Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
So do you have a date for Karnak or not? Thank you for not responding intelligently.Thank you for refuting yourself even more thoroughly.
Thanks for coming in CTD, perhaps you can help dad to find this "solid data" you and he are talking about,against solid data.
No, if the correct solstice is used for Karnac as taken from your links and the correct date as taken from your links it falls exactly on the Newcombe curve. With that point on the curve it looks quite different and the other points are not significantly outside of measurement error. You have refuted yourself. Thanks. End of story.So do you have a date for Karnak or not? Thank you for not responding intelligently.
The data points diverge from the old age curve. Karnac isn't needed. You sure haven't said anything one way or the other that is clear on Karnak.
Casting vague aspersions on one of 66 data points is hardly impressive.
We could date Karnak 2700, 2800, 2900..whatever. It still is in a pattern diverging from the old age dream line.
Looks like we need a new term. How does one refer to sub-trash talk?Thanks for coming in CTD, perhaps you can help dad to find this "solid data" you and he are talking about,
because no one else can.
You must both live in a dream world.
No, if the correct solstice is used for Karnac as taken from your links and the correct date as taken from your links it falls exactly on the Newcombe curve.
Oh come on now. The curve of the data from Dodwell looks great, and if we move it over a quarter inch or whatever, I think it would look better! A more perfect patterned curve.With that point on the curve it looks quite different and the other points are not significantly outside of measurement error. You have refuted yourself. Thanks. End of story.
I think the poster meant intellectually. In other words, explain to them why you think their objections are weak. It's all about ideas, not personal.Looks like we need a new term. How does one refer to sub-trash talk?
If you want to challenge me to force confessions of truth, it appears cowardly to do it by long distance. In order for the challenge(s) to have even superficial merit, they'd have to be made in person, wouldn't they?
You were clear. You clearly refuted yourself.?? I used a lot of links, sometimes for a specific quote. Sounds like you think that means I stand behind whole silly articles?? No. So tell us what date do you claim? I can tell you where I would date it personally. I would think it was close to the time of Babel (nature change). Either a little before of after. From the sounds of the confusion over summer or winter or star or moon alignments etc, it could be pre split. If so, some differences would be expected.
So, that would be say somewhere about within 1 to 3 hundred years after the flood as I guess so far. That means Dodwell's curve is lookin good!
So, what date would you give it?? Stop dancing. I can't see how any date anywhere near the time of Karnak would make anything anywhere near the old age dream curve, let alone as you claim here, fall 'exactly on the Newcombe curve'!!????
Oh come on now. The curve of the data from Dodwell looks great, and if we move it over a quarter inch or whatever, I think it would look better! A more perfect patterned curve.
We don't need it (or even want it) to be the exact time Dodwell assumed! It fits my ideas better (different state past) if it was a little off.
So, out with your claimed date man.
He he. Glad I came back to have a second look at this issue, it felt a little as if we had left it less than clear before.
Bare with me a moment, I need to work something out. I need to check for internal consistency of the HI theoryYou were clear. You clearly refuted yourself.
You are dreaming. Wishful thinking. Nothing has refuted the pattern of the Dodwell data yet. You fail to even post intelligently. You avoid direct questions. You allude to vague nonsense.You were clear. You clearly refuted yourself.
It is not a different date. It is a different solstice which the site you linked to pointed out.You are dreaming. Wishful thinking. Nothing has refuted the pattern of the Dodwell data yet. You fail to even post intelligently. You avoid direct questions. You allude to vague nonsense.
So, what date would you give it?? Stop dancing. I can't see how any date anywhere near the time of Karnak would make anything anywhere near the old age dream curve, let alone as you claim here, fall 'exactly on the Newcombe curve'!!????
Since I said that Karnak doesn't matter, what would an opinion on what solstice it can be dated with matter? You clearly refuted yourself. The Dodwell data goes in a pattern...away from your Newcombe curve. No matter what date we give Karnak, that doesn't change.It is not a different date. It is a different solstice which the site you linked to pointed out.
You are dreaming. Wishful thinking....
...You fail to even post intelligently. You avoid direct questions. You allude to vague nonsense.
Could you be more clear here? Are you objecting to this posting style or praising it?
By the way, what was the point this poster missed in your opinion?lol you missed the point entirely.
Carry on.
If you asked me what I thought the age of the old site was, I'd say. I did in fact. If you asked me why I claimed (if I had of done so, as Fumy did) that Karnak fell into line with the Newcombe curve, I would say.Could you be more clear here? Are you objecting to this posting style or praising it?
By the way, what was the point this poster missed in your opinion?
The reason that Karnac does matter so much is that when the wrong solstice is used it is far the largest deviation and most significant point on the curve. However when the correct solstice is used as I pointed out before.Since I said that Karnak doesn't matter, what would an opinion on what solstice it can be dated with matter? You clearly refuted yourself. The Dodwell data goes in a pattern...away from your Newcombe curve. No matter what date we give Karnak, that doesn't change.
Explain what precisely you think does?
What, you think the line from the last Chinese data point would suddenly head up to harmonize with the Newcombe curve??
So can you figure out why they allude to the Dodwell's clearly diverging data line of observed actual sites, and suggest it is somehow falling into line with the silly imaginary old age curve of Newcombe?He's confused. Everyone knows who uses the tactic of missing the point in this neighborhood. Really, what are the odds someone'll stumble in for the first time and encounter that post ...and just believe it?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?