THE END OF THE WORLD

[Duckmeister]

There is a such thing as carbon dating.

Completely inaccurate, sorry.  I'd take the time to explain exactly how carbon dating works, but let's just say it's based on a variety of assumptions that are not always true.  You can actually date different parts of a reconstructed animal and get different datings.

This website cites its own sources, so click them.
http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/bigbang.htm

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/bigbangredux.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background_radiation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

http://records.viu.ca/~johnstoi/essays/courtenay1.htm

I can find much more, but I'm short on time at the moment.

Please read the second sentence of my post you quoted:

And please don't try the "here's a fossil, IT MUST BE 8 BILLION YEARS OLD" tactic for providing "evidence".  The "8 billion years" is the interpretation, not the evidence.

[Ad Bot]

[Inv3rted]

I did read it. And you obviously did not click on and read the sources I provided. Keep your bias out of the quick skimming next time, eh?

[Rughugger]

I've noted that in all of the links you provided they still call it a "theory" not a fact. A theory is still not valid as there is not enough evidence to support it. And as I said in my post, until we build a time machine, we will never know what happened, only guess.

[Inv3rted]

I've noted that in all of the links you provided they still call it a "theory" not a fact. A theory is still not valid as there is not enough evidence to support it. And as I said in my post, until we build a time machine, we will never know what happened, only guess.

Let me define "theory" for you, and all of the others in the world who do not know what it means. There is a common misconception, and this needs to be fixed.

Theory:
# S: (n) theory (a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena) "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses"; "true in fact and theory"

# S: (n) hypothesis, possibility, theory (a tentative insight into the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena) "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices"

From: http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=theory

[TicTac]

Completely inaccurate, sorry.  I'd take the time to explain exactly how carbon dating works, but let's just say it's based on a variety of assumptions that are not always true.  You can actually date different parts of a reconstructed animal and get different datings.

Please read the second sentence of my post you quoted:

Well, listen here. Stop trying to reject the truth and substitute your own. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dating

[Rughugger]

Theory:
# S: (n) hypothesis, possibility, theory (a tentative insight into the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena)

Which is exactly what I just stated. But it's still unproven. If all theory was accepted as fact, then we'd still not have photographs, television as it was popular belief for a while (still is among some tribes in Africa or South America) that taking pictures would steal a person's soul.

[ultimamax]

Oh no! Soon they'll begin making "meteor repellant" or something. Or "apocalypse repellant". (Soz for bad spelling, I am tired.)
I heard they made a lazer with the power of a star, (not sure though) it can crack through meteors. If this is true, we'll be fine, let alone if ths bullcrap is true. So the Mayans got bored of making calenders. Oh no. Scary.

[Inv3rted]

Which is exactly what I just stated. But it's still unproven. If all theory was accepted as fact, then we'd still not have photographs, television as it was popular belief for a while (still is among some tribes in Africa or South America) that taking pictures would steal a person's soul.

Read the other definition as well. Just because it isn't fully verified does not mean there is not a lot of evidence for it. For it to be called a scientific theory, experiments have to support it along with evidence. You don't just call any idea a theory, such as Creationism.

[BlockBuilderMan_2]

I've noted that in all of the links you provided they still call it a "theory" not a fact. A theory is still not valid as there is not enough evidence to support it. And as I said in my post, until we build a time machine, we will never know what happened, only guess.

There's stuffloads more evidence then there is of intelligent design. Let's see - some loving entity came from nothing, created the world in 7 days, created everything instantly the way it is now, and now is in a magical skypalace where the good little girls and boys go when they die.

Right.

The biggest problem I have is the "loving" part. Christians love to boast about how much "Jesus Loves You". The Crusades spread love by raping and pillaging the Middle East. How many died for love in the English Civil War? How many still die in Ireland in the friendly little lovespreading between the Cathliocs and the Protestants? Do you think picketing solider's funerals (most of them Christians themselves) to spread your completey loving views on how people are dying because the loving entity doesn't like people having gay love or something? Do you think Fred Phelps loves the "cigarettes" he preaches against? Do you really think the loving entity cares how people worship him? If the loving entity loves us all so much, why does he let us die for the most forgeted up reasons imaginable? Why did my grandfather die, if Jesus the Almighty loves us all, when all he did was good? All in all, it's total bullstuff.

[Randomguy]

Completely inaccurate, sorry.  I'd take the time to explain exactly how carbon dating works, but let's just say it's based on a variety of assumptions that are not always true.  You can actually date different parts of a reconstructed animal and get different datings.

The problem with saying carbon dating is wrong is that there are a plethora of other dating methods that agree with it.

[Duckmeister]

Well, listen here. Stop trying to reject the truth and substitute your own. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dating

And if you read the article you'll see exactly why carbon dating is inaccurate and unusable.  Thanks for agreeing with me.

# S: (n) theory (a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena) "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses"; "true in fact and theory"

You do realize that years ago the accepted knowledge was that all objects had a certain substance in them which allowed them to burn.  You do realize that years ago the accepted knowledge was that everything revolved around the earth, all while Christians (not Catholics) like Copernicus and Kepler said that everything revolved around the sun.

# S: (n) hypothesis, possibility, theory (a tentative insight into the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena) "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices"

Yay!  But wait a minute, look at the underlined.  Exactly which experiments did evolution pass here?  Looks like even evolution can't be a theory according to your own definition.  Nice one.


Hey, let's call it a night.  It's pretty late out where I'm at, I'll see you all tomorrow.

[Inv3rted]

Hey, let's call you out on ignorance. There have been experiments in evolution. See Darwin's work. Get a loving education.

[block dude]

We all die tomorrow. Start panicking.

ah omg we r die spam the world, kill turtles, play roblox becuz u never tried it, AAAAAHHHHHHHHH!L!!!O!!!L!!!Z!!!O!!!M!!!G!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11!!!!one!!!!onehundredeleven!!!


do not do this ^^^^   Guys! we cant predict something this big!

[BlockBuilderMan_2]

And if you read the article you'll see exactly why carbon dating is inaccurate and unusable.  Thanks for agreeing with me.

Got something better? Too bad your priests are too busy loving little boys and praying to help. And if you had read the article, it says the average uncertaintity is 335 years (if I read it correctly).

...the average width of the uncertainty of calibrated dates was found to be 335 years, although in well-behaved regions of the calibration curve the width decreased to about 113 years while in ill-behaved regions it increased to a maximum of 801 years...

It's clear you didn't actually read the article.

[Lil Robot]

Look at his profile.
He's probably like 5 or 6 not sharing his age, and judging by his profile.