Athée Canadien
Technologies You Can No Longer Use!!!
By Jay RG
I find it incredibly interesting that some (if not all) of the most popular devices and technology of this century, and the last, often utilize the exact same scientific principles used to:
- Determine the age of the universe
- Determine the age of the earth
- Disprove various aspects of the creation story
- Prove microevolution
- Prove the Big Bang Theory
The scientific principles are so inherent in the design and functionality of some popular technologies that they literally would not work without them. Therefore, this message is for those who believe the creation story, and/or that the earth is only 6000 years old, and/or that microevolution is still debatable and not proven, etc. (I’d like to generalize by saying all biblical accounts, but there are just so many that have nothing to do with science or facts). If you are a person described by the beliefs I’ve just mentioned, PLEASE PAY ATTENTION!
Ultimately, it is hypocritical and illogical to deny the validity of a particular science for your own agenda and then use it for another. Therefore, I’d like to present a list of technologies you should stop using immediately:
Cell Phones: Cell phones use radio waves for transmission and reception. This technology is the same as that used on the Hubble telescope to see into the vastness of space. The Hubble Telescope has helped us to accurately determine the age of the universe. Side Note: you can stop using your radio and wireless router, too.
GPS (Global Positioning Satellite): The GPS in your car communicates with multiple geosynchronous (Thanks Daniel Clements and Tim Rowe) satellites orbiting earth. The difference in velocity and gravitational force experienced by the satellites is so great that the theory of relativity must be taken into account. If the theory of relativity was not applied, your GPS would actually put you an average of 10km (6 miles) away from your intended destination (per day!). The theory of relativity also predicted that the universe was not static, but expanding (or contracting; Einstein didn’t know at first); a hypothesis that was later verified by Edwin Hubble. (Thank you Guillaume Laurent for the correction).
Microwaves: Your microwave oven uses actual microwaves (from the electromagnetic spectrum) to cook food. We have a relatively good understanding of the behavior of these waves and can detect them easily and accurately. They also appear as background radiation in outer space left over from the Big Bang. This background microwave radiation makes up two percent of the black and white static old televisions used to have! If you do not agree with the Big Bang Theory, please forgo using your microwave oven in the future.
Refrigerators: I’ll admit, this one is a stretch, but based on the absolute appalling misuse of the laws of thermodynamics to “scientifically prove” the creation/anti-evolution agenda, please kindly stop using your fridge, air conditioner, humidifier, pool heater (if applicable), and all technologies which are designed on the principles of thermodynamics. You may, however, continue to cook over a fire. As an additional punishment to Canadian creationists, please also stop using hockey rinks that are kept cold by industrial chillers.
Speed Measuring Devices: The hand held devices used to measure the speed of a baseball pitch, slap shot, or car as it speeds past a traffic cop use a phenomenon called the Doppler effect. If you have ears (that work) you’ve experienced this shift with cars, horns, trains, and almost anything that makes noise as it moves past you. The change in pitch as something approaches and passes the observer is called the Doppler shift (or effect). This applies to light as well. Light from moving stars and galaxies can be red or blue shifted; depending on if those stars and galaxies are moving away or towards us, respectively. This is exactly what Edwin Hubble noticed when he realized the universe was not static, but constantly changing – and suggests strong evidence for the Big Bang theory.
Please also stop using 50% of all electrical devices in your house if you live in Ontario (16% for all other parts of Canada and 20% if you live in the USA). Statistically speaking, nuclear power makes up 50% of the electricity produced and distributed in Ontario. Nuclear Energy theory is based on isotope half lives; which is the principle used for radio-isotope dating of fossils, rocks, various earth strata, moon rocks, etc. Side note for Americans: Please stop using all nuclear powered submarines, and dismantle all of your nuclear warheads as well. If you don’t trust radio-isotope dating, you do not reserve the right to use this technology elsewhere.
Radio-Isotope Cancer Detection and Treatment: Similar to the point mentioned above, if you don’t believe the earth and fossils can be accurately dated using radio-isotopes – or that the method is somehow flawed, inaccurate, or bias – please refrain from detecting and/or treating any cancer with techniques that take advantage of this technology.
X-Rays: Normally used to detect cavities in teeth or determine the extent of a broken bone, X-Ray dosage is calculated by radiologists who use quantum mechanics to ensure you don’t receive an overdose of energy. Quantum mechanics also help us to understand particle and energy interaction all the way back to 10E-19 seconds after the Big Bang singularity. It is also how astrophysicists have theorized the detection of black holes.
Vaccinations (of any kind): If you somehow manage to hold the belief that evolution (specifically microevolution) is wrong, please never again take another vaccination for the prevention of disease. Lab scientists track gene mutations in viruses. As these viruses mutate, old vaccines become useless for eradicating the newer species of viruses. Instead, new vaccines must be created and manufactured to combat them. These genetic mutations are exactly described by microevolution (in fact, they help prove it). Side Note: you may continue to pray to god for health. No comment on the effectiveness, but the price is right! Side Note: as per a comment discussion with James McLaren, please do not limit your children from vaccines until they are old enough to think for themselves and make their own decisions. Until that point, I would prefer you blindly follow the science for their sake.
Potable Water: If, at this point, you still do not believe in evolution, please stop drinking potable water. The drinkable di-hydrogen oxide (H20) coming through your taps has been filtered using ion-exchange (described by quantum physics), UV radiation (quantum mechanics), and purified using chlorine saturation to ensure all viruses and bacteria have died. It is then laboratory tested (periodically) to ensure no viruses have evolved to handle the levels of chlorine. All of these technologies have helped to demonstrate various biblical inaccuracies.
Solar Panels: any solar panel that uses photovoltaics is now off limits to you. The photoelectric effect is also described by quantum mechanics. Since most Americans agree there is no climate concern, nor energy crisis, most of the USA shouldn’t have a problem relinquishing this technology. No word on how many Americans actually use dual-power calculators, but I imagine there won’t even be a fight.
There you have it, the list so far! I know some of you will find a few of them a bit of a stretch, but I really had fun putting this together. I searched for a similar list on Google and came up with nothing closely related; so this may be entirely original. Who could ask for more than that! With that said, if you noticed that I’ve missed a common technology, please feel free to write it in the comments and I will happily add it. Thanks for reading!!
| Print article | This entry was posted by Jay RG on August 3, 2011 at 12:15 am, and is filed under Critical Thinking, General, Religion, Science, Technology. Follow any responses to this post through RSS 2.0. Both comments and pings are currently closed. |
Comments are closed.
about 9 months ago
How about any drugs that have been tested on animals? They depend on the fact that we are all related, so that our response to drugs can be estimated from that of a lab mouse.
about 9 months ago
Oooh, I like it!
about 9 months ago
Another technology to use – the internet to check Snopes.com! ;-0
http://www.snopes.com/horrors/food/kfc.asp
The KFC mutant chicken thingy is an urban myth.
about 9 months ago
about the GPS satellites : they are not moving relatively to earth surface (being in geosynchronous orbit :-) ), so in this case the reason of the time dilation is the difference in gravity :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation#Gravitational_time_dilation
about 9 months ago
TRUE!! Do I have your permission to update the post with your recommendation?
about 9 months ago
False. GPS satellites are NOT in geosynchronous orbit, they are much much lower than that, and constantly moving in relation to the surface of the earth.
about 9 months ago
Ok, final answer:
GPS satellites take relative velocity into account when calculating position. However, if GPS satellites were geosynchronous, they would require the calculation of time dilation due to the difference in gravitational force (position-specific) relative to a giant mass; in this case: the earth.
Thank you both, your comments have been included and linked in the post update!
about 9 months ago
You might also include certain watches, specifically those with tritium lit, and older radium lit dials. The principles of radioactive decay allow us to use those.
I have to say, I love the GPS one. Owing to the fact it requires the theory of relativity, it also proves that the universe is expanding, and billions of years old.
about 9 months ago
While I absolutely agree with pretty much everything you wrote, I’d like to point out, with all due respect, that it’s actually a very dangerous and irresponsible thing to ever try to dissuade people from getting vaccinations.
I know that this list was meant to be tongue-in-cheek, but some people take these things seriously. Vaccinations are too important to joke about, too many people are already looking for reasons to avoid them.
about 9 months ago
Well, with the CIA recently admitting they were using vaccinations to collect DNA – which was an Alex Jones conspiracy from years before – I don’t blame them. I feel there’s less of that in Canada; though maybe our CSIS is just better at keeping secrets.
For the purposes of the blog, it is a very strong point. Vaccines, viewed by most as incredibly important, are based on science. As described above, the same science is forms the foundation for some of the strongest empirical evidence available in support of micro evolution.
Though, you make an excellent point. I may tidy up that paragraph to include a disclaimer.
about 9 months ago
Again, in principle I do absolutely agree with you. But practically, it’d be absolutely terrible to see any babies die of rubella just to drive a point home.
Some people are just innately unable to perceive irony.
about 9 months ago
I agree with you and have added a note linking your comment. Thank you for your contribution!!
about 9 months ago
Nice one! When I was reading your section on vaccines, I was thinking, hmm… the exact same thing applies to antibiotics and bacteria.
A big one you should add is to ask creationists to give up oil. Oil is essentially boatloads of organisms that decomposed and been kept under pressure under tons of rock (or sand, or ocean) for millions of years. Also, a good knowledge of geology is necessary to efficiently find and extract oil, and geology is the science that tells us the history and age of the Earth.
about 9 months ago
That is DEFINITELY being added to the list; edition: 2.0 haha
about 9 months ago
This is fantastic.
The KFC thing is an urban legend.
However, the modern chicken is a genetically modified bird in that humans domesticated them from wild birds and continue to tamper with their DNA through selective breeding campaigns.
Using that principle, you could add ALL food to the list, since every farmed species was selectively bred for domestication. From the lowly pea to Angus cattle, none of our modern edible species occurs naturally in their domesticated form.
about 9 months ago
Any petroleum products- the same technology that we use to find oil is also the same science that tells us that the earth is really old.
about 9 months ago
It’s a very good list, and the overall point is very strong.
I would get rid of the first four paragraphs and get right to the point – you will increase the number of people who will actually read your article tenfold. Also, drop the “The Atheist community would like you to stop using…..” It is not necessary to make your point, you shouldn’t speak on behalf of “the Atheist community”, and you shouldn’t reinforce the mistaken notion that atheists speak in a single, organized voice, telling other people what to do – that is the game organized religion plays.
Just make your valid, strong point by getting right to the list of things one should give up if one is consistent and not-hypocritical in one’s claimed beliefs in Young Earth Creationism.
Do that, and you’ll have one hell of an article, something many folks will want to link to and pass on.
about 9 months ago
Thanks! I might just do that! I am considering a re-release shortly because of how quickly additional ideas are flowing in!
about 9 months ago
Done! Excellent critique! Please forward the list within your circle!
about 9 months ago
Glasses of any kind to help with vision should be off limits. The science of optics used to make spectacles is also used to make telescopes for looking at distant stars
about 9 months ago
Computers. A lot of the circuits and programs use the same math used to demonstrate evolutionary connections.
about 9 months ago
Umm, if you’re going to ban technologies that require science (defined broadly as learning from past experience) in order to use them then can I suggest you start with stone axes, move on to fire, crops and only then get onto GPS?
about 9 months ago
I thought about it, because fire definitely requires the laws of thermodynamics to work – but it’s not that creationists don’t accept thermodynamics. On the contrary, it’s that they misinterpret the 2nd law to “disprove” evolution; suggesting that the earth is a closed system and therefore entropy could never decrease – but the earth isn’t a closed system. We receive energy from the sun constantly; there is quite literally a constant flux energy supply and dissipation.
Anyway, it’s not that I wouldn’t love to add this to the list, it’s that I don’t know if I could “reasonably” justify it… but I do appreciate your enthusiasm!
about 9 months ago
Well just for clarification, a closed system still allows for energy transfer across a boundary, just not mass. But I’m not saying I disagree with the earth being open. Looking at the definition of an open system which is the transfer of mass across a boundary, meteors and/or meteorites which have mass strike the atmosphere regularly. Solar radiation does not have mass however.
about 9 months ago
Well played. An “isolated system” is the proper term I should have used.
Also, I agree the earth is an open system because mass and energy can interact. Our space shuttles leave earth (loss of mass and energy), meteors (as you said) are a prime example of mass and energy entering the system. Solar radiation does not have mass – I completely agree.
I was speaking of the misuses of the laws of thermodynamics in calling the earth a closed (read: isolated) system.
about 9 months ago
Awesome post, I love it!
Science, for, the WIN!
about 9 months ago
For what it’s worth, GPS satellites are /geosynchronous/, not /geostationary/. That means that they are not stationary with respect to the Earth but are synchronised with its rotation (nominally passing over the same spot every eight hours, although the Earth’s orbit around the sun complicates that a little). The clue is there in the word.
about 9 months ago
I believe you mean macroevolution instead of microevolution.
about 9 months ago
Nope, I meant microevolution. To what are you referring. Maybe I can help clarify. Please elaborate. =)
about 9 months ago
Microevolution is small changes within a species (ie. new breeds of dogs) and Macroevolution is the change from a single-celled organism to a dog (or human), which is what you actually meant. It’s evolution on a greater scale, which is what you’re really trying to prove.
about 9 months ago
Not entirely. Your definitions seem accurate, but I’m not “really trying to prove” anything. There are people who deny all aspects of evolution, micro and macro. Granted, there are others who deny only macro, but genetic mutation in viruses doesn’t prove macroevolution. So, it wouldn’t be more reasonable to ask macroevolution deniers to give up vaccinations on the basis that the science behind vaccines depends on microevolution.
What do you think?
about 9 months ago
The definitions “micro” and “macro” are irrelevant and invented by creationists. It’s best not to use them since the only difference is an arbitrary line in time. It’s all “evolution.”
about 9 months ago
I wish that were true. I’m (obviously) not an evolution denier by any sense of the word, but the two definitions are not irrelevant, nor invented by creationists; though they are definitely used! I would ask you to read the TalkOrigins.com article on 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution.
Event just the first paragraph addresses the controversy:
Otherwise, yes; I feel that (in time) science will prove that the two terms actually mean the same thing and that a lot of microevolution + an arbitrary timeline leads to macroevolutionary changes in species. For now, that is still not the case.
about 9 months ago
Sorry Ian, you are incorrect about the macro/micro terms. Macro/microevolution are scientific terms which have fallen out of general use, but none-the-less are scientific terms with very specific definitions:
Microevolution is evolution within a species – i.e. after the evolution occurs you still have the same species, though-be-it slightly modified.
Macroevolution is evolution which occurs above the species level – i.e. after the evolution occurs you have a new species (or phylum/family/etc).
FWIW, both macroevolution and microevolution have been observed by scientists. Speciation (the “lowest” form of macroevoltuion) was first observed in 1905 of DeVries, and has been observed in nature and driven experimentally in the lab numerous times since.
The terms have fallen into disuse because they are arbitrary. The underlying mechanism is the same; they simply refer to amounts of evolution. Add to that the difficulty in defining what a species is, and you can see why we scientists no longer use the terms.
about 9 months ago
microevolution/macroevolution is a false dichotomy invented by Intelligent Design proponents to make it seem like they understand science when clearly they do not.
they claim that microevolution is possible because the changes are small, but macroevolution is not possible, because large changes that create a new species are not possible. given that “species” is clearly a human construct with no tangible basis in reality, and that all organisms exist on a spectrum of relatedness, it’s a stupid premise to say that one can happen and the other cannot. don’t pander to their bullshit by dignifying their made-up terms.
about 9 months ago
No, both micro & macroevolution are real terms with real meanings. Unfortunately, like any word that causes offense or discomfort to a person or group, it was twisted to be used in a wrong manner.
about 9 months ago
“implore”?
Do you mean “employ”?
about 9 months ago
Bashfully, no. I thought implore worked in the sentence. I looked it up and now I’m not so sure, so I changed it to “utilize”. Nice catch!
about 9 months ago
Interesting blog post Jay RG. This is my first time checking out this site and I found this piece to be thought-provoking. The subsequent blog comments about “word games” made me think about how each side of the debate uses language to advance an idea, and how it’s important to really think it through.
I’m a believer who thinks there is a creator, but I wouldn’t label myself a young-earth creationist (the earth is old) or ID, or don’t particularly have concerns with evolution. Even so, I still don’t think we can talk about time and chance without talking about information, and have some ideas from whence it came.
There is no doubt that technologies are a great benefit to us and can help us discern, to a certain degree, the truth from lies. But there is no doubt that technologies themselves were created or discovered by intelligent beings (i know, loaded word). So is it really that hard to imagine that our universe, our brains, our DNA, etc. has the same of even higher degree of sophistication than even our most brilliant inventions, and thus could have been created as well?
I just don’t find it that hard of a leap in logic to believe that all that we see was created by a mind rather than matter. There are limits to observation and experimentation (science), but we still have to test what may be revealed to us (religion), which is why we need to reflect (philosophy). I guess we are all “selective” of the clues that we want to use to advance a cause, and I’m not saying that any one side has all the answers. We all bring philosophical assumptions to the table because science and religion hasn’t given us all the pieces of the puzzle.
I guess what I’m saying essentially is that all we have a level of faith in that we have to base our conclusions on a limited amount of information. At the end of the day, you may decide not to believe in a creator, super mind, higher power etc. but I just don’t think it one can completely close the door on that possibility. May we all continue to grapple with these questions.
Thanks for giving me a chance to voice my opinion on your blog.