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.