pattern of parent and daughter stuff exists. Since we entered this state, the daughter material is produced by the parent. That does not mean before this state existed that was the case. What are you unable to get??

I do have the tests, the consilience of many independent dating methodologies.

False. You have ONE. Same state past belief! Period. No more at all.

Why would you require God's word to contradict God's creation?

It doesn't. But it sure contradicts you.

 

[Kylie]

People regurgitate what they were fed by dumb evil birds. It is time we started thinking. You don't seem to be saying much, why call for a national referendum on it!?

First of all: dumb evil birds? This is an insult now? And anyway, if I started insulting religious people like this, I'd get in trouble. Why should you be allowed to insult people of science? Don't you have any manners? I haven't seen any.

Secondly, the fact that you came up with this idea all by yourself doesn't make it true.

Thirdly, it's hardly fair for you to be saying that I'm not saying much when I've actually provided evidence for my position and the best you can do is, "Well, you can't prove I'm wrong, so nyah!"

 

[dad]

First of all: dumb evil birds? This is an insult now? And anyway, if I started insulting religious people like this, I'd get in trouble. Why should you be allowed to insult people of science? Don't you have any manners? I haven't seen any.

If one uses how birds feed young, and compares that with a godless theory that is poison, like the theory of evolution, then the comparison is a good one. Something is being passed down that is deadly and not good. Your professors simply regurgitate what they are taught and handed down.

Secondly, the fact that you came up with this idea all by yourself doesn't make it true.

I didn't come up with it by myself. I looked at God's claims and record and compared that to man's.

Thirdly, it's hardly fair for you to be saying that I'm not saying much when I've actually provided evidence for my position and the best you can do is, "Well, you can't prove I'm wrong, so nyah!"

Which position?? That time mysteriously accelerated in the former state, but did not do so for all things equally?

 

[Kylie]

Which position?? That time mysteriously accelerated in the former state, but did not do so for all things equally?

Lovely. You call my claims "mysterious" to discredit them when I've actually attempted to explain how it could work, and yet you've never even tried to explain how your claims could work.

But anyway, I was talking about the radioactive decay. I've provided evidence for that. All you can do is proclaim it's all the most amazing coincidence in the universe.

 

[dad]

Lovely. You call my claims "mysterious" to discredit them when I've actually attempted to explain how it could work, and yet you've never even tried to explain how your claims could work.

Since God made the past how could it NOT work?? Your time acceleration theory needs work, it seems to me. You need to be able apply time whether accelerated or not to our solar system and world. You can't have mountains made at the same time as man being older.

But anyway, I was talking about the radioactive decay. I've provided evidence for that. All you can do is proclaim it's all the most amazing coincidence in the universe.

?? We all know there is radioactive decay! The issue is whether we had this state in the far past so we could have also had decay.

 

[Kylie]

Do you even think about what I say before you respond to it? I certainly haven't seen any signs you do.

 

[dad]

Do you even think about what I say before you respond to it? I certainly haven't seen any signs you do.

What you say and what you may mean could use a realignment. Don't blame others.

 

[Loudmouth]

Making the same mistake because of your predetermined biases on more than one item doesn't mean anything...except you are slow to learn!

You haven't shown that there are mistakes.

Until you can explain how a different state past can produce a consilience of dates from independent methods, then there is nothing else to discuss.

A same state past does explain the consilience. As you have demonstrated, a different state past can not explain it.

 

[Kylie]

What you say and what you may mean could use a realignment. Don't blame others.

No one else here seems to have trouble following what I say. You seem to deliberately misunderstand. I also use clear language and rephrase things in different ways. And you still don't get it.

Somehow, I don't think the fault here is mine.

 

[dad]

No one else here seems to have trouble following what I say. You seem to deliberately misunderstand. I also use clear language and rephrase things in different ways. And you still don't get it.

Somehow, I don't think the fault here is mine.

Another blabbering post that says nothing.

 

[dad]

You haven't shown that there are mistakes.

Well you assume our laws were here to cause decay in the far past in every single case. That conflicts with God. Now unless you first proved a same state past, then you are forcing your past state belief on all evidence, and that is a mistake.

Until you can explain how a different state past can produce a consilience of dates from independent methods, then there is nothing else to discuss.

The 'dates' are ratios. Period. The question becomes 'why did the created world have certain ratios, that were here when this present state started'? Science can't begin to explain that, and likely never even had the brains to ask the right question. All you do is USE THE PRESENT state to explain all things, which naturally requires imagining long ages to produce all we see BY decay!


There is absolutely no reason for any bible believer to accept any of your ratio to time so called dates! Only if they desire to believe based on nothing but faith, and to do so knowing God has other things to say about it.

 

[Kylie]

Another blabbering post that says nothing.

It says a lot. It says that you are incapable of understanding what I am saying. On the other hand, all you have done is make vague claims, avoided specifics and given no support.

 

[dad]

It says a lot. It says that you are incapable of understanding what I am saying. On the other hand, all you have done is make vague claims, avoided specifics and given no support.

YOu are saying nothing in many posts. The ones you attempted to say something, when I held them up to the fire a little to have a look at them, they tended to disappear. The time acceleration thing for example. As for proving any state of the past, science can't do it. That is clear. So what ideas are left of yours that you think are so neglected?

 

[Loudmouth]

Well you assume our laws were here to cause decay in the far past in every single case.

I assume no such thing. Scientists have set up experiments to test whether or not there was decay in the past, and the data from those experiments matches what we would expect to see from decay events in the past.

The problem is that you don't care what the data shows. You are the one making the assumption.

That conflicts with God.

You are not God, nor is the Bible.

The 'dates' are ratios. Period. The question becomes 'why did the created world have certain ratios, that were here when this present state started'? Science can't begin to explain that, and likely never even had the brains to ask the right question. All you do is USE THE PRESENT state to explain all things, which naturally requires imagining long ages to produce all we see BY decay!

Science can explain why completely independent dating methodologies give the same dates. The explanation is that isotopes decayed in the past, and at the same rates as we observe today.

There is absolutely no reason for any bible believer to accept any of your ratio to time so called dates! Only if they desire to believe based on nothing but faith, and to do so knowing God has other things to say about it.

I certainly can't force anyone to accept reality. All I can do is show that their beliefs require a rejection of facts, as you have done.