(October 5, 2013 at 4:04 pm)SavedByGraceThruFaith Wrote: 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.

I'm not sure if anyone in thread has explained this to you yet, because I honestly can't be bothered to read the entire thread, but I should point out that the ranges should not be taken as independent. Common sense should tell you that the descendant can't come before the ancestor.

What the ranges mean is that the number given is an estimation, however there are obvious caveats to taking them as literal ranges that can each be in any position. Clearly, if the ancestor is dated back to 110 million years (i.e. -10 million years), the intermediate cannot have the upper bound it currently does, nor can the descendant.

Yes, the ranges overlap, but they are not independent and should not be (mis)treated as such.

(October 8, 2013 at 2:28 pm)Tiberius Wrote:

(October 5, 2013 at 4:04 pm)SavedByGraceThruFaith Wrote: 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.

I'm not sure if anyone in thread has explained this to you yet, because I honestly can't be bothered to read the entire thread, but I should point out that the ranges should not be taken as independent. Common sense should tell you that the descendant can't come before the ancestor.

What the ranges mean is that the number given is an estimation, however there are obvious caveats to taking them as literal ranges that can each be in any position. Clearly, if the ancestor is dated back to 110 million years (i.e. -10 million years), the intermediate cannot have the upper bound it currently does, nor can the descendant.

Yes, the ranges overlap, but they are not independent and should not be (mis)treated as such.

How can you claim a relationship of ancestor and descendant anyway without the faulty assumption of evolution turning one kind into another kind?
And if the ages of the layers do not prove the assumed relationship of ancestor and descendant, then there is no proof of the claim and potential outright falsification of the theory.

(October 8, 2013 at 2:32 pm)SavedByGraceThruFaith Wrote: How can you claim a relationship of ancestor and descendant anyway without the faulty assumption of evolution turning one kind into another kind?

You've started threads which have garnered at least a thousand total posts, most of them about evolution, and you still can't grasp one of the most basic realities of the process. Seriously, how fucking dumb do you have to be for that to happen?



Light transitions from red to violet as its wavelength shortens. Show me the precise point on the spectrum where red turns into violet.

(October 8, 2013 at 2:22 pm)SavedByGraceThruFaith Wrote:

(October 8, 2013 at 1:59 pm)max-greece Wrote: Gracie,

I am so proud of you! Yes - you made exactly the same erroneous assumption that the original scientists made:

"If the radiation hitting the atmosphere is the same. "

Sadly - it isn't. The levels of background radiation varies (Cosmic Rays if you want to get technical).

This is why the tree rings were such a God-send (tee hee). With Tree rings we have something of known age. We take a C14 reading from that and can then extrapolate the curve that we use to correct readings.

From the same tree rings we can see that the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere haven't changed dramatically in 11,000 years. We can extrapolate further but we don't use Carbon dating beyond 40,000 years for reasons including the one you mentioned (varying amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere).

The background radiation may vary but not 20 to 1.

The tree rings cannot be used because they cannot correct for the 20X CO2 in the presence of less radiation hitting the atmosphere before the flood.

You also do not have 11,000 years of tree ring history.

"The tree rings cannot be used because they cannot correct for the 20X CO2 in the presence of less radiation hitting the atmosphere before the flood."?????

Where does this come from?

(October 8, 2013 at 2:36 pm)Ryantology Wrote:

(October 8, 2013 at 2:32 pm)SavedByGraceThruFaith Wrote: How can you claim a relationship of ancestor and descendant anyway without the faulty assumption of evolution turning one kind into another kind?

You've started threads which have garnered at least a thousand total posts, most of them about evolution, and you still can't grasp one of the most basic realities of the process. Seriously, how fucking dumb do you have to be for that to happen?



Light transitions from red to violet as its wavelength shortens. Show me the precise point on the spectrum where red turns into violet.

Basic definitions and facts have been given to no avail. Do you really think this mouth-breather will draw the correct conclusion from an analogy?

I applaud you and anyone else who wishes to continue reasoning with Grace, but you'd be better off jerking off your pets: at least you'd have a little something to show for the effort, and the animal might demonstrate some basic fucking gratitude.

(October 8, 2013 at 2:36 pm)Ryantology Wrote: Light transitions from red to violet as its wavelength shortens. Show me the precise point on the spectrum where red turns into violet.

Or how about this?

This is a recently released morph made as part of a study into the psychology of attractiveness (apologies for the nightmare fuel):



Can you point to the exact spot where "Obushma" transitions from one to the other?

(October 8, 2013 at 2:32 pm)SavedByGraceThruFaith Wrote: How can you claim a relationship of ancestor and descendant anyway without the faulty assumption of evolution turning one kind into another kind?
And if the ages of the layers do not prove the assumed relationship of ancestor and descendant, then there is no proof of the claim and potential outright falsification of the theory.

I was only explaining how the error ranges work. However, you make a few logical errors in your conclusions.

For example, imagine that we discover a perfect method of dating, and we then find that the claimed ancestor actually appeared after the claimed descendant. This does not automatically mean (as you claim) that all of evolution is wrong, because that is not the only possibility.

It would be clear in this scenario that the ancestor is not really the ancestor, but that doesn't suddenly mean that all claimed ancestors aren't the ancestors they are claimed to be. It only applies in this one case! One case of science being wrong (and correcting its mistake) does not make all of science wrong. The entire process of science is based on people correcting previous mistakes in thinking; that is how we've got from thinking that evil spirits caused disease to modern day germ theory.

So the problem is, you set up a false dichotomy where there isn't a dichotomy at all.

Falsification of evolution would not involve a single evolutionary claim being wrong; it would involve all the mechanisms described by evolution to be proved wrong, and any observed instances of things like speciation, etc. described better with another theory.

(October 8, 2013 at 2:22 pm)SavedByGraceThruFaith Wrote: The background radiation may vary but not 20 to 1.

I don't believe anyone claimed that it did.

(October 8, 2013 at 2:22 pm)SavedByGraceThruFaith Wrote: The tree rings cannot be used because they cannot correct for the 20X CO2 in the presence of less radiation hitting the atmosphere

20x, as pointed out to you, was on the order of 500 million years ago, many orders of magnitude longer ago than the date ranges in question. It's irrelevant to the question.

Do you have any idea why there was so much more CO2 500 million years ago than now, and so little free oxygen. Hmm, I wonder what that might be. (hint: plants)

(October 8, 2013 at 2:22 pm)SavedByGraceThruFaith Wrote: before the flood.

Please, pull the other one.

(October 8, 2013 at 2:22 pm)SavedByGraceThruFaith Wrote: You also do not have 11,000 years of tree ring history.

Wrong.

Quote:Currently, the maximum for fully anchored chronologies is a little over 11,000 years from present.[1]

McGovern PJ, et al. (1995). Dendrochronology. "Science in Archaeology: A Review". AJA 99 (1): 79–142.

It's abundantly clear to everyone here that you're pulling this stuff out of your ass.

You got that kudos point for bothering to look up the paper (McGovern PJ, et al. (1995). Dendrochronology. "Science in Archaeology: A Review". AJA 99 (1): 79–142.) - I was just too tired to do it.

(October 8, 2013 at 2:58 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote:

(October 8, 2013 at 2:22 pm)SavedByGraceThruFaith Wrote: The background radiation may vary but not 20 to 1.

I don't believe anyone claimed that it did.

(October 8, 2013 at 2:22 pm)SavedByGraceThruFaith Wrote: The tree rings cannot be used because they cannot correct for the 20X CO2 in the presence of less radiation hitting the atmosphere

20x, as pointed out to you, was on the order of 500 million years ago, many orders of magnitude longer ago than the date ranges in question. It's irrelevant to the question.

Do you have any idea why there was so much more CO2 500 million years ago than now, and so little free oxygen. Hmm, I wonder what that might be. (hint: plants)

(October 8, 2013 at 2:22 pm)SavedByGraceThruFaith Wrote: before the flood.

Please, pull the other one.

(October 8, 2013 at 2:22 pm)SavedByGraceThruFaith Wrote: You also do not have 11,000 years of tree ring history.

Wrong.

Quote:Currently, the maximum for fully anchored chronologies is a little over 11,000 years from present.[1]

McGovern PJ, et al. (1995). Dendrochronology. "Science in Archaeology: A Review". AJA 99 (1): 79–142.

It's abundantly clear to everyone here that you're pulling this stuff out of your ass.

Do you have a single tree with 11000 rings?