New Ohio law allows students to be scientifically wrong.

[dad]

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

You do not get to say whether spirits are real you have no way to know either way! A caveman may have though a match was magic. No. It may just be above his paygrade.

 

[dad]

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

No. Science says it must be the same, and has no reasons. I say that science doesn't know. That means they are in absolutely no position to question ancient records.

 

[Polymath257]

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.

And that's what would take an enormous coincidence.

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

OK, I'll set up an example and *you* explain how it would work.

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

False.

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.

No, actually, that is NOT Last Thursdayism. It is, in fact, the exact opposite of Last Thursdayism.

Last Thursdayism is the idea that everything started last Thursday with all of our memories, etc to *mimic* a past that was actually not there. This is precisely what *you* are claiming.

False. If there was most of a daughter material already here when this nature began, it would NOT have been caused by this nature!

But the amounts of daughter materials in all of the different rocks spread out over the Earth have to be such that they give consistent results. THAT is the issue you don't deal with.

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.

I understand your objection and it fails to explain what is actually seen.

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!

And the fact that people lived through 'the change' alone shows the change could not have been that drastic. Otherwise they would have died from the effects.

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

See next post.

 

[Polymath257]

OK, let's do a small scenario. Imagine two lakes (A and B) in different locations in Europe with different types of sediment being deposited. We also have a glacier with ice layers. All three have organic deposits also. The lakes are occasionally interbedded with volcanic deposits. We 'date' the lakes by counting layers of sediment, the glacier by counting layers of ice, the volcanic deposits by one dating method with a (modern) half life of 5 million years and all three by a different radioactive method with a half-life of 10,000 years (this is made up for the numbers to be nice, but the real world has systems with these characteristics, but different decay rates).

So, the first thing we notice is that the layers in lake A are different thicknesses than those in lake B. Sometimes the thickness of a lake A layer is more, at other stages, they are less. Both lakes have layers that vary widely in thickness.

Next, we notice that as we go down in the layers, the amount of both radioactive isotopes decreases. But, they decrease at different rates. So, say, in the 5,000th layer in lake A, the short lived isotope has about 70% of its 'standard' value, while the long lived isotope has 99.9% of it's 'standard' value. BUT, the ratios match up with the number of the layer in both lakes!

So, if we look at the 10,000th layer in both lakes, the ratio of the short-lived isotope is half the 'standard' value in both lakes. This is true even though the lakes have very different thicknesses in their layers. And, when we go to the long-lived isotope, we get a *different* ratio (closer to 99.8%) than for the short lived, but we get the same ratio in the two lakes at the same *numbered* layer.

Furthermore, this happens at the 15,000th layer, the 20,000the layer, the 30,000th layer, etc.

Also, when counting the ice layers, we *also* get the same ratio of the shorter lived isotope for the same *number* layer.

Next, in all three, we notice that the lakes and the ice have layers that have a lot of 'soot': small particulates that are similar to those produced by wildfires.

But, when we count the layers, again, we find that one soot layer is at the 4520th layer in all cases. We go to historical records and find that there were massive fires in Europe 4520 years ago. We then find a soot layer in all three at the 25,340th layer. And we find another that is at the 41,730th in all cases.

By the time we get to the 100,000th layer in all three, we find that the amount of the shorter lived isotope is very, very small while the longer lived isotope is still pretty substantial, but now down to a ratio of 98% (but again, the same ratio at the same numbered layer in all three cases).

Finally, if we do a computation with the modern decays rates for the two different isotopes, we get computed ages that agree with each other (even though the decay rates are different and the ratios are different) and also that agree with the number of layers in either the lakes or the ice.

Now, we have a situation of three sites with a total of 5 different dating methods. ALL of these give consistent results and results that agree for modern times.

Notice that at no time did I assume that there was a previous state. ALL measurements and calculations were done on materials *right now*. But there is consistency across different methods, based on different processes at different layers of all three sites. At no point did I assume that layers correspond to years or that decay rates were always the same. But, nonetheless, there is cross consistency between the number of layers and the isotope ratios and the *computed* ages in years.

Now, it is your turn. Explain how 'the state' changed at some point so that the number of layers in each lake agree with each other and with the number of layers in the ice and with the computed ages via two different radioactive materials with different decay rates, different daughter isotopes, etc.

Your ball.

 

[ecco]

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.

All is well and good until you ask the Creationist where their Creator came from. Then they "abandon everything we "know" about cause and effect" and "believe the universe CREATOR came from much less than nothing at all". At least science is honest enough to say I Don't Know.

 

[ecco]

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

Ah, the old "you have faith just like I have faith - my faith is as good as your faith" argument.

You claim to have great knowledge of linguistics. Why is it necessary for me to remind you that the word "faith", like many words in the English language, has multiple meanings.

faith​

/fāTH/
Learn to pronounce
noun
1.
complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
"this restores one's faith in politicians"

Similar:
trust, belief, confidence, conviction, reliance

Opposite:
mistrust


2.strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

​

People's faith in science and scientists is definition #1.
Your faith is definition #2.

But you know that, so why try to make a nonsensical argument that has no basis?

On the other hand, perhaps you didn't know that "faith", like many words in the English language, has multiple meanings. In that case, I'm glad I was able to help you overcome a little bit of ignorance. No charge. Glad I could help.

 

[ecco]

Reason and facts are the only tools we have against the darkness but religion is not that darkness.

Not true. Religion has always cast a shadow of darkness and superstition to try to conceal the light of knowledge and truth.

Perhaps you want to intentionally ignore things like:

• February 2016: 400 Years Ago the Catholic Church Prohibited Copernicanism
• Between 1400 to 1782, when Switzerland tried and executed Europe’s last supposed witch, between 40,000 and 60,000 people were put to death for witchcraft, according to historical consensus.

• John Thomas Scopes and commonly referred to as the Scopes Monkey Trial, was an American legal case in July 1925 in which a substitute high school teacher, John T. Scopes, was accused of violating Tennessee's Butler Act, which had made it unlawful to teach human evolution in any state-funded school.
• In October 2004, the Dover Area School District of York County, Pennsylvania changed its biology teaching curriculum to require that intelligent design be presented as an alternative to evolution theory, and that Of Pandas and People, a textbook advocating intelligent design, was to be used as a reference book.

The belief that we know everything necessary or that knowledge itself is of no value is the darkness.

What a ridiculous comment. Who thinks like that? Certainly not rational people. Certainly not the people doing research in biology and geology and physics and mathematics et al on a day to day basis. People who know that evolution took place over billions of years; people who know what a point is; people who have discovered black holes in the center of galaxies. People who wouldn't be doing more research if they thought "we know everything necessary or that knowledge itself is of no value".

 

[ecco]

No. Science says it must be the same, and has no reasons. I say that science doesn't know. That means they are in absolutely no position to question ancient records.

No reasons? Really? The main reason is that science knows that things don't magically change.

The black Mustang in my garage is the same car as it was yesterday and for two years before. Do you think I bought a red one and it magically turned into a black one? That's really childishly silly. Actually, I don't think your average five year old would think that could happen.

Of course, I don't think the average ten year old would believe that Australia magically hopped across the ocean to its present location either.

So what company does that leave you in?

 

[dad]

And that's what would take an enormous coincidence.

Not true. If ratios were constantly changing (for whatever reasons according to the former nature forces and laws in place then) then we must expect a changing pattern of isotope ratios over time. Just as we see. Your problem is that you want to explain all ratios as if they came about under our nature. That is religious fanaticism.

No, actually, that is NOT Last Thursdayism. It is, in fact, the exact opposite of Last Thursdayism.

Yet you balk if we do not blindly and with no posted evidence or reasons, believe that nature was the same in the unknown past! ALL you want us to accept is recent nature!

But the amounts of daughter materials in all of the different rocks spread out over the Earth have to be such that they give consistent results. THAT is the issue you don't deal with.

Consistency only matters when it can be verified. You only want to 'verify' belief derived dates using belief derived dates! The only verification that exists in for several thousand years.

I understand your objection and it fails to explain what is actually seen.

No. You just failed so far to see how it does.

And the fact that people lived through 'the change' alone shows the change could not have been that drastic. Otherwise they would have died from the effects.

Well, that is actually not true at all. It must be considered drastic when pre nature change people (even Noah after the flood) lived almost a thousand years, then suddenly found life spans dropped to almost 1/4 what they were. Noah and Adam saw trees that grew in weeks. After the change, we had plants growing as we now see them grow in this nature! That would affect farming and etc etc. Before the nature there were spirit being living on earth with men and marrying! After the change this never happened again. Etc

 

[dad]

No reasons? Really? The main reason is that science knows that things don't magically change.

That says nothing, since magic is just whatever is above your paygrade. Personal incredulity does not affect what fundamental forces existed in the unknown past!

The black Mustang in my garage is the same car as it was yesterday and for two years before.

If it was also there in Noah's day we will take a look at it.

Of course, I don't think the average ten year old would believe that Australia magically hopped across the ocean to its present location either.

Magic is anything that operates outside current nature. So that is why you wave away ancient history, spirits, and heaven etc etc. You can keep your little box, and narrow mindedness, thanks.

So what company does that leave you in?

The winner's circle.

 

[cladking]

All is well and good until you ask the Creationist where their Creator came from. Then they "abandon everything we "know" about cause and effect" and "believe the universe CREATOR came from much less than nothing at all". At least science is honest enough to say I Don't Know.

No. "Science" is saying everything emerged from nothing; a point.

So why was there exactly that amount of matter, black matter, and energy? Does every point in the universe contain that same amount of "energy"? Why don't all points in the universe erupt?

I'm not here to defend religious beliefs. I'm not much of a fan of any kind of beliefs because it is beliefs and circular reasoning that defines Homo Omnisciencis and has us mired in 19th century mud.

 

[cladking]

Ah, the old "you have faith just like I have faith - my faith is as good as your faith" argument.

You claim to have great knowledge of linguistics. Why is it necessary for me to remind you that the word "faith", like many words in the English language, has multiple meanings.

faith​

/fāTH/
Learn to pronounce
noun
1.
complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
"this restores one's faith in politicians"

Similar:
trust, belief, confidence, conviction, reliance

Opposite:
mistrust


2.strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.
​

People's faith in science and scientists is definition #1.
Your faith is definition #2.

But you know that, so why try to make a nonsensical argument that has no basis?

On the other hand, perhaps you didn't know that "faith", like many words in the English language, has multiple meanings. In that case, I'm glad I was able to help you overcome a little bit of ignorance. No charge. Glad I could help.

I strive to have no faith at all. I have virtually no knowledge of linguistics and from what I've learned in the last decade would deny it if I did. Frankly I've lost faith even in the curiosity of man. I had always believed that man was profoundly interested in the truth and in understanding reality. Now I believe that almost every individual is spending almost all of his time in seeking to prove his beliefs. Progress comes as a failure to succeed in proving one's beliefs. Progress is serendipity when the right educated individual notices an anomaly. There is very little "thinking outside the box" because we each take our beliefs right outside the box with us. We simply see our beliefs from a fresh angle while outside the box.

You have no idea what the word "faith" means. My unabridged dictionary hasa about a 750 word definition for it. I've looked up most of those words and each of them has multiple meanings and usages as well as numerous connotations. Every word in every definition can be deconstructed and interpreted in an infinite number of ways. Every individual has his own unique understanding of every word. Now you want to impose your definition and your application of a word not on your understanding, but on mine.

Language doesn't work the way you think it does. Your job is to try to understand what I say and then to be sure I understand what you say but you are attempting to circumvent this. You are engaging in a circular argument with multiple false assumptions; I am religious, religion makes no sense, therefore I make no sense. So you see your job not of trying to understand but to set me straight. Better men than you have tried to do this. Lots of luck.

 

[dad]

OK, let's do a small scenario. Imagine two lakes (A and B) in different locations in Europe with different types of sediment being deposited. We also have a glacier with ice layers. All three have organic deposits also. The lakes are occasionally interbedded with volcanic deposits. We 'date' the lakes by counting layers of sediment, the glacier by counting layers of ice, the volcanic deposits by one dating method with a (modern) half life of 5 million years and all three by a different radioactive method with a half-life of 10,000 years (this is made up for the numbers to be nice, but the real world has systems with these characteristics, but different decay rates).

OK. I can do that too using other beliefs.

So, the first thing we notice is that the layers in lake A are different thicknesses than those in lake B. Sometimes the thickness of a lake A layer is more, at other stages, they are less. Both lakes have layers that vary widely in thickness.

Next, we notice that as we go down in the layers, the amount of both radioactive isotopes decreases. But, they decrease at different rates. So, say, in the 5,000th layer in lake A, the short lived isotope has about 70% of its 'standard' value, while the long lived isotope has 99.9% of it's 'standard' value. BUT, the ratios match up with the number of the layer in both lakes!

So we have the expected pattern here. The ratios change over time in both lakes. In the former natture, some conditions existed where layers may have been deposited faster or thicker/thinner than others! If we notice a pattern of isotope ratios that is similar that seems to suggest that the timing of the deposit was similar! So, if we look at a 5000 layer deep deposit in lake B that has a similar ratio pattern as another lake A that also had a similar pattern at the 5000 layer deep level, that indicates that both existed in a nature that affected ratios. So?? That does not mean it was this present nature.

So, if we look at the 10,000th layer in both lakes, the ratio of the short-lived isotope is half the 'standard' value in both lakes. This is true even though the lakes have very different thicknesses in their layers. And, when we go to the long-lived isotope, we get a *different* ratio (closer to 99.8%) than for the short lived, but we get the same ratio in the two lakes at the same *numbered* layer.

That suggests that ratios changed quickly for whatever reasons in the different nature of the past. As time went by (less time was involved in the former nature) the ratios changed. Bam. Just as we see.

Furthermore, this happens at the 15,000th layer, the 20,000the layer, the 30,000th layer, etc.

Great! I see no reason why the pattern of changing ratios would stop? The only issue is in what nature they were deposited in!

Also, when counting the ice layers, we *also* get the same ratio of the shorter lived isotope for the same *number* layer.

Excellent!

Next, in all three, we notice that the lakes and the ice have layers that have a lot of 'soot': small particulates that are similar to those produced by wildfires.

But, when we count the layers, again, we find that one soot layer is at the 4520th layer in all cases. We go to historical records and find that there were massive fires in Europe 4520 years ago.

In the short term it is accurate...so what?? However the dates you claimed the fire was at would be a little too old, and we can be sure radioactive dating is involved there too!

By the time we get to the 100,000th layer in all three, we find that the amount of the shorter lived isotope is very, very small while the longer lived isotope is still pretty substantial, but now down to a ratio of 98% (but again, the same ratio at the same numbered layer in all three cases).

That tells us that the pattern of changing isotopes continued. Great. That does not tell us the reason for the ratios is that they were produced in this nature!

Finally, if we do a computation with the modern decays rates for the two different isotopes, we get computed ages that agree with each other (even though the decay rates are different and the ratios are different) and also that agree with the number of layers in either the lakes or the ice.

And there is where you enter la la land. There is only agreement in imaginary time. The ratios agree...yes. Why the ratios came to exist is another matter entirely. Get completely over the notion that we must attribute the present nature for it all just because you believe real hard.

Now, we have a situation of three sites with a total of 5 different dating methods. ALL of these give consistent results and results that agree for modern times.

Same belief used in different ways. Ho hum.

Notice that at no time did I assume that there was a previous state.

Hey, we noticed that right away, in fact you assumed a same state past!

ALL measurements and calculations were done on materials *right now*. But there is consistency across different methods, based on different processes at different layers of all three sites.

The consistency is only in a pattern of ratios. That does not mean it was all produced in this nature.

At no point did I assume that layers correspond to years or that decay rates were always the same. But, nonetheless, there is cross consistency between the number of layers and the isotope ratios and the *computed* ages in years.

Of course if ratios changed also in the former nature we would see this. Nothing to do with the presentnaturedunnit (and God did squat) belief set.

Now, it is your turn.

Simple. The former forces and laws affected atoms too. Whatever processes existed then also produced ratios. Then we might add creation itself in some cases, when things first existed, they no doubt had some sort of ratios in place! Now we get to the time of the tower of Babel or thereabouts..boom..nature changes. NOW, we have the materials already here, complete with ratios. As time in this nature progresses, we also have a pattern existing that is NOW caused by radioactivity. This now produces more (what is now daughter material..because it now gets produced by decay in this present nature).
Then you come along thousands of years later. You look at the daughter maters (doesn't matter what lake, mountain or glacier they are in). You see that radioactive decay now exists and in fact slowly produces this daughter material. You assume and believe that whatever amount of daughter material we see then, had to have been produced by this present nature reality of decay!

 

[cladking]

Not true. Religion has always cast a shadow of darkness and superstition to try to conceal the light of knowledge and truth.

Nonsense. Religion is just a confusion of ancient knowledge. Religion has always tried to get men to do what's right even as the standards of "right" have evolved and changed largely as a result of religious study. But the science and deevoltion have also played roles in the nature of what's "right". You might not have noticed but Hitler and science went hand in hand. Evil is the result of false principles and beliefs. It is not the result of religion.

I snipped your second comment because you misunderstood. I DIDN'T SAY THAT SCIENCE IS THE DARKNESS. But neither is religion. Go back and read it again.

 

[cladking]

No reasons? Really? The main reason is that science knows that things don't magically change.

The black Mustang in my garage is the same car as it was yesterday and for two years before. Do you think I bought a red one and it magically turned into a black one? That's really childishly silly. Actually, I don't think your average five year old would think that could happen.

Of course, I don't think the average ten year old would believe that Australia magically hopped across the ocean to its present location either.

So what company does that leave you in?

There are no "laws of nature". But there's no "magic" either. Reality is reflective of the same logic that makes mathematics work but this doesn't mean that reality can be reduced to equations or that there can be no God. You are extrapolating our primitive experimental results in ways that are inconsistent with what is currently known.

 

[cladking]

That says nothing, since magic is just whatever is above your paygrade. Personal incredulity does not affect what fundamental forces existed in the unknown past!

If it was also there in Noah's day we will take a look at it.

Magic is anything that operates outside current nature. So that is why you wave away ancient history, spirits, and heaven etc etc. You can keep your little box, and narrow mindedness, thanks.
The winner's circle.

You said a mouthful there but it will escape most people.

Metaphysics contains everything that is known but even most scientists believe it is magic. Of course part of the confusion is one of its definitions is "magic".

Meanwhile I believe religion is the only part of ancient science that generally survived the "confusion of the tongues". Ancient science was a "tongue" so when the "tower of babel" fell the only thing left was what we call "religion".

"Magic" is more than a look in a young girl's eyes it's also what makes science work and what keeps us going against all odds. It's serendipity and the ability to think outside the box. It's making new connections and new discovery. It's the appreciation of the unfolding of nature or coming to understand anything from science to religion.

 

[cladking]

Not true. Religion has always cast a shadow of darkness and superstition to try to conceal the light of knowledge and truth.

People in the 19th century thought Freud was scientific but he engaged in the exact same Look and See Science that is such a fixture in our universities today. It was Freud whose ideas wrecked the educational system and his belief in the "subconscious" that is still undermining the human race today. His dalliance with a sister in law probably lies at the heart of every genocide since.

But if a teacher asked me what part of the brain was responsible for animalistic behavior I'd still check the box next to the word "id". I wouldn't blink twice and I'd score it for .99 points.

If I were asked what species literally turned to stone when you looked at them I might not even blink once and would answer "weeping angels".

 

[Polymath257]

OK. I can do that too using other beliefs.

So we have the expected pattern here. The ratios change over time in both lakes. In the former natture, some conditions existed where layers may have been deposited faster or thicker/thinner than others! If we notice a pattern of isotope ratios that is similar that seems to suggest that the timing of the deposit was similar! So, if we look at a 5000 layer deep deposit in lake B that has a similar ratio pattern as another lake A that also had a similar pattern at the 5000 layer deep level, that indicates that both existed in a nature that affected ratios. So?? That does not mean it was this present nature.

But the point is that the ratios didn't change in the same way between the two different isotopes. They changed by one amount in one and a completely different amount in the other. But they changed in such a way that the computed age (whether or not correct) is the same.

Why would that happen?

Furthermore, why would the change in the ratios be exactly the same as the change in the deposition rates?

What we would *expect* is that the decay rate for one isotope would change in a completely different way than the decay rate for the other.

We would also expect that the two different lakes, because they are in different areas and already have different rates of deposition, would change in different ways. And *that* would throw off the alignment between the lakes, the radioactive dates, etc.

That suggests that ratios changed quickly for whatever reasons in the different nature of the past. As time went by (less time was involved in the former nature) the ratios changed. Bam. Just as we see.

It isn't just that they change quickly. It is that the change by different processes by amounts that stay consistent. THAT is the problem for your system. We would, if your view is correct, expect to see the dates for one method get out of kilter with the dates from a different method *because* they are all changing in different ways.

But that is NOT what we actually see happening.

Great! I see no reason why the pattern of changing ratios would stop? The only issue is in what nature they were deposited in!
Excellent!
In the short term it is accurate...so what?? However the dates you claimed the fire was at would be a little too old, and we can be sure radioactive dating is involved there too!

But why would two very different radioactive methods change in exactly the way that would align the dates even though the actual rates of change would have to be different to do so?

That tells us that the pattern of changing isotopes continued. Great. That does not tell us the reason for the ratios is that they were produced in this nature!

Then why do they change as they do? What reason do they have to change by exactly the amounts that would keep them in alignment?

And there is where you enter la la land. There is only agreement in imaginary time. The ratios agree...yes. Why the ratios came to exist is another matter entirely. Get completely over the notion that we must attribute the present nature for it all just because you believe real hard.

But *why* do the ratios exist? And not just at one layer, but throughout the different layers even though they are based on different physical principles and the layers are not the same thicknesses, etc?

You have yet to explain why we would expect the changes to change in a consistent way across methods.

Same belief used in different ways. Ho hum.
Hey, we noticed that right away, in fact you assumed a same state past!
The consistency is only in a pattern of ratios. That does not mean it was all produced in this nature.

Then why the consistency?

Of course if ratios changed also in the former nature we would see this. Nothing to do with the presentnaturedunnit (and God did squat) belief set.

No, if the ratios changed in different ways previously (which is what we qwould expect), they would NOT be consistent *now*.

Simple. The former forces and laws affected atoms too. Whatever processes existed then also produced ratios.

Too vague. Why would they affect different atoms that have very different properties in just the way that would keep the ratios consistent? Remember that one dating method works on beta decay, another on alpha decay, another on nuclear fission, another on depositional rates in lakes, another on depositional rates of ice on glaciers.

Why would each of these different processes change in exactly the same way?

Then we might add creation itself in some cases, when things first existed, they no doubt had some sort of ratios in place!

Sure, and we would expect them to have the same ratio throughout the layers that were already there. But then, to get to the results we see today, the different ratios in different layers would have to change in different ways *and* change in exactly the way that keeps consistency today.

Now we get to the time of the tower of Babel or thereabouts..boom..nature changes. NOW, we have the materials already here, complete with ratios.

But *which* ratios? Why the specific pattern of ratios that would lead to the ones we see today?

As time in this nature progresses, we also have a pattern existing that is NOW caused by radioactivity. This now produces more (what is now daughter material..because it now gets produced by decay in this present nature).

But that pattern that is now caused by radioactivity at a certain decay rate started from a very different pattern because the nature was different in the past. And that means that the pattern at the change had to be produced from a different nature *and* lead to the ratios we see today. THAT is incredibly improbable.

Then you come along thousands of years later. You look at the daughter maters (doesn't matter what lake, mountain or glacier they are in). You see that radioactive decay now exists and in fact slowly produces this daughter material. You assume and believe that whatever amount of daughter material we see then, had to have been produced by this present nature reality of decay!

No, we do not. That is another point. We can, in many cases, determine how much daughter material was there originally. And, again, to be consistent with the results we see today, there would have to be different amounts of daughter material at different layers, but in just the precise way that would produce the results we see today.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

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

What is a "law of nature?" What a very silly concept.

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

Yet-- I have no such thing. You are, as is the habit of theists, lying. You have no clue about me-- you project theistic BS.

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

Sarcasm? How cute-- you need to try better, as yours isn't even partly true. A 100% lie even if it's sarcastic, does not work.

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

"Creator?" OF WHAT? You have failed-- to 100% -- to demonstrate there is a "creation" in the first place...

Typical.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

More repeated false accusations..

Yes-- you do that 100% of the time. It's all you do.