.jpg)
Image from: www.plognark.com
The video clip has already surfaced on YouTube and is rapidly popping up in blogs all across cyberspace. Arizona State Senator Sylvia Allen (R) says that the Earth is only 6,000 years old.
Not only does she mention that the Earth is only 6,000 years old, twice, but she also stresses that we “start focusing on the technology we have.” How does someone reconcile stressing the use of technology, while dismissing scientific evidence at the same time? Ironically, radiometric dating is one of the methods used to determine the age of the Earth by measuring radioactive decay in things such as uranium – the very material she wants us to mine so we can “get the money from it.”
This same type of thinking is common in many religious communities. It ultimately rests on the concept that the end of the world is coming soon, possibly in our lifetimes, and therefore we can continue to consume natural resources at egregious rates. The reality is that our grandchildren will not have “the same lifestyle we have” if people in governmental positions of authority continue to dangerously ignore scientific evidence in exchange for their personal religious views. This is both irresponsible and frightening.
Comments
The scariest part is that this person is an elected official. Don't they screen them at all?
I stand corrected. I had to check to see what backwoods area of the state voted her in... Turns out that no one voted her into office. She replaced Jake Flake in 2008 - she is appointed.
I somehow feel much wiser - knowing that the Earth has only been here 150 times longer than myself! Who knew?!
This clip is funny, but the more I reflect on it, the more angry I become. Sylvia Allen is an adult woman who can stand outside, look around her environment, and honestly make the claim that the Earth is only 6000 years old. Her very existence promotes anti-education, anti-intellectualism, and anti-science! She is a freak of nature and anyone who supports her (those who placed this fool in office) is a freak of nature.
Can I please change my surname. I don't anyone to think I might be related to this moron.
Whoa. That's all kinds of stupid. They really should screen our representatives with long and intensive aptitude tests.
Why is it so stupid? There is no proof that the rate of isotope decay is constant throughout the history of the planet. The nature of an isotype shedding a particle and "decaying" is described as a spontaneous act. In individual particles it is unpredictable. Then, science makes this handy leap of a concept called "half-life" where if you group millions of particles, the point at which half of them decay becomes a predictability. Or is it? Can we witness or perform tests to confirm half-lives of particles 5,000 year old? If the individual particles are unpredictable, how can they be collectively predictable within an unverifiable scope of time? And yet society eats it up for 2 reasons. #1 men in white coats with pieces of paper hanging on the wall told you its true. #2 it conforms to theories that you have already made up your mind you are determined to believe. More faith on the part of the atheist.
Why it is so stupid: There is no proof of gods throughout the history of the planet. The nature of a supernatural miracle is described as a spontaneous act. In individual churches it is unpredictable. Then, religion makes this handy leap of a concept called "after-life" where if you intimidate millions of people through fear of not getting one, the point at which half of their thinking decays becomes very predictable. Yes it does. Can we witness or perform tests to confirm after-lives? If the individual claims are unsubstantiated, how can they be collectively proven within a verifiable scope of time? And yet theists eat it up for 2 reasons. #1 men in white dresses with funny hats sitting on their heads told you its true. #2 it conforms to theories that you have already made up your mind and are determined to believe. More abandonment of evidence on the part of the believer.
Yeah, scientists all over the world have done tests and agreed to data as a conspiracy against religion. ;)
So evolutionists argue science, physicists argue physics, and atheists call people stupid and dodge valid objections.
Nice satire by the way.
Thank you for the compliment Shane, I do love satire. (Read a copy of "Candide" if you get the chance - very funny!)
Well, for the record, I never called anyone stupid, although I find the idea of the Earth being only 6000 years old in the face of a mountain of evidence agreed upon by the vast majority of scientists around the world, who's last goal would improbably be to thwart religion - to be stupid.
And nobody is dodging objections to data, but there are a million books and websites explaining very clearly how Creationist and Intelligent Designers regularly omit or alter data. If their objections were proven through true scientific methods and the data was verified - bingo - we'd have a change to make.
That's the beauty of science, it's always looking for ways to prove itself wrong so that we can be sure it's right.
(cont...)
Religion, however, is not the same. There is no evidence for any of them. No evidence for a divinely inspired bible, no evidence of a god, no evidence of miracles, no evidence of an after-life, no evidence for prayers being answered. Nothing. Nada. Zip. (likely a big reason nobody believes in any of the other gods that came before the current characters)
And all the efforts to argue its validity through science or philosophy doesn't produce one shred of evidence either. Those arguments are nothing more than a failed distraction in the absence of evidence. It's all a man-made sham. And people know that, whether they're willing to admit it or not - they know it.
Nothing short of providing evidence of a god's existence is acceptable. And as evidenced by the growing numbers of honest, critical-thinkers around the world - time is running out for religion.
As long as evidence is in dispute its just not factual. At some point one side has to say its obvious and the other side says its not. Who is to say? No data ever interpreted itself. Science is flawed because it is self-fulfilling. A hypothesis is an assumption by definition. If all we do is seek to prove our assumptions then we will find evidence all over.
It is agreed that half-lives of element are not completely accurate, but an estimation. I am not sure, however, that it throws off the data on Earth's age by a factor of almost one million!
In other words,
1,000 X 1,000,000 = 1,000,000,000
That would truly be a gross miscalculation, and definitely requires faith to be believed...
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!