/sci/ - Science & Math

no science is exact

>>8560664
It's exact in that we know exactly how inexact it is.

>>8560664
No, scientists use it because it's inexact.

>>8560664
>Is it an exact science?
That depends on what your idea of "exact" is. Within a year? A month? a Millennium?

But I get where you're wanting to go. That' it isn't precise (enough) to enable scientists to use the results in a meaningful way. And that's where you're very wrong, and being disingenuous about the question.

>>8560664
exact enough to invalidate any kind of young earth creationist narrative, that's for sure

>>8561157
You don't even need carbon dating for that, you also have U/Ld, K/Ar or Sm/Nd radiometric dating, as well as other methods like fission track.

>>8561177
correct, but young earth creationists only know about carbon dating so the rest are meaningless

>>8561179

>>8561186
They do know carbon dating should only be used on formerly living things right?

>>8562681
They don't really care.

>>8562687
So, they think they can disprove a tool byusing it incorrectly? Okay then, I guess hammers are useless because they don't paint my wall very well?

>>8562691
They work on cargo-cult rules. If we act like scientists, we can make assertions and have as much credibility as they do. Just look at this guy, in the stereotypical "scientist" getup.

>>8562696
That's really not how it works, but if it makes them happy? Whatever, so long none of this doesn't get published in a serious journal.

>>8562700
Half the working population over here supports this stuff.

If I remember correctly, a major creationist organization got mad at a blogger and wrote a whole article trying to refute him, but the blogger made a rebuttal.

>>8562720
I'd simply say:
>Religion is like a penis; loads of people have one, but you don't ram it down other people's throats or into children.

>>8562748
But that's the thing. They think science itself is a form of (or at least based on) belief.

It is a exact science, but it is an approximation precise enough to give us useful information and guide us to the right conclusions

>>8560664
>Carbon dating

Omfg. Carbon dating is bullshit if you are looking for something beyond purely physical, and I've tried tinder and fucking blendr. even those are better because you dont get all the lies and confusion from who you're meeting up with. as an anecdote, I flipped through this girls profile and she looked pretty sexy. I asked her age and she responded in how many MeV she emits electrons at and trying to give me official readings (which she had legitimate documents for) confirming her test results. I'm trying to get my dick wet as fast as possible, not calculate the persons current age based on how much energy they emit. Needless to say I decided to ignore all the bullshit cuz she still looked hot in her picture and she turned out to be AT LEAST 60 years old. not kidding. Why you would use that piece of shit hook up app is beyond me. just...just dont.