The Dodwell Data now out!!!!!
- Thread starter dad
- Start date
Those goof balls at Answers in Genesis currently put the flood at about 2348 BC.
Feedback: Timeline for the Flood - Answers in Genesis
At least this about 100 years before Sargon I ruled Akkad.
Sargon of Akkad - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
yes, there is uncertainly of the exact dates of Sumerian and Egyptian dynasties but the evidence of civilizations not only in Middle East but all over the world by this time is overwhelming and archeologial evidence shows all of these civilizations were preceeded by earlier civilizations in the same areas with zero evidence of interuption by a global flood.
In Egypt for example
Prehistoric Egypt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The date Dodwell uses for the start of the construction of the 12th Dynasty temple at Karnak is 2045 BC. Both dad and AiG people seem to have no problem accepting this date and in fact rely on it for their analysis though more modern analysis puts the reign of the Amenemhat I a little later. So somehow you have to squeeze all of predynastic Egyptian civilization and 12 Egyptian dynasties, including the building of the pyramides into 300-400 years after the population of the earth had been reduced to 8 people, not to mention the development all the other civilizations around the world that were well established with long archeological records prior to 2000 BC.
List of ancient Egyptian dynasties - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Upvote
0
A quick look to your last link shows story telling...rattling off dates without support at all. If you think this helps your anti bible dating belief system, you must be kidding.
I notice Ho Hum went to the trouble of showing that a divergence does take place without the Karnak site even. Funny you never responded. Guess you are refuted.
Now, rather than trying to cast a veil over clarity and truth here, it is time for you to address some issues.
The astounding facts were presented how that Egypt, which would be post flood, was indeed flooded. We also saw how the uplift in the area was after that, just as the split (nature change and change in laws) would be. So you may not use the hills to obscure a sunrise there and try to sneak that in as support for your 'dating' attempts.
Have you any other reason for your date for Karnak?
"The main directional orientation of the vast temple of Amun, known as Ipet-Isut, which stands on the east bank of the Nile, faces west towards the Theban hills on the opposite side of the river. Its calculated azimuth of 296º - 53’ (SB study suggested 296.75°) corresponds with a mid-summer sunset on a level horizon. This is what Sir Norman Lockyer suggested, in his book The Dawn of Astronomy first published in 1894. However the height of the cliffs on the far bank of the Nile precludes the observation of such a phenomenon. For this reason the solstice alignment was dismissed by Egyptologists."
Egyptian Temple Orientation and Alignment - Solar Alignments
You need more or must remain refuted.
Upvote
0
It you that must be kidding us over all these years. Do you really think you can cram 12 dynasties including the construction of the pyramides and all predynastic Egypt into the 300 years between the mythical flood which reduced the earths population to 8 and the contruction of the temples at Karnac. I suppose you do but no one capable of logical thought can agree with you.
I disagree. See my new attachment with the correct solstice for Karnak as before and with two of the Chinese measurements pointed out. Note that these measurements are close together in time but very different in angle. This much error shows that there is no significant value to the analysis and Dodwell's conclusions are invalid.
There is no geologic evidence in this region or any other region of the earth that is consistent with a year long global flood less than 4,500 years ago. None. Nor is there any evidence anywhere for your mythical "split/merge" nonsense.
Sorry but I used your date and Dodwell's for Karnak.
You left out this part:
In the case of Ipet-Isut, a more plausible explanation is that the temple orientation was set to the opposite solar event of the mid-winter sunrise, which is a case that was argued by Gerald Hawkins in his book Beyond Stonehenge published in 1973 and is supported by the SB study
You have refuted yourself again.
Attachments
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
Similar threads
