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.
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.
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:
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.
This is why you can never disprove creationism sufficiently to convince a young Earth creationist. The hypothesis is unfalsifiable.
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.
And the fun scientific counterpart of the Boltzmann brain. The idea that in an infinite universe (at least in a couple of the spatial dimensions if not also a time dimension) random fluctuations could combine to form your brain. Including all of your memories, thoughts, hopes and dreams. You think you have had an entire life, but in reality your brain was just formed moments ago. And it may possibly stop existing in a few more moments, this moment being the only one the brain has actually experienced.
When taken to its natural conclusion, the entire Earth of even the solar system or galaxy might have just been created by random chance. The perfect storm of randomness. It may have been created longer ago or just nanoseconds before now. There is no way of telling.
Thermodynamics has been used to counter and strengthen this idea. And with infinity on the table anything goes.
“God did it to trick you” is pretty hard to disprove
Anything that is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
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
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.
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.
Real question: Is the decay of uranium the only natural way to produce lead? If so TIL.
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.
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.
unfortunately i don’t believe in uranium or numbers higher than 200, so this argument doesn’t work on me
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.
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
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.
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 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?
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.
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.
Lol, look at this guy, trying to use science and facts to disprove my fairytale. What a joke!
Can someone explain to me why lead HAS to come from another element? Why cant it just… exist?
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.
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.
Engagement bait.
Lead 204 is entirely primordial and the other isotopes found on earth would be found at roughly the same concentration were all of the lead on earth primordial. It's the excess ratios of the other isotopes of lead that can be attributed to radioactive decay. That is a substantial proportion of the lead on earth, but to say the "existence of lead" is proof of the age of the earth is entirely incorrect.
All young Earth creationist should be exiled to a remote desert island to die
A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.
Rules
