About fossils -- would you say this is true?

[Subduction Zone]

As to deposition, we can observe how sediments are deposited today. We can also observe what happens when deposition is interrupted or sped up.

For example shale is made of very fine clays. We can observe that being deposited in deeper waters, after all of the coarser sediments have settled out. Not vey much can be deposited in a year since water does not hold that much pure lay. If you speed up the rate of deposition you also increase the amounts of coarse materials. The same applies to chalk and coral reef growth. Chalk is made when tiny coccolithophores die and sink to the bottom of the sea. That has to be well away from land sources that would contaminate it with clay or coarser sediments. And only a certain population can exist at a time. Algal blooms are limited events and can only again produce a limited amount of sediments. People who say maybe the flood would have made a massive bloom have it backwards. They need a specific environment to do well. The flood would have been the worst thing for them. There is no way to massively increase their rate of production.

But as I said, if deposition is interrupted there usually is some sort of evidence. A line that shows erosion. Cross bedding in wind blown sands, there are quite a few different ways that such changes manifest. The sedimentary rocks that we see are from slow and continual deposition for the most part. Again, there are some rather interesting exceptions. But the signs are clear.

 

[Valjean]

Dating Rocks and Fossils Using Geologic Methods | Learn Science at Scitable

 

[Heyo]

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.

Until now we have discussed mostly geology and I don't know of good YouTube geology 101 courses that would answer your questions.
But if your interest is in human evolution, I know just the source you are looking for:
https://www.youtube.com/c/GutsickGibbon

Erica is an evolutionary anthropologist and I think she is good at explaining. Look for the shorter videos first in which she explains why certain YEC arguments don't hold water.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Dating Rocks and Fossils Using Geologic Methods | Learn Science at Scitable

That article gives a very good overview of how dating is done. It also reminded me that when it came to Lucy paleomagnetism of the sediments, the ones that she was found in, and those above and below her were used to fine tune her age.

EDIT: It also reminded me that I still have to learn electron spin resonance and thermoluminescence dating.

 

[YoursTrue]

Until now we have discussed mostly geology and I don't know of good YouTube geology 101 courses that would answer your questions.
But if your interest is in human evolution, I know just the source you are looking for:
https://www.youtube.com/c/GutsickGibbon

Erica is an evolutionary anthropologist and I think she is good at explaining. Look for the shorter videos first in which she explains why certain YEC arguments don't hold water.

I Imore or less) understand about evolution. I am narrowing my search and understanding if possible to "Lucy" and the timelines therein, as if "Lucy" was a forerunner of the evolutionary human. I leave it at that for now regarding the scope of my questioning. Have a nice day and thank you for your suggestion. But as I said, I'm really more interested right now in dating processes.

 

[YoursTrue]

That article gives a very good overview of how dating is done. It also reminded me that when it came to Lucy paleomagnetism of the sediments, the ones that she was found in, and those above and below her were used to fine tune her age.

EDIT: It also reminded me that I still have to learn electron spin resonance and thermoluminescence dating.

OK, that I will try to look at when I have more time. But anyway, "Lucy" may have been considered a forerunner magically of the human race (no, sorry, I mean by "natural selection" like her brain cavity growing as natural selection I suppose went on after her). Sorry, but my reaction is -- yeesh. As if she is an ancestress of some sort. *PS - I know you consider the idea of God's creation 'magic,' but now I'm beginning to view Lucy as a magical wonderment in reference to possibly being a precursor of -- you and me? But I shall keep looking and thanks for the info regarding dating processes, I hope to take time to look into that. And plus I'm looking into Neanderthal genes as if that means that Neanderthals were also predecessors of some of us.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I Imore or less) understand about evolution. I am narrowing my search and understanding if possible to "Lucy" and the timelines therein, as if "Lucy" was a forerunner of the evolutionary human. I leave it at that for now regarding the scope of my questioning. Have a nice day and thank you for your suggestion. But as I said, I'm really more interested right now in dating processes.

No, you really do not because for some strange reason you think that "gorillas stay gorillas" is a valid argument against evolution when it say the same thing itslef.

And Lucy and her species was either an ancestor or closely related to one. There are all sorts of transitional species. It is very hard to guarantee that another species is directly descended from them, but we can know that we are closely related. For example if you had the DNA of your great great granduncle you would be able to tell that at the least you were related to him. You might not be able to show that you were or were not descended form him with that DNA. In this case it would be "no".

Does this make sense to you?

 

[Subduction Zone]

OK, that I will try to look at when I have more time. But anyway, "Lucy" may have been considered a forerunner magically of the human race (no, sorry, I mean by "natural selection" like her brain cavity growing as natural selection I suppose went on after her). Sorry, but my reaction is -- yeesh. As if she is an ancestress of some sort. *PS - I know you consider the idea of God's creation 'magic,' but now I'm beginning to view Lucy as a magical wonderment in reference to possibly being a precursor of -- you and me? But I shall keep looking and thanks for the info regarding dating processes, I hope to take time to look into that. And plus I'm looking into Neanderthal genes as if that means that Neanderthals were also predecessors of some of us.

Neanderthals were not our ancestors. That has been known for some time. We were very closely related to them. So much so that there was some interbreeding. By the way, why call a well understood process "magic"? I know, it is because you still believe in magic. Last night I was listening to a rather long interview with Dr. Mary Schweitzer. She is the Christian paleontologist that found "soft tissue" in dinosaur bones. She used to be a YEC until she took a geology class. She ended up accepting evolution. She actually uses on of my arguments "God is not a deceiver". She does not believe that God can lie and with all of the evidence for evolution she realized that it had to be correct. She adapted her mind set but did not lose her Christian belief.

I could give you a link to it if you are interested. It is about 40 minutes long.

 

[YoursTrue]

No, you really do not because for some strange reason you think that "gorillas stay gorillas" is a valid argument against evolution when it say the same thing itslef.

And Lucy and her species was either an ancestor or closely related to one. There are all sorts of transitional species. It is very hard to guarantee that another species is directly descended from them, but we can know that we are closely related. For example if you had the DNA of your great great granduncle you would be able to tell that at the least you were related to him. You might not be able to show that you were or were not descended form him with that DNA. In this case it would be "no".

Does this make sense to you?

So it's not a valid argument to say that chimpanzees and gorillas show no signs of evolution?

 

[YoursTrue]

Neanderthals were not our ancestors. That has been known for some time. We were very closely related to them. So much so that there was some interbreeding. By the way, why call a well understood process "magic"? I know, it is because you still believe in magic. Last night I was listening to a rather long interview with Dr. Mary Schweitzer. She is the Christian paleontologist that found "soft tissue" in dinosaur bones. She used to be a YEC until she took a geology class. She ended up accepting evolution. She actually uses on of my arguments "God is not a deceiver". She does not believe that God can lie and with all of the evidence for evolution she realized that it had to be correct. She adapted her mind set but did not lose her Christian belief.

I could give you a link to it if you are interested. It is about 40 minutes long.

OK, so they weren't ancestors. But they intermingled somehow with some other types of humans, do I have that right? Once again, I am not a YEC. I never believed that the earth from the beginning was created in several 24-hour days, which I do believe YEC's may believe. The geology itself shows more time than that. So it would be helpful for our discussions if you could stop comparing me with a "young earth creationist."

 

[YoursTrue]

Neanderthals were not our ancestors. That has been known for some time. We were very closely related to them. So much so that there was some interbreeding. By the way, why call a well understood process "magic"? I know, it is because you still believe in magic. Last night I was listening to a rather long interview with Dr. Mary Schweitzer. She is the Christian paleontologist that found "soft tissue" in dinosaur bones. She used to be a YEC until she took a geology class. She ended up accepting evolution. She actually uses on of my arguments "God is not a deceiver". She does not believe that God can lie and with all of the evidence for evolution she realized that it had to be correct. She adapted her mind set but did not lose her Christian belief.

I could give you a link to it if you are interested. It is about 40 minutes long.

OK, so again, they werenn't our ancestors. They came about the same time as--?? homo sapiens?

 

[YoursTrue]

No, you really do not because for some strange reason you think that "gorillas stay gorillas" is a valid argument against evolution when it say the same thing itslef.

And Lucy and her species was either an ancestor or closely related to one. There are all sorts of transitional species. It is very hard to guarantee that another species is directly descended from them, but we can know that we are closely related. For example if you had the DNA of your great great granduncle you would be able to tell that at the least you were related to him. You might not be able to show that you were or were not descended form him with that DNA. In this case it would be "no".

Does this make sense to you?

OK, let me say this: Lucy and her species you say was either an ancestor or closely related to one. Is that right?

 

[Valjean]

So it's not a valid argument to say that chimpanzees and gorillas show no signs of evolution?

LOL! They weren't here ten million years ago, so they either popped up out of ????, or evolved from something else.

 

[Subduction Zone]

OK, so they weren't ancestors. But they intermingled somehow with some other types of humans, do I have that right? Once again, I am not a YEC. I never believed that the earth from the beginning was created in several 24-hour days, which I do believe YEC's may believe. The geology itself shows more time than that. So it would be helpful for our discussions if you could stop comparing me with a "young earth creationist."

You may not be a YEC, but there is not that much difference between a Flerf (flat Earth believers) and a YEC, or a YEC and an OEC. You all have to deny reality.

This is why I try to get people to learn what qualifies as evidence. Scientific evidence is objective. That means as long as a person is honest they would all have to agree that it is evidence.

And yes, Neanderthals and Homo sapiens sometimes interbred. You probably have some Neanderthal DNA in you. What is your ancestry? I could tell you whether it is likely or not? In that I mean European, African? What.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So it's not a valid argument to say that chimpanzees and gorillas show no signs of evolution?

It is a terrible argument. All life shows signs of evolution. You still show signs of a very very distant fish ancestor. So do chimps of course.

 

[Subduction Zone]

OK, let me say this: Lucy and her species you say was either an ancestor or closely related to one. Is that right?

Yes, that is correct.

 

[YoursTrue]

LOL! They weren't here ten million years ago, so they either popped up out of ????, or evolved from something else.

So let me go over this again, kind of. Homo sapiens, chimpanzees and gorillas were not around ten million years ago, is that what you are saying?

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes, that is correct.

OK, so you and others are saying that Lucy is an ancestor evolving into present-day human types, or -- closely related. What do you mean by closely related? They say that present-day humans I think are very close genetically to gorillas, isn't that right?

 

[YoursTrue]

It is a terrible argument. All life shows signs of evolution. You still show signs of a very very distant fish ancestor. So do chimps of course.

Again, human history has been recorded in fairly distinct writing for about 5,000 years. But humans of the homo sapien type have supposedly been around for much, much longer. According to the Smithsonian Institution, about 300,000 years. (That's a long time in comparison to 5,000 years.) Now in the context of things, writing has developed rather quickly supposedly within the past 5,000 years rather than maybe 200,000 years. Do you think that maybe the writing was there but disintegrated before the 5,000 years or so? There was no notice of any species changing recorded by those capable of writing (not gorillas evidently) their history. But I'm pretty sure some reason for that will be given. Like no need -- no records needed of transactions...Insofar as signs of a distant fish ancestor, this does not mean that humans evolved by natural selection from fish. It means that there are certain signals connecting us, including from plants and soil. Like we have skin, fishes have skin. Again -- You may say it means we "evolved" by natural selection from fish. I am saying that is not verification (not proof, of course) that we evolved from some sort of fish, even though we haven't seen fish evolving to anything else except in theory. Of course, for all these years (200,000+?) there has been interest in these things for a couple of thousand years, and in more subjective detail theoretically within the past hundred years or so. Interestingly I find that we do all come from the soil one way or another. No emergence of life could be without soil and water. I won't speak of breath now. Granted that Lucy may not have been too smart, but "homo sapiens" supposedly have been around for -- ?? 200,000 years?

 

[YoursTrue]

LOL! They weren't here ten million years ago, so they either popped up out of ????, or evolved from something else.

OK, let me ask you this: humans of the homo sapien kind are supposed to have emerged, shall we say, from a previous type, about 200,000 years ago? If you agree with that, would you then say that gorillas and chimpanzees have been around distinctly as gorillas and chimpanzees as long if not longer?