Origins Thread

[Tiger]

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)

I’m destroying you and you know it.

You were asked a simple, reasonable question: What empirical evidence do you have for the initial conditions of the Earth’s formation? Instead of answering, you deflect with name-calling and projection. That’s not science — that’s insecurity posing as intellect.

You’ve conflated models with evidence, and speculation with observation. No one — not you, not me, not NASA — has witnessed a solar system form from start to finish. Every aspect of the standard model of planetary formation rests on assumptions: that dust accreted into planetesimals, that collisions somehow produced stable orbits, that cores differentiated just so. These are not facts. They are interpretations of limited data, plugged into simulations that give us what we expect to see — as long as we tweak enough variables. That’s not knowledge; that’s theoretical duct tape.

What’s telling is that you haven’t answered any of the central critiques raised. Not about discordant radiometric dates. Not about the wild extrapolations required to make abiogenesis plausible. Not about the fact that even billions of years aren’t enough time for Darwinian evolution to overcome combinatorial explosion at the molecular level. You haven’t even offered a coherent timeline of your own — just the vague assumption that “millions of years” solves everything.

So again, for the benefit of the reader: This isn't a debate between science and religion. It’s a debate between evidence and philosophical storytelling. And when pressed for the former, all you’ve produced is the latter, dressed up in bluster.

Care to try again with data instead of insults?

Nope, didn't think so.

 

[Hermit]

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

Yes, within your spaceball evolution paradigm earth would indeed take millions of years to form. But again you are making a baseless assertion and assuming that paradigm to be true and then using that assumption as your proof. You're effectively saying, 'earth is a planet formed over millions of years, therefore earth must be formed over millions of years'. Using your faulty reasoning one could say, 'earth was created in one day, because God would not need millions of years to create the earth' which would be equally fallacious.

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

But I don't think that earth is a rocky planet with an iron core formed over thousands of years.

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

You don't know anything about the initial conditions of earth, no one does. The problem is you're assuming earth is a planet formed in space over millions of years as if that is the only thing possible, and you're thinking that I am then claiming all that formation process instead happened over thousands of years, but I don't.

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

I don't claim those changes happened at all, nevermind over thousands of years.

 

[Nyob]

Yes, within your spaceball evolution paradigm earth would indeed take millions of years to form. But again you are making a baseless assertion and assuming that paradigm to be true and then using that assumption as your proof. You're effectively saying, 'earth is a planet formed over millions of years, therefore earth must be formed over millions of years'. Using your faulty reasoning one could say, 'earth was created in one day, because God would not need millions of years to create the earth' which would be equally fallacious.


But I don't think that earth is a rocky planet with an iron core formed over thousands of years.

You don't know anything about the initial conditions of earth, no one does.

Because no one was there to observe it!

The problem is you're assuming earth is a planet formed in space over millions of years as if that is the only thing possible, and you're thinking that I am then claiming all that formation process instead happened over thousands of years, but I don't.

I don't claim those changes happened at all, nevermind over thousands of years.

You claim that the Earth is flat, created in 7 days, enclosed in a dome to keep the atmosphere from being sucked into space which you say doesn't exist, you f*cking moron

 

[Tiger]

Because no one was there to observe it!

You’re some yap.

Debating science with you is like trying to teach quantum mechanics to a parrot — plenty of noise, zero comprehension, and somehow you’re still proud of it.

Anyway, here are more questions for you to conveniently ignore…

What empirical basis do you claim to know anything about the unobservable past — including planetary formation, abiogenesis, or common ancestry — and how do you distinguish that from imaginative inference?

Gödel’s incompleteness theorems showed that no consistent formal system capable of arithmetic can prove all truths within itself. That means any attempt to fully account for reality — including the Earth’s origins — from within a purely materialist framework will always be incomplete. You will necessarily rely on axioms that cannot be proven within your system. So if you're staking your claim on materialistic naturalism, you are already appealing to unprovable assumptions.

 

[Galileo]

Long time reader to this forum but never joined up as a member. Before Covid, I would have always trusted everything that I was told, however now I am skeptical of everything, including evolution and how it was taught to us in schools.

 

[It's good (to be free)]

You’re some yap.

Debating science with you is like trying to teach quantum mechanics to a parrot — plenty of noise, zero comprehension, and somehow you’re still proud of it.

Anyway, here are more questions for you to conveniently ignore…

What empirical basis do you claim to know anything about the unobservable past — including planetary formation, abiogenesis, or common ancestry — and how do you distinguish that from imaginative inference?

Gödel’s incompleteness theorems showed that no consistent formal system capable of arithmetic can prove all truths within itself.

That means any attempt to fully account for reality — including the Earth’s origins — from within a purely materialist framework will always be incomplete.

Fuck off and read the bible, this is a science thread

 

[Tiger]

Fuck off and read the bible, this is a science thread

Stop your faggy yapping James and take your medicine like an adult.

Go read a book.

 

[Hermit]

Because no one was there to observe it!

You're catching on! No one was there to observe it, therefore no one can make any definitive knowledge claim about it, only speculate.

You claim that the Earth is flat, created in 7 days, enclosed in a dome to keep the atmosphere from being sucked into space which you say doesn't exist, you f*cking moron

I never claimed earth was created in 7 days. I have never claimed a dome either. It is a fact that the air we breathe is under pressure and that gas pressure, by definition, requires a container. Without containment, gas moves freely in all directions to fill the available space. The claim that gas pressure without containment can exist next to a vacuum without the gas moving into that vacuum is contrary to observation and has never been demonstrated because that would violate gas laws and the second law of thermodynamics.

 

[Nyob]

Long time reader to this forum but never joined up as a member. Before Covid, I would have always trusted everything that I was told, however now I am skeptical of everything, including evolution and how it was taught to us in schools.

Yeah, that makes tonnes of sense

Absolute MOUNTAINS of it!

 

[Nyob]

You're catching on! No one was there to observe it, therefore no one can make any definitive knowledge claim about it, only speculate.


I never claimed earth was created in 7 days. I have never claimed a dome either. It is a fact that the air we breathe is under pressure and that gas pressure, by definition, requires a container. Without containment, gas moves freely in all directions to fill the available space. The claim that gas pressure without containment can exist next to a vacuum without the gas moving into that vacuum is contrary to observation and has never been demonstrated because that would violate gas laws and the second law of thermodynamics.

View attachment 7554

The Earth's atmosphere weighs about this much

It's bound to Earth by Earth's gravity

A vacuum does not exert a force (on it)

You f*cking dimwit

 

[Galileo]

Yeah, that makes tonnes of sense

Absolute MOUNTAINS of it!

With all due respect Nyob, you're not exactly doing a convincing job persuading me otherwise. I don't think people realise how many holes there are in the evolution story.

 

[Nyob]

With all due respect Nyob, you're not exactly doing a convincing job persuading me otherwise. I don't think people realise how many holes there are in the evolution story.

If you've decided that there are "holes" in evolution because of the scamdemic.. what can I say? You're basically Hermit (who's a pathological conspiracy theorist and profound science illiterate, Dunning-Kruger to the max) never go full retard, buddy

 

[Galileo]

If you've decided that there are "holes" in evolution because of the scamdemic.. what can I say? You're basically Hermit (who's a pathological conspiracy theorist and profound science illiterate, Dunning-Kruger to the max) never go full retard, buddy

When someone defaults to terms like "retard" and "conspiracy theorist" instead of engaging with the actual points raised, to me, it usually means they’ve run out of arguments and are hoping ridicule will suffice where evidence cannot.

The reality is this: skepticism of evolutionary theory isn’t born out of the "scamdemic" or internet rabbit holes—it’s born out of decades of mounting internal contradictions, unanswered questions, and scientific findings (especially in microbiology and information theory) that Darwin couldn’t have imagined and which his theory cannot account for.

Throwing around insults like "Dunning-Kruger" might impress the easily persuaded, but it won’t change the fact that evolutionary theory still cannot explain the origin of life, the explosion of fully formed body plans in the Cambrian layer, or the existence of abstract human thought. If you have something substantial to say in response, by all means—say it. If not, personal attacks only highlight the weakness of your position.

 

[Nyob]

When someone defaults to terms like "retard" and "conspiracy theorist" instead of engaging with the actual points raised

You raised a point, really, this one -

"Before Covid, I would have always trusted everything that I was told, however now I am skeptical of everything, including evolution and how it was taught to us in schools."

What did I say in reply that was wrong.

As for "conspiracy theorist", I am one. But there's a difference between a conspiracy theorist and a pathological conspiracy theorist

As for retard, you are one, Tiger

As for the Dunning-Kruger effect, yeah, that's real too

, to me, it usually means they’ve run out of arguments and are hoping ridicule will suffice where evidence cannot.

The reality is this: skepticism of evolutionary theory isn’t born out of the "scamdemic" or internet rabbit holes—it’s born out of decades of mounting internal contradictions, unanswered questions, and scientific findings (especially in microbiology and information theory) that Darwin couldn’t have imagined and which his theory cannot account for.

Throwing around insults like "Dunning-Kruger" might impress the easily persuaded, but it won’t change the fact that evolutionary theory still cannot explain the origin of life, the explosion of fully formed body plans in the Cambrian layer, or the existence of abstract human thought. If you have something substantial to say in response, by all means—say it. If not, personal attacks only highlight the weakness of your position.

 

[Hermit]

The Earth's atmosphere weighs about this much

It's bound to Earth by Earth's gravity

Wrong, and another baseless claim. Gas is not bound to earth, gas can move freely in all directions and rises up from the earth's surface, there's no "gravity" pulling it back down.

A vacuum does not exert a force (on it)

I didn't say it does, I don't claim there is a space vacuum next to earth, you do. In your globe paradigm the earth's atmosphere (gas pressure) is claimed be next to a vacuum of space (no pressure or extremely low pressure) without a physical barrier between the two, which contradicts the second LAW of thermodynamics which describes how gases move from high pressure to low pressure. So according to the second law, your globe claim of earth's atmosphere existing next to a vacuum is impossible.

7.17: Free Expansion of a Gas

To develop the theory of thermodynamics, we must be able to model the thermodynamic properties of gases as functions of pressure, temperature, and volume. To do so, we consider processes in which the …

chem.libretexts.org

View: https://youtu.be/lj5tqM5GZnQ?si=3W0dIYZfg_9a3W2N&t=482

 

[AN2]

Wrong, and another baseless claim. Gas is not bound to earth, gas can move freely in all directions and rises up from the earth's surface, there's no "gravity" pulling it back down.


I didn't say it does, I don't claim there is a space vacuum next to earth, you do. In your globe paradigm the earth's atmosphere (gas pressure) is claimed be next to a vacuum of space (no pressure or extremely low pressure) without a physical barrier between the two, which contradicts the second LAW of thermodynamics which describes how gases move from high pressure to low pressure. So according to the second law, your globe claim of earth's atmosphere existing next to a vacuum is impossible.

View attachment 7558

7.17: Free Expansion of a Gas

To develop the theory of thermodynamics, we must be able to model the thermodynamic properties of gases as functions of pressure, temperature, and volume. To do so, we consider processes in which the …

chem.libretexts.org

There would be a pressure gradient of the gas in that box (just like there is outside it) because gravity

Build the box tall enough and there would be a vacuum at the top

 

[AN2]

View attachment 7217

So my thoughts on Dubay's debunk..

I think the silly memes speak for themselves (I'll comment on one of them below).

I noticed his (Eric's) emphasis on the "singularity"



Which does seem a tad convenient.

A singularity in physics is more commonly talked about in reference to black holes than the Big Bang singularity but either way, we don't have laws of physics for it, it's when the equations "break down" (maths doesn't really like infinities, divs by zero ), it's not like scientists have been keeping it a secret and it's really not foundational to Big Bang cosmology.

The only thing I can see that Eric is doing with the AI chat is highlighting certain words and text in the answers that he knows will resonate with his (scientifically illiterate) FEC audience.

With this meme

View attachment 7218

Eric asks:

If the universe is 13.8 billion years old, how comes the Hubble Space Telescope observed a galaxy 32 billion light years away?

First, let's remember that a year is a unit of time, a light year is a unit of distance, you can find Michelle Thaller talking about that if you rewind the video I posted here.

Second, the observable universe is more than 90 billion light years across.

Well okay, how did it get to be so big in 13.8 billion years and the answer is the very thing Eric is trying to debunk, the universe is expanding, the "explosion" is ongoing and Edwin Hubble discovered in the 1920s that the expansion is happening at an accelerated rate, the farther away a galaxy is, the faster it's receding.

Overall I give Eric's debunking a score of:

0/10

The Big Bang (revisited)

This is a good primer on Big Bang cosmology. Catch it now before @Tiger (in a fit of apoplectic rage and insecurity) deletes it..


View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gpgor5hdD8s

 

[AN2]

View attachment 7217

So my thoughts on Dubay's debunk..

I think the silly memes speak for themselves (I'll comment on one of them below).

I noticed his (Eric's) emphasis on the "singularity"



Which does seem a tad convenient.

A singularity in physics is more commonly talked about in reference to black holes than the Big Bang singularity but either way, we don't have laws of physics for it, it's when the equations "break down" (maths doesn't really like infinities, divs by zero ), it's not like scientists have been keeping it a secret and it's really not foundational to Big Bang cosmology.

The only thing I can see that Eric is doing with the AI chat is highlighting certain words and text in the answers that he knows will resonate with his (scientifically illiterate) FEC audience.

With this meme

View attachment 7218

Eric asks:

If the universe is 13.8 billion years old, how comes the Hubble Space Telescope observed a galaxy 32 billion light years away?

First, let's remember that a year is a unit of time, a light year is a unit of distance, you can find Michelle Thaller talking about that if you rewind the video I posted here.

Second, the observable universe is more than 90 billion light years across.

Well okay, how did it get to be so big in 13.8 billion years and the answer is the very thing Eric is trying to debunk, the universe is expanding, the "explosion" is ongoing and Edwin Hubble discovered in the 1920s that the expansion is happening at an accelerated rate, the farther away a galaxy is, the faster it's receding.

Overall I give Eric's debunking a score of:

0/10

Correction:

Yes, even I can get something wrong (mark the day in your calendar it will never happen again)

Edwin Hubble did indeed discover that the universe is expanding, but it was some time later before it was discovered at an accelerated rate

The other niggle I recall from this post is that I didn't mention that the expansion of space is not limited to the speed of light, nor does it change the limitation of the speed of light within space

 

[PlunkettsGhost]

Math disproves Evolutionary Theory:

Rate of fixation = the time it takes for every single member of the same generation across the entire population to be born with the same nucleotide pair after that specific nucleotide pair first appeared as a mutation in a single individual.

Let us imagine that a baby being born with six fingers on his left hand was the result of a unique mutation of a single nucleotide pair. The rate of fixation would be how many years after the birth of that child passed before a generation appeared in which every single child in the entire human race was born with six fingers on their left hand.

There are 30 million or so nucleotide pairs that separate the human genome from the chimpanzee genome, each of which first appeared at some point and propagated through the whole of one of the two populations in the last 9 million years that have passed since the Last Chimp-Human Common Ancestor, according to standard evolutionary theory. This did not happen because it could not have happened.

As I have demonstrated above, whether you apply Haldane’s natural selection or Kimura’s neutral selection, nowhere nearly enough time has passed to account for the current differences between the two genomes because the rate of fixation is far too slow to do so.

Haldane vs Kimura - Vox Popoli

Just to put it on the record, I thought it would be useful to examine the challenge posed by the post-CHLCA genetic distance between Chimpanzee and Human based on the substitution rates estimated by two great evolutionary biologists, JBS Haldane and Motoo Kimura, as published by the latter in...

voxday.net

 

[AN2]

Here's a serious question for you @SwordOfStZip, why did you like that post by @PlunkettsGhost?

 

[SwordOfStZip]

Here's a serious question for you @SwordOfStZip, why did you like that post by @PlunkettsGhost?

Because it looks like something someone I know would find very interesting so the like was a small thank you to Plunkett'sGhost for drawing it to my attention.

 

[AN2]

Because it looks like something someone I know would find very interesting so the like was a small thank you to Plunkett'sGhost for drawing it to my attention.

Plunketts presented it as a proof (or disproof), do you believe that to be the case?

 

[AN2]

I'm not asking you to accept that Plunketts is retarded btw, I'm just asking you if you believe that what he said is true

 

[SwordOfStZip]

Plunketts presented it as a proof (or disproof), do you believe that to be the case?

I don't feel qualified to make a judgement on that.

 

[AN2]

I don't feel qualified to make a judgement on that.

Neither do I

 

[Myles O'Reilly]

I'm not asking you to accept that Plunketts is retarded btw

Why does Plunkett say "math"? Is he American?

 

[AN2]

Why does Plunkett say "math"? Is he American?

Yes

 

[Myles O'Reilly]

Why is a Yank posting on this Site Sir?

 

[AN2]

Why is a Yank posting on this Site Sir?

Not to dispel the myth that Yanks are stupid, that's for fucken sure

 

[Tiger]

Speaking of stupid.

We discovered today that Tank and James believe the following:

For the thoughtful reader, now is a fitting moment to pause and consider the worldview espoused by our modern magi, James and Tank.

According to their cosmological folklore, the universe is eternally giving birth to itself—like a cosmic chicken endlessly laying its own egg. A chicken which has always existed and was never created.

Yet, in a breathtaking feat of metaphysical gymnastics, they insist that each new "chicken" is not a new universe at all, but the same one repeating ad infinitum, a kind of astrophysical Groundhog Day.

This, dear reader, is the sad spectacle of atheist cosmology in our time: a self-refuting fable posing as serious science. A parody in search of reverence.

They won’t be living this down in a hurry. This has been an intriguing evening’s work, finally nailing them down in their absurd belief’s.

For what it’s worth James is currently too drunk to make anything resembling a coherent response. So, we’ll have to wait until he sobers up tomorrow for anything resembling a coherent reply.

 

[Fishalt]

You're all massive faggots, really.

This entire thread is pointless, and a waste of time.

 

[Tiger]

You're a disgusting little shit, deleting posts

Deleting mindless bullshit slurs against posters (like Plunkett) is what mods should do but they’re asleep.

 

[AN2]

You're all massive faggots, really.

This entire thread is pointless, and a waste of time.

Oh do shut up Fish

Write a post worth replying to and you might get a proper reply

 

[Fishalt]

I don't feel qualified to make a judgement on that.

You should apply this personal refrain to every topic on the forum.

 

[Fishalt]

Oh do shut up Fish

Write a post worth replying to and you might get a proper reply

I'm not getting embroiled in this apparent dumbfuckery, thanks.

 

[AN2]

I'm not getting embroiled in this apparent dumbfuckery, thanks.

I think that you're just feeling left out

Try to follow my advice and you might feel better

 

[Fishalt]

Speaking of stupid.

We discovered today that Tank and James believe the following:

For the thoughtful reader, now is a fitting moment to pause and consider the worldview espoused by our modern magi, James and Tank.

According to their cosmological folklore, the universe is eternally giving birth to itself—like a cosmic chicken endlessly laying its own egg. A chicken which has always existed and was never created.

Yet, in a breathtaking feat of metaphysical gymnastics, they insist that each new "chicken" is not a new universe at all, but the same one repeating ad infinitum, a kind of astrophysical Groundhog Day.

This, dear reader, is the sad spectacle of atheist cosmology in our time: a self-refuting fable posing as serious science. A parody in search of reverence.

They won’t be living this down in a hurry. This has been an intriguing evening’s work, finally nailing them down in their absurd belief’s.

For what it’s worth James is currently too drunk to make anything resembling a coherent response. So, we’ll have to wait until he sobers up tomorrow for anything resembling a coherent reply.

You believe in talking snakes and rib-women, though. You have no cosmology. None that makes any sense, or explains anything anyway. So far you've not offered a single non-magical explanation for existence whatsoever.

I think that you're just feeling left out

Try to follow my advice and you might feel better

You're just two proboscis monkeys tied to donkeys in a Victorian amphitheatre, and I'm just here to toss peanuts at you.

 

[Tiger]

I'm not getting embroiled in this apparent dumbfuckery, thanks.

What do you make about James and Tank’s beliefs that they have admitted to today? Are you a fellow traveler? (This is not a trick question)

They believe…

According to their cosmological folklore, the universe is eternally giving birth to itself—like a cosmic chicken endlessly laying its own egg. A chicken which has always existed and was never created.

Yet, in a breathtaking feat of metaphysical gymnastics, they insist that each new "chicken" is not a new universe at all, but the same one repeating ad infinitum, a kind of astrophysical Groundhog Day.

This, dear reader, is the sad spectacle of atheist cosmology in our time: a self-refuting fable posing as serious science. A parody in search of reverence.

They won’t be living this down in a hurry. This has been an intriguing evening’s work, finally nailing them down in their absurd belief’s.

 

[AN2]

What do you make about James and Tank’s beliefs that they have admitted to today? Are you a fellow traveler? (This is not a trick question)

They believe…

According to their cosmological folklore, the universe is eternally giving birth to itself—like a cosmic chicken endlessly laying its own egg. A chicken which has always existed and was never created.

Yet, in a breathtaking feat of metaphysical gymnastics, they insist that each new "chicken" is not a new universe at all, but the same one repeating ad infinitum, a kind of astrophysical Groundhog Day.

This, dear reader, is the sad spectacle of atheist cosmology in our time: a self-refuting fable posing as serious science. A parody in search of reverence.

They won’t be living this down in a hurry. This has been an intriguing evening’s work, finally nailing them down in their absurd belief’s.

More strawmanning

I don't "believe" in theoretical physics.. like you believe in your creation myth/God

 

[Fishalt]

What do you make about James and Tank’s beliefs that they have admitted to today? Are you a fellow traveler? (This is not a trick question)

They believe…

According to their cosmological folklore, the universe is eternally giving birth to itself—like a cosmic chicken endlessly laying its own egg. A chicken which has always existed and was never created.

Yet, in a breathtaking feat of metaphysical gymnastics, they insist that each new "chicken" is not a new universe at all, but the same one repeating ad infinitum, a kind of astrophysical Groundhog Day.

This, dear reader, is the sad spectacle of atheist cosmology in our time: a self-refuting fable posing as serious science. A parody in search of reverence.

They won’t be living this down in a hurry. This has been an intriguing evening’s work, finally nailing them down in their absurd belief’s.

I'm not going to pretend to know the origins of the universe. This doesn't imply that it being created from nothing by magic by the god of a desert people is a remotely plausible explanation. Stacking doubt-over-doubt on current theories of its creation doesn't lend credence or plausibility to your own beliefs, which are childish. Though for some reason you seem to think this is how proof works.