[_ Old Earth _] Dodwell's Curve

[Barbarian]

The fantasy is imagining the tens of thousands of workers needed to build the pyramids

There are records of the levees so taken from each villiage.

Most likely the Pharaoh employed a large work force, indeed as many as 100,000 men, but for only a fraction of the year. During the months of July, August, September and October, the Nile River flooded the land. This was actually a blessing for the Egyptian farmers as it allowed new fertile soil to be laid down over the fields. But it meant the farmers were unable to grow crops during this period. It is likely that the Pharaoh required his subjects to work on public projects, like the pyramids, during this season.

Egyptian records indicate that the laborers, while being drafted against their will, were actually well cared for by ancient standards. Regulations have been found covering the maximum amount of work allowed per day, the wages received and holidays entitled to, each worker. By only requiring work to be done during flood periods, the Pharaoh could get a lot done without impacting the normal Egyptian economy.
http://www.unmuseum.org/bldpyram.htm

and that your unprovablr same state past was in effect!

The evidence, from the quarries and the construction marks, is that it was.

Obviously, cause it sure ain't science.

Science works only on evidence, not some fairy tale "things were different then" story.

There is simply no reason to disbelieve the bible in light of that fact.

The Bible says none of that. You just made it up and added it to make the Bible acceptable to you.

 

[Deep Thought]

I find it amusing/bemusing/confusing how YEC's can magically change the state of the universe to suit their needs. The onus is on them to provide convincing evidence for such outlandish claims.

 

[John]

I find it amusing/bemusing/confusing how YEC's can magically change the state of the universe to suit their needs. The onus is on them to provide convincing evidence for such outlandish claims.

Its funny, i would say the same thing to you, but you guys find what "evidence" there is and twist it to reflect your beliefs, so really you've set up the rules so that we cannot win.

 

[Deep Thought]

It's not a matter of winning and losing. It's a matter of integrity.

Anyone can make extraordinary claims, but why should we believe them unless they can offer some evidence.

 

[dad]

The fantasy is imagining the tens of thousands of workers needed to build the pyramids

There are records of the levees so taken from each villiage.

Most likely the Pharaoh employed a large work force,

'Most likely' ?? That the best you can do??? Says who, on what basis, according to what??

indeed as many as 100,000 men, but for only a fraction of the year. During the months of July, August, September and October, the Nile River flooded the land. This was actually a blessing for the Egyptian farmers as it allowed new fertile soil to be laid down over the fields. But it meant the farmers were unable to grow crops during this period. It is likely that the Pharaoh required his subjects to work on public projects, like the pyramids, during this season.

WHEN, and why, and how do you think you know that???? Get a grip, support your strange stories.

Egyptian records indicate that the laborers, while being drafted against their will, were actually well cared for by ancient standards. Regulations have been found covering the maximum amount of work allowed per day, the wages received and holidays entitled to, each worker. By only requiring work to be done during flood periods, the Pharaoh could get a lot done without impacting the normal Egyptian economy.

http://www.unmuseum.org/bldpyram.htm

So there were workers at some time in Egypt. Wow. So??? When, and how do you pretend to know!!!!???? Doing what, and how would you know???

The evidence, from the quarries and the construction marks, is that it was.

Was WHAT!!!!!!??? Same state? Well, why would it not be, unless you can place the workers before the split??? Work on that.

Science works only on evidence, not some fairy tale "things were different then" story.

Wonderful, grow some, or lose your stories.

The Bible says none of that. You just made it up and added it to make the Bible acceptable to you.

None of WHAT???? Adam living forever, and later near a thousand years?? Things being different than now??? Baloney!!! Prove it, you are flying in the face of the obvious here.




Worse than that, you have not addressed the OP!!!!!! What about the evidence based curve that leads smack dab to the split!!!!???? ??????????? ????? ???????


What about your two bit science claims that need a same state??? Where is it? Run along now, you have been soundly exposed.

 

[dad]

I find it amusing/bemusing/confusing how YEC's can magically change the state of the universe to suit their needs. The onus is on them to provide convincing evidence for such outlandish claims.

Not at all, unless you first had evidence we needed to refute about your required fantasy past state! I mean that.

 

[jmm9683]

I find it amusing/bemusing/confusing how YEC's can magically change the state of the universe to suit their needs. The onus is on them to provide convincing evidence for such outlandish claims.

Not at all, unless you first had evidence we needed to refute about your required fantasy past state! I mean that.

You claim that there was a different past state, the onus is on you. You might have a difficult time trying to prove it though, seeing as no science actually supports it. But have fun anyway.

 

[Barbarian]

(Evidence show that it was most likely that a huge work force was on the site during non-farming season)

Most likely' ?? That the best you can do??? Says who, on what basis, according to what??

Number of graves of people who died on the construction site, Egyptian records of drafted workers, graffiti on quarry walls, that sort of thing.

[quote[ indeed as many as 100,000 men, but for only a fraction of the year. During the months of July, August, September and October, the Nile River flooded the land. This was actually a blessing for the Egyptian farmers as it allowed new fertile soil to be laid down over the fields. But it meant the farmers were unable to grow crops during this period. It is likely that the Pharaoh required his subjects to work on public projects, like the pyramids, during this season.

WHEN, and why, and how do you think you know that????

See above. This seasonal flooding still occurs, btw.

Egyptian records indicate that the laborers, while being drafted against their will, were actually well cared for by ancient standards. Regulations have been found covering the maximum amount of work allowed per day, the wages received and holidays entitled to, each worker. By only requiring work to be done during flood periods, the Pharaoh could get a lot done without impacting the normal Egyptian economy.
http://www.unmuseum.org/bldpyram.htm

So there were workers at some time in Egypt. Wow.

And large numbers of them working on the pyramids.

Doing what, and how would you know?

Cutting out blocks of stone, and transporting them to the pyramid, and putting them in place. We know how they cut out the limestone, because partially-cut blocks, and copper tools have been found in the quarries.

Barbarian observes:
Science works only on evidence, not some fairy tale "things were different then" story.

Wonderful, grow some, or lose your stories.

Evidence is above. All you have for your stories is your say-so. You have no evidence for them, and the Bible does not support them.

Barbarian chuckles:
The Bible says none of that. You just made it up and added it to make the Bible acceptable to you.

Adam living forever, and later near a thousand years??

Few Christians think that the "years" in the Bible are actual chronological years, because taking them that way leads to logical contradictions.

 

[dad]

You claim that there was a different past state, the onus is on you. You might have a difficult time trying to prove it though, seeing as no science actually supports it. But have fun anyway.

I claim that obviosly the past and future of the bible are quite different, and can back it up, and have. I also claim that science cannot prove otherwise, but has assmed it. Therefore unless you can prove it, you have no science case at all, only myth. That is big news, by the way.

I notice that the time curve that leads to the time of this change, but disagrees with present state so called dating is left unaddressed. Curious, that.

Dodwell's curve lands precisely right exactly where I deduced that the universe state change happened! The evidence mounts.

Be amazed.

 

[Barbarian]

I claim that obviosly the past and future of the bible are quite different, and can back it up, and have.

You've told us you can back it up. But so far, you've given us no reason to believe you.

I also claim that science cannot prove otherwise, but has assmed it.

Since no matter how far back we look, we see the same processes operating, that pretty much puts the end to any imagined "things were different then."

Therefore unless you can prove it, you have no science case at all, only myth.

Nice try. But other people don't have to disprove your case. You need to prove it's true. If you can't, then ... well, you know.

 

[dad]

You've told us you can back it up. But so far, you've given us no reason to believe you.

A bible case is easy as pie, for a different future, and the creation week was so similar, it is astounding.

Since no matter how far back we look, we see the same processes operating, that pretty much puts the end to any imagined "things were different then."

You cannot look back at all beyond the present, save in your head, by religious same state past assumption! That is your problem. Obviously. You take back the way it is, and imprint it on the past, rather than observe squat about the actual future or past.

Nice try. But other people don't have to disprove your case. You need to prove it's true. If you can't, then ... well, you know.

They can't disprove an obvious, and strong bible case, ever notice that this is not an issue?? They DO need to support their own claims, ALL of which sit on a same state past premise that is absolutely imagination, and no science exists to support it.


Now, about the OP, have you any intelligent comment on the evidences observed by the astronomer that point to the time of the split, or not??

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Since no matter how far back we look, we see the same processes operating, that pretty much puts the end to any imagined "things were different then."

You cannot look back at all beyond the present,

Sure we can. Telescopes can see deep into the past. And what we see is the same rules as operate today. No sign of your imaginary different rules.

Barbarian observes:
Nice try. But other people don't have to disprove your case. You need to prove it's true. If you can't, then ... well, you know.

They can't disprove an obvious, and strong bible case,

Your problem is, the Bible doesn't say what you want us to believe.

I'd be willing to look at Dodwell's data, if you have it. And I could then compare it to data from other sources and see if it matches. My guess is, like Setterfield's "data" it's been cherry-picked to fit his intended outcome.

 

[dad]

Barbarian observes:
Since no matter how far back we look, we see the same processes operating, that pretty much puts the end to any imagined "things were different then."

One merely needs to look at how far back you actually can look, to see that is a moot point.

Sure we can. Telescopes can see deep into the past. And what we see is the same rules as operate today. No sign of your imaginary different rules.

No you can't! It is only as deep as the universe was the same, and that you clearly demonstrate you have not the slightest clue about. Only in the wicked, godless, same state stuff of dreams is your shallow temporary state religion deep! Really.

Your problem is, the Bible doesn't say what you want us to believe.

If not, then explain the details in this.

http://geocities.com/lovecreates/split.zip

I'd be willing to look at Dodwell's data, if you have it. And I could then compare it to data from other sources and see if it matches. My guess is, like Setterfield's "data" it's been cherry-picked to fit his intended outcome.

Dodwell preceded Setterfield. I think there is some of his stuff in the OP. It all points to a certain year, which happens to be the year of the split.

 

[jmm9683]

No you can't! It is only as deep as the universe was the same, and that you clearly demonstrate you have not the slightest clue about. Only in the wicked, godless, same state stuff of dreams is your shallow temporary state religion deep! Really.

We can look back billions of years. There is a something called a light-year, look it up.

 

[John]

^ Your assuming light speed is a constant.

 

[Barbarian]

Dodwell preceded Setterfield. I think there is some of his stuff in the OP. It all points to a certain year, which happens to be the year of the split.

No data, though. And since even creationists back away from his and Setterfield's work, I suspect there's a good reason.

 

[Barbarian]

Your assuming light speed is a constant.

So far, it's been a constant.

Here's what the Institute for Creation Research has to say about Setterfield's claims...

Unfortunately, the authors of the technical report devote great effort to the discussion and analysis of the data in separate, small groups for any kind of c decay trend within the group, and report changes which can only be explained as technique refinement, as if they were unequivocally in support of c decay. They do, in one place, however, consider the whole body of data collectively. In this one instance, they use a nonweighted least squares technique to find the straight line which best fits the data (ignoring the relative uncertainties in the different data points), and conclude:

When all 163 values involving 16 different experimental methods are used, the linear fit to the data gives a decay of 38 km/s per year (p. 25).

If this was the end of the matter, it would certainly seem to provide powerful evidence in favor of the c decay hypothesis. Unfortunately, even a cursory glance at the data reveals that the above analysis is inappropriate for the given data set, and, hence, the conclusions drawn from it are not valid.
Gerald Aardsma Has the Speed of Light Decayed? Institute for Creation Research
http://www.icr.org/article/283/

 

[dad]

No you can't! It is only as deep as the universe was the same, and that you clearly demonstrate you have not the slightest clue about. Only in the wicked, godless, same state stuff of dreams is your shallow temporary state religion deep! Really.

We can look back billions of years. There is a something called a light-year, look it up.

You look no further than 19 years ago, or however old you are. Think about it. Science was not here forever either. It is based on only the present nature. If, in the new heavens to come, light is different, and the nature of the universe, it cannot be held to present standards.

Same with the far past, if the created state was not our present nature.

If it was the created nature, why will it need to pass away?? That is saying that creation and the universe that was created was created in a temporary state!! makes no sense to me.

No, you cannot hold the past or future to a temporary state, which is what we live in, and science deals in.

 

[dad]

Dodwell preceded Setterfield. I think there is some of his stuff in the OP. It all points to a certain year, which happens to be the year of the split.

No data, though. And since even creationists back away from his and Setterfield's work, I suspect there's a good reason.

I don't know much about Setterfield's work. I think he tries to explain a young earth within the present laws, and nature of the universe.

Dodwell had nothing to do with that, but apparently used actual data, and observations of how that stars were not lined up as they should be, according to ancient temples, and whatnots.

Why is that? I think he had something like 61 points of reference, that all led to the same place. Whether you want to quibble over one or two, would not matter. Explain the data. I can. The time goes right to the split, where a big change did happen.

 

[Barbarian]

You look no further than 19 years ago, or however old you are.

Demonstrably untrue. Light travels at a specific speed, and the farther away it began, the farther into the past you can see.