- cross-posted to:
- atheistmemes@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- atheistmemes@lemmy.world
You must log in or register to comment.
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.)
Also this doesn’t say anything about the Earth.
Plus you can give a liberal reading of the bible to be:
- god created the heaven and the earth. God created the heavenly bodies.
- God created the sky - earths atmosphere and climate
- God separates oceans - creates continental forms, and plant based life
- 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.
- God creates birds and sea creatures. Maybe birds are dinosaurs.
- 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.
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.
It’s literally a poem in the original language.
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.
I know it’s tough to pay attention for four whole sentences but if you read them again slowly I think you’ll see that I did not use the words Jesus, sin, or metaphor in any form which should make it pretty clear that, no, I’m not saying that at all.
I cant believe you just said that Virgin Mary was an inside joke, and every one knew Mary, and like I mean knew her.
The joke is inside Virgin Mary if you get my drift
You handwaved away glaring inaccuracy in what is purported to be the word of God with “it’s just a few paragraphs before the story”.
If you get to pick and choose what is truth, then anyone else can do it too.
No one is having a comprehensive theological discussion with you jackass. We were talking about a very specific thing. Stop being obnoxious.
It’s science memes. It’s not serious. I can reply with whatever I want.
Funny how you think only your posts are appropriate.
Even the original wording could be read as eon instead of day.
Most people don’t know that the Hebrew word “yom” (day) can be and is used to denote wildly different lengths of time.
If anyone is interested you can read a fine destruction of the stupid “Young Earth” argument at the link I provided.
The “Young Earth” people, both Christian and Jew, are trying to shoe horn something into the Bible that doesn’t fit and doesn’t need to exist. It’s nothing more than a desperate attempt to hold onto an old, wrong headed, and man-made theory.
Thanks for that
I don’t see why God must be incompatible with evolution or the Big Bang or really any of science. God created us to be clever, surely that includes using logic and science to learn about the world.
Personally I’m agnostic and I try not to judge people. I do judge people who dismiss science and decide faith alone is better.
God created us to be clever, surely that includes using logic and science to learn about the world.
The argument can be made that since God created humanity in their image that we’re all just fledgling gods with the big difference being our lack of immortality. We’re just not long lived enough as individuals to reach God’s level of power and insight. We are who God created us to be, logic and science included so If we don’t kill ourselves off we may eventually reach a collective godhood, or something akin to it, as a species.
I’m not saying I believe that argument, I’m just pointing out that it’s there because it supports your point.
The excuse that the Hebrew word for day could mean an extremely long period of time doesn’t work because plants and trees were created before the Sun and insects (pollinators).
deleted by creator
I skimmed that link and it’s pretty interesting, I’ll have to spend more time on it. I definitely liked the part at the end about God being the observer in this context, so what’s a day to him.
Simple answers for simple minds
The original wording can’t be read as eon instead of a day because plants and trees could’t last for an eon before the sun was created.
These are perfect plants that do reverse photosynthesis, make sense now?
This is why you can never disprove creationism sufficiently to convince a young Earth creationist. The hypothesis is unfalsifiable.
The obvious solution is to make a science that is unfalsifable. Then argue about who would win, like superman vs goku.
Also I’m amazed by how people don’t seem to understand what half-life is. It’s not the time it takes for an atom to decay. It’s the time it takes for half of the atoms to decay, meaning there will be some U-238 that decay into Ra-226 in just a couple of seconds.
So even if the Earth was created 4000 years ago with uranium but not lead (for some weird reason), some of that lead would have decayed into lead by now.
Yes but this is a 16 year who watched a YouTube and owns noobs
Well there’s also no way to disprove that everything was created last Tuesday including the memories of things/events happening before last Tuesday.
The weirdest part to me is thinking the timeless omnipotent god that the Bible explicitly says considers a thousand years less than nothing actually literally meant that he created everything in what we’d perceive as 7 days when talking to whatever arbitrary scribe wrote down the creation myth for him.
So it’s more like God appears to this guy named Abraham and tells him the story and then his great! Great! Great! Great! Great! Great! Great! Great! Great! Great! Great! Great! Great! Great! Great! Great! Great! Great! Great! Great! Great! Great! Great! Great! Great, great great grandchildren wrote it down. But in the original Hebrew it doesn’t use a word that means day they use a word that means unit of time.
That still doesn’t work because plants and trees are created before the sun. Not to mention the lack of pollinators because God hadn’t yet created insects.
Clearly you’ve never played telephone.
I’m just amazed that the ancient israelis got it as close as they did to our modern understanding of the process of the formation of the universe through only oral tradition and not from any hard sources of science.
Personally I’m in the camp that says trust the science and realize that ancient Israeli tribals weren’t the best at keeping 100% accurate records.
I’m also partial to the simulation theory variant where we are the sims on Gods PC.
Got it close? It’s wrong in almost every way possible. Earth before Sun. Plants before the sun. No insect pollinators until after the sun and birds before land animals.
It’s completely random.
It blows my mind that there are atheists who read the Bible literally.
It’s fine if you don’t read the Bible literally. As long as you also accept that Jesus didn’t actually die and resurrect. You didn’t read it literally, did you?
Isn’t it weird how God manifests himself in different ways depending where your physical location on earth is. It’s almost like if each culture puts its own spin on religion because there is no continuity between a people that existed thousands of years ago and the people of today.
Just a little fun fact about the abrahamic religions.
It’s explicitly stated that there are other gods. It’s just that the abrahamic one does not like them and wants to be the god of everything.
Subscribe
If it wasn’t a day then how did all the plants and trees live without sunlight?
I thought carbon dating of fossils was our best argument against the 4000 years myth.
God could have put the fossils there with the right carbon isotopes.
You can’t use logic to disprove belief in magic.
There’s a fun belief in physics regarding this “superdeterminism”.
It essentially states that two entangled particles exhibit entanglement not because of any property between them but because they share the same cause origin point (the big bang) and that their respective spin states correlate more with the big bang than each other. Essentially the spin experiments will always appear to show entanglement, but it’s actually a byproduct of the big bang.
Which, as we can all maybe agree, is fucking weak by order of being disprovable
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.
That does explain why I can never get the hang of Thursdays
What, were you born today or something!
Hence the first and only commandment of Last Thursdayism: Don’t Panic.
“God did it to trick you” is pretty hard to disprove
It’s also hard to argue while also claiming your god is moral, which is why creationists usually scapegoat the task of planting fossils to Satan.
Anything that is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
“It Is Useless To Attempt To Reason A Man Out Of A Thing He Was Never Reasoned Into.” - Jonathan Swift
It’s an ad hoc argument. You can’t argue against any ad hoc arguments with logic
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
Some lead might have been created from supernova fusion, probably. I’m not actually sure if it’s the right isotope or if lead even has radioactive isotopes that we know of
Anything can be radioactive if you add enough neutrons
I had a conversation with a woman who strongly believed God put the dinosaur bones there to test our faith.
what an idiot, clearly god put the bones in the ground because dinosaurs were his favourite creation and he wanted us to know about them. Had he not put them there we’d have no idea, and he’d be very sad.
Also, the half life is when half of it decays. Some of it is constantly decaying. We don’t need to wait for the half life to see any of it. The ratios would be totally off if there was enough of it to get the amount of lead we have right now, but some would exist. When the math is that complex, it’s not going to change anyone’s mind who believes what a magic book (written by regular humans) says. Nothing will, be if you want a chance it has to be something simple and obvious.
There are exactly 1.6 x 10^18 kilograms of lead on earth but every three minutes or so a brand new gram is welcomed into existence due to the radioactive decay of uranium.
Calculate that flat earthers!
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.
Actually the universe was created on Jan 1st 1970. That’s why computers sometimes have errors with pre-1970 dates, it’s the universal simulation glitching due to the high clock rate of computers compared to the universe’s. Anyone who claims to have been born before 1970/01/01 is a simulation that’s lying to you, and anyone born after is real, hence why now that its more player characters than NPCs things are going off the rails politically and socially!
Also, did you ever get a sense of dejavu?
QED.
Pffff. Look at this conspiracy bullshit.
Everyone knows that the universe will actually be created tomorrow. What you are experiencing now is a flashback from tomorrow of what you did yesterday. Prove me wrong.
deleted by creator
I don’t yet, but tomorrow is the day for sure.
You’ve been saying that for a 1000 years.
You’re in a loop. Reality is never going to exist.
See you tomorrow for the same discussion.
I don’t yet, but tomorrow is the day for sure.
What a tricky god to even implant memories of me imagining all of creation happening only a few seconds ago every time I read about this particular anecdote in the false past.
And yet simulation theory has a very reasonable merit.
And if it were to turn out true, you’d also have to admit that OOPs argument was hogwash. Actually, it is either way.
If you can’t logic better than religious people, then you’re the problem.
It’s got as much merit as any other faith based theory of existence.
We see things that don’t seem to make any intuitive sense in science, and simulation theory is one explanation, but without any evidence (and really, there can’t be evidence against, because it faces the same response of “any evidence against is explicitly put there by the simulation”).
Simulation theory is essentially science-themed religious theory rather than directly evidence based theory.
I’ll admit it’s a fun “why” as to the weirdness of quantum mechanics and relativity, but ultimately the hard science folks I respect confess they are just finding models that predict stuff accurately, and the various extrapolations to intuitive neat things people make up in that context are beyond the realm of “science” (simulation theory and many-worlds interpretation of quantum physics are the biggest ones I can think of).
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.
The existence of a god is something that can’t be disproven. You can always find gaps in knowledge and explain the gap by saying a god / multiple gods did that. As gaps narrow with more knowledge, you can always just say that the holy books were just a metaphor in this one case, but the rest of it is literally true.
It gets even more complicated when you run into people who refuse to believe in any science, or anything outside their own personal experience.
Personally, I believe the Earth is a sphere. I’ve been to Australia, Europe, Africa, Asia and North America. The time the flights took and the routes the in-flight maps showed make sense for a spherical earth. So did the scenes visible out the windows, and the day/night cycle. The mere existence of time zones and seasons strongly suggests the Earth is a rotating sphere tilted slightly off vertical. But, it could be that I’m living in a Truman Show world, where everything is a lie designed to make me believe something that isn’t true. I haven’t personally done all the math, all the experiments, etc. to prove the Earth is a sphere. And, if this were a Truman Show world, the producers of the show could mess with my experiments anyhow.
For someone who doesn’t want to believe, there’s really nothing you can do to make them believe. The world really relies on trust and believing Occam’s Razor.
If we assume that god, by definition, must be omniscient, there is actually a way to disprove the possibility with the following paradox:
This sentence is not known to be true by any omniscient being.
There are also more traditional arguments like the problem of evil
Theists roll their eyes at that, because nobody really thinks their god is omniscient or omnipotent. They may say so, either to deceive the nonbelievers, or out of ignorance of what omnimax really means, but every religion I can think of has had a fallible god, sometimes very fallible. There are the notoriously arrogant Greek gods, the stupidly belligerant Norse gods, the Jewish/Christian god foiled by iron chariots, and deceptive serpents, even Buddhists with their infallible smug asshole of a god have as a saying “If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him.”
Fact of the matter is no god is omni-anything, since that would prove they don’t exist, and cannot be believed. Gods don’t have to be omniscient. They only have to be way more knowledgable and aware than anyone else. They don’t have to be all powerful, only way more powerful than anything mere mortals could muster. So saying “Aha! But your god can’t possibly be all powerful, because then he could make a stone that he couldn’t lift! Checkmate, theists!” falls flat, in the face of (outside of boasting) doctrine basically saying that their god makes mistakes and can’t do everything.
This sentence is not known to be true by any omniscient being.
I don’t understand how this disproves the existence of an omniscient being. What if I said “This sentence is not known to be true by any logical being.” Is my existence disproven now?
Being logical doesn’t imply knowing every true sentence.
Also, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knower_paradox
Logical meaning having the ability to follow logical rules to determine whether or not any statement is true or false. I’ve followed that train of logic and determined that the sentence you provided is neither true nor false. I’ve determined that it is paradoxical. Why would an omniscient being be unable to know that this is a paradox?
If we assume that god, by definition, must be omniscient
Why must that be true by definition? Many of the Greek gods were clearly not omniscient, because the stories about them all involve intrigues and hiding things from each-other.
Also, you can’t disprove a god’s existence by making a logic puzzle that’s hard for you to puzzle out. Just because it’s a toughie for you doesn’t mean that it disproves the existence of gods.
That isn’t even a particularly difficult logic puzzle.
Self-referential paradoxes are at the heart of limitative results in mathematical logic on what is provable, so it seems plausible a similar self-referential statement rules out omniscience.
Greek gods are gods in a different sense than the monotheistic conception of god that is omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent. Sure, so the argument I give only applies to the latter sense.
That’s not a paradox though, it’s a silly logic puzzle that isn’t hard to solve. It doesn’t prove or disprove anything about omniscience or gods.
It is a paradox if you believe there are omniscient beings. If there are no omniscient beings, there is no paradox. The sentence is either true or false. If the sentence is true, we have an omniscient being that lacks knowledge about a true statement. Contradiction. If it is false, there is an omniscient being that knows it to be true. This means that the statement is true, but the statement itself says that no omniscient being knows it to be true. Contradiction.
It’s not a paradox, it’s a dumb logic puzzle. It’s no different than saying something nonsensical like “This sentence contains 2 words”.
If it is false, there is an omniscient being that knows it to be true
No, if it is false, then it is simply wrong. A wrong sentence doesn’t imply something else is right, it’s just wrong.
Man I don’t know if I’ll ever get over seeing Mastodon toots on Lemmy and all of the other wild cross-fediverse fun the Fediverse enables
deleted by creator
How did the matter that constitutes the universe come into being? What was the single point that signifies the beginning of time? What set time in motion? Will time continue after the death of the universe?
None of it is worth trying to wrap our tiny little monkey brains around as far as I’m concerned. Go have a pint and listen to music that makes you happy.
Real question: Is the decay of uranium the only natural way to produce lead? If so TIL.
you can also lead by example
Instructions unclear. Got diagnosed with lead poisoning
That’s what happens when you get a MBA
Instructions unclear.
GotGod diagnosed with lead poisoningWell, that certainly explains the platypus!
Booooooo (jk lol)
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.
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.
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.
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.
When supernovas explode they’re responsible for most exotic elements larger than iron. So it’s either that or radioactive decay.
No. God can produce as much lead as he wants. Duh!
unfortunately i don’t believe in uranium or numbers higher than 200, so this argument doesn’t work on me
Don’t give up, you can still change their mind.
Just from 4000 to 200.
the only problem with that is i’d need to change their mind again next year
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.
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.
Ahh, hence why there are no negative Unix timestamps.
The universe was created along with the release os temple os. Everything before are just memories implanted on us.
Half the earth was actually created in 1969. The other half was finished 12 hours later =]
Earth will be created in 2036. This is just a rehearsal.
The Earth was created on January 1st, 1970 and will end on January 19th, 2038.
I remember a time when all of this happens again
“After extensive beta testing we have decided to shelve this project. It just wasn’t working.”
All this has happened before, and all this will happen again.
We’re doing the extra-silly speedthrough right now. Next time will be much more comprehensible.
Last Thursday.
I could never get the hang of thursdays
Shriveled, and a little to the left.
God created your with your memories as-is this morning when you woke up
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.
The 6,000 years comes from the lineage of Jesus as set down in the Bible with names and ages of those in his genetic line.
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.
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.
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
They were by the time they got off the boat though.
There’s no mention of meat pies in that story, not even sandwiches.
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).
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
Yeah, it’s not at all a compelling argument.
Isn’t it more about being able the view the whole life cycle of lead, which takes more than 4000 years.
“God put all of that there, and then made it work to ensure we had quality lead gasoline, pipes and paint to poison our brains with cause freedom.”
Is that what were doing now? Regurgitating stereotypical insults on a post where the “pro science” side dropped the ball and leaned on a ridiculously stupid misunderstanding to disprove something stupider?
You all fucking disappoint me.
Who do you think you are? No one cares. ACAB, and religion is bullshit.
Yeah, this is broken because all lead did not have to come from polonium, that’s how half-lives work.
It’s still 100% bullshit in every way, someone just needs to have chatgpt4 sort out the current mass fraction to explain why, I’m way too lazy to argue against insanity.
https://wwwrcamnl.wr.usgs.gov/isoig/period/pb_iig.html
Lead-204 is the only isotope that doesn’t derive from radioactive decay, and it represents only 1.4% of the lead on earth.
Good bot?
Was going to say exactly that, not all lead came from radioactive decay. So this kind of ruins their debunk, Earth’s age has been measured by the amount of lead.
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.
My farts are delicious thank you very much.
There are many scientists who are strict belivers. They just move the act of creation to the big bang and it’s still in gods plan.
yeah the insistence that creation must mean it happens in an instant is just demonstrably pointless. we already say god created us. and we know we don’t come into existence in full adult form in an instant. we have a whole birth-baby-toddler-kid-teen-adult transformation. and before that we know there is a whole process in the womb. so when god creates a person he puts an entire process into motion. why can this not be the case for the entire universe? why not evolution? are they saying that god couldn’t have thought of a system? I find it weird.
so when god creates a person
Ok, a physicist is not a biologist.
I don’t get the connection… are you referring to god?
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.
Go away with your logic!
Could he create a rock heavy enough, that he can’t lift it?
Ah the “Last Tuesday Hypothesis”.
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.
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.
“for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God” - Exodus 20:5
Says it all, really. This whole character trait is that he’s a jealous little asshole. He’s like Dolores Umbridge.
I’m aware Christians may make counter-claims, but I’ve read the old testament, and all he does is to come off as an absolute asshole - you either worship me, or else!
I wasn’t too surprised (but it made sense) that he (Elohim) originally came from the Canaanitic pantheon. How else can you be the only god, yet people shouldn’t worship other gods? He’s not, that’s how.
/rant
Not that it really matters, but trying to learn about (Christian) God by reading the Old Testament is like trying to perform maintenance on your 2024 vehicle using a manual from the 2000 version of that car… Like, yeah, that was relevant once, and there’s some overlap, but the situation has evolved since then. It’s called the Old Testament because it is based on something outdated (again, from a generically Christian perspective). The Old Covenant (which is what the Old Testament is testifying to) was between God and the Jews, and was based around compliance with the law. That’s why the OT is so full of rules and punishments.
Then, Jesus arrives on the scene and changed the game. His birth, betrayal, and death, represent a new contract between God and humanity (not just the Jews) wherein mankind is saved by God’s grace alone. In fact, God has done a 180 on the whole obedience to the law thing. Turns out, God loves sinners, and prostitutes, and tax collectors, and prodigal sons, and all sorts of ne’er-do-wells that the God of the Old Testament would have reviled. From the death of Jesus forward (and maybe retroactively too, I don’t know dogma all that well), the only thing necessary for your salvation is God’s grace, and that is given to all, as long as you accept God into your heart or something like that. Basically, God is Darth Vader, and he has altered the deal, pray he does not alter it further.
Of course, as with anything A) religious and B) 2000+ years old, there’s a lot of disagreement on like every aspect of the above. But, I think I’ve got the gist of it correct from a generic, if Catholicism influenced, perspective. It’s been a long time since I had to sit through a theology lecture.
With all that being said though, I imagine that the reason the OT has stuck around in Christianity is that it’s characterization of God as vindictive and capricious and obsessed with toeing the line is a very useful tool for keeping the plebs compliant. They get to have their cake and eat it too, as it were. “God loves you unconditionally sweetie, remember that, but also if you have sex before marriage you are DAMNED to HELL for ETERNITY!”
lady of the pain tier deityship
And use his omnipotent power to hide from you while watching your life play out in exactly the way his omniscience let him know it would before he even created the earth or you.
Because believers will listen to Christianity’s divinely inspired interpretation of the Bible that says that. Non-christians won’t listen to that. Therefore anyone who believes the earth is older has rejected Christianity. He did it to help identify the non-believers because he’s a petty bitch.
I always found it funny how they’ll sometimes try to justify their claims scientifically to give it an air of legitimacy. If god created the stars close to one another and expanded them to fill the sky over a single day, the skies would be dark for billions of years. A YEC could easily say “oh well god put the light there to make the stars look like they’ve been in the sky for a long time” but very often they just don’t have an answer because they didn’t think of one. Unfortunately, there’s almost that will stop them from doubling down on their beliefs and just becoming more prepared for the next person they talk to
The debate between Bill Nye and a creationist is so rage inducing. It’s a terrible premise and the fact that Bill even agreed to it gave the creationist credit.
Lol, look at this guy, trying to use science and facts to disprove my fairytale. What a joke!
Yeah, No amount of evidence will cut through the fog of wilful ignorance here.
Can someone explain to me why lead HAS to come from another element? Why cant it just… exist?
Because it needs a…
… leader
Pazuzu@midwest.social 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
God made lead right after creating life
Actually He started with lead. All life comes from lead. Praise the lead. It’s not lead poisoning, it’s lead salvation! Also Led Zeppelin is Christian rock and spreading the gospel.
A normal Star, which does not end it’s life with a supernova, can only produce elements up to Iron with normal fusion. All other elements are produced by e.g. supernovas, which tend to produce heavier elements initially (due to the forces involved) hat decay over time.
At least that is my pseudoscience knowledge about this
Some star fusion science can create radium but not lead?
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?
So even if you’re working strictly from the bible, how the hell do you get 4000 years?
You can’t. The “Young Earth” people are morons.
Because anti-evolutionists decided a myth that the Earth is only 4000 years old is the quickest way to refute claims of evolution.
It’s not an argument one forms by observing evidence.
The original calculation (adding up all the ages in the genealogies in the Bible) was done a few hundred years ago, but all the young earth creationists I saw put the start at 4000 A.D., so 6000 years ago.
There is a very old Jewish Holiday which celebrates new year on a calendar starting with the creation of the Universe, only about 5000+ years, but even that is obscure af.
The Bible has a long list of names with birthdays and who begat whom. It came from Irish archbishop and scholar James Ussher.
If you believe in the Bible, you get a 4000 year old Earth.
Ussher calculated 4004BC as the start of the universe, which would be about 6000 years ago.
That’s my point. Most YEC point to 6000 years. Even within their own framework, I don’t see how you get to 4000 years. My best guess is they saw 4004BC and forgot that 1 BC was about 2000 years ago.
This is exactly what it is. When everything you believe is made up, it’s easy to accidentally make up the wrong number and then believe that instead.
