The dates given by AOS for past events may actually disprove evolution entirely

[SavedByGraceThruFaith]

I used the numbers is the picture. I just applied the +- in a way consistent with the range. It did show that the interpretation of the layers could be false.

Then you'll have no trouble explaining what basis you used to select those numbers, and why you'd apply a different error bar for different layers. Hop to it.

I just used numbers that were acceptable to the quoted numbers and the error bars. The numbers I used were consistent with the quoted numbers and shows why the interpretation of the layers may be wrong.

[Esquilax]

I just used numbers that were acceptable to the quoted numbers and the error bars. The numbers I used were consistent with the quoted numbers and shows why the interpretation of the layers may be wrong.

No, that's your claim. It's not why the claim is true.

It seems like you're just saying you used the numbers that were most convenient to your argument, regardless of the truth of them.

I'll ask again: why would you use different error bars for individual layers? You just cherry picked the numbers in order to create an obviously false situation!

[pocaracas]

The error bars come from the dating methods.
The layers of ground then show that the ones below are older than the ones above, provided there's no evidence of any geological activity which may suggest that those layers have been disturbed.

So, for the provided layers:

Tuff 8: 3.46 +- 0.12 Ma
Tuff 7: 3.56 +- 0.2 Ma

If, you, somehow, come to the conclusion that Tuff 8's age is closer to 3.46 + 0.12 = 3.58Ma, then Tuff 7 must be, at least, as old, 3.58Ma is included in the error for Tuff 7, so it's ok.

[Esquilax]

As opposed to what Grace is doing, which is treating the error bars as a band of numbers she can pick from independent of the other bars, and then selecting whichever numbers suit her purposes.

And then deciding that, since the most ridiculous possible outcome is contradictory, the entire field of study must not work, and then somehow, somehow, this disproves the entirety of evolution.

Step one: poke holes in the existing science.

Step two: ???

Step three: therefore, god!

[Mothonis]

Grace ill only say this once..

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS ATHEIST ORIGIN SCIENCE.

Your pathetic coward who should be banned. The reason why you say AOS, is because you don't wanna admit you don't belive in science

[SavedByGraceThruFaith]

The error bars come from the dating methods.
The layers of ground then show that the ones below are older than the ones above, provided there's no evidence of any geological activity which may suggest that those layers have been disturbed.

So, for the provided layers:

Tuff 8: 3.46 +- 0.12 Ma
Tuff 7: 3.56 +- 0.2 Ma

If, you, somehow, come to the conclusion that Tuff 8's age is closer to 3.46 + 0.12 = 3.58Ma, then Tuff 7 must be, at least, as old, 3.58Ma is included in the error for Tuff 7, so it's ok.

But there is a possibility, which is not statistically insignificant, that the layers are out of order. Furthermore, the actual error ranges do not include an error analysis. Nor do the dates show what measurement technique was used.

There is a method called isochron dating. It is supposed to eliminate errors due to initial conditions. And the isochron method can be also done with different isotopes.

So what method was used to date these layers and what would be the results of other measurement techniques.

---

As opposed to what Grace is doing, which is treating the error bars as a band of numbers she can pick from independent of the other bars, and then selecting whichever numbers suit her purposes.

And then deciding that, since the most ridiculous possible outcome is contradictory, the entire field of study must not work, and then somehow, somehow, this disproves the entirety of evolution.

Step one: poke holes in the existing science.

Step two: ???

Step three: therefore, god!

Well if you use the center number without the error ranges, the layer below tuff 1 is more recent than tuff 1.
So you need to cherry pick dates to get that discrepancy to go away.

So do we allow cherry picking dates or not?

Whatever the answer is, if done consistently, there is a possibility of a date out of order.

[max-greece]

I find this deep concern for scientific accuracy deeply moving.

Its enough to make me want to cry.

[Tonus]

To show why the real error range destroys atheistic origin science consider the following cases.

Case 1 – Determination of an intermediate species.

Ancestor 120 million years ago
Intermediate 115 million years ago
Descendant 110 million years ago

Seems straightforward. Now consider these same numbers with error ranges.

Ancestor 120 million years ago +- 10 million years
Intermediate 115 million years ago +- 10 million years
Descendant 110 million years ago +- 10 million years

Based on these numbers, then this could be the case.

Ancestor 113 million years ago
Intermediate 115 million years ago
Descendant 118 million years ago

That is the descendant came first, then the intermediate, then the ancestor. So that is now shown to be false.

Again, this is the sort of thing only a Poe would write. Which, interestingly, may show that Poe's Law actually does have limits. Whoever called Poe or troll first (LastPoet?) nailed it.

While most of Grace's posts have just been dumb, stuff like this is really just brilliant in this context. Using the 'plus/minus' approximation to screw up sequential dates? I have to admit that I chuckled.

[pocaracas]

The error bars come from the dating methods.
The layers of ground then show that the ones below are older than the ones above, provided there's no evidence of any geological activity which may suggest that those layers have been disturbed.

So, for the provided layers:

Tuff 8: 3.46 +- 0.12 Ma
Tuff 7: 3.56 +- 0.2 Ma

If, you, somehow, come to the conclusion that Tuff 8's age is closer to 3.46 + 0.12 = 3.58Ma, then Tuff 7 must be, at least, as old, 3.58Ma is included in the error for Tuff 7, so it's ok.

But there is a possibility, which is not statistically insignificant, that the layers are out of order. Furthermore, the actual error ranges do not include an error analysis. Nor do the dates show what measurement technique was used.

There is a method called isochron dating. It is supposed to eliminate errors due to initial conditions. And the isochron method can be also done with different isotopes.

So what method was used to date these layers and what would be the results of other measurement techniques.

I don't know the method used. If you want to know, I remember I linked the whole paper, so you can read it there, or just follow the references at the end.

[Esquilax]

Well if you use the center number without the error ranges, the layer below tuff 1 is more recent than tuff 1.
So you need to cherry pick dates to get that discrepancy to go away.

So do we allow cherry picking dates or not?

Whatever the answer is, if done consistently, there is a possibility of a date out of order.

Nobody is saying to not employ error bars at all, Grace. But deliberately picking only those numbers that create untenable scenarios, irrespective of the actual truth and without doing any research yourself, is a dishonest tactic.

The error bars do not exist in a vacuum: they are surrounded by the other numbers. Since geography works the way it does and has never been observed to function differently, then a layer below- barring seismic events and so forth- will be older than a layer above. When it comes to evolutionary lineages, descendants come after ancestors, and since we have actual evidence- something you don't have for your creationism nonsense- we can safely employ the error bars only in a way that allows this.

Is it an assumption? Sure, you can say that. Is it a safe one to make, backed by all of the evidence and contradicted by none of it? Also yes.

Your contention is that because the approximate dates listed by scientists don't come with error bars that you can twist to fit your agenda, then this is bad science, therefore wrong science, and therefore the entirety of evolutionary theory and the demonstrable scientific advancements that only work because evolution is true is somehow wrong.

Because you wanted there to be a couple extra numbers, and there weren't. In your own writing. That you didn't provide sources for. So we have no reason to think you've suddenly come on with an attack of the honesty's after days of lying your ass off.