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: 132739" data-attributes="member: 353"><p>I’m destroying you and you know it.</p><p></p><p>You were asked a simple, reasonable question: <strong><em>What empirical evidence do you have for the initial conditions of the Earth’s formation?</em> </strong>Instead of answering, you deflect with name-calling and projection. That’s not science — that’s insecurity posing as intellect.</p><p></p><p>You’ve conflated <strong><em>models</em> with <em>evidence</em></strong>, 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 <strong>rests on assumptions:</strong> that dust accreted into planetesimals, that collisions somehow produced stable orbits, that cores differentiated just so. These are not facts. They are <em>interpretations</em> 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.</p><p></p><p>What’s telling is that you <strong>haven’t answered <em>any</em> of the central critiques raised.</strong> Not about <strong>discordant radiometric dates.</strong> Not about the<strong> wild extrapolations required to make abiogenesis plausible</strong>. Not about the fact <strong>that even billions of years aren’t enough time for Darwinian evolution to overcome combinatorial explosion</strong> 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.</p><p></p><p><strong>So again, for the benefit of the reader: </strong>This isn't a debate between science and religion. It’s a debate between <strong><em>evidence</em> and <em>philosophical storytelling</em>.</strong> And when pressed for the former, all you’ve produced is the latter, dressed up in bluster.</p><p></p><p>Care to try again with data instead of insults?</p><p></p><p><strong>Nope, didn't think so</strong>.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Tiger, post: 132739, member: 353"] I’m destroying you and you know it. You were asked a simple, reasonable question: [B][I]What empirical evidence do you have for the initial conditions of the Earth’s formation?[/I] [/B]Instead of answering, you deflect with name-calling and projection. That’s not science — that’s insecurity posing as intellect. You’ve conflated [B][I]models[/I] with [I]evidence[/I][/B], 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 [B]rests on assumptions:[/B] that dust accreted into planetesimals, that collisions somehow produced stable orbits, that cores differentiated just so. These are not facts. They are [I]interpretations[/I] 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 [B]haven’t answered [I]any[/I] of the central critiques raised.[/B] Not about [B]discordant radiometric dates.[/B] Not about the[B] wild extrapolations required to make abiogenesis plausible[/B]. Not about the fact [B]that even billions of years aren’t enough time for Darwinian evolution to overcome combinatorial explosion[/B] 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. [B]So again, for the benefit of the reader: [/B]This isn't a debate between science and religion. It’s a debate between [B][I]evidence[/I] and [I]philosophical storytelling[/I].[/B] 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? [B]Nope, didn't think so[/B]. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Name
Verification
Does Doxxie know his real father.
Post reply
Latest Threads
S
Is the State trying to bankrupt the Irish Catholic Church?
Started by scolairebocht
Today at 9:15 AM
Replies: 2
Scholairebochts Blog.
How Dangerous is Israel?
Started by Anderson
Yesterday at 4:04 AM
Replies: 1
Nationalist Politics
Charlie Kirk Shot Dead ~ RIP
Started by Anderson
Wednesday at 3:29 PM
Replies: 157
Nationalist Politics
J
Has anyone else kinda lost the will to live ?
Started by Jay Homer Simpson
Wednesday at 12:30 PM
Replies: 4
Public Chat and Announcements
The 2023 National Party Coup D'état or Split: My Understanding of it
Started by BelfastRatepayer
Saturday at 12:59 PM
Replies: 28
Nationalist Politics
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: 2K
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