I was perusing the comment section of a natural history video that recently got a lot of views, and I'm not exaggerating when I say that over half of the comments are saying that it is all fake and that the earth is only a few thousand years old.Is it really a common viewpoint that the earth is young? I tried answering one of the comments and telling him about the study of rock layers and fossils, and he just said "L ragebait".
>>17049073This just in: YouTube comment sections are filled with 80 IQ trollsHey not everyone can be on the cutting edge of shitposting like us 4channers
>>17049073The important thing is that you brought those comments here so we can agree with you that you are smarter than some random youtube commenters. Enjoy your (you)s.
>>17049073>and he just said "L ragebait"https://youtu.be/pAgnJDJN4VA
No one can prove anything on whether the world has an extensive history that reaches thousands of years into the past or quintillion. It's all taken on axiom that the universe's "laws" are a constant at the end of the day.
>>17049109Why would the universes laws have changed in such recent history for no apparent reason
>>17049160they undergo major changes every ~2000 years
>>17049073I’ve noticed much more young earth creationism since the third world got greater access to the internet
>>17049160Because what we consider "laws" at this point could just be emergent phenomenon based on our placement in time on this earth in this part of the solar system and galaxy and so on.
>>17049073Pic related. Also, creationists are typically much more passionate in their rejection of evolution than evolution's proponents are in their acceptance of the theory. So the comments are gonna disproportionately represent the more passionate side.Young earth creationists see the issue as a literal fight for the immortal souls of humanity.Those who accept evolution just see it as a basic fact about reality that a loud group of retards are being retarded about.
>>17049160because ... they did, okay?by the way they didn't https://www.aps.org/archives/publications/apsnews/200506/deep2.cfm
>>17049073There is essentially zero organic feedback in youtube comment sections. Just bots shills and troll raids.
>>17049626>nothing changed because dark matter/energy o algololThis is supposed to be the "smart" board btw.
>>17049073You fell for literal ragebait IRL?
>>17049073How do you empirically validate a dating criteria?The science grift just begs the question by grounding it in another dating criteria. You don't have empirical data supporting the claim, ergo it is not science.It should be understood that this doesn't make the claim false. There is no empirical refutation that the universe only came into perfect and immediate formation last Tuesday. The point is simply highlighting a logical fallacy. The claims are inconsistent with the criteria. Give us another 5 billion years and the science may could say something.The next battleground would be the heuristic criteria on what ought to be believed given underdetermination of data. Science loses there as well, because the empirical tradition doesn't solve ought/is problem. The state of affairs is worse. A dating proponent has the audacity to claim that digging up bones that have supposedly been buried for a million years is actually confirmation of a prediction. They are a deranged deluded bunch of redditors, groom in substandard government brainwashing centers.
>>17051378>How do you empirically validate a dating criteria?Test it on something with an empirically verified age. The rest of your post is invalid.
>>17049073According to the Bible, the Earth is roughly 6,000 years old based on traditional chronological interpretations of biblical genealogies.
>>17051359Some people unironically are actually serious in those comments though.
>>17049073I went to a Christian school and this is what they taught us there, this is what they actually believe.
>>17051690does that scare you anon?
>>17049073I'd say at least half are trolls but as a society we've been under attack by a general culture of anti-intellectualism and a complete disdain for curiosity about the world. So yeah, a lot of people are just kind of that ill.
>>17051755ngl there's also a lot of conspiracy theories that proved to be correct which also doesn't fucking helpI feel bad for retards. imagine their world. they have nothing concrete to anchor them. they're scared, they have no fucking idea who to trust. the few that they tried to turned out fucking scammers. no wonder they've gone crazy with their beliefs. they've been fucking abused all their lives, tricked into doing other people's bidding, giving away their work, attention and energy for literally anything else but their own benefit. getting some food in return and nothing else really. dunno, I don't really blame them bros
"Deep time", as it is currently mandated, was invented in the early 19th century.
>>17051657>Test it on something with an empirically verified age.Circular logic
>>17052018No it's not.
>>17052019Define empirically verified age, then.
>>17051657Exactly, wait 5 billion years to get an empirically valid dating system. Thanks for the agreement and the refutation of all invalid scientific dating models of what happened a gorillion years ago.
>>17051754Not scare. More just disappointed
>>17049073Any dumbass can pick up a phone and access the internet. It was severely less retarded before smartphones became a thing.
>>17052020Something which has been observed from it's birth until now. Eg: a plant.>>17052274A trend observed within a human lifetime is, by definition, empirical evidence for the validity of extrapolating that trend to the past.
>>17052336>A trend observed within a human lifetime is, by definition, empirical evidence for the validity of extrapolating that trend to the past.KEK what is this sophistry?
>>17051378>How do you empirically validate a dating criteria?observe radioactive decay. come up with half-life. notice half life in various materials. use carbon dating?>For a nuclide with a half-life of billions of years, a sample may contain an enormous number of atoms, so even a tiny fractional decay rate produces measurable radiation. For example, a large uranium sample can produce enough alpha particles to count accurately even though only a minuscule fraction of its atoms decay each year.or did I misunderstand your point?>Up to about 40,000–50,000 years: Radiocarbon dating can measure remaining carbon-14 in preserved bone collagen.>Roughly thousands to hundreds of thousands of years: Uranium-series dating may be used if uranium entered the bone after burial. This dates the mineralization history, so the assumptions must be tested.>Older fossils: Electron-spin resonance, amino-acid racemization, or other methods may sometimes help, but they often date burial or alteration rather than the animal’s exact death.>Millions or billions of years: The original bone is generally gone or replaced by minerals. Scientists usually date volcanic ash, lava layers, or other datable rocks above and below the fossil. Those dates constrain when the animal lived.
>>17052354A reflection of an accurate understanding of what "empirical" means.
>>17052365>accurate understanding of what "empirical" means.???How can an induction ever be empirical? You came to that conclusion that events must have occurred in this way exact way billions of years in the past through rationalism, not empiricism.
>>17052363>chatgpt in lieu of an argument
>>17052386Reading comprehension.The empirical evidence cited is the observed data point. That is what you asked for. Whether induction was also used is irrelevant. Not to mention induction is implicitly accepted as axiom as part of the scientific method. "If it works here, it also works there" is an inductive line of reasoning and literally how science operates.
>>17052427>The empirical evidence cited is the observed data point. That is what you asked for.Well seeing as that poster explicitly criticized dating methods that place the age of various terrestrial objects far, far beyond the reasonable purview of a single human's lifespan, and *not* plants we can see grow and die in a couple of years, I instead chose not to engage you in pedantry. I will rectify that mistake right now.>Whether induction was also used is irrelevant.It is relevant when you claim you rely solely on empirical measurements, for example that the "age" you list is accurate without ever being able to observe it firsthand.>Not to mention induction is implicitly accepted as axiom as part of the scientific method. "If it works here, it also works there" is an inductive line of reasoning and literally how science operates.Stop moving the goal posts, that's not what you wrote.
>>17052544Are you one of those "stupid people" I hear so much about?Is your problem a lack of understanding of what the word "evidence" means? Because evidence need not be proof, hence the induction. "It works here" is empirical data. "It works there" is extrapolation based on empirical evidence.
>>17052565Seethe and cope.
>>17052569>loses argument>resorts to memesThat's cool, dude. Take the L on your way out.
>>17049073Do we know what those pillar things are in that pic?
>>17052573Proto mushroomshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prototaxites
>>17052572>>loses argumentOther way around. You failed to rely on pure empiricism and admitted that without induction you have nothing to go off. Therefore, the argument of the original poster still holds merit.
>>17052614What is "pure empiricism" you retard?Induction is part of the empirical framework. This is literally fundamental and you are an idiot.
>>17051769I dunno, on one hand I feel bad for them just because of the environment they find themselves in but at the same time they're only into this because they're clearly a product of their environment and their malicious are so transparently malicious towards others that if given the opportunity, they will drag everyone down just for the satisfaction of it. It's kind of a chicken or egg first situation. What's the lesson to learn? Fund our public schools for the love of a fucking God.
>>17052390you failed to make an argument or refute what I said. clear sign you conceded the debate. I will accept it
>>17052621>Induction is part of the empirical framework.>conflating methodologies togetherCringe.
