All eyes evolved from a common ancestor!

Originally posted by KellyJay
Here was my answer the first time you asked, maybe you'll read it this time.


To measure time a couple of things are required a constant and consistency if your
means of measurement isn’t both of those it loses its predictability so that we
cannot build a means to give our errors some means of predictable percentages for
our -/+. If you have a metho ...[text shortened]... ons around it which are random and unknownable just by looking
at the rings themselves.
Kelly

…Here was my ANSWER the first time you asked,
..…(my emphasis)

In what way is it an “answer”?
As I pointed out on page 45 I don’t know what you are talking about here and you STILL haven’t told us if what you mean by “time related” is literally “caused by time itself“:

I asked you on page 44:

“…Can you tell us exactly what you mean by "appear for time reasons" and “related to time” and “time related“ so that we don’t have to keep guessing what you are talking about?
Do you mean “literally caused by time itself” by all these phrases as I so far assumed? …”

So DO you mean “literally caused by time itself”? -this question requires a very very simple “yes” or “no” answer -so yes or no?

If the answer is YES then NOTHING is “time related” by what you mean by that.
If the answer is NO then you must stop talking in such vague language and just tell us clearly exactly what you mean without using phrases that are difficult/impossible for us to decipher.

My post on page 45 said:

“…....
….…To measure time a couple of things are required a constant and consistency if your
means of measurement isn’t both of those it losses its predictability so that we cannot
build a means to give our errors some means of predictable percentages for our -/+.
If you have a method that is not either constant or consistent you really have nothing
to build our errors with due to the method cannot be predictable.
..…

Those two sentence don’t make much syntactical sense to me and I don’t know what you mean by “build our errors with”.

… ........"

So what do you mean by “build our errors with”? -you never clarified that nor any of it.

…. maybe you'll read it this time
…

How could I not have read it and yet queried it on page 45? 😛

…the tree reacts to the conditions around it which are random and unknowable
…

Ok, there is a “random” element to those conditions that reduce accuracy just as there is a “random” element to those conditions that reduce accuracy of my digital watch -but it doesn’t follow from that that the tree rings are not a good ESTIMATOR of time just as it doesn’t follow from that that my watch is not a good ESTIMATOR of time so you have no point here.
And what do you mean by “unknowable”? can’t we know that there are seasons? 😛 can’t we know that the weather in the winter is USUALLY colder than in the summer? 😛

Originally posted by KellyJay
I read it, and your answer was telling.
Kelly

Yes; the “Suppose, just for the sake of argument” part says that I was NOT saying that such a tree exists.

Do you know what the words “Suppose, just for the sake of argument” mean?

Originally posted by Proper Knob
WATCH OUT!!!!! Another Christian Fundametalist in the science forum, this could be good for a laugh.

Come on then Robster, let's have you're 10pence worth on this.

Dendrochronology, what do you think?

KellyJay is providing lots of humour at the moment, and if one Christian fundamentalist isn't making me laugh enough, you surely will.

Lol, and why not, we in the spirituality forum have long been plagued by you pestilent fellows, disrupting our spirituality with non spirituality and unsubstantiated belief masquerading as science. To be honest i have never heard of the term, let me see what i can dig up and if i can be of assistance to your understanding, then it will be my pleasure, as for amusement, well i dunno, kellyjay seems to be perfectly able to enthrall you at present.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I just told you, you want examples?
Kelly

Yes.

Originally posted by PBE6
Yes.

A voltage drop, a yard stick, bouncing a signal off an object things of this nature.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
A voltage drop, a yard stick, bouncing a signal off an object things of this nature.
Kelly

What are the standard errors associated with these measurements?

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…Here was my ANSWER the first time you asked,
..…(my emphasis)

In what way is it an “answer”?
As I pointed out on page 45 I don’t know what you are talking about here and you STILL haven’t told us if what you mean by “time related” is literally “caused by time itself“:

I asked you on page 44:

“…Can you tell us exactly what you me ...[text shortened]... ns? 😛 can’t we know that the weather in the winter is USUALLY colder than in the summer? 😛[/b]

You care to define time, I don't use it as a 'cause' for anything but a marking of the
moments or events. You don't have an event that can be marked due to events that
are occurring in ways that are predictable, constant, or consistent; therefore, your
means of measure is just picking a number out of the air you like best and saying
this is the best one.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
You care to define time, I don't use it as a 'cause' for anything but a marking of the
moments or events. You don't have an event that can be marked due to events that
are occurring in ways that are predictable, constant, or consistent; therefore, your
means of measure is just picking a number out of the air you like best and saying
this is the best one.
Kelly

You haven’t answered most of my last questions (no surprises there) so you have still yet to clarify exactly what you are talking about.

…You care to define time,
..…

Why change the subject?

….…I don't USE it as a 'cause' for anything
… (my emphasis)

I assume here you mean “it isn’t a 'cause' for anything” and NOT “I don't USE it as a 'cause' for anything”;
At last you answer just ONE of my questions!
So you admit that the display on my digital watch isn’t literally ‘caused’ by time itself nor is time literally a ‘cause’ of anything else -now we are getting somewhere.

…. You don't have an event that can be marked due to events that
are occurring in ways that are predictable, constant, or consistent;
…

Such as the temperature fluctuations that effect the speed (therefore the accuracy) of my digital watch -yes.
So, tell us all, and this is the critical question here, should we therefore regard my watch as an untrustworthy ESTIMATOR of time? -this question requires a very simple “yes” or “no” answer.

…therefore, your means of measure is just picking a number out of the AIR you like best and saying this is the best one.
… (my emphasis)

Nope; not out of the “AIR” but take an actual reading of the physical measurement 😛 -this is pretty obvious;
-unless you merely mean from the above that an actual reading is an “estimate”? 😛 -nobody would dispute this. ALL actual readings have an “error of measurement” associated with them without exception but that doesn’t mean none are trustworthy estimates.

http://www.regentsprep.org/Regents/Math/error/LError.htm

“…ANY measurement made with a measuring device is approximate.
….
….
uncertainty in measurement - is "error." This "error" is NOT the same as a "mistake." It does NOT mean that you got the wrong answer. The error in measurement is a mathematical way to show the uncertainty in the measurement.

…” (my emphasis)

-therefore the existence of some limited “error” in the measurement of both tree ring dating and taking a reading from my watch does NOT mean it isn’t approximately correct!

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
You haven’t answered most of my last questions (no surprises there) so you have still yet to clarify exactly what you are talking about.

[b]…You care to define time,
..…

Why change the subject?

….…I don't USE it as a 'cause' for anything
… (my emphasis)

I assume here you mean “it isn’t a 'cause' for anything” and NOT “I do ...[text shortened]... and taking a reading from my watch does NOT mean it isn’t approximately correct![/b]

You avoid much of what I say to pick on a few points that add little to the discussion.
Kelly

Originally posted by PBE6
What are the standard errors associated with these measurements?

It would depend on the equipment being used.
Kelly

I think there is no point in continuing to respond to KellyJay posts as he doesn’t give a clear straight answer to most questions even when they are repeated put to him many times by an number of people in different ways and he has failed to clarify what he is talking about on numerous occasions (we can only assume this is because he doesn’t know what he is talking about -after all, how much does he really know about the sciences he attempts to rubbish? -answer, not a lot) despite a few requests for clarification and he has made it clear by many of his responses to our posts that he is unwilling to engage into serious and intelligent argument (we can only assume that this is because he has no real intelligent position nor clear intelligent argument to back up his phantom ‘position&lsquo😉.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
I think there is no point in continuing to respond to KellyJay posts as he doesn’t give a clear straight answer to most questions even when they are repeated put to him many times by an number of people in different ways and he has failed to clarify what he is talking about on numerous occasions (we can only assume this is because he doesn’t know wha ...[text shortened]... no real intelligent position nor clear intelligent argument to back up his phantom ‘position&lsquo😉.

His method I have minted Kelly Jay retorics. He doesn't have to respond to any questions, because he is confident that his opinion is the correct one anyway. Thousands and thousands scientist specialists during centuries are plain wrong because his guessings are right.

He doesn't believe in any science methods, yet he knows it all. He even believe strongly that there actually were dinosaurs in the ark of Noah. A man like this (KJ) cannot be wrong, of course! 😀

I bet he's just sitting there laughing at us...

Originally posted by FabianFnas
His method I have minted Kelly Jay retorics. He doesn't have to respond to any questions, because he is confident that his opinion is the correct one anyway. Thousands and thousands scientist specialists during centuries are plain wrong because his guessings are right.

He doesn't believe in any science methods, yet he knows it all. He even believe stro ...[text shortened]... e this (KJ) cannot be wrong, of course! 😀

I bet he's just sitting there laughing at us...

…I bet he's just sitting there laughing at us.....…

I sometimes seriously wonder.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
I think there is no point in continuing to respond to KellyJay posts as he doesn’t give a clear straight answer to most questions even when they are repeated put to him many times by an number of people in different ways and he has failed to clarify what he is talking about on numerous occasions (we can only assume this is because he doesn’t know wha ...[text shortened]... no real intelligent position nor clear intelligent argument to back up his phantom ‘position&lsquo😉.

Feel free to blow me off if you wish, basically you have not been very forth coming
in my opinion either.

I've given repeated answers to your questions, maybe not the answers you were
looking for, but you got them nonetheless.

You still are left with a measuring method that cares more about changes around the
tree than it does time which is what you are attempting to justify the tree ring count
with.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Feel free to blow me off if you wish, basically you have not been very forth coming
in my opinion either.

I've given repeated answers to your questions, maybe not the answers you were
looking for, but you got them nonetheless.

You still are left with a measuring method that cares more about changes around the
tree than it does time which is what you are attempting to justify the tree ring count
with.
Kelly

You deny science, but yet you enjoy the fruits of science every day.

You sit and use internet, yet you deny the atomic theory that electronics are based upon, the same atomic theory giving reliability to radiometric dating.

You demand proofs to the minute detail you don't have knowledge to understand, yet you tell us that your opinion of dinosaurs of the ark of Noah is the ultimate proof without any shread of evidence.

You are an ignorant fundamentalist, the very same group from where terrorists are recruited. I say, without fundamentalists there would be no terrorism in the world.
Fundamentalism can be cured by education, but only if the fundamentalist open their ears. You are an example of such a non-educationable fundamentalist.