this post was submitted on 27 May 2026
399 points (97.8% liked)

Science Memes

20348 readers
3817 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Tetragrade@leminal.space 25 points 6 days ago (1 children)

They don't know that Satan placed pre-decayed uranium in the earth to fool the righteous.

[–] RamenJunkie@midwest.social 6 points 6 days ago (1 children)

God requires faith!

And regular tithing!

[–] spicehoarder@lemmy.zip 2 points 6 days ago (1 children)

I wonder how many people donate with the understand that their money goes directly towards reinforcing the dogmatic power dynamics?

How many people are like "man this religion shit is stupid, but I gotta instill the fear of hell into my wife and kids so they do as I say"

[–] Leather@lemmy.world 1 points 5 days ago

so my constituents stay, so my power stays, so my money stays

[–] w3ird_sloth@lemmy.world 12 points 6 days ago

Uranium was used by dinosaurs to cast spells during the dark ages.

[–] Ophrys@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 6 days ago (2 children)

nice try with your """logic""" and """facts""" but you fail to consider the power of my personal interpretation of a book (and by personal I mean exactly the one some sketchy pastor said), check mate WITCH

[–] SavinDWhales@lemmy.world 3 points 5 days ago

Who reads books nowadays? Don't you have a YouTube video or something that can tell me what my opinion is without leaving the house?

[–] Erna_muse@lemmy.zip 2 points 5 days ago

I just want to bring people back from the dead.

[–] Sam_Bass@lemmy.world 3 points 6 days ago

the nth day

[–] Diplomjodler3@lemmy.world 81 points 1 week ago (12 children)

People who believe in young earth creationism have completely rejected science already. They won't be convinced by any scientific argument.

load more comments (12 replies)
[–] Lodespawn@aussie.zone 38 points 1 week ago (15 children)

I once had a friend who was a Jehovah's Witness who tried to argue that carbon dating was junk science ..

[–] EndlessNightmare@reddthat.com 1 points 5 days ago

I don't think Jehovah's Witnesses know much about dating

[–] howrar@lemmy.ca 0 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Carbon dating gives you an approximate age under the assumption that the carbon you're looking at followed the same dynamics at all time points preceding the present moment. It does not prove in any way that the assumption is true.

[–] Lodespawn@aussie.zone 1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

The assumption doesn't lead to the potential for things that are 6000 years old being dated to millions/billions of years old though. The error margin is more in the range of 2 to 5%.

[–] howrar@lemmy.ca 0 points 5 days ago (1 children)

The error rate is also based on that assumption. If the carbon suddenly popped into existence 6000 years ago, then that violates the assumption.

[–] Lodespawn@aussie.zone 0 points 5 days ago (1 children)

The error rate is based on correlation with results from other methods of dating that don't have the same assumption.

[–] howrar@lemmy.ca 0 points 5 days ago (1 children)

What dating method doesn't rely on the same assumption of sameness across time?

[–] Lodespawn@aussie.zone 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Tree ring dating doesn't include that assumption. But also Potassium-argon or uranium lead dating require a different assumption of sameness across time, it would be highly unlikely for significantly different isotopes to experience similar issues of the same time periods.

[–] howrar@lemmy.ca 0 points 4 days ago (1 children)

If trees haven't always started from 0 and grown a new ring each year (barring weird weather phenomena), then how can we use it for dating? The only way that it works is if we assume they do.

A different assumption of sameness is still an assumption of sameness. And the "highly unlikely" claim you're making is also based on the same assumption, but applied to the universe as a whole. Why would you say that it's unlikely unless you've observed that the laws of physics have always been consistent during your lifetime and extrapolated that into the past?

[–] Lodespawn@aussie.zone 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

I mean we can literally see into the past and observe the laws of physics being consistent, not sure what your point is?

[–] howrar@lemmy.ca 1 points 4 days ago

The point is to hopefully get people to put some more thought into the position they hold and what they argue against so they can make stronger arguments. Contrary to popular belief, religious folks do listen to logic (at least, in my experience). But those who argue with them don't argue from a place of logic either, so obviously they're not going to be receptive.

[–] Holytimes@sh.itjust.works 52 points 1 week ago (11 children)

Most religious idiots argue carbon dating is junk science or fake. Its like the single most commonality between every cult member.

My boss for example fully believes that the earth is 6000 years old and that carbon dating isn't real. Because and I quote "I am required by my faith to believe the earth is 6000 years old for it is in the Bible. If I do not believe it I will go to hell".

[–] tyler@programming.dev 36 points 1 week ago

There is zero requirement for that in the Bible, that person is just an idiot who can’t understand things.

load more comments (10 replies)
load more comments (12 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›