New Ohio law allows students to be scientifically wrong.

[dad]

Nope. No faith needed for science-- not how you mean 'faith'-- because in science? The evidence is available to anyone to verify.

Great, so prove that the earth past was this same nature, as science assumes and uses for models of the past?

I reject nothing-- god seems to be 100% at fault, here. Your "god" seems to play Special Favorites, picking and choosing to whom it "speaks directly" to-- and even worse? None of these special Spokes Persons are ... credible.

Seems to me that His word to man is a best seller of all best sellers that is readily available. Try again.

LMAO! Nope. There was no uniform world flooding. None. Nada. Not true. For a very large list of reasons why not.

Proof?

One of the Primary Reasons? Chinese Civilization-- it's older than your bible, is unbroken, and contains no record of everyone dying in a mass flood.

Your dates are religious and unsupportable.

China was post flood.

Another? Very delicate charcoal cave paintings in France and other places. Some of these are older than 15,000 years-- and were never flooded (water would destroy these).

Proof of dates?

Yet another? We have trees-- by counting the rings with careful core samples-- we know they are older than your flood myth.

You are claiming a same nature in the past here..proof?

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Great, so prove that the earth past was this same nature, as science assumes and uses for models of the past?.

It is logical to assume such-- it's up to YOU to prove otherwise. YOUR claim requires MAGIC, you see.... and so far? Nobody has seen actual magic.

Seems to me that His word to man is a best seller of all best sellers that is readily available. Try again..

Lie. Best seller? Nope-- not by a very long shot, and not for years. Harry Potter novels outsold the bible quite some time ago. Even better: People actually read Harry Potter-- in contrast to the bible, it's estimated that 99% of those printed go unread by anyone-- most are printed as Ego Press: Just to soothe the Egos of people who worship it.

But. That doesn't matter: Just because something is popular? Does not make it True.

IT was quite popular for a long time, that the earth was Flat-- but the earth never was flat.

Argument From Popularity is a Logical Fallacy.

Proof?
Your dates are religious and unsupportable.

Lie. My dates are well supported by fact. You can lie about it all you want-- it won't make it less true.

China was post flood..

Lie.

Proof of dates?.

It's available to anyone with Google and a working brain.

So I see where you'd have a real problem...

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Proof of dates?
You are claiming a same nature in the past here..proof?

Here's a 44,000 year old cave painting-- DESTROYS your ark myth.

44,000-Year-Old Indonesian Cave Painting Is Rewriting The History Of Art

 

[dad]

It is logical to assume such--

This must be taken as a tacit admission that you cannot prove there was a same state past. Logic is not something limited to or defined by your smallness of perception, abilities and denial! Logic does not include denying all things spiritual and scripture and history.

it's up to YOU to prove otherwise.

Think again. Since you cannot prove your claim is real your same nature in the past requires no one to prove otherwise since it is not proven to begin with.

YOUR claim requires MAGIC, you see.... and so far? Nobody has seen actual magic.

Magic is a two bit word you use to describe anything and everything that your religion doesn't like, or can't deal with at all.

Lie. Best seller? Nope-- not by a very long shot, and not for years. Harry Potter novels outsold the bible quite some time ago.

I was talking about a historical context.
"J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter books have become the biggest-selling series ever, with more than 500 million copies sold worldwide, says Bloomsbury, publisher of the books in the U.K. All seven installments, as well as companion books such as The Tales of Beedle the Bard, Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them, and Quidditch Through the Ages factor into the publisher's figure (via The Bookseller).

This puts the series in the same league as Miguel de Cervantes' Don Quixote, which has also sold 500 million copies over the course of its lifetime

...Of course, the Bible stills remains the world's most purchased tome, at 6 billion copies sold, according to Guinness World Records."
Harry Potter becomes best-selling book series in history with more than 500 million copies sold worldwide

The warlock is a distant also ran!!!!
Haha

Even better: People actually read Harry Potter-- in contrast to the bible,

Better yet, many bibles are passed around to groups and families and read over and over. People go to university to study the bible. How many institutions are set up just for the wizard?

IT was quite popular for a long time, that the earth was Flat-- but the earth never was flat.

Nor did the bible suggest such foolishness.

Lie. My dates are well supported by fact.

Your dates rest on that one pesky foundation alone. You know, the one you can't prove?

 

[dad]

Here's a 44,000 year old cave painting-- DESTROYS your ark myth.

44,000-Year-Old Indonesian Cave Painting Is Rewriting The History Of Art

The article admits that it is radioactive decay based 'dates'. Looks like maybe some pre or post flood child was drawing animals that were the theme of the time. Ho hum...

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

This must be taken as a tacit admission that you cannot prove there was a same state past. Logic is not something limited to or defined by your smallness of perception, abilities and denial! Logic does not include denying all things spiritual and scripture and history..

Scripture has long since debunked as BS. "Spiritual" is a null word, devoid of useful meaning.

You fail at this "logic" schtick.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

The article admits that it is radioactive decay based 'dates'. Looks like maybe some pre or post flood child was drawing animals that were the theme of the time. Ho hum...

LMAO! You think "Magic" is a valid thing.... so your "opinion" (which isn't actually yours-- you have been bamboozled by the BS) counts for naught.

 

[dad]

Scripture has long since debunked as BS. "Spiritual" is a null word, devoid of useful meaning.

You fail at this "logic" schtick.

Tried and proven and true actually, not sure what old wives tales you bought into.

 

[dad]

LMAO! You think "Magic" is a valid thing.... so your "opinion" (which isn't actually yours-- you have been bamboozled by the BS) counts for naught.

Hey, if you claim our forces of nature existed the same as we see them now in the deep past on earth you simply must offer support. Until then it is fiction. Learn the difference between fiction and science fiction, then get back to us.

 

[Polymath257]

Hey, if you claim our forces of nature existed the same as we see them now in the deep past on earth you simply must offer support. Until then it is fiction. Learn the difference between fiction and science fiction, then get back to us.

All I can say is:

http://wp.production.patheos.com/blogs/wwjtd/files/2015/10/irony-meter.jpg

 

[dad]

All I can say is:

http://wp.production.patheos.com/blogs/wwjtd/files/2015/10/irony-meter.jpg

Can't support your claim then, OK.

 

[Polymath257]

Can't support your claim then, OK.

The support for the claim is in the consistency of the results. If you are going to retreat to Last Thursdayism, there is nothing further to say. That is the ultimate in fiction.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Tried and proven and true actually, not sure what old wives tales you bought into.

Nope. You are, bluntly, lying yet again. Nothing in the bible is accurate or historical.

Genesis? Myth. Exodus? Provably myth.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Hey, if you claim our forces of nature existed the same as we see them now in the deep past on earth you simply must offer support. Until then it is fiction. Learn the difference between fiction and science fiction, then get back to us.

At no time in all history, has "Magic" been a valid excuse for Myth.

Sorry-- to make the bible "true"? Magic *must* be invoked-- and magic isn't real, so....

 

[dad]

The support for the claim is in the consistency of the results. If you are going to retreat to Last Thursdayism, there is nothing further to say. That is the ultimate in fiction.

Name anything that is consistent with your same state past that does not FIRST assume there was one!??

 

[dad]

The support for the claim is in the consistency of the results. If you are going to retreat to Last Thursdayism, there is nothing further to say. That is the ultimate in fiction.

Your claim that a nature existed in the past that you cannot support is the elephant in the room. Your denial of history to prop up your fanatical godless beliefs is last thursdayism! There is nothing in your mind that is real except that which this week's science can touch.

 

[dad]

At no time in all history, has "Magic" been a valid excuse for Myth.

Sorry-- to make the bible "true"? Magic *must* be invoked-- and magic isn't real, so....

When magic merely refers to anything science can't deal with, your claim is ridiculous, obviously.

 

[Polymath257]

Name anything that is consistent with your same state past that does not FIRST assume there was one!??

A 'same past state' or a 'past state'?

Yes, we assume that there was a 'past state'. To do anything else would be Last Thursdayism.

But, with that, we *can* test to see if that past state was or was not the same as the current state.

How? Quite easily. If the past state was significantly different, then the results *now* would be significantly different. That they are not (i.e, consistency) is evidence that the state in the past was *not* different.

As a pair of examples, consider radioactive dating and lake lamellae. We do both types of tests and do them on several different lakes and with several different radioactive substances.

What we find is that the different methods (different radioactive substances, lamellae) give consistent results in all cases where they are compared.

Now, for this consistency to happen, assuming a different state of things in the past, requires several very different physical processes to respond to changing conditions (past state to current state) in a way that gives results that are consistent with each other *now*.

So, in lake A, layers are being deposited at a certain rate. We agree that this rate of deposition could have been quite different in the past. Also, say, C14 dates for the different layers give results consistent with the current rate of deposition and the current rate of C14 decay.

This alone is an incredible coincidence if true. Why should the rate of deposition of the layers be in any way related to the rate of C14 decay? They are entirely different processes. To stay consistent if the conditions *were* different in the past would require either that the decay rates in the past were correlated in a way that there is no physical reason OR that in the transition, things changed for both the depositional rates and the decay rates, but again in such a way that all the results stay consistent.

But this is only for one lake. If we instead look at a different lake, it will have a different rate of deposition. But the C14 decay rate (currently) is the same. Once again, for the layers we count to be consistent with a constant decay rate of C14 would require an impressive coincidence in how things changed in the past in order to give the results we see today.

BUT, the fact that it is the same rate for the two different lakes puts even more constraints on the coincidence. Not only do the changes (whatever they were) to the decay rate of C14 have to match the deposition rates (whatever they were) for the first lake, they *also* have to match the *different* deposition rates for the second lake.

And now, we can add in several different lakes, which makes the coincidence even more unlikely.

But, we can *also* go to a different radioactive nucleus, one that decays by a different physical process than C14 (say, U238). An this method *also* has to have its rates change in precisely the same ways as those for C14 (which would be unlikely given that they are different physical processes) and also in such a way that they are consistent with all the different deposition layers in all of the lakes.

The fact that different methods, based on physically different systems with different rates (and presumably different rates in the past) would change in *precisely* the way to stay consistent with each other and with all *other* processes and *still* have them all be wrong in the dates that they give would be an incredible coincidence.

And, at some point, you get to a different version of last Thursdayism. Instead of saying everything started Last Thursday with all records set up to give false information, we have a different version where prior to Last Thursday time was going 100 times as fast, but all physical processes were speeded up by the same amount, so there is no difference in what we would see.

And *that* gets to the very definition of what it means to measure time. A second is *defined* by a certain number of oscillations of a particular type of light. If that oscillation *speeded up* by a factor of 100, the very definition of a second would change along with it and instead of 1 second, the definition would give 100 seconds.

So, that is the evidence: the consistency across a large number of independent methods of dating, all based on different physical processes and, ultimately, the definition of time itself.

 

[Polymath257]

Your claim that a nature existed in the past that you cannot support is the elephant in the room. Your denial of history to prop up your fanatical godless beliefs is last thursdayism!

Yes, we assume there was a state of things in the past: in other words, that there was a past. That is the rejection of Last Thursdayism.

We do NOT need to assume that the state of things in the past was the same as it is now. THAT can be deduced from the consistency of results.

There is nothing in your mind that is real except that which this week's science can touch.

I am not at all ignoring history. But I *am* acknowledging that historical writings are less reliable than physical artifacts. And, of the two, the consistency of the physical data and the inconsistency of that data with the writings tells me that the writings were wrong.

 

[dad]

But, with that, we *can* test to see if that past state was or was not the same as the current state.

How? Quite easily. If the past state was significantly different, then the results *now* would be significantly different. That they are not (i.e, consistency) is evidence that the state in the past was *not* different.

As a pair of examples, consider radioactive dating and lake lamellae. We do both types of tests and do them on several different lakes and with several different radioactive substances.

What we find is that the different methods (different radioactive substances, lamellae) give consistent results in all cases where they are compared.

If there was no radioactive decay as we know it today, then any method you use in measuring isotopes as if they came about by radioactive decay would not matter. You are using the belief to assign dates based on ratios (that are now caused by radioactive decay sequences)
The question is whether the same laws applied/existed long ago on earth, NOT whether if we assume nature was the same would everything look old!

Same with deposition. We cannot use today's deposition as any guide to a time when nature was different.

Now, for this consistency to happen, assuming a different state of things in the past, requires several very different physical processes to respond to changing conditions (past state to current state) in a way that gives results that are consistent with each other *now*.

False, false false. All that needs to have happened was that the isotopes were in some other relationship to each other than the parent daughter relationship we see today!

So, in lake A, layers are being deposited at a certain rate. We agree that this rate of deposition could have been quite different in the past. Also, say, C14 dates for the different layers give results consistent with the current rate of deposition and the current rate of C14 decay.

This alone is an incredible coincidence if true. Why should the rate of deposition of the layers be in any way related to the rate of C14 decay?

Simple. Because ratios of isotopes also changed (for whatever reason) in the former nature. Naturally when we look at different layers that contain isotopes there will be the pattern of change. Your problem is that you try to attribute this change to only the things we see happening in this nature.

They are entirely different processes. To stay consistent if the conditions *were* different in the past would require either that the decay rates in the past were correlated in a way that there is no physical reason OR that in the transition, things changed for both the depositional rates and the decay rates, but again in such a way that all the results stay consistent.

If you could prove there was any decay in the past, that would be a good start! Remember, the way to do that could never involve assuming there was and attributing ratios to decay. Yes, in the last 4000 years or whatever, some isotopes have been produced by decay, that we can use for dates. However you try to claim ALL ratios in the far past, therefore, must also be due to it!

But this is only for one lake. If we instead look at a different lake, it will have a different rate of deposition. But the C14 decay rate (currently) is the same. Once again, for the layers we count to be consistent with a constant decay rate of C14 would require an impressive coincidence in how things changed in the past in order to give the results we see today.

You have NO way to check consistency beyond the time our nature existed. The only imaginary meeting is in dream land where you have imaginary dates agree with each other. (even if you needed to toss around millions of imaginary years as needed either way to find that agreement in some cases)

BUT, the fact that it is the same rate for the two different lakes puts even more constraints on the coincidence. Not only do the changes (whatever they were) to the decay rate of C14 have to match the deposition rates (whatever they were) for the first lake, they *also* have to match the *different* deposition rates for the second lake.

All deposition in a different nature, whatever lake does not matter...would have been faster or different! The patterns of isotope ratios also would not be due to decay as they are now. It is a simple case of you misreading evidences.

And *that* gets to the very definition of what it means to measure time. A second is *defined* by a certain number of oscillations of a particular type of light. If that oscillation *speeded up* by a factor of 100, the very definition of a second would change along with it and instead of 1 second, the definition would give 100 seconds.

No. It gets into whether there was any decay or not. Not how long decay may or may not have taken!