(October 6, 2013 at 9:01 am)Esquilax Wrote:

(October 6, 2013 at 8:27 am)SavedByGraceThruFaith Wrote: 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.

1 picture was supplied and it showed my point.

type

123 million years in google. See how many do not give error ranges. That proves the other point.

---

(October 6, 2013 at 8:57 am)pocaracas Wrote:

(October 6, 2013 at 8:27 am)SavedByGraceThruFaith Wrote: 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.

I have studied the different dating techniques. The case against them being accurate can be made.

(October 6, 2013 at 10:47 am)SavedByGraceThruFaith Wrote:

(October 6, 2013 at 8:57 am)pocaracas Wrote: 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.

I have studied the different dating techniques. The case against them being accurate can be made.

I have no doubt that you have studied dating techniques with exactly the same care and honest attention you have directed to numerous other branches of science. I have no doubt at all.

So I take it your response is your excuse for not bothering to read the paper pocaracas posted for you? Kind of like how you keep ducking the real scientists here, like Zazzy, who offered to walk you through this stuff? Kind of like how you keep brushing off the many other posters who have provided link after link of information to you in multiple threads?

No, your scientific bona fides and fundamental integrity haven't been in any doubt for some time now.

Now, about that positive evidence for Yahweh . . .

(October 6, 2013 at 10:47 am)SavedByGraceThruFaith Wrote: type 123 million years in google. See how many do not give error ranges. That proves the other point.

Ah yes, the fine, respected scientist, google.

If you actually believe that the contents of a google search, especially one as general as the one you've suggested, are reflective of the practices of the scientific community, then you are even less knowledgeable about science than we previously thought, and that is a true achievement in ignorance, Grace.

Quote:I have studied the different dating techniques. The case against them being accurate can be made.

No no, you don't just get to say that there's a case and the drop the mic as if we now have to take this as fact. Present the case.

(October 6, 2013 at 11:18 am)Esquilax Wrote: No no, you don't just get to say that there's a case and the drop the mic as if we now have to take this as fact. Present the case.

Good god, man! Why would Grace resort to presenting a case now, when denial and ignorant assertiveness have worked so well?

(October 6, 2013 at 10:47 am)SavedByGraceThruFaith Wrote: I have studied the different dating techniques. The case against them being accurate can be made.

Each method has its own accuracy.... represented by the error bar.

(October 6, 2013 at 11:18 am)Esquilax Wrote:

(October 6, 2013 at 10:47 am)SavedByGraceThruFaith Wrote: I have studied the different dating techniques. The case against them being accurate can be made.

No no, you don't just get to say that there's a case and the drop the mic as if we now have to take this as fact. Present the case.

Please, God, no....

(October 6, 2013 at 2:58 pm)apophenia Wrote: Please, God, no....

You'll read your nonsense post and like it, damn it!

(October 5, 2013 at 4:04 pm)SavedByGraceThruFaith Wrote: The dates given by AOS for past events may actually disprove evolution entirely

When atheistic origin science gives dates, they seem to violate standard scientific practice. Real science gives a number and an error range. But atheistic origin science many times quotes a number without any error range. You will read things like 123 million years ago. Why the lack of an error range? What is the error range? How is that error range determined? This bad scientific practice shows that atheistic origin science is not real science.

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.

Case 2 – determination of the rock layers

Top layer 100 million years
Middle layer 110 million years
Bottom layer 120 million years

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

Top layer 100 million years +- 10 million years
Middle layer 110 million years +- 10 million years
Bottom layer 120 million years +- 10 million years

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

Top layer 108 million years
Middle layer 118 million years
Bottom layer 112 million years

So the middle is the bottom and the bottom is the middle. That would be very hard to explain if these layers exist over a vast area.

Now combine the fossils in the out of order layers and ancestors are more recent than descendants. In fact the dates from case 1 and case 2 may conflict.

So the error ranges may put all the dates of the rock layers and fossil record in jeopardy.

What are the error ranges?

How are they determined?

You are a fucking idiot so moronic that you've stooped to biblical literalism. What the fuck could you possibly know about error bars?

What is the error bar around "The is a god"??????

Whatr is the error bar around "Saved by Grace"???????

What is the error bar around "Faith"??????

Shut the fuck up the shove the bible back up your Jesus reamed ass.

(October 6, 2013 at 4:20 pm)Chuck Wrote: You are a fucking idiot so moronic that you've stooped to christainity. What the fuck do you know about error bars? What is the error bar around "The is a god" or "Jesus saves"???????

Shut the fuck up the shove the bible back up your Jesus reamed ass.

Why all the hatred at the OP?
We were half trying to have a civilized conversation...

(October 6, 2013 at 4:22 pm)pocaracas Wrote:

(October 6, 2013 at 4:20 pm)Chuck Wrote: You are a fucking idiot so moronic that you've stooped to christainity. What the fuck do you know about error bars? What is the error bar around "The is a god" or "Jesus saves"???????

Shut the fuck up the shove the bible back up your Jesus reamed ass.

Why all the hatred at the OP?
We were half trying to have a civilized conversation...

It is contempt, not hatred. Letting him know how contemptible he has become is the most civilized thing that could be done to him.