Removed by mod
There’s evidence of human civilization and agriculture going back at least 10,000 years. You have to be extremely willfully ignorant to think the earth is only 4,000 years old. Hell the pyramid of Giza is older than that.
You have to be extremely willfully ignorant to think the earth is only 4,000 years old.
The Bible itself makes it obvious that the 4,000 year old thing is a lie.
We obviously live in a matrix/simulated world, and it can’t be older than 50 years, because before that, computers didn’t exist. Checkmate christians.
/jk
the answer completely disregards the fact that people who even remotely understand how these things work wouldn’t believe stupid shit in the first place. there are so many ways for this guy to just dismiss this.
how would you even know, you can’t have studied these for billions of years
who says lead only can exist in this manner
what is this is true but god also made lead along with the earth
etc etc… this is very weak if the goal is really try to convince this guy to look into some things rather than smell your own farts.
There are many scientists who are strict belivers. They just move the act of creation to the big bang and it’s still in gods plan.
yeah the insistence that creation must mean it happens in an instant is just demonstrably pointless. we already say god created us. and we know we don’t come into existence in full adult form in an instant. we have a whole birth-baby-toddler-kid-teen-adult transformation. and before that we know there is a whole process in the womb. so when god creates a person he puts an entire process into motion. why can this not be the case for the entire universe? why not evolution? are they saying that god couldn’t have thought of a system? I find it weird.
so when god creates a person
Ok, a physicist is not a biologist.
My farts are delicious thank you very much.
Yeah, this is broken because all lead did not have to come from polonium, that’s how half-lives work.
It’s still 100% bullshit in every way, someone just needs to have chatgpt4 sort out the current mass fraction to explain why, I’m way too lazy to argue against insanity.
https://wwwrcamnl.wr.usgs.gov/isoig/period/pb_iig.html
Lead-204 is the only isotope that doesn’t derive from radioactive decay, and it represents only 1.4% of the lead on earth.
I genuinely don’t understand how uranium can exist a priori in this argument but lead not? I might be missing something.
The original post only gave half the explanation. It’s not that lead exists in general, it’s that lead exists within zircon crystals.
Under normal circumstances that would be impossible, zircon crystals strongly reject lead atoms as they form. There’s no way to stuff lead into the crystal lattice in the quantity we find them there. But uranium and zircon go together just fine, we just have to wait for it to decay into lead. The trouble is it takes ~4.5 billion years for just half of those uranium atoms to turn into lead. So any zircon crystal we find with half as much lead as uranium must be roughly that old
This the explanation I’m looking for. OP didn’t make sense to me, lead could be created in supernovae and shit just like every other heavy element
But that still doesn’t change the belief that a creator could have created the universe in whatever state it currently exists in. That’s why these arguments never go anywhere with hard core young earth creationists. It’s also not worth the energy arguing with them because they often believe that anyone trying to convince them otherwise is an antichrist trying to lead them astray.
If God created it in that state then they should be curious to understand that creation. They look at rainbows as the beauty of creation but not the fact that lead exists in these crystals. It’s all equally beautifully complex. So why not try to understand it.
If God made the world look like it was created billions of years ago there must be something worth learning from that, even if you believe it was snapped into existence 6000 years ago.
Tbf for your specific example, rainbows are specifically mentioned and “explained” in the Bible. After drowning all life on Earth except for Noah and a bunch of inbred animals, God sent the wainbow down as a pwomise that he would nevew do it again 👉👈
To be fair they weren’t inbred yet
They were by the time they got off the boat though.
There’s no mention of meat pies in that story, not even sandwiches.
Isn’t it more about being able the view the whole life cycle of lead, which takes more than 4000 years.
“God put all of that there, and then made it work to ensure we had quality lead gasoline, pipes and paint to poison our brains with cause freedom.”
Is that what were doing now? Regurgitating stereotypical insults on a post where the “pro science” side dropped the ball and leaned on a ridiculously stupid misunderstanding to disprove something stupider?
You all fucking disappoint me.
Who do you think you are? No one cares. ACAB, and religion is bullshit.
Yeah, it’s not at all a compelling argument.
Can someone explain to me why lead HAS to come from another element? Why cant it just… exist?
A normal Star, which does not end it’s life with a supernova, can only produce elements up to Iron with normal fusion. All other elements are produced by e.g. supernovas, which tend to produce heavier elements initially (due to the forces involved) hat decay over time.
At least that is my pseudoscience knowledge about this
God made lead right after creating life
Actually He started with lead. All life comes from lead. Praise the lead. It’s not lead poisoning, it’s lead salvation! Also Led Zeppelin is Christian rock and spreading the gospel.
Because it needs a…
… leader
Some star fusion science can create radium but not lead?
Pazuzu@midwest.social explained above:
The original post only gave half the explanation. It’s not that lead exists in general, it’s that lead exists within zircon crystals.
Under normal circumstances that would be impossible, zircon crystals strongly reject lead atoms as they form. There’s no way to stuff lead into the crystal lattice in the quantity we find them there. But uranium and zircon go together just fine, we just have to wait for it to decay into lead. The trouble is it takes ~4.5 billion years for just half of those uranium atoms to turn into lead. So any zircon crystal we find with half as much lead as uranium must be roughly that old
All young Earth creationist should be exiled to a remote desert island to die
Two islands, divide them by sex. If you don’t, they will eventually overpopulate and start colonizing places.
Too risky. What if u misgender one accidentially? Put each on a separate island. Or into a sealed barrel and just into the ocean.
I was a YEC before going to university. I studied geology. After two years, I accepted that evolution happened. After four years, I was an atheist. I went on to get a doctorate, and I have published quite a few papers about rocks that are >2 billion years old.
As a kid, there were literally 0 authority figures in my life that accepted that evolution happened. It was taken as a given that it was ridiculous. My biology teacher skipped the chapter on evolution, saying, “this is controversial.”
Patience, love, and making critical information available gives kids like I was a chance.
That is quite a journey! I hope that it wasn’t too fraught (learning shouldn’t have to be). Well done on making good of it!
An existential crisis is an important part of growing up.
My biology teacher skipped the chapter on evolution, saying, “this is controversial.”
How was that legal?
There’s just no way that they could ever be anything but a drain to society
Should we start building a big wooden boat for them?
I typically use the fact that there are trees older than 4000 years old based on tree ring data. Or that there are stars in the sky further than 4000 light years away that we can see in the sky.
That usually makes them say something like how their God created an world that was already aged. So I usually counter with the fact that would make their God a lier and deceiver.
Some hold firm and say God did it to test faith. Others back pedal and try to blame it on Satan. That Satan scattered all this false evidence just to make us question the notion that Earth is 4000 years old to make people lose faith in God. And then I have to laugh at how stupid their argument is and how weak their God is. Naturally no amount of evidence or logic will make them change their belief.
The important thing is, you’re compelling people to examine their pre-existing beliefs. They won’t change their beliefs during your conversation, because deprogramming takes time. But the more seeds of doubt you plant, the better the chances are that some will germinate.
I find that the most effective way to encourage people to question themselves is to discuss things calmly and in good faith, through in-person conversations. Challenging people to “convert me” has been surprisingly fruitful - after all, I honestly would love to believe that a benevolent deity is looking out for us all. (As well, tons of believers would equally love to be the one who “shows [you or me] the light.”) I want them to provide compelling evidence that can change my mind.
Approaching the conversation in this fashion not only challenges the “missionary” types to think harder, but it also shifts the onus onto them to convince you. If they’ve never thought critically about their message, this kind of conversation may introduce questions that stick with them long after it’s over.
And even better because they start to come to their own thought-out conclusions. There’s less baggage in the way for them to eventually work their way through it. Especially when they’ve got to convince you - because mysteriously they always jump to all of this “proof” to show you.
It doesn’t happen immediately, and if you try to speed it up you’ll just cause them to reverse course.
I’ll sprinkle a little bit of … my own confusion into the mix? As an example, I’ll remain interested, but be like “wait, you said X but then you said Y - doesn’t that contradict X?” I’ll let them explain and not fight them on it, but send them off with a warm smile.
Not everyone will break free of the programming, but some will - and that’s all I can hope for.
Engagement bait.
“Whatever! Pssshhh!”
I’m not even sure how you get to 4000 years old from biblical literalisim.
Edit: going strictly by the biblical account, Adam lived to 930 years, and Noah 950. IIRC, their lives did not overlap. Jesus lived 2000 years ago. A whole bunch of stuff happens in between Noah and Jesus. So even if you’re working strictly from the bible, how the hell do you get 4000 years?
The Bible has a long list of names with birthdays and who begat whom. It came from Irish archbishop and scholar James Ussher.
If you believe in the Bible, you get a 4000 year old Earth.
Ussher calculated 4004BC as the start of the universe, which would be about 6000 years ago.
That’s my point. Most YEC point to 6000 years. Even within their own framework, I don’t see how you get to 4000 years. My best guess is they saw 4004BC and forgot that 1 BC was about 2000 years ago.
This is exactly what it is. When everything you believe is made up, it’s easily to accidentally make up the wrong number and then believe that instead.
Because anti-evolutionists decided a myth that the Earth is only 4000 years old is the quickest way to refute claims of evolution.
It’s not an argument one forms by observing evidence.
So even if you’re working strictly from the bible, how the hell do you get 4000 years?
You can’t. The “Young Earth” people are morons.
There is a very old Jewish Holiday which celebrates new year on a calendar starting with the creation of the Universe, only about 5000+ years, but even that is obscure af.
round numbers are always made up. change my mind
Scientism is yet another religion
Welcome to /c/science_memes@mander.xyz with memes about…you might never have guessed…Science!
Scientism is not equal to science. Scientism is a way of thinking that’s similar to a religion with saint texts written in physics and biology. It denies religion, while preserving its very structure. The meme is a good example of it.
The problem with that argument is that it falls into the Last Thursdayist problem.
It could just as well be argued that the lead was created instantly in that state, or mid-decay.
The problem with this argument from the fundamental level is that 99% of religious zealots don’t give two shits about your science or facts. There is a whole segment of the human population that has no mind for factual information and just decides to believe whatever they feel.
There is no real arguing with these people, they don’t care about evidence or science, I am quite convinced they don’t even understand things the same way as other people and don’t have an internal mind-voice that works the same way as other people. It’s just a totally different conscious experience, and despite making full use of our science and technology, they don’t exist in a world where that matters.
The hard part about this understanding is you realize there’s no resolution. They can’t be changed because they’re not unsatisfied with their world. A smart person is never satisfied and will always ask questions and even ask questions about the questions. Not these people. They actively are annoyed by questions and even see learning things as a kind of sin or spiritual crime.
So lets save our collective energy and instead focus on making classrooms better funded and knowledge available and unavoidable for the younger children growing up in this world and still developing their minds. I was pulled out at an early age simply by finding a few science books, others can be too.
