You dodged my questions. I'll add another one: What evidence do we have to chose from regarding the forces that were in place in ancient times?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Modern man like footprints found, evolution theory in doubt.
- Thread starter dad1
- Start date
Tiberius
Well-Known Member
Ah, just as I said in post 1414, you have tried to argue that "there was already some of the daughter material present" and I already beat you to it and explained by this is wrong!
Ah, poor predictable dad. You always follow the same script. It's getting boring. Try some new arguments, would you?
You're speaking of yourself...
Explain how the patterns would be identical to those produced by decay.
dad1
Active Member
Mole hill...meet mountain.
dad1
Active Member
I think you need to admit science doesn't know. The healing begins from there. Can you do that?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
What do you mean by "science doesn't know"? We can learn certain things by using the sciences. This is something that may be beyond your understanding. Education can cure that.
And god magic believers do?
dad1
Active Member
Then explain it in a way that includes details, rather than some statement alluding to it. What isotope exists that should not if the state changed in the last 4300 years? You do realize most isotopes in the origin debate have much longer half lives?
Well if we started off with say, to simplify things,100 units of a parent isotope when this nature started, and we no, due to decay, only had say, 99 units, that would mean one unit decayed away in the last 4300 or whatever time since this nature existed. Or, if there was say, 100 units of what is now daughter isotope at the start of this nature, and we now had 101 units, that would mean we got one extra unit from decay.
The pattern in this example would be one more or less unit for either the parent or daughter material that came to exist since the sate change. But because of the current processes in this nature, if we looked at the 99 or 101 units, we would assume they came to exist because of decay. We would then assign an age based on the rate of decay now observed for all 99...or 101 units rather than just the one unit that actually came about from current nature decay!
dad1
Active Member
Are you really so offended at capitol letters? WHY!!?
So you are unable to defend your ignorance and poor behaviour as a christian?
dad1
Active Member
I do. I admit science doesn't know. You may not admit it but your fail to support the same state past by science confirms it.
dad1
Active Member
Well, get back to us when you learn how to prove there was the same nature in the past that you claim religiously.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Take your pick:
You can't explain why your God made the relative amounts of decay products make it looks like samples have been around for many millions of years. But then you do not understand that chart nor are you interested in learning. Until you can explain those rations you lose.
You are relying on an overly simplistic decay. Not all decay goes directly from parent to final daughter product. That is why your argument fails.[/QUOTE]
Last edited:
dad1
Active Member
Easy to do. Whatever was created was here for a reason and likely involved in whatever process used to exist. Since our nature came to exist, the atoms and all things here must comply and work accordingly now. In this nature we have radioactivity, and a process that involves decay. So when looking at isotopes now, that is what we see, of course.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
It has already been proved. A lack of education by a denier does not mean that that has not happened. That is why I have offered to help you to learn so many times. Merely pointing out that you are ignorant could be taken as an insult. Pointing out that you are ignorant and offering a solution is being helpful.
Once again you are shooting yourself in the foot by using self inflicted ignorance.
Please provide link or other evidence to substantiate your claim. Because all i i see from you is bull and nonsense backed up by unsubstantiated bluster.
I gave my reasons, in your taunting of typical deliberate ignorance you choose to ignore them.
dad1
Active Member
Every post you and other posters make here is evidence that substantiates that the nature of the past is not known. Face it.
dad1
Active Member
Get over it. Sometimes using capitol letters to accentuate things is not evil.
dad1
Active Member
As on other forums, you blithely claim it is proven, but cannot so more than that, and cannot show how when or where. Your argument cannot be torn apart because you have none to offer. Quite a position to have.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Wrong again dad, it is merely evidence that you are either too dishonest or too ignorant to understand. I give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you are merely ignorant. That is why I offer to help you.