Again, a poor understanding of the scientific method. The second that something is disproved once, it is then confirmed through peer review and cast aside as flawed. So if the scientific community found such a huge discrepancy with carbon dating, it would not be used at all.

Carbon dating isn't exact, but its inaccuracy doesn't manifest as mistaking something that's 16,000 years old as being 145 million years old. The older the object, the wider the range of age. So if you were to test something from the 14th century, your results would pin it down to being from 1305 to 1310 AD, a range of ten years. If you were to test something from 4000 BC, it would return a test result range of 4,000 BC to 3,500 BC, a range of 500 years. And if you were to test something from 65 million years ago, it would come back as between 65 and 64 million years old, a range of 1 million years. What you've described doesn't actually happen.

 

science is not about trust, if anything, its about not trusting it.

i've said it before, theories are their to be disproven, not proven...unlike ID which tries so hard to prove itself.

carbon dating and what not, they're all there because its the best we have. its accurate in some areas and not so accurate in other areas, that doesnt mean its putting out random numbers.
its actually shameful that creationists use similar carbon dating method and they stick to numbers that best fits their argument...as for plain science, there is no model that we try to stick to, every new information can support or not support the previous information.

 

Neither side has it 100% right or wrong. The sad thing is that we dont have a true way to test either theory as God is real or we were created by the big bang.

One day we will die, and then maybe find out, or maybe it will be blank, or maybe we will become another being, or maybe, or maybe, or maybe.

As long as our imaginations can conjure up thoughts and we can find a sliver of proof, there will always be a different thought on where we came from, why we are here, and where we are going.

Its funny to me that no one has brought up that maybe Aliens created us, and dropped us off here to be a test. Who knows right?

 

exactly. and like i said before there is no point in arguing with people about what feels right to them. some people need the facts/proof or attempts to get them, some people have faith and believe in a God. Everyone is different and requires different things to be convinced.

 

It isn't about what feels right. The difference is the coping mechanisms and how people understand something.

I got hurt, god punished me.
I got hurt, I made a mistake.

I am happy, I got married.
I am happy, God blessed me with this beautiful woman.

I just like to use coping mechanisms with reality, not some punishment or karma from some other guy. But whatever makes you a more calm and stable person best fits.

 

Already done, please go back and read posts on LHC, and Hawkins theory. Still waiting on your acceptance of the fact you were wrong, or your proof evolution does not exist.

 

I think you're going to be waiting a very long time.

 

I hate it when theists or agnostics refer to acceptance of science as a "belief."

Science is based on evidence, religion is based on faith. One requires belief, the other demands proof.

 

I find this funny because if it is a matter of FAITH, why do you want to prove you are right? (using science, no less) Wouldn't that no longer require FAITH? It would just be fact.

You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either you dismiss rational, scientific proof all together on Faith or you undermine yourself by trying to prove it. The very fact you are trying to PROVE something based on FAITH, invalidates that very notion of faith.

Pick one an stick to it please.

 

 

 

my goal is not to prove one wrong but explain why something doesn't work for me.


and i say belief because it's YOUR belief as to how this universe works. the term belief is relative to the person. belief for me is faith in a higher being, belief to you is science fact. i "believe" God is the truth. you "believe" science holds the answers or will attempt to find the answers.

just because i say belief does not mean i am referring to your "faith".

also show me how science has disproven God? it's not irrational to believe in God until you can disprove his existence.

 

science hasnt disproved god, it only conflicted with the church's view on god.

 

^^^

This bears repeating.

Can't we just let people believe what they believe as long as it doesn't harm anyone else?

 

yeah, so it doesn't make having faith in a supreme being irrational.