Taking questions of the Different state past (2)

[dad]

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.

Name one such experiment that tests whether there was decay? I don't believe you.

You are not God, nor is the Bible.

It may as well be God talking to you when you read the bible.

Science can explain why completely independent dating methodologies give the same dates.

No, they use a belief system only, all so called explanations are within that belief system. Period.

The explanation is that isotopes decayed in the past, and at the same rates as we observe today.

Baloney. Your belief is that.

 

[Loudmouth]

Name one such experiment that tests whether there was decay?

That test is consilience between different dating methodologies, as explained already.

From here:

"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. "

It may as well be God talking to you when you read the bible.

Why? Because you say so?

No, they use a belief system only, all so called explanations are within that belief system. Period.

The observed decay rates of isotopes is not a belief system. They are observations. The observed ratios of isotopes in rocks is not a belief system. The testable hypotheses used to test the accuracy of dating methods are not beliefs.

Baloney. Your belief is that.

All of the evidence is consistent with a same state past. All you can do is run away from it.

 

[Kylie]

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?

Rubbish. You either don't understand or choose to remain ignorant about what I'm saying. Don't blame me for your shortcomings.

 

[dad]

That test is consilience between different dating methodologies, as explained already.

Then you are ignomoniously defeated in a total way. You want to apply a same state belief to different elements and say they agree!!! What intellectual dishonesty!

"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.

Just as one would expect if that area was near the flood and state change.

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. We do not need your religious so called dating at all.

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.

Irrelevant in the extreme! You kidding?? Who cares about how long it now takes in this state for any particular element to decay?? You are missing the forest for the trees here. If the daughter materials of each were already here, none of that matters half a dam.

Furthermore, the dating was done in 6 different laboratories and the materials were collected from 5 different locations in the Western Hemisphere.

Who cares where they went to apply same state religious assumptions on things?? Totally irrelevant. What a silly shell game.

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. "

Results simply mean ratios. Of course ratios would have a pattern of having what is now daughter and parent material! Whoopee do. Your ONLY hope there is to prove unequivocally that the daughter materials could only have gotten there by radioactive decay! Good luck with that!

Why? Because you say so?

Because Jesus says so. He validated Scripture.

The observed decay rates of isotopes is not a belief system.

There are if you seek to claim they existed in the former state.

They are observations.

Only observed in this state!

The observed ratios of isotopes in rocks is not a belief system.

No, of course there is stuff in rocks. When you claim it all exists only because of theis present state and our laws, you drift off to la la land.

The testable hypotheses used to test the accuracy of dating methods are not beliefs.

Yes, 100 % belief. Of course. Unless you are talking about the recent past.

All of the evidence is consistent with a same state past. All you can do is run away from it.

NOTHING is consistent with your claimed past state, except a belief system that forces itself onto evidences and insists we accept a same state past cause!! Phooey! No way Hosea. Those days are long gone.

 

[Loudmouth]

Then you are ignomoniously defeated in a total way. You want to apply a same state belief to different elements and say they agree!!! What intellectual dishonesty!

False. I am predicting what the data will look like if there was a same state past. That prediction is that different INDEPENDENT isotope pairs will produce the same date. That turns out to be an accurate prediction.

You still can't explain why Rb/Sr dates agree with U/Pb and K/Ar dates. A same state past explains it perfectly.

Irrelevant in the extreme! You kidding?? Who cares about how long it now takes in this state for any particular element to decay?? You are missing the forest for the trees here. If the daughter materials of each were already here, none of that matters half a dam.

Why would the amount of daughter element for each isotope pair be at just the right ratios to produce the same dates using modern decay rates?

Why do we see the same ratio of K to Ar in all meteors, even though they differ for ratios of other non-radioactive elements such as Fe and Ni?

Who cares where they went to apply same state religious assumptions on things?? Totally irrelevant. What a silly shell game.

It is complete relevant. You need to explain why a supposedly flawed methodology produces consilient dates between multiple independent methodologies.

 

[Delphiki]

Bingo. We do not need your religious so called dating at all.

Quite telling that you use "religion" as a way to discredit a position as a religious person yourself.

Unfortunately for you, it doesn't work that way. Religion is a set of dogmatic beliefs, rituals and an assertion through faith in some higher power. Science is merely a method for understanding how the universe works.

Learn vocabulary or stop lying, whichever of these apply to you, depending on whether your feigning your ignorance or not.

 

[Delphiki]

Yes, 100 % belief. Of course. Unless you are talking about the recent past.

You'll have to define "recent" before you can begin discussion on how the difference between recent past and distant past are even relevant.

 

[dad]

False. I am predicting what the data will look like if there was a same state past. That prediction is that different INDEPENDENT isotope pairs will produce the same date. That turns out to be an accurate prediction.

That 'prediction' is merely observing ratios, and noting the pattern. I could 'predict' that trees will grow in a forest. Whooopee do.

You still can't explain why Rb/Sr dates agree with U/Pb and K/Ar dates.

Why so thick? Didn't you read how I said that they are not dates, but ratios? Yes, there is a measurably higher degree of what is now parent material. The only way that could possibly translate into dates is IF the past were the same. You must prove that before assuming and claiming it.


Once we realize your game it becomes pathetic to hear your claims.

Why would the amount of daughter element for each isotope pair be at just the right ratios to produce the same dates using modern decay rates?

The ratios only produce dates if we pretend that the daughter material all came about by decay and was not here already. Can you prove that?? Otherwise you have no case...no science...just religion. That is where you stand.

Why do we see the same ratio of K to Ar in all meteors, even though they differ for ratios of other non-radioactive elements such as Fe and Ni?

Why things that existed far from earth all or most of their lives happen to have somewhat different ratios of stuff that we find on earth is anybodies guess.

It is complete relevant. You need to explain why a supposedly flawed methodology produces consilient dates between multiple independent methodologies.

It produces NO dates. Get over it! It assigns dates to ratios in a religious declaration that the the daughter material all was created in this state, and that this state always existed!

 

[dad]

You'll have to define "recent" before you can begin discussion on how the difference between recent past and distant past are even relevant.

I have done that so many times I am surprised you missed it, or forgot it. Recent refers to the time this state existed, or about 4400 years aprox. (assuming the change came after the flood) Remember I am talking real years, not geo belief years! In real years for example, dinosaurs likely lived until about 5000 years ago.

example..

 

[dad]

Quite telling that you use "religion" as a way to discredit a position as a religious person yourself.

Actually I use it to denote antichrist belief. Godless beliefs. Science is commonly thought of as being more than religion or beliefs. The reason it stings to be exposed as a religion, for science is because IT has pretended to be something else.

For those with a blessed belief in Jesus and His creation, being called religious or a believer is NOT an insult.

Unfortunately for you, it doesn't work that way. Religion is a set of dogmatic beliefs, rituals and an assertion through faith in some higher power. Science is merely a method for understanding how the universe works.

So called science is a set of dogmas, fables, and fanatical ritualistic methodologies.

Learn vocabulary or stop lying, whichever of these apply to you, depending on whether your feigning your ignorance or not.

You stand corrected, so cork your little false accusations.

 

[Delphiki]

Actually I use it to denote antichrist belief. Godless beliefs. Science is commonly thought of as being more than religion or beliefs. The reason it stings to be exposed as a religion, for science is because IT has pretended to be something else.

For those with a blessed belief in Jesus and His creation, being called religious or a believer is NOT an insult.

So called science is a set of dogmas, fables, and fanatical ritualistic methodologies. You stand corrected, so cork your little false accusations.

Point out the dogma, fable, and fanatical ritual in the diagram below...

I stand corrected, but not by you. Your lies are exposed. It's clear that nobody here believes your nonsense. I was corrected long ago. You, however, have fallen, defeated.

 

[Loudmouth]

That 'prediction' is merely observing ratios, and noting the pattern.

Yes, and the same state past predicts that we will see those patterns. That is known as a supported hypothesis, and it makes the consilient ages from 3 independent dating methodologies evidence for a same state past.

Why so thick? Didn't you read how I said that they are not dates, but ratios?

Why are the ratios of these 3 different independent isotope pairs (Rb/Sr, K/Ar, U/Pb) consistent with 65 million years of decay at current rates in rocks found at the K/T boundary? A same state past explains it. A different state past does not. Therefore, the consilience between these ratios is evidence for a same state past.

Yes, there is a measurably higher degree of what is now parent material. The only way that could possibly translate into dates is IF the past were the same. You must prove that before assuming and claiming it.

The consilience between the ratios is that evidence.

The ratios only produce dates if we pretend that the daughter material all came about by decay and was not here already. Can you prove that?? Otherwise you have no case...no science...just religion. That is where you stand.

The consilience between the ratios does prove it.

Why things that existed far from earth all or most of their lives happen to have somewhat different ratios of stuff that we find on earth is anybodies guess.

We don't have to guess.

It produces NO dates. Get over it!

They do produce dates. You get over it!!!

 

[Loudmouth]

Actually I use it to denote antichrist belief.

Dad has now labeled the scientific method as an antichrist belief. Wonderful.

 

[justlookinla]

Actually I use it to denote antichrist belief. Godless beliefs. Science is commonly thought of as being more than religion or beliefs. The reason it stings to be exposed as a religion, for science is because IT has pretended to be something else.

For those with a blessed belief in Jesus and His creation, being called religious or a believer is NOT an insult.

So called science is a set of dogmas, fables, and fanatical ritualistic methodologies. You stand corrected, so cork your little false accusations.

The antichrist spirit will always produce antichrist beliefs. Without exception.

 

[Loudmouth]

The antichrist spirit will always produce antichrist beliefs. Without exception.

Are you also a believer in the scientific method being the antichrist?

 

[Mr Strawberry]

The antichrist spirit will always produce antichrist beliefs. Without exception.

What a cartoon world you live in.

 

[justlookinla]

Point out the dogma, fable, and fanatical ritual in the diagram below...

I stand corrected, but not by you. Your lies are exposed. It's clear that nobody here believes your nonsense. I was corrected long ago. You, however, have fallen, defeated.

The dogma, fable and fanatical ritual of the Godless creationists who teach that mankind is the result of only naturalistic mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago is exposed by the diagram and the faith-based belief that random, mindless, meaningless, purposeless (other than procreation) and directionless mechanisms created the infinitely complex universe, the infinitely complex life we observe today is quickly shown to be a farce by your diagram also.

 

[justlookinla]

What a cartoon world you live in.

What an antichrist world you live in.

 

[justlookinla]

Are you also a believer in the scientific method being the antichrist?

I'm a believer that that anything which agrees with the scriptural definition of antichrist is antichrist.

 

[Loudmouth]

I'm a believer that that anything which agrees with the scriptural definition of antichrist is antichrist.

Keep digging.

Need a shovel?