Time?

I have a question for all of you at the site. Evolutionists refuse to involve creationism into science. Then why is B.C (before Christ) used to describe a period of time? Isn't time a dimension therefore making it scientific theory?

Jar was posting this message while I was releasing the thread. I'll let Jar decide if he wants to return this to PNT. --AdminIt's the year 5766.It's the year 1426.Calendars are purely arbitrary. Before your thread could be promoted, it really needs some work.Calendars have nothing to do with either science or time itself.Can you take another look at your opening post and edit it so that there is some continuity or point of discussion?For example, you might ask why the Gregorian Calendar gained acceptance over other calendars.But it you wish somehow to link it to either the Creation-Evolution debate or science, you'll need to make some connection clear.This message has been edited by Admin, 01-23-2006 05:02 PM

---

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

Hi, Thenders!BC and AD are used because it got to be the custom to do so in Europe, and Europeans overran most of the world.Why do you think the days of the week are named like they are? Monday (or lunes in Spanish or Montag in German), and Friday (viernes/Freitag) seem to be Moon Day and Freya's or Venus's Day. Why is that? Because Christians in Europe are Moon or Love Goddess worshippers?This message has been edited by Coragyps, 01-23-2006 05:07 PM

so when scientist refer to dinosaurs living in whatever B.C. then they are saying they lived before christ?

they use bce now. it means 'before common era'.many people still use bc because it's convenient. it's really silly, however, to arbitrarily divide the calender by something so insignificant as a mythological 'messiah's' lifetime instead of, say, the origin of the roman empire or something meaningful. but then that's gregory for you. and why haven't we changed the calendar? cause guess how confusing it would be. the french changed their calendar after the beheadings. it was quickly abandoned when the monarchy returned. i'm sure no one mourned the new system.

By many millions of years before the arbitary date that we have assigned to be the dividing line.Another commone designation is BPE, Before Present Era, but that requires that you also know when the statement is made. In most cases that doesn't much matter. If I say that the dinosaurs disappeared 65 million years BPE it doesn't much matter if I'm making that statement in 2006 or the day Christ was born. Sixty-five million years 2000 years is still awhile ago.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

It's not. The scientific community, which unites members of many different cultures and traditions, uses "BCE" and "CE", which are pegged to the Christian calender most familiar to speakers of English, the language in which the majority of scientific discourse occurs. This is done so that the least number of people are forced to make conversions between the scientific calendar and the calender dating system that they themselves are most familiar with. Huh? I don't understand. Are you trying to say that, because scientists use a calender that pegs Year 1 to the same date their culture does, that makes the existence of Jesus a scientific theory? I don't understand how that commutation is supposed to work.

Carbon-14 dating, which doesn't get back as far as dinosaurs, is all referred to 1950 AD, which I suppose you could call "the third year of Coragyps' life" just as easily. That year was picked because 1) it was right around the time that C-14 dating was invented and 2) it was before all the above-ground atom-bomb tests that added boucoups of man-made carbon-14 to our atmosphere. About as arbitrary as BC/AD, but it hasn't caught on with those of us whose lives span the before/after split.Astronomers use Julian Day for some purposes, too: that's consecutively numbered days since someone's guess at the beginning of the Earth in the Roman mythical context. Today is JD 2,453,759.What about those days of the week?

Actually, in describing dinosaurs, or any ancient geology/astronomy, scientists use mya - million years ago.

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

I was surprised to see the other answers to this. Maybe my memory is playing tricks on me, but I don't recall articles I've read about dinosaurs giving ages relative to BC. I'm accustomed to seeing the designation MYA for Millions of Years Ago. Just doing a random browse around the net I see sentences like this:

• "Lucy lived 3.2 million years ago"
• "Homo neanderthalis lived 230,000-28,000 years ago"
• "The newly identified bird, about the size of a goldfinch, lived 115 million years ago, during the Cretaceous period when dinosaurs ruled the earth."

In fact, Googling dinosaurs bc doesn't bring up anything on the first page that references the age of dinosaurs to BC except at this creationist page: Dinosaurs and the BibleSo the short answer to your question asking why scientists refer to dinosaurs living in whatever BC: they don't.--Percy

The question is a little amusing.I have seen Christians take offense when scientists and historians use BCE and CE to identify their dates. Apparently some take it as a snub against christianity, if the references to Christ are avoided when expressing dates.

If you are going to use that phrase, then you can prove it?

as you assume that the word myth means false.no, i'll just watch you get angry.

Thenders Time is a dimension by which we measure relative movement through space. Using B.C orA.D is no more nor less scientific than you jotting a note reminding yourself of an appointment and using the terms A.M. or P.M.
And as Percy has pointed out the use of B.C. as pertains to the dinosaurs is not to be found in most any place you care to look.This message has been edited by sidelined, Wed, 2006-01-25 10:14 AM