Then the assumptions we made about the safety of nuclear reactors are invalid. They could go critical at any time and there is no guarantee the cooling systems will be able to control the heat generated.
Carbon dating LOL, say hi to the tooth fairy for me. That is not science either, pure garbage. The rate of decay is unpredictable, no one knows how old the earth is. Fantasy of fantasies is carbon dating.
Your abject ignorance is showing. Carbon dating has an upper limit of about 50,000 years. It is not used to date fossils or the age of the earth.
Why don't you actually learn some science before you go trashing it? You only make yourself look silly with these posts that are so laughably wrong.
There are some good links explaining carbon 14 dating on my FR home page. And if you have any legitimate questions, I would be glad to answer them for you -- I use carbon 14 dating extensively in my work as an archaeologist.
Oh for crying out loud!
Carbon 14 dating is good for about 60,000 years. Beyond that other methods of dating have to be used, including the radioactive decay rates of isotopes of uranium.
Look, it's 100% clear that you hate, despise, loathe and detest the very idea of science. You are therefore 100% DISQUALIFIED from defining what IS and IS NOT science.
Crawl back in your cave.
” That is not science either, pure garbage. “
The issue is not whether it is ‘science’ the issue is whether it is TRUE. Is it?
“The rate of decay is unpredictable,”
Why do you say that?
C14 is different ratios in different situations? Why?
If you dont know, why do you dispute the standard explanation?
” no one knows how old the earth is.”
If you dont know, why no go with this evidence as the best estimate (4b years)?
“Fantasy of fantasies is carbon dating.”
There are other radioactive decay mechanisms as well. Do you disagree with ALL forms of radioactive decay based dating? Why?