Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Members
Registered members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Members Blogs
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Self Moderated Area
Tiger Blog
Origins Thread
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Tiger" data-source="post: 132624" data-attributes="member: 353"><p>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 (<strong>which itself rests on a house of assumptions</strong>), 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<strong> running on fumes</strong>.</p><p></p><p>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 <strong>model-dependent claim</strong> that presumes the very timeframes under debate. You assume slow formation because your framework is gradualist. But that’s not an argument —<strong> it’s a presupposition</strong>.</p><p></p><p>If you're serious about a scientific discussion, then answer this: apart from dating methods that presuppose deep time, what <em>empirical, observational</em> 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: <strong>how do you falsify the claim that the Earth formed rapidly, if every piece of data you interpret already assumes slowness?</strong></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Tiger, post: 132624, member: 353"] 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 ([B]which itself rests on a house of assumptions[/B]), 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[B] running on fumes[/B]. 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 [B]model-dependent claim[/B] that presumes the very timeframes under debate. You assume slow formation because your framework is gradualist. But that’s not an argument —[B] it’s a presupposition[/B]. If you're serious about a scientific discussion, then answer this: apart from dating methods that presuppose deep time, what [I]empirical, observational[/I] 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: [B]how do you falsify the claim that the Earth formed rapidly, if every piece of data you interpret already assumes slowness?[/B] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Name
Verification
Does Doxxie know his real father.
Post reply
Latest Threads
A Million Views.
Started by Declan
Yesterday 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
Forums
Self Moderated Area
Tiger Blog
Origins Thread
Top
Bottom