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.
this post was submitted on 24 Oct 2024
1172 points (92.9% liked)
Science Memes
10769 readers
2496 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
- Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
- Keep it rooted (on topic).
- No spam.
- Infographics welcome, get schooled.
Research Committee
Other Mander Communities
Science and Research
Biology and Life Sciences
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- !reptiles and [email protected]
Physical Sciences
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
Humanities and Social Sciences
Practical and Applied Sciences
- !exercise-and [email protected]
- [email protected]
- !self [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
Memes
Miscellaneous
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
round numbers are always made up. change my mind
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.
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.
"The devil put them there"
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.)
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.
Yeah, well, if that mf does actually exist, I'll feel real vindicated as I scream in agony for eternity, for holding the opinion that a God that needs to threaten me into worshipping him is not benevolent at all !
If I were god I might do all sorts of shit to test the supposed intelligence of my creations. That might include including telling them "do some pointless thing, or else".
It might interest me to see if they're capable of reasoning or testing to determine that the task is pointless and the threat is empty. Probably not, but its hilarious for them to think they matter to me; It's like a videogame to me.
It only takes 6 days for me to start whole a new game. I'm probably bored of it long before now or at least well ino my hundred and somethingth play-through light-years away. I prefer keeping the dinosaurs because they're way cooler than humans.
....But I killed the dinosaurs because I watched a brontosaurus eat its own shit
Just confess your sins to a guy who says he's a prist. All good after that.
Hehe bad faith
"God works in mysterious ways" /s
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
but who made the uranium?
urmoma?
Göbekli Tepe
Literally tho
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?
Ah the "Last Tuesday Hypothesis".
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.
Go away with your logic!
Could he create a rock heavy enough, that he can't lift it?
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.
It doesn't. It was never the point of his post. You can still believe that if you want. His reasoning for why he doesn't is outlined there.
It comes down to whether or not you find processes that we have researched and documented time and time again to be compelling evidence, or you want to believe it is a practical joke (while reductive, it is pretty much that argument breaks down to being).
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
Yeah, it’s not at all a compelling argument.
load more comments
(4 replies)
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
(3 replies)
Is this even a real tweet? If it is, why even bother trying to recreate it in paint?
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
load more comments
(6 replies)
Can someone explain to me why lead HAS to come from another element? Why cant it just… exist?
[email protected] 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
Because it needs a...
... leader
load more comments
(4 replies)
view more: next ›