New Ohio law allows students to be scientifically wrong.

[Polymath257]

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!

Think of it like this. Suppose there was no decay until some specific time in the past. Then the decay turned on. ALL of the results for the dates NOW would read the time that the decay turned on. And that is NOT the case.

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

Except now, getting consistency between the radioactive decay (which turned on at some point) and the layers in the lake (which were happening faster) would be impossible,

Once again, it is the consistency between different methods that gives the evidence.

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!

Except that relation would have to be different for every different lake, every different rock, etc. NOT reasonable.

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.

And *that* is last Thursdayism.

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!

If the decays all started at one time, the dates we get would all be for that time. But they are not.

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)

Of course there is a way to test consistency prior to the current nature. Some things existed then that also exist now. If things were significantly different in the past, we would not be able to get consistency of the results NOW unless there was a HUGE coincidence.

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.

Precisely. They would have ALL been different. So that they give the same result NOW based on those differences THEN is a huge coincidence in your way of looking at things, but is entirely expected in mine.

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

And if there was not decay, your problem of consistent results is even worse.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

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

Lie. Keep repeating the lie.

Exodus? Never happened-- we have ample proof in Egypt that there never was a bunch of Hebrew Slaves.

Worse-- in the Myth, they "escape" from "Egypt" .... into.... Egypt! Egypt controlled both sides of the Reed Sea at that time.

It's all Myth-- and your lies saying otherwise, don't make it any less of a lie.

 

[ecco]

Your claim that a nature existed in the past that you cannot support is the elephant in the room.

Yep. We all gotta be aware of the elephant(s) in the room.

The true representation of the Universe and the Earth and the room as accepted by Dad.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

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

LMAO! Take Genesis: "God Spoke"... and from nothing? Something.

MAGIC!

A snake ... SPEAKS! MAGIC.

A bush is on fire, but not consumed by the flames-- MAGIC.

The same bush speaks: MAGIC.

A man is eaten by a non-existent giant fish-- survives without oxygen for 3 days: MAGIC.

A group of men blow on horns-- massive stone walls crumble to dust: MAGIC

A pair of Cosmic Fireballs fall from the sky, destroying two cities but nothing else: MAGIC

A woman watches the Cosmic Fireballs fall-- gets Atomic Transmutation into Salt: MAGIC.
Several people standing near-- have no effect! MAGIC.

An underage teen girl-child gets pregnant without sex: MAGIC.

The husband to be does NOT follow Hebrew Law and have her stoned: MAGIC

Jesus "walks" on water-- MAGIC.

Jesus MAGICS water into fermented grape juice.

And so on, and so on, and so on.

IT IS MAGIC ALL THE WAY DOWN.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

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

Magic isn't real. Sorry about that: you lose.

 

[ecco]

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.

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!
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.



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!


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)

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.


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

What he is saying is: We didn't see the past, therefore it must have been different.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

What he is saying is: We didn't see the past, therefore it must have been different.

Yet-- he's ignoring the fact that nobody saw anything in the bible's first week...

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Yep. We all gotta be aware of the elephant(s) in the room.

The true representation of the Universe and the Earth and the room as accepted by Dad.

 

[cladking]

LMAO! Take Genesis: "God Spoke"... and from nothing? Something.

Yet the entire universe springing into existence from a theoretical point doesn't disturb you.

Here we have something that can't even exist in reality because there is nothing that can be smaller but we are to believe the universe and each proton (which is infinitely large compared to the point that contained it) popped out of this imaginary idea. Magic!!!

A point is so insignificant that it was left out when we defined the "dimensions". We have lines, planes, and space and even time but no points so no five dimensions! So we abandon everything we "know" about cause and effect and believe the universe came from much less than nothing at all. At least religion postulates a Creator and His idea.

I'm not suggesting that there can be no truth to the "big bang theory" merely that it requires a far larger leap of faith than the concept of some c(C)reative e(E)lement. Was there even time beyond the big bang? Where and how did the mass of the universe originate? Are there an expanding number of universes created by increasing numbers of bangs? Will all space ever be filled with matter? If so would this induce an even bigger big bang? Where does space even start? And is there a point there?

Science has NO ANSWERS. Science merely has a means to address questions and will probably never be able to answer ANY of the truly important questions. Of course we must continue trying but lording science over those with faith is hardly productive and can be damaging to some individuals who need a moral compass which doesn't exist in scientific beliefs.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Yet the entire universe springing into existence from a theoretical point doesn't disturb you..

I don't know-- doesn't matter, and it certainly affects me not at all.

Even better: No Astrophysicist has threatened me with infinite torture if I did not act like a slave to an egotistical, terror-god (bible god).

Here we have something that can't even exist in reality because there is nothing that can be smaller but we are to believe the universe and each proton (which is infinitely large compared to the point that contained it) popped out of this imaginary idea. Magic!!! .

Nope. It's "magic" to YOU because YOU don't understand the theory-- your silly pop-culture description above, proves that well enough.

No... "magic" is what Gods do... allegedly. Of course-- nobody has manged to pop out even ONE example that required this ... ahem... "god". Not even once...

A point is so insignificant that it was left out when we defined the "dimensions". We have lines, planes, and space and even time but no points so no five dimensions! So we abandon everything we "know" about cause and effect and believe the universe came from much less than nothing at all. At least religion postulates a Creator and His idea. .

LOL! Again... your 100% lack of understanding doesn't make it not-so.

I'm not suggesting that there can be no truth to the "big bang theory" merely that it requires a far larger leap of faith than the concept of some c(C)reative e(E)lement. .

LMAO! you seriously have no clue, do you? I have NO NEED FOR FAITH. None.

Why? Because I not actually claiming "absolute knowledge"... in direct contrast to every theist, everywhere....

Faith is for people who don't understand science.

Was there even time beyond the big bang? .

Null question-- it's Time/Space-- the two are intertwined in such a way you cannot have one without the other: WHICH ABSOLUTELY PROVES THERE CANNOT BE ANY GODS...

There is literally NO WERE FOR THEM TO EXIST!

Where and how did the mass of the universe originate? Are there an expanding number of universes created by increasing numbers of bangs? Will all space ever be filled with matter? If so would this induce an even bigger big bang? Where does space even start? And is there a point there?

Science has NO ANSWERS. Science merely has a means to address questions and will probably never be able to answer ANY of the truly important questions. Of course we must continue trying but lording science over those with faith is hardly productive and can be damaging to some individuals who need a moral compass which doesn't exist in scientific beliefs.

So what? I'll take "Unknown" every time over "MAGIC JUJU MAN IN THE SKY"

 

[Subduction Zone]

View attachment 35230

Let's not forget that the entire Earth can be seen from a tall tree or mountain. Even from the highest mountain one can only see a very small fraction of the surface of the Earth, if it is spherical. But if it is flat that could be possible.

 

[cladking]

Even better: No Astrophysicist has threatened me with infinite torture if I did not act like a slave to an egotistical, terror-god (bible god).

Don't they tell you that you must obey the laws of nature? Even were they right who knows what these laws are?

I have NO NEED FOR FAITH. None.

Yet you have complete faith in "science" and "scientists".

I wouldn't even have as much faith in experimental results, if they were still being done, as you have in expert opinion.

Null question-- it's Time/Space-- the two are intertwined in such a way you cannot have one without the other: WHICH ABSOLUTELY PROVES THERE CANNOT BE ANY GODS...

Now all you need is to explain how you know this and to show how it proves there is no Creator.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Don't they tell you that you must obey the laws of nature? Even were they right who knows what these laws are?



Yet you have complete faith in "science" and "scientists".

I wouldn't even have as much faith in experimental results, if they were still being done, as you have in expert opinion.



Now all you need is to explain how you know this and to show how it proves there is no Creator.

Faith is not needed since ideas can be tested and retested. In fact science welcomes being shown to be wrong. That is why there is evidence for science. One cannot have evidence in the sciences without a way to test or falsify one's beliefs. What reasonable tests could show your beliefs to be wrong? If you can't think of any then you do not have any reliable evidence for your beliefs. And most believers do not know what a reasonable test is. Your idea must be testable on its own merits, not based upon the merits of another idea. For example disproving evolution does not prove, nor is it even evidence for creationism.

 

[cladking]

Faith is not needed since ideas can be tested and retested. In fact science welcomes being shown to be wrong. That is why there is evidence for science. One cannot have evidence in the sciences without a way to test or falsify one's beliefs. What reasonable tests could show your beliefs to be wrong? If you can't think of any then you do not have any reliable evidence for your beliefs. And most believers do not know what a reasonable test is. Your idea must be testable on its own merits, not based upon the merits of another idea. For example disproving evolution does not prove, nor is it even evidence for creationism.

Where is your test or experiment that shows points have no dimension?
Where is your test or experiment that shows a universe can emerge violently from a thing that can't exist in reality and lacks any "dimensions" at all?

I have lots of ways to test all of my beliefs and for the main part they have already been tested. "Science" is locked into a single way of perceiving experiment. You see what you believe just like everyone else. This has been proven over and over and has been known for a very long time.

That we misinterpret the evidence for "evolution" is irrelevant except it shows that we are locked into our beliefs whether it's "God", "evolution", or "bottlenecks". Nobody can win an argument because everything reinforces what we ourselves believe. Meanwhile the most sanctimonious religion on earth is winning converts because people mistake technology for science. And they mistake metaphysics for magic.

...So much irony.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Where is your test or experiment that shows points have no dimension?
Where is your test or experiment that shows a universe can emerge violently from a thing that can't exist in reality and lacks any "dimensions" at all?

I have lots of ways to test all of my beliefs and for the main part they have already been tested. "Science" is locked into a single way of perceiving experiment. You see what you believe just like everyone else. This has been proven over and over and has been known for a very long time.

That we misinterpret the evidence for "evolution" is irrelevant except it shows that we are locked into our beliefs whether it's "God", "evolution", or "bottlenecks". Nobody can win an argument because everything reinforces what we ourselves believe. Meanwhile the most sanctimonious religion on earth is winning converts because people mistake technology for science. And they mistake metaphysics for magic.

...So much irony.

You are conflating math and science. As you said "So much irony".

 

[cladking]

You are conflating math and science.

That could be the definition of theoretical physics. So could "so much irony".



You're trying to paint me as being anti-science but nothing could possibly be further from the truth. Reason and facts are the only tools we have against the darkness but religion is not that darkness. The belief that we know everything necessary or that knowledge itself is of no value is the darkness. I'm a realist and what I see is factions and intractable positions. I see a lot of people who only value what's already known and can't tell knowledge from faith.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That could be the definition of theoretical physics. So could "so much irony".



You're trying to paint me as being anti-science but nothing could possibly be further from the truth. Reason and facts are the only tools we have against the darkness but religion is not that darkness. The belief that we know everything necessary or that knowledge itself is of no value is the darkness. I'm a realist and what I see is factions and intractable positions. I see a lot of people who only value what's already known and can't tell knowledge from faith.

No, theoretical physics still applies to the real world. Your questions told us how little you know. I have serious doubts that you have the ability to tell the difference between knowledge and faith since you have made so many false accusations of others.

 

[cladking]

No, theoretical physics still applies to the real world.

And we literally live in a world with an infinite number of pyramids built with an infinite number of ramps.

Or do I misunderstand string theory as well?

 

[dad]

Think of it like this. Suppose there was no decay until some specific time in the past. Then the decay turned on. ALL of the results for the dates NOW would read the time that the decay turned on. And that is NOT the case.

Not if there was some processes also going on in the former state...different ones. We still have ratios, only the way they got to exist is different.

Except now, getting consistency between the radioactive decay (which turned on at some point) and the layers in the lake (which were happening faster) would be impossible,

Perhaps a simple way to demolish your argument would be for you to post a specific example.

Once again, it is the consistency between different methods that gives the evidence.

No. ONLY is the belief involved in all the methods, that colors results.

Except that relation would have to be different for every different lake, every different rock, etc. NOT reasonable.

No. The forces and laws affect all the world and rocks and layers and lakes. For example, in THIS present nature, if we look at a rock on a beach, a rock in a mountain, a rock deep under the earth..they all would show ratios of isotopes. You just need to know how to read them right. Instead you have splattered your belief that a same state past made them all. And *that* is last Thursdayism.

If the decays all started at one time, the dates we get would all be for that time. But they are not.

False. If there was most of a daughter material already here when this nature began, it would NOT have been caused by this nature! Yet once this nature started, the new relationship of the isotopes would be that we see today. So you could read the ratios for several thousand years and we would be correct that radioactive decay was responsible for the daughter material since that time. The thing is that most of what is NOW daughter material was already here when this nature started, and it was not produced (possibly) by radioactivity. Only since our nature began would we see daughter material being made. So, if there was 97% of the (what is now daughter) material already here, and it was not produced by decay at the time, then only 3% of the daughter material we see would be due to decay. You have assumed it was ALL...and cooked up whopping huge dates.

Of course there is a way to test consistency prior to the current nature. Some things existed then that also exist now. If things were significantly different in the past, we would not be able to get consistency of the results NOW unless there was a HUGE coincidence.

Hey, people lived through the change! Noah, for example. You could not test Noah hundreds of years after the nature change, and expect results to tell you a whole lot about the former nature!

Precisely. They would have ALL been different. So that they give the same result NOW based on those differences THEN is a huge coincidence in your way of looking at things, but is entirely expected in mine.

No coincidence. Just a different explanation of how ratios or layer were produced.

 

[dad]

Lie. Keep repeating the lie.

More repeated false accusations.

Exodus? Never happened-- we have ample proof in Egypt that there never was a bunch of Hebrew Slaves.

Great so let's see it.

Worse-- in the Myth, they "escape" from "Egypt" .... into.... Egypt! Egypt controlled both sides of the Reed Sea at that time.

What time was that in your mind and how did you get it?