Origins Thread

[Nyob]

First, let’s define what I mean by a “mathematically grounded theory” in this context:

Alrighty then..

A mathematically grounded theory is one in which the fundamental constants of nature emerge as necessary consequences of deeper physical laws

Necessary consequences?

The laws are the way they are because the constants are the way they are, that's the "consequence"?

described by equations with no arbitrary free parameters.

Yes, constants aren't free parameters, which is what you've been asked about and have eh, constantly dodged

That is: the values are derived, not inserted.

How are they "derived"?

So much chicken and egg stuff here, it's gas..

Such a theory would not merely accommodate the observed constants but predict them

How does fine-tuning (so-called) "predict" them?

general relativity predicts the bending of starlight or time dilation.

General relativity is a theory capable of dealing with variables

Now to clarify your second error:

Uh-huh..

In terms of fine-tuning, it’s an observation

Sure

specifically, the observed fact that small deviations in the constants (in many cases, parts per million or less) lead to a universe incompatible with complex structure or life.

As we know it

 

[Tiger]

Alrighty then..


Necessary consequences?

The laws are the way they are because the constants are the way they are, that's the "consequence"?


Yes, constants aren't free parameters, which is what you've been asked about and have eh, constantly dodged


How are they "derived"?

So much chicken and egg stuff here, it's gas..


How does fine-tuning (so-called) "predict" them?


General relativity is a theory capable of dealing with variables


Uh-huh..


Sure


As we know it

Haha, oh look I'm eating you for breakfast again.

You’ve expended considerable energy trying to perform verbal aikido on my question, but you’ve yet to touch the substance.

Let me be very clear: I’m not asking whether different constants might permit “something.” That’s not a theory—it’s a placeholder for one. I'm asking whether you (or Greene, or anyone) can produce a mathematically grounded, predictive model in which the known physical constants are not arbitrarily inserted, but rather derived from first principles—no ad hoc tuning, no infinite regress, and no appeals to unverifiable constructs like the multiverse. That’s the gold standard in theoretical physics, and you haven’t gotten within striking distance of it.

You say “as we know it” like it’s a mic drop, but that phrase only betrays the depth of the problem. Because all known forms of matter, structure, chemistry, and even dimensional stability hinge on a razor-thin band of physical constants. If your answer to that is a shrug and "maybe some other form of life in a different kind of universe," then you’ve abdicated explanatory responsibility. You’re not engaging in science—you’re performing metaphysical improv under the banner of physics.

So again—let’s make this clear and simple:

Can you present a theory (not a metaphor) that predicts the precise values of the physical constants—such as the fine structure constant, the cosmological constant, or the strength of the strong nuclear force—without manually inserting them or invoking speculative infinities? If not, then what justifies dismissing fine-tuning as illusory rather than taking it seriously as an empirical clue?

Until you answer that, you're just rearranging fog.

 

[Nyob]

Oh look, you ignored everything I said, every question I asked....

Again

 

[Tiger]

Oh look, you ignored everything I said, every question I asked....

Again

This is the kind of response you get from someone who doesn’t read books

Ah ok, you'd like to be spoon fed, say no more...

When I say that a mathematically grounded theory would derive the constants, I mean this: the values of those constants would emerge necessarily from the internal structure of the theory itself. They would not be put in by hand as arbitrary inputs (as they are in the Standard Model), but would fall out of the equations the way π emerges from the geometry of a circle, or how the energy levels of a hydrogen atom emerge from solving the Schrödinger equation for the Coulomb potential. In short, you don’t get to choose the values—they’re entailed by the mathematics.

Now, to your second point: fine-tuning itself does not predict the values—it absolutely points to the necessity of a theory that does. Fine-tuning is an empirical observation—not a theory. It’s the recognition that small changes in constants (e.g., the strong nuclear force, the cosmological constant) obliterate the possibility of complex matter, chemistry, or long-lived stars. That’s not a theological point or a “God of the gaps” move. That’s physics. The question it raises is: why do these constants fall into the narrow life-permitting range at all? If there’s no deeper law necessitating those values, then the fact that they fall within this razor-thin window is, statistically, absurd—and in need of explanation.

So to repeat and clarify:

• A predictive theory is what we’re after.
• Fine-tuning is the clue that such a theory is missing.
• Invoking a multiverse, or asserting that “other combinations might work,” without any model or math, is not a scientific answer. It’s a placeholder for one.

Now—can you outline a framework, derived from known physics, in which the constants are not arbitrarily assigned, but follow necessarily from deeper principles?

Because if not, then we're still standing in front of a locked vault—and all you've offered is the assumption that a key might exist.

 

[Nyob]

This is the kind of response you get from someone who doesn’t read books

Ah ok, you'd like to be spoon fed, say no more...

When I say that a mathematically grounded theory would derive the constants, I mean this: the values of those constants would emerge necessarily from the internal structure of the theory itself. They would not be put in by hand as arbitrary inputs (as they are in the Standard Model), but would fall out of the equations the way π emerges from the geometry of a circle, or how the energy levels of a hydrogen atom emerge from solving the Schrödinger equation for the Coulomb potential. In short, you don’t get to choose the values—they’re entailed by the mathematics.

Yeah, so, I don't actually speak Intelligent Design gibberish so I'm not sure what you're on about..

Now, to your second point: fine-tuning itself does not predict the values—it absolutely points to the necessity of a theory that does.

Why is it necessary?

Fine-tuning is an empirical observation—not a theory. It’s the recognition that small changes in constants (e.g., the strong nuclear force, the cosmological constant) obliterate the possibility of complex matter, chemistry, or long-lived stars. That’s not a theological point or a “God of the gaps” move.

It's a teleological argument for the existence of God.. Otherwise no one would be talking about it, especially not you

That’s physics.

Which you know nothing about

The question it raises is: why do these constants fall into the narrow life-permitting range at all? If there’s no deeper law necessitating those values

There ya go

R u done?

 

[Myles O'Reilly]

You don't believe the earth is flat yet you believe its only a few thousand years old.

Why one and not the other Sir?

 

[Tiger]

Yeah, so, I don't actually speak Intelligent Design gibberish so I'm not sure what you're on about..


Why is it necessary?


It's a teleological argument for the existence of God.. Otherwise no one would be talking about it, especially not you


Which you know nothing about


There ya go

R u done?

The above responses show that you are hopelessly out of your depth.

 

[Tiger]

You don't believe the earth is flat yet you believe its only a few thousand years old.

Why one and not the other Sir?

That’s a false equivalence.

The reality is that nobody knows how old the earth is.

All mainstream scientific estimates of Earth’s age rely on assumptions about the past - such as constant decay rates, closed systems, and initial conditions- which cannot be directly observed or verified. Since no human was present at Earth’s origin, and since every dating method is model-dependent and interprets present data through unprovable assumptions, the actual age of the Earth remains ultimately unknowable with certainty.

Out of interest; can you point to a radiometric dating method that does not rely on unverifiable assumptions- such as a closed system, a known initial ratio of isotopes, and a constant decay rate and if not, on what rational basis do you assert a date of 4.5 billion years old as objective fact rather than as a model dependent inference?

 

[Myles O'Reilly]

Unknowable with certainty as in 4.5 billion years or 5 billion?

Can we at least agree that the idea its just a few thousand is as laughable as it being flat?

 

[Nyob]

The above responses show that you are hopelessly out of your depth.

It's amazing that you think simple stuff is complicated

Everyone should know what fine-tuning is by now (so you don't need to keep on typing it), along you come to demand an answer from physics (for which you know there isn't one) with hardly intelligible questions, hand waving away anything and everything else as speculative and then, irony of ironies, insert God as the answer

Tell me, you say that I'm uncomfortable with that answer (God of the gaps doesn't make me uncomfortable), would you accept that the God of the answer is equally as likely to be any God, your God mightn't even get a look-in?

 

[Nyob]

Unknowable with certainty as in 4.5 billion years or 5 billion?

Can we at least agree that the idea its just a few thousand is as laughable as it being flat?

How old is the Earth, thousands, millions or billions?

Tiger has is flaws with radiometric dating that he's been teasing us with for quite a while now but you could avoid all that and skip to - thousands or millions?

It would take millions of years for the planet Earth to form and hundreds of millions to become habitable as it is now, no need to date rocks

 

[Aldo]

How old is the Earth, thousands, millions or billions?

Tiger has is flaws with radiometric dating that he's been teasing us with for quite a while now but you could avoid all that and skip to - thousands or millions?

It would take millions of years for the planet Earth to form and hundreds of millions to become habitable as it is now, no need to date rocks

How do you know so much about science, sparks?

 

[Tiger]

How old is the Earth, thousands, millions or billions?

Tiger has is flaws with radiometric dating that he's been teasing us with for quite a while now but you could avoid all that and skip to - thousands or millions?

It would take millions of years for the planet Earth to form and hundreds of millions to become habitable as it is now, no need to date rocks

You're simply assuming what you're trying to prove.

Stating that “it would take millions of years for the Earth to form” is not evidence — it's a model-dependent assertion based on assumptions baked into uniformitarian thinking. The truth is, no one alive today observed the Earth’s formation, and every dating method we have — from radiometric decay to stratigraphy — rests on unprovable assumptions: constancy of decay rates, closed systems, initial conditions, and the absence of catastrophic resets like a global deluge.

You ask: "Thousands, millions, or billions?" But the real answer is: we don’t know with certainty. You don't know, nobody knows. The dating methods that suggest billions of years produce wildly erroneous results when tested on rocks of known age — which should immediately raise questions about their reliability when applied to unknown histories. For example, lava from the 1986 eruption of Mount St. Helens was tested using potassium-argon (K-Ar) dating and returned ages ranging from 350,000 to 2.8 million years — despite the fact the lava was less than a decade old. Similarly, lava from the 1959 Kilauea eruption in Hawaii and the Mt. Ngauruhoe eruption in New Zealand (1949–1954) also produced grossly inflated radiometric dates. These examples are not fringe anomalies; they highlight a systemic issue in the methodology: when initial conditions are assumed rather than known, the clock can be wildly wrong.

The problem is not with the measurements themselves — isotopes can be precisely counted — but with the interpretive framework: radiometric dating relies heavily on three key assumptions that cannot be verified for ancient rocks: (1) that the initial amount of the daughter isotope is known, (2) that the system remained closed (no contamination or loss of elements), and (3) that decay rates have remained constant. Any disturbance in these conditions — say, a global flood, deep crustal heating, or chemical alteration — would completely invalidate the dates. If dating methods can’t get recent, witnessed rocks right, then applying them to rocks allegedly billions of years old becomes more an act of faith in method than science grounded in testable reality.

And if you're so sure about Earth needing millions of years to become habitable, here’s a challenge:

Can you provide a testable, non-circular explanation for how you know the initial conditions and decay rates used in radiometric models have remained unchanged over billions of unobserved years — especially in light of known disturbances like water, pressure, or catastrophic resets that are known to skew the results?

 

[Hermit]

Can we at least agree that the idea its just a few thousand is as laughable as it being flat?

The oldest recorded civilization is said to be Sumer around 4000BC, so that's only 6,000 years of human history that we can verify. You believe the earth is millions of years old is because that's what you were told, but no one ever gave you the proof of that, because the proof does not exist, and without a time machine it is impossible to prove. What's laughable to me is that you can go the seaside and observe the flat surface of water, you can watch the sun and stars moving in the sky, but you don't believe your own senses and instead believe the exact opposite is true.

 

[Tiger]

How do you know so much about science, sparks?

 

[Nyob]

How do you know so much about science, sparks?

In comparison to whom, flat earther creationists (FECs) like Hermit & Tiger?

I actually include myself in the Dunning-Kruger effect, the full definition of which is - Those who lack knowledge and ability overestimate themselves, those who don't, don't

I think it's vitally important to understand things fundamentally, a lot of people fool themselves into thinking they do but they don't

 

[Nyob]

You're simply assuming what you're trying to prove.

Stating that “it would take millions of years for the Earth to form” is not evidence — it's a model-dependent assertion based on assumptions baked into uniformitarian thinking.

The truth is, no one alive today observed the Earth’s formation

No shit, Sherlock

, and every dating method we have — from radiometric decay to stratigraphy — rests on unprovable assumptions: constancy of decay rates, closed systems, initial conditions, and the absence of catastrophic resets like a global deluge.

You ask: "Thousands, millions, or billions?" But the real answer is: we don’t know with certainty. You don't know, nobody knows.

Not an answer you're happy with when it comes to other topics

The dating methods that suggest billions of years produce wildly erroneous results when tested on rocks of known age — which should immediately raise questions about their reliability when applied to unknown histories. For example, lava from the 1986 eruption of Mount St. Helens was tested using potassium-argon (K-Ar) dating and returned ages ranging from 350,000 to 2.8 million years — despite the fact the lava was less than a decade old. Similarly, lava from the 1959 Kilauea eruption in Hawaii and the Mt. Ngauruhoe eruption in New Zealand (1949–1954) also produced grossly inflated radiometric dates. These examples are not fringe anomalies; they highlight a systemic issue in the methodology: when initial conditions are assumed rather than known, the clock can be wildly wrong.

The problem is not with the measurements themselves — isotopes can be precisely counted — but with the interpretive framework: radiometric dating relies heavily on three key assumptions that cannot be verified for ancient rocks: (1) that the initial amount of the daughter isotope is known, (2) that the system remained closed (no contamination or loss of elements), and (3) that decay rates have remained constant. Any disturbance in these conditions — say, a global flood, deep crustal heating, or chemical alteration — would completely invalidate the dates. If dating methods can’t get recent, witnessed rocks right, then applying them to rocks allegedly billions of years old becomes more an act of faith in method than science grounded in testable reality.

And if you're so sure about Earth needing millions of years to become habitable, here’s a challenge:

Can you provide a testable, non-circular explanation for how you know the initial conditions and decay rates used in radiometric models have remained unchanged over billions of unobserved years — especially in light of known disturbances like water, pressure, or catastrophic resets that are known to skew the results?

The fact is, the Earth being thousands of years old (or flat) and not millions is unscientific, ridiculous basically

 

[Nyob]

By the way, if you want to watch a video of the Earth forming, you can watch it here -

Post in thread 'Origins Thread' https://www.sarsfieldsvirtualpub.com/threads/origins-thread.639/post-126019

 

[Tiger]

No shit, Sherlock



Not an answer you're happy with when it comes to other topics


The fact is, the Earth being thousands of years old (or flat) and not millions is unscientific, ridiculous basically

That kind of confidence is precisely the problem. You say 'the fact is' — but in truth, all radiometric dating methods rest on unprovable assumptions: constant decay rates, closed systems, and known initial conditions. None of these can be confirmed over deep time. In fact, as I’ve already mentioned; we’ve seen examples like the 1986 Mount St. Helens lava dome, where newly formed rock was radiometrically dated at hundreds of thousands to millions of years old — clearly erroneous. Discordant dates, where different isotopic methods yield wildly inconsistent results on the same sample, are common in the scientific literature, and often quietly ‘corrected’ to match expected timelines.

The possibility of a global cataclysm — such as a worldwide flood (which is mentioned by every ancient culture and which there is evidence of)— would reset isotope ratios, erase stratigraphic sequences, and obliterate the assumptions upon which these methods rest. The idea that such methods can deliver precise and absolute truths is more faith than science. And this faith is reinforced by cultural conditioning: from childhood, we're taught to accept 'millions of years' as unquestioned fact — a backdrop against which all natural history is painted. To question it feels heretical not because the evidence is airtight, but because the narrative is deeply ingrained.

But the deeper irony is this: it was not geology that led to the assumption of eons — it was Darwinian evolution. Darwin’s theory demanded vast stretches of time for its mechanisms to plausibly work, so long ages were assumed to make the theory feasible. Lyell and Hutton’s ideas of ‘deep time’ rose alongside, not prior to, the evolutionary framework — and from then on, the science of time was retrofitted to support the theory, not the other way around. As an evolutionist, you’ve got skin in the game — without eons, the machinery of evolution grinds to a halt. So naturally, anything that threatens those eons seems 'ridiculous' — not because it's unscientific, but because it's unwelcome.

 

[Tiger]

By the way, if you want to watch a video of the Earth forming, you can watch it here -

Post in thread 'Origins Thread' https://www.sarsfieldsvirtualpub.com/threads/origins-thread.639/post-126019

1995 has just phoned and is looking for its CG back.

 

[Nyob]

That kind of confidence is precisely the problem. You say 'the fact is' — but in truth, all radiometric dating..

I didn't say anything about radiometric dating, in fact, I removed it from the equation, just like I did with the multiverse with "fine-tuning".. because I know you too well

If you think that a rocky planet with an iron core hospitable to evolved life that we see today happened in thousands of years then you are simply an unscientific buffoon

methods rest on unprovable assumptions: constant decay rates, closed systems, and known initial conditions. None of these can be confirmed over deep time. In fact, as I’ve already mentioned; we’ve seen examples like the 1986 Mount St. Helens lava dome, where newly formed rock was radiometrically dated at hundreds of thousands to millions of years old — clearly erroneous. Discordant dates, where different isotopic methods yield wildly inconsistent results on the same sample, are common in the scientific literature, and often quietly ‘corrected’ to match expected timelines.

The possibility of a global cataclysm — such as a worldwide flood (which is mentioned by every ancient culture and which there is evidence of)— would reset isotope ratios, erase stratigraphic sequences, and obliterate the assumptions upon which these methods rest. The idea that such methods can deliver precise and absolute truths is more faith than science. And this faith is reinforced by cultural conditioning: from childhood, we're taught to accept 'millions of years' as unquestioned fact — a backdrop against which all natural history is painted. To question it feels heretical not because the evidence is airtight, but because the narrative is deeply ingrained.

But the deeper irony is this: it was not geology that led to the assumption of eons — it was Darwinian evolution. Darwin’s theory demanded vast stretches of time for its mechanisms to plausibly work, so long ages were assumed to make the theory feasible.

There you have it folks, also entirely knowable. Tiger isn't remotely interested in the truth when it comes to science.. because he's a religious headcase

Lyell and Hutton’s ideas of ‘deep time’ rose alongside, not prior to, the evolutionary framework — and from then on, the science of time was retrofitted to support the theory, not the other way around. As an evolutionist, you’ve got skin in the game — without eons, the machinery of evolution grinds to a halt. So naturally, anything that threatens those eons seems 'ridiculous' — not because it's unscientific, but because it's unwelcome.

 

[Tiger]

I didn't say anything about radiometric dating, in fact, I removed it from the equation, just like I did with the multiverse with "fine-tuning".. because I know you too well

If you think that a rocky planet with an iron core hospitable to evolved life that we see today happened in thousands of years then you are simply an unscientific buffoon

If you’ve “removed radiometric dating from the equation,” then I’m curious — what exactly are you standing on when you declare the Earth to be unquestionably billions of years old? Because without radiometric dating (which itself rests on a house of assumptions), the idea of deep time becomes speculative at best. Stratigraphy? Circular reasoning abounds. Ice cores? Assumes uniformitarian accumulation. Tree rings? Limited to a few thousand years and stitched together via inference. Once radiometric dating is off the table, your "billions of years" narrative is running on fumes.

Calling someone a “buffoon” for questioning the reigning orthodoxy doesn’t make your position stronger — it just reveals how tightly your conclusions are chained to a worldview that requires eons for philosophical, not scientific, reasons. You say a rocky planet with an iron core couldn’t form in thousands of years — but that’s not a conclusion drawn from direct observation; it’s a model-dependent claim that presumes the very timeframes under debate. You assume slow formation because your framework is gradualist. But that’s not an argument — it’s a presupposition.

If you're serious about a scientific discussion, then answer this: apart from dating methods that presuppose deep time, what empirical, observational evidence necessitates billions of years for Earth’s formation? Why couldn’t a high-energy, catastrophic process — such as a global flood or rapid geophysical transformation — accomplish in decades what slow models project over aeons? Or put more sharply: how do you falsify the claim that the Earth formed rapidly, if every piece of data you interpret already assumes slowness?

 

[Tiger]

There you have it folks, also entirely knowable. Tiger isn't remotely interested in the truth when it comes to science.. because he's a religious headcase

It’s you who seems to be avoiding truth James.


Let’s be precise: Darwinian evolution does demand vast stretches of time — not because time itself proves evolution, but because without immense timescales, the probability of undirected mutations producing complex structures collapses. This isn’t a “religious” statement, it’s a recognition of how evolutionary theory is constructed: it rests on the assumption that given enough time, chance and selection can build everything from a single cell to a conscious being. Remove the eons, and the mechanism is exposed as woefully insufficient. That’s not theology — it’s basic probability and systems logic.

What I find ironic is that the same people who accuse others of blind faith are often the first to scoff at scrutiny of their own foundational assumptions. You trust the deep-time model and evolutionary gradualism like doctrine, but mock anyone who asks: “What if those premises are flawed? What if the data doesn’t speak as clearly as we’ve been taught to think?” That’s not science-phobia — that’s called philosophical hygiene.

If you think it's "knowable" that unguided molecules became Mozart given just enough time and chaos, then perhaps ask yourself: who's actually running on faith here?

Challenge:
If you claim that evolution, driven by undirected mutations and natural selection, is sufficient to explain the rise of complex, information-rich biological systems — then can you provide a quantitatively robust model that demonstrates the stepwise, probabilistically feasible emergence of a single irreducibly complex molecular machine (like the bacterial flagellum or ATP synthase) within known mutation rates and realistic population sizes — without appealing to deep time as a hand-waving escape hatch?

Because until such a model exists, your confidence in evolution over thousands vs. billions of years isn't based on demonstrable science — it's based on narrative comfort.

 

[Nyob]

If you’ve “removed radiometric dating from the equation,” then I’m curious — what exactly are you standing on when you declare the Earth to be unquestionably billions of years old?

Huh?

In post #1,171 I removed radiometric dating from the equation.. and what else? That's right, billions

Now I know how these "one-way discussions" work with you so..

For the benefit of the reader:

The initial conditions on planet Earth after it formed would have been very different from what we have today

The idea that these changes happened in thousands of years is unscientific buffoonery

Because without radiometric dating (which itself rests on a house of assumptions), the idea of deep time becomes speculative at best. Stratigraphy? Circular reasoning abounds. Ice cores? Assumes uniformitarian accumulation. Tree rings? Limited to a few thousand years and stitched together via inference. Once radiometric dating is off the table, your "billions of years" narrative is running on fumes.

Calling someone a “buffoon” for questioning the reigning orthodoxy doesn’t make your position stronger — it just reveals how tightly your conclusions are chained to a worldview that requires eons for philosophical, not scientific, reasons. You say a rocky planet with an iron core couldn’t form in thousands of years — but that’s not a conclusion drawn from direct observation; it’s a model-dependent claim that presumes the very timeframes under debate. You assume slow formation because your framework is gradualist. But that’s not an argument — it’s a presupposition.

If you're serious about a scientific discussion, then answer this: apart from dating methods that presuppose deep time, what empirical, observational evidence necessitates billions of years for Earth’s formation? Why couldn’t a high-energy, catastrophic process — such as a global flood or rapid geophysical transformation — accomplish in decades what slow models project over aeons? Or put more sharply: how do you falsify the claim that the Earth formed rapidly, if every piece of data you interpret already assumes slowness?

 

[SwordOfStZip]

Huh?

In post #1,171 I removed radiometric dating from the equation.. and what else? That's right, billions

Now I know how these "one-way discussions" work with you so..

For the benefit of the reader:

The initial conditions on planet Earth after it formed would have been very different from what we have today

The idea that these changes happened in thousands of years is unscientific buffoonery

Can you not access your AN2 account now?

 

[Nyob]

It’s you who seems to be avoiding truth James.

I think it's knowable (and indeed it's what I thought of) that your beef with how old the Earth is, is linked to your evolution disbelief which is in turn linked to your religiosity

It's a feedback loop (and unscientific)

Let’s be precise: Darwinian evolution does demand vast stretches of time — not because time itself proves evolution, but because without immense timescales, the probability of undirected mutations producing complex structures collapses. This isn’t a “religious” statement, it’s a recognition of how evolutionary theory is constructed: it rests on the assumption that given enough time, chance and selection can build everything from a single cell to a conscious being. Remove the eons, and the mechanism is exposed as woefully insufficient. That’s not theology — it’s basic probability and systems logic.

What I find ironic is that the same people who accuse others of blind faith are often the first to scoff at scrutiny of their own foundational assumptions. You trust the deep-time model and evolutionary gradualism like doctrine, but mock anyone who asks: “What if those premises are flawed? What if the data doesn’t speak as clearly as we’ve been taught to think?” That’s not science-phobia — that’s called philosophical hygiene.

If you think it's "knowable" that unguided molecules became Mozart given just enough time and chaos, then perhaps ask yourself: who's actually running on faith here?

Challenge:
If you claim that evolution, driven by undirected mutations and natural selection, is sufficient to explain the rise of complex, information-rich biological systems — then can you provide a quantitatively robust model that demonstrates the stepwise, probabilistically feasible emergence of a single irreducibly complex molecular machine (like the bacterial flagellum or ATP synthase) within known mutation rates and realistic population sizes — without appealing to deep time as a hand-waving escape hatch?

Because until such a model exists, your confidence in evolution over thousands vs. billions of years isn't based on demonstrable science — it's based on narrative comfort.

 

[Nyob]

Can you not access your AN2 account now?

I suppose I could if I knew my password

 

[Tiger]

Huh?

In post #1,171 I removed radiometric dating from the equation.. and what else? That's right, billions

Now I know how these "one-way discussions" work with you so..

For the benefit of the reader:

The initial conditions on planet Earth after it formed would have been very different from what we have today

The idea that these changes happened in thousands of years is unscientific buffoonery

You’ve yet again produced a reply that evades 95% of the substantive points I've raised — including the well-documented issues with dating methods (discordant results, known-age rocks yielding wildly inflated dates, assumptions about initial conditions, etc.), the role of worldview bias in interpreting data, and the historical fact that eons of time weren’t discovered, but demanded by Darwinian theory in order to function at all.

Instead, you repeat a vague mantra: “The conditions were different, therefore it must have taken X number of years.” That isn’t an argument — it’s a placeholder for one.

What actual evidence can you point to for the specific nature of these “initial conditions” where the earth had no life and then magically produced life? Not post-hoc assumptions, not extrapolations wrapped in evolutionary presuppositions - but concrete, testable evidence.

Let me ask you directly:

If your belief in Earth’s age is independent of radiometric dating, then what empirical method — not tautology or inference — gives you confidence in a billions (or any number you like)-of-years timeline, and how do you account for the fact that long ages were themselves inferred to make Darwinian evolution mathematically plausible in the first place?

Until you engage with that, you're not discussing — you're just preaching to your own choir.

 

[Hermit]

For the benefit of the reader:

The initial conditions on planet Earth after it formed would have been very different from what we have today

The idea that these changes happened in thousands of years is unscientific buffoonery

Your argument is that earth was formed over millions of years, therefore earth must be millions of years old; and that earth cannot be thousands of years old because it takes millions of years to form the earth. Circular reasoning.

 

[Tiger]

I think it's knowable (and indeed it's what I thought of) that your beef with how old the Earth is, is linked to your evolution disbelief which is in turn linked to your religiosity

It's a feedback loop (and unscientific)

Still no evidence.

You’ve substituted motivations for arguments, as though identifying my or anyone's presumed reasons for skepticism somehow proves your position. It doesn’t. Whether I doubt billions of years because of religion, evolution, or a bad sandwich is irrelevant — the burden is still on you to show that the Earth's age is knowable in any empirical sense without appealing to radiometric dating (which you've removed), or circular assumptions grounded in evolutionary necessity. I've already said the age of the earth is not knowable based on any current method of analysis and explained the reasons for this.

Calling it a "feedback loop" is just another way of dodging the central problem: you are claiming certainty about deep time — without any method that could verify such a thing beyond conjecture. That’s not science. That’s narrative.

So let’s return to the actual question:

What is your independent, testable, empirical basis for knowing the Earth is 4.5 billion years old (or any age that you like), especially after excluding radiometric dating?

If your answer is "I just think it is," then let’s not pretend one of us is being scientific while the other is not.

 

[Tiger]

Your argument is that earth was formed over millions of years, therefore earth must be millions of years old; and that earth cannot be thousands of years old because it takes millions of years to form the earth. Circular reasoning.

Sounds remarkably like a feedback loop

 

[Nyob]

Your argument is that earth was formed over millions of years, therefore earth must be millions of years old; and that earth cannot be thousands of years old because it takes millions of years to form the earth. Circular reasoning.

lol Can you people not read, srsly?

Here is what I said, in chronological order, from the beginning -

It would take millions of years for the planet Earth to form and hundreds of millions to become habitable as it is now, no need to date rocks

If you think that a rocky planet with an iron core hospitable to evolved life that we see today happened in thousands of years then you are simply an unscientific buffoon

The initial conditions on planet Earth after it formed would have been very different from what we have today

The idea that these changes happened in thousands of years is unscientific buffoonery

 

[Nyob]

Still no evidence.

For what, the Earth being at least millions of years old?

You’ve substituted motivations for arguments, as though identifying my or anyone's presumed reasons for skepticism somehow proves your position. It doesn’t. Whether I doubt billions of years because of religion, evolution, or a bad sandwich is irrelevant — the burden is still on you to show that the Earth's age is knowable in any empirical sense without appealing to radiometric dating (which you've removed), or circular assumptions grounded in evolutionary necessity. I've already said the age of the earth is not knowable based on any current method of analysis and explained the reasons for this.

Calling it a "feedback loop" is just another way of dodging the central problem: you are claiming certainty about deep time — without any method that could verify such a thing beyond conjecture. That’s not science. That’s narrative.

So let’s return to the actual question:

What is your independent, testable, empirical basis for knowing the Earth is 4.5 billion years old (or any age that you like), especially after excluding radiometric dating?

If your answer is "I just think it is," then let’s not pretend one of us is being scientific while the other is not.

 

[Nyob]

You’ve yet again produced a reply that evades 95% of the substantive points I've raised

If you don't reply to what I actually said, then what do you expect?

— including the well-documented issues with dating methods (discordant results, known-age rocks yielding wildly inflated dates, assumptions about initial conditions, etc.), the role of worldview bias in interpreting data, and the historical fact that eons of time weren’t discovered, but demanded by Darwinian theory in order to function at all.

Instead, you repeat a vague mantra: “The conditions were different, therefore it must have taken X number of years.” That isn’t an argument — it’s a placeholder for one.

What actual evidence can you point to for the specific nature of these “initial conditions”

Planetary formation

where the earth had no life and then magically produced life?

According to you the "magic" was God

That's why you're not to be taken seriously when it comes to science. Twas always thus

Not post-hoc assumptions, not extrapolations wrapped in evolutionary presuppositions - but concrete, testable evidence.

Let me ask you directly:

If your belief in Earth’s age is independent of radiometric dating, then what empirical method — not tautology or inference — gives you confidence in a billions (or any number you like)-of-years timeline, and how do you account for the fact that long ages were themselves inferred to make Darwinian evolution mathematically plausible in the first place?

Until you engage with that, you're not discussing — you're just preaching to your own choir.

 

[Tiger]

lol Can you people not read, srsly?

Here is what I said, in chronological order, from the beginning -

It would take millions of years for the planet Earth to form and hundreds of millions to become habitable as it is now, no need to date rocks

If you think that a rocky planet with an iron core hospitable to evolved life that we see today happened in thousands of years then you are simply an unscientific buffoon

The initial conditions on planet Earth after it formed would have been very different from what we have today

The idea that these changes happened in thousands of years is unscientific buffoonery

You're not presenting evidence — you're recycling assertions dressed up as inevitabilities. Saying the Earth “would take millions of years to form” and that its “initial conditions were different” is not data; it’s conjecture. When you dismiss radiometric dating — the very method the conventional timeline relies on — and still cling to the 4.5-billion-(or hundreds of millions) year figure, you’re doing precisely what you accuse others of: being unscientific.

Wider still, this discussion is only one thread in a larger tapestry of speculation masquerading as settled science. The claim that the universe created itself from nothing is not empirically grounded; it’s metaphysical storytelling with a physics hat on. The formation of stars and planets from gas and dust clouds remains riddled with unsolved problems. Life-from-non-life (abiogenesis) has never been observed or reproduced under any conditions — even with decades of research and cutting-edge laboratories. And evolutionary theory, rather than being solidified by modern biology, is increasingly undermined by it. The highly organized, information-rich architecture of DNA, the irreducible complexity of cellular machinery, and the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record all point away from blind, gradual processes.

In fact, given the statistical improbabilities involved, even billions of years are not enough time for random mutations and natural selection to build the complex life we see. For example, even if we take the origin of proteins: Forming even one functional protein from random amino acids, by chance, has probabilities so astronomically small that it would take far longer than the estimated age of the universe.

So I’ll ask plainly: What, exactly, is the timeline you're confident in? When did the Earth form, when did it cool, when did life appear, and when did complex organisms emerge? Please lay out the stages. Because even in the conventional model, you’ve got astonishing leaps in complexity happening on impossibly short timeframes — unless you start treating time itself as a kind of miracle worker.

In the end, your certainty isn't coming from evidence; it’s coming from narrative. Strip away the storytelling and you're left with a pile of theoretical assumptions — most of which collapse under scrutiny.

So once more, directly:

If radiometric dating is off the table, what is your evidence — not your confidence — for the Earth's age, and how do you account for the massive improbabilities of complex life forming, even given billions of years?

 

[Nyob]

You're not presenting evidence — you're recycling assertions dressed up as inevitabilities. Saying the Earth “would take millions of years to form” and that its “initial conditions were different” is not data; it’s conjecture.

When you dismiss radiometric dating

How many times do you have to be told that I removed it from the equation

— the very method the conventional timeline relies on — and still cling to the 4.5-billion-(or hundreds of millions) year figure, you’re doing precisely what you accuse others of: being unscientific.

Wider still, this discussion is only one thread in a larger tapestry of speculation masquerading as settled science. The claim that the universe created itself from nothing is not empirically grounded; it’s metaphysical storytelling with a physics hat on. The formation of stars and planets from gas and dust clouds remains riddled with unsolved problems. Life-from-non-life (abiogenesis) has never been observed or reproduced under any conditions — even with decades of research and cutting-edge laboratories. And evolutionary theory, rather than being solidified by modern biology, is increasingly undermined by it. The highly organized, information-rich architecture of DNA, the irreducible complexity of cellular machinery, and the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record all point away from blind, gradual processes.

In fact, given the statistical improbabilities involved, even billions of years are not enough time for random mutations and natural selection to build the complex life we see. For example, even if we take the origin of proteins: Forming even one functional protein from random amino acids, by chance, has probabilities so astronomically small that it would take far longer than the estimated age of the universe.

So I’ll ask plainly: What, exactly, is the timeline you're confident in? When did the Earth form, when did it cool, when did life appear, and when did complex organisms emerge? Please lay out the stages. Because even in the conventional model, you’ve got astonishing leaps in complexity happening on impossibly short timeframes — unless you start treating time itself as a kind of miracle worker.

In the end, your certainty isn't coming from evidence; it’s coming from narrative. Strip away the storytelling and you're left with a pile of theoretical assumptions — most of which collapse under scrutiny.

So once more, directly:

If radiometric dating is off the table, what is your evidence — not your confidence — for the Earth's age, and how do you account for the massive improbabilities of complex life forming, even given billions of years?

You're just regurgitating ID nonsense (you watched on YouTube)

 

[Tiger]

For what, the Earth being at least millions of years old?

Yes - not models, not assumptions, not circular dating methods- actual empirical evidence that doesn’t rely on the thing it’s trying to prove.

Can you point to a single dating method that doesn’t assume deep time in its calibration or interpretation?

 

[Nyob]

Yes - not models, not assumptions, not circular dating methods- actual empirical evidence that doesn’t rely on the thing it’s trying to prove.

Can you point to a single dating method that doesn’t assume deep time in its calibration or interpretation?

What sort of a question is that?

Do you know anything about our solar system (or any other) from creation to present day? Or are you just a loo-lah religious fanatic?

Don't answer that (because I already know)

 

[Tiger]

Wow @Declan @Sword @jpc

Who's been deleting posts from this thread?

I told you, he's not right in the head

You’re a kiddie fiddling mong, I deleted your bullshit exchange about your poxy sign in issues and will continue to as it has nothing to do with this thread.

Do that shit elsewhere.

 

[Tiger]

Planetary formation

Another crap James ‘the uneducated’ Dawson reply…


“Planetary formation" is not an observation of Earth's initial conditions — it's a theoretical framework extrapolated from limited data and substantial assumptions. Models of planetary accretion, core differentiation, and atmospheric evolution are all speculative reconstructions built atop uniformitarian assumptions, constrained by present-day physics and comparative planetology, not direct evidence.

What you're referring to is not empirical knowledge of Earth's early state, but a narrative constructed post hoc to fit a particular timescale — one that itself was demanded by evolutionary theory in the 19th century. It’s circular: evolution requires eons, so the Earth must be eons old, and its "formation" is then backfilled with imagined mechanisms that stretch over that timeline.

If we're being intellectually rigorous, we should distinguish between observed data and inferred history. So here's the challenge:

Can you identify a single physical measurement or experiment that directly confirms Earth's initial conditions — not models, not analogies, but something falsifiable and empirical?

Otherwise, invoking "planetary formation" as if it were settled fact is just a modern cosmological myth with scientific trappings.

A reminder to the casual reader that James has not responded to a single challenge in this months long exchange.