• yarr@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    52
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 days ago

    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.

    • CheeseNoodle@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 days ago

      Counter handwave, any god that would do that is a jerk who doesn’t deserve worship. (Actually like 99% of the shit most faiths deities do falls into that category.)

      • yarr@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        7 days ago

        Bad faith argument:

        In the holy book, inspired by this god, he tells you he DOES deserve worship. Furthermore, were you to ignore his advice, he will punish you eternally.

        • Sylvartas@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          7 days ago

          Yeah, well, if that mf does actually exist, I’ll feel real vindicated as I scream in agony for eternity, for holding the opinion that a God that needs to threaten me into worshipping him is not benevolent at all !

          • BluesF@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            5 days ago

            All the cool people will be right there with you my friend. Well, almost all, anyway.

          • oo1@lemmings.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            7 days ago

            If I were god I might do all sorts of shit to test the supposed intelligence of my creations. That might include including telling them “do some pointless thing, or else”.

            It might interest me to see if they’re capable of reasoning or testing to determine that the task is pointless and the threat is empty. Probably not, but its hilarious for them to think they matter to me; It’s like a videogame to me.

            It only takes 6 days for me to start whole a new game. I’m probably bored of it long before now or at least well ino my hundred and somethingth play-through light-years away. I prefer keeping the dinosaurs because they’re way cooler than humans.

            • DeanFogg@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              7 days ago

              …But I killed the dinosaurs because I watched a brontosaurus eat its own shit

  • ClassifiedPancake@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    53
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    7 days ago

    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?

  • T156@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    ·
    6 days ago

    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.

    • ameancow@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 days ago

      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.

  • Todd Bonzalez@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 days ago

    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.

  • Mercuri@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    6 days ago

    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.

    • Whats_your_reasoning@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      6 days ago

      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.

      • kitnaht@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        6 days ago

        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.

  • gandalf_der_12te@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    7 days ago

    We obviously live in a matrix/simulated world, and it can’t be older than 50 years, because before that, computers didn’t exist. Checkmate christians.

    /jk

  • TimewornTraveler@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    6 days ago

    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.

  • hope@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    310
    ·
    edit-2
    8 days ago

    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.)

    • wise_pancake@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      68
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      7 days ago

      Also this doesn’t say anything about the Earth.

      Plus you can give a liberal reading of the bible to be:

      1. god created the heaven and the earth. God created the heavenly bodies.
      2. God created the sky - earths atmosphere and climate
      3. God separates oceans - creates continental forms, and plant based life
      4. 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.
      5. God creates birds and sea creatures. Maybe birds are dinosaurs.
      6. 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.

      • krashmo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        39
        ·
        8 days ago

        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.

        • Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          10
          ·
          edit-2
          7 days ago

          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.

          • krashmo@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            15
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            7 days ago

            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.

            • Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              7 days ago

              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.

              • krashmo@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                7 days ago

                No one is having a comprehensive theological discussion with you jackass. We were talking about a very specific thing. Stop being obnoxious.

                • Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  7 days ago

                  It’s science memes. It’s not serious. I can reply with whatever I want.

                  Funny how you think only your posts are appropriate.

      • Buelldozer@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        8 days ago

        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.

        • wise_pancake@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          7 days ago

          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.

          • Buelldozer@lemmy.today
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            7 days ago

            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.

        • Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          7 days ago

          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).

        • wise_pancake@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          7 days ago

          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.

      • Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        8 days ago

        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.

    • PaintedSnail@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      8 days ago

      This is why you can never disprove creationism sufficiently to convince a young Earth creationist. The hypothesis is unfalsifiable.

    • TaTTe@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      8 days ago

      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.

    • zante@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 days ago

      Yes but this is a 16 year who watched a YouTube and owns noobs

    • StaticFalconar@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      8 days ago

      Well there’s also no way to disprove that everything was created last Tuesday including the memories of things/events happening before last Tuesday.

    • conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      8 days ago

      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.

      • Forester@yiffit.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        8 days ago

        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.

        • Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          8 days ago

          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.

          • Forester@yiffit.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            8 days ago

            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.

            • Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              7 days ago

              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.

                • Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  7 days ago

                  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?

            • Clinicallydepressedpoochie@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              7 days ago

              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.

        • tetris11@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          8 days ago

          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

    • Empricorn@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      8 days ago

      Also, we could be way off on the age because we just don’t know. Sure, we can collect data and extrapolate for billions of years and assume that all elements have always decayed at the same rate, but short of living through it and accurately measuring it with modern instruments, molecules-to-man “macro” evolution can’t actually be proven.

      This is why, using the Scientific Method, it is still a theory. A theory accepted by most scientists, but still. There’s a certain arrogance in declaring solved something we can’t actually know for 100% certainty.

  • MicrowavedTea@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    142
    ·
    8 days ago

    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.

    • Ddub@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      53
      ·
      8 days ago

      That does explain why I can never get the hang of Thursdays

    • Thorry84@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      8 days ago

      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.

      • Ashelyn@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 days ago

        I always found the idea of stable Boltzmann brains fascinating. The idea that on an infinite enough universe, there must exist self-sustaining minds that function on an entirely circumstantial set of rules and logic based on whatever the quantum soup spit up.

      • Trainguyrom@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 days ago

        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.

        A moment in which I sit on the toilet and read philosophy on my fondleslab and perhaps make this comment. Really a wild thought

      • Ashelyn@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        8 days ago

        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.