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.
Where is the proof about these magic numbers? Checkmate atheist. /s
All math is a lib lie! Just look at those blasphemous arabic numerals!
Numbers are a terrorist plot confirmed.
We will not be afraid.
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.
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.
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 !
All the cool people will be right there with you my friend. Well, almost all, anyway.
Hehe bad faith
To a theist, all things are the creation of god. There's no argument that can't be settled as "god made it that way". The real place you gotta hit em is in the arrogance of believing that the almighty created the bible, not humanity. And if they say that a sentient entity willed it thusly, then we return to the problem of evil: if humans are capable of evil, and this is god's will, then the benevolent god in the bible is not accurately depicted. I wonder what else the bible got wrong? Maybe their god willed the creation of a bible that got stuff wrong on purpose?
Honestly, for a dystheistic spiritualist (that is to say, one who believes that the greatest ordering forces of the universe are neither good nor bad nor have any intention for us, yet recognize the importance of spirituality in human livelihood) who is conversing with a bible thumper, this is the best you can do. Help people depart from their idols and attachments, and connect with the real human experiences of the spiritual. The less we get distracted with rules and traditions, the more we can love our world and one another.
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?
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.
Ah the "Last Tuesday Hypothesis".
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
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.
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
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.)
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
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.
You could just ask the mice.
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.
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
unfortunately i don’t believe in uranium or numbers higher than 200, so this argument doesn’t work on me
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.
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.
Can someone explain to me why lead HAS to come from another element? Why cant it just… exist?
Is this even a real tweet? If it is, why even bother trying to recreate it in paint?
but who made the uranium?
urmoma?
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.
A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.
Rules
