email - April 2014

Old Age Foolishness

Donít believe baseless assertions, even if they are said by scientists.

John began this exchange by sending us this email:

The challenge of age old assumptions made in the pursuit of science is the very heart of what science is about. However, as necessary as the questioning is for science to continue to move forward, an undesired consequence is the dumbing down of the population which results when basic knowledge is replaced by Dark Age mentality.

Those who believe the Earth to be 6000 years old without any evidence in support of such a ridiculous claim have failed to apply the principles they support in challenging science.

John
Sent from my iPad

So, we decided to bait him a little bit by sending this reply:

Why donít you challenge the ridiculous claim that the Earth is billions of years old? Have you ever looked at the supposed evidence for the Old Earth hypothesis? More to the point, have you ever looked at the excellent evidence against it? (http://scienceagainstevolution.info/topics-age.htm)

Johnís response was grammatically confusing. Hereís exactly what he wrote:

And you thank the moronic misuse of Genesis from the Old Testament by nitwits who want [to] use their Incorrect [capitalization his] interpretation of the Bible as a replacement for true science for that dumbing down.

We have never thanked nitwits; nor have we ever quoted Genesis. So we replied,

When did I misuse (or even use) Genesis?

He replied,

I was not necessarily referring to you. Not unless you advocate the teaching of a literal interpretation of the Bible as a basis for rejection of science, evolution, geology, etc.

Clearly, his criticism isnít based on anything we have written. Thatís why he doesnít know we have never advocated the teaching of a literal interpretation of the Bible. He thinks the only reason to believe the Earth is young is because of Genesis. So, we baited him some more.

Why donít you read what I have written, instead of accusing me of writing I have not written?

Why do you reject the scientific evidence for a young Earth? (Do you even know what that evidence is?)

He responded,

I read your piece criticizing one of the methods for determining the age of the Earth. That was what caused my comment to you. Although you were critical of one of the methods for determining the age of the earth the overwhelming weight of the evidence establishes that the Earth is some 4.5 billion years old. That proof comes from many different sources. Further, your criticism of one method of dating does not establish a younger age. It only cast some doubt on that method of dating. What proof do you offer to support your theory?

We donít know which piece he is referring to. There were links to more than 50 articles about the age of the Earth on the page we sent to him. We arenít critical of just one method. We are critical of all of the methods commonly used to argue for an old Earth.

He did not say there was anything factually wrong with our criticism of whichever dating method he read about. Apparently whatever we wrote, ďcast some doubt on that method of dating,Ē so there must have been some validity to our argument. He asked, ďWhat proof do you offer to support your theory?Ē We had already sent him a link to more than 50 articles we have written! What more does he want? If he really wanted to know what we think, he could have read what we have written.

Turn about is fair play. What does HE think is the overwhelming weight of the evidence that comes from many different sources? So, we asked him,

What is the ďoverwhelming evidence?Ē

We havenít heard from him since. Thatís because what little evidence there is, is underwhelming. If a strong case could be made for an Old Earth, somebody smarter than John would have made it. John has probably heard someone like Neil deGrasse Tyson say the Earth is billions of years old on the Cosmos TV series, and John believes it. John has been dumbed down by a public school system that has replaced education with indoctrination. He is afraid to learn anything that might upset his comfortable beliefs. Thatís why he wonít read what we have written about the age of the Earth. He would rather just send hate mail to people he thinks are religious nuts who donít know anything about science.

Ironically, the first sentence John wrote to us is the most important. ďThe challenge of age-old assumptions made in the pursuit of science is the very heart of what science is about.Ē He refuses to challenge assumptions. Thatís foolish.

Quick links to
Science Against Evolution
Home Page
Back issues of
Disclosure
(our newsletter)
Web Site
of the Month
Topical Index