/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>53954756
Alright /pol/ tard /q/ incel back to your shitty containment board

>>53954756
The Earth is approximately 4 billion years old, not "4 gajillion".

>>53954785
actually it's 4000000003 years old because it was estimated to be 4 billion 3 years ago

>>53954785
Actually "4 gajillion" is just or more vague way of saying "approximately 4 billion" you good goy pseud.

>>53954818
Yes, but it's also a way to ridicule large numbers based on the assumption that anything that you can't intuitively comprehend is somehow "not real".

>>53954843
>twisting the truth is only okay WHEN I DO IT!!!!!
You retards never fail to amuse me.

>>53954863
How am I twisting the truth?

>>53954868
Your little lie right here, that you even admitted was a lie >>53954785
Do you have brain damage? I sure hope it isn't contagious.

>>53954883
Where did I admit that it was a lie?

>>53954756
Righties think that just because they can't understand it, that it isn't true.

I'm not even some left leaning reddit fag, but has it ever occurred to you guys that you might be anti-intellectual?

>>53954894
Right here, sir >>53954818
You acknowledge that me correcting your falsehood is not only right, but you implied you knew all along what you said was not true and you lied for the sake of your argument.

>>53954756
She was about to take heckin maternity leave then Elon took over!one
https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/06/tech/elon-musk-twitter-employees-year-of-uncertainty/index.html

>>53954934
meant >>53954843

>>53954934
"Gajillion" is not a real number, thus I didn't say "it is not that number" to later admit "actually, it is that number". I said that the intent of saying "gajillion" is to ridicule the idea that anything could be 4 billion years old due to the fact that 4 billion is just "too big to be real".

>>53954928
>IF YOU DISAGREE WITH ME YOU'RE CHUD-WINGERS INSTEAD OF FAG-WINGER LIKE ME

>>53954785
>Carbon dating

>>53954756
we know the earth is 4 gajillion years old because our LORD Darwin died for our factual inaccuracies on mount galapagos, and he tells us this in his holy scripture On the Origin of Species. Hallelujah, anon

>>53954756
Isotoic dating is a pretty straightforward method. Even an idiot like you could understand if he took a couple of hours to read on it.

>>53955079
>geologists and earth scientists are fake news

Back to Facebook for you, little guy.

>>53954963
>"Gajillion" is not a real number, thus I didn't say "it is not that number" to later admit "actually, it is that number"
Does not matter, the status of "gajillion" being a real number or not is irrelevant. You said it was "not '4 gajillion,'" which is factually untrue if you want to stress semantics, which is what you were originally doing.
>I said that the intent of saying "gajillion" is to ridicule the idea that anything could be 4 billion years old due to the fact that 4 billion is just "too big to be real".
Now you are arguing that you said something factually incorrect to ridicule the OP for ridiculing a scientific estimation you subscribe to. Ironic, no?

>>53955382
My meaning of "it's not 4 gajillion" was not "it is not the number to which '4 gajillion' is memetically related", but "disproving that it is 4 billion through using a silly-sounding word for it is a fallacy".

>>53955374
>YOU'RE STILL DISAGREE WITH ME?
>FOX NEWS MUCH?

>>53955402
Your personal intent is irrelevant. If you are going to argue semantics, you should first understand the meaning of the words you use.

>>53955484
The semantics are correct as far as they go, but not unambiguous, thus we heard two different meanings.

>>53955519
No. You said the OP message of "4 gajillion" was incorrect and that the proper age of the earth was "approximately 4 billion." This of course is incorrect following current estimations of the earth's age, as both would be correct. You were simply specifying the earth's estimated age. If you want to argue the author's intent, then don't word it as if you were arguing the message's meaning. You are a fool among fools.

>>53955644
>You were simply specifying the earth's estimated age.
I was, but what I was saying was "using a different label does not make the underlying fact false", not "the fact is false". But yes, it is not clear in most languages which of the two you mean.

>>53955685
Alright retard, I'm done talking about this but since I am a very magnanimous and handsome I'm going to give you some insider info you don't deserve:
This is a shitty bait slide thread, people like op have been tricking midwit redditors like you into fighting over mainstream science for years. The reality is that unless you are a scientist yourself, you can't have an constructive argument about this. You aren't educating the heathens, you're just a useful idiot.

>>53955759
>This is a shitty bait slide thread
I know. It features of basedjak and some provocative bullshit.

>>53954756
Carbon data is a hoax. All atoms have the same age, since they were all created at the same time. How come a "dinosaur" bone is dated as having 65million years old while the Da Vinci shroud is only close to 700 years old? New specific atoms were created just a few centuries ago to make this shroud? That's complete and utter bullshit. but hey, science says it's true and you must believe them because why would they lie, you retarded flat-earther? Carbon data is just another way satanists have to perpetuate evolution and big bang lies

>>53956266
Based

>>53954785
>cohen-14 dating

I don't see a problem with idiots like OP believing that the earth is flat and 100 years old. It's not like they're gonna be flying planes, operating radars, or any other expensive equipment. Simpletons like him need simple information fit to their small brains to handle. Trying to educate them is like feeding complex data to a machine that can only read binary code. It's purposeless and a waste of time.

>>53956944
Go back to Quora, now

>>53954785
don't fall for it.

>>53957114
actual schizoid

>>53957114
The moon is an artificial satellite positioned there by ayyyylmaos. This is super obvious if you consider the facts. The chances of it being otherwise are near zero. Also the chances of alien life having reached earth by now is practically 100% according to Fermi paradox. It's all quite obvious if you follow the math and let normie preconceptions stay in the trash where they belong.

>>53954756
Not biz related