Split Rock
Conflation of Blathers
Thanks Dodwell, good work.
And Dad once again unilaterally declares Victory! He continues to be Undefeated in his own mind.
Upvote
0
Thanks Dodwell, good work.
The errors of ancient observations?? I suggest the error is with you. Could that be? Now, aside from Karnak, which is too far back have a good date for, for the purposes of this discussion, what errors are proven in the rest??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.
This is so funny. You post a link to Dodwell and his dates including Karnak and then say that Karnak is too far back for a good date. As I pointed out more than than year ago you have refuted yourself on this thread.The errors of ancient observations?? I suggest the error is with you. Could that be? Now, aside from Karnak, which is too far back have a good date for, for the purposes of this discussion, what errors are proven in the rest??
Not at all. I actually think Dodwell was close in accepting the Karnak date. But, due to the weakness of modern science to be able to confirm or deny, I simply omit it from the graph. I am being generous.This is so funny. You post a link to Dodwell and his dates including Karnak and then say that Karnak is too far back for a good date. As I pointed out more than than year ago you have refuted yourself on this thread.
Refutation is futile. Third law of the HI Theory.This is so funny. You post a link to Dodwell and his dates including Karnak and then say that Karnak is too far back for a good date. As I pointed out more than than year ago you have refuted yourself on this thread.
Thanks. Interesting.I have taken an interest in the creation-evolution debate for many years now, but I have not come across this argument before. I have to confess that I have not read the whole thread, so forgive me if this has been said before.
I have plugged Dodwell's figures into a spreadsheet, subtracted the expected obliquity (from the Newcomb formula that Dodwell gives in part 1), and plotted the natural log of that against the date and as Dodwell says, there does seem to be a pretty straight line of divergence up to around the seventeen hundreds, when it levels off as it approaches the expected.
OKMy spreadsheet curve fitting indicated (using the first 60 datapoints only)
ln(deviation) = -0.001002Y - 1.21151 (where Y is the year)
R^2 = 0.93
That looks like a pretty reasonable regression to me. So far so good.
I think he needed Karnak to nail a precise year.Assuming Dodwell is accurately reporting the hostorical data, it does look like there is an effect here. Is there a real effect here? Have real, modern astronmers looked at it?
There are two things that puzzle me, however. Where does his asymptote comes from. My graph gives no hint of such a thing, and I cannot see how that is possible given the equation I derived above (which seems to be the relationship he was arguing for); where does Dodwell get this from?
Also, how can he offer the year 2345 BC with such certainty? It would appear to me that a slight deviation in the curve he draws will have a dramatic effect of where (and indeed, if) the asymptote will appear. It is remarkable that he feels more certain about when this changed happened that he is of the date of his first (and arguably most important, given its isolation) data point.
Yes, I get that - and I have to say that the Karnak figure fits very well with the data, so I am inclined to accept it. My point is about accuracy. The Karnak point is not a precise year, so it seems strange that he can pinpoint this event to a precise year.I think he needed Karnak to nail a precise year.
The problem with Karnak is not the date. The problem is that Dodwell used the wrong solstice.Yes, I get that - and I have to say that the Karnak figure fits very well with the data, so I am inclined to accept it. My point is about accuracy. The Karnak point is not a precise year, so it seems strange that he can pinpoint this event to a precise year.
No. This is belief related speculation.The problem with Karnak is not the date. The problem is that Dodwell used the wrong solstice.
http://www.christianforums.com/t7447827-29/#post54599929
When the correct solstice is used the Karnak value falls right on the Newcombe Curve. X marks the correct spot in the attachment.
I think Noah's flood is dated to have occurred around that time, between 2500 BC and 2300 BC.Here's your conclusion folks.
" His conclusion, and the conclusion we find we also must draw, is that there was a sudden change in the tilt of the axis of the earth in or about 2345 B.C."
As an aside, I wonder why the Bible didn't mention this earth altering event?
You need to read the site again and consider the caption to figure 6No. This is belief related speculation.
For lurkers I will provide a few interesting facts related to the Karnak area.
First of all, my position has been that I accept the flood was likely around the KT layer (subject to evidence, in other words I will change my current ideas if evidence demands it).
I also deduce from the bible mostly, and also some history, that a great change in nature and laws took place after the flood. My current estimate is about 110 years after the flood. It would be after this that man started to live closer to modern life spans rather than nearly 1000 years. Naturally if Egypt was here at that time, death would be a major concern, and a lot of tombs would be needed in a way that man had never before seen!
So far, so good.
Now, a look at the facts about the area where Karnak is. If anyone wants to add something feel free.
------------------------____________
King Hatshepsut built a new temple to Amon-Re-who-hears-the-prayers exactly
on the same axis but open to the east, this therefore being the first structure at Karnak actually to be orientated towards sunrise at the winter solstice (see Table 1).
A passage of the Petrie stela concerning two obelisks erected before one of the temples of the Karnak complex reports on the erection of these obelisks one on each way between which my father rises, in di -cat ing that Amon is clearly identified with Re, and that we are dealing with some sort of solar alignment
[so the very early stuff seems to be oriented toward the sunrise...if I read this right]
Looking at the geology of the site we see different formations meeting.
Google Image Result for http://ars.sciencedirect.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0305440311001944-gr2.jpg
However, one large fault (P1, Fig. 4a), on the NW side of the valley, is dominantly strike-slip (and left-lateral), whereas others are oblique-slip (left-normal, or right-normal). Although the five faults that we measured are not enough to be statistically significant, they are mutually compatible (Fig. 4b). For the bulk deformation, the principal extension is NE-SW, the principal shortening is vertical, and the intermediate axis is NW-SE. This deformation could have accumulated under a uniform state of stress, where the greatest compression was NW-SE and the least compression was NE-SW - provided some of the faults had formed previously. Such a state of stress is similar to the one that is causing earthquakes today, and may indeed reflect collision between Africa and Eurasia, as well as opening of the Red Sea.
So, I also have said that I suspect that the rapid separation of continents (possible without the great heat in the former state) was after the flood. Here we see that the area was near a collision point apparently.
[So we have the flood.....then a lot of uplift for the hillls.....]
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 limeston
.....The geology of the Thebes necropolis was further affected by geological uplifting during the late Tertiary Period,
For the novice geology folks, this means a time after the KT!
We see then the KT just before this time!
So, there indeed was a lot going on about this time, and there is no way that one should merely grasp at some winter poultice scheme, to re date the site. There may have been no hills when the earliest temple was built for example, if the uplift was long after the flood!? So what we have could be something like a scrambling to readjust to the new realities and orientations?
So, somewhere between the 4th and 8th dynasties of Ancient Egypt and around the time of the early Akkadian Empire in Sumeria. There were also flourishing civilizations in Europe, India and China. It was a world-wide flood that no one really noticed.I think Noah's flood is dated to have occurred around that time, between 2500 BC and 2300 BC.
Did you determine those dates by looking at rocks you dug up yesterday?So, somewhere between the 4th and 8th dynasties of Ancient Egypt and around the time of the early Akkadian Empire in Sumeria. There were also flourishing civilizations in Europe, India and China. It was a world-wide flood that no one really noticed.
Millions of imaginary years have no meaning. Seems like there was an early building on the site...and later ones. As I said the early one may have been close to the time of the nature change. My concern would be on the original one.The window of a temple built...when? After the original one was long gone? The KT was probably less than 5000 real years ago. The tertiary was after that...no? The basis of your 'dates' is 100% belief. Nothing else. You like to assume that the present state always existed and is responsible for all things we see...
Your are not reading it right. As I said read the site again. The viewing window is oriented to the winter solstice as Hawkins pointed out.
The Tertiary ended 1.8 million years ago. Events occuring then affected the geology of the area but have certainly not changed the orientation of the temples since they were built. If anything did it would make all the measurements irrelevant and they would no correlation with anything.
There was a lot going on over the last several million years but it doesn't affect this argument. You refuted yourself many posts ago and nothing has changed that fact.
You really want to hide under the skirt of the king lists? Or have you other sources for your dynasty data?So, somewhere between the 4th and 8th dynasties of Ancient Egypt and around the time of the early Akkadian Empire in Sumeria. There were also flourishing civilizations in Europe, India and China. It was a world-wide flood that no one really noticed.
What is hilarious about this is that Dodwell got his Egyptian dates from the King's list.You really want to hide under the skirt of the king lists? Or have you other sources for your dynasty data?