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

[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.