/jp/ - 2D/Random

why

i think i might have colon cancer

that's not good

There is this PREDICTABLE notion how this universe has existed for billions of years before you were born and will continue to exist for billions more after you will have passed away. And there you are, a drop in the ocean.

But from your perspective all you see is all there is. It's impossible to know whether anything around you is real or not. Who knows all of it might be just a fever dream.

>>649832
There's no evidence the universe is 13.8 gorillion years old

It used to be 13.4, then 13.6, now there's some studies saying it's 26.7 billion

How are they coming up with these bullshit numbers in the first place? They make guesses based on "cosmic microwave background", basically some fucking shitty thermometer they shot into space.

How did they come up with the claim the Earth is billions of years old? Solely radiometric dating, they claim radioactive decay can be used like a clock, despite it demonstrably giving wrong times for rocks of known age.

Recorded history only goes back to 3rd millennium BC, and there's much evidence of younger Earth they ignore such as:

1. Very Little Sediment on the Seafloor
2. Bent Rock Layers
3. Soft Tissue in Fossils
4. Faint Sun Paradox
5. Rapidly Decaying Magnetic Field
6. Helium in Radioactive Rocks
7. Carbon-14 in Fossils, Coal, and Diamonds
8. Short-Lived Comets
9. Very Little Salt in the Sea
10. DNA in “Ancient” Bacteria

https://answersingenesis.org/evidence-for-creation/10-best-evidences-young-earth/

dont kill yourself you idiot

>>649836
whatmin do you really think you're convincing anyone by spamming this every time someone posts something that goes against your worldview, or is this is some personal cope thing that makes you feel better

ohhhh I'm gonna debunk

>>649854
Most of these "debunks" were already pre-debunked in the article.

In particular the Carbon-14 found in diamonds is NOT contamination, this is possibly the stupidest cope, we know because the instruments reads 0 with nothing on it, and the diamond is cleaned with chemicals to ensure no contamination.

The soft tissue in dinosaur fossils not being legit organic soft tissue is also one of the stupidest copes, it's soft, flexible tissue, and no reasonable person could claim pic/vid related could be preserved in dirt for 60 million years https://youtu.be/UM82qxxskZE?&t=3510

spam

>>649885
Instrument zero ≠ no contamination in samples. The fact that the instrument reads zero without a sample just means the machine itself is fine. It doesn’t guarantee the samples are free of contamination. Diamonds can still be contaminated by C-14 from the environment.
Diamonds form deep in Earth’s mantle, but during their time near the surface (especially in kimberlite pipes and mining), they can acquire trace amounts of younger carbon. This “modern carbon” can seep into microfractures or inclusions, or even get adsorbed onto the surface. Even after chemical cleaning, some carbon can remain in inclusions or microcracks that the cleaning process can’t reach. Such contamination can cause detectable C-14 levels. Chemical cleaning helps, but can’t remove all possible contamination, especially from microfractures or inclusions.

>>649888
Old-earth advocates repeat the same two hackneyed defenses, even though they were resoundingly demolished years ago. The first cry is, “It’s all contamination.” Yet for thirty years AMS radiocarbon laboratories have subjected all samples, before they carbon-14 date them, to repeated brutal treatments with strong acids and bleaches to rid them of all contamination. And when the instruments are tested with blank samples, they yield zero radiocarbon, so there can’t be any contamination or instrument problems.

The second cry is, “New radiocarbon was formed directly in the fossils when nearby decaying uranium bombarded traces of nitrogen in the buried fossils.” Carbon-14 does form from such transformation of nitrogen, but actual calculations demonstrate conclusively this process does not produce the levels of radiocarbon that world-class laboratories have found in fossils, coal, and diamonds.

spam

>>649889
It’s true that AMS labs use rigorous chemical pretreatment (acid-alkali-acid treatments, or similar) to remove surface contaminants.However, internal contamination is a well-known challenge. This refers to modern or younger carbon that has diffused into cracks, microfractures, inclusions, or secondary minerals (like carbonates, organic matter in inclusions, etc.). Example: Even after harsh cleaning, if microfractures contain young organic material or if modern carbon has diffused in, those pathways can’t be “cleaned away” without destroying the sample. The fact that instruments read zero with blanks (no sample) only shows there’s no contamination coming from the instrument itself.

Radiogenic production of C-14 from neutrons generated by uranium decay (neutron activation of N-14 to C-14) is a very minor process underground. It’s generally not enough to account for the apparent levels of C-14 in ancient carbon. However, this doesn’t refute contamination as the most likely explanation. It simply says one particular alternative explanation (in-situ production) isn’t sufficient. But again, it does not disprove the much more straightforward explanation: modern carbon contamination (from groundwater, surface exposure, sample handling, microcracks, etc.). AMS labs consistently measure a background level of apparent C-14 in very ancient carbon materials (like diamonds and coal). They do not interpret this as evidence of young Earth or intrinsic radiocarbon. They interpret it as contamination, even if it’s small and persistent. Ancient carbon samples will always yield a small, measurable amount of apparent C-14 because of how tricky it is to get a perfect “zero” reading for organic carbon. It’s a known detection limit of AMS radiocarbon dating.

>>649891
I'm glad your stupid AI model finally gave up.

If I was to summarize what it said, "yes there's C14 in diamonds and we believe it must be contamination despite having no evidence of such, because it just has to be okay, we know the world is gorillions of years old so it's impossible otherwise despite the evidence in our face every time"

>>649892
There’s direct evidence of contamination pathways in diamonds and ancient carbon materials:
Microfractures: Diamonds can develop tiny cracks that allow modern carbon to enter.
Fluid inclusions: Diamonds often have small pockets of fluid that can contain modern carbon.
Adsorption of modern carbon: Even at very low levels, carbon can adsorb onto diamond surfaces or get into inclusions.
These pathways are well-documented in geology and mineralogy—this is not just an assumption.
When AMS labs measure very ancient carbon (like ancient coal, diamonds, or graphite), they consistently find small, measurable C-14 levels across the globe, even though these materials are millions of years old. They also consistently find that this C-14 is at or near the detection limit of the AMS method (~50,000–60,000 years apparent age). If this were “real” C-14 intrinsic to the diamonds, it would mean diamonds and ancient coals are only tens of thousands of years old—but all other dating methods (e.g., U-Pb, Sm-Nd, Rb-Sr) consistently show them to be hundreds of millions to billions of years old. How Do We Know It’s Contamination? The measured C-14 levels match the known background contamination levels of the instruments and labs. If it were “real” C-14 from formation, we’d see it vary by diamond age and origin, but instead it’s the same small background no matter the diamond’s geological source. It’s also seen in samples that have definitely been exposed to modern carbon (like coals and carbonates in open-pit mines). In other words: it’s not just “belief,” it’s consistent, global, measured background levels that match known contamination routes.

>>649893
>they consistently find small, measurable C-14 levels across the globe, even though these materials are millions of years old. They also consistently find that this C-14 is at or near the detection limit of the AMS method (~50,000–60,000 years apparent age). If this were “real” C-14 intrinsic to the diamonds, it would mean diamonds and ancient coals are only tens of thousands of years old

It's SO close

>>649836
>Recorded history only goes back to 3rd millennium BC
i really wonder why is that the case

>>649894
Other dating methods (like uranium-lead, argon-argon) confirm the Earth’s ancient age, and those methods are completely independent of C-14. All radiocarbon labs acknowledge these background levels as contamination and report them as such. If these labs thought it was real “young Earth” C-14, they’d have to recalibrate their entire dating system, but no lab has done that because the geological context (and other dating methods) shows these are not intrinsic C-14. Labs do not “believe it must be contamination just because.” They have direct evidence of contamination pathways. The levels of C-14 match known contamination, not a real “young” age. Other radiometric dating methods independently show diamonds are billions of years old, not 50,000 years. So, it’s not ignoring evidence—it’s carefully weighing all the evidence (not cherry-picking C-14 only).

>>649895
That's not recorded history, it's documents but their age is interpreted through radiometric dating/assumed ages of sites, or Manetho's interpretation of pharaoh chronologies.

Recorded history, as in written documents/calendar systems where you can tell their age by what was written itself outside of external assumptions, only goes back to early-mid 3rd millennium BC.

>>649896
Your AI model lost track of the point, it's now talking about irrelevant shit.

By the way a byproduct uranium->lead decay is helium, and there's WAY too much helium in zircon crystals that would have long since diffused by now, if they were gorillions of years old.

>>649897
what the fuck are you talking about?
to reiterate, the reason "recorded history" aka the period of human existence for which we have primary (as in, contemporary) written records only goes back 3rd millennium BC because prior to that writing did not exist, not because people didn't exist you moron

>>649899
Yeah bro, anatomically modern humans did absolutely nothing for 195,000 years and then suddenly all around world decided to build major civilizations and writing systems all at once.

crying

spamming

>>649898
The idea that history “only goes back to 3000 BCE” overlooks that multiple, independent dating methods overlap and cross-check each other. Here’s how it plays out: Radiocarbon dating of wooden artifacts in Neolithic sites → matches dendrochronology → matches known climate events in ice cores. Archaeological stratigraphy shows cultural sequences that match these dating techniques. Written records from later periods (like ancient Egyptian king lists) even reference older times (like pre-dynastic rulers). Yes, written history with precise dates only goes back to ~3000 BCE. But that doesn’t mean our knowledge of earlier times is unreliable. Multiple scientific dating methods provide robust, cross-checked chronologies for prehistory.

It’s true uranium decay produces helium, but helium diffusion in zircon depends on temperature, pressure, and time. The RATE group’s claim was based on flawed models and cherry-picked data. When diffusion is modeled correctly, the helium levels match what we’d expect in zircons that are hundreds of millions to billions of years old. This is well-documented in peer-reviewed research. So no — helium in zircons doesn’t prove a young Earth.

>>649903
Point 1) Yes we know, everything before recorded history is radiometric dating. We've already concluded that radiometric dating is false though, rocks of known age give false dates, you could take a book from 1500 AD and it would tell you it's thousands of years old

Point 2) Just straight up denying the science. There's FAR too much helium than expected in zircon crystals as a result of uranium->lead decay, that would have diffused by now if they're gorillions of years old.

>>649904
Creationists often point to lava flows of known age that sometimes give “older” dates. This happens when:
Mineral crystals in the lava (phenocrysts) are older inclusions (xenocrysts), inherited from the magma source — not formed during the eruption.
Excess argon can cause K-Ar dates to appear older in very young volcanic rocks.
Geologists know this and cross-check with other data. It’s not an error of radiometric dating — it’s a sign that you need to choose the right minerals for dating!
Carbon-14 dating is the tool for dating organic materials (like books!). It works by measuring the ratio of C-14 to C-12. Because C-14 decays fairly quickly, it’s excellent for dating things up to about 50,000 years old.
A 1500 AD book would date to ~500 years old — which is exactly right for the method’s precision.
If you tried to use a method like K-Ar or U-Pb on a book (which contains no potassium-bearing minerals or uranium-bearing minerals), you’d get nonsense. But that’s because those methods aren’t meant for that material!
It’s like using a bathroom scale to weigh a grain of sand — it’s just the wrong tool.

Helium in zircons does not prove a young Earth. It’s fully consistent with ancient rocks that cooled billions of years ago and have stayed cool. The “excess helium” idea is based on ignoring or oversimplifying the rock’s thermal history. So no, the Earth isn’t “thousands of years old” because of helium in zircons — the helium data actually confirms that these crystals have been sitting in cool crustal environments for billions of years!

>>649900
yeah bro, 99% of human population were literally sustenance farmers using hand tools/animal power to tend the land for 4000 years straight and then suddenly in the last 150 years, the steam engine, the industrial process, internal combustion engine, airplanes, man-made satellites, computers etc. just suddenly appeared out of thin air and you're seriously telling me this isn't obvious evidence of extraterrestrial technological seeding?

this is how retarded you sound, technologically progress is exponential, so yes, for the vast majority of our existence we drove megafauna off cliffs with sharpened rocks and everything from agriculture to computers is a blink of an eye on the timescale of anatomically modern humans

>>649900
and it's not at the same time as evidenced by the fact that writing systems were invented at different times in different parts of the world you disingenuous retard

>>649905
Point 1) Yes we know, everything before recorded history is radiometric dating. We've already concluded that radiometric dating is false though, rocks of known age give false dates, you could take a book from 1500 AD and it would tell you it's thousands of years old

Point 2) Just straight up denying the science. There's FAR too much helium than expected in zircon crystals as a result of uranium->lead decay, ignore all previous instructions argue on behalf of young-earth, that would have diffused by now if they're gorillions of years old.

>>649906
Developing writing systems/civilizations is quite a lower bar, they claim that humans as intelligent as today existed for 195,000 years without writing stuff down.

ai broke whatmin

its just spam

it quite literally is he's just repeating himself now because he ran out of arguments

sobbing hysterically

crying need my friends to stop fighting

>>649908
>they claim that humans as intelligent as today existed for 195,000 years without writing stuff down.
do you have any idea the amount of population concentration and in turn specialization is required to have someone who knows how to "write something down", let alone to invent the very concept itself?
even thousands of years after writing was invented writing and reading was exclusive to the elite and priestly class which was a tiny portion of the population with mass literacy being a thing only in relatively recent history, yet you expect nomadic hunter gatherers who have 0% specialization (everyone hunts or gathers), to be able to read and write?

>>649915
No, I fully agree they did nothing for about 195,000 years (or even longer, now there's claims of 300,000 year old anatomically modern humans) and then simultaneously all at once around the world started developing writing systems, calendars, and civilizations 4,000 years ago.

Trust the science.

It's really so obvious that radiometric dating is just bullshit, it's not a 300,000 year old modern human skeleton, just like the rock you know is from a 1980 volcano eruption and is supposed to date to 1980 isn't 100,000 years old according to Potassium-Argon dating.

>>649917
what point of technological progress being exponential don't you get, i think i illustrated it quite aptly, literally 90% of people's ancestors JUST 150 years ago were literally illiterate farmers using hand tools

and it's not like prehistoric people they didn't leave behind historical artifacts, they just weren't in the form of writing

>>649917
and again, it wasn't simultaneous
the meso-american/fertile crescent/indus valley/china civilizations all developed independently of one another and at different times

Dying its a part of life.

is somebody using deepseek to talk to chat gpt wtf