The Dodwell Data now out!!!!!

[dad]

The reason that Karnac does matter so much is that when the wrong solstice is used it is far the largest deviation and most significant point on the curve. However when the correct solstice is used as I pointed out before.

One reason I said that Karnak doesn't matter, was because the correct soltice is not known for sure. Regardless if it was in a link somewhere.


As I pointed out..


"There are a number of problems that confront any study looking at deliberate astronomical orientation of the temples of Egypt. Firstly it is clear that the Ancient Egyptians were not consistent in their temples alignments, which point to many different azimuths and as such to different potential astronomical events . In the case of stellar alignments, the most obvious contenders are the first magnitude stars like Sirius, Canopus, Vega and Arcturus, although constellation groupings like Orion, Cassiopeia and Ursa Major could also have been used. Unless the dating of a temple is accurately known possible star orientations can be notoriously difficult to assess. Time changes of several hundred years can considerably alter potential stellar alignments."

Egyptian Temple Alignment and Orientation

We would need to know, in other words, the way the heavens were at that time! You chose to assume that they always were as we now see them, basically. However, if the laws and universe of man changed, some differences would exist most likely.

Now I am happy to pursue that angle in another thread, if needed, but Karnak's exact cosmic significance is only guessed at, and a LOT of assumptions are involved.



I have temporarily, just for this thread, and the sake of argument chosen to allow Karnak to be unknown, and not included. You seem to ignore the other 65 data points, so rather than get bogged down on the unknown, better to forget it for now. I am not going to accept your same state past opinions of the heavens and build a bunch of things on that.

#256
"G.S. Hawkins surved the complex and determined that its main axis was southeast, toward sunrise on the day of winter solstice, and northwest, toward sunset on the day of summer solstice. According to Hawkins the winter solstice sunrise was the primary alignment because the view of the summer solstice is blocked.

No. We would need to prove that it was blocked at THAT time. Remember, mountain building and the continental separation likely came as a result of the nature change. Therefore we would need to look at the origins of the hills blocking the view. We would also need to prove that the structure in front of the view in the early days did block, rather than actually augment it! I do not think that is known. And we would need to fix the axis and alignments in THAT time, pre split, for the earth and sun, to see if anything was actually blocked at all!

These are some reasons I said we can leave out that data point for the purposes of this thread.

Hawkins calculated when the complex was started, the Earth's axial tilt was 23 degrees, 87 minutes which would put it right on the Newcombe line.

Worthless. As above.

I have attached the curve with X marking the spot for the correct Karnac solstice and orientation.

No. Sorry. Not enough is known to stick it up in the wild blue yonder.

The pattern of what was known remains clear.


Too many unknowns arise as we get too far into the mists of time...


"[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]

Montu was the major god at Karnak before Amun[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica].[/FONT]​

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]

​

[/FONT] [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]'Just north of the Temple of Amun-Ra, are the foundations of an earlier, but also central and primary, temple dedicated to the god Montu. Little remains of this temple, not because it was weathered by the elements, but rather because it was systematically deconstructed and its building stones used in the construction of other temples. According to Schwaller de Lubicz, this mysterious dismantling of temples, found at Karnak and numerous other places in Egypt, has to do with the changing of the astrological cycles. The supplanting of the bull of Montu with the ram of Amon coincides with the astronomical shift from the age of Taurus, the bull, to the age of Aries, the ram; the earlier temple of Montu had lost its significance with the astronomical change and thus a new temple was constructed to be used in alignment with the current configuration of the stars'.(4)[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica] Montu was the original god in the Theban area. (Montu, originated in the form of a local solar god in Upper (southern) Egypt, apparently at Hermonthis (City of the Sun). His worship appears to have been exported to Thebes around the time of the 11th Dynasty. "


http://www.ancient-wisdom.co.uk/egyptkarnak.htm

[/FONT][/FONT]

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

One reason I said that Karnak doesn't matter, was because the correct soltice is not known for sure. Regardless if it was in a link somewhere.


As I pointed out..


"There are a number of problems that confront any study looking at deliberate astronomical orientation of the temples of Egypt. Firstly it is clear that the Ancient Egyptians were not consistent in their temples alignments, which point to many different azimuths and as such to different potential astronomical events . In the case of stellar alignments, the most obvious contenders are the first magnitude stars like Sirius, Canopus, Vega and Arcturus, although constellation groupings like Orion, Cassiopeia and Ursa Major could also have been used. Unless the dating of a temple is accurately known possible star orientations can be notoriously difficult to assess. Time changes of several hundred years can considerably alter potential stellar alignments."

Egyptian Temple Alignment and Orientation

We would need to know, in other words, the way the heavens were at that time! You chose to assume that they always were as we now see them, basically. However, if the laws and universe of man changed, some differences would exist most likely.

Now I am happy to pursue that angle in another thread, if needed, but Karnak's exact cosmic significance is only guessed at, and a LOT of assumptions are involved.



I have temporarily, just for this thread, and the sake of argument chosen to allow Karnak to be unknown, and not included. You seem to ignore the other 65 data points, so rather than get bogged down on the unknown, better to forget it for now. I am not going to accept your same state past opinions of the heavens and build a bunch of things on that.


No. We would need to prove that it was blocked at THAT time. Remember, mountain building and the continental separation likely came as a result of the nature change. Therefore we would need to look at the origins of the hills blocking the view. We would also need to prove that the structure in front of the view in the early days did block, rather than actually augment it! I do not think that is known. And we would need to fix the axis and alignments in THAT time, pre split, for the earth and sun, to see if anything was actually blocked at all!

Of course it was blocked then. You can't use your imaginary split to try to justify interpretations of data to justify your imaginary split.

These are some reasons I said we can leave out that data point for the purposes of this thread.
Worthless. As above.


No. Sorry. Not enough is known to stick it up in the wild blue yonder.

The pattern of what was known remains clear.

Without Karnac with the wrong solstice there is very little variation and none beyond possible errors in alignment and measurement and the whole argument falls apart so if it is worthless you have no argument and have refuted yourself. With the correct solstice Karnac falls right on the line and there is no argument to make. Since this came from a link you provided you have refuted yourself. So either way you have refuted yourself.

 

[dad]

Originally Posted by Frumious Bandersnatch

Of course it was blocked then. You can't use your imaginary split to try to justify interpretations of data to justify your imaginary split.
​

You know this? You can't use an imaginary same state past to to justify interpretations of data! All I say is that I don't know any more than you do. In fact, if the site is post split, we might have to look at a winter solstice. But we can't impose the one preferred solstice over some other one purely on a hunch, and same state beliefs.

As I also linked to recently, they say that a structure used to be there that probably also obstructed the view....how would we know that...it ain't there any more!?

"Prior to the erection of the obelisk Thutmosis’ grandfather Thutmosis III had erected a festival hall called the ‘Akh-menu’ across the rear of the temple and there is no evidence that it would have permitted the solstitial sun to be seen from within the barque sanctuary of Amun after its construction. Yet prior to the erection of these monuments the situation is not so clear. "

Egyptian Temple Orientation and Alignment - Solar Alignments

Without Karnac with the wrong solstice there is very little variation and none beyond possible errors in alignment and measurement and the whole argument falls apart so if it is worthless you have no argument and have refuted yourself.

​

False! The 65 data pints are all we need. Why harp on Kanak, which is somewhat in the shadows of time?? You want to impose your interpretation on the cosmic alignments of that time and place, which are too fuzzy to be known. Then you want to look at only the imaginary results, and make a silly X way out of place near your line? You haven't even explained why we would stick it up there even if it was a winter solstice alignment!!? So....why??

Very little variation?????? Look again!

Do you have a date for the thing in your opinion???

With the correct solstice Karnac falls right on the line and there is no argument to make.

So what do you claim the correct date is?????




As we get into the mists of time, things become less known.


"[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]'Just north of the Temple of Amun-Ra, are the foundations of an earlier, but also central and primary, temple dedicated to the god Montu. Little remains of this temple, not because it was weathered by the elements, but rather because it was systematically deconstructed and its building stones used in the construction of other temples. According to Schwaller de Lubicz, this mysterious dismantling of temples, found at Karnak and numerous other places in Egypt, has to do with the changing of the astrological cycles. The supplanting of the bull of Montu with the ram of Amon coincides with the astronomical shift from the age of Taurus, the bull, to the age of Aries, the ram; the earlier temple of Montu had lost its significance with the astronomical change and thus a new temple was constructed to be used in alignment with the current configuration of the stars'.(4)[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica] Montu was the original god in the Theban area. (Montu, originated in the form of a local solar god in Upper (southern) Egypt, apparently at Hermonthis (City of the Sun). His worship appears to have been exported to Thebes around the time of the 11th Dynasty. "


http://www.ancient-wisdom.co.uk/egyptkarnak.htm[/FONT][/FONT]

 

[dad]

Wow

This just in....

I have said often that my best guess so far for the flood would be somewhere around the KT level (subject to evidence)

Because Frumy would not drop the Karnak issue, when I pointed out it was not needed for the Dodwell curve, I looked into things a little.

The hills nearby are claimed to be the reason that a summer solstice is out, and we need to accept a winter one.

If indeed the split, or big change in laws and nature was shortly after the flood, then this would put it somewhere around the Tertiary.

Sure enough, (better sit down folks) the hills near the site were uplifted about that time apparently!!

" The geology of the Thebes necropolis was further affected by geological uplifting during the late Tertiary Period,..."

Egypt: The Geography and Geology of the Valley of the Kings on the West Bank at Thebesz

That means that only a same state belief (which cannot be proven) obstructs the actual view!!!!

The evidence mounts indeed. Thanks to Frumy for the assist on that one

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Wow

This just in....

I have said often that my best guess so far for the flood would be somewhere around the KT level (subject to evidence)

Because Frumy would not drop the Karnak issue, when I pointed out it was not needed for the Dodwell curve, I looked into things a little.

The hills nearby are claimed to be the reason that a summer solstice is out, and we need to accept a winter one.

If indeed the split, or big change in laws and nature was shortly after the flood, then this would put it somewhere around the Tertiary.

Sure enough, (better sit down folks) the hills near the site were uplifted about that time apparently!!

" The geology of the Thebes necropolis was further affected by geological uplifting during the late Tertiary Period,..."

Egypt: The Geography and Geology of the Valley of the Kings on the West Bank at Thebesz

That means that only a same state belief (which cannot be proven) obstructs the actual view!!!!

The evidence mounts indeed. Thanks to Frumy for the assist on that one

Thanks for the link. Here is a quote you left out.

Many thousands of years ago, the Nile Valley was an area of dynamic geology, where fluctuating ocean levels resulted in the Mediterranean Sea repeatedly covering the lower lying land, including much of what we call Egypt. Occasionally, the ocean stretched as far south as present day Aswan.

This resulted in three distinct sedimentary rock formations which we refer to as the Dakhla chalk, Esna shale and Theban limestone, which dates from between 35 and 56 million years ago. What we see today when visiting the necropolis on the West Bank at Luxor (ancient Thebes) is primarily made up of these last two layers. The limestone formation is about 300 meters (1,000) feet thick from its highest point to where it meets the Esna shale, which in turn forms a band about 60 meters (200 feet) thick. Limestone is a sedimentary rock consisting chiefly of the mineral calcite, but it can also contain other constituents such as quartz, chert, clay, iron oxides, organics and dolomite. It is the most widely distributed of the carbonate rocks in the Earth's crust. Limestone in the Valley of the Kings varies from extremely fine and structurally sound to fractured and weak. This diversity can develop rapidly. For example, the stone in the tomb of Horemheb (KV57) is excellent, while only a few meters away, tomb KV11 is cut into extremely poor stone. In fact, during the quarrying of tombs, the workman would often pass through several layers of varying qualities of limestone, and the plans of the tombs may have sometimes been altered for this reason.

 

[dad]

Thanks for the link. Here is a quote you left out.

Many thousands of years ago, the Nile Valley was an area of dynamic geology, where fluctuating ocean levels resulted in the Mediterranean Sea repeatedly covering the lower lying land, including much of what we call Egypt. Occasionally, the ocean stretched as far south as present day Aswan.

Hey I asked that the data point be left out, it isn't needed. The pattern of the data curve is clear. But you asked for it...

They have no clue about 'fluctuating oceans'. The flood caused a lot of flux. The pre flood seas also meant water levels would fluctuate. And etc.

This resulted in three distinct sedimentary rock formations which we refer to as the Dakhla chalk, Esna shale and Theban limestone, which dates from between 35 and 56 million years ago.

Dates are meaningless present state conjecture. But 3 formations is NO problem!

What we see today when visiting the necropolis on the West Bank at Luxor (ancient Thebes) is primarily made up of these last two layers.

Bingo, in particular the one that makes the hills obstruct the view. So all we need to ask now is if the temple was first built where the uplift stopped, in the valley after the uplift or before!? If before, then the hills stopped before the site. If after, then maybe they did use a winter solstice, since the hills were there now. Either way, it can't help you. And certainly any assumptions of cosmic alignments made by your old age pals sails right along imagining that our present axis, and realities and relation and angles to the heavens were the same. Unless we know that, speculation is useless.

The limestone formation is about 300 meters (1,000) feet thick from its highest point to where it meets the Esna shale, which in turn forms a band about 60 meters (200 feet) thick. Limestone is a sedimentary rock consisting chiefly of the mineral calcite, but it can also contain other constituents such as quartz, chert, clay, iron oxides, organics and dolomite.

So? Point? The uplift was preceded by the flood after all, and ancient seas and all sorts of things before that. So?

It is the most widely distributed of the carbonate rocks in the Earth's crust. Limestone in the Valley of the Kings varies from extremely fine and structurally sound to fractured and weak.

Right...so?? Things lithified and/or were shoved up, in a less than uniform way there. No surprise to me, you shell shocked for some reason?


The fact remains that the hills came up (if my assumption on layers is correct) after the flood, and around the time of the nature change! That also fits all the death there! Lifespans suddenly about 1/10 what we were used to...kings and people dying all over. Fits like a glove. Add to that the difficulty men had communicating with others shortly after Babel, and look at all the picture writing there!

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Hey I asked that the data point be left out, it isn't needed. The pattern of the data curve is clear. But you asked for it...

They have no clue about 'fluctuating oceans'. The flood caused a lot of flux. The pre flood seas also meant water levels would fluctuate. And etc.

Dates are meaningless present state conjecture. But 3 formations is NO problem!

Bingo, in particular the one that makes the hills obstruct the view. So all we need to ask now is if the temple was first built where the uplift stopped, in the valley after the uplift or before!? If before, then the hills stopped before the site. If after, then maybe they did use a winter solstice, since the hills were there now. Either way, it can't help you. And certainly any assumptions of cosmic alignments made by your old age pals sails right along imagining that our present axis, and realities and relation and angles to the heavens were the same. Unless we know that, speculation is useless.


So? Point? The uplift was preceded by the flood after all, and ancient seas and all sorts of things before that. So?


Right...so?? Things lithified and/or were shoved up, in a less than uniform way there. No surprise to me, you shell shocked for some reason?


The fact remains that the hills came up (if my assumption on layers is correct) after the flood, and around the time of the nature change! That also fits all the death there! Lifespans suddenly about 1/10 what we were used to...kings and people dying all over. Fits like a glove. Add to that the difficulty men had communicating with others shortly after Babel, and look at all the picture writing there!

The fact remains that Dodwell's nonsense has been thoroughly refuted and provides no support for your absurd different state fantasies.
#359

 

[dad]

The fact remains that Dodwell's nonsense has been thoroughly refuted and provides no support for your absurd different state fantasies.
#359

Say it like you mean it. What is your claimed date for the site?

How would you refute the 65 data points that show a clear pattern of going away from the silly newcombe line?

The observations trump your imagination.

The sign of a defeated argument is repeated posting of a weak claim, rather than dealing in hard issues. Karnak was shown to be near the hills uplifted after the flood. It kind of gives 'older than the hills' new meaning

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Say it like you mean it. What is your claimed date for the site?

How would you refute the 65 data points that show a clear pattern of going away from the silly newcombe line?

Most of those 65 point have little variation from the Newcomb curve. Least squares fitting of exponential functions is dominating by large deviations such as the bogus value for Karnac. I have experience with this type of fitting. I have not have not done the analysis of these data but it is easy to see that a curve fit to a data set with a correct orientation for Karnac will produce a curve that deviates far less from the Newcombe curve and will not even have the functional form that Dodwell picked (logarithmic sine)

The sign of a defeated argument is repeated posting of a weak claim, rather than dealing in hard issues.

The argument was defeated using data from sites you linked. You defeated yourself.

Karnak was shown to be near the hills uplifted after the flood.

The uplift was in the late tertiary about 3 million years ago, again according to a site you linked. Do you think the flood was more than 2.5 million years ago?

The uplift mentioned could not have occured after a global flood that didn't happen.

 

[dad]

Most of those 65 point have little variation from the Newcomb curve.

Looks pretty deviated to me! More so as time goes on. Try to face facts.

Least squares fitting of exponential functions is dominating by large deviations such as the bogus value for Karnac.

I said it wasn't needed. The bogus dates you harp on have no support. The summer solstice could indeed have been what was going on there as first assumed. We don't know. The curve is headed right down, so it doesn't matter too much if it meets right where Dodwell drew it or a half or whole inch over! It still is nowhere near the old age line. Nor can you ever get it there.

I have experience with this type of fitting. I have not have not done the analysis of these data but it is easy to see that a curve fit to a data set with a correct orientation for Karnac will produce a curve that deviates far less from the Newcombe curve and will not even have the functional form that Dodwell picked (logarithmic sine)

No. Your wild insistence on some 'correct' yet unspecified date for Karnak has no merit.

The argument was defeated using data from sites you linked. You defeated yourself.

Nonsense. Some turkey pushing for his agenda of a winter alignment, at the end of some article I may have used a part of, means nothing like that. More likely it means that the rest was so worthless I never deemed it worthy of a mention even!

The uplift was in the late tertiary about 3 million years ago, again according to a site you linked. Do you think the flood was more than 2.5 million years ago?

Yes...in your imaginary time! Of course. In real time, that was about 4500 ears.

Here is a timeline that might help.

The uplift mentioned could not have occured after a global flood that didn't happen.[/quote]

The uplift happened, science even knows that much. Whether you are able to perceive that the flood also happened is inconsequential. The days of blind faith in same state beliefs are gone.

Long live the truth of God's word.


Now, rather than getting all uptight, and in denial, any of you folks that teach or taught the old age dreams simply need to admit you should be saying I don't really know.

 

[Hobz]

Dad,

I'm not sure whether to take you seriously or not. But I just wanted to mention that you need to remove yet another data point, as the later Karnak point is interpolated from the earlier one.

Also, the fact you repeatedly ask Frumious which date he believes should be used for the 66th Karnak point, straight after he shows you the wrong solstice was used for alignment, is testement to your ignorance. I don't know how many times I facepalmed while Frumious repeated the corrected figure you gave him, while you continued to ask for the correct year. No wonder you don't understand science, you obviously don't have the required mental facaulties.

But hey, now that 1 (...or wait 2) of your data points have been shown to be crap, and to lie on the Newcombe line, it seems quite appropriate, that you, for the sake of argument will ignore them, and continue your crusade for ignorance.

Continue to reject reality and substitute it with your own. Makes for good comedy.

 

[dad]

Dad,

I'm not sure whether to take you seriously or not. But I just wanted to mention that you need to remove yet another data point, as the later Karnak point is interpolated from the earlier one.

Right. I think I mentioned the Chinese is the last one somewhere. I actually do not need to remove it, I am just (or was) willing to for the purposes of not getting bogged down in this thread. Present nature is required, forces and laws etc, for Karnak to be imagined at some silly other date, and that can't happen. No present nature can be proven to heave existed in the past.

Also, the fact you repeatedly ask Frumious which date he believes should be used for the 66th Karnak point, straight after he shows you the wrong solstice was used for alignment, is testement to your ignorance. I don't know how many times I facepalmed while Frumious repeated the corrected figure you gave him, while you continued to ask for the correct year. No wonder you don't understand science, you obviously don't have the required mental facaulties.

I was wondering if he would take tha bait. But I guess he avoided it. But do take a look at the picture of the Dodwell curve I put up several times. Notice at the bottom the dates? They are important, to relate things to a YEC debate. You can stop slapping your head.

But hey, now that 1 (...or wait 2) of your data points have been shown to be crap, and to lie on the Newcombe line, it seems quite appropriate, that you, for the sake of argument will ignore them, and continue your crusade for ignorance.

Ah, now you show where you are at. Obviously if we were to have not used the one Karnak point, we would not have used the other.

But since I had to take Frumy to the 'you don't actually know thht laugh as hard as I do.e state at the time woodshed', and look at evidence of when and how the obstruction to the view of the summer soltice took place, we see that it was post flood and fits.

You see neither Egyptologists,nor professors with an ax to grind making a trip to Egypt, or the scientist specializing in one area only, can put all the pieces of the puzzle together. They only deal with half a deck.

So what would you date Karnak at, and why..?

Continue to reject reality and substitute it with your own. Makes for good comedy.

If you knew which was which, you might laugh as hard as I do, and have the last laugh, as I will.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Looks pretty deviated to me! More so as time goes on. Try to face facts.

The facts show that you have no idea about curve fitting or errors
Posted by FB
Least squares fitting of exponential functions is dominating by large deviations such as the bogus value for Karnac.

I said it wasn't needed. The bogus dates you harp on have no support. The summer solstice could indeed have been what was going on there as first assumed.

A summer solstice that couldn't be seen. Without the Karnac data points you get very different result and the data don't even fit the type of function that Dodwell used.

We don't know. The curve is headed right down, so it doesn't matter too much if it meets right where Dodwell drew it or a half or whole inch over! It still is nowhere near the old age line. Nor can you ever get it there.

The curve is not headed right down when the correct solstice is used for Karnac. It is quite flat.
#359

No. Your wild insistence on some 'correct' yet unspecified date for Karnak has no merit.

I am using the same date that Dodwell used. You really have no clue about this do you.

Nonsense. Some turkey pushing for his agenda of a winter alignment, at the end of some article I may have used a part of, means nothing like that. More likely it means that the rest was so worthless I never deemed it worthy of a mention even!

Hawkins was right. Lockyer, who Dodwell used was wrong.

Yes...in your imaginary time! Of course. In real time, that was about 4500 ears.

Here is a timeline that might help.

The only appropriate response to this total nonsense is to the 100th power. At least you are still good for comedy.

 

[Nostromo]

Dad, what was the orientation of the Earth's axis before this event that Dodwell pointed out?

 

[dad]

The facts show that you have no idea about curve fitting or errors
Posted by FB
Least squares fitting of exponential functions is dominating by large deviations such as the bogus value for Karnac.

OK, I think you have shown that you have no clue about Karnak. You prefer to accept some half baked straw grasping opinion of a winter solstice, because it placates your same state belief system. If it was a summer solstice I guess Dodwell may have been right on the money. But you were informed that Karmak aside, the trend is still clear.

Obviously the 65 data points all point in the same direction....away from the Newcombe belief curve! So forget this business of trying to play with the math, and declare anything bogus.

A summer solstice that couldn't be seen.

Here we go again. You can't face the fact that the trend is clear without Karnak.

We have no idea what could be seen. In fact, if I am correct about the dates, and layers, the hills would have to have not been there!

Without the Karnac data points you get very different result and the data don't even fit the type of function that Dodwell used.

So explain how the Karnak point is needed for the Chinese and all the other points to have any meaning?

The curve is not headed right down when the correct solstice is used for Karnac. It is quite flat.
#359

The correct one was likely used. Your obstruction to the view wasn't there.

I am using the same date that Dodwell used. You really have no clue about this do you.

From what you say, one would not get many clues. If you claims some point, just say it.

Hawkins was right. Lockyer, who Dodwell used was wrong.

Don't be childish. You have no idea. Your whole case hinges on the uplift in the valley of the kings area being in some same state past la la land. You can't prove that.

If Karnak stays in it does so with a summer solstice.



Plotting a curve seems to depend on having data points, then connecting the dots. When we do that for the Dodwell data, we can see that by the time we get to ancient China it is going away from the Newcombe line.


"In general a 2D curve is painted by rendering in 2D form a finite set of points (sample points) calculated by using the definitions for X(t) and Y(t) and connecting the points with lines."
http://www.dmi.unipg.it/plot/plot_it2D/help2D.htm

I see no need to confuse matters by alluding to some plotting difficulty that somehow changes the simple data?

 

[dad]

Dad, what was the orientation of the Earth's axis before this event that Dodwell pointed out?

What did Dodwell claim it was? What do you claim it was? It depends on if whether the split was the event or not. Since I doubt there are celestial records from before the split, how would you propose we tell?

 

[SignOfGod]

What did Dodwell claim it was? What do you claim it was? It depends on if whether the split was the event or not. Since I doubt there are celestial records from before the split, how would you propose we tell?

Dad you are over the hill and far away, even though we know that the damage done to you was done with the best intension's in the world it still doesn't help you very much does it?

 

[dad]

Dad you are over the hill and far away, even though we know that the damage done to you was done with the best intension's in the world it still doesn't help you very much does it?

Not accepting a godless and unproven nature in the past is actually far from damage.

I accept that a flood happened. Since it would be before the period in which the hills that now obstruct a clear summer solstice view at Karnak were lifted up, claiming an obstruction shortly after the flood cannot be a basis for anything. Not without proof.

Do you believe in the flood that Jesus spoke of? I see you have a Christian icon. Do you believe God created the universe in the beginning, including man and beast? Do you believe Adam lived 930 years, and some people longer than that by many decades? Do you believe in a new heavens and earth that the bible talks about? If so, you are not limited by present nature either.

 

[dad]

To conclude then...the pattern is clear. The data diverges from evo claims more and more as we go back into history...and we can leave out Karnak. Something is rotten in Denmark. Thanks Dodwell, good work.

 

[NGC 6712]

Dodwell's rejected manuscript - because he couldn't address the errors of the ancient observations. Of course I wouldn't want to try either - the systematics are impossible to calculate which is why this document is worthless.