The Dodwell Data now out!!!!!

[dad]

The accuracy has already been dealt with in this thread. None of it points to the laws of physics being different a few thousand years ago, or the spiritual mixed in with the physical anyway.

Nothing you say has any relation to fact, though, that presents a problem. All of the evidence points to a different state. Stop spamming the thread with vague non truths.

If you state ahead of time you wil accept no evidence that falsifies your dogma, then you will never be convinced that you are wrong. This attitude of yours just reinforces your hubris, arrogance and blasphemy. Your interpretation of scripture is not infallible and you are not God.

Wasted words. Don't pretend to have evidence for a same state in the past. You do not. Some lurkers can read. Who do you think you are kidding?

Tell me straight out, dad. If you are all wrong, how would you ever find out?

Well, I would look to the bible. Tell me straight out, SR, If you are all wrong, how would you ever find out?!! ..Besides me telling you?

There are now a total of 34 votes in. 6 voted for the other two pet theories or "I don't know." I know at least 4 are creationists and the other 2 are likely creationists. ..

So you have 2 bible believers voting, then. Whoopee do? How informed are they? ( I daresay, not very.. )

You must be kidding.

 

[dad]

Is there objectively verifiable evidence of a different state past, yes or no?

I consider the bible objective, do you? Cause you will find yourself in a dark dead end, if not..

 

[Tomatoman]

dad:

All of the evidence points to a different state

You keep saying this as if you had masses of evidence. You don't. You only have the half-baked myths of the old testament, which are children's stories. Your whole belief system is based on children's stories, dad. That's pathetic.

dad:

Stop spamming the thread with vague non truths.

translation: Stop trying to spoil my fantasy with facts and the real world. It's not fair.

dad:

Wasted words.

All words are wasted on you, dad You have admitted the limits of your knowledge and comprehension. In England we'd politely say you are educationally challenged.

dad:

Don't pretend to have evidence for a same state in the past. You do not. Some lurkers can read. Who do you think you are kidding?

And here we go again. Told repeatedly that until we have evidence that the past was different no-one will give a stuff about his loopy ideas, dad blithely carries on as if he hadn't had this laboriously explained to him a hundred times. Dad, we have seen no anomalies when using our current state science to explain the history of our planet. None. If you'd care to present us with some we'll have a look at them. (Hint: old myths do not count as scientific anomalies.)

dad:

Well, I would look to the bible. Tell me straight out, SR, If you are all wrong, how would you ever find out?!! ..Besides me telling you?

If your source of truth is the bible then the world you are living in is not only a fantasy world, but a much smaller, narrower and appallingly blinkered world than the one the rest of us live in, dad. If I were you I would put the bible to one side (preferably in the nearest bin) and visit a library. Go to the science section, and start reading. Then report back to us in about 10 years.

dad:

I consider the bible objective, do you?

No.

dad:

Cause you will find yourself in a dark dead end, if not..

Says the man with his head stuck up his own backside.

 

[Split Rock]

Nothing you say has any relation to fact, though, that presents a problem. All of the evidence points to a different state. Stop spamming the thread with vague non truths.

Show us one little shred of evidence that supports a different state past. How many people here have asked you to do this, dad? How many of us? First you say there is no evidence concerning the "state" of the past, then you tell us there is all this evidecne to support a different state past. Which Is It? You are so twisted up in metaphysical knots that you cannot even keep your weird story straight. The only one here posting "vague non-truths" is YOU.

Wasted words. Don't pretend to have evidence for a same state in the past. You do not. Some lurkers can read. Who do you think you are kidding?

Who do you think YOU are kidding? If all these lurkers see the truth of dadology, why are you STILL in a Lonely Church of One?

Well, I would look to the bible. Tell me straight out, SR, If you are all wrong, how would you ever find out?!! ..Besides me telling you?

LOL! So, I need "God's Little Echo" to tell me "The Truth?" Is that it? You are indeed God's Prophet, dad... either that or a comedian! So, we need YOU to interpret scripture for ALL of us, so we can know the "truth" about the past state, eh? Your arrogance and hubris know no bounds, dad.

How would us normal people (who are not God's Little Echo) know if there was a different state past? We would see evidence of this fantastic possibility in the geological and astronomical record. Just as we see evidence of a different state of the universe just after the Big Bang. We see no such evidence of a change in state a few thousand years ago.

So you have 2 bible believers voting, then. Whoopee do? How informed are they? ( I daresay, not very.. )

Wow. Math is just not your forte, is it dad? One more time. There were 4 (four) people voting that I know are creationists. Together with 2 others who are probably creationists and voted "I don't know" that makes 6 (six) most likely who are creationists. There are also likely a few more who voted "none," but I don't know how many. Not enough for you? Tough. It's not my fault creationists don't like participating here. I do wonder why NONE of the creationists voted for your "truth," however. Don't you?

You must be kidding.

NO, but maybe you are.

 

[sandwiches]

I consider the bible objective, do you?

I said objectively verifiable. That means evidence that is true regardless of belief. For instance, you and I can both see that when you throw a rock into the air, it comes back down. So, regardless of whether you or I believe in gravity, things do come back down to Earth. That's objectively verifiable evidence.

So, would people who do not believe in what the Bible says be able to use it as evidence for a different state past?

 

[dad]

dad:
You keep saying this as if you had masses of evidence. You don't. You only have the half-baked myths of the old testament, which are children's stories. Your whole belief system is based on children's stories, dad. That's pathetic.

No, I have the bible, and history. But also, ALL evidence and science support it, the fossil record, the moon, continental separation, the ice age, the Dodwell data, ...you name it!

dad:
All words are wasted on you, dad You have admitted the limits of your knowledge and comprehension. In England we'd politely say you are educationally challenged.

Too bad you couldn't also prove the foundational basis of all your claims. You offer us nothing to comprehend here Tman, notice that? Just some silly would be superior intellect. That, and 5 pounds, might get you some greasy fish and chips.

(Hint: old myths do not count as scientific anomalies.)

Hint: you can't wave away the only records man has, and offer myths, you like to call science.

dad:
If your source of truth is the bible then the world you are living in is not only a fantasy world, but a much smaller, narrower and appallingly blinkered world than the one the rest of us live in, dad. If I were you I would put the bible to one side (preferably in the nearest bin) and visit a library. Go to the science section, and start reading. Then report back to us in about 10 years.

Britain rejecting the bible is their problem. The bible is fine regardless, just they aren't. Nothing in a science section covers creation, or the future. It is just confused mutterings and dreams of a godless religion.


That is why you can't put anything on the table, but strange allusions to shadows.

 

[dad]

I said objectively verifiable. That means evidence that is true regardless of belief. For instance, you and I can both see that when you throw a rock into the air, it comes back down. So, regardless of whether you or I believe in gravity, things do come back down to Earth. That's objectively verifiable evidence.

So, would people who do not believe in what the Bible says be able to use it as evidence for a different state past?

When science can throw a rock to heaven, it can start verifying it. When science can throw a rock to the ark, or Eden, it can start verifying them...or not. IT can't throw very far, or through time. Science can't know what the state of the past was, or the future will be. It is bound to this state. There is nothing objective it can deal in, except the prison it is in, this physical only temporal state. That is where science exists, begins, and ends.

 

[Split Rock]

No, I have the bible, and history. But also, ALL evidence and science support it, the fossil record, the moon, continental separation, the ice age, the Dodwell data, ...you name it!

There you go again, dad. We keep asking you to show us "ALL evidence and science" that supports dadolgy. All you do is repeat this claim over and over and over.... yet you never provide the evidence. Put up, or stop bearing false witness.

BTW: You never answered my question earlier... How can you ever know if your split/merge idea is wrong?

 

[sandwiches]

When science can throw a rock to heaven, it can start verifying it. When science can throw a rock to the ark, or Eden, it can start verifying them...or not. IT can't throw very far, or through time. Science can't know what the state of the past was, or the future will be. It is bound to this state. There is nothing objective it can deal in, except the prison it is in, this physical only temporal state. That is where science exists, begins, and ends.

A lot of words for so little substance.

Let's be clear that I never mentioned science in those posts when I was asking for evidence. So, have you or have you not objectively verifiable evidence of a different state past? In other words, have you or have you not evidence that is true regardless of belief that supports your idea of a different state past?

 

[dad]

...

BTW: You never answered my question earlier... How can you ever know if your split/merge idea is wrong?

Well, if there were no spirits in the world of men, and trees did not grow fast, and light from stars did not get here in a week, and the waters of the flood could come from above under the present laws, without killing heat, it might be wrong. If evolution were shown to be slow, and as it now, I might be wrong. If there was some proof that this state were forever, and that no new heaven state was coming, I might be wrong. If long life spans did not exist, I might be wrong. If all the differences in the past and future were not listed, I might be wrong. If God were not in the picture I might be wrong. If you had proof of a same state past, I might be wrong.

 

[dad]

A lot of words for so little substance.

Let's be clear that I never mentioned science in those posts when I was asking for evidence. So, have you or have you not objectively verifiable evidence of a different state past? In other words, have you or have you not evidence that is true regardless of belief that supports your idea of a different state past?

To have objective evidence we need some observation, and such things. The only observers told of a different state. Can't beat that. Be objective. In that objectivity, include spiritual objects! Otherwise you lobotomize your conclusions of the past.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

Well, if there were no spirits in the world of men, and trees did not grow fast, and light from stars did not get here in a week, and the waters of the flood could come from above under the present laws, without killing heat, it might be wrong. If evolution were shown to be slow, and as it now, I might be wrong. If there was some proof that this state were forever, and that no new heaven state was coming, I might be wrong. If long life spans did not exist, I might be wrong. If all the differences in the past and future were not listed, I might be wrong. If God were not in the picture I might be wrong. If you had proof of a same state past, I might be wrong.

If you had proof of anything, you'd still be wrong.

 

[dad]

If you had proof of anything, you'd still be wrong.

So the criteria of being wrong in
your mind, is if one has proof. OK.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

So the criteria of being wrong in
your mind, is if one has proof. OK.

You wouldn't understand how to properly interpret proof if it creeped up and bit you on the backside.

 

[dad]

You wouldn't understand how to properly interpret proof if it creeped up and bit you on the backside.

With all you have presented so far here, one could go swimming, and have no worries about their hinder regions.

 

[mpok1519]

So this dodwell guy is also crazy? That's what the point of this thread was right? To illustrate delusion so one can identify it in the goal of avoiding it.

Sadly, some parents teach their kids these lies; they're the real victims.

 

[Split Rock]

Well, if there were no spirits in the world of men, and trees did not grow fast, and light from stars did not get here in a week, and the waters of the flood could come from above under the present laws, without killing heat, it might be wrong. If evolution were shown to be slow, and as it now, I might be wrong. If there was some proof that this state were forever, and that no new heaven state was coming, I might be wrong. If long life spans did not exist, I might be wrong. If all the differences in the past and future were not listed, I might be wrong. If God were not in the picture I might be wrong. If you had proof of a same state past, I might be wrong.

So, dad.... if you tell us an impossible story, that means you must be right. Because the past state had to be different if your impossible story is "God's Truth." And we all know that it must be "God's Truth" since you are "God's Little Echo." Is that it?

I have some different evidence to prove the past state was different.. but different from what you claim it was. My version is based on the revelations of JRR Tolkien, who wrote about the past in his Lord of the Rings trilogy.
If there was no Dark Lord, Sauron, then I might be wrong.
If The Dark Lord did not create the One Ring, then I might be wrong.
If there were no orcs or goblins, then I might be wrong.
If there were no Treants who protected the forests, then I might be wrong.
If Golem had not bitten the One Ring off of Frodo's finger, then I might be wrong.
If you had proof of your different state past, then I might be wrong.

 

[The Barbarian]

There's a way to check this....

However, the sediments that the team studied in Svalbard from 1999 to 2005 may have provided just such long-sought evidence. It is well known that when rock particles are sinking to the ocean floor to form layers of new sediment, tiny magnetic grains within the particles align themselves with the magnetic lines of the Earth. Once this rock hardens, it becomes a reliable record of the direction the Earth's magnetic field was pointing at the time of the rock's formation. So, if a rock has been spun around by a dramatic geological event, its magnetic field will have an apparently anomalous orientation that geophysicists like those on Maloof's team seek to explain.
Princeton University - Planet Earth may have 'tilted' to keep its balance, say scientists

It really happened, according to the evidence. But it happened about 800 million years ago.

 

[dad]

So this dodwell guy is also crazy? That's what the point of this thread was right? To illustrate delusion so one can identify it in the goal of avoiding it.

Sadly, some parents teach their kids these lies; they're the real victims.

So this means what? You think we should teach kids there were no ancient measurements of the heavenly bodies? Strange.

 

[dad]

There's a way to check this....

However, the sediments that the team studied in Svalbard from 1999 to 2005 may have provided just such long-sought evidence. It is well known that when rock particles are sinking to the ocean floor to form layers of new sediment, tiny magnetic grains within the particles align themselves with the magnetic lines of the Earth. Once this rock hardens, it becomes a reliable record of the direction the Earth's magnetic field was pointing at the time of the rock's formation. So, if a rock has been spun around by a dramatic geological event, its magnetic field will have an apparently anomalous orientation that geophysicists like those on Maloof's team seek to explain.
Princeton University - Planet Earth may have 'tilted' to keep its balance, say scientists

It really happened, according to the evidence. But it happened about 800 million years ago.

The evidence apparently was from one place.


"By analyzing the magnetic composition of ancient sediments found in the remote Norwegian archipelago of Svalbard, " your link

So, tell us about the Swedish sediment, in detail? Was it flood sediment? Pre flood? Post flood? (forget the so called dates, they are rubbish religion)..

There was of course magnetic shifts in our past, many creos even feel they were rapid.

But at least you agree, despite the wrong dates, that there was a shift. Interesting.