I find that it's not uncommon for Catholics to actually embrace the big bang theory (as opposed to just accept it).

I think maybe it's because the big bang has been historically supported by Catholics. In fact Georges Lemaitre, the originator of the big bang theory, was a catholic priest. Also pope Pius XII actively encouraged other catholics to accept the big bang theory, announcing that it did not conflict with Christianity. I know pope John Paul II supported it too.

When you hear people refute the big bang it's more of an extension of refuting evolution, as they somehow see the two somehow intertwined, as opposed to treating the big bang theory as a completely separate idea.

bookmarked for later.

One time I drew a ninja riding a dinosaur.

But did it actually happen?

Yes, yes it did.

And yea, Jesus did ride into Galilee on a great diplodocus, and with love in his heart did bless the newbord baby raptor, with water over his head.

Amen.

Yes, yes it did. I saw it. I didn't have a camera, so i drew it on a wall:

ahahaha you guys are hilarious. Clearly flyng spaghetti monster exist among us, but no dinosaurs.

I went with the cute ninja on a menacing dino instead of the menacing ninja (with cute stubby legs) on a cute dino.  Mine was throwing shuriken at cavemen, and didn't have a badass skull helm or glowing eyes.  I believe this one's a higher rank.

Either way, both methods prove the same point: dino ninjas are a real threat (and a real treat).

Nintendo has known this for a looooooooooooong time.

Look, we are all entitled to our own opinions and beliefs, but you do realize that Science doesn't PROVE anything, right?

It is one of the foremost truths in Science that it does not provide proof or final/permanent truth.

Also, although the theory of radiocarbon dating is interesting, there are several inherent problems with the process. The first of these problems is the fact that the original ratio of carbon and radioactive carbon is unknown. The second problem is that the possibility of contamination of the sample over time is quite high. The older the sample the higher the probability of contamination, in fact! What this means is that using carbon dating to date very old samples is really quite impractical given our current level of knowledge and technological capabilities.

The estimates we get from radiocarbon dating tend to line up with other evidence from the same sample quite well. We haven't found any fossils spectacularly out of line of the accepted record for decades, suggesting it is reliable.

Although impurities do affect it, radiocarbon dating (which is not the only method of radioisotope dating by the way) isn't going to be off by an order of magnitude like the OP is suggesting. It could be off by a few thousand years at a period of a million years ago, which doesn't affect the conclusions. The time period where it becomes unreliable is well before the dinosaur era.