Taking questions of the Different state past (2)

[dad]

So you require every hypothesis to have Jesus in it before you will accept it?

Yes! Otherwise it is ignorant death propaganda.


Godless disinformation.

 

[Loudmouth]

Nothing is predicted except that which is based on patterns already observed.

They weren't already observed. The matching ratios for different isotope pairs was predicted before they were observed.

If you notice that the ratios of creation tend to be such as that there is more of the one material than the other (what is now daughter and parent isotopes) it is no great feat to 'predict that we will see more parent isotope in several different materials!!!!!!!!! That has nothing to do with your zombie religion that many still call science.

You can have more of one isotope than the other and not have a match for multiple isotope pairs.

False. Creation produced the earth and universe complete with many rocks, water, and etc. No one can explain why.

We can explain why different isotope pairs produce the same age. It is because the past state was the same as the present.

Why not? Why would God not create stuff the way He did?? Try to grow intelligent questions.

Try to give intelligent answers. Why would God create rocks so that different isotope pairs give the same age using modern decay rates?

 

[dad]

They weren't already observed. The matching ratios for different isotope pairs was predicted before they were observed.

As I pointed out, once we see the pattern of how God created stuff, how hard is it to 'predict' that the pattern would extend throughout much of creation!?? You can't simply clue into some of the patterns of creation and then try to usurp credit for it all, and ask us to worship your little religion, to which you give credit!!

You can have more of one isotope than the other and not have a match for multiple isotope pairs.

Example...that pertains to the far past?

We can explain why different isotope pairs produce the same age. It is because the past state was the same as the present.

No, it is because you obsess over calling the creation ratios 'ages'!!

Try to give intelligent answers. Why would God create rocks so that different isotope pairs give the same age using modern decay rates?

No ages are given (save those from up to about 4400 years ago when the state likely changed). Period. You call ratios ages. The question becomes 'Why did God create things with a pattern of ratios'?

 

[Loudmouth]

As I pointed out, once we see the pattern of how God created stuff, how hard is it to 'predict' that the pattern would extend throughout much of creation!?? You can't simply clue into some of the patterns of creation and then try to usurp credit for it all, and ask us to worship your little religion, to which you give credit!!

The pattern was predicted before it was observed.

Example...that pertains to the far past?

You can have more K than Ar and get a date of 100 million years.

You can have more Rb than Sr and get a date of 50 million years.

You can have more U than Pb and get a date of 25 million years.

Having more of one than the other does not guarantee that they will all produce the same dates.

No, it is because you obsess over calling the creation ratios 'ages'!!

You asked for this evidence. Why do you run away from the evidence you asked for?

No ages are given (save those from up to about 4400 years ago when the state likely changed). Period. You call ratios ages. The question becomes 'Why did God create things with a pattern of ratios'?

The ratios tell us the age.

What you need to explain is why God would carefully balance the ratios of all of these isotope pairs so that they would give the same age based on modern decay rates.

 

[dad]

The pattern was predicted before it was observed.

In your own words, tell us what was predicted about what. You see if some 'age' was predicted, that simply means a ratio was predicted. If one saw a pattern of more or less isotopes in stuff, it is natural that we would 'predict' that the pattern applied to other stuff also created!

You can have more K than Ar and get a date of 100 million years.

You can have more Rb than Sr and get a date of 50 million years.

You can have more U than Pb and get a date of 25 million years.

Not years but small amounts of isotopes. You want to claim that all daughter isotopes came into existence not by being created, but by the present state processes of radioactive decay! Admit it.

Having more of one than the other does not guarantee that they will all produce the same dates.

There are no dates. Dates are a religious term you use to describe created stuff. Created stuff came created a certain way. That means patterns.

The ratios tell us the age.

Now, now, don't get religious on us.

What you need to explain is why God would carefully balance the ratios of all of these isotope pairs so that they would give the same age based on modern decay rates.

Ages are a figment of your imagination, based on attributing the wonderful creation of God Almighty to mere current state processes. Shame. Give God the glory, He won't share it with dead zombi science.

 

[Loudmouth]

In your own words, tell us what was predicted about what.

It was predicted that multiple isotope pairs would produce the same dates using modern decay rates.

Not years but small amounts of isotopes. You want to claim that all daughter isotopes came into existence not by being created, but by the present state processes of radioactive decay! Admit it.

The consilience between multiple isotope pairs demonstrates that the daughter isotopes did come into being due to decay over long time periods. That is the evidence.

There are no dates. Dates are a religious term you use to describe created stuff. Created stuff came created a certain way. That means patterns.

The evidence demonstrates otherwise.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

Never had a drunk say that to me actually. Work on that parable thing.

I don't see atoms, but I do not find it is needed to claim they do not exist. I do not see love, but I see it reflected in the creatures of God. I do not see you, but I do not feel I need to send a drone to your place and take pictures.

As I said, you lack the tools necessary to examine your own experiences critically.

 

[DerelictJunction]

How did the junk DNA of the 60s turn out. Not very well, did it?

I am not familiar with the claims about junk DNA in the 1960's. However, even if they were incorrect, that doesn't make them lies.
Do you even know what a lie is? Would you tell a student who gets an answer wrong that they are lying?

Strangely, you accuse the majority of scientists in the world of lying because you don't believe their conclusions are correct. On top of that, you haven't even attempted to show that their conclusions are incorrect. You just make an unevidenced claim and then label the scientific community as a bunch of liars.
And you have the gall to complain about someone pointing out, with evidence, your purposeful duplicity.

You're placing your faith in the ever changing shifting sands of scienceism/evolutionism. Just don't expect me to do it.

I cannot perform heart surgery on my wife; I trust a doctor to do that because she is trained to do so. I don't go to a homeopathic expert or a plumber.
At some point you have to trust someone because in this world we cannot do everything that is required to live in this complex society. I trust the people who are educated rather than those who are not.

If you don't trust science, why do you depend on it so much?

Do you take medicines? Why do that if God is the determiner of the length of your life?
Do you use a refrigerator? Why? Won't God provide the fresh food you need?

 

[dad]

It was predicted that multiple isotope pairs would produce the same dates using modern decay rates.

Thanks for admitting that. So we see that zombie science merely reads the creation patterns and tries to take credit somehow.

The consilience between multiple isotope pairs demonstrates that the daughter isotopes did come into being due to decay over long time periods. That is the evidence.

Not at all. Creation patterns signify nothing of the morbid religious sort.

The evidence demonstrates otherwise.

The evidence is bigger than the dead pool you thought it had to exist in.

 

[dad]

As I said, you lack the tools necessary to examine your own experiences critically.

We'd need a mortician to separate the godless belief from the corpse of so called science claims.

 

[Loudmouth]

Thanks for admitting that. So we see that zombie science merely reads the creation patterns and tries to take credit somehow.

That is not what I said. Please try to be honest.

The prediction of what the patterns would be were made before they were measured.

Not at all. Creation patterns signify nothing of the morbid religious sort.

We need more than a flat denial. Please explain why this is not evidence.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

We'd need a mortician to separate the godless belief from the corpse of so called science claims.

You've forgotten what prompted my comment, haven't you. Poor old dad.

 

[justlookinla]

I am not familiar with the claims about junk DNA in the 1960's. However, even if they were incorrect, that doesn't make them lies.
Do you even know what a lie is? Would you tell a student who gets an answer wrong that they are lying?

Strangely, you accuse the majority of scientists in the world of lying because you don't believe their conclusions are correct. On top of that, you haven't even attempted to show that their conclusions are incorrect. You just make an unevidenced claim and then label the scientific community as a bunch of liars.
And you have the gall to complain about someone pointing out, with evidence, your purposeful duplicity.


I cannot perform heart surgery on my wife; I trust a doctor to do that because she is trained to do so. I don't go to a homeopathic expert or a plumber.
At some point you have to trust someone because in this world we cannot do everything that is required to live in this complex society. I trust the people who are educated rather than those who are not.

If you don't trust science, why do you depend on it so much?

Do you take medicines? Why do that if God is the determiner of the length of your life?
Do you use a refrigerator? Why? Won't God provide the fresh food you need?

My trust is first and foremost in God, with science being a very distant second.

The junk DNA example is just an indicator that 'scientists' do offer views which aren't true, but those who embrace scienceism will always accept them as true. Evolution is one of those scienceism beliefs which began changing almost immediately after the errors of Darwinism were found. Bottom line, we cannot trust the 'truth' of Godless evolution for Darwinism has been replaced with neo-Darwinism and changes and adjustments are always being made, thus the junk DNA scienceism debacle.

The wishy washy, true today, not true tomorrow character of Darwinist creative evolution, and it's children, isn't something to place one's trust in.

 

[Loudmouth]

The junk DNA example is just an indicator that 'scientists' do offer views which aren't true,

Peer reviewed references please.

 

[justlookinla]

Peer reviewed references please.

Yep, start the peer reviewed dance. Next, get down with the 'lying creationist sites' dance.

Junk DNA ain't what it used to be.

 

[DerelictJunction]

My trust is first and foremost in God, with science being a very distant second.

Then why take medicine or go to see doctors. Aren't hospitals unnecessary for you?

The junk DNA example is just an indicator that 'scientists' do offer views which aren't true, but those who embrace scienceism will always accept them as true.

You've shown nothing about junk DNA except your assertion that it is no longer considered junk. Evidence is necessary, preferably from a scientific research paper or record.

Evolution is one of those scienceism beliefs which began changing almost immediately after the errors of Darwinism were found.

Then you believe that once science draws a conclusion that it should stick to its guns regardless of what the evidence shows? Looks like that throws your complaint about the "truth" of junk DNA right into the dustbin. Following your logic, medicine would still be using bloodletting to treat the common cold.

Bottom line, we cannot trust the 'truth' of Godless evolution for Darwinism has been replaced with neo-Darwinism and changes and adjustments are always being made, thus the junk DNA scienceism debacle.

Bottom line is that science and scientists do what seems to be an anathema to you....learn from the mistakes of the past. Conclusions change as more information is learned.
Example:
New DNA evidence shows the person convicted of rape was not the person who committed the crime.
US court's response: Absolve the person of the crime and release him.
Justlookinla's response: The conclusion cannot be changed, let him rot in jail.

The wishy washy, true today, not true tomorrow character of Darwinist creative evolution, and it's children, isn't something to place one's trust in.

Strangely, you continue to trust and use things developed using that same strategy of changing what is "true" based on new discoveries.
Do you take medicines? Why should you? Science didn't think those medicines were "true" treatments 100 years ago. How can you trust that wishy-washy science so much?

Every single day you undermine your argument against scientific conclusions by using technology that was developed using the same methodology and the same true-today-may-not-be-true-tomorrow mentality that results in those conclusions.

Either your argument is erroneous or you are a hypocrite.

 

[justlookinla]

Then why take medicine or go to see doctors. Aren't hospitals unnecessary for you?

I do both. Works very well for me.

You've shown nothing about junk DNA except your assertion that it is no longer considered junk. Evidence is necessary, preferably from a scientific research paper or record.

Start the peer reviewed dance. And a one, and a two!!

Then you believe that once science draws a conclusion that it should stick to its guns regardless of what the evidence shows? Looks like that throws your complaint about the "truth" of junk DNA right into the dustbin. Following your logic, medicine would still be using bloodletting to treat the common cold.

Wishy washy scienceism is always changing. Be aware, what's true today for you many very well not be true tomorrow in the religion of scienceism.

Bottom line is that science and scientists do what seems to be an anathema to you....learn from the mistakes of the past. Conclusions change as more information is learned.
Example:
New DNA evidence shows the person convicted of rape was not the person who committed the crime.
US court's response: Absolve the person of the crime and release him.
Justlookinla's response: The conclusion cannot be changed, let him rot in jail.

Strangely, you continue to trust and use things developed using that same strategy of changing what is "true" based on new discoveries.
Do you take medicines? Why should you? Science didn't think those medicines were "true" treatments 100 years ago. How can you trust that wishy-washy science so much?

I don't trust wishy washy scienceism. I've had a great life.

Every single day you undermine your argument against scientific conclusions by using technology that was developed using the same methodology and the same true-today-may-not-be-true-tomorrow mentality that results in those conclusions.

Either your argument is erroneous or you are a hypocrite.

Thing is, don't try to pawn off something as true when it isn't. Ok?

 

[Loudmouth]

Yep, start the peer reviewed dance. Next, get down with the 'lying creationist sites' dance.

Junk DNA ain't what it used to be.

Prove it. Show us the lies you claim scientists have told.

Or are you just making it up?

 

[Loudmouth]

Start the peer reviewed dance. And a one, and a two!!

Do you really think you can accuse scientists of telling lies about junk DNA, and then fail to reference a single lie that they have told? Really?

What a shining example of christianity you are.

 

[justlookinla]

Then why take medicine or go to see doctors. Aren't hospitals unnecessary for you?

Medicine is wonderful, to it's limits. After that, God takes over.

Several times in my life hospitals have been unnecessary for me.

You've shown nothing about junk DNA except your assertion that it is no longer considered junk. Evidence is necessary, preferably from a scientific research paper or record.

From Time magazine....

"Junk. Barren. Non-functioning. Dark matter. That’s how scientists had described the 98% of human genome that lies between our 21,000 genes, ever since our DNA was first sequenced about a decade ago. The disappointment in those descriptors was intentional and palpable.

It had been believed that the human genome — the underpinnings of the blueprint for the talking, empire-building, socially evolved species that we are — would be stuffed with sophisticated genes, coding for critical proteins of unparalleled complexity. But when all was said and done, and the Human Genome Project finally determined the entire sequence of our DNA in 2001, researchers found that the 3 billion base pairs that comprised our mere 21,000 genes made up a paltry 2% of the entire genome. The rest, geneticists acknowledged with unconcealed embarrassment, was an apparent biological wasteland.

But it turns out they were wrong. In an impressive series of more than 30 papers published in several journals, including Nature, Genome Research, Genome Biology, Science and Cell, scientists now report that these vast stretches of seeming “junk” DNA are actually the seat of crucial gene-controlling activity — changes that contribute to hundreds of common diseases. The new data come from the Encyclopedia of DNA Elements project, or ENCODE, a $123 million endeavor begun by the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI) in 2003, which includes 442 scientists in 32 labs around the world."​

Thus the wishy washy world of 'scienceism'.

Now start your 'peer review' dance.

Then you believe that once science draws a conclusion that it should stick to its guns regardless of what the evidence shows? Looks like that throws your complaint about the "truth" of junk DNA right into the dustbin. Following your logic, medicine would still be using bloodletting to treat the common cold.
Bottom line is that science and scientists do what seems to be an anathema to you....learn from the mistakes of the past. Conclusions change as more information is learned.
Example:
New DNA evidence shows the person convicted of rape was not the person who committed the crime.
US court's response: Absolve the person of the crime and release him.
Justlookinla's response: The conclusion cannot be changed, let him rot in jail.

Strangely, you continue to trust and use things developed using that same strategy of changing what is "true" based on new discoveries.
Do you take medicines? Why should you? Science didn't think those medicines were "true" treatments 100 years ago. How can you trust that wishy-washy science so much?

Every single day you undermine your argument against scientific conclusions by using technology that was developed using the same methodology and the same true-today-may-not-be-true-tomorrow mentality that results in those conclusions.

Either your argument is erroneous or you are a hypocrite.

Or, my argument is true and 'scienceism' has changed their 'truth' time and time again. Look what happend to poor ole Darwin. Now it's neo-darwinism because of his errors.

Scienceism has a shifting sand foundation.