PROOF OF GOD

I'm glad you're doing this. I wanted to do it myself, but wasn't sure when I'd find the time.--PercyThis message has been edited by Percy, 07-02-2004 01:47 AM

I think it is possible that the capstone was never there. There is no unequivocal evidence either way. However, it seems unlikely that it was never there, because it is a decision that would have had to have been made relatively early in the process of installing the polished limestone facing. Because these stones give the pyramid smooth, unscalable sides, they were installed beginning at the top. Once the top tier of facing stones were installed, it would no longer have been possible to install the capstone.In other words, a decision to leave the pyramid incomplete would have left it with missing facing near the bottom, not a missing capstone at the top.Given this, an argument in favor of a missing capstone would have to propose some kind of technical problems preventing it's installation. The capstone would have been very large, but given that it's the last stone, all the construction resources could have been devoted to raising it, so it still doesn't seem a very strong argument. If the capstone proved too unwieldy, they could have cut it into pieces and raised them separately. It doesn't seem to make much sense to leave off the capstone but install the polished limestone facing.--Percy

It isn't clear to me whether you're making the claim that WillowTree thinks you are. He seems to think you think he's claiming that the pyramid is 5449 inches tall today. My understanding of what he's saying is that it was 5449 inches when completed without the capstone, and that erosion and settling have reduced the height. I thought your point was that the non-installation of the capstone is not a known fact, and that he hasn't yet explained how the 5449 figure was arrived at. Do I have this right? If so, then it might be helpful to make this clear.While it is true that WillowTree hasn't yet explained how the height of 5449 inches was determined, I recall he did take a stab at it in one of his posts. Unfortunately the description wasn't clear enough to figure out how the measurement was done, so the question is still open.By the way, if you post a corrected list of the points in your Message 359, the concavity of the pyramid faces is not a curve as WillowTree claimed, as evidenced by the photograph I provided. And when the triangle is inscribed on a circle the radius is a few orders of magnitude smaller than the radius of the earth, also contrary to WillowTree's claim.--Percy

Good question. I don't think convincing WillowTree he's wrong is a reasonable goal. But I think establishing the plain facts of the matter is well within our means and ability, and in that case it makes no difference whether WillowTree acknowledges reality or not.So I'd like to see NosyNed complete his area calculations. I'd like to see the land meridian calculations posted, if they haven't been already. It doesn't look like anyone is going to check my radius calculations, so I'll look for an opportunity to take another route to making the same calculation.--Percy

I agree with you - the connection seems tenuous to me, also. But from WillowTree's perspective it seems an obvious conclusion. He believes the pyramid's position and proportions correlate with other measurements that the Egyptians could not possible have known, like the radius of the earth, the length of land meridians, and the areas of continents not yet discovered. Therefore divine revelation must be responsible.I think WillowTree believes the difficulty he's having convincing people of what, to him, is so obviously true is because we're determined to deny the existence of God. He doesn't seem to understand that because most of the claims are mathematical that it isn't that difficult, though it *is* tedious in some cases, to objectively verify many of the claims. But pretty clearly math is not his strong point, and so posting calculations or any kind of mathematical discussion is like Greek to him and won't be persuasive.WillowTree believes Dr. Scott implicitly, and doesn't think he would fabricate things or pass on the fabrications of others, so even though he doesn't understand the rebuttals, he thinks anyone who doesn't accept Scott's claims is desperate because they're afraid God's existence has been proven, and they won't accept it. This perceived behavior on our part is deplorable and despicable to WillowTree.It is also an erroneous conclusion and a fabrication of his own mind, but since he doesn't understand the objective nature of the claims he will never believe this. Even explaining to him that many evolutionists believe in God probably wouldn't dissuade him. Probably neither would explaining to him that many devout Christians think Dr. Scott is a charlatan.Articles have appeared in several popular magazines over the past few years about how scientists become persuaded of new perspectives and paradigms. There's always the claim of Kuhn that the old guard doesn't really become persuaded, they just pass away, and while this overstates the case, it is true that once one has a lot invested in a particular viewpoint that it is difficult to give it up. One thing these articles noted was that the more brilliant the scientist, the better he is at thinking up rationalizations for not accepting contrary evidence and for continuing to believe what he already believes.So even though WillowTree has proven particularly weak in the math area, I think he's been fairly brilliant at thinking up rebuttals and rationalizations to allow him to continue in his misunderstandings.--Percy

We're all university grads here, so post away, but to bring some focus to the discussion I think it would be a good idea to follow the outline NosyNed is proposing, or at least make a counterproposal. Email me any scanned material you'd like posted.--Percy

Skepticism would be a more appropriate position to take on matters whose substantiation you do not understand. People like Scott trust that there will always be people willing to accept without having to understand, and for whom a good story overcomes the need for evidence.--Percy

Hi WillowTree,I think you really want to provide the details about the rigorous measurement approach you mentioned. Annecdotal stories about "somebody a long time ago" or about "each course was measured" are not evidence.--Percy

Then there might have been very little need for you to post at all. I wouldn't have replied except I feared you would later claim you had posted the evidence and there was no rebuttal, so I wanted to be sure that it was clear to you that what you posted was not evidence.My perception is, I think, the same as NosyNed's. Instead of taking this opportunity to begin a rigorous presentation of evidence, you are instead once again all over the place with annecdotal claims. You might consider waiting until your evidence is back in your hands before posting further. There are no time limit rules here.--Percy

I'm quite simply flabbergasted by your behavior.--Percy

Neither site provides any evidence whatsoever.Before you can argue on the evidence, you first have to know the difference between an assertion and evidence. Those websites both make assertions about the "center of land mass" issue, but neither provides any evidence.--Percy

There's no math at this website that I can find, just many, many figures, some of which represent direct measurements, while others are derived values, none of which looks like it would require any more than a knowledge of basic high school geometry.--Percy

Very few Forum Guidelines are enforced in Free For All, but staying on topic is one of them. If you'd like to argue this point you'll have to open a new thread.You're understandably eager to defend your point of view, but wandering off topic and repeating unsupported assertions has already proven counterproductive. Wait patiently until you get your evidence, then post it. Until you have your evidence in hand you need do nothing.--Percy

I've rarely seen a poster more determinedly bent on self destruction, but perhaps WillowTree is finally learning to practice discretion. --Percy

Hi WillowTree, That doesn't matter. PI can also be theoretically calculated to an infinite number of digits, but the accuracy of a circle's circumference is still no better than your measurement of the diameter, which under normal circumstances wouldn't have more than 3 significant digits.If you gave someone a 1 foot ruler and asked them to measure the dimensions of a room, and they came back and told you the room was 10.37052 feet by 12.58926 feet, wouldn't you question how he could possibly have obtained such accuracy?Since the accuracy of Rutherford's figures is obviously made up, it is natural to also be suspicious of the figures themselves.--Percy