About fossils -- would you say this is true?

[Subduction Zone]

I don't think so, so let me explain back to you. And thank you for your patience. It's also getting late and my human body is getting tired, so this may be my last post tonight. OK, so let me go over this. You're saying that scientists (paleontologists I suppose) usually rely on some sort of volcanic ash. I don't understand. Are you saying only in those places where they know or discern volcanic ash is, or is that all over the world? And how do they know it is volcanic ash rather than soil? I can only guess it looks different. ? (Sorry I'm so slow about this...)

Just for dating purposes. And I only just began so we need to discuss this more tomorrow.

 

[YoursTrue]

YoursTrue,

Where do you live? The US?

I've suggested this to you before, but you seem genuinely interested in various scientific subjects. You would benefit from some basic college classes in biology, chemistry, geology. If you're in the States, you can take such introductory courses pretty cheaply at a community college. They cover basically all the content you're asking about. And would give you a foundation for understanding these subjects.

I thought about it. But I'm afraid that I won't be able to question the instructor well. Or that he's not a good explainer. (It happens.) Also and unfortunately I don't have the time right now. But I did think about it. In the meantiime, I appreciate the time @Subduction Zone and several others are giving me, their explanations do help although -- yes -- I'm still learning. And I can be slow. So classes may not be the answer unless I want to do something in the field. (Which I don't right now.)
When I was younger I was not particularly interested in deeply examining these things. Frankly, however, I really don't think I will gain that much from taking classes on paleontology, one reason and it's a big one -- because of my religious beliefs and reading about the subject, I no longer believe everything a professor or teacher may say. I surely don't understand everything in or out of the Bible, so i'm not making claims about that. Therefore I need time to question. If that's not possible, there is no point in going on especially in a class. So I appreciate the discussion, including your comments. I'm not particularly interested in biology unless I would want a career in that field, which right now I don't. I do like to read though about cells and reactions. Although I can't say I understand it -- yet. Although i did well in chemistry when I went to school. Truly there are so many things to do in life.

 

[YoursTrue]

Just for dating purposes. And I only just began so we need to discuss this more tomorrow.

Thank you.

 

[Left Coast]

I thought about it. But I'm afraid that I won't be able to question the instructor well. Or that he's not a good explainer. (It happens.) Also and unfortunately I don't have the time right now. But I did think about it. In the meantiime, I appreciate the time @Subduction Zone and several others are giving me, their explanations do help although -- yes -- I'm still learning. And I can be slow. So classes may not be the answer unless I want to do something in the field. (Which I don't right now.)
When I was younger I was not particularly interested in deeply examining these things. Frankly, however, I really don't think I will gain that much from taking classes on paleontology, one reason and it's a big one -- because of my religious beliefs and reading about the subject, I no longer believe everything a professor or teacher may say. I surely don't understand everything in or out of the Bible, so i'm not making claims about that. Therefore I need time to question. If that's not possible, there is no point in going on especially in a class. So I appreciate the discussion, including your comments. I'm not particularly interested in biology unless I would want a career in that field, which right now I don't. I do like to read though about cells and reactions. Although I can't say I understand it -- yet. Although i did well in chemistry when I went to school. Truly there are so many things to do in life.

A few thoughts:

1) You don't have to take classes only because you want to work in that field. You can take classes for personal enrichment.

2) It's true you may get a poor professor. It's also true you may get a great one. You won't know until you try.

3) You should not believe things just because your professor says so. Nor would any professor worth their salt ask you to. They should be able to explain the evidence and reasoning behind the cintent they are teaching. But also I think it's important to admit that they may know more about their particular subject than you do. It's their career, after all. So listening and learning and challenging your preconceived ideas is part of the process.

4) The benefit of a class environment is that it is more structured and will teach you what you need to know in a systematic, progressive way; moving from simpler concepts to more complex ones, etc. Without more basic knowledge, you'll be lost when someone tries to explain a more complex one to you (I think you've already experienced that here somewhat). That's why I recommend it despite the sort of scattershot answers you'll get here (although some are quite good, no doubt).

Anyway, more food for thought.

 

[Valjean]

All you need is some

No, they do not test the sediments. Let me try to explain.

Often somewhere in the world there are volcanic eruptions, for dating the usually rely on some sort of volcanic ash. That will temporarily interrupt the usual sedimentary processes of an area and leave a layer of ash. That can be dated. So we know the ages of the sediments and fossils in it just underneath it and immediately over the ash.

Do you understand that?

Radioisotopes, of carbon, uranium, lead, potassium, chlorine and others find their way into all sorts of things, not just igneous sediments or rocks. Lot's of things can be radio-dated -- WITH PROPER SAMPLES AND TECHNIQUES. Radiometric dating - Wikipedia

 

[Subduction Zone]

All you need is some

Radioisotopes, of carbon, uranium, lead, potassium, chlorine and others find their way into all sorts of things, not just igneous sediments or rocks. Lot's of things can be radio-dated -- WITH PROPER SAMPLES AND TECHNIQUES. Radiometric dating - Wikipedia

And your upper case qualifier is the hard part. Usually those materials do not enter all at once if they enter in the first place. Directly dating fossils with radiometric dating would be the rare exception rather than the rule. Right now I am trying to go over the basics, rather than deal with the rare exception.

 

[Valjean]

I'm a little confused. A sedimentary rock is what? A bone or vestage of something that had been alive left in or on the soil? (or strata)

Anything systematically laid down on the surface of the Earth can form a sediment: Leaves, blown soil, volcanic ash, flood debris, dead vegetation, &c.

They can form recognizable layers of strata, over time. They can contain anything lying on the ground: bones, tree trunks, Tupperware, trilobites, Greek vases, &al.

Continued layering, compression and mineral infiltration can cement these layers into sedimentary rock.

 

[AdamjEdgar]

The rest of your mathematics is incomprehensible nonsense. A radiocarbon dating error of 20 years over a 400 year interval amounts to an error of only about 130 years over an interval of 2583 years.

that is not what i mean,

Nebuchadnezzars death is 2048 years down until the 1610 date where the known information for the research study was undertaken by Cornwell university. You are misreading and intentionally leaving out important information that i did include in the post...so it should have been quite easy to realise this is what i was referencing (i will correct the post to make it more obvious)

the point is, when an object is dated, that date becomes a benchmark for dating other objects...the idea is that if the age of 1 object is determined, then another object from a different layer in the fossil record must be before or after that date. So, if we continued to do this using that idea throughout a daily cycle over years/centuries/millenia, we can end up with error in the magnitude of millions of years for objects that are only thousands of years old and that is the point (so its not incomprehensible at all. your ability to understand the point is what is problematic).

Let me explain in a simpler way...the hour glass illustration. How do you know the starting point for the hour glass was such that the hour glass was full given that you are going way outside of documented history? See I can stay within the documented history and remain inside my theology...you cannot do this because biblical theology (the documented history) says your hour glass starting point is false!

And as i said when i finished the post on this, it doesn't matter even if we are only talking thousands of years in error, even secular studies that have nothing to with YEC claim that it throws the timeline out in a manner that causes major problems.

As is usual on this forum, people ignore the problems and simply search to nitpick in order to distract. I would edit the post only forum moderators have chosen to ensure that oversights and inadvertent mistakes on these forums cannot be corrected...its more important apparently to force the long term consequences of short term prison sentences on individuals to lifelong penalties.

 

[Subduction Zone]

that is not what i mean,

Nebuchadnezzars death is 2048 years down until the 1610 date where the known information for the research study was undertaken by Cornwell university. You are misreading and intentionally leaving out important information that i did include in the post...so it should have been quite easy to realise this is what i was referencing (i will correct the post to make it more obvious)

the point is, when an object is dated, that date becomes a benchmark for dating other objects...the idea is that if the age of 1 object is determined, then another object from a different layer in the fossil record must be before or after that date. So, if we continued to do this using that idea throughout a daily cycle over years/centuries/millenia, we can end up with error in the magnitude of millions of years for objects that are only thousands of years old and that is the point (so its not incomprehensible at all. your ability to understand the point is what is problematic).

Let me explain in a simpler way...the hour glass illustration. How do you know the starting point for the hour glass was such that the hour glass was full given that you are going way outside of documented history? See I can stay within the documented history and remain inside my theology...you cannot do this because biblical theology (the documented history) says your hour glass starting point is false!

And as i said when i finished the post on this, it doesn't matter even if we are only talking thousands of years in error, even secular studies that have nothing to with YEC claim that it throws the timeline out in a manner that causes major problems.

As is usual on this forum, people ignore the problems and simply search to nitpick in order to distract.

Depending upon the method used there are several ways to tell the original amounts of parent and daughter product.

Let's start with a couple of easy ones. For Potassium Argon 11% of K40 decays to argon. Argon is an inert gas. It will be excluded from crystals when they form so we have an initial daughter product of zero.

Zircons are the favorite crystal for dating intrusive igneous rocks. They are fairly common and will take in uranium. They do not like lead. Lead is excluded from the crystalline structure.

There are other methods for other materials. The math gets more and more involved, but we could go over that if you like. Those creationist arguments were refuted over 50 years ago.

 

[YoursTrue]

A few thoughts:

1) You don't have to take classes only because you want to work in that field. You can take classes for personal enrichment.

2) It's true you may get a poor professor. It's also true you may get a great one. You won't know until you try.

3) You should not believe things just because your professor says so. Nor would any professor worth their salt ask you to. They should be able to explain the evidence and reasoning behind the cintent they are teaching. But also I think it's important to admit that they may know more about their particular subject than you do. It's their career, after all. So listening and learning and challenging your preconceived ideas is part of the process.

4) The benefit of a class environment is that it is more structured and will teach you what you need to know in a systematic, progressive way; moving from simpler concepts to more complex ones, etc. Without more basic knowledge, you'll be lost when someone tries to explain a more complex one to you (I think you've already experienced that here somewhat). That's why I recommend it despite the sort of scattershot answers you'll get here (although some are quite good, no doubt).

Anyway, more food for thought.

I really appreciate it, but I don't have time now for a class and looking for a good teacher may be difficult. At this point I'd have to interview the teacher beforehand but anyway I know I don't have the time. And my interest, is selective towards figuring about mankind not being here for 20,000+ years. As evolutionists and others may claim. So far, based on my distinct questions, the time period has not shown to be unequivocal and that's all I'm going to say now because there's a way to go. But thank you for your interest.

 

[YoursTrue]

Anything systematically laid down on the surface of the Earth can form a sediment: Leaves, blown soil, volcanic ash, flood debris, dead vegetation, &c.

They can form recognizable layers of strata, over time. They can contain anything lying on the ground: bones, tree trunks, Tupperware, trilobites, Greek vases, &al.

Continued layering, compression and mineral infiltration can cement these layers into sedimentary rock.

Yes, agreed. But layers can blow with the wind, soul can seep.

 

[YoursTrue]

All you need is some

Radioisotopes, of carbon, uranium, lead, potassium, chlorine and others find their way into all sorts of things, not just igneous sediments or rocks. Lot's of things can be radio-dated -- WITH PROPER SAMPLES AND TECHNIQUES. Radiometric dating - Wikipedia

Part of it would be up to the researcher to determine about the sample, wouldn't it? I mean like what substances are involved and how it is figured the bones got there. Which leads to making a preliminary evaluation of the date, doesn't it, or...and...how the sediment got there. Maybe I'm wrong because I know there are estimates made sometimes of half-life but I'm not sure. Because, of course, there could have been an eruption. Now frankly, I am thinking of dear Lucy, said to be a precursor of "homo sapiens," and then issued in the same category to really not be a human but rather a hominid. I guess different from a gorilla due to bone structure. Lucys were said to be dumb (I mean small brain type thing) while homo sapiens are different in the brain category. But then the next step for me is to research if possible about species, such as turtles into lions and apes? Thanks.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, agreed. But layers can blow with the wind, soul can seep.

What? This does not make much sense.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Part of it would be up to the researcher to determine about the sample, wouldn't it? I mean like what substances are involved and how it is figured the bones got there. Which leads to making a preliminary evaluation of the date, doesn't it, or...and...how the sediment got there. Maybe I'm wrong because I know there are estimates made sometimes of half-life but I'm not sure. Because, of course, there could have been an eruption. Now frankly, I am thinking of dear Lucy, said to be a precursor of "homo sapiens," and then issued in the same category to really not be a human but rather a hominid. I guess different from a gorilla due to bone structure. Lucys were said to be dumb (I mean small brain type thing) while homo sapiens are different in the brain category. But then the next step for me is to research if possible about species, such as turtles into lions and apes? Thanks.

Turtles are of a different lineage. They did not evolve into lions or apes.

 

[Left Coast]

I really appreciate it, but I don't have time now for a class and looking for a good teacher may be difficult. At this point I'd have to interview the teacher beforehand but anyway I know I don't have the time. And my interest, is selective towards figuring about mankind not being here for 20,000+ years. As evolutionists and others may claim. So far, based on my distinct questions, the time period has not shown to be unequivocal and that's all I'm going to say now because there's a way to go. But thank you for your interest.

I'm not even sure what question you're asking, but okay.

As far as interviewing the professor beforehand...that doesn't really happen, because they don't work for you. You're their prospective student. You're there to learn from them.

When you have the time, if you're genuinely interested in a structured curriculum to thoroughly understand a subject, give it a shot.

 

[Valjean]

I really appreciate it, but I don't have time now for a class and looking for a good teacher may be difficult. At this point I'd have to interview the teacher beforehand but anyway I know I don't have the time.

You spend hours posting on RF. Do you have ten or twenty minutes to read a linked article or watch a U-Tube video?

And my interest, is selective towards figuring about mankind not being here for 20,000+ years. As evolutionists and others may claim. So far, based on my distinct questions, the time period has not shown to be unequivocal and that's all I'm going to say now because there's a way to go. But thank you for your interest.

Not following. "not being here for 20,000 years?"
The universe is almost 14 billion years old. The Earth's been here for four and a half billion years.

Per the mighty Wiki:
Australopithecines, like Lucy, evolved around 4 million years ago.
Our own genus, Homo, appeared around 2.8 million years ago.
Our species: sapiens showed up maybe 300,000 years ago.

Which of these is the "mankind" you mentioned, and what do you mean by "not being here?"

 

[Valjean]

Yes, agreed. But layers can blow with the wind, soul can seep.

Yes, they're always being blown or washed around, one area gets uncovered, another covered.
Usually it's my porch being covered, or my floor if I leave a window open during one of our Spring dust storms.
Haven't found any dino bones yet, though.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes, they're always being blown or washed around, one area gets uncovered, another covered.
Usually it's my porch being covered, or my floor if I leave a window open during one of our Spring dust storms.
Haven't found any dino bones yet, though.

Not blown your way, eh?

 

[YoursTrue]

You spend hours posting on RF. Do you have ten or 20 minutes to read a linked article or watch a U-Tube video?
Not following. "not being here for 20,000 years?"
The universe is almost 14 billion years old. The Earth's been here for four and a half billion years.

Per the mighty Wiki:
Australopithecines, like Lucy, evolved around 4 million years ago.
Our own genus, Homo, appeared around 2.8 million years ago.
Our species: sapiens showed up maybe 300,000 years ago.

Which of these is the "mankind" you mentioned, and what do you mean by "not being here?"

Later...

 

[Valjean]

Part of it would be up to the researcher to determine about the sample, wouldn't it? I mean like what substances are involved and how it is figured the bones got there. Which leads to making a preliminary evaluation of the date, doesn't it, or...and...how the sediment got there.

Yes. You need to use a proper sample if you want a good date. If you're dating a bone from surrounding sediment, you need to know it's the same sediment the bone was originally buried in.

Maybe I'm wrong because I know there are estimates made sometimes of half-life but I'm not sure.

A half life is just the time needed for a radioisotope to lose half it's radioactivity. The rates are constant and known, which is how they can be used to date something.

Now frankly, I am thinking of dear Lucy, said to be a precursor of "homo sapiens," and then issued in the same category to really not be a human but rather a hominid.

They're ranked subdivisions"
Hominids include gorillas, chimps, humans, and orangutans.
Hominines excludes the orangs.
Hominins looses the gorillas. It's just chimps and us.

Lucy was a hominin Australopithecine. You and I are hominins in Homo.
Lucy was dated by the decay of Argon 40 to argon 39, which was encased in crystals, in volcanic ash, within the sediment she was found in.

I guess different from a gorilla due to bone structure. Lucys were said to be dumb (I mean small brain type thing) while homo sapiens are different in the brain category. But then the next step for me is to research if possible about species, such as turtles into lions and apes? Thanks.

Yeah, she was clearly not a gorilla, unless it was a tiny, dwarf gorilla that walked entirely upright...