All eyes evolved from a common ancestor!

Originally posted by KellyJay
It would depend on the equipment being used.
Kelly

Precisely (pun intended).

Every measurement...hold on and read that again...every measurement made by anyone, anywhere, at any time!!! includes a standard error. The question is, is that standard error enough to make the measurement useless for the particular application?

Your examples are a little confused. Voltage drops are things that you measure using a piece of equipment, not measurements or measuring instruments themselves. Same with signals. The error associated with the measurement of these phenomena depends on the type of equipment used. A yardstick is an actual measurement device, but as you should recall from high school, the standard error for a yard stick is 1/2 of the smallest gradation. If your yardstick measures things in 1/8ths of an inch, then any measurement you make will have a standard error of +/- 1/16th of an inch. No big deal for measuring a yard of wood, but quite a big deal for measuring the radius of a standard ball bearing. Are yardsticks now unreliable?

Dendrochronology also includes a standard error of about 0.5% of the total measurement, with a measurement range of about 12,000 years possible based on the samples discussed. That's about 12,000 years +/- 60 years. Please check out this website for details:

http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=25&t=2612&m=1

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/slides/slideset/index18.htm (this is a great slide show that explains how false rings and missing rings are dealt with, linked from the page noted above)

Just to let you know, this level of precision is quite good. Drawing an analogy to the yardstick, dendrochronology probably wouldn't be a useful method for dating wood harvested within the past 10 years. However, it is a very good method for dating much older wood objects. If you answered "no" to the question of the yardstick's reliability above, how could you answer "yes" to the question of dendrochronology's reliability?

Please, don't answer without reading the material linked above, and don't answer without addressing any inconsistencies you find in the information posted there.

Please and thank you.

As poincare pointed out, there is one thing that can measure something perfectly, everytime!

The Universe can measure the passage of time perfectly. And since god can do anything He wants, I guess you could make the argument that the Universe IS god

Originally posted by PBE6
Please, don't answer without reading the material linked above, and don't answer without addressing any inconsistencies you find in the information posted there.

Please and thank you.

Of course he will not read any links pointing to science. He doesn't believe in science from the beginning to end. And the only way to keep his ignorance intact is to avoid every source of science.

Why? Because science will disturb his opinions.

Originally posted by PBE6
Precisely (pun intended).

Every measurement...hold on and read that again...[b]every measurement made by anyone, anywhere, at any time!!! includes a standard error. The question is, is that standard error enough to make the measurement useless for the particular application?

Your examples are a little confused. Voltage drops are things that y ...[text shortened]... any inconsistencies you find in the information posted there.

Please and thank you.[/b]

I tell you what, why don't you read the links and points I provided pages ago and
do not bother responding to me until you do. It is a give an take here, if you want
to point to links that support your points of view shouldn't you at least address
those placed in the thread before you jumped in? I don't want to cover ground
aready addressed any more than you do.
Kelly

Originally posted by uzless
As poincare pointed out, there is one thing that can measure something perfectly, everytime!

The Universe can measure the passage of time perfectly. And since god can do anything He wants, I guess you could make the argument that the Universe IS god

How do you measure anything, what is required? A marking of events/areas that
have something to do with the thing you are attempting to measure, correct? With
tree rings that is not the case they have as much to do with events that occur to
the tree that are not bound to annual events for clear markings of time, instead it is
more of a history of the various ways the trees were stressed by cold, heat, water,
wind, or a number of other things.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
How do you measure anything, what is required? A marking of events/areas that
have something to do with the thing you are attempting to measure, correct? With
tree rings that is not the case they have as much to do with events that occur to
the tree that are not bound to annual events for clear markings of time, instead it is
more of a history of the va ...[text shortened]... us ways the trees were stressed by cold, heat, water,
wind, or a number of other things.
Kelly

I'm late to the party. I have no idea what tree rings have to do with poincare

Originally posted by KellyJay
I tell you what, why don't you read the links and points I provided pages ago and
do not bother responding to me until you do. It is a give an take here, if you want
to point to links that support your points of view shouldn't you at least address
those placed in the thread before you jumped in? I don't want to cover ground
aready addressed any more than you do.
Kelly

See? He doesn't read links pointing to science.

Originally posted by KellyJay
It is untrustworthy as I have pointed out because it isn't just time related event it is
related to those things that occur to the tree, you can have several rings appear in
a year or none, so that alone disqualifies it as a measuring tool for time.
Kelly

This is your basic objection. Now, get your spoon ready:

Step 1: Go to the slide show link so graciously provided by PBE6 in his last post, and even more graciously re-posted here: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/slides/slideset/index18.htm

Step 2: READ THE ENTIRE SLIDE SHOW!

Step 3: Go BACK and RE-READ p.2 to find out what dendrochronology IS.

Step 4: Go BACK and RE-READ p.4 to find out how tree rings are formed.

Step 5: Go BACK and RE-READ p.6 to find out what FALSE RINGS are how to distinguish them from annual rings.

Step 6: Go BACK and RE-READ p.7 to find out what FALSE, LOCALLY ABSENT, MICRO and MISSING RINGS are and why they occur, and how CROSSDATING is an important technique to account for these variations.

Step 7: Go BACK and RE-READ p.11 to find out what SKELETON PLOTS are, and why dendrochronology is NOT SIMPLY THE COUNTING OF RINGS.

Step 8: Go BACK and RE-READ p.13 to find out why STANDARDIZATION of MULTIPLE SAMPLES to form a SITE CHRONOLOGY is important, and REALIZE that dendrochronology isn't based on A SINGLE TREE.

Step 9: Go BACK and RE-READ any of the other slides to see how dendrochronology is used in SPECIFIC CASES.

Step 10: Go BACK and READ the original web page so graciously provided by PBE6 in his last post, and even more graciously re-posted here: http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=25&t=2612&m=1

Step 11: THINK CAREFULLY about the content and manner of the ideas put forth by Dr. Batten in his attempt to falsify dendrochronology, and REALIZE where and how his arguments fail. THINK about a possible MOTIVE for deliberately misrepresenting the truth, and REALIZE that you DON'T have to fall victim to this kind of subterfuge!

Originally posted by KellyJay
How do you measure anything, what is required? A marking of events/areas that
have something to do with the thing you are attempting to measure, correct? With
tree rings that is not the case they have as much to do with events that occur to
the tree that are not bound to annual events for clear markings of time, instead it is
more of a history of the va ...[text shortened]... us ways the trees were stressed by cold, heat, water,
wind, or a number of other things.
Kelly

KellyJay. I gave you the comeback you were looking for. If you want to talk about the difficulties of measuring time, you need to first start with Newton, move on to Einstein and finish with Poincare.

Originally posted by PBE6
This is your basic objection. Now, get your spoon ready:

Step 1: Go to the slide show link so graciously provided by PBE6 in his last post, and even more graciously re-posted here: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/slides/slideset/index18.htm

Step 2: READ THE ENTIRE SLIDE SHOW!

Step 3: Go BACK and RE-READ p.2 to find out what dendrochronology IS.

Step ...[text shortened]... esenting the truth, and REALIZE that you DON'T have to fall victim to this kind of subterfuge!

Environmental Change again seems the most you can get out of the rings without
jumping through hoops trying to weed out false readings. I'll put more of a responce
together for you later.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Environmental Change again seems the most you can get out of the rings without
jumping through hoops trying to weed out false readings. I'll put more of a responce
together for you later.
Kelly

What? Doing actual science, or "jumping through hoops" as you so inaptly put it, now invalidates the actual science being done? Completely inane.

Originally posted by PBE6
What? Doing actual science, or "jumping through hoops" as you so inaptly put it, now invalidates the actual science being done? Completely inane.

The bottom line is that there are rings that are there that we know are not showing
up anually, we can focus on that. I'm not sure why you think proving a point is
inane, but you seem to.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
The bottom line is that there are rings that are there that we know are not showing
up anually, we can focus on that. I'm not sure why you think proving a point is
inane, but you seem to.
Kelly

Go back and read slide 7 again! A missing ring is accounted for by crossdating. Your objection is invalid.

Originally posted by PBE6
Go back and read slide 7 again! A missing ring is accounted for by crossdating. Your objection is invalid.

Seems like a fair place to start don't you think?
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Seems like a fair place to start don't you think?
Kelly

didn’t you read what he just said?
Reminder:

“…A missing ring is ACCOUNTED for by crossdating....” (my emphasis)