It is brutally obvious that you lack any understanding of science and you tell me that I am scientifically illiterate.[As usual you can provide only insults.
Did you expect me to praise you?
I am not disputing the science.Look, you've come out and said that you alone dispute the science on decay rates and carbon dating.
I am telling you that you do not understand it and that carbon dating has limitations with increasing levels of experimental error when attempting dating that exceed the half life
Try this in google & learn something
https://www.google.ca/search?q=what....69i57j0l5.14809j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
No I am neutral on climate changeIts just like your stance on climate change, where you refuse to accept the science based on your own personal 'feelings'.
What I do not accept is a moron telling me my neutral position is not permitted
My "feelings" tell me that you are not honest or trustworthy & every statement you make has an odor about it.
No I proved you do not understand simple weighted averages, isotopes, carbon is an organic material (that one cracked me up) ,sources of experimental error, half lives, confidence levels, scientific mythology vs scientific consensus or what a scientific conclusion is.For someone who claims to have a science education, you appear to only be able to argue only with insults.
I also proved you lack any morals and that you have no issues with accusing a scientist of "shoddy work" when you do not understand her work at all.
Yet you could/ would not explain any specifics about what was "shoddy' and instead attacked her character
That is just as wrong as wrong gets
You have an agenda, do not have a clue, you are using the word "science" as a propaganda tool and you have no shame.
That is is despicable