Taking questions of the Different state past (2)

[dad]

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

So when 'time got accelerated' for mankind it was not the same as for rocks, which apparently got accelerated billions of years in your belief system?

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

Eternal life is not metaphorical. When Jesus said I am with you always, He did not mean anything but we shall really be with Him always. He went to prepare a place for us.

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

Hey, who knows? To know that one would need to know the laws that were extant...do you? If there was it was noting like today, because we know the rates.

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.

The point is that just like you will not see Aesop's fables now, neither will you see the future. The lions in the future will eat grass, that doesn't mean they do now.

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?

Transparent is not it's natural state in this nature, obviously. You asked for specs in a different state, and it is transparent naturally there.

 

[Loudmouth]

Apparently you don't know what evidence is.

Then tell me what it would be. What evidence should we see if the past state were the same as today's state?

 

[Loudmouth]

Put it this way you have shown none yet.

Based on what criteria? How do you determine if something is evidence of a same state past?

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

Zircons in Australia have dated to over 4 billion years old.

Oldest dated rocks - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It seems that we have just found the evidence you are looking for. We have rocks that have dates beyond your proposed global flood 4,000 years ago.

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.

How would a change in state cause Rb/Sr, U/Pb, and K/Ar ages to all agree with each other for rocks that date to billions of years old?

Please explain that.

It seems to me you need THIS state to have any decay, no?

If that were the case, then none of the rocks would date to older than 4,000 years old. They date to billions of years old. Your claim is falsified.

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.

Since we have rocks with billions of years of decay in them, then the current state has been around for billions of years. Not that hard to figure out.

 

[dad]

Then tell me what it would be. What evidence should we see if the past state were the same as today's state?

You not only don't know what it is, but offer none. You ask us to inform you what it might look somewhat like!? Get a grip.

 

[dad]

Based on what criteria?

Based on the criteria that if you offer something, it must be known, or at least not just a matter of sullying things with your religious beliefs you like to call science, to make it appear nice.

How do you determine if something is evidence of a same state past?

The question is how do I determine? God's word. There is not a same state past in there at all. So prove there was one or lose it.

Zircons in Australia have dated to over 4 billion years old.

No, they have ratios that 'would take a long time to produce if they were not already there to begin with at the onset of this state.

It seems that we have just found the evidence you are looking for. We have rocks that have dates beyond your proposed global flood 4,000 years ago.

The rocks may be as much as 1700 years older, but that cannot be determined by your religious tainting of evidences.

How would a change in state cause Rb/Sr, U/Pb, and K/Ar ages to all agree with each other for rocks that date to billions of years old?

Ratios do not equal time. The only question is why there is more parent material. You simply assign time to materials.

Naturally you assign great time, since there is a lot of what is now daughter material but this was likely already here...not caused by decay...except since this state began, maybe 4500 years ago or whatever.

If that were the case, then none of the rocks would date to older than 4,000 years old. They date to billions of years old. Your claim is falsified.

Yes, if daughter material was there already your religious method is useless. It is belief based because you cannot prove the state of the past was as this present state, yet you believe it was. Religious twaddle.


Peddle your religion elsewhere.

 

[Loudmouth]

Based on the criteria that if you offer something, it must be known, or at least not just a matter of sullying things with your religious beliefs you like to call science, to make it appear nice.

What criteria do you use to determine if something is known?

I can't give you the evidence you are asking for if you can't define what you are asking for. What would constitute evidence that the past was the same as the present?

The question is how do I determine? God's word.

Then why ask for evidence if you are going to reject any and all evidence that contradicts what you consider to be the words of God?

There is not a same state past in there at all. So prove there was one or lose it.

What evidence, if found, would prove it? You can't tell me to support a hypothesis if you are unwilling to spell out the hypothesis.

No, they have ratios that 'would take a long time to produce if they were not already there to begin with at the onset of this state.

How did they get there? What was the process that put Pb in zircons? What process put the same ratio of K/Ar in every single meteor? Why would this process put specific ratios of K/Ar, Rb/Sr, and U/Pb in rocks so that they produce the same measurements of age using modern decay rates?

The rocks may be as much as 1700 years older, but that cannot be determined by your religious tainting of evidences.

What makes them religious?

Ratios do not equal time.

Then please explain how they all give the same dates if they aren't there because of long time periods.

The only question is why there is more parent material. You simply assign time to materials.

I assign time to the amount of daughter product captured in the rock.

Naturally you assign great time, since there is a lot of what is now daughter material but this was likely already here...not caused by decay...except since this state began, maybe 4500 years ago or whatever.

What makes that likely? Where is your evidence?

Yes, if daughter material was there already your religious method is useless. It is belief based because you cannot prove the state of the past was as this present state, yet you believe it was. Religious twaddle.

The religious belief appears to be the belief that the daughter product was already there.

 

[Loudmouth]

You not only don't know what it is, but offer none. You ask us to inform you what it might look somewhat like!? Get a grip.

You don't offer a falsifiable hypothesis. That makes your claims of a different state past a religion.

 

[Kylie]

So when 'time got accelerated' for mankind it was not the same as for rocks, which apparently got accelerated billions of years in your belief system?

Stop jumping to conclusions. Time was accelerated the same for EVERYTHING.

Eternal life is not metaphorical. When Jesus said I am with you always, He did not mean anything but we shall really be with Him always. He went to prepare a place for us.

Irrelevant to our discussion. I am not talking about the passages that speak of eternal life. I am speaking of the passages which (allegedly) speak of a different state past.

Hey, who knows? To know that one would need to know the laws that were extant...do you? If there was it was noting like today, because we know the rates.

So if you accept that it is possible, why do you try so hard to show it could not be?

The point is that just like you will not see Aesop's fables now, neither will you see the future. The lions in the future will eat grass, that doesn't mean they do now.

There's no such thing as magic. However, the Harry Potter series of books (set between 1991 and 1998) shows that magic is real. Since magic was real in those years and yet isn't magic now, then there must have been a state change sometime between 1998 and the present day.

Transparent is not it's natural state in this nature, obviously. You asked for specs in a different state, and it is transparent naturally there.

Yes, transparent IS its natural state! It is perfectly easy to make gold transparent today! Now different state laws are required! Stop denying reality!

 

[dad]

What criteria do you use to determine if something is known?

Don't you know how to tell if something is known!?

I can't give you the evidence you are asking for if you can't define what you are asking for. What would constitute evidence that the past was the same as the present?

When you can define evidence get back to us. Remember, you need to forget trying to define it by your godless same state past religion.

Then why ask for evidence if you are going to reject any and all evidence that contradicts what you consider to be the words of God?

Your attempts at evidence have been presenting same state past belief based takes on evidence NOT evidence itself.

What evidence, if found, would prove it? You can't tell me to support a hypothesis if you are unwilling to spell out the hypothesis.

God is not a hypothesis, He is known. It is no hypothesis that Christ came.

How did they get there? What was the process that put Pb in zircons?

Creation is not a process is it? A process comes after something starts to exist! Pretty basic stuff that.

What process put the same ratio of K/Ar in every single meteor?

Where did the meteor come from? You don't even know that. There are several hypothesis we could use, but we don't know. What we know is that, for whatever reason, the ratios of certain isotopes in meteors tend to be in a pattern where the parent material is greater than the daughter material. That is similar to rocks on earth, but since we get a little more parent stuff in meteors, all that remains is to know what happened in time and apace that caused that effect! Science doesn't know. Period. They try to pull their usual religious nonsense on meteors also of course, like a one trick pony, that is all they know! "Let's impose the same state past belief on everything'!! Not impressive once we are onto them.

Why would this process put specific ratios of K/Ar, Rb/Sr, and U/Pb in rocks so that they produce the same measurements of age using modern decay rates?

The process need not have put it there! You don't know.

What makes them religious?

Being belief based and ritualistically methodical about it.

Then please explain how they all give the same dates if they aren't there because of long time periods.

Because maybe creation saw rocks starting off with some ratio mostly.

I assign time to the amount of daughter product captured in the rock.

Thanks for admitting that! The reason you do is your same state past religion. You assume our forces and laws were here doing what they do here and now. End of story. That is the name of your game.

What makes that likely? Where is your evidence?

God makes things likely. The fact you can't prove your required same state past makes it likely it is nonsense too.

The religious belief appears to be the belief that the daughter product was already there.

Either way it is belief. So cease calling your beliefs science.

 

[dad]

You don't offer a falsifiable hypothesis. That makes your claims of a different state past a religion.

A belief. Let's see you falsify your same state past?

 

[dad]

Stop jumping to conclusions. Time was accelerated the same for EVERYTHING.

Easy to say. How would some things appear older than other things if they were created at the same time?

Irrelevant to our discussion. I am not talking about the passages that speak of eternal life. I am speaking of the passages which (allegedly) speak of a different state past.

Adam had eternal life available. The future is the key to the past, and was eerily similar. In the Millennium man will live many many centuries once more, for example. You can't have that with our physics.

So if you accept that it is possible, why do you try so hard to show it could not be?

To be or not to be, that is the question...and the answer is that whatever it was could not be how it is now.

There's no such thing as magic.

False. Of course there is magic. That is just a word to denote things beyond the small range of scientific ability to comprehend.

Yes, transparent IS its natural state! It is perfectly easy to make gold transparent today! Now different state laws are required! Stop denying reality!

[/QUOTE] Buy some gold, or find some in a creek. You really think it is transparent? Get a grip.

 

[Loudmouth]

Don't you know how to tell if something is known!?

I do. I am asking how you do it. I want to present evidence that will convince YOU, so I need to know the criteria you use to determine what is and isn't evidence.

When you can define evidence get back to us. Remember, you need to forget trying to define it by your godless same state past religion.

Will you accept my definition of what would evidence a same state past? If not, then YOU need to supply the definition.

Your attempts at evidence have been presenting same state past belief based takes on evidence NOT evidence itself.

How so?

God is not a hypothesis, He is known. It is no hypothesis that Christ came.

Prove it.

Creation is not a process is it? A process comes after something starts to exist! Pretty basic stuff that.

Are you saying that these rocks were created such that the K/Ar, U/Pb, and Rb/Sr ratios would produce the same ages when using modern decay rates? Are you saying that these rocks were also created with all of the decay chain isotopes in secular equilibrium?

Why would this be the case?

Where did the meteor come from? You don't even know that. There are several hypothesis we could use, but we don't know. What we know is that, for whatever reason, the ratios of certain isotopes in meteors tend to be in a pattern where the parent material is greater than the daughter material. That is similar to rocks on earth, but since we get a little more parent stuff in meteors, all that remains is to know what happened in time and apace that caused that effect! Science doesn't know. Period. They try to pull their usual religious nonsense on meteors also of course, like a one trick pony, that is all they know! "Let's impose the same state past belief on everything'!! Not impressive once we are onto them.

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.

The process need noot have put it there! You don't know.

Then explain why we get such consistent results from different isotope pairs.

Being belief based and ritualistically methodical about it.

You are the one inventing beliefs, such as rocks being created with argon already in them.

Because maybe creation saw rocks starting off with some ratio mostly.

Maybe? Do you have something other than religion?

You assume our forces and laws were here doing what they do here and now. End of story. That is the name of your game.

That is false. We predict what we should see in rocks if the past were the same as the present, and then we test those predictions. That is what makes it scientific and not religious.

You, on the other hand, can not produce any predictions or tests. That is what makes your claims religious.

God makes things likely. The fact you can't prove your required same state past makes it likely it is nonsense too.

You are the one invoking the supernatural, not I.

 

[Kylie]

Easy to say. How would some things appear older than other things if they were created at the same time?

Ah, but if time was accelerated, then things that were created only a few seconds apart from our point of view would indeed be vastly different ages.

Adam had eternal life available. The future is the key to the past, and was eerily similar. In the Millennium man will live many many centuries once more, for example. You can't have that with our physics.

And we aren't talking about eternal life, we are talking about a DSP. Stay on topic.

To be or not to be, that is the question...and the answer is that whatever it was could not be how it is now.

Except you admit that it could be. You don't even know what your own ideas are. You just want to disagree. Perhaps because you want to see yourself as the guy who is not believed, even though he has all the answers.

False. Of course there is magic. That is just a word to denote things beyond the small range of scientific ability to comprehend.

Did you even read what I wrote? I doubt it.

Buy some gold, or find some in a creek. You really think it is transparent? Get a grip.

In thin enough layers it certainly is!

 

[dad]

I do. I am asking how you do it. I want to present evidence that will convince YOU, so I need to know the criteria you use to determine what is and isn't evidence.

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

Will you accept my definition of what would evidence a same state past? If not, then YOU need to supply the definition.

That depends if you get up the guts to actually define it.

How so?

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

Prove 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.

Are you saying that these rocks were created such that the K/Ar, U/Pb, and Rb/Sr ratios would produce the same ages when using modern decay rates?

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

Are you saying that these rocks were also created with all of the decay chain isotopes in secular equilibrium?

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. Where else would it come from?

Why would this be the case?

The world was created complete with stuff in rocks.

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.

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

Then explain why we get such consistent results from different isotope pairs.

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

You are the one inventing beliefs, such as rocks being created with argon already in them.

Why would rocks not have argon in them?

Maybe? Do you have something other than religion?

Diesn't matter if we believe God, the issue on a science forum is that those poor silly folks who don't and claim science need to prove it.

That is false. We predict what we should see in rocks if the past were the same as the present, and then we test those predictions. That is what makes it scientific and not religious.

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.

You, on the other hand, can not produce any predictions or tests. That is what makes your claims religious.

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

You are the one invoking the supernatural, not I.

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.

 

[dad]

Ah, but if time was accelerated, then things that were created only a few seconds apart from our point of view would indeed be vastly different ages.

Good point. However, since it was all created in one week, no vastness of time is involved. If you were saying the mountains were a few days older than man, that would be OK. Some mountains are younger than man.

And we aren't talking about eternal life, we are talking about a DSP. Stay on topic.

Adam was in the former state, remember. He is also in the coming one I assume. You do realize man lives on after his body dies??

Except you admit that it could be. You don't even know what your own ideas are. You just want to disagree. Perhaps because you want to see yourself as the guy who is not believed, even though he has all the answers.

I do not need to know the specs of the former and future states. I have no reason to assume any decay, since decay is caused by our present laws! Do you have reason?

In thin enough layers it certainly is!

Come on now, buy a gold coin and have a good look at it. You can't see through it. Let's be honest about what we are talking about, a different nature and gold being like glass in that it is transparent. The issue is not if we concoct a thin enough layer and blah blah..gold could be made to sort of look transparent in this state.

 

[Kylie]

Good point. However, since it was all created in one week, no vastness of time is involved. If you were saying the mountains were a few days older than man, that would be OK. Some mountains are younger than man.

One week from God's point of view. It could have been billions of years from the point of view of the things he was creating!

Adam was in the former state, remember. He is also in the coming one I assume. You do realize man lives on after his body dies??

Not women? Only men? What will all the men do when all the girls are gone?

I do not need to know the specs of the former and future states. I have no reason to assume any decay, since decay is caused by our present laws! Do you have reason?

How do you know that the laws that cause decay in the present state weren't also in effect in some form in the past state? Gravity was, after all! Why not decay?

Come on now, buy a gold coin and have a good look at it. You can't see through it. Let's be honest about what we are talking about, a different nature and gold being like glass in that it is transparent. The issue is not if we concoct a thin enough layer and blah blah..gold could be made to sort of look transparent in this state.

Ah, so making a bit of gold thin is not possible in the present state? What do you think MALLEABILITY is? You are really making yourself look silly when you make such basic mistakes as this!

 

[dad]

One week from God's point of view. It could have been billions of years from the point of view of the things he was creating!

No, Plants were made a few days before the sun. You think plants can live many billions of years without the sun!?

Not women? Only men? What will all the men do when all the girls are gone?

Man includes woman in the context of saying man lives on.

How do you know that the laws that cause decay in the present state weren't also in effect in some form in the past state? Gravity was, after all! Why not decay?

Gravity was? Prove it. I see no reason to claim to know if you don't.

Do you think they really know exactly what causes a force to exist in the nuclear realm? They know how it works to some degree, like at what distance a force becomes repulsive or attracts, or ceases to much matter, etc. But what if we add a spiritual element? What would that do to the atom, or parts of it?
Even within physics, apparently, they learn more and more over time how what they thought they knew was incomplete and can be affected by something else. One example might be this--

"The fundamental strong interaction does exhibit such behaviour, the most important example being the stability experimentally observed for the helium-3 isotope, which can be described as a 3-body quantum cluster entity of two protons and one neutron [PNP] in stable superposition. Direct evidence of a 3-body force in helium-3 is known: [1]. The existence of stable [PNP] cluster calls into question models of the atomic nucleus that restrict nucleon interactions within shells to 2-body phenomenon."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-body_force

Ah, so making a bit of gold thin is not possible in the present state?

Doesn't matter. Gold is not see through here naturally. No one is asking what we can do to gold in a lab or whatever. Don't try to pretend that was an issue.

 

[Kylie]

Yeah, you're just looking for excuses to disagree. You aren't interested in actual discussion, are you?

 

[dad]

Yeah, you're just looking for excuses to disagree. You aren't interested in actual discussion, are you?

That depends if it is sound of mind and reasoned. As for a time acceleration in Adam's day, it would need to affect animals and man and all things created that week the same way. We can't have different ages.

 

[Kylie]

That depends if it is sound of mind and reasoned. As for a time acceleration in Adam's day, it would need to affect animals and man and all things created that week the same way. We can't have different ages.

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