Being a scientist myself, this argument is not very good. The believer can just say that god created lead as well, and didn't wait for it to be created by decay. If god can create a universe, why shouldn't they be able to create some lead?
this post was submitted on 24 Oct 2024
244 points (91.2% liked)
Atheist Memes
5532 readers
480 users here now
About
A community for the most based memes from atheists, agnostics, antitheists, and skeptics.
Rules
-
No Pro-Religious or Anti-Atheist Content.
-
No Unrelated Content. All posts must be memes related to the topic of atheism and/or religion.
-
No bigotry.
-
Attack ideas not people.
-
Spammers and trolls will be instantly banned no exceptions.
-
No False Reporting
-
NSFW posts must be marked as such.
Resources
International Suicide Hotlines
Non Religious Organizations
Freedom From Religion Foundation
Ex-theist Communities
Other Similar Communities
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
That's a whole 'nother rabbit hole, that eventually leads to this:
Can blame it on the devil, or can say it's just a test by God. Anything from old rocks to fossils to light from distance stars created enroute. Using science to debate someone who doesn't understand science or thinks it's all a trick isn't going to work.
Exactly! In fact, we know that the universe was created in media res so that light photons allegedly streaming to us from thirteen billion light years away in mid transit with the exact amount of red shift it would have from that object retreating away from us due to cosmic inflation, and was, in fact, created by God ~~2000~~ in route in the (great) void of space so that it would smack not just into the dot that is Earth, but some dude's telescope and spectrum analyzer.
In fact, I wasn't born fifty seven (and some days) years ago. I was born this last Tuesday when the universe was created with everything in motion.
ETA Apparently in the last decade, Last Tuesdayism (the omphalos hypothesis that the universe was created last Tuesday) turned into Last Thursdayism
Prior to that, Last Thursdayism was a separate sect who suggested the universe was recreated every Thursday the way we reboot our OS every once in a while.
load more comments
(3 replies)
The Earth was created 10 seconds ago and we all have implanted memories, change my mind.
Heretic. True believers know it was 8 seconds ago.
Blasphemer. It'll be created tomorrow and this is all part of the memory implant.
Nonesense it will never be created this is just a simulation /s
LastThursdayism
I had a creationist professor who had a whole bunch of bullshit specifically intended to "debunk" aging using Polonium half-lives, etc...
You'll never "disprove" it for them, because they don't want it disproven. They'll just find the relevant page on Answers in Genesis/Ken Ham's website written by someone with a Ph.D. from Pensacola Christian College and consider it done. They're not in it to actually find the truth. It's not a good-faith discussion/debate.
In what backwoods podunk shithole did you have a creationist "professor?" What were they even ostensibly teaching?
I had a "Creationism vs evolution" class because I did one semester at a religious college before realizing I wasn't religious. It was about what'd you'd expect, and no, the credit didn't transfer to a real college
I've seen anecdotal stories of geologists who claimed they were creationists. The brain is an amazing thing.
load more comments
(6 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
Fortunately when they go find some page in AiG, you can just go point at the corresponding entry here: https://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html
Been a while since I've seen that resource. Old webpages are refreshing sometimes.
load more comments
(2 replies)
That's not the gotcha OOP seems to think it is. If the world was magicked into existence by a supreme being 4000 years ago, there's no reason it couldn't have been magicked into existence with heavy elements having decayed by an arbitrary amount or with Pb by itself. 'Tis the problem with invoking appeals to magic. And anyway a quick look on wiki says that primordial Pb was mostly created by neutron capture of lighter elements, not radioactove decay of heavier ones, so the mere existence of Pb proves nothing wrt the timeline of U decay anyway... but at that point if you're bringing nucleosynthesis into it, you may as well point to anything higher than lithium or even atoms as a concept as "proof" rather than picking anything as exotic as uranium decay.
That's crazy, is this the only source of lead? Like, can't lead come from somewhere else?
Yeah, this post is not fully correct. The lead nail in the coffin is not that lead exists, it's that we find it in certain mineral matrixes that don't form with lead.
Zircon is the most widely referenced mineral in uranium-lead dating, as the mineral rejects lead during its formation, but will incorporate uranium. So when we find zircon with lead in it, it means that the uranium has decayed and turned into lead while being stuck there, and the percentage of uranium to lead in a sample lets us determine its time of formation.
Neat
I'm fairly certain this is leaving out important details. I believe it decays into a unique form of lead with a different number of either protons or neutrons. The actual numbers I could not tell you as I'm remembering this from high school.
It's a different isotope, so different number of neutrons. If the proton number would be different, it would be another element altogether, since the proton number defines what element it is.
- Decay of radon-222 isn't the only way lead can be created, just a way
- The U238 that started the chain could pre-date the earth
- Half life is only when half of the sample has decayed, but less than half could have decayed into lead
I think this is bad science. Its important to call out bad science to prove that good science exists.
I don't think all lead is the result of radioactive decay.
Do you have some more reading about this? The wikipedia article doesn't really touch on it.
The assumption is that the only way lead can exist is via a series of radioactive decay. It is a way. It is generally created in stars by a much more direct process, not through radioactive decay.
Is there an emperic difference (like the isotope number or whatever) between lead created through radioactive decay and lead created directly in a star?
load more comments
(8 replies)
Stellar element synthesis is where most elements, iron and below, form. Hydrogen, the most common element, fuses to Helium, Lithium. There are more cycles to stars burning elements, Carbon-Nitrogren-Oxygen Cycle, and a bunch of other stuff, all the way up to Iron. After Iron, nuclear fusion can no longer sustain the star, and it collapses into a neutron star (or any other intermediary ranging from hypothetical quark stars to black holes).
On collapse, you get a supernova. Supernova and other high energy events (called Gamma Ray Bursts, usually attributed to Supernova anyway) explode in a shower of neutrinos and gamma rays. These neutrinos rarely interact with matter since they have no charge, but they still contain a lot of energy, traveling near the speed of light. Gamma rays are the highest energy photons. Anything either particle interacts with will change it.
The collision of the gamma rays burst and nuetrinos with interstellar matter creates the remainder of the elements, much in a similar way we do on earth to create the synthetic elements (like plutonium).
Any isotope can be created this way. Isotopes that are unstable then decay until they become something stable - Uranium -> Lead.
The universe is so old that enough of these elements were able to gather by gravity, forming the relatively tiny deposits we can find on our planet.
If you want a layman approach then this Youtube video about where gold comes from is pretty good. You can skip most of the first half about the culture of gold. The second half of the video is the creation part.
If you want a technical approach then you want to talk about Rapid Neutron Capture and GRB. You'll find that kind of talk here. Warning: When you start digging deep into scientific explanations you discover that there's more we don't know. As the article ends with the idea that our current working theory of r-process doesn't happen often enough to explain how much gold we have so there's likely at least one other way gold is created in the universe. Welcome to cutting edge science!
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(9 replies)
This is an inherently unwinnable trap. Creationists will ultimately always play the undisprovable "God made it that way" card. Blind faith is a mental illness that's endemic to humanity and is probably going to get us all killed.
Omfg, my dude. I get your point, everybody does, i mean, look at the sub name... But calling people mentally sick just because they can't resist our inner cope machanism, aka magical thinking, which was developed and stayed there since before the civilisation, is like calling people with allergies "subhuman", or people who can't resist the urge to sleep at night *weak".
load more comments
(4 replies)
Calling it mental illness isn't just a stretch it's just fuckin wrong my dude. I get what you're saying but bro, that's just how humans work.
For the vast majority of people, belief in science isn't fundamentally different than belief in religion. Very few people actually know. The rest of us are taking it on faith that the scientific method is working. Even when it isn't (that's a fascinating story, btw, a lot of scientists confirmed findings before it was ultimately debunked.)
Taking things on faith is part of why we work as a species, knowing a thing to be true without ever seeing it is critical to a functioning culture.
The fact that that well has been poisoned with bullshit is a natural consequence.
load more comments
(2 replies)
The futility of using scientific factoids to argue with an account named "Christians Against Science".
load more comments
(1 replies)
The only thing that you can use to convince someone who is dead set the Bible is the only truth is...the Bible. And even then they'll use gymnastics, but at least they can't just discard the source of evidence like they will anything else. If they bend over backwards to keep the Bible valid, then you know you'll waste time trying to debate them.
That's not how half-lives work though
It's 4000 years old...
...and then some
Lead existed more than 4000 years ago, but that doesn't prove it was part of Earth that whole time. Most of the planet existed in some form before it coalesced into the planet. 😌
I was in a Discord call and we were talking about theology and one guy used this argument against creationism. The Christian girl in the call said if Adam spawned in as a fully grown adult then God can create pre-aged uranium too.
Which ends up leading up to Last Thursdayism. Weird to believe in a deity that just enjoys fucking with you, but to each their own.
"Mind" I see no evidence to support the existence of one.
view more: next ›