Confirmed: growth rate was different in past around time of flood!

[dad]

He's not running. He's just deciding not to sit at the table when the only thing you're serving is manure.

Like your spam.

 

[Tiberius]

Like your spam.

I don't see Gnostic saying bye to me, dad. Just you. That tells you who is providing the manure.

 

[dad]

I don't see Gnostic saying bye to me, dad. Just you. That tells you who is providing the manure.

I don't see you supporting your beliefs you pretend are science any more than he could. But you have more persistence spamming.

 

[Tiberius]

I don't see you supporting your beliefs you pretend are science any more than he could. But you have more persistence spamming.

I have done. All that talk about how dendrochronology matches radiometric dating, and how the different methods of radiometric dating themselves all give consistent answers.

Since you have decided that you are just going to ignore that because you aren't interested in actually being educated - the very definition of closed-minded - I've decided I've got better things to do than waste my time. You value your ignorance, and I'm not going to present evidence which I know you will ignore.

All I do is give you an opportunity to show everyone how laughable your claims are, since you are incapable of presenting any real world evidence to support them.

 

[dad]

I have done. All that talk about how dendrochronology matches radiometric dating, and how the different methods of radiometric dating themselves all give consistent answers.

Nothing consistent in the real world about assigning ratio patterns to a fantasy past nature. If two methods agree that something is billions of years old how will you prove it? All you are doing is claiming that both ratios look old when you assume all the stuff in the ratios was a product of this present nature.

Only one thing matters, and that is what nature existed in the far past. If it was a different nature as the bible indicates, then you cannot use the present nature as the reason the stuff exists! Simple.
Creation, then the former nature, then this present nature. All played a part in the ratios. You have used only one of these. You are not playing with a full deck.

 

[Tiberius]

Nothing consistent in the real world about assigning ratio patterns to a fantasy past nature. If two methods agree that something is billions of years old how will you prove it? All you are doing is claiming that both ratios look old when you assume all the stuff in the ratios was a product of this present nature.

Only one thing matters, and that is what nature existed in the far past. If it was a different nature as the bible indicates, then you cannot use the present nature as the reason the stuff exists! Simple.
Creation, then the former nature, then this present nature. All played a part in the ratios. You have used only one of these. You are not playing with a full deck.

What you refuse to understand is that if two different methods agree on an age, then they are two entirely different methods that have nothing in common with each other. There is no reason to assume that the ages they give would match.

If the radiometric dating can't be trusted because there just happens to be some of the daughter material present for whatever reason, why would the dendrochronology give the same age? How would it know how many years off it had to be to match what the completely different radiometric dating technique indicates? They are two entirely different techniques based on two entirely different laws of nature. Yet they give the same result. Why would they give the same result? There's no reason they should in your DSP idea. But a Same State Past explains it perfectly. And this kind of real world evidence destroys your idea completely.

 

[dad]

What you refuse to understand is that if two different methods agree on an age, then they are two entirely different methods that have nothing in common with each other.

Yes there is a reason when we use the belief that all those ratios were formed in this nature. Your belief is the reason. The ratios themselves, in this case of a few different isotopes in a rock say 2 billion years old.
We could look at it as if creation was responsible for the rock. Then the processes of the different former nature worked and increased or decreased various isotopes. Then the present nature started and the ratios were affected by this nature. There is no great age there. The only way the ratios look old is when you view them as having been formed in the present state. Of course both sets of isotopes would look old to you.

If the radiometric dating can't be trusted because there just happens to be some of the daughter material present for whatever reason, why would the dendrochronology give the same age?

No. There is no trees that are billions of years old.
In the former nature trees grew in weeks. In this nature they grow in years. Obviously rings that extend into the former nature would be of no use in dating. Yet not only are they used for dating by science but they were used to calibrate and correct obviously wrong radiometric dates!! Ha

How would it know how many years off it had to be to match what the completely different radiometric dating technique indicates?

In the example used here of a two billion year 'old' rock, it doesn't matter at all, since no one could ever check! If there is some fantasy 'agreement' in fantasy 'dates' billions of pretend imaginary years in the past, that is not any real agreement.

Remember that in a decay chain that they claim for billions of years, many isotopes would supposedly have existed but are no longer here! How can you prove that some isotope with a half-life of say, 27 million years used to exist when it is not here now?? No traces exist. Your evidence is M.I.A.!

 

[gnostic]

What you refuse to understand is that if two different methods agree on an age, then they are two entirely different methods that have nothing in common with each other. There is no reason to assume that the ages they give would match.

If the radiometric dating can't be trusted because there just happens to be some of the daughter material present for whatever reason, why would the dendrochronology give the same age? How would it know how many years off it had to be to match what the completely different radiometric dating technique indicates? They are two entirely different techniques based on two entirely different laws of nature. Yet they give the same result. Why would they give the same result? There's no reason they should in your DSP idea. But a Same State Past explains it perfectly. And this kind of real world evidence destroys your idea completely.

He doesn’t understand the concept of verification from multiple (independent) sources.

And he don’t want to understand science of anything that might show that his faith-based religion to be false, so his only resources are to constantly lie about the science, and lie some about his own religion and scriptures that he hold so dear.

Nothing will make him, to learn from his mistakes, which is why he keep digging head deeper in the sand.

I have already wasted enough of my time with this poe and this troll.

 

[Riders]

let me see if I get what you're saying here...

Proposition 1: Earth days were shorter by about 30 minutes about 65-70 million years ago...

Proposition 2: One ancestral species of clam grew very fast (very similar to some species of clam today)...

Therefore: God caused a worldwide catastrophic flood 6,000 or so years ago...

Or am I missing something...?

That's my reaction. My reaction my official reply is so what??????????????

 

[Tiberius]

Yes there is a reason when we use the belief that all those ratios were formed in this nature. Your belief is the reason. The ratios themselves, in this case of a few different isotopes in a rock say 2 billion years old.
We could look at it as if creation was responsible for the rock. Then the processes of the different former nature worked and increased or decreased various isotopes. Then the present nature started and the ratios were affected by this nature. There is no great age there. The only way the ratios look old is when you view them as having been formed in the present state. Of course both sets of isotopes would look old to you.

Spoken like someone who has no idea what he's talking about.,

No. There is no trees that are billions of years old.
In the former nature trees grew in weeks. In this nature they grow in years. Obviously rings that extend into the former nature would be of no use in dating. Yet not only are they used for dating by science but they were used to calibrate and correct obviously wrong radiometric dates!! Ha

I'm not talking about trees billions of years old. If you don't know that radiometric dating can be used to date things much younger, then once again you don't know what you are talking about.

In the example used here of a two billion year 'old' rock, it doesn't matter at all, since no one could ever check! If there is some fantasy 'agreement' in fantasy 'dates' billions of pretend imaginary years in the past, that is not any real agreement.

Remember that in a decay chain that they claim for billions of years, many isotopes would supposedly have existed but are no longer here! How can you prove that some isotope with a half-life of say, 27 million years used to exist when it is not here now?? No traces exist. Your evidence is M.I.A.!

And look at you setting up a strawman argument? Aren't you fallacious?

And once again your posts are nothing more than declaring you are right and spouting off wild claims that try to disprove my posts but really only serve to illustrate your ignorance. You've lost again and you will keep on losing until you learn how to produce real world evidence for your claims.

 

[Left Coast]

***THREAD LOCKED***