Message from @Noctah
Discord ID: 544925762952888330
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"
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?
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>
@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
in fact your first look observation is what you just said
I guess one have you has seen time bend before
if your the one denying something you provide the evidence
Try to split some matter
@shadowlessnexusi did
you saying stuff isnt evidence
"well its a pile of rocket" have a high margin of error for sure
These guys say 1971 and 1984 do not exist
@shadowlessnexus I cited scientific journals
you are saying that 1 inaccuracy means the entire science is worthless