A
Anonymous09/08/26, 17:32No.17049073
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".
22
Replies
A
Anon09/08/26, 17:33No.17049074
This just in: YouTube comment sections are filled with 80 IQ trollsHey not everyone can be on the cutting edge of shitposting like us 4channers
A
Anon09/08/26, 17:37No.17049080
The 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.
A
Anon09/08/26, 17:45No.17049090
>and he just said "L ragebait"
https://youtu.be/pAgnJDJN4VA
A
Anon09/08/26, 17:52No.17049109
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.
A
Anon09/08/26, 21:14No.17049420
I’ve noticed much more young earth creationism since the third world got greater access to the internet
A
Anon09/09/26, 00:04No.17049596
Pic 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.
A
Anon09/09/26, 01:13No.17049628
There is essentially zero organic feedback in youtube comment sections. Just bots shills and troll raids.
A
Anon09/10/26, 18:00No.17051359
You fell for literal ragebait IRL?
A
Anon09/10/26, 18:20No.17051378
How 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.
A
Anon09/11/26, 04:45No.17051660
According to the Bible, the Earth is roughly 6,000 years old based on traditional chronological interpretations of biblical genealogies.
A
Anon09/11/26, 06:33No.17051707
I went to a Christian school and this is what they taught us there, this is what they actually believe.
A
Anon09/11/26, 07:59No.17051755
I'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.
A
Anon09/11/26, 09:48No.17051813
"Deep time", as it is currently mandated, was invented in the early 19th century.