[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 662 KB, 683x1024, IMG_6778.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9447040 No.9447040[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

Wow I can't believe it. Real scientific arguments for young earth creationism? What does /sci/ think of this?

>> No.9447050

>>9447040
it's shit

>> No.9447056

>>9447050
what's wrong with it? Got any counter-arguments?

>> No.9447059

>>9447040
bump for interest

>> No.9447062

>>9447056
It's made by a furry

>> No.9447065

>>9447056
The arguments in the comic are false with no evidence whatsoever. Therefore no need for counter arguments.

>> No.9447067

>>9447056
basicall, it's bullshit

>> No.9447071

>>9447065
Sounds like something a stumped evolutionist would say. No proof just means that it left its pants down for proof of the contrary and debunking without counterproof

>> No.9447072

>>9447040
>Real scientific arguments
Yet not a single one of the 'arguments' have any backup to support their claim.

>If the universe was billions of years old there wouldnt be spiral arm galaxies.
How does he know that? Not a single model is given to support the claim.

>> No.9447076

>>9447040
BS.
The spiral arms aren't permanent features, They're not always the same stars.
They're formed by density waves compressing gas and dust and forming new stars.
Moon dust vacuum welds.
Sea bottom sediment gets subducted as the plates move.

The real question is why I bother responding to crap posts. I know I'm not going to convince OP.

>> No.9447082

>>9447072
Also: http://www.oldearth.org/spiral_galaxies.htm

Not 9447072 tho

>> No.9447088

>>9447071
This is what mental illness looks like folks. Show me some evidence for your absurd pseudoscience claims and then we’ll talk.

But muh faith

>> No.9447091

>>9447076
OP here, just found this libertarian young earth creationist furry webcomic on the bad webcomics wiki and posted it here because /sci/entists have an irresistable urge to debunk any creationist argument, I also found it funny that this of all things was original in its arguments which I haven't seen before.

>> No.9447108

>>9447040
second panel is already wrong
the spirals are actually density waves
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Density_wave_theory
in any case even if we could not explain the appearance of spiral galaxies it would not override all of the other evidence we have for a universe that's billions of years old

>> No.9447116
File: 28 KB, 415x476, 1461744907513.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9447116

>>9447040
Hold up, there are YEC furry comics? Wow, there's something for everyone.

>> No.9447169

>>9447116
>there's something for everyone.
Meanwhile I continue to long for death's sweet embrace

>> No.9447285

>>9447040
I don't have the necessary knowledge to disprove the comic's claims, but the artist didn't include any citations, so his sources are most likely random creationist blogs and youtubers who themselves have misinterpreted actual science. The artist is apparently very bad at math too, since he believes that if the Moon is currently receding at 1.5"/year from the Earth, it must always have receded at that rate, so the chances of him getting all the other, more complex stuff right are very slim.

>> No.9447314
File: 27 KB, 484x304, images (8).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9447314

>>9447071

>> No.9447335

>>9447040
Congratulations, every single panel is either wrong, or missing crucial context.

>> No.9447367

>>9447314
I did not demand proof, I just said that any evidence in a counterargument would demolish the arguments.

>> No.9447383
File: 20 KB, 720x533, not an argument3.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9447383

>>9447040
>if x were millions of years old, y would have happened by now
Why? How do you know? Just saying something would happen isn't proof that it would.

>> No.9447428

>>9447040
>thinking gigantic objects with batshit insane distances between them and us move at speeds we can notice
>what is double/triple/etc fission
>what is ground pressure
>what is river feedback
>what is radation penetration limit
>implying earth didnt change is magnetic field many times in the past
this is why half knowledge is worse than no knowledge

>> No.9447437

>>9447367
How's about evidence of the claims in the comic?

It claims that the Moon's dust should be feet thick... Okay show us your math. If you can't, fuck off.

>> No.9447442

>>9447062
/Thread

>> No.9447444

imagine the kind of people that fall for this

>> No.9447445

>>9447437
see >>9447091

>> No.9447466

>>9447040
Those have always been arguments involved for Creationism.

>> No.9447468

>>9447072
Modelitis. It's fatal. You have it.

>> No.9447469

>>9447076
No new stars have ever been observed.

Do try again.

>> No.9447470
File: 269 KB, 435x482, microseph.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9447470

>>9447444
microsephs

>> No.9447472

>>9447437
We don't know what the annual dust accumulation on the moon is. It's a lot less than we expected when we went there. That's all we know.

>> No.9447476

>>9447040
>where the universe billions of years old, they would already be blurred into solid disks
The age of the universe does not influence the age of galaxies at all, but even if the milky way was older than the universe by a billion years, it still wouldn't have had it's arms entirely blurred out into a disk.

>> No.9447491

>>9447476
>Time does not effect conservation of angular momentum.

You people are so, so smart.

>> No.9447492

>>9447437
>dust accumulation

This argument seems to show a lack of understanding about vacuum cementing, among other things.

>> No.9447494

>>9447040
>7th panel
>"I can't be bothered to engage in actual debate"

>> No.9447535

Who makes these comics?

>> No.9447572
File: 91 KB, 941x960, connect the dots.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9447572

paleofag here. going by frames:

1. author is a furfag
2. the author doesn't understand orbital mechanics. it's possible to end up with resonance effects that break up a spinning disc into bands.
3. creationists literally assumed that radiation haloes in biotite MUST HAVE been caused by polonium decay, despite the total absence of evidence that polonium was involved. (there are loads of more common, longer-lived isotopes that explain those haloes perfectly well.)
4. not all rocks are permeable to gas. in fact, petroleum is almost always found inside a convexity in the local strata just below an impermeable layer, trapped against it by its own buoyancy.
5. salt is removed from the oceans through the formation of evaporites and the subduction of dense brine-rich sediment. because the continents are tectonically active, uplift can sustain relatively high rates of erosion. the oceans are geologically young (<250Mya) because ocean floor is constantly being recycled into the mantle.
6. in regards to the distance to the moon, refer above to how the author doesn't understand orbital mechanics. moon dust, amazingly enough, shields the unaltered rocks below from further photochemical weathering.
7. the rate of change of the earth's orbital velocity isn't constant; that assumption is garbage. and of course, neither is the rate of change of the strength of the earth's magnetic field; it is in fact cyclical. we have evidence of countless full reversals of magnetic polarity in the rock record.
8. ding dong your opinion is wrong

>> No.9447605

>young earth creationism
>ranting against "evolutionists"
>not ranting against geologists, geophysicists etc.
Jesus Christ.

>> No.9447814

>>9447314
The claims OP is responding to didn't have to show proof, so why should he?

>> No.9447945

>>9447492
>My argument
Check who you're responding to.