All eyes evolved from a common ancestor!

Originally posted by Lord Leto
Well if "nothing" can't sudently become something without external factors then the most logical answer is that the universe skiped the beggining part .

We should consider the posibility that it may not have a beggining.
Existance chould very well be just an error rezulted from perfect nothingness( nothing= no matter ,no laws of any kind ,no dimension ...[text shortened]... t of religions on Earth , that kind of proves something.

Sorry for the bad english . Peace

…Well if "nothing" can't sudently become something without external factors then the most logical answer is that the universe skiped the beggining part .
..…

You make it sound like you are responding to a comment made earlier in this thread that I don’t see! (please correct me if I am wrong by pointing out the relevant page and post)

Not sure what your post has to do with the current discussion here -did you post this in the wrong thread here by mistake?

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…This does not
invalidate dendrochronology in my opinion it validates it, but not the way you would
prefer to see it answer questions you have about the past.
Kelly

Huh? Do you mean that dendrochronology is valid, but that you can't use it as a dating method? That doesn't make sense. If it's valid, you can use it to answer questions abou inevitably failing to very tediously decipher what his position is when he has no position!

[/b]I asked him about the same contradiction before, but he ignored that in his reply. I suspect he understands 'validity' differently than how I use it in this thread, but I'm not sure.

Originally posted by DdV
I asked him about the same contradiction before, but he ignored that in his reply. I suspect he understands 'validity' differently than how I use it in this thread, but I'm not sure.[/b]

The study of tree rings or a dating method, if you want to use tree rings as a dating
method no, but tree rings in general they are looking at it carefully.
Kelly

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…This does not
invalidate dendrochronology in my opinion it validates it, but not the way you would
prefer to see it answer questions you have about the past.
Kelly

Huh? Do you mean that dendrochronology is valid, but that you can't use it as a dating method? That doesn't make sense. If it's valid, you can use it to answer questions abou inevitably failing to very tediously decipher what his position is when he has no position!

[/b]"which he does very often"
If you want to say things like this I suggest you bring in examples, or we can dance
around your straight line circular logic again.
kelly

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…not sure what your talking about when
you say "they are" you referring to tree rings or other methods?
..…

Tree rings -although what I said also applies to all dating methods.

….It does means you don't know why the rings are there!
...…

What on earth are you talking about now? Where did I say/imply this?
I already sa the watch …”

-so should we regard digital watches as untrustworthy estimators of time?[/b]

"I already said why the tree rings are there in another post:
they are caused by how the growth of new wood responds to the general changes in weather from one part of the year to another (the seasons). "

Not true, they resond to several different things, and not all fall into play in one part
of the year to another, if that were the case you'd have an argument to use them
as a measure of time. What you have are just plain and simple causes that can and
do happen several times in any given year or from one part of the year to another.
Kelly

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…yet you don't consider tree rings a valid dating method?
..…

Where did DdV say/imply this?

The rest of your post is flawed because it uses the straw man argument that this is his position.

Pointing out that a measurement, like all measurements, is not infinitely accurate does not say/imply in any way that the measurement is “invali ...[text shortened]... r it: it “matters” if you cannot explain it because this proves the tree ring data to be valid.[/b]

“…how do you explain how tree ring data agrees with other dating methods?…”

I'm saying it doesn't matter, because as a dating method it does not measure time
well! You again can get animal fur to give you the same answers, that does not make
animal fur a good measure of time.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
“…how do you explain how tree ring data agrees with other dating methods?…”

I'm saying it doesn't matter, because as a dating method it does not measure time
well! You again can get animal fur to give you the same answers, that does not make
animal fur a good measure of time.
Kelly

How do your two proposed methods, dendrochronology and fur analysis, compare in terms of accuracy?

Originally posted by KellyJay
“…how do you explain how tree ring data agrees with other dating methods?…”

I'm saying it doesn't matter, because as a dating method it does not measure time
well! You again can get animal fur to give you the same answers, that does not make
animal fur a good measure of time.
Kelly

I seriously fail to understand how you cannot grasp what can only be described as simple common sense. Anyone with a simple base intelligence can understand this. Which leads me to think one of two things.

1. You are very, very stupid.

2. You're winding us up and it's all a big joke.

But judging by this comment,

'You again can get animal fur to give you the same answers, that does not make animal fur a good measure of time.'

I reckon it's answer number 1.

Originally posted by PBE6
How do your two proposed methods, dendrochronology and fur analysis, compare in terms of accuracy?

The point is that neither of them have anything to do with getting time right it is just
a number that is close to something else. Fur has no connection to time, neither is
a method that can produce more than expected rings for any given time period for
a variety of reasons, and we are to use that method as if it were one that is used as
if it gave us a specific number of rings over a specific amount of time without knowing
how far off we are at all.
Kelly

Originally posted by Proper Knob
I seriously fail to understand how you cannot grasp what can only be described as simple common sense. Anyone with a simple base intelligence can understand this. Which leads me to think one of two things.

1. You are very, very stupid.

2. You're winding us up and it's all a big joke.

But judging by this comment,

'You again can get animal fur ...[text shortened]... s, that does not make animal fur a good measure of time.'

I reckon it's answer number 1.

Typical of you, you leave the discussion on the table and attack someone in a
discussion.
Kelly

Originally posted by PBE6
How do your two proposed methods, dendrochronology and fur analysis, compare in terms of accuracy?

don’t think “fur analysis” is even a recognised dating method?

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
don’t think “fur analysis” is even a recognised dating method?

Maybe it should be recognised, since Kelly seems to have proof it's in good agreement with dendrochronology? 😀

Originally posted by KellyJay
The study of tree rings or a dating method, if you want to use tree rings as a dating
method no, but tree rings in general they are looking at it carefully.
Kelly

That doesn’t explain it because you previously said:

…This does NOT invalidate DENDROCHRONOLOGY in my opinion it validates it, but NOT the way you would prefer to SEE it answer questions you have about the PAST
..… (my emphasis)

But this is a logical contradiction because you imply here that dendrochronology IS “valid” by saying above that “This does NOT invalidate DENDROCHRONOLOGY” above BUT you also imply here that dendrochronology IS “invalid” by saying above that “but NOT the way you would prefer to SEE it answer questions you have about the PAST” and this implies here that dendrochronology IS “invalid” because dendrochronology IS all about giving dates and dating things! -proof:

http://www.answers.com/topic/dendrochronology

“…The science that uses annual tree rings DATED to their exact year of formation for DATING historical and environmental events and processes…”

I noticed this logical self-contradiction before but didn’t bother pointing it out.
Can you explain how dendrochronology can be BOTH be “valid” AND “invalid”?

Originally posted by KellyJay
"which he does very often"
If you want to say things like this I suggest you bring in examples, or we can dance
around your straight line circular logic again.
kelly[/b]

…I suggest you bring in examples..…

Read my previous post for one example.

(+ you once said you agree that evolution happens and you believe in it after basically saying in many previous posts it cannot happen! -but if you want to answer that you better start another thread in the debates forum)

Originally posted by KellyJay
"I already said why the tree rings are there in another post:
they are caused by how the growth of new wood responds to the general changes in weather from one part of the year to another (the seasons). "

Not true, they resond to several different things, and not all fall into play in one part
of the year to another, if that were the case you'd have a ...[text shortened]... nd
do happen several times in any given year or from one part of the year to another.
Kelly

…"I already said why the tree rings are there in another post:
they are caused by how the growth of new wood responds to the general changes in weather from one part of the year to another (the seasons). "

Not true, they respond to several different things,
..… (spelling corrected)

How does it logically follow from “they respond to several different things” that it is “Not true” that they are MAINLY caused by how the growth of new wood responds to the general changes in weather from one part of the year to another (the seasons)?
(and why do you refer to wood growth as “they”? -I find that eccentric).
Nobody is denying that “they respond to several different things” but how does it logically follow from that that usually the main thing that wood growth respond to is the general changes in weather from one part of the year to another?
( + this not to even mention that it can be empirically verified by direct observations that wood growth generally respond mainly to changes in weather from one part of the year to another)

Are you claiming here that the MAIN cause of tree rings is something OTHER than how the growth of new wood responds to the general changes in weather from one part of the year to another and, if so, exactly what would you claim IS the main cause causing tree rings if not changes in weather from one part of the year to another?