Why I'm not a young earth creationist...

[Ponderous Curmudgeon]

It shows.

Yes, she has a rather good understanding of how the world works.

 

[The Righterzpen]

How did you go about convincing yourself that there are
absolute truths?

Hark, do I detect one who understands that once they admit there is an absolute authority; they have adhered themselves to have to answer to that authority!

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes, she has a rather good understanding of how the world works.

Emphasis on "world"? shouldn't it be "worldly"?

 

[The Righterzpen]

Yes, she has a rather good understanding of how the world works.

And how does not paying attention to Christianity translate into knowing how the world works?

It's like saying we all wore masks during this pandemic because the Russians launched Sputnik some 70 years ago. (Totally unrelated.)

 

[Hans Blaster]

But how do you (or they) know that the timescale (the 40,000 years) that they say Mt. St. Helens is; is accurate? They don't know that; because they have no way of testing how "old" magma is.

The geochemists would disagree with you. I'd suggest you take it up with them. There are many dating methods, and different ones are used in different situations because some are better for somethings and others are better for other things.

They make assumption using something like carbon 14 dating after it's erupted and cooled; but how much does the process of molting rock change the elemental composition of that rock? They can't answer that.

Melting stuff doesn't change its elemental composition. (C-14 for the next response.)

Does it accelerate the rate of carbon 14 decay? We know the rate of carbon 14 decay is not consistent across all circumstances. We know this because they've carbon 14 dated live animal samples that the dating says are millions of years old. Well no one believes a clam has a lifespan of a million or more years.

C-14 dating would be a really bad choice for lava. C-14 is created in the atmosphere by cosmic ray collisions. No C-14 would remain in any magma rising to the surface after being (in the case of the Cascades) subducted under the crust. C-14 decay is constant, but there are "anomalous" values that you get if you don't take into account the "age" of the carbon ingested by the living creature.

So the fossil layers on the North American plate. (I think there is 4 of them?) We can see in some place like the Grand Canyon that the strata are laid down in even layers. That would not be the case if there were millions or even thousands of years of erosion between the layers.

There are dozens of layers in the Grand Canyon alone. I assume most of them contain some fossils. A continually building layer doesn't get eroded, it builds up. Again, check with a geologist.

So seeing how we know the Mt. St Helens current landscape was laid down in a couple of hours; why would one assume the Grand Canyon was laid down / "cut out" in millions of years?

The Mt. St. Helens deposit are in a fairly narrow region in a recognizable pattern.

Geologists know how to identify volcanic deposits and what is not. In fact there are volcanic deposits in the Grand Canyon.

Again, modern evidence (the example being volcanic eruptions) says X; but they look at something like the Grand Canyon and dissociate that from what they see in the modern world.

No, they associate the large, flat layers with similar deposition environments seen in the modern world. Shallow seas, sand dunes, etc.

And that conclusion is based on a particular world view. That's not based on what they know of what would even be considered "recent" history.

It was geology that was first to properly identify the long time scale for the Earth. Certainly a time scale that was at least millions of years (and long before Darwin). It was only the development of nuclear physics in the 20th century that the modern 4.5 billion year age is established.

There was a global warming "spike" that happened in about 1000 AD. We know this from Medieval records. They were growing vineyards in Scotland. The records talk about ice caps melting and the ocean rising. There are ancient maps that accurately chart the coast of Antartica. Now how's that possible if Antartica has been covered with ice for millions of years?

With the exception of a few large shore ice sheets that are clearly made of ice floating on water, the ocean goes to the shore. Antarctica is *still* covered with ice. How do we know the shape now? In 1900?

Blips in the history that don't match the conventional narrative.

Same goes for "out of place" fossils.

Provide "data".

It's like 9/11. The government says "here's what happened"; yet you watch the footage and it's pretty clear their narrative doesn't match what you're looking at.

I did it.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Right angles are always 90 degrees. A strait line is always 180 degrees. A circle is always 360 degrees.

Now you can say that you don't know that a right angle is always 90 degrees; but that doesn't negate the fact that it is.

Only in Euclidean, flat-space geometry. Triangles on a sphere don't add up to 180 degrees.

 

[Estrid]

Only in Euclidean, flat-space geometry. Triangles on a sphere don't add up to 180 degrees.

I'm told there's no such thing as a straight line

 

[Ponderous Curmudgeon]

My hope is in Christ. I'm far from a nihilist. Thousands of years of recorded history do not show a hope in the "goodness" of humanity.

Yes, we see pockets of examples of people who act ethically under dire circumstance where no one would know (or even care) that they adhered to a sense of right and wrong.

Which raises the question of where did that behavior come from?

If we got here accidentally and "survival of the fittest" is the rule of law; than.... how have we not destroyed ourselves? How is there as much peace and decency as there is? How is there not total anarchy? Where do morals and ethics come from? (Again the question of absolute authority.)

When it comes to theories on development of morals and ethics; you got two options:

1. A Divine Authority dictates morals.
2. Human societies invent them for themselves.

Now if you go with #2; you run into a big problem real quick. Because if "society" doesn't like you for some reason; you're the one on the way to the FEMA camp or the execution squad. And you have no authority to appeal to for the mistreatment you endure; because under that ideology - the guy with the biggest gun is always right.

But if you go with #1; now you have to determine who's version of God is that absolute authority.

Which again; boils down to what I've said several times now. Either there is a God who's revealed Himself to humanity or none of this matters whatsoever.

There are a lot of people who claim to be atheists but don't live like they actually believe it. For if there is no God; who cares what society thinks of what you do? Your opinion is no more invalid than anyone else's so if you feel like you want to go kill a bunch of people in Walmart - than what's stopping you? See, I know an awful lot of very moral atheists (which isn't a bad thing); yet if there is no authority to answer to; what is the point of a moral standard? It becomes and existential / philosophical question even if you attempt to remove the theological aspect of it.

"Nihilism (/ˈnaɪ(h)ɪlɪzəm, ˈniː-/; from Latin nihil 'nothing') is a philosophy, or family of views within philosophy, expressing negation (i.e., denial of) towards general aspects of life that are widely accepted within humanity as objectively real,[1][2]"
Your last two posts demonstrate this quite well. You deny basically any interpretation of anything except your own negative view of reality and then append an unevidenced get out of jail free card so that you can even deny your own negative attitude.

How Sad.

 

[Subduction Zone]

But how do you (or they) know that the timescale (the 40,000 years) that they say Mt. St. Helens is; is accurate? They don't know that; because they have no way of testing how "old" magma is.

Geologists do know that. You simply do not know how they know that.

They make assumption using something like carbon 14 dating after it's erupted and cooled; but how much does the process of molting rock change the elemental composition of that rock? They can't answer that.

Does it accelerate the rate of carbon 14 decay? We know the rate of carbon 14 decay is not consistent across all circumstances. We know this because they've carbon 14 dated live animal samples that the dating says are millions of years old. Well no one believes a clam has a lifespan of a million or more years.

There is no reasonable known way to accelerate C14 or break down other isotopes used in dating. This is just wishing and hoping by creationists not based on reality at all.

So the fossil layers on the North American plate. (I think there is 4 of them?) We can see in some place like the Grand Canyon that the strata are laid down in even layers. That would not be the case if there were millions or even thousands of years of erosion between the layers.

I am sorry but this makes no sense. What are you trying to claim? It appears that you do not realize that there are periods of deposition often interrupted by periods of erosion. Unconformities are to be expected.

So seeing how we know the Mt. St Helens current landscape was laid down in a couple of hours; why would one assume the Grand Canyon was laid down / "cut out" in millions of years?

Because they were totally different environments and totally different deposits. Most deposition environments are of slow steady deposition. A very few are not. Volcanic deposition can be very rapid.

Again, modern evidence (the example being volcanic eruptions) says X; but they look at something like the Grand Canyon and dissociate that from what they see in the modern world.

Nope. They don't do that.

And that conclusion is based on a particular world view. That's not based on what they know of what would even be considered "recent" history.

Nope. It is based on observation and testing. Your ideas fail the tests.

There was a global warming "spike" that happened in about 1000 AD. We know this from Medieval records. They were growing vineyards in Scotland. The records talk about ice caps melting and the ocean rising. There are ancient maps that accurately chart the coast of Antartica. Now how's that possible if Antartica has been covered with ice for millions of years?

Nope, you are getting a lot of those. That was not a global event. And once again your last sentence is nonsense.

Blips in the history that don't match the conventional narrative.

Same goes for "out of place" fossils.

It's like 9/11. The government says "here's what happened"; yet you watch the footage and it's pretty clear their narrative doesn't match what you're looking at.

What "out of place fossisl"? I remember one case where it was due to what was an undiscovered thrust fault at the time. "Fossils out of place" are usually a sign of geology that is not fully understood. You can find them sometimes in mountainous regions. I don't know of any "out of place fossils" ever found in sediments unassociated with mountain building Guess what happens when you fold a bunch of rocks over millions of years? Sometimes one lay rides up over younger ones. There is a name for this. These are called Thrust Faults. They are not found in the Midwest for example.

Instead of spouting a bunch of nonsense hoping that one bit will stick why not ask questions one at a time? That is the honest way to approach a topic that you have zero understanding of.

 

[coffee4u]

How did you go about convincing yourself that there are
absolute truths?

It's called faith.
One can prostrate themselves before man or before God.
I choose God no matter what.

 

[Hans Blaster]

One can prostrate themselves before man or before God.

I choose neither.

 

[VirOptimus]

You said "Mixing theology and science is bad science and even worse theology"
Which I agree with.
Anyone who comes to the scriptures using science as a filter or means to interpret is mixing science and theology, which will lead to very bad theology.
I choose to believe scripture over science.
Scripture clearly outlines special creation and a short time line- hence I am a YEC.
edit for typos.

YEC inherently means you mix science with theology.

 

[The Righterzpen]

The geochemists would disagree with you. I'd suggest you take it up with them. There are many dating methods, and different ones are used in different situations because some are better for somethings and others are better for other things.

Not all geochemists are evolutionists though; but you only heed the opinions of the ones that are. Why is that?

Melting stuff doesn't change its elemental composition. (C-14 for the next response.)

How would you refine gold then if melting stuff doesn't change the elemental composition? Different things burn and melt at different temperatures and heat can certainly change the chemical structure of something, thus changing its composition.

https://www.nrel.colostate.edu/asse...l-lab/docs/NREL_Paul_Campbell_ss_1967_Aug.pdf

Carbon 14 can definitely be affected by whether or not plants take up nuclear bomb produced carbon 14. Thus carbon 14 is apparently affected by nuclear fission. (Which also can happen outside of man made bombs.) They are also now saying that carbon 14 dating can be affected by burning of fossil fuels because of the amount of carbon it releases into the atmosphere.

Which thus means if the amount of carbon in the earth's atmosphere varied to any significant degree (volcanic eruptions) this would throw off the dating of anything that absorbed carbon in that era.

Fossil Fuels May Bring Major Changes to Carbon Dating

C-14 dating would be a really bad choice for lava. C-14 is created in the atmosphere by cosmic ray collisions. No C-14 would remain in any magma rising to the surface after being (in the case of the Cascades) subducted under the crust. C-14 decay is constant, but there are "anomalous" values that you get if you don't take into account the "age" of the carbon ingested by the living creature.

But you can't judge the age of the carbon ingested by a living creature if it's ingested more carbon than you think it has. Besides the fact that you will not find fossils in volcanic rock. (But I'm assuming you know that.)

There are dozens of layers in the Grand Canyon alone. I assume most of them contain some fossils. A continually building layer doesn't get eroded, it builds up. Again, check with a geologist.

Yes, I believe it's correct that most of the Grand Canyon layers contain fossils. But you don't get fossils from continuously building layers either. (Again, the deer who dies in the woods year after year.)

Which means the fact that all the Grand Canyon layers contain pockets of fossils; means it could not have been laid down "continuously" over millions of years. The sedimentary layers in the Grand Canyon had to have happened quickly to get both the fossils and even stratification that you see.

Geologists know how to identify volcanic deposits and what is not. In fact there are volcanic deposits in the Grand Canyon.

Yes, I'm sure there are some volcanic deposits in the Grand Canyon; but the vast majority of the Grand Canyon is sedimentary rock. Volcanic rock is igneous rock. Metamorphic rock is generally where lava came in contact with sedimentary rock. But I believe something like a petrified tree is also considered metamorphic rock. Only sedimentary rock has fossils in it.

No, they associate the large, flat layers with similar deposition environments seen in the modern world. Shallow seas, sand dunes, etc.

Except we don't see fossils in modern sand dunes. Fossils are formed in 5 different ways and the "type" of fossil may depend on the animal (soft body or shell) and the type of sediment it's buried in. Certain minerals can "replace" a decomposed creature in a cast type manner.

Fossils | Earth Science

It was geology that was first to properly identify the long time scale for the Earth. Certainly a time scale that was at least millions of years (and long before Darwin). It was only the development of nuclear physics in the 20th century that the modern 4.5 billion year age is established.

The first scientific discovery of dinosaur bones happened in the 1820's. Dinosaurs were not even called dinosaurs until the 1840's. Darwin published his theory on evolution in 1859. But Darwin wasn't actually the originator of that theory. The first publication of the concept of transmutation of species came from Jean-Baptiste Lamarck; who died in 1829. Likewise the science of geology emerged in the 1830's. Prior to that, "geology" consisted of finding suitable metal ore to mine for making weapons and tools.

Nuclear physics had its birth in 1938 and its main "purpose" for coming into existence was directly related to the making of the atomic bomb. And apparently scientists would come to discover later, that nuclear fission affects the use of carbon 14 molecules for dating things.

With the exception of a few large shore ice sheets that are clearly made of ice floating on water, the ocean goes to the shore. Antarctica is *still* covered with ice. How do we know the shape now? In 1900?

The most recent maps of Antartica were made using composite satellite imagery.

Mapping Antarctica - British Antarctic Survey

Although older maps exist. And apparently; several of them dating from various eras.

NEW ANALYSIS HINTS ANCIENT EXPLORERS MAPPED ANTARCTIC (Published 1984)

The baffling Piri Reis Map of 1513: It showed Antarctica centuries before discovery, but without its ice cap

 

[The Righterzpen]

Only in Euclidean, flat-space geometry. Triangles on a sphere don't add up to 180 degrees.

A triangle on a sphere by definition would not be a strait line.

 

[Subduction Zone]

A triangle on a sphere by definition would not be a strait line.

Why would you want a line of narrow bodies of water? I don't know of any triangles that use strait lines.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not all geochemists are evolutionists though; but you only heed the opinions of the ones that are. Why is that?



How would you refine gold then if melting stuff doesn't change the elemental composition? Different things burn and melt at different temperatures and heat can certainly change the chemical structure of something, thus changing its composition.

https://www.nrel.colostate.edu/asse...l-lab/docs/NREL_Paul_Campbell_ss_1967_Aug.pdf

Carbon 14 can definitely be affected by whether or not plants take up nuclear bomb produced carbon 14. Thus carbon 14 is apparently affected by nuclear fission. (Which also can happen outside of man made bombs.) They are also now saying that carbon 14 dating can be affected by burning of fossil fuels because of the amount of carbon it releases into the atmosphere.

Which thus means if the amount of carbon in the earth's atmosphere varied to any significant degree (volcanic eruptions) this would throw off the dating of anything that absorbed carbon in that era.

Fossil Fuels May Bring Major Changes to Carbon Dating



But you can't judge the age of the carbon ingested by a living creature if it's ingested more carbon than you think it has. Besides the fact that you will not find fossils in volcanic rock. (But I'm assuming you know that.)



Yes, I believe it's correct that most of the Grand Canyon layers contain fossils. But you don't get fossils from continuously building layers either. (Again, the deer who dies in the woods year after year.)

Which means the fact that all the Grand Canyon layers contain pockets of fossils; means it could not have been laid down "continuously" over millions of years. The sedimentary layers in the Grand Canyon had to have happened quickly to get both the fossils and even stratification that you see.



Yes, I'm sure there are some volcanic deposits in the Grand Canyon; but the vast majority of the Grand Canyon is sedimentary rock. Volcanic rock is igneous rock. Metamorphic rock is generally where lava came in contact with sedimentary rock. But I believe something like a petrified tree is also considered metamorphic rock. Only sedimentary rock has fossils in it.



Except we don't see fossils in modern sand dunes. Fossils are formed in 5 different ways and the "type" of fossil may depend on the animal (soft body or shell) and the type of sediment it's buried in. Certain minerals can "replace" a decomposed creature in a cast type manner.

Fossils | Earth Science



The first scientific discovery of dinosaur bones happened in the 1820's. Dinosaurs were not even called dinosaurs until the 1840's. Darwin published his theory on evolution in 1859. But Darwin wasn't actually the originator of that theory. The first publication of the concept of transmutation of species came from Jean-Baptiste Lamarck; who died in 1829. Likewise the science of geology emerged in the 1830's. Prior to that, "geology" consisted of finding suitable metal ore to mine for making weapons and tools.

Nuclear physics had its birth in 1938 and its main "purpose" for coming into existence was directly related to the making of the atomic bomb. And apparently scientists would come to discover later, that nuclear fission affects the use of carbon 14 molecules for dating things.



The most recent maps of Antartica were made using composite satellite imagery.

Mapping Antarctica - British Antarctic Survey

Although older maps exist. And apparently; several of them dating from various eras.

NEW ANALYSIS HINTS ANCIENT EXPLORERS MAPPED ANTARCTIC (Published 1984)

The baffling Piri Reis Map of 1513: It showed Antarctica centuries before discovery, but without its ice cap

Again posting a bunch of nonsense and not asking questions.

The only creationist geologist that I know of that has dabbled in dating is easily shown to be a liar. Do you know of any honest geochemists that oppose evolution? I seriously doubt if you can find any.

 

[The Righterzpen]

"Nihilism (/ˈnaɪ(h)ɪlɪzəm, ˈniː-/; from Latin nihil 'nothing') is a philosophy, or family of views within philosophy, expressing negation (i.e., denial of) towards general aspects of life that are widely accepted within humanity as objectively real,[1][2]"
Your last two posts demonstrate this quite well. You deny basically any interpretation of anything except your own negative view of reality and then append an unevidenced get out of jail free card so that you can even deny your own negative attitude.

How Sad.

So... please explain what I've said that:
"is a philosophy, or family of views within philosophy, expressing negation (i.e., denial of) towards general aspects of life that are widely accepted within humanity as objectively real,[1][2]"

Has anything I've said about the demonstrated nature of humanity not been real? Are wars figments of our imaginations? Is there not such a thing as drug trafficking, human trafficking, organ trafficking, governmental corruption, sex crimes against children, satanic ritual abuse, acts of terrorism? Was Covid and the fall out from it a figment of everyone's imagination? Was there really no global lock down in March of 2020? What of any of this, has any of humanity said: isn't "objectively real"?

Has anything I said about two theories on the origins of ethics and morality not real?

Just because you don't like what I point out doesn't make me a nihilist. Matter of fact; based on what you've said here; demonstrates that you don't even understand what the philosophy of nihilism is. Nihilism is not a "negative outlook on life". Nihilists don't believe they actually exist.

What's objectively real to humanity in general, is that we have physical bodies. We live in a material world. Most humans believe we have souls. Most humans believe in some sort of deity. Most humans believe there is some sort of purpose to life.

Nihilists believe all of this is an illusion. And not just a metaphorical illusion, but a literal illusion. Nihilists don't believe this material world is real. (Yet how can you contemplate your reality if you don't exist? The philosophy makes no sense.) I dealt with someone who claimed to be a nihilist on another platform. I came to the conclusion that she had to be mentally ill, because she was absolutely delusional.

And... by the way; disagreeing with someone else's interoperation of something doesn't mean I deny its existence. I don't "believe in" communism. But that doesn't mean communism doesn't exist.

Pointing out the history of the dismal state of humanity doesn't mean I have a negative outlook on life. Like I said; my hope is in Christ. Not in myself, you or any other fallen human being. My hope isn't in angels. It's not in "saving the earth".

My trust is in Christ and that He paid for my sin. My assured hope (and not just wishful thinking) is that on the other side of eternity NONE of this current suffering is going to matter! At least it's not going to matter for me. I can't speak for your eternity.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Not all geochemists are evolutionists though; but you only heed the opinions of the ones that are. Why is that?

Do you know of any geochemists who are also evolutionary biologists? I haven't.

How would you refine gold then if melting stuff doesn't change the elemental composition? Different things burn and melt at different temperatures and heat can certainly change the chemical structure of something, thus changing its composition.

https://www.nrel.colostate.edu/asse...l-lab/docs/NREL_Paul_Campbell_ss_1967_Aug.pdf

You said "melt" you didn't say anything about other processes.

Carbon 14 can definitely be affected by whether or not plants take up nuclear bomb produced carbon 14. Thus carbon 14 is apparently affected by nuclear fission. (Which also can happen outside of man made bombs.) They are also now saying that carbon 14 dating can be affected by burning of fossil fuels because of the amount of carbon it releases into the atmosphere.

Which thus means if the amount of carbon in the earth's atmosphere varied to any significant degree (volcanic eruptions) this would throw off the dating of anything that absorbed carbon in that era.

Fossil Fuels May Bring Major Changes to Carbon Dating

As I said before, C-14 is a *really* useless way to date volcanic rocks. They do not contain carbon that has been in the atmosphere in the last 50,000 years. Therefore, C-14 is irrelevant to the dating of Mt. St. Helens or any other volcanic flow.

But you can't judge the age of the carbon ingested by a living creature if it's ingested more carbon than you think it has. Besides the fact that you will not find fossils in volcanic rock. (But I'm assuming you know that.)

But you do find fossils in volcanic rock. Here are some fossils (including tree casts) formed recently in Hawaii:

Hawaii’s Amazing Lava Fossils

If you think that is cheating, the Petrified Forest formed when volcanic ash deposits covered downed trees:

Yes, I believe it's correct that most of the Grand Canyon layers contain fossils. But you don't get fossils from continuously building layers either. (Again, the deer who dies in the woods year after year.)

Which means the fact that all the Grand Canyon layers contain pockets of fossils; means it could not have been laid down "continuously" over millions of years. The sedimentary layers in the Grand Canyon had to have happened quickly to get both the fossils and even stratification that you see.

Animals can get buried in annual flood deposits.

Just because there may millions of years between the dating of individual layers does not mean that each layer took millions of years to form. I would recommend some basic geology.

Yes, I'm sure there are some volcanic deposits in the Grand Canyon; but the vast majority of the Grand Canyon is sedimentary rock. Volcanic rock is igneous rock. Metamorphic rock is generally where lava came in contact with sedimentary rock. But I believe something like a petrified tree is also considered metamorphic rock. Only sedimentary rock has fossils in it.

See above. Petrified wood is a *FOSSIL*. That's why it looks like a dead plant. (Fossils can also exist in metamorphic rock that was in the sedimentary rock that was heated by magma (not lava). )

Volcanic activity started in Uinkaret volcanic field (in the western Grand Canyon) about 3 million years ago.[69] Over 150 flows of basaltic lava[70] dammed the Colorado River at least 13 times from 725,000 to 100,000 years ago.[71] The dams typically formed in weeks, were 12 to 86 miles (19 to 138 km) long, 150 to 2,000 feet (46 to 610 m) high (thicker upstream and thinner downstream) and had volumes of 0.03 to 1.2 cubic miles (0.13 to 5.00 km3).[72]

(Note that these lava flows were dated by argon dating methods.)

Except we don't see fossils in modern sand dunes. Fossils are formed in 5 different ways and the "type" of fossil may depend on the animal (soft body or shell) and the type of sediment it's buried in. Certain minerals can "replace" a decomposed creature in a cast type manner.

Fossils | Earth Science

Modern sand dunes *move*. That's what dunes do. Why would you expect a fossil in a current dune?

The first scientific discovery of dinosaur bones happened in the 1820's. Dinosaurs were not even called dinosaurs until the 1840's. Darwin published his theory on evolution in 1859. But Darwin wasn't actually the originator of that theory. The first publication of the concept of transmutation of species came from Jean-Baptiste Lamarck; who died in 1829. Likewise the science of geology emerged in the 1830's. Prior to that, "geology" consisted of finding suitable metal ore to mine for making weapons and tools.

What was the point of this paragraph? Oh, yeah, I said it was geology that first identified the earth as much older than 10,000 years. (The topic of the thread, you know.) What does the first discovery of dinosaurs or early work on evolution have to do with the discoveries of geology a century before?

Nuclear physics had its birth in 1938 and its main "purpose" for coming into existence was directly related to the making of the atomic bomb. And apparently scientists would come to discover later, that nuclear fission affects the use of carbon 14 molecules for dating things.

Nuclear physics predates 1938 and its purpose was to understand the nature of the atomic nucleus. Then more stuff you don't understand...

The most recent maps of Antartica were made using composite satellite imagery.

Mapping Antarctica - British Antarctic Survey

Although older maps exist. And apparently; several of them dating from various eras.

NEW ANALYSIS HINTS ANCIENT EXPLORERS MAPPED ANTARCTIC (Published 1984)

The baffling Piri Reis Map of 1513: It showed Antarctica centuries before discovery, but without its ice cap

Again, so what?

 

[coffee4u]

YEC inherently means you mix science with theology.

How exactly am I doing that?

 

[NxNW]

They make assumption using something like carbon 14 dating after it's erupted and cooled; but how much does the process of molting rock change the elemental composition of that rock? They can't answer that. Does it accelerate the rate of carbon 14 decay?

Are you saying that the Strong Nuclear Force, a fundamental constant in nature, is somehow changed by a temperature change of a few hundred degrees?