- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
“God made the world with lead in it”
Yes, it’s in your brain.
This is false, the Flying Spaghetti Monster in his infinite noodly wisdom and power created the world yesterday and made the Earth appear billions of years old and the universe appear even older.
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
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!
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.
The tragedy is that humans aren’t convinced to change their minds by facts like this. They’re convinced by good stories from their friends and family.
So we should start telling our family and friends good stories about being able to change your mind based on evidence and facts
And Facebook, but I’m just repeating what you said, aren’t I?
If uranium-238 can be Fused in a star why couldn’t lead be Fused directly and in tern all the elements in between.
It does take a pretty long time to get a supernova if you’re starting from scratch.
nO ThAT’s jUSt gOD tEStiNg yOuR FAiTh
🤦♂️
I mean, the existence of lead doesn’t necessarily prove the age of the earth so much as that those elements have existed for that long.
HOWEVER – you’re basically guaranteed to find lead in uranium deposits found around the earth, and the ratio of lead/uranium is how we calculated the 4.6 billion years.
Uranium is formed in Neutron stars or Supernova, so at the very least - the uranium found on earth itself is 4.6 billion years old. Whether “Earth” was “Earth” back then, who knows. This could be pre-moon? Could be before the earth even cooled down to have a solid outer layer? So the estimate is bound to be off by a little…
Just not by 4.5 billion years.
I’m pretty sure just soap has been around for more than 4.5k years and that means civilization too. So even if you do some backflips in justification here, there’s no way you get 4k.
is this even a real conversation? its just circles and rectangles
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.
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.
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?
don’t eat lead it is bad for you
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.
The correct answer would have been: “Why should I? You’re an idiot.”
“Whatever! Pssshhh!”
Is decay the only way to get lead? I mean if uranium gets synthesized can’t lead get made as well?
Radioactive decay is not the only way to make lead, and lead is produced in much greater abundance than uranium.
The part that’s missing in the post is in looking specifically at uranium deposits and making assumptions about the initial composition of the deposits, since the crystalline structure excludes lead when the crystals form. So if you detect lead contained within zircon, it is assumed to be the product of radioactive decay.
Thanks! I assumed it was rhetorical question but this waaaaay outside my area of expertise.
Real question: Is the decay of uranium the only natural way to produce lead? If so TIL.
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!
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.
you can also lead by example
Booooooo (jk lol)
Instructions unclear. Got diagnosed with lead poisoning
Instructions unclear.
GotGod diagnosed with lead poisoningWell, that certainly explains the platypus!
That’s what happens when you get a MBA
Woah, this is heavy!
