|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,913 Year: 4,170/9,624 Month: 1,041/974 Week: 368/286 Day: 11/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Did the Biblical Exodus ever happen? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Admin writes: Buzsaw writes: You're assuming that the mighty rush of water would have caused no erosion of a larger delta from the wadi canyon and that nothing changed during the event and over the millennia since the event from shipping and currents, earth quakes etc. Isn't the severe drop off in depth at the end of the delta unusual for deltas? Before discussing the mechanisms by which the land bridge could have disappeared, please present evidence that the land bridge was ever there in the first place. There would, of course, be no way of imperically proving that there was a more tapered off delta at some time in the past. Nor can it be assumed that it was not. I asked a question. Why the sudden drop off of the delta? Isn't that unusual for deltas? We know that the rock above and below the delta does not extend out into the sea. This may be indicative that a deep delta was at some period created by wash out when the wadi canyon was formed. Given that the corroborating evidence cited has not been imperically refuted, it cannot be assumed that there was, for sure, never ever a delta extending further out into the sea. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Trae writes: bluescat48 writes: One point, even if it is a wheel, why would it show that it was from a chariot from Pharoah's Army? It could have easily belonged to someone else's chariot, that came off and the driver, so incensed, threw the thing in the sea. Fairly sure that it was brought up years ago, that when you move the troups you’d sometimes be taking them and their chariots across the water. So there certainly could be chariots under the water, but that doesn’t mean anything other than that. The problem is not that it is a leap to pharaoh’s chariots, but how many freaking huge leaps. We don’t know that it isn’t just coral. We don’t know it is the right size. We don’t know that it is a wheel. We don’t know that if it is a wheel that it is a chariot wheel (ship’s wheel, steering wheel, hatch wheel, all manner of hoops, etc). If it is a chariot wheel we don’t know it is Eqyptian (they weren’t the only ones to use chariot. Even were it a chariot wheel we don’t know if it was from the right time, place, and battle. How many times do I have to repeat that we're not debating about a wheel. The video photographed evidence shows multiple wheel shaped and axle shaped forms as well as other unusual coral forms in a rather unusual location for coral. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13046 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.7 |
Buzsaw writes: Given that the corroborating evidence cited has not been imperically refuted, it cannot be assumed that there was, for sure, never ever a delta extending further out into the sea. You misspelled the word you bolded. Chrome and Firefox have built-in spell checkers. If you have "corroborating evidence" for a land bridge, then please present it. Please, no replies to this message.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13046 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.7 |
Buzsaw writes: How many times do I have to repeat that we're not debating about a wheel. The video photographed evidence shows multiple wheel shaped and axle shaped forms as well as other unusual coral forms in a rather unusual location for coral. If you have evidence that the objects in the photographs are Egyptian chariot wheels from the 18th dynasty, then please present it. Please, no replies to this message.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Buzsaw writes: jar writes: Percy writes: jar writes: In fact the Gulf of Suez is actually very shallow with an average depth of about 40 feet and a maximum depth less than 100 feet. The Gulf of Aqaba though has an average depth of over 2600 feet and a maximum depth of over 6000 feet. I don't know about the Gulf of Suez, but while researching this topic I read somewhere that the Gulf of Aqaba is an extension of the Great Rift Valley, so it makes sense that it's deep. Isn't it also deep at the Nuweiba site? Not where Mollart was diving, but doesn't it get very deep a bit further from shore? Isn't there really no sign of a "land bridge"? --Percy Not only is there no sign of a "land bridge", not only is it over 850 meters (about a half MILE) deep, it is a relatively narrow area. That means that the slope would be extreme; even with all of the water gone it would be like climbing down into a canyon; not at all the terrain that is suitable for chariots. That is why Buz makes up his fantasy sand bar. He needs to build a magic bridge that the people could walk across and that the Pharaoh might be dumb enough to also try. The Nuweiba site is simply not credible from any point of view. It does not match the descriptions in the Bible and it is not a place where any general would take chariots; it's only value is that it sells videos. You're assuming that the mighty rush of water would have caused no erosion of a larger delta from the wadi canyon and that nothing changed during the event and over the millennia since the event from shipping and currents, earth quakes etc. Isn't the severe drop off in depth at the end of the delta unusual for deltas? What delta. There is no delta at Nuwebia, there is no evidence that there ever was a delta at Nuwebia. And yes Buz, geologists could tell if there had been a delta there. What happens leaves evidence, and that is the crux of the matter. You continue to either present NO evidence or to misrepresent the evidence that does exit. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2325 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Buzsaw writes:
Ok, then why should we accept that there was? Because it fits your story so nicely?
There would, of course, be no way of imperically proving that there was a more tapered off delta at some time in the past. Nor can it be assumed that it was not.
Burden of proof, Buz. You say it was there, it's up to you to show evidence for that.
I asked a question. Why the sudden drop off of the delta?
Why not?
Isn't that unusual for deltas?
I don't know, you show me. Better yet, show there was a delta in the first place.
We know that the rock above and below the delta does not extend out into the sea. This may be indicative that a deep delta was at some period created by wash out when the wadi canyon was formed.
Why? And more importantly, is it indicative of that? And still, how do you propse 700 meters of rock were "washed out", and yet there still are "wheels" in the area? Any force massive enough to completely remove rock would surely remove the "wheels" as well.
Given that the corroborating evidence cited has not been imperically refuted, it cannot be assumed that there was, for sure, never ever a delta extending further out into the sea.
Which is irrelevant. You say that there was, now show it to be the case. Edited by Huntard, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Buzsaw writes: Admin writes: Buzsaw writes: You're assuming that the mighty rush of water would have caused no erosion of a larger delta from the wadi canyon and that nothing changed during the event and over the millennia since the event from shipping and currents, earth quakes etc. Isn't the severe drop off in depth at the end of the delta unusual for deltas? Before discussing the mechanisms by which the land bridge could have disappeared, please present evidence that the land bridge was ever there in the first place. There would, of course, be no way of imperically proving that there was a more tapered off delta at some time in the past. Nor can it be assumed that it was not. I asked a question. Why the sudden drop off of the delta? Isn't that unusual for deltas? We know that the rock above and below the delta does not extend out into the sea. This may be indicative that a deep delta was at some period created by wash out when the wadi canyon was formed. Given that the corroborating evidence cited has not been imperically refuted, it cannot be assumed that there was, for sure, never ever a delta extending further out into the sea. Stop for just one minute and think. It is not necessary to empirically refute evidence that simply isn't there. You have not shown any evidence that there are any chariot wheels. You have not shown any evidence that there was a sand bar or delta. You have not shown any evidence that there was any Altar of the Golden Calf. You have not shown any evidence that there was some waterway from a split rock. You have not shown any evidence that there was a burned mountain. You have not shown any evidence that the Biblical Exodus ever happened. In fact, you have not shown any evidence at all. All you have as "corroborating evidence" is a continuing list of unsupported assertions. Guess what? No matter how long a list of fantasies you present, the result is only a list of fantasies. Lack of evidence can be a valid refutation of a claim. If someone claims that a bullet hit the target, there should be a hole. We looked at the target and there is no hole. Edited by jar, : appalin spallin Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dirk Member (Idle past 4054 days) Posts: 84 Joined: |
After 27 pages, I think we can safely summarize Buzsaw's position as follows:
Throughout this discussion, Buzsaw has admitted that each individual point of evidence is not as strong as he initially suggested. So, when discussing coral wheels, he says: "Yeah, they might be natural coral formations, but there is still the corroborating evidence [meaning the land bridge, the black rock etc]". When we then turn to the land bridge, he must admit that the evidence is not so strong as he thought, but then he says "Yeah, there might be no land bridge, but there is still the corroborating evidence [meaning the coral wheels, the black rock etc]" And so we turn round and round and round...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Dirk writes: So, when discussing coral wheels, he says: "Yeah, they might be natural coral formations, but there is still the corroborating evidence Hi Dirk. Welcome to the fray, but I don't recall saying any such thing. To the best of my recollection, I said something to the effect that the corroborating evidence supported the wheel and axle like corral forms. If they stood alone, the value of them as evidence would be diminished. That's my problem with the traditional Mt Sinai. It pretty much stands alone, lacking substantial evidence to match the Biblical account of the event. Savvy? BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
jar writes:
Stop for just one minute and think. It is not necessary to empirically refute evidence that simply isn't there. You have not shown any evidence that there are any chariot wheels. Lennart Moller who sees the forms as evidence is a widely acclaimed prestigious marine scientist having significant credentials. He is no crackpot or fraudulent deceiver.
quote: This credentialed scientist figured the evidence warranted all of the expense and time he spent to do the exploratory research. He accomplished about as much as the renowned Robert Ballard accomplished with his acclaimed discovery of flood evidence in the Black Sea, being the photography. Both had some corroborative evidence supportive to their hypotheses relative to the respective phenomena researched.
jar writes: You have not shown any evidence that there was a sand bar or delta. Debatable.
jar writes: You have not shown any evidence that there was any Altar of the Golden Calf. I'm not aware that there should be an alter as per the Biblical account. The golden calf was what the people worshiped. The evidence I cited was the hoofed animals inscribed in the rock in the area which fits the Biblical account. These inscriptions suggest that something was going on relative to cattle at some time. Again, this, standing by itself would be of little value as evidence.
jar writes: You have not shown any evidence that there was some waterway from a split rock. Jar, you should be ashamed to even go there, given the strawman you peddled as evidence. You should be ashamed that I had to show what you failed to show from the angle which your image was taken. You should be ashamed that you failed to refute my valid argument that there was indeed evidence of a water flow. Have you forgotten my valid point that fragmented pieces of the split rock, void of a water flow, would have fallen in a random pile in and around the crack, rather than forming a relatively smooth bed of eroded small fragments protruding forth from the crack indicative of a water flow? You and the pack failed to refute that valid point of mine. Your strawmen examples of a common creek bed of rounded smooth stones no way resembled what should match a fragmented rock phenomena.
jar writes: You have not shown any evidence that there was a burned mountain. Though the mountain having a dark top is debatable, it does not stand alone but is supportive to the other cited evidence.
jar writes: You have not shown any evidence that the Biblical Exodus ever happened. Debatable.
In fact, you have not shown any evidence at all. LoL. In 14 pages you and the pack have not empirically falsified scientist Mollar's hypothesis regarding this phenomena.
jar writes: All you have as "corroborating evidence" is a continuing list of unsupported assertions. Guess what? No matter how long a list of fantasies you present, the result is only a list of fantasies. Says the dogged skeptic, who wouldn't ever admit to any, regardless of how much is cited. Btw, you failed to mention some of the ducks in my row. jar writes: Lack of evidence can be a valid refutation of a claim. If someone claims that a bullet hit the target, there should be a hole. We looked at the target and there is no hole. Take off the dark glasses and look objectively. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4220 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
Take off the dark glasses and look objectively. It is very hard to be objective about a subjective topic, particularly when you are making the claims and not giving supporting evidence to your claims, but simply refuting the claims against it. Your point has to stand on your evidence, not refuting evidence to the contrary. There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002 Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969 Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2136 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Has any of this evidence been examined by a real archaeologist?
Doctors and lawyers and other non-professionals doing serious archaeology went out of style about 1900. Amateurs now work largely under the supervision of trained professionals. I have provided examples of what can be done with a chariot wheel, if one is indeed found. But showing someone a picture and claiming a particular shape is a chariot wheel of a certain age and provenience is just not evidence. I've seen some pretty good pictures of bigfoot and UFOs, but no such photograph is going to substitute for real evidence. And no amateur is going to substitute for a real professional when such a significant claim is made. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Buzsaw writes: jar writes:
Stop for just one minute and think. It is not necessary to empirically refute evidence that simply isn't there. You have not shown any evidence that there are any chariot wheels. Lennart Moller who sees the forms as evidence is a widely acclaimed prestigious marine scientist having significant credentials. He is no crackpot or fraudulent deceiver.
quote: This credentialed scientist figured the evidence warranted all of the expense and time he spent to do the exploratory research. He accomplished about as much as the renowned Robert Ballard accomplished with his acclaimed discovery of flood evidence in the Black Sea, being the photography. Both had some corroborative evidence supportive to their hypotheses relative to the respective phenomena researched. Sorry Buz but that is simply not true. Mller has not done anything similar to what Ballard has done. He has NOT documented a single finding.
Buzsaw writes: jar writes: You have not shown any evidence that there was a sand bar or delta. Debatable. No Buz, it is NOT debatable. You have shown NO evidence that there ever was a sand bar. To claim that you have is simply false.
Buzsaw writes: jar writes: You have not shown any evidence that there was any Altar of the Golden Calf. I'm not aware that there should be an alter as per the Biblical account. The golden calf was what the people worshiped. The evidence I cited was the hoofed animals inscribed in the rock in the area which fits the Biblical account. These inscriptions suggest that something was going on relative to cattle at some time. Again, this, standing by itself would be of little value as evidence. I'm sorry Buz but again, there is not a single inscription on the rock of a calf. To claim that there is is simply false.
Buzsaw writes: jar writes: You have not shown any evidence that there was some waterway from a split rock. Jar, you should be ashamed to even go there, given the strawman you peddled as evidence. You should be ashamed that I had to show what you failed to show from the angle which your image was taken. You should be ashamed that you failed to refute my valid argument that there was indeed evidence of a water flow. Have you forgotten my valid point that fragmented pieces of the split rock, void of a water flow, would have fallen in a random pile in and around the crack, rather than forming a relatively smooth bed of eroded small fragments protruding forth from the crack indicative of a water flow? You and the pack failed to refute that valid point of mine. Your strawmen examples of a common creek bed of rounded smooth stones no way resembled what should match a fragmented rock phenomena. It is obvious that you don't read YOUR cites any more than the Bible. The pictures I used were ones presented by the people claiming that it was the rock of Horab. And again, to claim there is any sign of a water way is simply false.
Buzsaw writes: jar writes: You have not shown any evidence that there was a burned mountain. Though the mountain having a dark top is debatable, it does not stand alone but is supportive to the other cited evidence. Buz, you presented NO evidence that there is some burned moutain. To claim that you did is simply false.
Buzsaw writes: jar writes: You have not shown any evidence that the Biblical Exodus ever happened. Debatable. No Buz, it is not debatable. To claim that you have presented any evidence is simply false.
Buzsaw writes: jar writes: In fact, you have not shown any evidence at all. LoL. In 14 pages you and the pack have not empirically falsified scientist Mollar's hypothesis regarding this phenomena. Mller (note the spelling} presented no evidence. I doubt that you even know what evidence is.
Buzsaw writes: jar writes: All you have as "corroborating evidence" is a continuing list of unsupported assertions. Guess what? No matter how long a list of fantasies you present, the result is only a list of fantasies. Says the dogged skeptic, who wouldn't ever admit to any, regardless of how much is cited. Btw, you failed to mention some of the ducks in my row. Sorry but your ducks are all dead ducks.
Buzsaw writes: jar writes: Lack of evidence can be a valid refutation of a claim. If someone claims that a bullet hit the target, there should be a hole. We looked at the target and there is no hole. Take off the dark glasses and look objectively. Again Buz, Stop and think. You claimed there was a sand bar but presented no evidence. You claimed there was a calf altar, but presented no evidence. You claimed there was a water way, but presented no evidence. What does is the word for someone that always tells falsehoods? Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dirk Member (Idle past 4054 days) Posts: 84 Joined: |
Buzsaw writes:
Well, that's the whole point isn't it? If you look at the coral alone, they are not wagon wheels. If you look at the Gulf of Aqaba alone, there's no sand bank. If you look at the black mountain top, there are black mountain tops all over the place. If they stood alone, the value of them as evidence would be diminished. If someone says to you: "there is no sandbank at Nuweiba" then you say: "but look at the wagon wheels." But if someone says to you: "there are no wagon wheels" then you say "but look at the sandbank". But that is not how it works. According to you, there should be wagon wheels and there should be a sand bank, or evidence of its former existence. If it is shown to you that the coral is not a wagon wheel (as has been shown to you), then you must drop it from your argument, if you are honest. But that is not what you do. You keep referring to it as "corroborating evidence" without explicitly making clear what exactly that evidence is. And that is, to be honest, dishonet. The point is, you keep referring to "corroborating evidence"without making explicit what exactly that "corroborating evidence" is. And that allows you to keep referring to it, even though each of your individual evidences (the sandbank, the wheels, the black mountain top etc) have been refuted in their own right. And that's your whole strategy: keep your "evidence" fuzzy and inexplicit in hope that we can't refute it. It might work for you, but it certainly doesn't work for me.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Trae Member (Idle past 4336 days) Posts: 442 From: Fremont, CA, USA Joined: |
Buzsaw writes:
When only one representation of a wheel is presented and the rest simply assumed then we’re going to talk about the mock up they used. The point Buzz, is why doesn’t it bother you that in their recreation of the gold wheel does it not look anything like an Egyptian chariot wheel. How many times do I have to repeat that we're not debating about a wheel. The video photographed evidence shows multiple wheel shaped and axle shaped forms as well as other unusual coral forms in a rather unusual location for coral. But you’re only claiming that the coral is ‘unusual’. Your evidence didn’t even bother to find out if that is an unusual shape for coral. Did they even bother to go up the water a bit and look and then back down the water and look. They didn’t even bother to show the photographs to any scientist who worked with coral who simply might have pointed out that sort of formation is common with that type of coral. You want this so bad to be true that you’re leaving your brains at the door.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024