1282
Eat lead (mander.xyz)
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Hope@lemmy.world 293 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

Not to argue for creationism, but this argument sucks. Lead can be produced by supernova, not just through decay of heavier elements. But even that's besides the point, since if you believe some entity created the universe, surely said entity could have created whatever ratio of lead to uranium they wanted. It's not a falsifiable claim, there's really no disproving it, unfortunately.

(Not so fun fact: the environmental impact of leaded gasoline was discovered by trying to estimate the age of the earth using the radio of lead to uranium in uranium deposits, but the pollution from leaded gasoline was throwing the measurements off.)

[-] wise_pancake@lemmy.ca 61 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

Also this doesn’t say anything about the Earth.

Plus you can give a liberal reading of the bible to be:

  1. god created the heaven and the earth. God created the heavenly bodies.
  2. God created the sky - earths atmosphere and climate
  3. God separates oceans - creates continental forms, and plant based life
  4. God creates the moon and sun and stars. This one seems out of order to me… maybe just the earth and solar system stabilize. I don’t know how plants exist without the sun, so maybe it’s microbes or something.
  5. God creates birds and sea creatures. Maybe birds are dinosaurs.
  6. God creates modern land animals, then creates man and woman. That makes sense, mankind is certainly new with only a few hundred thousand years of records before civilization starts.

That doesn’t have to imply the earth is 4000 years old. Even the original wording could be read as eon instead of day.

[-] krashmo@lemmy.world 36 points 6 days ago

The Bible is a couple thousand chapters long. The creation story is the first two chapters. It's pretty obviously only attempting to establish that God created the universe in some ambiguous way and move on with the story. That doesn't stop people from inferring all sorts of things from what is essentially a poem.

[-] Bassman1805@lemmy.world 26 points 6 days ago

It's literally a poem in the original language.

load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (28 replies)
[-] todd_bonzalez@lemm.ee 6 points 4 days ago

I'm not siding with the 4000 year old earth argument, but that is a weak counterargument.

Lead was created by dying stars that long predate the Earth.

[-] nialv7@lemmy.world 100 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

this argument isn't going to work on someone who believes god created said lead... and also, pretty sure not all lead was created from nuclear decay.

i get dunk on people feels satisfying, but this is just bad science communication through and through

[-] ByteOnBikes@slrpnk.net 16 points 6 days ago

I had a conversation with a woman who strongly believed God put the dinosaur bones there to test our faith.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[-] yarr@feddit.nl 46 points 5 days ago

Here's the bad faith argument:

At the moment of creation, God placed some partially decayed metals on the planet to fool the non-believers.

This is basically why the existence of dinosaur bones doesn't bother them either -- they just hand-wave it away.

[-] matt1126@feddit.uk 14 points 5 days ago

Hehe bad faith

[-] CheeseNoodle@lemmy.world 12 points 5 days ago

Counter handwave, any god that would do that is a jerk who doesn't deserve worship. (Actually like 99% of the shit most faiths deities do falls into that category.)

[-] yarr@feddit.nl 10 points 5 days ago

Bad faith argument:

In the holy book, inspired by this god, he tells you he DOES deserve worship. Furthermore, were you to ignore his advice, he will punish you eternally.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[-] T156@lemmy.world 24 points 5 days ago

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] MicrowavedTea@infosec.pub 123 points 6 days ago

Pretty sure the point of creationism is that everything was put on the earth when it was created, including fossils etc. You can't argue this with logic. My favorite spin off of this is Last Thursdayism where the earth was created last Thursday (regardless of what day it's now) which basically uses the same argument.

[-] Ddub@lemmy.ca 48 points 6 days ago

That does explain why I can never get the hang of Thursdays

load more comments (7 replies)
[-] sweetpotato@lemmy.ml 56 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

I genuinely don't understand how uranium can exist a priori in this argument but lead not? I might be missing something.

[-] Pazuzu@midwest.social 42 points 6 days ago

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

[-] Jyek@sh.itjust.works 11 points 5 days ago

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.

load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] sandbox@lemmy.world 11 points 6 days ago

Yeah, it’s not at all a compelling argument.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] ClassifiedPancake@discuss.tchncs.de 47 points 6 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

You can throw as much science at them as you want. God could have just created everything in whatever state he wanted to. Same thing with the virgin mary discussion. Who cares if it makes sense scientifically, god can just make a fertilized egg appear. How lame would god be if he could not do that? This is the basis christians start from, so why even bother trying to debate that?

[-] Rediphile@lemmy.ca 12 points 5 days ago

But could he heat up a burrito so hot that even he could not eat it?

If not, that's pretty weak. But if so, also pretty weak.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] LovableSidekick@lemmy.world 87 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

Technically this could all be true even if the universe were created 4000 years ago. As somebody says in Robert Heinlein's novel Job: A Comedy of Justice, "Yes, the universe is billions of years old, but it was created 4000 years ago. It was created old." (approximate quote from memory)

I absolutely agree with science, but strictly speaking we can't know for sure the universe isn't the creation of some superbeing operating outside of it - or it could even be a simulation.

[-] nickhammes@lemmy.world 73 points 6 days ago

We can't prove that the world we live in wasn't created last Thursday, with our memories, the growth rings in trees, and so on created by a (near) omnipotent trickster to deceive us. But science and rationality give us tools for determining what's worth taking seriously, and sorting out the reasonable, but unconfirmed, claims from the unverifiable hogwash.

load more comments (10 replies)
[-] madeinthebackseat@lemmy.world 19 points 6 days ago

We can't know anything with 100% certainty. We can always imagine some razzle-dazzle, imagined scenario to counter the rational explanation if we like.

The point of the scientific method and logical reasoning is to pick the explanation with the most evidence.

load more comments (18 replies)
[-] pyre@lemmy.world 50 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

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 if 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.

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] affiliate@lemmy.world 61 points 6 days ago

unfortunately i don’t believe in uranium or numbers higher than 200, so this argument doesn’t work on me

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] rimjob_rainer@discuss.tchncs.de 13 points 5 days ago

Where is the proof about these magic numbers? Checkmate atheist. /s

[-] unrelatedkeg@lemmy.sdf.org 9 points 5 days ago

All math is a lib lie! Just look at those blasphemous arabic numerals!

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] LilDumpy@lemmy.world 74 points 6 days ago

Real question: Is the decay of uranium the only natural way to produce lead? If so TIL.

[-] expatriado@lemmy.world 108 points 6 days ago

you can also lead by example

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] Nougat@fedia.io 37 points 6 days ago

Iron is the heaviest element capable of being created inside stars, via fusion. Once iron is fused, the star begins to rapidly collapse.

Elements heavier than iron (28) are the result of supernova explosions, which produce energies high enough to create these heavier atoms. It is further possible, as described in the image, for very heavy elements to decay into lighter more stable elements, those still being heavier than iron.

Lead is 82.

[-] alcoholicorn@lemmy.ml 28 points 6 days ago

That's what I learned in school, but there's been some research since suggesting stars produces significant quantities of elements up to lead during their lifetimes, even though it's a net energy loss.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-process

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Gork@lemm.ee 29 points 6 days ago

No. Nucleosynthesis of lead within stars generated from supernovae make up the bulk of the existing lead on Earth. Uranium decay does provide some additional lead inventory but would be fairly small in comparison.

But the presence of it in the first place within second generation stars proves that lead is billions of years old.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Mercuri@lemmy.world 16 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] BallsandBayonets@lemmings.world 58 points 6 days ago

When I was being raised as a young earth creationist, the earth was supposedly 12,000-20,000 years old. Then it was 10,000 years old. Then only 6,000. After I outgrew that nonsense, I joked that in a few decades YECs would say that their god created the earth in 1980, and anyone older than 40 are agents of the devil sent to test your faith.

[-] gnutrino@programming.dev 25 points 6 days ago

Of course, the universe was actually created in 1970 and anyone claiming to be older than 54 is an agent of Microsoft sent to test your faith in Unix.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[-] m3t00@lemmy.world 12 points 5 days ago

round numbers are always made up. change my mind

[-] Linsensuppe@feddit.org 27 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

Can someone explain to me why lead HAS to come from another element? Why cant it just… exist?

[-] LouSlash@szmer.info 15 points 6 days ago

Because it needs a...

... leader

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] NegativeLookBehind@lemmy.world 38 points 6 days ago

Lol, look at this guy, trying to use science and facts to disprove my fairytale. What a joke!

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] iAvicenna@lemmy.world 33 points 6 days ago

I assume someone saying this is a creationist and can just say god created Earth already with the lead in it. Therefore it is a pointless discussion.

[-] Ultraviolet@lemmy.world 22 points 6 days ago

Which raises the question of why he would create a planet with the illusion of age and send you to hell for falling for his own trick.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] FreakinSteve@lemmy.world 23 points 6 days ago

All young Earth creationist should be exiled to a remote desert island to die

[-] mineralfellow@lemmy.world 13 points 6 days ago

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.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[-] Bobmighty@lemmy.world 24 points 6 days ago

Engagement bait.

[-] Object@sh.itjust.works 15 points 6 days ago

Is this even a real tweet? If it is, why even bother trying to recreate it in paint?

[-] frezik@midwest.social 18 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

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?

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 24 Oct 2024
1282 points (100.0% liked)

Science Memes

10818 readers
2490 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.


Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS