Young Earth Creationism Vs. Science (Statler Waldorf Contd)

[Thor]

This just demonstrates your youthful idealism concering the infallibility of scientists.

Have you ever had a tetanus shot? If so, I guess that demonstrates your idealism concerning the infallibility of scientists. Same goes if you have ever taken an aspirin. Or flown in a plane.

I do not believe scientists are infallible. They can get things wrong. And it is OTHER SCIENTISTS who expose bad science. So, I'll throw my lot in with the 99.5% of scientists who conclude that the Earth is over 4 billion years old. You can join the handful of kooks who want to believe in an Earth that is only a few thousand years old.

First of all, trying to refute work that has been peer-reviewed wtih an non-reviewed article is pretty lame.

Oh, so your conclusion that C-14 in coal and diamonds is evidence of a young Earth has been "peer reviewed"? Because that is what I was referring to. I am not refuting the work that found C-14 in coal and diamonds. What's "pretty lame" is twisting around my meaning. And in case you didn't notice, the article I referenced listed numerous sources.

I must also mention that YECs like you normally dismiss C-14 dating as being "unreliable". But here you want to use it as evidence of what you want to believe. If you're using it here, then you must also accept it as valid. In which case, C-14 dating is evidence that the planet is much more than just a few thousand years old. So which is it? Is C-14 dating valid or not?

Secondly, arguing for contamination that was never observed is not scientific.

Things don't need to be directly observed in order for us to make a reasonable conclusion as to what happened. You find a large boulder lying at the base of a cliff. No one saw the boulder fall. Is it reasonable to conclude that the boulder fell from the cliff above? Or should we think a deity placed it there?

Assuming un-observed contamination occurred is a way of cramming the evidence into the paradigm.

It's the most reasonable explanation given our current knowledge. And, as detailed in the article I posted, there is evidence to support this explanation.