9/12/2013 1:41 PM
badluck bis got the best of you twice there, first bc he is right and you are close minded and second bc he point out you are as much an idiot as he is which is pretty big idiot.

you are both annoying but badluck you good to make me laugh by saying something stupid and I know you will not let me down now.
9/12/2013 1:43 PM
Yes, you are.

You're essentially saying, I keep an open mind. The science used to determine that the earth is round is suspect. I don't just go with the popular opinion. I'm not convinced the earth is round so I'd say it's equally as likely to be flat.

Idiot.
9/12/2013 1:45 PM
From what i know about things - carbon dating only goes back a couple of hundred years. The rest is theory. 

There is just as much evidence that the earth is 10,000 years old as it is 200 million years old. None

"Science" has to be 1. observable 2. repeatable.  This debate can not be solved by saying "science" has ruled on the subject.

9/12/2013 2:12 PM
The science used to show the earth is round isn't suspect at all. It's easy not only to observe the spherical shape of the earth from space (as we have done on multiple occasions) but also to mathematically show the same through something as simple as noting the lengths of shadows, which was done thousands of years ago.

Contrast that with the idea of radiocarbon dating, which requires several assumptions to be true for it to be anywhere close to what might be called "accurate" - and those assumptions can't be proven and in some cases aren't even reasonable.

My point is this:

If the science to support something is indisputable, then there is no reason for me (or anyone) to bother disputing it unless or until we have a real reason to do so, i.e.  "the earth is round".

However, on the other side of the coin, if the science is in dispute and there are reasons to question it, then I keep an open mind because I know how to think critically and independently, i.e. carbon dating is a MUCH weaker scientific principle than "the earth is round".

Then again, that's something you just don't get: Not every theory touted by mainstream scientists has equal weight. Many are questioned, and some are outright disputed by other scientists.

You're free to believe what you want, but if you want to label anyone who questions or disputes a mainstream theory as an "idiot", then every discerning scientist is an "idiot" many times in his professional career.

Do you just not get this stuff, or do you actually get it but you're just trolling? I honestly have to ask that, because if you're not just trolling, you calling anyone an "idiot" is like a slow child calling his normal adult teachers stupid.

9/12/2013 3:04 PM
Posted by micki on 9/12/2013 1:45:00 PM (view original):
From what i know about things - carbon dating only goes back a couple of hundred years. The rest is theory. 

There is just as much evidence that the earth is 10,000 years old as it is 200 million years old. None

"Science" has to be 1. observable 2. repeatable.  This debate can not be solved by saying "science" has ruled on the subject.

Carbon dating is just one type. It dates stuff as old as 60,000 years. There are several other types of radiometric dating that can date samples several billion years old.
9/12/2013 3:42 PM
Science also learns new things all the time, and can only make educated guesses at many things, which are sometimes later proven to be wrong.
9/12/2013 3:54 PM
The half life of an isotope isnt something being guessed about.
9/12/2013 5:06 PM
sorry, i was stoned during most of sophmore year of high school.  it was not till college that i learned that girls did not pee out of their butts (true story)
9/13/2013 8:28 AM
The half life of an isotope isnt something being guessed about.

I already listed several assumptions upon which radiocarbon dating is based.

Either you have a real problem with reading comprehension and retention, or you deliberately ignore all the evidence which proves you wrong until someone repeats it multiple times. You've done this on many occasions, and I have to believe it's the latter.

I'm not playing that game of having to repeat every argument 20 times before you admit it exists.
sorry, i was stoned during most of sophmore year of high school.  it was not till college that i learned that girls did not pee out of their butts (true story)

LOL

Well if I explained to BL how that worked, he wouldn't acknowledge I'd said anything until I told him 20 times, and then if he believed otherwise, he'd be stubborn and never relent anyway.
9/13/2013 9:43 AM
Those assumptions were refuted. There are no assumptions made when you fix the mistakes the RATE experimenters made.
9/13/2013 10:21 AM
LOL

The assumptions aren't based on one experiment but on the process of radiocarbon dating itself.

You simply alleged a mistake was made in an experiment. Even if that were true, that doesn't somehow "refute" the assumptions, which are absolutely necessary for radiocarbon dating as a process, no matter what errors may or may not have been made in any given individual experiment.

Nice try though.

9/13/2013 10:24 AM
You know that no one is dating carbon, right? It's only used to date things younger than 60,000 years.
9/13/2013 10:46 AM
who cares? both of you STFU

badluck you have not proven bis wrong you just spout a whole bunch of crap that sound good but really means nothing

bis you have not proven badluck wrong you just keep arguing with him bc you must enjoy it well others don't so please stop

9/13/2013 11:01 AM
SF the difference is I'm not trying to prove BL wrong.  I'm just saying I'm not making a decision on the issue because I don't think the information is there to make it, and he is the one with the problem.
9/13/2013 11:18 AM
I don't have a problem. I'm just pointing out that you're dumb.
of 358

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.