“I’ve heard all that [from TalkOrigins], I’m a big science buff.”
And by ‘science buff’ you mean you’ve read the creationist sites that describe how science disproves evolution, huh? Remember a few strategic factoids and think you’re better at the science than the people who actually do it.
“Although I doubt you will find the evidence to support those theories in a forum.”
Well, no, because when the evidence IS presented the creationists either discount it completely (“But that’s not evolution!”) or insist on misinterpreting it (“Carbon Dating isn’t proven to be accurate!”). You know, lies.
“Out of the many arguments, carbon dating is what’s most referred to.”
Can you cite numbers, please?
“However, Carbon 14... has a trusted accuracy of just over 10,000 years (kind of funny about that huh?)”
No, nothing funny about it at all.
“And it is 'assumed' accurate up to 50,000 years.”
No, it’s not assumed.
We can date things by other means and compare those results to the C14 results. That’s HOW we came to understand C14 dating, and how we came to establish how trustworthy it is.
For example, we can find a log cabin we know when it was built, carbon date it, and the results are consistent.
“If you hear of carbon dating into millions of years, you are”
You are reading a creationist site.
"Even still, nobody can prove carbon dating to be accurate...”
Look up consilience. Dating methods that overlap tend to give consistent results. If they’re not accurate, they’re all inaccurate to the same degree in the same direction.
“[And] I am quite well aware of the meaning of Theory. Maybe you should try to learn it.”
Could you tell us, here, what a scientist means by the word ‘theory’? I doubt it, since this HAS to be in response to you being called out for misusing the term (Probably in all caps, “It’s just a THEORY!”). So, no, you probably do not.
Science Buff with a thumb up your buff.
