The Dodwell Data now out!!!!!

[Nostromo]

Great. So you offer some also ran calendar for actual dates? That is no basis. You need to show us where they got the date from, precisely.

The dates are marked by the astronomical events previously mentioned, those events coincidentally line up perfectly with modern day calculations about what would have been happening at that time.

I don't know why I bother speaking to you, you are not going to be swayed from your narrow minded views.

 

[Orogeny]

Can't wait. Soon as you present it, and the basis for it, on the table. If you can't do that, why talk at all?

Dad said: I plan to dash it and thrash it to threads, by the way.

Orogeny said: Do so.

Dad said:

See what went wrong there?

Nonsense. I posted definitions for myself, and the lurkers, to be clear on what you were going on about. Dodwel's stuff, we know was based on data. The other curve is what you need to defend, and prove is well grounded in fact, and worthy of all of us needed to align anything else with.

The burden of proof is on the affirmative in science. In this case, a detractor (me) has said "here are two unaccounted-for factors, which we know to exist." The affirmative (Dad) then went to wikipeida and copy/pasted DIRECTLY from the 'axial precession' site (without citing, I might add), the definition of the movement. He knows it to be true, since he has seen the evidence himself. But, for the sake of the lurker, I will post the relavent motions here now:

Axial precession (astronomy) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Axial tilt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Orbital eccentricity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Now there are no excuses. Orogeny, Dad, and Mr. Lurker have all seen that these three motions are observed and relavent.

Note that Dodwell plotted his data (which is not in dispute in this discussion, no matter what Dad wants you to believe) against the curve for axial tilt (obliquity) only. This is what is in dispute; the lack of an accurate and complete curve. The affirmative (Dad) is now in the position of having to provide evidence as to the accuracy of using only obliquity instead of all three motions.

Let me be clear: THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON THE AFFIRMATIVE. The detractor (me) has provided criticism that he has shown to be valid. Dad has yet to respond to this criticism scientifically.

Dad: Respond to this criticism scientifically, showing that plotting Dodwell's data against the curve of obliquity only is the correct method. Failure to do so in your next post will be taken as the inability to do so, ceding this point, and thus the debate, to me.

When you offer up some curve

The actual, factual, known, observed curve, which I have shown to be correct.

and claim that we all need to gather round and accept it, as a big important curve, that needs to have an actual data curve

Once again, I am not disputing the data points Dodwell uses, merely the curve he plots them against.

Observers- Notice that Dad is constructing a strawman: Orogeny does not believe Dodwell's data points. This is not my position. My position, which Dad has thus far failed to respond to scientifically, is that the curve agains which Dodwell's data points are plotted is in error.

it is not I changing goal posts!

Well, so far you have constructed at least one strawman in an attempt to skirt my point. So I would say yes, you are shifting the goal posts.

If you want to pile on things to the actual observed data of Dodwell and claim they are observed as well, show us.

Strawman.

Or you just will look like you really do not know what you are talking about.

Since I'm the only one in this conversation who has posted any kind of scientific evidence, and you are the one who keeps saying NUH-UH NUH-UH like a spoiled 4 year old, I'll leave it up to the audience to decide which of us knows what he is talking about.

Say what?? Is this your other curve here, and the so called proof it is good stuff? Hint... Who saw the orbit when....

Jibberish. With an inability to respond intelligently to the evidence given, Dad resorts to 'so-calleds' and 'hints'.

We need to re plot nothing at all, especially stuff based on actual observations, to your imaginary lines! Pony up.

Strawman. Address my argument, not the one you would like me to be making.

You have not yet provided us anything to ignore! Let's see this so called actual science, and basis for this silly imaginary curve you want to make us stumble over, like a little god in an Indian market?

He belittles my argument because he has no other way to respond. When shown to be wrong, and without the ability to correct their error, the creationist will often resort to ad hominem, sarcasm, and indignation as a means of distracting their opponant.

My task is clear, accept your unconitional and immediate surrender, and be happy. I am not even in the mood to do that. Careful, I might let you stew in your claims for a while, unless you fess up quicky.

I have been asked, by Dad, to show the validity of my criticism. I have done so.

Dad has been asked, by me, to show the validity of the premis which he supports. He has in no way succeeded in this task, as he has made no effort to address my criticism scientifically, nor has he addressed his own data scientifically when pressed.

Observers: Take note of this conversation. It is full of textbook creationist tactics.

Dad: Address my critique scientifically. Either show scientifically that my criticism is invalid, or show scientifically that Dodwell's choice to plot his data points against obliquity only is the correct methodology. Failure to do one of these two things will be taken as the inability to do so, thus ceding the debate to me.

 

[dad]

The dates are marked by the astronomical events previously mentioned, those events coincidentally line up perfectly with modern day calculations about what would have been happening at that time.

I don't know why I bother speaking to you, you are not going to be swayed from your narrow minded views.

Well, talk to us about that. I seem to recall some events from a french site, with a little clip in English..? If you seriously want to put that forth as your position, fine.. So, please confirm for us these events happened. Would an English site be too much to ask for? Then, let us see when. How do we know the dates? Next, so what?? What exactly is the point? Does someone doubt stuff happened in the sky long ago??

 

[Nostromo]

Well, talk to us about that.

I'm quite happy to wait until you've resolved this issue with Orogeny regarding Mr Dodwell's inaccuracies. We'll pick this up when you're done, I promise.

 

[dad]

See what went wrong there?

You forgot to present a case to comment on?

The burden of proof is on the affirmative in science.
In this case, a detractor (me) has said "here are two unaccounted-for factors, which we know to exist." The affirmative (Dad) then went to wikipeida and copy/pasted DIRECTLY from the 'axial precession' site (without citing, I might add), the definition of the movement. He knows it to be true, since he has seen the evidence himself. But, for the sake of the lurker, I will post the relavent motions here now:

Axial precession (astronomy) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Axial tilt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Orbital eccentricity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Now there are no excuses. Orogeny, Dad, and Mr. Lurker have all seen that these three motions are observed and relavent.Note that Dodwell plotted his data (which is not in dispute in this discussion, no matter what Dad wants you to believe) against the curve for axial tilt (obliquity) only. This is what is in dispute; the lack of an accurate and complete curve. The affirmative (Dad) is now in the position of having to provide evidence as to the accuracy of using only obliquity instead of all three motions.

I don't think anyone doubts that a progression takes place. Get over it. The issue is, how long has it and will it go on, and how do we know? Are you suggesting that since Egypt, we cannot plot a curve on the data, as Dodwell did, unless we also include something like Newcomb's curve?

Dad: Respond to this criticism scientifically, showing that plotting Dodwell's data against the curve of obliquity only is the correct method. Failure to do so in your next post will be taken as the inability to do so, ceding this point, and thus the debate, to me.

First you show me why he would need to plot something else in? If you cede you cede you point. Dodwell seemed to be open to input

"The correct principle, therefore, in studying the mediaeval and ancient observations of the obliquity of the ecliptic, should be, firstly, to obtain as many of these observations as possible; secondly, to correct each one, as far as possible, for any known or ascertainable source of error; and then to draw the curve which unites them all with one another and with the modern observations. Then, from the mathematical character of the curve, we may perhaps find some new truth or circumstance, disclosed by the observations, and previously unsuspected..."

Dodwell Manuscript

The actual, factual, known, observed curve, which I have shown to be correct.


Once again, I am not disputing the data points Dodwell uses, merely the curve he plots them against.

Apparently, what he was comparing against here, as it says on the bottom, was the secular old age curve from Newcomb's formula! So, if you think we must add in the Exxon 2 year profit curve, or the Yankee's 20 year winning/losing curve, or something else, you need to explain why. How is the data invalidated by not being compared with some other one?

Observers- Notice that Dad is constructing a strawman: Orogeny does not believe Dodwell's data points. This is not my position. My position, which Dad has thus far failed to respond to scientifically, is that the curve agains which Dodwell's data points are plotted is in error.

Since the curve seems to be made from the data, and follow the data, show me where the error is. Simple request.

I have been asked, by Dad, to show the validity of my criticism. I have done so.

Dad has been asked, by me, to show the validity of the premis which he supports. He has in no way succeeded in this task, as he has made no effort to address my criticism scientifically, nor has he addressed his own data scientifically when pressed.

Except, I am not sure what your point is yet. Apparently you have an affinity for some other curve. You need to explain why anyone should care? How would axial progression since Egypt affect something Dodwell pointed out?

We can rule out this curve..!!
"In astronomy, axial precession is a gravity-induced, slow and continuous change in the orientation of an astronomical body's rotational axis. In particular, it refers to the gradual shift in the orientation of Earth's axis of rotation, which, like a wobbling top, traces out a cone in a cycle of approximately 26,000 years .."

wiki

Why? Because observations don't go back that far. Dodwell was pushing the limit just getting to 2345 BC! That is a big problem for you. We are not looking at same state based, unobserved theorizing here, remember!

"Milanković mathematically theorised that variations in eccentricity, axial tilt, and precession of the Earth's orbit determined climatic patterns on Earth."
wiki

Observers: Take note of this conversation. It is full of textbook creationist tactics.

I mention lurkers once in a while, seldom actually. You are getting ridiculous! Obsessed, much??

Dad: Address my critique scientifically. Either show scientifically that my criticism is invalid, or show scientifically that Dodwell's choice to plot his data points against obliquity only is the correct methodology. Failure to do one of these two things will be taken as the inability to do so, thus ceding the debate to me.

26,000 dream year imaginary cycles are NOT science, or data, or observed. Either you support them big time, pronto, or lose them.

Ho hum

 

[dad]

I'm quite happy to wait until you've resolved this issue with Orogeny regarding Mr Dodwell's inaccuracies. We'll pick this up when you're done, I promise.

Done. I think he's on the ropes pretty bad. I have one hand free for you..

 

[Orogeny]

You forgot to present a case to comment on?

I've been presenting a very clear case for two pages, you're just ignoring my point because it is convenient for you to do so.

I don't think anyone doubts that a progression takes place. Get over it. The issue is, how long has it and will it go on, and how do we know?

We know it existed since at least the Babylonians and ancient Egyptians, we know this because they identified these factors, so your curve needs to be adjusted at least that far back. How far into the future it will go is irrelavent.

Now then, as I pointed out in my last post, and what you did not respond to in this post: The burden of proof is on you to provide evidence as to the accuracy of using only obliquity instead of all three motions.

I am tired of repeating myself. Provide affirmative evidence that using only obliquity instead of all three motions is preferable, or cede the point and the discussion to me.

Are you suggesting that since Egypt, we cannot plot a curve on the data, as Dodwell did, unless we also include something like Newcomb's curve?

You are either being intentionally obtuse or you are truely a simpleton. Dodwell DID plot his data against Newcomb's curve. Newcomb's curve addresses obliquity only. You know this, but you are trying to make a circular argument anyway.

You know exactly what I am suggesting: That Dodwell has plotted his points against a curve that does not take all factors into account.

I am tired of repeating myself. Provide affirmative evidence that using only obliquity instead of all three motions is preferable, or cede the point and the discussion to me.

First you show me why he would need to plot something else in?

I have done this repeatedly by pointing out that obliquity is not the only motion that affects our observations. You are well aware of this.

I am tired of repeating myself. Provide affirmative evidence that using only obliquity instead of all three motions is preferable, or cede the point and the discussion to me.

"The correct principle, therefore, in studying the mediaeval and ancient observations of the obliquity of the ecliptic, should be, firstly, to obtain as many of these observations as possible; secondly, to correct each one, as far as possible, for any known or ascertainable source of error; and then to draw the curve which unites them all with one another and with the modern observations. Then, from the mathematical character of the curve, we may perhaps find some new truth or circumstance, disclosed by the observations, and previously unsuspected..."Dodwell Manuscript

The last sentence of this quote belies Dodwell's biggest error: He is looking for something 'previously unsuspected', or, in other words, he's come to a conclusion and is trying to fit his data to that conclusion.

But anyway, that is of no consequence. The fact remains that he has only corrected for one of three known factors. His comparison is incomplete until he accounts for all known factors. The quote provided does not in any way confirm that he has done so. If you would like to show that he has corrected for precession and eccentricity, post these corrections. They would be found in his methods section.

Apparently, what he was comparing against here, as it says on the bottom, was the secular old age curve from Newcomb's formula!

For the nth and last time: Newcomb's curve only plots obliquity. It is only one part of the overall curve, which includes eccentricity and precession, and which I have shown to be fact. This means that Dodwell's comparison is incomplete, rendering it false.

So, if you think we must add in the Exxon 2 year profit curve, or the Yankee's 20 year winning/losing curve, or something else, you need to explain why.

Strawman and red herring rolled into one.

How is the data invalidated by not being compared with some other one?

It is invalidated by not being compared to a curve that includes all factors. Do you see why this is a problem?

If a baseball analyst told you that Fred McGriff is the best batter ever because he has the best average ever against the fastball, would that fly? No, because batting average isn't calculated only against fastballs. It's calculated against all pitches (changeup, curveball, slider, knuckleball, cutter, etc.).

Can anybody tell I'm pumped for baseball season?

Since the curve seems to be made from the data, and follow the data, show me where the error is. Simple request.

The error has been pointed out to you a dozen times at least. If you don't see it yet (I'm sure you do), then you're a lost cause. You are, intentionally or not, conflating my argument against the curve that Dodwell plots against with an objection against his dates. Amend this mistake.

Except, I am not sure what your point is yet.

Then you haven't been reading my posts.

Apparently you have an affinity for some other curve. You need to explain why anyone should care? How would axial progression since Egypt affect something Dodwell pointed out?

I have shown my curve to be significant multiple times. I won't do it again. Dodwell's conclusions are affected because he is making a comparison to an incomplete curve.

We can rule out this curve..!!

Do so scientifically. This means that you are not allowed to invoke a different-state past unless you have emperical scientific evidence for its existance. You do not, so do not invoke it.

"In astronomy, axial precession is a gravity-induced, slow and continuous change in the orientation of an astronomical body's rotational axis. In particular, it refers to the gradual shift in the orientation of Earth's axis of rotation, which, like a wobbling top, traces out a cone in a cycle of approximately 26,000 years .."

wiki

Good. You admit that precession occurs, and is thus a motion which must be corrected for.

Why? Because observations don't go back that far.

They do not need to. The cycle's duration can be extrapolated from observed motion. That the entire cycle hasn't been observed is irrelevent; you can see 10% of a circle and still calculate its radius, circumfrence and area.

Dodwell was pushing the limit just getting to 2345 BC! That is a big problem for you.

No it's not, as I've just explained.

We are not looking at same state based, unobserved theorizing here, remember!

Red herring. I will not address this ludicrous speculation.

"Milanković mathematically theorised that variations in eccentricity, axial tilt, and precession of the Earth's orbit determined climatic patterns on Earth."

Another red herring. We are not discussing climate patterns (although Milankovitch's theory has been shown to be accurate, which lends even more weight to the importance of eccentricity and precession).

I mention lurkers once in a while, seldom actually. You are getting ridiculous! Obsessed, much??

I am not debating for you, I am debating for the layman who is viewing this thread in order to demonstrate the error in the 'science' you posted. You obviously can't be swayed, because you do not care what reality has to say.

26,000 dream year imaginary cycles are NOT science, or data, or observed. Either you support them big time, pronto, or lose them.

Jibberish. Drivel.

Ho hum

Agreed. You have been given ample opportunity to defend your position against evidence indicating that it is wrong. You have failed to do so, and all indications are that you will continue to fail. I am done with this conversation until you address the content of my posts instead of frantically building straw men and painting red herrings. Move the goalposts as much as you would like, but everyone here can see that that is exactly what you are doing.

If someone who would like to hold a reasonable conversation is inclined to come to Dad's defense, I welcome your input. If you do this, please include in your first post a scientific affirmation that obliquity is the only motion against which Dodwell's data points need be plotted. In order to do this successfully, you must show that axial precession and orbital obliquity are insignificant when observing the celstial.

 

[Freodin]

We can rule out this curve..!!
"In astronomy, axial precession is a gravity-induced, slow and continuous change in the orientation of an astronomical body's rotational axis. In particular, it refers to the gradual shift in the orientation of Earth's axis of rotation, which, like a wobbling top, traces out a cone in a cycle of approximately 26,000 years .."

wiki

Why? Because observations don't go back that far. Dodwell was pushing the limit just getting to 2345 BC! That is a big problem for you. We are not looking at same state based, unobserved theorizing here, remember!

Oh my. Can you not even get your own pet theories worked out correctly?

Consider: you assume that the precession movement does not have to be figured in that curve, because even if it does exist now and would influence the curve now, it didn´t exist then.
But then you have to find a explanation - call it event, split, merge, whatever you like - for the precession movement NOW. It has existed for some time. Did it start instantly? Acclerated? No matter what... it started somewhen before NOW.

And that means that there is a factor relevant for Dodwell´s curve that he didn´t even imagine: a change in the axial movement of the earth!

 

[dad]

I've been presenting a very clear case for two pages, you're just ignoring my point because it is convenient for you to do so.

Nope.

We know it existed since at least the Babylonians and ancient Egyptians, we know this because they identified these factors, so your curve needs to be adjusted at least that far back. How far into the future it will go is irrelavent.

OK, so talk to us about what was observed when? How many data points do you have? In what way do they affect anything Dodwell listed?

Now then, as I pointed out in my last post, and what you did not respond to in this post: The burden of proof is on you to provide evidence as to the accuracy of using only obliquity instead of all three motions.

How would other motions affect actual observations? What did the Babylonians see that somehow needs to be added into the Dodwell curve? I had two brothers that ran Babylon, by the way. The king, and the second in command. Chances are that if they knew anything, our boy Daniel had a big hand in it.

You also need to demonstarate that any motion curve you present, is only based on data, not also based on it! In other words, don't try to pawn off some curve that is also based on something like a 26,000 year cycle, etc!

You are either being intentionally obtuse or you are truely a simpleton. Dodwell DID plot his data against Newcomb's curve. Newcomb's curve addresses obliquity only. You know this, but you are trying to make a circular argument anyway.

OK then. So are you suggesting that Newcomb's curve is no good? I think that Dodwell demonstrated that the actual observations differ with that curve.

You know exactly what I am suggesting: That Dodwell has plotted his points against a curve that does not take all factors into account.

So that would be...Newcomb's curve ..right? What exactly are you suggesting here? No one ever can use a curve, without adding in some other curves? Why? Precisely? If the object of the exercise is to show that
Newcomb's curve (old age secular belief based) is wrong, why do we need other curves?

I have done this repeatedly by pointing out that obliquity is not the only motion that affects our observations. You are well aware of this.

Well, I guess it depends on what we are trying to calculate. Show me precisely how the other curves are required to calibrate actual data?

The last sentence of this quote belies Dodwell's biggest error: He is looking for something 'previously unsuspected', or, in other words, he's come to a conclusion and is trying to fit his data to that conclusion.

Well, if the shoe fits....after all, it doesn't fit Newcomb's curve! Do you think you can add a few more curves to Newcomb's curve so that it would stand up?

But anyway, that is of no consequence. The fact remains that he has only corrected for one of three known factors. His comparison is incomplete until he accounts for all known factors. The quote provided does not in any way confirm that he has done so. If you would like to show that he has corrected for precession and eccentricity, post these corrections. They would be found in his methods section.

"

Eccentricity​

The first of the three Milankovitch Cycles is the Earth's eccentricity. Eccentricity is, simply, the shape of the Earth's orbit around the Sun. This constantly fluctuating, orbital shape ranges between more and less elliptical (0 to 5% ellipticity) on a cycle of about 100,000 years. These oscillations, from more elliptic to less elliptic, are of prime importance to glaciation in that it alters the distance from the Earth to the Sun, thus changing the distance the Sun's short wave radiation must travel to reach Earth, subsequently reducing or increasing the amount of radiation received at the Earth's surface in different seasons."

​

Milankovitch Cycles

Hopefully, this slop is not part of any curve you want to use as a corrector!!

It is invalidated by not being compared to a curve that includes all factors. Do you see why this is a problem?

It seems you want same state, imaginary factors included? Like the 100,000 year imaginary cycle or..?

If a baseball analyst told you that Fred McGriff is the best batter ever because he has the best average ever against the fastball, would that fly? No, because batting average isn't calculated only against fastballs. It's calculated against all pitches (changeup, curveball, slider, knuckleball, cutter, etc.).

Can anybody tell I'm pumped for baseball season?

But whether the guy hits the ball is what counts. It also needs to be thrown in the area of the bat. In this case, you need to explain how your curves are in the ballpark of the topic. Then, you need to specifically take aim at the bat of Dodwell's data. Then, we need to know that the pitcher is standing on the mound of actual evidence! It would be nice to know who is throwing the ball as well.

Do so scientifically. This means that you are not allowed to invoke a different-state past unless you have emperical scientific evidence for its existance. You do not, so do not invoke it.

If you invoke a same state past, and silly imaginary cycles, I will invoke whatever I like.

Good. You admit that precession occurs, and is thus a motion which must be corrected for.

For how long? How would it correct the observations in real time?

They do not need to. The cycle's duration can be extrapolated from observed motion. That the entire cycle hasn't been observed is irrelevent; you can see 10% of a circle and still calculate its radius, circumfrence and area.

Ha! Utter rubbish, and religion. At last, we start to see your weak premise. We cannot look at a little slice of the history of the universe, under our laws, and extrapolate anything until, and unless we know that the future and past we are projecting it into was also this state. Gotcha.

Another red herring. We are not discussing climate patterns (although Milankovitch's theory has been shown to be accurate, which lends even more weight to the importance of eccentricity and precession).

Prove it! You want to push Milankovitch's theory, you better pony up the specs. I do not believe you.

It would have saved us a lot of time if you were honest from the start.

 

[dad]

Oh my. Can you not even get your own pet theories worked out correctly?

Consider: you assume that the precession movement does not have to be figured in that curve, because even if it does exist now and would influence the curve now, it didn´t exist then.
But then you have to find a explanation - call it event, split, merge, whatever you like - for the precession movement NOW. It has existed for some time. Did it start instantly? Acclerated? No matter what... it started somewhen before NOW.

And that means that there is a factor relevant for Dodwell´s curve that he didn´t even imagine: a change in the axial movement of the earth!

So how would this factor affect the data? I never said that movement didn't exist then. I ask you to prove it did, if you want to enter it as evidence. Seems to me, that your curve drifts off to Milankovitch's dreamland in short order?

 

[Nostromo]

One thing that seems conspicuously absent from the graph is Stonehenge, given that he wrote such a lengthy chapter about it. I've added it to the graph with the obliquity provided, and the results of dating done at the site.
DATING STONEHENGE
BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Dig pinpoints Stonehenge origins

 

[dad]

One thing that seems conspicuously absent from the graph is Stonehenge, given that he wrote such a lengthy chapter about it. I've added it to the graph with the obliquity provided, and the results of dating done at the site.
DATING STONEHENGE
BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Dig pinpoints Stonehenge origins

Cute. I notice your offering is way up there in the fantasy curve area, and even beyond!

From your link

".... radiocarbon dating was undertaken to provide a reliable set of dates for the Monument.."

There was no decay in the different state past, that I am aware of. That means they used same state belief, and labeled it as a date. Nothing more.

 

[Nostromo]

Cute. I notice your offering is way up there in the fantasy curve area, and even beyond!

Which the reason I added the Sun to scale. Stonehenge is presumed to mark the positions of the sun at various times of year. That a group of people arranged stones weighing between 4 and 50 tons using the basic technology they had, and did so to within 10% of the angular diameter of the Sun is a decent achievement.

There was no decay in the different state past, that I am aware of. That means they used same state belief, and labeled it as a date. Nothing more.

2300 BC isn't as far back as the 'split', is it? How far back is radiometric dating reliable, in your opinion? Can you show that there was no decay in the past?

You haven't yet given us any reason to think that a different state past is correct, I thought that this Dodwell thing was part of that attempt.

At what point does one realise that erecting a new set of unjustified claims to protect the old set of unjustified claims isn't helping their case?

 

[dad]

Which the reason I added the Sun to scale. Stonehenge is presumed to mark the positions of the sun at various times of year. That a group of people arranged stones weighing between 4 and 50 tons using the basic technology they had, and did so to within 10% of the angular diameter of the Sun is a decent achievement.

The circles of stone happen to be something involved in Baal worship, apparently. Having to do with human sacrifice, and more specifically, the firstborn child. At least that is what some preacher I listened to was saying. But, be it as it may, the issue is when the sun did what..without that, you have nothing.

2300 BC isn't as far back as the 'split', is it? How far back is radiometric dating reliable, in your opinion? Can you show that there was no decay in the past?

Since science doesn't know, and cannot show either way, that is moot. Can you prove decay existed? No. Where does this 'date' 2300 BC come from??

You haven't yet given us any reason to think that a different state past is correct, I thought that this Dodwell thing was part of that attempt.

You haven't yet given us any reason to think that a same state past is correct. Dodwell's data parts ways with the same state past curve.

At what point does one realise that erecting a new set of unjustified claims to protect the old set of unjustified claims isn't helping their case?

Well, wherever that may be, so called science isn't there yet. A different state future is justified by God. So is Eden, and all the things that came down long long ago.

 

[Nostromo]

You haven't yet given us any reason to think that a same state past is correct.

Every day gives us reason to think that a same state past is correct. Things behaved the same yesterday as they do today.

What is your reason for a different state past, and what exactly is different about it?

 

[dad]

Every day gives us reason to think that a same state past is correct. Things behaved the same yesterday as they do today.

I agree. However, I was not here near the time of the flood. So we best stick to what we know.

What is your reason for a different state past, and what exactly is different about it?

What is your reason for a same state past? The differences involve the spiritual. Things work a lot differently when that is involved. The records of the bible, and history agree that there were many real differences.

 

[Tomatoman]

dad:

The records of the bible, and history agree that there were many real differences.

No, they don't.

 

[Nostromo]

I agree. However, I was not here near the time of the flood. So we best stick to what we know. What is your reason for a same state past?

Same reason I believe water is wet in Fiji, consistency of experience. Water is wet in my kitchen, it's wet in the street outside, it's wet in the next town and it's wet in Finland. I've never been to Fiji, but the vast experience of mankind with regard to water and its property of wetness leads me to think it's safe to say water is also wet in Fiji, as there has been no reason presented to make me think counter to my experience.

The differences involve the spiritual. Things work a lot differently when that is involved. The records of the bible, and history agree that there were many real differences.

What are the differences exactly?

 

[dad]

dad:


No, they don't.

Yes, they do, try to support your claims that they do not.. Why talk for nothing?

 

[dad]

Same reason I believe water is wet in Fiji, consistency of experience. Water is wet in my kitchen, it's wet in the street outside, it's wet in the next town and it's wet in Finland. I've never been to Fiji, but the vast experience of mankind with regard to water and its property of wetness leads me to think it's safe to say water is also wet in Fiji, as there has been no reason presented to make me think counter to my experience.
What are the differences exactly?

So you have been to the ark? To Eden? To creation week? You measured plant growth, and life spans there? Why pretend that water being wet clinches your imaginary case?? Bizarre.