The Dodwell Data now out!!!!!

[AV1611VET]

Don't worry then. It's not Capt Kirk.

Admiral Kirk -- whatever.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Admiral Kirk -- whatever.

It's captain Picard
Google Image Result for http://startswithabang.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/t0m537.jpg

I didn't have the nerve to actually copy the image in my post.

 

[AV1611VET]

It's captain Picard

-- Oh, right -- I knew that!

I didn't have the nerve to actually copy the image in my post.

That's because you're a gentleman and a scholar --

 

[dad]

LOL this explains why you so readily refuted yourself.

Nope. It explains how I am trying to get you to admit the actual point of what you are trying to say. Precisely how is the solstice so important, that it renders dates unimportant?

 

[dad]

To recap:....

Dodwell found out that actual alignments of the sun in ancient sites rendered dates that were at odds with accepted ideas. Why? His conclusion was that some great event impacted the earth, and caused a disturbance that could be measured that ended in the 1800's. - (If I read his basic claim right.)

In this thread some challenge was made to the oldest data point Dodwell used, the temple of Karnak.

 

[dad]

To bump and recap:....

Dodwell found out that actual alignments of the sun in ancient sites rendered dates that were at odds with accepted ideas. Why? His conclusion was that some great event impacted the earth, and caused a disturbance that could be measured that ended in the 1800's. - (If I read his basic claim right.)

In this thread some challenge was made to the oldest data point Dodwell used, the temple of Karnak.

That doesn't matter. The trend is still clear it seems from the earlier points. We can forget Karnak as the final marker, because some question exists as to it's actual date.


But I think that even if we put Karnac within several hundred years range of possible dates, the effect will still be to have the divergence in the ancient alignments agree with a flood timeframe, and oppose the newcomb curve. Why do the facts on the ground of actual data points disagree with old ages?

 

[SignOfGod]

To bump and recap:....

Dodwell found out that actual alignments of the sun in ancient sites rendered dates that were at odds with accepted ideas. Why? His conclusion was that some great event impacted the earth, and caused a disturbance that could be measured that ended in the 1800's. - (If I read his basic claim right.)

In this thread some challenge was made to the oldest data point Dodwell used, the temple of Karnak.

That doesn't matter. The trend is still clear it seems from the earlier points. We can forget Karnak as the final marker, because some question exists as to it's actual date.


But I think that even if we put Karnac within several hundred years range of possible dates, the effect will still be to have the divergence in the ancient alignments agree with a flood timeframe, and oppose the newcomb curve. Why do the facts on the ground of actual data points disagree with old ages?

Is there any way to prove Dodwells findings?

 

[dad]

Is there any way to prove Dodwells findings?

They were based on actual physical ancient temples and sites, etc.

"Chapter One: The Movement of the Earth’s Axis of Rotation is Evidence of a Disturbance of the Earth’s Axis in Ancient Times
Chapter Two: The Use of the Gnomon in Ancient and Mediaeval Observations; and the Errors of Observation with this Instrument
Chapter Three: Ancient Chinese Observations
Chapter Four: Ancient Hindu Observations
Chapter Five: Ancient Greek Observations
Chapter Six: Observations of the Obliquity of the Ecliptic Made by the Mediaeval Arabs and Persians
Chapter Seven: Mediaeval and Modern Observations of the Obliquity of the Ecliptic
Chapter Eight: Ancient Oriented Monuments; The Solar Temple of Amen-Ra at Karnak, Egypt
Chapter Nine: Stonehenge
Chapter Ten: The Great Peruvian solar Temple of Tiahuanaco"

(OP page link)

 

[SignOfGod]

They were based on actual physical ancient temples and sites, etc.

I will admit that it's all way above me in fact I don't have a clue what it's all about or what it's trying to prove.
I did however notice that it hasn't been published yet and his findings have not been taken up by anyone else, I have to wonder why that is? further than that or until you tell me differently I don't think either of us are qualified to praise it or decry it, do you?

 

[Orogeny]

I will admit that it's all way above me in fact I don't have a clue what it's all about or what it's trying to prove.
I did however notice that it hasn't been published yet and his findings have not been taken up by anyone else, I have to wonder why that is? further than that or until you tell me differently I don't think either of us are qualified to praise it or decry it, do you?

Read the first hundred or so posts in this thread. It is pretty conclusively shown that Dodwell is comparing his data set (which seems to be good) to an incomplete model of Earth's movement. This renders his conclusions incomplete at best, and intentionally misleading at worst. You'll also see that Dad, even when shown that Dodwell's preferred model is incomplete, refuses to explain why this incomplete model is more useful than a model that includes all aspects of Earth's movement.

It's really quite sad in the end.

 

[SignOfGod]

Read the first hundred or so posts in this thread. It is pretty conclusively shown that Dodwell is comparing his data set (which seems to be good) to an incomplete model of Earth's movement. This renders his conclusions incomplete at best, and intentionally misleading at worst. You'll also see that Dad, even when shown that Dodwell's preferred model is incomplete, refuses to explain why this incomplete model is more useful than a model that includes all aspects of Earth's movement.

It's really quite sad in the end.

So is it a case of a creationist clutching at straws? if it is then yes it is quite sad.

 

[AirPo]

So is it a case of a creationist clutching at straws? if it is then yes it is quite sad.

More like making things up.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Just to point out again that dad refuted himself on this thread a few pages ago.
#284
#288

 

[Orogeny]

So is it a case of a creationist clutching at straws? if it is then yes it is quite sad.

It's a case of what is almost certainly intentional misuse of data in order to make a point. I find it incredibly hard to believe that Dodwell was unaware of the incompleteness of his model when he used it. Lying (or misleading) for God: it's the biggest downfall of the creationist community.

This is why peer-review is important in science, and it's also a great example of how easy it is to dress something up as scientific in order to fool people. Dodwell's case looks pretty convincing to someone who isn't familiar with astronomy or earth processes. But even a relatively inexperienced scientist (me) was able to instantly identify the fatal flaw in his study.

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

OK, here is some info that I have been waiting for! This guy came up with a date where a great change on earth happened. That date is precisely the date of the split. Better sit down, folks. Here we go....

Where we go...?

 

[dad]

I will admit that it's all way above me in fact I don't have a clue what it's all about or what it's trying to prove.
I did however notice that it hasn't been published yet and his findings have not been taken up by anyone else, I have to wonder why that is? further than that or until you tell me differently I don't think either of us are qualified to praise it or decry it, do you?

As much as any evidence and data can be praised or decried.

 

[dad]

Read the first hundred or so posts in this thread. It is pretty conclusively shown that Dodwell is comparing his data set (which seems to be good) to an incomplete model of Earth's movement. This renders his conclusions incomplete at best, and intentionally misleading at worst. You'll also see that Dad, even when shown that Dodwell's preferred model is incomplete, refuses to explain why this incomplete model is more useful than a model that includes all aspects of Earth's movement.

It's really quite sad in the end.

So what makes it incomplete?

 

[Orogeny]

Ugh. Read the first hundred or so posts, Dad. Maybe you'll understand it the second time around.

 

[dad]

Just to point out again that dad refuted himself on this thread a few pages ago.
#284

As I said, we can leave Karnak out. Since it may be pre split anyhow, you can forget cooking up alignments. The trend of all the other data points is still clear without a date for Karnak.

#288

No. You a 'proper' winter solstice is not proven, just because some dweed claims it.

The trend is clear for the data points and they split from the silly Newcombe line stuff like clockwork.

 

[dad]

Ugh. Read the first hundred or so posts, Dad. Maybe you'll understand it the second time around.

Your great white hope seems to rest in a claimed winter solstice alignment in the site that I said was not even needed...is that right? If not, do clearly summarize your point