Taking questions of the Different state past (2)

[bhsmte]

No, what I am doing (or attempting) is called Socratic questioning.

"Socratic questioning (or Socratic maieutics) is disciplined questioning that can be used to pursue thought in many directions and for many purposes, including: to explore complex ideas, to get to the truth of things, to open up issues and problems, to uncover assumptions, to analyze concepts, to distinguish what we know from what we don't know, to follow out logical implications of thought or to control the discussion."

Socratic questioning - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You, on the other hand, appear simply to want to tell me what I think, and failing miserably at it.

If you are up for some serious discussion, let me know.

Typical fundy game.

Don't ask someone what they think, tell them what they think. That way, you can mold the discussion in the direction that makes you comfortable.

Actually acknowledging that others can tell you what they think better than you, is a very uncomfortable proposition for the fundamentalist.

 

[Loudmouth]

That is not ignoring or rejecting anything, but rather putting vile fiction in it's little place...and doing so with some relish.

You call it a vile fiction without even looking at it. You don't care about the truth, only about protecting your beliefs.

 

[dad]

You call it a vile fiction without even looking at it.

What sort of vile charge is that? We all look at what science has to blabber about here!

You don't care about the truth, only about protecting your beliefs.

The truth is that you talk the talk, but have no juice.

 

[Loudmouth]

What sort of vile charge is that? We all look at what science has to blabber about here!

No, you don't. You refuse to even look at it.

The truth is that you talk the talk, but have no juice.

"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

 

[bhsmte]

No, you don't. You refuse to even look at it.

"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

Looks like juice.

 

[dad]

Looks like juice.

Not in any way. Gathering the elements and noting the pattern set down by creation, and trying to associate it's origin with present state causes is 100% religion. That is waste water not juice. That plane don't fly. You are anchored firmly to the present state laws and are desperately trying to credit them with creating the array of isotopes we see. In no way does spamming a list of several isotopes change anything. If the one was created, then the same principle applies...the whole list was created and now does what must be done in this state..namely decay in this case.

 

[Loudmouth]

Not in any way. Gathering the elements and noting the pattern set down by creation, and trying to associate it's origin with present state causes is 100% religion.

It is 100% science, not religion. That is how the scientific method works. You create a hypothesis where you list the observations you should see if the hypothesis is correct. Then you run experiments to test that hypothesis.

You are the one who chucks science out the window and instead clings to a religion.

You are anchored firmly to the present state laws and are desperately trying to credit them with creating the array of isotopes we see.

We have demonstrated that they exactly match what a same state past would produce.

You still can't explain why we see these patterns.

If the one was created, then the same principle applies...

Why?

Why would a different state past create these patterns?

 

[bhsmte]

Not in any way. Gathering the elements and noting the pattern set down by creation, and trying to associate it's origin with present state causes is 100% religion. That is waste water not juice. That plane don't fly. You are anchored firmly to the present state laws and are desperately trying to credit them with creating the array of isotopes we see. In no way does spamming a list of several isotopes change anything. If the one was created, then the same principle applies...the whole list was created and now does what must be done in this state..namely decay in this case.

Nope. Lots of juice, very juicy.

 

[dad]

It is 100% science, not religion. That is how the scientific method works. You create a hypothesis where you list the observations you should see if the hypothesis is correct. Then you run experiments to test that hypothesis.

Wow, denial. Interesting. I must point out that it is 100% belief based, You believe real hard in a godless same state past for no reason whatsoever that you can state apparently. Obviously creation would have left stuff in a pattern, you have no monopoly on belief. That is how reality works.

You are the one who chucks science out the window and instead clings to a religion.

Science is a misused word, that many take to include the belief based religious anti God anti creation scenarios that are based on diddly squat. No, you may not take credit for the ratios that represent what is left of the creation patterns that we have.

We have demonstrated that they exactly match what a same state past would produce.

False, you have tried to usurp credit for what was created in different areas using the same old silly same state past trick.

You still can't explain why we see these patterns.

Creation. How complicated is that!? The stuff that was created entered our nature when it came to exist, and had patterns. Those patterns now are engulfed in present state processes and goings on, of course.

Why?

Why would a different state past create these patterns?

The different past was created by God! Don't try to tar me with the brush that science uses, that tries to credit the creation (created laws and forces of nature) with creation! I do not, like them, worship the creation more than the creator! Cart...meet horse.

 

[dad]

Nope. Lots of juice, very juicy.

Flush.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Wow, denial. Interesting. I must point out that it is 100% belief based, You believe real hard in a godless same state past for no reason whatsoever that you can state apparently. Obviously creation would have left stuff in a pattern, you have no monopoly on belief. That is how reality works.

Science is a misused word, that many take to include the belief based religious anti God anti creation scenarios that are based on diddly squat. No, you may not take credit for the ratios that represent what is left of the creation patterns that we have.
False, you have tried to usurp credit for what was created in different areas using the same old silly same state past trick.
Creation. How complicated is that!? The stuff that was created entered our nature when it came to exist, and had patterns. Those patterns now are engulfed in present state processes and goings on, of course.


The different past was created by God! Don't try to tar me with the brush that science uses, that tries to credit the creation (created laws and forces of nature) with creation! I do not, like them, worship the creation more than the creator! Cart...meet horse.

Exactly, an atheist such as myself has no motivation belief wise to support a same state past if evidence didn't support it. I am a skeptic by nature, dad, you think I don't take literally everything physics with a grain of salt? You see, even if you were right and there was a different state past, that wouldn't mean a deity exists, so why on earth would atheists or any other group for that matter defend a same state past if a different state past had evidence of any kind to support it or there were doubts cast on a same state past? The answer is, the whole issue is completely independent of actual religious alignments; I do not require the state of physics to be consistent for me to feel comfortable or even for me to still feel that there isn't enough evidence to suggest deities exist, should I actually want to remain and atheist, which you know I don't. No one has any motivation or reason to advocate for a SAME state past if there was evidence for a DIFFERENT state one. Because a different state past can still be a "godless" past.

Just because it doesn't agree with you doesn't make it religion. You sir are the one using the religious text to draw conclusions without actual evidence or experimentation. We don't make our conclusions in that manner. You don't like the conclusions? Fine, but they are still based in science. Your position is the one that truly has no scientific basis; what experiments have been preformed to test your idea? And just because creation is simple and easy generally to understand doesn't make it more valid than the complex mess physics tends to become.

I don't worship scientific theories any more than you worship your favorite place to sit. Sure, I'll always have that favorite seat (group of theories I support, ironic given that in the case of chairs they support the seated person, but whatever you get the point), but that doesn't mean I'll make a huge hissy fit over moving to another chair. I highly doubt you would share such a sentiment about the deity you worship. While I might get super comfy in that chair, it isn't the end of my world to move.

 

[bhsmte]

Flush.

Juicy, very juicy.

 

[Loudmouth]

Flush.

You still have no explanations for the data.

 

[dad]

Exactly, an atheist such as myself has no motivation belief wise to support a same state past if evidence didn't support it.

False. The facts happen to be that they go in believing in one. Motivated or not!

I am a skeptic by nature, dad, you think I don't take literally everything physics with a grain of salt? You see, even if you were right and there was a different state past, that wouldn't mean a deity exists, so why on earth would atheists or any other group for that matter defend a same state past if a different state past had evidence of any kind to support it or there were doubts cast on a same state past?

I do not need a different nature to make God exist. Jesus came and settled that forever. The reason a DSP is interesting is because it shows where science is at, and what the basis for all the godless models they spew out really is made of.

Just because it doesn't agree with you doesn't make it religion.

What makes a belief and belief system what they are is the actual basis for what they claim and believe.

You sir are the one using the religious text to draw conclusions without actual evidence or experimentation.

The Scripture tells of many things that are way way way beyond man's little ability to test.

We don't make our conclusions in that manner. You don't like the conclusions? Fine, but they are still based in science. Your position is the one that truly has no scientific basis; what experiments have been preformed to test your idea? And just because creation is simple and easy generally to understand doesn't make it more valid than the complex mess physics tends to become.

What makes so called science baseless is not that I have experiments to run that show they are wrong, but that their own claims have no basis in anything at all but belief.

I don't worship scientific theories any more than you worship your favorite place to sit.

If people put things above God that is worship and respecting them more than God. If God says He created all things and man says some silly little worm or bacteria reproduced and created all life on earth...we need to choose.

Sure, I'll always have that favorite seat (group of theories I support, ironic given that in the case of chairs they support the seated person, but whatever you get the point), but that doesn't mean I'll make a huge hissy fit over moving to another chair. I highly doubt you would share such a sentiment about the deity you worship. While I might get super comfy in that chair, it isn't the end of my world to move.

Great start packing!

 

[PsychoSarah]

False. The facts happen to be that they go in believing in one. Motivated or not!

I do not need a different nature to make God exist. Jesus came and settled that forever. The reason a DSP is interesting is because it shows where science is at, and what the basis for all the godless models they spew out really is made of.


What makes a belief and belief system what they are is the actual basis for what they claim and believe.
The Scripture tells of many things that are way way way beyond man's little ability to test.


What makes so called science baseless is not that I have experiments to run that show they are wrong, but that their own claims have no basis in anything at all but belief.




If people put things above God that is worship and respecting them more than God. If God says He created all things and man says some silly little worm or bacteria reproduced and created all life on earth...we need to choose.


Great start packing!

-_- you do not have the right to tell people what conclusions they reach and how they reach them. I am the atheist here, not you, and I am describing how I make my conclusions. You sir, are not me, therefore you cannot claim to have knowledge about how I process and verify information beyond what I tell you. You do not know me better than I know myself, and to claim such is hubris beyond comprehension. And that goes for any claims you make about how other people think, especially if it is about ideas you yourself do not support.

Good, then don't be so aggressive and stubborn about defending it then. Flexibility is a virtue, and I think you could really learn a lot about good debate tactics if you just deeply considered the arguments of the opposing party. Do more than assuming all opposition is wrong; even if you astutely never want to change your basic position, you could still have mistakes in how you defend it that the opposition will point out. It gives you an opportunity to improve how you debate, I know I have learned a lot on here, and I have abandoned some rather ignorant arguments myself. It all works for the better.

I do not claim deities do not exist, I just don't believe they do. I know that any evidence on the matter is insufficient to make a valid scientific conclusion, so why would I make that claim? I honestly have 0 idea if deities exist in regards to any evidence. Likewise, it is folly to claim something exists for which you have no evidence for. Find the evidence, please do, I look forward to the possibility that I will be shown to be incorrect through evidence.

All fine and dandy if the deity actually exists. But frankly, what a waste if it turns out not to exist.

 

[Kylie]

You're taking information and making a conscious decision, a choice, to accept or deny the information.

No. If all the available evidence showed that the sky is blue, could you "decide" that it is green? Of course not. It's not a decision.

 

[Kylie]

False. The basis of all claims about the future, and far past is the present state and it's laws. While conjuring images of a deceitful past world and universe may be of interest to scientists to some degree, who cares!?

This is just plain nonsense and has nothing at all to do with what I said.

Scientists do not use the Bible as a scientific source.

In the sense that you seem to want to deny Jesus lived and the apostles and that Scripture really exists and was fulfilled, that is denial.

Oh please. "Last Thursdayism" does not work as a catch-all phrase to use against anyone who disagrees with you. It has a very specific meaning which you are apparently completely unaware of.

We know Peter and Paul and John actually. Scripture was passed down and written by actual folk.

Please provide a source for this claim. Something more than just tradition.

You might as well be.

I could, and you would not be able to disprove it, because there is no way to disprove it. But that isn't what I'm doing here. So if you are going to debate this with me, don't lie about what I'm saying, okay?

Not true. Introducing some intellectual honesty to the debate is a good thing. Pretending to know when we do not, is --science!

Oh please. You have never said anything intellectually honest, not that I can recall. You have hidden behind vague claims and kept your position so nebulous because you have nothing specific.

And once again, you prove you have no idea what you are talking about when you speak of science.

Nope. I asked if you could prove there was any decay. I suspect there may not have been decay as we know it...that is not a claim. That is exposing your claim that there was as being a joke.

Please. The only way you can explain the ratios of parent and daughter material we see is by invoking a massive worldwide coincidence!

You are not comprehending the basic issues here. Creation is responsible I assume for most of what existed before this nature started to exist. Therefore it is no coincidence that things like daughter material existed. The ratios of creation then, would have existed, and, upon coming to exist under our laws and nature, would react accordingly, and assume the decay relationship.

So you are saying that the ratios are NOT coincidence, but rather specifically placed there by God? For what purpose? Why did God give us a world that LOOKS like there has been a present state for billions of years when there has not been?

He did, about 2014 years ago.

what a shame I wasn't there. I would consider the actual events far more convincing than the stories told today.

Incidentally, I accept that year as the actual year of our Lord. Having looked at the revised claims of what year Jesus was born, it occurs to me that the basis is pathetic. I also agree with Sir Robert Anderson's calculations about when Jesus was killed. (If there is disagreement between the year 2014 (?) and Bob's calculations, I would lean toward Robbie being correct). The reason is that the crux of the issue on dates seems to come down to a few things like the eclipses, and darkness at the time of His death, etc. There could have been something supernatural at work, that changed time to some degree, throwing off our ability to pinpoint it!?

But I digress.

Care to go into more details? Which eclipses? And how do their dates support the Bible?

 

[dad]

-_- you do not have the right to tell people what conclusions they reach and how they reach them. I am the atheist here, not you, and I am describing how I make my conclusions. You sir, are not me, therefore you cannot claim to have knowledge about how I process and verify information beyond what I tell you. You do not know me better than I know myself, and to claim such is hubris beyond comprehension. And that goes for any claims you make about how other people think, especially if it is about ideas you yourself do not support.

If you are referring to the bit about how whatever we put first and believe and honor or respect more than God, don't blame me. Blame God.

Good, then don't be so aggressive and stubborn about defending it then. Flexibility is a virtue, and I think you could really learn a lot about good debate tactics if you just deeply considered the arguments of the opposing party.

Not when arguments involve unbelief. You see, the basis of the arguments is what is germane. Now if you had a scientific argument on something, such as say, you claimed the continents always moved slowly...we could look at that. If you claimed something like...we can't believe Scripture...well, that is another dog altogether.

Do more than assuming all opposition is wrong;

I do. I look to God's wprd, so I can know. Not just assume.

even if you astutely never want to change your basic position, you could still have mistakes in how you defend it that the opposition will point out.

True. I used to accept the creation science mainstream position that the flood was the big factor in the strata and fossil record. I don't now.

I do not claim deities do not exist, I just don't believe they do.

Great so you have no idea one way or the other. Better talk about something you have some idea about then..no?

I know that any evidence on the matter is insufficient to make a valid scientific conclusion, so why would I make that claim?

Science is not what we would look to for any conclusion on things that science does not and cannot even deal with, such as the spiritual. Might as well ask a penguin!

I honestly have 0 idea if deities exist in regards to any evidence.

Exactly, so I won't lean on you for advice on that issue.

Likewise, it is folly to claim something exists for which you have no evidence for. Find the evidence, please do, I look forward to the possibility that I will be shown to be incorrect through evidence.

Evidence in history and sacred record is evidence that is above the scope of science. One would not expect 'evidence' of the kind those sand box clowns are equipped to be able to deal in!

All fine and dandy if the deity actually exists. But frankly, what a waste if it turns out not to exist.

I'll leave it to the atheists to agonize over what believers already know, and what Jesus proved. I have no such mind melting issues, thanks.

Come on over to the relaxed side.

 

[dad]

This is just plain nonsense and has nothing at all to do with what I said.

Scientists do not use the Bible as a scientific source.

That is why they remain clueless on all things of importance.

Oh please. "Last Thursdayism" does not work as a catch-all phrase to use against anyone who disagrees with you. It has a very specific meaning which you are apparently completely unaware of.

It is a great phrase to describe the thinking of the deniers of what went down 2014 years ago and before!

Please provide a source for this claim. Something more than just tradition.

Our sources are known and trusted. When folks who knew Jesus and the apostles for example passed down sacred records that bore the name of certain people (like Peter for example) it is stuff that comes from Peter.


--shortened for sake of prompt reply....

 

[dad]

I could, and you would not be able to disprove it, because there is no way to disprove it. But that isn't what I'm doing here. So if you are going to debate this with me, don't lie about what I'm saying, okay?

So what are you saying? Don't claim others are lying.

Oh please. You have never said anything intellectually honest, not that I can recall. You have hidden behind vague claims and kept your position so nebulous because you have nothing specific.

Man lives in the present, and we do not have specs for the different future coming, or any different past. It was not by specs that man knows about what went on in the far past, it is by Scripture.

Please. The only way you can explain the ratios of parent and daughter material we see is by invoking a massive worldwide coincidence!

False. In no way would the created stuff that exists and which existed at the start of this present state require any 'coincidence' whatsoever to be how it is. That is foolish.

So you are saying that the ratios are NOT coincidence, but rather specifically placed there by God? For what purpose? Why did God give us a world that LOOKS like there has been a present state for billions of years when there has not been?

In no way does it look anything like that, unless one first soils and contaminates and colors the evidences with your same state past belief, a past in which there was no God, or creation. On it's own, the world and the evidence do not look old!!!!! That is all in your religious head.

what a shame I wasn't there. I would consider the actual events far more convincing than the stories told today.

So if you lived last week (in this case, a few thousand years ago)-- you would believe in it!?

Care to go into more details? Which eclipses? And how do their dates support the Bible?

Using the Daniel 9 prophesy of the time till Messiah would come, a Scotland Yard man, years ago calculated the days till the time Jesus entered Jerusalem, from the exact time that a certain specific proclamation to rebuild Jerusalem was issued. (Robert Anderson). He came up with a year that some others have questioned, because of various phases of the moon, and eclipses and whatever.

In getting any date for Jesus' birth or death, one seems to have to resort to the moon and eclipses, etc. For example, when an eclipse was known in Herod's time.

My point is that when the creator of the universe itself died, we well may have experienced some form of time change, or time being affected. That would mean that man could not get the exact days right. That is why there are several different years proposed by scholars for the birth of Christ, and the death week.


Furthermore, since the date cannot likely be determined, I see NO reason to doubt Robert Anderson's calculations, which are in agreement with the prophesy of Daniel.