Taking questions of the Different state past (2)

[Loudmouth]

No man has evidence of where created things came from, and least of all science.

I just showed you that evidence.

 

[Kylie]

No man has evidence of where created things came from, and least of all science. You claim that all daughter materials came not by God creating, but by the present state process of decay. Is that not right?

If that is right you sure as hell will not be able to prove it.

We;ve got more evidence for it than you have for any of your quaint ideas.

Are you seriously going to play this game again? It always devolves into you acting like a child and dismissing evidence that you don't have the capability to understand, and sticking your fingers into your ears shouting, "You can't prove I'm wrong!"

Seriously, grow up and educate yourself.

(No doubt you will respond with some "Oh, I am educated, you should come over to the smart team" arrogance like I've seen you do before.)

 

[dad]

I just showed you that evidence.

You showed imaginary missing stuff, and a religious view of where created daughter material came from. Pathetic.

 

[dad]

You have never offered any evidence that this is true. None. All you do is repeat the claim.

You have never offered any evidence that this is true, or that you could prove. None. All you do is repeat the claim.

 

[Loudmouth]

You showed imaginary missing stuff,

If you claim it is imaginary, then show me some naturally occuring Cesium-135.

and a religious view of where created daughter material came from. Pathetic.

It is an evidenced based view, and you continue to ignore the evidence. I showed you how the presence or absence of nuclides is determined by modern decay rates. This is evidence for a same state past. Even more, you have absolutely no explanation for it.

 

[Loudmouth]

You have never offered any evidence that this is true, or that you could prove. None. All you do is repeat the claim.

I just showed you the evidence.

If you think I am wrong, the please tell me how the observations I have given are inconsistent with a same state past. Bet you can't do it.

 

[dad]

Why do dates based on different isotope pairs with different half lives produce the same dates?

They don't. They produce ratios that represent what was left from creation.

Where is your explanation for this?

Here is the equation used for determining the age of a rock.

Right, thanks for admitting it. All is lost for your case! You look at present decay and attribute creation itself to that. Sick and twisted religion.

For each set of isotopes, the half life and ratio of daughter and parent isotopes are different, yet they all result in the same t, the same age. How do you explain the fact that when we plug in the observed ratios and the observed half lives we get the same t on the other side of the equation for different sets of isotopes?

They result in imaginary time in you head only! You assign time to the ratios and represent the created reality with imaginary time. You would have us believe that this present state and it's decay were here and are what is responsible for all daughter material. You also claim a lot is missing, and yet cannot prove it! You are your own worst enemy. This is a good example of why I never really used creation sites as sources, you guys shoot yourselves in the foot much better.

Why wouldn't they be there?

Who cares why something was not created?? Let's deal in reality it ain't there and you can't prove it ever was!

Where is your explanation? Why is the absence of presence of isotopes in the Earth determined by their modern decay rates and modern sources of production? Why do we see this relationship?

You assign decay origins to stuff, and assign decay causes for stuff that isn't even here and stuff you cannot prove ever was!!!


Wow. Hard to believe how truly weak and vile and pathetic the evo religion really is!


Why the nommies bend over backwards to reinterpret Scripture to fit your imbecilic claims I have no idea.

Then how do you explain the relationships between absence or presence and modern decay rates?

Those are great in this state. Not anywhere else. You may date up to 4400 years, or less if you use 'collaboration' such as presumed tree or coral growth time...etc.

How do you explain the fact that all of the evidence is consistent with a same state past?

Not to the informed, and honest folks.

Then show me where we find naturally occurring Cesium-135.

You seem to assume we should find that. You claim stuff vaniched, and then offer the disappearing act as proof of your other fantasies. Get a grip man.

 

[dad]

If you claim it is imaginary, then show me some naturally occuring Cesium-135.

Why would it occur in this nature?? Focus.

It is an evidenced based view, and you continue to ignore the evidence.

You assigning the reason for existing of all daughter materials to a present state process is nothing more than a declaration of faith in a same state past.

I showed you how the presence or absence of nuclides is determined by modern decay rates.

Absurdly false. You showed how you claim stuff vanished that you cannot prove ever existed!!!! Pathetic. For the rest, you want to say that present state decaydunnit. Too bad you can't prove it.

Your only recourse is unconditional surrender.

 

[dad]

We;ve got more evidence for it than you have for any of your quaint ideas.

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

(No doubt you will respond with some "Oh, I am educated, you should come over to the smart team" arrogance like I've seen you do before.)

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

 

[Loudmouth]

They don't. They produce ratios that represent what was left from creation.

Why would those ratios left from creation produce the same dates using modern decay rates?

I am still waiting for this explanation.

They result in imaginary time in you head only! You assign time to the ratios and represent the created reality with imaginary time. You would have us believe that this present state and it's decay were here and are what is responsible for all daughter material.

You keep ignoring WHY I reach that conclusion.

I reach that conclusion because different isotope pairs produce the same age using the equation I gave you.

HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN THIS?

You also claim a lot is missing, and yet cannot prove it!

Then show me some naturally occuring Cesium-135 and prove me wrong.

Who cares why something was not created?? Let's deal in reality it ain't there and you can't prove it ever was!

The reality is that the evidence is consistent with a same state past, and you have offered NOTHING that shows otherwise.

You seem to assume we should find that. You claim stuff vaniched, and then offer the disappearing act as proof of your other fantasies. Get a grip man.

Then explain the relationship between the absence or presence of isotopes and their measured decay rates. I am still waiting for that explanation.

You have been unable to refute any of this evidence.

 

[Loudmouth]

Why would it occur in this nature?? Focus.

Why wouldn't it???? Focus.

You assigning the reason for existing of all daughter materials to a present state process is nothing more than a declaration of faith in a same state past.

Yes, because all of the evidence is consistent with the daughter materials being produced by the parent isotope over millions and billions of years, as I have shown you.

You have never, ever been able to show that any of this evidence is inconsistent with a same state past. If the observations are consistent with a same state past, then those observations are EVIDENCE of a same state past. That's how evidence works.

Absurdly false. You showed how you claim stuff vanished that you cannot prove ever existed!!!! Pathetic. For the rest, you want to say that present state decaydunnit. Too bad you can't prove it.

I have shown that all of the evidence is consistent with my claims. You have been unable to refute that argument.

Your only recourse is unconditional surrender.

Why should I surrender when ALL of the observations are consistent with a same state past which you have never been able to refute.

 

[dad]

Why would those ratios left from creation produce the same dates using modern decay rates?

Why do you call creation ratios dates? Obviously because you use the present state and see how things now decay, and want to claim all daughter material got here that way.

You keep ignoring WHY I reach that conclusion.

You have faith that there is no God but that the present state and laws and physics produced all daughter material. Obviously. I have my own faith, thanks.

I reach that conclusion because different isotope pairs produce the same age using the equation I gave you.

Your equation was present state based. You want to extend that to the future and past. No can do.

Then show me some naturally occuring Cesium-135 and prove me wrong.

Why would it occur in this nature? Why babble? Why would God have created it? Get over it.

The reality is that the evidence is consistent with a same state past, and you have offered NOTHING that shows otherwise.

Nothing shows a same state past. Your incessant desire to impose your beliefs on the unknown past does not represent any reality.

Then explain the relationship between the absence or presence of isotopes and their measured decay rates. I am still waiting for that explanation.

The measured decay is only in this present state. You cannot use that to explain all things we see, unless you first prove there was this present state. You can't. You just use it anyhow by faith also. Period. You are busted.

 

[Loudmouth]

Why do you call creation ratios dates? Obviously because you use the present state and see how things now decay, and want to claim all daughter material got here that way.

Why would creation ratios produce the same t when I plug in the observed ratios and observed decay rates into this equation?

WHERE IS YOUR EXPLANATION????

You have faith that there is no God but that the present state and laws and physics produced all daughter material. Obviously. I have my own faith, thanks.

Where am I using faith?

I am using the OBSERVED RATIOS AND OBSERVED DECAY RATES. No faith.

Why do I get the same t when I plug those observations into that equation?

Why do I get the same t just as a same state past predicts I should see?

Your equation was present state based.

Yes, AND IT WORKS!!!!

How do you explain the fact that it works just as it should if there was a same state past?

Why would it occur in this nature?

Why wouldn't it? Why would God include or exclude isotopes based on decay rates that you claim didn't exist?

WHERE IS YOUR EXPLANATION???

Nothing shows a same state past.

I just demonstrated the exact opposite. ALL of the evidence is consistent with a same state past.

The measured decay is only in this present state. You cannot use that to explain all things we see, unless you first prove there was this present state. You can't. You just use it anyhow by faith also. Period. You are busted.

Then why do I get a consistent t using the equations above?

Why do these equations produce the exact results one would expect from a same state past?

 

[dad]

Why wouldn't it???? Focus.

I do not care why God did not create the stuff you claim was here but vanished!

Yes, because all of the evidence is consistent with the daughter materials being produced by the parent isotope over millions and billions of years, as I have shown you.

No it sure is not. You showed ratios and a faith that they came from present state processes.

You have never, ever been able to show that any of this evidence is inconsistent with a same state past.

How could we show that your missing stuff ever existed??! The stuff that does exist, you want to claim came to exist only by laws of this state. You have religion. Not science.

If the observations are consistent with a same state past, then those observations are EVIDENCE of a same state past. That's how evidence works.

When you look at all things as if there was a same state past, it may look to you like there was. So?? Evidence needs to be able to stand on it's own two feet!

I have shown that all of the evidence is consistent with my claims. You have been unable to refute that argument.

You have shown you have no evidence but want to claim it all due to your godless fanatical religion.

Why should I surrender when ALL of the observations are consistent with a same state past which you have never been able to refute.

No one needs refute imaginary pixies, or states. Just because you chose to disbelieve God Almighty and deny creation, by offering a silly supplanted belief system, does not mean we must observe all things the way you want. True observations are absent of your belief system. We see daughter materials, yes. We do not see your missing stuff, nor a same state past that you claim created the stuff.

 

[Loudmouth]

I do not care why God did not create the stuff you claim was here but vanished!

IOW, you can't explain why the observations are consistent with a same state past.

No it sure is not. You showed ratios and a faith that they came from present state processes.

False. I showed that the observed ratios and observed decay rates are consistent with a same state past. You have not been able to refute this argument.

How could we show that your missing stuff ever existed??! The stuff that does exist, you want to claim came to exist only by laws of this state. You have religion. Not science.

I am showing you that the absence and presence of different isotopes is consistent with a same state past, and you have been unable to refute it. Therefore, it stands as evidence.

When you look at all things as if there was a same state past, it may look to you like there was. So?? Evidence needs to be able to stand on it's own two feet!

It does stand on its own two feet as shown by your inability to refute it. You can't show any inconsistencies with a same state past. None.

You have shown you have no evidence but want to claim it all due to your godless fanatical religion.

Sorry, but you might as well run the surrender flag up the pole. You have been unable to refute any of the evidence I have presented.

No one needs refute imaginary pixies, or states.

I have given you observations. There is nothing imaginary about them.

 

[dad]

Why would creation ratios produce the same t when I plug in the observed ratios and observed decay rates into this equation?

What creation produced later existed in this decay state. One cannot use the rate of decay here, in this present nature, as the reason the parent material exists!

Where am I using faith?

I am using the OBSERVED RATIOS AND OBSERVED DECAY RATES. No faith.

No faith is needed as far as how fast things decay. That faith comes in claiming that BY this decay, ALL daughter material came to exist.

Why do I get the same t just as a same state past predicts I should see?

Because you use time in explaining it. You do not even know what time it, let alone what time it is. Time is involved in this present time and nature, in the processes and way things exist here! One cannot extend that beyond this time and nature.

Yes, AND IT WORKS!!!!

It works here, as far as that things really are now in a decay relationship. No further!

How do you explain the fact that it works just as it should if there was a same state past?

You misuse the word 'works' if you try to apply it to the far past. You would need to use the word 'worked'.

Why wouldn't it? Why would God include or exclude isotopes based on decay rates that you claim didn't exist?

Not all things that could decay need have been created! You assume a same state past.

Why do these equations produce the exact results one would expect from a same state past?

Why would things not look old if we assumed they were all made by slow processes of the present? You simply look at the present state decay, and write that into your formulas for the past and creation.

 

[dad]

IOW, you can't explain why the observations are consistent with a same state past.

Big problem for you is that the 'missing stuff' you claim is consistent by not existing is NOT observed at all! Is it?

False. I showed that the observed ratios and observed decay rates are consistent with a same state past. You have not been able to refute this argument.

It is only consistent if you use a same state past to explain them! Circular.

I am showing you that the absence and presence of different isotopes is consistent with a same state past, and you have been unable to refute it. Therefore, it stands as evidence.

False. You are not showing ANY missing isotopes!! You are claiming based on belief that they once existed and up and disappeared. Yeah right. You thought we need to refute that hogwash??

It does stand on its own two feet as shown by your inability to refute it. You can't show any inconsistencies with a same state past. None.

No parent or daughter material can be proven to have been produced bt decay except in this present state, period. There can be no denying that. Any consistencies are in your head therefore!

If you have not the intestinal fortitude to wave the white flag, fine. It is what it is.

I have given you observations. There is nothing imaginary about them.

You have not given observations of a claimed bunch of missing stuff! You have not given observations that this present state existed which would be required to claim credit for daughter materials. You are confused and fanatical, and call blind faith observations!

 

[Loudmouth]

What creation produced later existed in this decay state. One cannot use the rate of decay here, in this present nature, as the reason the parent material exists!

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.

No faith is needed as far as how fast things decay. That faith comes in claiming that BY this decay, ALL daughter material came to exist.

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

Because you use time in explaining it. You do not even know what time it, let alone what time it is. Time is involved in this present time and nature, in the processes and way things exist here! One cannot extend that beyond this time and nature.

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

It works here, as far as that things really are now in a decay relationship. No further!

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

You misuse the word 'works' if you try to apply it to the far past. You would need to use the word 'worked'.

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

Not all things that could decay need have been created! You assume a same state past.

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

You still haven't explained this.

Why would things not look old if we assumed they were all made by slow processes of the present?

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.

You simply look at the present state decay, and write that into your formulas for the past and creation.

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

 

[Loudmouth]

Big problem for you is that the 'missing stuff' you claim is consistent by not existing is NOT observed at all! Is it?

The absence of an isotope IS AN OBSERVATION.

You can't explain it. A same state past can explain it. Therefore, it is evidence for a same state past.

It is only consistent if you use a same state past to explain them! Circular.

How do you explain the fact that the same state explanation is consistent with observations?

You are not showing ANY missing isotopes!!

Then you might as well claim that unicorns are real since I can't produce any.

Your logic is as backwards as it gets.

You are claiming based on belief that they once existed and up and disappeared. Yeah right. You thought we need to refute that hogwash??

If there was a same state past, then you shouldn't see these isotopes, AND WE DON'T!!

Therefore, the observations are consistent with a same state past.

No parent or daughter material can be proven to have been produced bt decay except in this present state, period. There can be no denying that. Any consistencies are in your head therefore!

The consilience between isotopes and missing nuclides does prove exactly that.

You have not given observations of a claimed bunch of missing stuff!

It is observed that no rocks contain these isotopes.

You have not given observations that this present state existed which would be required to claim credit for daughter materials. You are confused and fanatical, and call blind faith observations!

My posts are full of those very observations.

 

[Loudmouth]

I proclaim that dad has been officially defeated.

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

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