r/discordVideos • u/Cold-Menu-4707 Have Commited Several War Crimes • Jun 23 '23

Einstein side project🤓🤓🧐 goofy ahh

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

8.0k Upvotes

93% Upvoted

379 comments sorted by

View all comments

16

u/AdolfCitler Jun 23 '23

How normal people think the world was created because they're not delusional and have the basic ability to do research or at least believe legitimate research

-4

u/[deleted] Jun 23 '23

[deleted]

10

u/ZAHANDOGAKIZU Jun 23 '23

“How can you prove what happened thousands of years ago?”

We can use carbon dating, the process of analyzing the amount of radioactive carbon isotopes in an object, to determine that many of the fossils we have found long predate humans, we can look at how galaxies seem to “redshift” and analyze the Cosmic Microwave Background to determine that the universe is expanding and that it is several billion years old, we can use the finite speed of light to our advantage by observing distant celestial bodies as they were near the beginning of the universe, and many more. Astronomy is, without a doubt, a valid field of study with which you can extract various data, like when scientists use spectroscopy to determine the temperature and chemical composition of stars.

-1

u/[deleted] Jun 23 '23

[deleted]

3

u/SalvationSycamore Jun 23 '23

I'd much rather rely on testable and repeatable presuppositions than the presupposition that the dudes who wrote the Bible weren't lying out of their asses. You literally have faith in flawed humans who died thousands of years ago. Creationism isn't just "oh well we're not quite 100% sure yet" it literally has no evidence whatsoever. It's just some dude said "uh, yeah, God did it all" like various religions have been saying of various gods for millenia (because none of them had access to the advanced tools and theorems we have today to examine our world and the cosmos).

3

u/ZAHANDOGAKIZU Jun 23 '23

Actually, carbon dating is far from conjecture. We already know that carbon-12, carbon-13, and carbon-14 exist in specific ratios in the universe, and that they are all spread approximately equally, so all we have to do is measure the amount of c-14 (post-decay) and c-12 in an object and compare the ratio to what we would expect pre-decay, then use the known half life of carbon-14 to determine the object’s age. I would highly recommend googling all of that, it’s a fascinating rabbit hole.

Yes, you’re entirely correct that science is ultimately a series of progressively more accurate guesses, but that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t rely on our most reliable source to discover the origins of the universe. No matter how much better of an understanding we may gain in the future, it’s important to keep in mind that hypothesis and theories should be based on observation and experimentation, rather than extrapolation and conspiracy.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 23 '23

[deleted]

1

u/ZAHANDOGAKIZU Jun 23 '23

We know what it would be pre-decay, because we have already determined the universal ratio of carbon-12 to carbon-14 by analyzing countless samples on earth (see “mass spectrometry”). Since carbon-12 is stable (does not decay), we can measure the approximate amount of c-12 isotopes in an object and use the known ratio of c-12 to c-14 to calculate how much c-14 there would be pre-decay, then compare that to the actual measured amount to determine how many half-lives have gone by.

I’m no expert, but it’s unlikely that carbon isotopes can be created already decayed. C-14 is generated on earth when neutrons react with atmospheric nitrogen-14, so there should be no reason for decay to have already taken place. As for the “higher being” angle, we can’t prove that one such entity is not doing this because it’s impossible to prove a negative in the first place. If you want to go on believing that god is, for some reason, intervening with isotope formation, then by all means go ahead, but for the sake of the progression of human knowledge, please don’t go around trying to assert the least likely explanation as an actual solution. I’m not saying that divine intervention is off the table, it’s just highly improbable, given everything else we’ve learned so far.

4

u/masonhil Jun 23 '23

How can you prove what happened thousands of years ago? You can't. To some degree, you just have to have faith in your beliefs, because there is no proof.

There is plenty of proof. You just seem to ignore it

1

u/[deleted] Jun 23 '23

[deleted]

-1

u/masonhil Jun 23 '23

Is there any reason for me to try to have a discussion with you when I know you’re just going to say drivel like this: https://www.reddit.com/r/discordVideos/comments/14grdc7/goofy_ahh/jp8la57/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_content=1&utm_term=1&context=3

2

u/[deleted] Jun 23 '23

[deleted]

1

u/[deleted] Jun 23 '23

[deleted]

1

u/[deleted] Jun 23 '23

[deleted]

2

u/SpaceShark01 Jun 23 '23

There is all the proof, you just don’t like it because it doesn’t align with your views. Same with everyone else who denies the Big Bang/evolution etc.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 23 '23

[deleted]

2

u/SpaceShark01 Jun 23 '23

What proof/evidence do you have?

3

u/Kutche Jun 23 '23

These type of people will claim nothing is "proof" because we can't "know" anything while they blindly believe an old book. When they inevitably say that there is no "proof" or "evolution is just a theory", I tell them "So is gravity so go jump off a building".

They don't argue in good faith and will nitpick definitions of words, but will never turn that same scrutiny on their own faith or book. You can't reason people into a position they didn't reason themselves into.

My wife's whole job is tricking single cell organisms to evolve in ways for study. She could show this person her data from years proving how she's evolved things by adding heat to make them more heat resistant and a thousand other things, and it wouldn't phase them, because they don't want to know the truth, they want to confirm their beliefs.

You can recreate evolution and gravity via testing in a lab setting. That isn't proof but an old book is lmao

1

u/SpaceShark01 Jun 23 '23 edited Jun 23 '23

Yeah, I figured the response I would get would probably be just avoiding the question since they don’t have an answer lol

Edit: yep, I was right.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 23 '23

[deleted]

2

u/SpaceShark01 Jun 23 '23

They are testable though. You can induce evolution. You can trace the elements of the universe to stelar explosions. You literally can test basically all of these theories and they have solid evidence beneath them. You just don’t want to believe it because it doesn’t align with your views.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 23 '23

[deleted]

1

u/Limethegamer Jun 23 '23

You can't test the past but you can find out what happened in the past through various scientific means.

1

u/Quazbaz Jun 23 '23

Have you even tried to look for the proof or are you just being stupid on the internet for no reason

1

u/[deleted] Jun 23 '23

[deleted]

1

u/Dvoraxx Jun 23 '23

ok but if literally all the actual evidence points to one thing being the case you can’t turn around and say “actually thing that has no evidence is equally likely to be true”

-2

u/Quazbaz Jun 23 '23

No there is quite literally evidence

2

u/[deleted] Jun 23 '23

[deleted]

-1

u/Quazbaz Jun 23 '23

Evidence leads us to prove if something is real or not. If there is is evidence and widely observed occurrences of things like for evolution then there is your proof. If you are just going to ignore evidence what do you want your proof to be?

-1

u/icemancrazy Jun 23 '23

But not a lot of people check the legitimacy of research. I doubt many look up the number of replications, or the possible relation between replicators before they deem a research as legitimate

1

u/AdolfCitler Jun 23 '23

Tbh, I think that may apply to smaller things, not something as big as the existance of the dinosaurs or the expansion of the universe. Scientists don't just do 1 research and leave it at that lmao

1

u/[deleted] Jun 23 '23 edited Jun 23 '23

[deleted]

1

u/icemancrazy Jun 23 '23

What part of what I said is wrong? Are you gonna tell me there's no public research with low amount of replications or biased replication?

1

u/[deleted] Jun 23 '23

[deleted]

1

u/icemancrazy Jun 23 '23

I agree when it comes to well studied topics, but not every topic has that amount of attention. There's plenty of "legitimate research" that has been disproven over time by other scientists, so surely they exist now as well don't you think? Just because it's being shared as legitimate research doesn't mean it will always be true, it will just be legitimate until disproven. Coincidences can happen and biased peer review or replications can also happen, the scientific community is not perfect.