this post was submitted on 24 Oct 2024
1247 points (92.4% liked)

Science Memes

11058 readers
4178 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Hope@lemmy.world 312 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (47 children)

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.)

[–] tatterdemalion@programming.dev 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I thought carbon dating of fossils was our best argument against the 4000 years myth.

[–] pearsaltchocolatebar@discuss.online 4 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

God could have put the fossils there with the right carbon isotopes.

You can't use logic to disprove belief in magic.

[–] tetris11@lemmy.ml 1 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks 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

load more comments (45 replies)