1282
Eat lead (mander.xyz)
(page 4) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] yogurtwrong@lemmy.world 2 points 6 days ago

eat lead? this guy probably has already done that one

[-] Routhinator@startrek.website 1 points 6 days ago

Probably not willingly. Republican States are often horrible at updating infrastructure, and due to the lack of a well educated population, they don't suffer much repercussion for that. Very high chance they grew up with or still have lead pipes.

[-] 10_0@lemmy.world 1 points 6 days ago

But I take everything literally, other than when its inconvenient

[-] fsxylo@sh.itjust.works 1 points 6 days ago

Young earth creationists make up new element called "creationite" from which all elements came from, thereby filling in the radioactive decay plot hole in their narrative.

[-] Hope@lemmy.world 293 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week 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.)

[-] Empricorn@feddit.nl 2 points 6 days ago

Also, we could be way off on the age because we just don't know. Sure, we can collect data and extrapolate for billions of years and assume that all elements have always decayed at the same rate, but short of living through it and accurately measuring it with modern instruments, molecules-to-man "macro" evolution can't actually be proven.

This is why, using the Scientific Method, it is still a theory. A theory accepted by most scientists, but still. There's a certain arrogance in declaring solved something we can't actually know for 100% certainty.

[-] wise_pancake@lemmy.ca 61 points 1 week 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 1 week 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.

[-] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 1 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

So you are saying when the Bible says Jesus died for our sins, it doesn't mean he actually died, it's only a metaphor.

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (27 replies)
[-] MicrowavedTea@infosec.pub 123 points 1 week 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.

[-] GrammarPolice@lemmy.world 2 points 6 days ago

It's an ad hoc argument. You can't argue against any ad hoc arguments with logic

[-] Ddub@lemmy.ca 48 points 1 week ago

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

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[-] LilDumpy@lemmy.world 74 points 1 week ago

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

[-] Skanky@lemmy.world 1 points 6 days ago

No. God can produce as much lead as he wants. Duh!

[-] expatriado@lemmy.world 108 points 1 week ago

you can also lead by example

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] Nougat@fedia.io 37 points 1 week 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 1 week 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

[-] Nougat@fedia.io 1 points 6 days ago

Interesting. Of note, this process would mainly be in a very specific kind of star, and still would depend on an iron "seed" leftover from a previous supernova. Technically, still requires a "regular" supernova.

[-] Gork@lemm.ee 29 points 1 week 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 (1 replies)
[-] BallsandBayonets@lemmings.world 58 points 1 week 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.

[-] match@pawb.social 2 points 6 days ago

God created your with your memories as-is this morning when you woke up

[-] modifier@lemmy.ca 2 points 6 days ago

I was also raised as a young earth creationist and it was always 6k years old for me but I could not begin to tell you why.

[-] Live_your_lives@lemmy.world 1 points 6 days ago

6,000 to 12,000 years old is what I heard. I'm guessing that this "Christians Against Science" page is a joke community that is making fun of YECs by saying it's 4,000.

load more comments (7 replies)
[-] NegativeLookBehind@lemmy.world 38 points 1 week ago

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

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›
this post was submitted on 24 Oct 2024
1282 points (100.0% liked)

Science Memes

10818 readers
2690 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