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

[Airyaman]

I wonder what the next thread in this fascinating series will be. Probably a 12 paragraph dissertation on how the theory of gravity is impossible and really it's God's love that is holding all matter together.

Que STGOF jumping out of multi-story wind to prove "faith in god"

Well, won't be any posts after the jump takes place.

[Minimalist]

Yay.,,,,,,,

[Jackalope]

LOL.
READ!

Just one example, Lucy.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.10....21183/pdf

and where they found her:

Thank you for the picture.

Tuff 8: 3.46 +- 0.12 Ma
Tuff 7: 3.56 +- 0.2 Ma
Tuff 6: 3.78 +- 0.04 Ma

So they could be

Tuff 8: 3.58 Ma
Tuff 7: 3.36 Ma
Tuff 6: 3.74 Ma

So Tuff 7 could be younger than the layer above.

So they could be out of order.

That picture proved the topic's post.

I suggest you look into how geologic layers are formed before making such a ludicrous statement.

Bloody hell, you're stupid.

[Ryantology]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TpuoO5hqA...0B3BKCxqGD

[max-greece]

LOL.
READ!

Just one example, Lucy.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.10....21183/pdf

and where they found her:

Thank you for the picture.

Tuff 8: 3.46 +- 0.12 Ma
Tuff 7: 3.56 +- 0.2 Ma
Tuff 6: 3.78 +- 0.04 Ma

So they could be

Tuff 8: 3.58 Ma
Tuff 7: 3.36 Ma
Tuff 6: 3.74 Ma

So Tuff 7 could be younger than the layer above.

So they could be out of order.

That picture proved the topic's post.

Well astonishingly Gracie this argument is even weaker than your other ones - and that is really saying something.

What circumstances do you perceive that would mean we would use the maximum error level in one direction for a level and the maximum error level in the opposite direction for the subsequent level?

To put the above in a more practical setting.

Do you think it would be possible for a higher level to be older than a lower one (excluding volcanic / seismic disturbance).

Do you think God made the older higher level hover - waiting for the newer, younger level?

[Esquilax]

Thank you for the picture.

Tuff 8: 3.46 +- 0.12 Ma
Tuff 7: 3.56 +- 0.2 Ma
Tuff 6: 3.78 +- 0.04 Ma

So they could be

Tuff 8: 3.58 Ma
Tuff 7: 3.36 Ma
Tuff 6: 3.74 Ma

So Tuff 7 could be younger than the layer above.

So they could be out of order.

That picture proved the topic's post.

So essentially, you picked some numbers out of your ass, randomly applied them to create a logically untenable conclusion, and somehow this is supposed to make science look silly?

I can do that too, you know: Man is created in god's image, god is depicted as having a beard, I don't have a beard, and therefore god doesn't exist.

You can prove practically anything if you're allowed to use the language in a sufficiently elastic manner, but that doesn't mean you've reached a correct conclusion.

[max-greece]

Or:

God made man in his own image.
Man originated in Africa about 200,000 years ago.

Conclusion:

Whatever else God is he sure ain't white.

[SavedByGraceThruFaith]

Thank you for the picture.

Tuff 8: 3.46 +- 0.12 Ma
Tuff 7: 3.56 +- 0.2 Ma
Tuff 6: 3.78 +- 0.04 Ma

So they could be

Tuff 8: 3.58 Ma
Tuff 7: 3.36 Ma
Tuff 6: 3.74 Ma

So Tuff 7 could be younger than the layer above.

So they could be out of order.

That picture proved the topic's post.

So essentially, you picked some numbers out of your ass, randomly applied them to create a logically untenable conclusion, and somehow this is supposed to make science look silly?

I can do that too, you know: Man is created in god's image, god is depicted as having a beard, I don't have a beard, and therefore god doesn't exist.

You can prove practically anything if you're allowed to use the language in a sufficiently elastic manner, but that doesn't mean you've reached a correct conclusion.

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.

[KichigaiNeko]

[Esquilax]

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.