@Reaper So your answer is "wE cAnT kNoW!!!!"

@Victortze I like good jokes

How about an estimate?

A gut feeling?

@Noctah so you do know then?

A spiritual awakening in your ear?

if only you can understand one

@Reaper So? If you had to guess, how old is it?

@felldie1496 Now I am

@Noctah well I was born in 85 had no conciousness before that so I'd guess, older than 34

@Z-Man (soon to be Y A) Dude, thanks for the info about mouse utopia. it blowed my mind

Right, so basically your whole argument is "I don't trust the established science, but I have absolutely no alternative to any of the science proposed, I just don't trust it, because cucks, amirite?"

That's not an argument.

I appreciate the skepticism, but it's not enough to carry you through a fucking argument

@Noctah my argument was carbon dating is inaccurate I am actually a huge fan of science, like the testable repeatable and falsifiable kind

Always doubt the established science, for sure. Always look for clearer answers. But you literally have no other theories or propositions

Not speculation

Oh, so it's "the current method is flawed, but no other method exist right now to prove me right"

@Noctahthats not how science works but ok

Well, rephrase your argument yourself then

What are you saying?

hes saying something

okay let's make it blunt" there's no such thing as accurate science"

Again carbon dating is inaccurate. That is all

or you never heard of margin of error?

@Victortze I agree

so your entire argument is pointless

@Reaper So that's what the whole fuss is about? Damn, boy, why'd you pick a fight over this? Where does the fucking wax candles come into play?

because science is not about being 100% accurate

@Victortze yea but can you agree once a margin becomes too big you are just guessing?

@Reaper as long as you know the margin its not

I don't know enough about carbon dating to say if it's accurate or not, but I certainly know that the scientific institution has many, many corrupted branches. But since I ain't the one making the science, I can't exactly disprove anything and won't pick a fight about it. Isn't that a fair position? @Reaper

@Victortze so if we were looking at something weighted 1-10 wit a 9 point margin of error you'd call that accuracy?

@shadowlessnexus <:GWqlabsKek:393085130219978752>

@Noctah I respect your position it is logical

@Reaper no, we call it science, I thought we already established science is not accurate?

@Reaper Then why don't you adopt something similar and spare the rest of us from your sperging?

@Reaper your effectively arguing on nothing now

E=mc^2 isn't accurate either, but it is pretty fucking close

Smh

@Baron Doom evidence