… and Six Thousand Steps Back

by  —  May 17, 2009

The most recent act of scared-pigmy-ism in Texas is really wearing thinly upon me; it evokes feelings akin to what i feel due to those people who don’t really want to work, but would like to receive all sorts of benefits derived from the income tax system. So, in the category of “it only seems fair and consistent”, i would like to point out a short list of things these people should give up on if they’re going to turn their backs on the science which dictates the age of the Earth, and the age of the cosmos.

Dear Mr. or Miss 6,000 Year Old Earth Believer,

I’m not here to attack your religious belief system — you believe what you believe, for whatever basis, and that’s that. I’m not even here to point out that there’s supposed to be a separation between church and state in this country.

I am here, however, to say that it is one thing to stand firmly on one’s belief system, but it is a wholly other kettle of fish to deny something and still insist on using the fruits of that thing which you are denying. It would be like my having a fundamental belief that bridge trolls are responsible for creating donuts but then still driving over to Krispy Kreme to shovel their freshly made donuts into my gaping maw.

One of the more frequent tools used in judging the age of organic objects found on our planet is called “radiocarbon dating” which allows the dating of objects back about 60,000 years; the process relies upon judging the amount of a radioactive isotope of the element carbon which remains in the object and which changes over time due to radioactive decay. By your choosing to say that this form of measurement is invalid, you must also say that our understanding of radioactive decay is incorrect. If so, with regards to these other technologies which rely upon the same understanding:

If you also think that the universe is not billions and billions of years old, then let’s look at that. Our understanding of that age relies upon a number of things too esoteric to provide for clear cutting examples here; there is one verifying, simple, concept though: the way ‘light’ behaves. With that in mind, if you’d like to claim that we have no idea what we’re doing concerning the behaviour of light – that the distances, and therefore the time and age, which we’re looking at is mistaken calculation, then let’s look at what else you should be giving up:

In conclusion, this isn’t my viewpoint, this is simply the facts being laid out in a manner which demonstrates the fragile house of cards in which you live. I can see how you might not like that, but at the end of the day, and this is the beauty of science, no amount of legislation will change what is a provable fact regardless of what county, state, or country you live in.

Loki der Quaeler

Marked as: Governmental PoliciesScience  —  No comments yet   (RSS)

Leave a Comment

If you would like to make a comment, please fill out the form below.

You must be logged in to post a comment.

© 2007-2015 Process Media Labs and the respective authors. This WordPress theme began as a public work by Speckyboy.