[NIump50]

Originally posted by cbfoulds

Last I heard big bang is a theory, evolution is a theory and it is impossible to prove the accuracy of carbon dating.
Since you are the resident "expert" in physics, can you please tell us all the difference between scientific theory and fact.
I suggest you pull out your high school freshman science book and read it over a few times so as to avoid misquoting. [/B]

Here is the mis-use of language; and it is yours, not mc's:
When scientists use the word "theory", they DO NOT use it as you and other "young earthers" are prone to do when "refuting" the "theory" of the big bang, evolution, and other scientific principles. Gravity is also a "theory" according to the scientists. As soon as you can experimentally drop a hammer and have it hit the ceiling, rather than the floor: come talk to us about "it's only a theory". Relativity [E=mC2] is also a "theory": I am sure that the folks in Hiroshima are glad to know that their city was flattened at the end of WWII by "only a theory". The accuracy of carbon dating [and remember, being scientists, they admit to a window of uncertainty: "10,000 yrs b.c.e, plus or minus ..." XYZ years] has been amply demonstrated [and in some cases made more precise] by comparison with tree-ring and historical evidence.

To the TOPIC of this misbegotten thread: the "theory" of the "rising fastball" has been disproven/debunked both experimentally [what you PERCIEVE is not experimental evidence, by the way, any more than what you believe: the only thing that counts is what you can demonstrate and measure in repeatable experiments] and mathematically/ logically. Which, by the way, is what separates scientific facts/ "theories" from ignorant blind "faith" in cherished myths [like, for instance, the "rising fastball" and the "8,000 year old earth"]: when science discovers that there is evidence which cannot be reconciled with theory, they admit that there is something wrong with the theory, and go looking for the answer/ solution. When mythologists are presented with evidence which disproves their beliefs, they insist that there is something wrong with the evidence, and go looking for nothing, since God, Bishop Usher, or Roger Clemens has already passed down the "truth".

RANT OFF!!
[/B][/QUOTE]

If I misused the scientific meaning of theory I apologize.
Sorry

You said:

Gravity is also a "theory" according to the scientists

Yes, but not in the way you're trying to pass it off.

Actually there is a universal law of gravity, and when you talk about a hammer falling down insead going to the roof you're actually referring to the law of gravity. The generalized theory of gravity that Einstien tried to prove was an attempt to combine the universal law of gravity with mathematics and be able to quantify gravity.
He failed.
Are the reast of your theoritical 'facts' presented just as clumsily?
What is the difference between a scientific fact and theory, surely they are not interchangeable words like you just used in the post.
To my knowledge it's impossible to prove the accuracy of carbon dating on something supposedly a million years old.
To know for sure you have to have an item that is irrufatably a million years old, which we don't have and perform the test to see if the test is accurate. It's one thing to carbon test a 200 year old tree, you can match the results up against other measures of time. I think there is a big difference between a 200 yr old tree and a million yr old fossil. I would think there would be a few more variables to consider and some we may not even be aware, consequently without absolute certainty of the age or another form of measurement to help support the result it's still theoritical results. The fact that the results support your theoritical bent does not make it anymore or less a fact.
There's no way for you to prove big bang, it's just the best explanation you can come up with to avoid creation.
Big bang is pure theory at best.
The FACT that millions have been duped doesn't make it more or less so.
You and the rest of the scientific world have to work real hard to get from nothing, I said nothing, to the formation of this galaxy to a living organism on this planet to the evolution of this enlightened race.
BTW as smart as we are, why hasn't science been able to create life just like the big bang did? All of our technological know how and we can't duplicate what random matter that somehow was floating around did what 4 billion years ago. I'll make you a deal, when science creates something out of nothing OR creates life from dust I'll seriously consider your myth.
In the meantime, why don't you go visit your cousins at the zoo and teach them the proper mechanics of beating their chest. You seem to have it down pat.