Young Earth Creationism Vs. Science (Statler Waldorf Contd)

[Thor]

Again, your scientific ignorance seeps through. Scientific facts are not established by consensus in the scientific community.

Where did I say that scientific facts are established by consensus? Because I didn't.

Remember, the consensus prior to Darwin was Creation, and you certainly don’t seem to believe that now do you?

And that "consensus" was hardly scientific. It was based on nothing but belief, not science.Today we have scientists from all over the world in a variety of disciplines using different dating methods all concluding that the Earth is somewhere around 4-4.5 billion years old. Now, what dating methods are you using to conclude that the planet is less than 10,000 years old?

You may as well be arguing that the Earth is flat.

The presence of C14 in both coal and diamonds does mean they are young.

You don't think C-14 dating has any validity. So how can you make any assertions based on C-14 data?

That’s why the old earth crowd comes up with these silly little stories about contamination because they also know what the studies truly mean.

All it means is that we have an anamoly that bears investigating. You want to jump to the ludicrous conclusion that it means the planet is only a few thousand years old.

Has C-14 been found in EVERY diamond? Or is it just SOME diamonds? Because if the Earth were truly young, I would expect C-14 to be found in EVERY diamond or lump of coal.

Why do you only trust radiocarbon dating when it fits your paradigm but not when it doesn’t?

I DO trust C-14 dating. Where did I say I don't? Like I said, C-14 in diamonds is an anamoly that needs to be investigated. On the list of possible explanations, I'd put "The earth is less than 10,000 years old" somewhere below "Invisible fairies put it there".

C14 is not very accurate for determining the actual age of organic matter.

Then why are you using it to make a conclusion?

This is because the original assumptions behind the method assumed the atmosphere was in carbonic equilibrium, which has since been disproven.However, these assumptions are still used today. So radiocarbon dating traditionally yields very erroneous ages when the actual age is known.

Yes, radiocarbon dating is horribly flawed! That's why the scientific world uses it.

Since it cannot really be used to determine an actual age, it can certainly be used to determine the maximum age possible when the minimal amount detectible is present which is about 50,000 years.

Great! Then you must admit that the Earth is older than 10,000 years as radiocarbon dating can prove things to be up to 50,000 years old.

This argument could very well be turned around on you, why do you think radiocarbon dating is reliable when it yields ages you like but not when it yields ages you don’t like?

Again, I do accept radiocarbon dating as being reasonably accurate. If radiocarbon dating reveals something we wouldn't expect, then we should investigate the cause. Not jump to unrealistic conclusions.

Bad analogy, you would conclude that the boulder landed there because you have directly observed other boulders falling off of cliffs, so you are applying deductive reasoning to the situation.

Actually, I've never seen a boulder fall off a cliff. But I do agree that I'm applying REASONING.

However, you have never observed natural carbon contamination taking place in coal or diamonds.

So what?

The only reason you believe it must have taken place is because the evidence does not fit your paradigm.

Wrong. The reason I believe it most likely has taken place is due to what we know about carbon-14 and the conclusions of scientists.