Summations Only

I'm showing that what you call "science" is nothing but subjective imagination.

Yes, you all insist that the physical sequence of fossils, or "order," and the timescale interpretation of the "fossil order" are synonymous. You can't even really tell them apart because the interpretation is so habitually ingrained by now. I'm trying to show that that's a monumental cheat, that they are not the same thing at all, but just the imposition of a completely unprovable subjective judgment on the reality.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

No Faith, that is simply not true. You are not trying to show anything or you would be presenting the explanation of how your flud placed objects in the positions where they wer found.The Biblical Flud is just a fantasy marketed by some Christian and Muslim Cults.

quote:

---

Yes, you all insist that the physical sequence of fossils, or "order," and the timescale interpretation of the "fossil order" are synonymous

---

Naturally the orders will be the same, by the law of superposition. But there is no need to assume any particular dating at all.

quote:

---

You can't even really tell them apart because the interpretation is so habitually ingrained by now.

---

Apparently you can’t even when it’s clear that I’m talking about the actual physical order. So if conflating the two is a monumental cheat then you are the guilty party.

quote:

---

The other methods of dating take you no further back than 10,000 years, such as tree rings

---

Even tree rings go last 12,000 years. Varve counts go back significantly further, and ice cores can go back hundreds of thousands of years.

Radiometric dating is only ONE kind of dating, and it's the only method that justifies your absurd billions of years. Other creationists have shown so much error in the method it shouldn't be taken seriously. The other methods you all use don't point to more than ten thousand years. The Flood IS the geological record, it created the whole geological column, it laid down the strata that have been so absurdly mentally transformed into separate "time periods" in a made-up history of the Earth of billions of years. Biggest illusion ever invented.I've shown many ways already that the time periods don't work.

A motley collection of dates, and none of them justify the billions of years craziness.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Wow, I think that must be the most wacko thing I've heard yet. By the same logic Phrenology also must be synonymous with the observed facts it's based on.

I don't know how the Flood did a lot of things, but that's better than you all thinking you know things that are nothing but mental cobwebs.

quote:

---

Wow, I think that must be the most wacko thing I've heard yet.

---

Funny how you think obvious truths are crazy, but then you think obvious lunacy is fact.No, since earlier stuff ends up on the bottom the order from bottom to top is a chronological order of deposition. Funny how you can’t work out something that obvious.

The Flood laid it all down chronologically but only hours or days apart. There is nothing about the chronology that makes it synonymous with the timescale paradigm's billions of years. RFunny how you can't work out something that obvious.

quote:

---

There is nothing about the chronology that makes it synonymous with the timescale paradigm's billions of years. RFunny how you can't work out something that obvious.

---

Of course I didn’t say anything about the timescales. I explicitly excluded the timescales. So all you have is misrepresention.
And foolish misrepresentation at that. You didn’t really think you could get away with it, did you ?

quote:

---

A motley collection of dates, and none of them justify the billions of years craziness

---

They make my point, though. And they justify the rejection of YEC. There is not one valid dating method that limits the age of the Earth to anything like 10,000 years.

Given that Faith very probably doesn't have a clue why that should be significant, let's do the math yet again.In applying any test, there is a probability p that it gives us a valid result and a probability q (such that q = 1-p) that it gives us a false result. The probability p is called our "confidence interval" and is usually much more than 95% for most tests. The probability that n independent tests all give us a false result would be qⁿ. As I'm sure that Faith is not aware, multiplying a value less than 1 (and greater than zero) by itself yields a smaller number, so doing it n times makes the result ever smaller. Not to mention that q would be even smaller if you add the requirement that every test gives you the same wrong result, but it would be difficult to arrive at an actual probability for that.Our confidence interval for dating tests would be 90% or greater, giving us a q of 10%. If we use 10 independent tests, the probability of getting a wrong date every single time would be 0.1¹⁰ which would be 1^-10, giving us 99.9999999% probability of having the right date, very close to dead certainty.But let's make it much more difficult for ourselves. Let's assume a 50-50 chance of a valid result, which would give us a q of 50%. 0.5¹⁰ = 0.001 probability of all tests giving us a wrong date, giving us 99.9% confidence that we have the right date, again very close to dead certainty. And as already noted, the probability of all the tests giving us the exact same wrong date would be far lower than 0.1%.{ABE:
Just for sh*ts and giggles, let's try a really bad example, a test that we only have 10% confidence in. q=.9 and q¹⁰ = 0.3487, so we would have 65.13% confidence in getting the right result, better than even odds. 100 tests would get us back to greater than 99.9999%
}This is why having independent tests all giving the same answer is so significant.Of course, Faith will reject that and declare mathematics to be false and the crazy product of a false paradigm that has us all brainwashed. Furthermore, she will declare it to be unbiblical, probably by citing the verse which gives the value of π (the ratio of the diameter to the circumference) as an even 3 instead of the crazy value math teaches us, which any mathematician will freely admit is irrational.Edited by dwise1, : ABE: additional example with really bad odds

That's a great example of the dishonesty and intention refusal to think that is the hallmark of your Cult.The reality is the the conventional theories actually explain what is found in reality while you have never been able to provide a model, method, mechanism, process or procedure that would allow the Flud your Cult markets to do anything found in reality.