Another thing I don't understand about the creationist position...

[AV1611VET]

I'm pretty sure you know the geological movement of plate tectonics that built up the Tibetan mountains.

I am indeed somewhat familiar with the classroom cliche.

Thanks to the likes of Thaumaturgy, Orogeny, et alii.

 

[Platte]

Atomic tests (not reactors) do affect C-14 dating, but not other radiometric dating techniques. (This is because C-14 is made in the atmosphere by irradiation.)

The error bars (which are part of *any* measurement*) limit the accuracy of the age for things that are that young regardless of the nuclear weapons tests.

C-14 dating uses calibration to translate measured dates into actual dates to compensate for known variations in the natural (and artificial) C-14 abundance in the atmosphere. The actual C-14 abundances in the atmosphere during recent years is well known and will provide a good baseline for future C-14 dating measurements.

That is not what that statement I posed stated. And if we know of 1 thing in recent history that has made c-14 unreliable. How many other things have made it unreliable?

 

[Hans Blaster]

That is not what that statement I posed stated. And if we know of 1 thing in recent history that has made c-14 unreliable. How many other things have made it unreliable?

That's what calibration is for.

 

[Ophiolite]

Oh no, not a single thing

Have you ever observed a tree? I anticipate your probable answer is yes. If so, what do you mean by "observe", in respect of observing a tree.

 

[Hammster]

Have you ever observed a tree? I anticipate your probable answer is yes. If so, what do you mean by "observe", in respect of observing a tree.

I’ve seen trees. I’ve planted trees. I’ve watched the progression of their growth.

 

[Ophiolite]

I’ve seen trees. I’ve planted trees. I’ve watched the progression of their growth.

Yes, but what do you mean by "see"? What are the specific elements of the action? What is it that enables you to conclude you are "seeing" a tree?

 

[Hammster]

Yes, but what do you mean by "see"? What are the specific elements of the action? What is it that enables you to conclude you are "seeing" a tree?

I’m using “see” in the way we use it in conversation.

 

[Diamond72]

Same questions, same answer, except that there we can't make artificial oil (as far as I know).

Energy comes from the sun. There is talk about hydrogen power.

 

[Ophiolite]

I’m using “see” in the way we use it in conversation.

So, a vague, colloquial sense. Fair neough, however it's not a sound basis for a technical conversation and a technical conversation is necessary if you wish your rejection of "observation of the past" to be taken seriously. Thank you for your time.

 

[Hammster]

So, a vague, colloquial sense. Fair neough, however it's not a sound basis for a technical conversation and a technical conversation is necessary if you wish your rejection of "observation of the past" to be taken seriously. Thank you for your time.

I don’t have an argument that needs to be won. I have a truth that needs to be proclaimed.

 

[dlamberth]

Nothing millions of years old has ever been observed.

This makes no sense to me.

 

[Hammster]

This makes no sense to me.

Maybe this will help. There’s nothing that exists that is millions of years old. Hence, nothing that old could ever be observed.

 

[dlamberth]

Maybe this will help. There’s nothing that exists that is millions of years old. Hence, nothing that old could ever be observed.

This is confusing to me because here in the Pacific Northwest where I'm able to explore there is a LOT of geology that is many millions of years old. Like, how else can things like the movement of the Yellowstone Hot Spot from Oregon to it's present location be explained other than a multi-million year ongoing event? Or the over hundred layers of the Columbia River Basalt Group that reaches from Idaho to the Pacific Ocean 300 miles away?

Columbia River Basalt Group Stretches from Oregon to Idaho | U.S. Geological Survey

 

[Hans Blaster]

Maybe this will help. There’s nothing that exists that is millions of years old. Hence, nothing that old could ever be observed.

All you need to do is find the nearest rock-cut for a road and you'll have some million+ year old rock. It's not that hard.

 

[Hammster]

This is confusing to me because here in the Pacific Northwest where I'm able to explore there is a LOT of geology that is many millions of years old. Like, how else can things like the movement of the Yellowstone Hot Spot from Oregon to it's present location be explained other than a multi-million year ongoing event? Or the over hundred layers of the Columbia River Basalt Group that reaches from Idaho to the Pacific Ocean 300 miles away?

Columbia River Basalt Group Stretches from Oregon to Idaho | U.S. Geological Survey

It’s not millions of years old.

 

[Hammster]

All you need to do is find the nearest rock-cut for a road and you'll have some million+ year old rock. It's not that hard.

Rocks are usually hard, in my experience.

 

[Hans Blaster]

It’s not millions of years old.

It's right there in the link 5.5 to 16.7 million year old basaltic lava flows.

 

[Hammster]

It's right there in the link 5.5 to 16.7 million year old basaltic lava flows.

And it’s a lie.

 

[Diamond72]

Yes, but what do you mean by "see"? What are the specific elements of the action? What is it that enables you to conclude you are "seeing" a tree?

You see the light that is reflected off of a tree. Just like a camera. Dark colors are absorbed and light colors are reflected. There are two theorys, the additive and the subtractive. I worked on the lighting for the Ballet company when I was in college so I know about the physics of light.

 

[Hans Blaster]

And it’s a lie.

Geochemistry is a lie? do tell.

[edit to fix punctuation for clarity]