Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tiger" data-source="post: 132559" data-attributes="member: 353">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?</blockquote>

Name

Verification: Does Doxxie know his real father.

Latest Threads

A Million Views.
- Started by Declan
- Saturday at 10:54 PM
- Replies: 8
Public Chat and Announcements
An Open Letter to SwordOfStZip
- Started by AN2
- Oct 11, 2025
- Replies: 12
Public Chat and Announcements
athletics
- Started by céline
- Oct 8, 2025
- Replies: 4
Public Chat and Announcements
S
The real agenda in this Presidential Election?
- Started by scolairebocht
- Oct 6, 2025
- Replies: 11
Scholairebochts Blog.
J
Varadkar "confronted by far right" while walking down street inDublin
- Started by Jay Homer Simpson
- Oct 2, 2025
- Replies: 6
Public Chat and Announcements

Popular Threads

Ukraine.
- Started by Declan
- Feb 21, 2022
- Replies: 15K
World at War
US Politics.
- Started by jpc
- Nov 7, 2022
- Replies: 6K
USA
Mass Migration to Ireland & Europe
- Started by Anderson
- Feb 26, 2023
- Replies: 5K
Nationalist Politics
C
🦠 Covid 19 Vaccine Thread 💉
- Started by Charlene
- Sep 14, 2021
- Replies: 3K
Health
General Chat in The Marcus Lounge.
- Started by Declan
- Dec 30, 2024
- Replies: 3K
Public Chat and Announcements
The Climate Change scam
- Started by Anderson
- Jul 29, 2022
- Replies: 2K
Climate Change