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

[SavedByGraceThruFaith]

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.

---

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.