science is a DESCRIPTIVE endeavor whose methods and practices were devised to operate within the context of the observable. that's empirical science and it's got a pretty decent track record. beyond the realm of the observable, testable, and repeatable stuff of empirical science, all we can really do is extrapolate a potential explanation from what we already know for certain. really, it's a highly involved process of making educated guesses.

radiometry is an excellent tool for determining the age of organic matter, but the further back you try to take it, the wider the margin for error becomes, and for geological purposes it's really just something to help you ballpark the age of some rocks. outside of that, you get to play this really fun guessing game - how old are these rocks? we can guess the age of the rocks by the age of these fossils. how old are the fossils? we can guess the age of the fossils by the... the age of... these... rocks. yeah. and while radiometry is a good way to avoid completely clowning yourself, it's far from bulletproof.

the error isn't in supporting a theory. some really clever people put in a lot of time coming up with their educated guesses on how the earth got here, how old it is, and so on. the error is in presenting that theory as absolute fact, which according to the operating principles of science itself really isn't possible without direct observation. that places the concepts you're discussing within the realm of the theoretical, and any honest scientist who's not afraid of what the people funding his/her work might say will agree with that wholeheartedly.

the error is definitely in the frantic attempts made to quash any challenges to the [current] officially-accepted explanations for the origins of EVERYTHING. if you think someone's ideas are preposterous, fine. call them on it and compare your actual evidence to their actual evidence instead of firing blindly into the night and contorting yourself into a pretzel condemning them as ignorant or extremist or whatever else you wanna call 'em. it especially gives the scientific establishment a bad name when people invoke 'the system' to silence dissent through firings, demotions, and the like.

I don't have a beef with science or with the scientists who put in hard work in their respective fields. I have a problem with the way that people who help fund the scientific establishment keep pushing their own agendas. people are always complaining that 'religious people' aren't doing enough to stop the atrocities committed in the name of religion. if you want people to trust the scientific establishment more, shouldn't something be done about the people who destroy careers and reputations in the name of science?

go.

ᴚ ᴀ ᴐ ᴋ ᴊ ᴌ ᴧ
ಠ_ಠ