The Dodwell Data now out!!!!!

dad · Jun 14, 2011

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

No. Nothing like that. Is is a case of evos desperately trying to cloud the issues at the point where it is not reliably dated anyhow. Focus on the other 65 data points that establish the trend.

dad · Jun 14, 2011

FrenchyBearpaw said:
Where we go...?

Away from evo lies.

Orogeny · Jun 14, 2011

dad said:
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

I love it that you're too lazy to read your own thread.

dad · Jun 14, 2011

Orogeny said:

"
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

Orogeny · Jun 14, 2011

Like I said.

SignOfGod · Jun 14, 2011

dad said:
It is a case of evos desperately trying to cloud the issues at the point where it is not reliably dated anyhow. Focus on the other 65 data points that establish the trend.

dad if it's true then it should stand up on it's own no matter what anyone says, I'm sure there are some very academically smart creationists out there who could bring out the truth of all this if you brought it to their attention, why don't you?

I read somewhere that creationists never try to falsify things for fear of being wrong, the damage they would do to their faith would be catastrophic, if they saw for themselves the lies they have been told it would be the end of creationism for them, which if I may say would be a good thing.

Have you never wondered why AiG or other creationist organizations have never come up with anything that would even cause the slightest doubt about evolution?
Why don't you ask your friends why that is? surly this "science is stifling all criticism" argument has gone on long enough.

Frumious Bandersnatch · Jun 14, 2011

dad said:
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.

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.

The Winter solstice is the only one that can been seen from Karnac. The idea that they aligned to a soltice they could not see is absurd. When the Winter solstice is used the value falls right on the Newcomb curve and the other deviationsa are easily within measurement error.
#256

As I said you refuted yourself.

#284

This thread is dead. End of story.

Greg1234 · Jun 14, 2011

SignOfGod said:
Have you never wondered why AiG or other creationist organizations have never come up with anything that would even cause the slightest doubt about evolution?
Why don't you ask your friends why that is?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8jXXJN4o_A&feature=related

And here's a couple for you-

The accumulation of somatic mutations

Somatic evolution in cancer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In their landmark paper, The Hallmarks of Cancer,[3] Hanahan and Weinberg suggest that cancer can be described by a small number of underlying principles, despite the complexities of the disease. The authors describe how tumor progression proceeds via a process analogous to Darwinian evolution, where each genetic change confers a growth advantage to the cell. These genetic changes can be grouped into six "hallmarks", which drive a population of normal cells to become a cancer. The six hallmarks are:

self-sufficiency in growth signals
insensitivity to antigrowth signals
evasion of apoptosis
limitless replicative potential
sustained angiogenesis, and
tissue invasion and metastasis.

See how beneficial cancer is? That man will eventually become a hawk (provided that entropy doesn't hit him and he dies).

01/07/30 - ICBP 2000

The importance of the organization of the various lac regulatory sites is that they permit the molecular computations that allow E. coli to discriminate glucose from lactose � that is, to control expression of the lactose metabolic proteins so that they are only synthesized once glucose is no longer available. The basic biochemical reactions and molecular interactions involved in this computation can be stated as logical propositions that can then be combined into partial computations (Table III). These partial computations illustrate the molecular logic allowing the cell to execute the following overall computation: "IF lactose present AND glucose not present AND cell can synthesize active LacZ and LacY, THEN transcribe lacZYA from lacP."

Falsification of purely random processes.

Richard Lenski, âevolvabilityâ, and tortuous Darwinian pathways | Uncommon Descent - The Weblog of Michael Behe

This fits well with recent work by Lenskis and others laboratories, showing that most beneficial mutations actually break or degrade genes (4), and also with work by Thorntons group showing that random mutation and natural selection likely could not transform a steroid hormone receptor back into its homologous ancestor, even though both have very similar structures and functions, because the tortuous evolutionary pathway would be nearly impossible to traverse. (5, 6) The more that is learned about Darwins mechanism at the molecular level, the more ineffectual it is seen to be.

Michael Behe's "First Rule of Adaptive Evolution" Could Undermine the Evolution of Functional Coding Elements - Evolution News & Views

After reviewing the effects of mutations upon Functional Coding ElemenTs (FCTs), Michael Behe's recent review article in Quarterly Review of Biology, "Experimental Evolution, Loss-of-Function Mutations and 'The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution'," offers some conclusions. In particular, as the title suggests, Behe introduces a rule of thumb he calls the "The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution": "Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain." In essence, what Behe means is that mutations that cause loss-of-FCT are going to be far more likely and thus far more common than those which gain a functional coding element. In fact, he writes: "the rate of appearance of an adaptive mutation that would arise from the diminishment or elimination of the activity of a protein is expected to be 100-1000 times the rate of appearance of an adaptive mutation that requires specific changes to a gene." Since organisms will tend to evolve along the most likely pathway, they will tend to break or lose an FCT before gaining a new one. He explains:

It is called the "first" rule because the rate of mutations that diminish the function of a feature is expected to be much higher than the rate of appearance of a new feature, so adaptive loss-of-FCT or modification-of-function mutations that decrease activity are expected to appear first, by far, in a population under selective pressure. (Michael J. Behe, "Experimental Evolution, Loss-of-Function Mutations and 'The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution'," Quarterly Review of Biology, Vol. 85(4) (December, 2010).)

FRUIT FLIES SPEAK UP

"In the first experiment, the fly was selected for a decrease in bristles and, in the second experiment, for an increase in bristles. Starting with a parent stock averaging 36 bristles, it is possible after thirty generations to lower the average to 25 bristles, "but then the line became sterile and died out." In the second experiment, the average number of bristles were increased from 36 to 56; then sterility set in. Mayr concluded with the following observation: Obviously any drastic improvement under selection must seriously deplete the store of genetic variability . . The most frequent correlated response of one-sided selection is a drop in general fitness. This plagues virtually every breeding experiment."*Jeremy Rifkin, Algeny (1983), p. 134.

Falsifications of limitless adaptation.

So what you need to do is come up with a theory which is not driven by random mutation but by a programmed adaptation feature and is not unlimited in potential. Good luck.

dad · Jun 14, 2011

Frumious Bandersnatch said:
The Winter solstice is the only one that can been seen from Karnac. The idea that they aligned to a soltice they could not see is absurd. When the Winter solstice is used the value falls right on the Newcomb curve and the other deviationsa are easily within measurement error.
#256

As I said you refuted yourself.

#284

This thread is dead. End of story.

Since Karmac is not known enough to be a data point that is useful for dates, you point is dead. End of story.

So, the pattern of divergence from your curve remains clear, and constant, and increasing with time.

As for Karnak, we do not know that it was a winter solstice that was used. Wouldn't that be unusual? Name a few other Egypt sites that used that?

"
A remarkable confirmation of the obliquity in the year 2045 B.C. is given by the oriented solar Temple of Amen Ra at Karnak, Egypt, the largest temple that has ever been built. This is described in Chapter 8. Hieroglyphic inscriptions, engraved in granite, show that the ancient Egyptians took great pains to orient their solar temples. The rays of the rising or setting sun, on certain important dates, then shone straight down the long central avenue, or temple axis, into the darkened sanctuary and illuminated the image of the sun-god within it.
In the great Solar Temple at Karnak, this occurred at sunset on the day of the summer solstice. It will be shown that in 2045 B.C., the foundation date of the Temple, the sun's solstitial declination, or maximum distance from the celestial equator, was 25 degrees, 9 minutes, 55 seconds. This value is in exact agreement with the prolongation of the curve of the ancient observations, and exceeds Newcomb's value for that date by 1 degree 14 minutes."

--a few questions

_ Do we have any evidence that the earliest orientation was winter?

_Do we know that the structure nearby (before the obelisk) did not have a passage for light through it?

_ If the axis was actually changed as I believe, as a result of the nature change (split) then do we know the earliest temple was before or after this time? If before, for example, one cannot use how it now works as an indication of how it did.

By the way. Looking at the divergance in the data curve, it just isn't a 'straight line'!!! Nice try.

Seems to me your whole thin hope rests on Karnak, and forcing a winter solstice in a same state there. Well, let's see a little more evidence first.

The line already goes crazy far away from your curve anyhow, so it doesn't matter that way. But you made Karmak claims, so let's see the goods.

dad · Jun 14, 2011

SignOfGod said:
dad if it's true then it should stand up on it's own no matter what anyone says, I'm sure there are some very academically smart creationists out there who could bring out the truth of all this if you brought it to their attention, why don't you?

We are just exploring here. If it is true it should stand up. If not then Dodwell can't be used in the arsenal of truth that is available to refute the godless models.

As it is, I don't see the 66 data points failing, do you? All I see is a desperate attempt to flee into the shadows of the unknown, and claim that it was just the way they want it to be, based on flimsy evidence.

The curve (see picture a few posts back) does fine if we stop in China. Wherever Karnak was, whether a few hundred years older or not doesn't matter! Look way way up and see the ols age curve on the pic? You think Karnak is going anywhere near that!!?? No. Much ado about nothing.

Seems to me that several posters here have been down so long, that on this issue, they sense that they have some hope of a partial face saving. We shall see.

I read somewhere that creationists never try to falsify things for fear of being wrong, the damage they would do to their faith would be catastrophic, if they saw for themselves the lies they have been told it would be the end of creationism for them, which if I may say would be a good thing.

No sweat. That is just evos talking big. They fear. We laugh.

Have you never wondered why AiG or other creationist organizations have never come up with anything that would even cause the slightest doubt about evolution?

I accept evolving. It was a created trait. The kinds were the start of any and all evolution. A little over 6000 years ago. Why would I want to doubt 'evolution"??

Now if you really mean the absurd and baseless abiogenesis fables, that has no leg to stand on, so who needs to knock it over??

SignOfGod · Jun 14, 2011

dad said:
Now if you really mean the absurd and baseless abiogenesis fables, that has no leg to stand on, so who needs to knock it over??

So every working scientist on the planet who work on the assumption that evolution is a fact are wrong, is that what you are saying?
Where did you get this information from, your pastor? how many people who attend creationist churches know what evolution is all about? if I told you the pain in your stomach was wind and a doctor told you it was an ulcer who would you believe? why is evolution any different to that? why do you listen to people who by their own admission know nothing about evolution?

dad · Jun 14, 2011

SignOfGod said:
So every working scientist on the planet who work on the assumption that evolution is a fact are wrong, is that what you are saying?

I thought I said I accepted evolution? If anyone claims it started anywhere but the created kinds, they are dead wrong, yes of course. This is news?

Where did you get this information from, your pastor? how many people who attend creationist churches know what evolution is all about? if I told you the pain in your stomach was wind and a doctor told you it was an ulcer who would you believe?

My doctor wasn't here at creation, or even the flood. If he told me that Noah had a pain in his stomach, I would laugh.

why is evolution any different to that? why do you listen to people who by their own admission know nothing about evolution?

I don't. As I said, science doesn't know. Someone lead you to believe it did??

SignOfGod · Jun 14, 2011

SignOfGod said:
Where did you get this information from, your pastor? how many people who attend creationist churches know what evolution is all about? if I told you the pain in your stomach was wind and a doctor told you it was an ulcer who would you believe? why is evolution any different to that?

dad said:
My doctor wasn't here at creation, or even the flood. If he told me that Noah had a pain in his stomach, I would laugh.

What has your answer got to do with what I asked and said?

SignOfGod said:
why do you listen to people who by their own admission know nothing about evolution?

dad said:
I don't. As I said, science doesn't know. Someone lead you to believe it did??

There are many many things science doesn't know but is that any reason to dismiss everything that science does know?

Frumious Bandersnatch · Jun 14, 2011

dad said:
Since Karmac is not known enough to be a data point that is useful for dates, you point is dead. End of story.

So, the pattern of divergence from your curve remains clear, and constant, and increasing with time.

As for Karnak, we do not know that it was a winter solstice that was used. Wouldn't that be unusual? Name a few other Egypt sites that used that?

From the quote you previously posted (emphasis added):

Evaluation of the site of the temple of Amun-Re at Karnak, taking into account the change over time of the obliquity of the ecliptic, has shown that the Great Temple was aligned on the rising of the midwinter sun. (6)

and as I said the sun was blocked from view during the sumer solstice so it make no sense that it would have been used for the alignment. You refuted yourself.

dad · Jun 15, 2011

Frumious Bandersnatch said:
From the quote you previously posted (emphasis added):

Evaluation of the site of the temple of Amun-Re at Karnak, taking into account the change over time of the obliquity of the ecliptic, has shown that the Great Temple was aligned on the rising of the midwinter sun. (6)

and as I said the sun was blocked from view during the sumer solstice so it make no sense that it would have been used for the alignment. You refuted yourself.

So tell us, what date would you assign to the early Karnak, and why?

Too much is unknown about Karnak, to identify the exact star alignment, lunar, or solar that was intended.

"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

I take it then you have no date.

Then as I said even with a wide range of hundreds of years, the result still doesn't change. The line is still going further from that silly old age line!

Oh and by the way, I think I said we do not KNOW. Digging out something that was quoted does not mean it is known. Lots of sites are quoted.

dad · Jun 15, 2011

SignOfGod said:
What has your answer got to do with what I asked and said?

This....your doctor can't diagnose the past or creation. If he wants to push legal drugs, fine. Or if he wants to try to help heal your body in this present time...fine.

There are many many things science doesn't know but is that any reason to dismiss everything that science does know?

No. The issue is what do they know about creation and the far past? Anything they happen to know about building a bridge or etc now doesn't matter.

SignOfGod · Jun 15, 2011

SignOfGod said:
Where did you get this information from, your pastor? how many people who attend creationist churches know what evolution is all about? if I told you the pain in your stomach was wind and a doctor told you it was an ulcer who would you believe? why is evolution any different to that?

Please read the above again.........

dad said:
This....your doctor can't diagnose the past or creation. If he wants to push legal drugs, fine. Or if he wants to try to help heal your body in this present time...fine.

That's complete and absolute rubbish and you know it.

dad said:
No. The issue is what do they know about creation and the far past? Anything they happen to know about building a bridge or etc now doesn't matter.

Please tell us what you know that no one else knows, you have some stupid idea in your head that you think is going to solve all of your problems when all it will do is confuse you even more.

dad · Jun 15, 2011

SignOfGod said:
Please read the above again.........

Your doctor can't speak of the laws in the past.

That's complete and absolute rubbish and you know it.

No. Your doctor is in this present time. Trust me on that. I am starting to wonder about you.

Please tell us what you know that no one else knows, you have some stupid idea in your head that you think is going to solve all of your problems when all it will do is confuse you even more.

Apparently you are missing something that you think only I know. Can we have a hint??

SignOfGod · Jun 15, 2011

dad said:
Your doctor can't speak of the laws in the past.
No. Your doctor is in this present time. Trust me on that. I am starting to wonder about you.

Apparently you are missing something that you think only I know. Can we have a hint??

Put yourself down for a win because you have beaten me with you unassailable logic.

Frumious Bandersnatch · Jun 15, 2011

dad said:
So tell us, what date would you assign to the early Karnak, and why?

Too much is unknown about Karnak, to identify the exact star alignment, lunar, or solar that was intended.

"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

I take it then you have no date.

Then as I said even with a wide range of hundreds of years, the result still doesn't change. The line is still going further from that silly old age line!

Oh and by the way, I think I said we do not KNOW. Digging out something that was quoted does not mean it is known. Lots of sites are quoted.

Thank you for refuting yourself even more thoroughly.

The Dodwell Data now out!!!!!

Undefeated!

Undefeated!

Trilobite me!

Undefeated!

Trilobite me!

Newbie

Contributor

In the beginning was El

Undefeated!

Undefeated!

Newbie

Undefeated!

Newbie

Contributor

Undefeated!

Undefeated!

Newbie

Undefeated!

Newbie

Contributor

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency