"The Exodus Revealed" Video II

Buz,There is a difference between scientific standards of evidence and what lay people accept. What you are being told is that Wyatt has not conducted a scientific study using standard methodolgy.The artifacts need to be measured and tested and charted. It is the data that is important in it's total relationship, and that is what is not available here. We are telling you this is not a scientific study.Wyatt found something which confirms peoples faith. These objects and the hypothesis he held are taken on faith to prove the bible and bouy the faith of the believers. Fine. But this is not science method, and so it's results are not scientific. Wyatt may be an explorer who has discovered some interesting things, but unless and until the sites are studied according to accepted methodology what you have are some interesting things that some may conjecture are evidence of the exodus, etc. This may constitute proof for a layman, but is does not constitute scientific evidence. You can claim that by faith you believe Wyatt has found all the holy place and object in the bible. I won't dispute that you believe what you believe. But what we are telling you is that Wyatt did not establish scientific evidence to tie his finds in with the exodus crossing.lfen

John,What will you accept as scientific evidence?lfen

Hydarnes,A corpse is found with bullet holes. Nearby is found a pistol.
Someone says they have found the murder weapon and offer the pistol as evidence. I am now using a legal approach to argument on the hope that this might be more comprehensible to you.You can't say that the pistol is the murder weapon until a number of key tests have been made. We don't even know the person died of gun shot wounds. They could have been dead before being shot. Bullets would need to be recovered and matched to the pattern of other bullets shot from the gun etc.Wyatt has some circumstantial evidence, photos of coral formations that can be viewed as resembling chariot wheels, etc. This has led some to *believe* that this is the site of the bibical exodus crossing. Scientifically, circumstantial evidence at best is grounds for a conjecture.The evidence is not being allowed here any more than it would be in a court of law and not because of myopicness. There have not been tests from verified sources and hopefully more than one source to ascertain what the evidence is.You of course are free to believe. You are free to call us all kinds of names, at least for awhile until an admin intervenes. But we are likewise free to insist on the necessity of a high standard of proof to be offered for claims and to refuse to accept them until such proof is forth coming.lfen

Jim,All Charles is asking is what Wyatt and you should have done in the first place and that is to properly collect and scientifically test and validate the data.You can conjecture all you want. But that and spiritual discernment and supernatural activities don't add up to scientific evidence. You have shown you have no scientific argument. Don't blame the messenger, it's your message that is thread bare.lfen

---

"So remember, when you're feeling very small and insecure,
how amazingly unlikely is your birth,
And pray that there's intelligent life somewhere up in space,
because there's bugger all down here on Earth." Monty Python's Galaxy Song

Lysimachus, Perhaps many reasonable persons, particularly those who think in prelogical prescientific ways might come to that conclusion. Reasonable people believe many things that have been disproved scientifically. A fairly common one is that if you get cold you'll catch cold. I only mention this because it seems at least a dozen times a year I have to explain to people the viruses cause the common cold and not being cold. For this reason we have repeated the need for SCIENTIFIC validation of the evidence. Common sense is not a rigorous enough standard for science. Yes, it works very well for conversions or revivals but those are rhetorical religious emotional events and not science. Insisting that facts be scientifically evaluated is demonic? Trying to teach reason, logic, and science is demonic? very interesting.Projection involves someone feeling an emotion or holding a view that is unacceptable to them and so they experience, for example, anger, as not being what they are experiencing and attributed to the person they are angry with. You and Jim, and Hydarnes have at several points in the argument called names in what appeared to be an angry fashion because your beliefs were being challenged.If you stay with your church you can believe all the things you want. But if you wish to have your conjectures accepted as science then you have to do science and not religious rhetoric.lfen

Ah, yes, you've found a nice example of "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo."lfen

Ramoss,There is no evidence. If there was evidence it would have been put forward. It would be better if they had paraphrased the "badges? We don't need not stinking badges" substituting "evidence" for "badges".Wyatt was a talented performer who had a dog and pony show that played really well to those who want to believe it. These kind of things have appeared in relgion down through the ages, "the pieces of the true cross" to " the Book of Mormon". They love the tapes and his talks and simply lack sufficient education in science to know what consistutes evidence. There is no science here and no intent to do science on Wyatt's part. That is my conclustion in a nutshell.I've grown weary of this thread.lfen

Hydarnes,Aside from quoting the bible have you discoverd a dating of the rock carvings that place them around the time of your claimed date for the exodus? You must have seen by now that your derogatory scornful insults will not establish your case here. We are not in a bar trying to see who can best denigrate an opponent. We are trying to establish a scientific explanation for phenomena.lfenThis message has been edited by lfen, 08-12-2004 04:40 PM

Jar,I say that we know what they have and I've seen nothing that would indicate Wyatt ever gathered any good data. He just needed stuff to put together an exciting video for his target audience. It's just like those infomercials, exciting claims and demonstations that can excite an audience. It's just some people who got sold on it thought they had bought science.Well, I'm a skeptic and a bit world weary. I say let it die there is nothing here.lfen

The value I think I will take from this thread is that it illustrates the nature and ease of religious belief. If Ron Wyatt could promote his relics so successfully in this time of comparatively massive archeologically studies and education in rational science, think how easy it was to find pieces of the true cross, the bones of Saints, etc during the middle ages!Religions develop and spread by the willingness of people to believe regardless of evidence, based on appeals to imagination. Wyatt certainly knew how to appeal to imagination. He was a salesman not a scientist. I've known the type in real life. It's clear his videos are dearly loved and enjoyed by the faithful.and so it goes,lfen