Original Ratios at Creation and Radioactive Decay dating

[Terrywoodenpic]

False. Many long lived isotopes that are claimed to have once existed are claimed to have disappeared. You can compare nothing at all that is not already here right now. The issue is how it got here. NOT how it now behaves and decays.

No problem at all as to how they got here they were all formed by fusion in previous generations of stars.
This is an iterative process starting from Helium.

We and everything else are Star dust.

Of course all radioactive isotopes slowly decay to something else. This starts from the day that they were formed.
It seems that all the ones found on earth were formed at the same time. which would suggest that all the earths material came from the detritus of the same exploding star.

Which is reasonable considering the distance between such stars. and the expanding universe.

 

[dad]

No problem at all as to how they got here they were all formed by fusion in previous generations of stars.

Believe what you like. They got there by being created by God to start, and later existing in the nature of the past, as well as existing in this present nature. You ignore two out of three to suit your belief set.

Of course all radioactive isotopes slowly decay to something else. This starts from the day that they were formed.

Says who? Only if they exist here in this present physics and nature would they decay. You simply believe for no reason this nature existed always, and use it to try to explain all creation.

It seems that all the ones found on earth were formed at the same time. which would suggest that all the earths material came from the detritus of the same exploding star.

It seems that the way you determine time is by beliefs. But it would stand to reason that creation time would be seen in the patterns. Too bad you choose to interpret those patterns in a way that facilitates your stardust fantasy religion.

Which is reasonable considering the distance between such stars. and the expanding universe.

No distances to stars are known. Distances are assigned based on belief only. The expansion is also bogus and wholly belief based. So are all the little fantasies based on endless expansion from nothing that have been fraudulently preached as science.

 

[Tiberius]

Many long lived isotopes that are claimed to have once existed are claimed to have disappeared.

Citation required.

 

[dad]

Citation required.

Try to debate seriously. If you are not aware of isotopes claimed to no longer exist due to having decayed away long ago (as in Oklo) you are not equipped to be discussing the issue.

 

[McBell]

Try to debate seriously. If you are not aware of isotopes claimed to no longer exist due to having decayed away long ago (as in Oklo) you are not equipped to be discussing the issue.

 

[Tiberius]

Try to debate seriously. If you are not aware of isotopes claimed to no longer exist due to having decayed away long ago (as in Oklo) you are not equipped to be discussing the issue.

Asking you to support your claims with actual evidence is part of serious debate. So start backing your claims up, or be defeated once again.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

How is proposing some kind of "alternate nature" that, coincidentally, existed "pre-flood" and has never been seen since, any better than proposing a fiction? I don't understand what leg you have to stand on to state that there was any sort of alternative to the natural conditions we see now. Why would we accept such an idea without evidence that this was indeed the case? Do you have such evidence?

A better question might be: What does assuming an alternate nature explain, or with this accepted in our "model of reality" what things does this "alternate nature" more accurately account for than what is currently widely accepted (i.e. that much of our universe behaves in very predictable and constant patterns that have been ongoing for an indeterminate amount of time)?

And if all you have in answer to the above is that your foray into "alternative natures" merely helps apologize for what would otherwise be considered nonsense from The Bible, then you really don't have much of anything at all.

 

[dad]

Asking you to support your claims with actual evidence is part of serious debate. So start backing your claims up, or be defeated once again.

Pretending this is not about the claims and basis for claims of 'science' is dishonest. No one cares about your opinion of God or other beliefs. Defend your religion/science.

 

[Tiberius]

Pretending this is not about the claims and basis for claims of 'science' is dishonest. No one cares about your opinion of God or other beliefs. Defend your religion/science.

Stop avoiding the issue. You claim that nature was different, you must provide evidence. Claiming that science doesn't know doesn't count as evidence in support of your position. All you do is run and hide from the burden of proof, because you know you can't lift it.

 

[McBell]

Defend your religion/science.

From what?
It is not like your attack has any substance.
And with you flat out refusing to give your attack any substance, you know, by presenting evidence for your claims, there is nothing left to do but to dismiss your bold empty claims for the bold empty claims they are.

 

[dad]

Stop avoiding the issue. You claim that nature was different, you must provide evidence. Claiming that science doesn't know doesn't count as evidence in support of your position. All you do is run and hide from the burden of proof, because you know you can't lift it.

Science claims stuff based on a belief it was the same. Your failure to be able to support that belief is the issue. The thread is not about using pagan beliefs to try to explain the bible or God or the unknown. Focus.

 

[dad]

From what?
It is not like your attack has any substance.
And with you flat out refusing to give your attack any substance, you know, by presenting evidence for your claims, there is nothing left to do but to dismiss your bold empty claims for the bold empty claims they are.

From the fact that it is a pile of fables that cannot be defended. Of course.

 

[Tiberius]

Science claims stuff based on a belief it was the same. Your failure to be able to support that belief is the issue. The thread is not about using pagan beliefs to try to explain the bible or God or the unknown. Focus.

Once again you are incapable of providing evidence to support your own claims. All you can provide is feeble attempts to badmouth science, and no one is falling for it.

Provide evidence to support your own claims or admit you have nothing.

 

[dad]

Once again you are incapable of providing evidence to support your own claims. All you can provide is feeble attempts to badmouth science, and no one is falling for it.

Provide evidence to support your own claims or admit you have nothing.

Troll. All can see you cannot defend science beliefs.

 

[McBell]

Troll. All can see you cannot defend science beliefs.

 

[McBell]

From the fact that it is a pile of fables that cannot be defended. Of course.

One would think that chasing your own tail for the last three years would get tiring.

 

[dad]

One would think that chasing your own tail for the last three years would get tiring.

Not swallowing your godless, and baseless belief set is not chasing a tail. It is rejecting a tale.

 

[McBell]

Not swallowing your godless, and baseless belief set is not chasing a tail. It is rejecting a tale.

No one is the least bit surprised that you fail to understand what is said to you.
You have made it into your superpower.

 

[Tiberius]

Troll. All can see you cannot defend science beliefs.

Once again you are incapable of providing evidence to support your own claims. All you can provide is feeble attempts to badmouth science, and no one is falling for it.

Provide evidence to support your own claims or admit you have nothing.

 

[dad]

No one is the least bit surprised that you fail to understand what is said to you.
You have made it into your superpower.

Blah blah