"The Exodus Revealed" Video II

quote:

---

Who should you "debate"?
LENNART MOLLER!

---

As the curator for a/the Wyatt Museum how is it possible that you’re not qualified to undertake a debate? You gave tours and spoke on the finds, did you not?This message has been edited by Trae, 08-08-2004 10:40 PM

quote:

---

Asgara, science includes lab, but has much more to it than lab. This's just not true that there's no science in Moller's book, exploration and research. C'mon, please get real and be reasonable. Imo the extremity of your bias is showing here. I can do science at my home, for cryin out loud and don't need a degree to do it.

---

Science is following the scientific method. Collecting material is not science. How you collect material may be, but again, only if you follow the established methods. So, yes, there is very little if any verifiable science in his book.

quote:

---

We find a Mt. Sinai in Saudi Arabia where the entire top is burned black, and ALL the items mentioned in the biblical account are around that mountain. But you say "there's not one single item" there.

---

I am sorry, I believe you’re overstating the case now. What do you have to show anyone that the entire top is burned black of the mountain?

quote:

---

So why don't you just buy the book ?

---

Waiting for the video maybe?

quote:

---

1. Yours is obviously preformed and/or eroded. Ours is obviously a one time solid boulder split down the middle.
2. Yours and none other in the world have the corroborating evidence to make it significant for the purpose of this thread topic.
3. Ours has obvious waterflow evidence as in the Biblical record which your doesn't have.

---

Waterflow evidence is not unique to boulders split in twain. I suspect you’re not taking into account water freezing and refreezing. Water seeps into a rock, freezes, swells, and enlarges the crack. The process repeats enough and the rock eventually splits. As each freeze melts, you get exactly the type of markings you point to as being unique.This message has been edited by Trae, 08-09-2004 04:56 AM

quote:

---

Moller said he has travelled a lot, he said he'd been to 60 countries -- he described how difficult it was to dive in the Gulf of Aqaba (as anyone who has been there will tell you)

---

Again what does this mean? Looks pretty easy to go diving there.Google Aqaba dive 4,930 hits.Here’s just one.II. NuweibaNuweiba is about 185 km north of Sharm El Sheikh and nestles between the deep blue of the Gulf of Aqaba and the high desert mountains of the Sinai. Nuweiba is a quiet getaway famous for its magnificent beaches and offers easy access to the cultural sites of St Catherine’s Monastery and Petra in Jordan, also just 80 km away to the north is the busy seaside resort of Eilat, Israel. The diving in the area runs from Devils Head and in the north to Abu Gallum in the south and is mainly accessed from the shore by jeep or even camel due the lack of jetty facilities or safe anchorages for boats. Page Not Found - Emperor DiversOrAs a beautiful and relaxed diving holiday destination, Nuweiba will appeal to those looking for calm away from the crowds and a return to the virgin face of the Red Sea. http://www.goredsea.com/EN_nuweibadiving.aspxIs this a chariot wheel? Sure you’ll probably say no, I would, but what if it were shot from the other side?http://www.goredsea.com/.../Large/Ulysses-1-Stoll-Kefrig.jpg

quote:

---

jar, how about just posting the instructions of how to post pics on the forum so I can do it myself?

---

Simplest way might be to post them on your own web site and then use the image tag.

< img src="http://www.arkdiscovery.com/exwheel3.JPG" alt="Chariot Wheel" >

Here is why in part this is just a mess. Are these two shots of the same wheel or of different wheels? If you have an answer, how do you know conclusively it correct?Why is the coral in different positions in both of the shots? If both of these shots were of the same wheel, even if taken a few years apart, then it would not seem reasonable that both lumps of coral were natural growths on the wheel.There is an additional point of interest in the clearer image (the top one of the pair, odd that the clearer the evidence the easier it is to find fault with the wheels). Here the shape is clearly three-dimensional. See how the darker sides extend a geometrical pattern (depth), at least on the inner facing surfaces, even as the surrounding sands are uneven in places. The object clearly has depth to its shape.The very darkness of the sides is curious, if there were no light source and we are only seeing the ambient light, we would expect the sides to match or nearly match in hue, tone, and reflections that of the top surface of the wheel. Oddly, we have some specular highlights, suggesting a light source from above and either to the front or angled from what would be SW to NE on a compass. That neither the light source nor the ambient light illuminates any of the seven various side (depth) surfaces is very odd.In the other thread, Hydarnes indicated that the spokes taper and offered some drawings to support his claim. While in the second image you can be lead to believe that the spokes taper, I suggest that is due more to camera angle, the way the light is playing over the spokes, and the obfuscation of the wheel. Looking at the clearer top wheel any tapering would seem to be insignificant.Looking at the upper-right corner of the wheel, the space between the top of the ‘wheel’ and sand indicates the wheel being wider than the hole in the presumed hub.We are still faced with the implausibility of a fragile hollow gold shell of a wheel showing no signs of wear, trauma, or warping. Even after coral moves over its surface or was placed on top of it.Does anyone familiar with ancient Egypt even want to address the likelihood of the use of this much ‘gold’ to produce such an obviously plain object? There might be fine traceries, but how much of personal decoration was limited to traceries or etching? All in all this looks exceedingly modern. Note the beveled edges, is that supported by any found Egyptian artifacts?

quote:

---

I think we'll find LOTS of people who will want to particpate in a serious, honest discussion of the evidence --

---

Hard to have an honest discussion about anything when the evidence is withheld. Where is report on the bone found? Where is a Cairo Antiquites’ statement on the wheel? Where is a lab report on Christ’s blood? Where are the formal findings or even emails from any of the dozens of scientists supporting these claims? Etc. Etc. Etc.

quote:

---

What we found out later was that ice fracturing had taken its effect upon lots of the petrified wood in the structure -- "ice fracturing" is when rain water seeps into the petrified wood and FREEZES, thereby fracturing everything into tiny pieces!

​

That is clearly what happened to the rib timbers that we photographed along one side of the formation -- the wood is GONE, and you just have the remains of the fractured stone left in its place.

​

This is "science" happening to a 4,500 year old wooden boat structure, something that you repeatedly say we don't deal with.

​

But we deal with it just fine, and have been doing so for years.

​

Isn't it interesting how the critics always post their criticisms, but they hardly ever acknowledge our answers to their criticisms? And then YOU come along 10-15 years later and read their stupid comments and you start thinking that they are current on-going "honest" criticisms -- when they are nothing but extremely dishonest web postings made by very dishonest people!

---

You’re honestly trying to tell us that this boat lasted for over 4000 years then ice came in and wiped out the evidence, but only did so within the last 30 years and only after you photographed them? If all this petrified wood just disappeared, how is there evidence of nails, brackets, and other metalwork (since the material holding them would have disappeared as well)?They are current honest criticisms. If they had been addressed properly then you might have a valid point, but as long as the material is never presented properly and with its criticisms, as long as the same material continues to be presented without those corrections, then everyone who comes after should point out every mistake in the methodology they can find. You don’t like what they have to say, then clean your own home. The fault lies not with your critics.

quote:

---

And people like Lennart Moller decided that the evidence was convincing enough that they chose to do MORE WORK on the various sites -- because in the long run, unless somebody does the work, NOBODY learns the Truth -- so while people here like Charles want to criticize the evidence, it would be nice to hear them compliment Ron and Lennart for MAKING THE EFFORT TO DO THIS WORK, you know?

---

What exactly if anything new has Moller come up with other than testing a bone? It really does seem like he is only parroting known information, what is he bringing to the table that is new?[Fixed typo]This message has been edited by Trae, 08-09-2004 05:02 AM

quote:

---

Btw, have you read the book?

---

I did flip though it, it seemed to me tailored to convince believers and those who do not understand science or evidence.

"Geologist Dr. John Morris told me the Jebel al-Lawz rock he examined is normal metamorphic rock typical for the volcanic area it came from, there was nothing strange about it nor any sign of plants melted into the rock. (40) The book does not mention that Jebel al-Lawz is in a volcanic region." http://www.ldolphin.org/sinai.html

quote:

---

it shows the single mountain peak that is clearly blackened

---

Before you said:

quote:

---

We find a Mt. Sinai in Saudi Arabia where the entire top is burned black, and ALL the items mentioned in the biblical account are around that mountain. But you say "there's not one single item" there.

---

It isn’t clearly blackened it is just clearly different. Blackened implies the color has been changed and the photos do not clearly show that the mountain has been changed. It just at clearly may have always been that color.So again I say you’re overstating, there is no evidence of the top of the mountain being burnt and having its color changed.

quote:

---

This wheel is a computer enhanced image. It tells you this right in the "Exodus Revealed" tape. You would have noted this had you taken the time to view the video:

---

Well how completely dishonest to not indicate it as such when displaying it on the websites trying to sell this idea. Why partially bury it in the sand if the point is to show the design more clearly. Why show it underwater at all, if not an attempt to mislead? Why attempt to ‘age’ it by giving it false markings? Why make it obviously different from the other wheel? Frankly if that is a 3-D fake image it is of such quality that I wouldn’t trust any film that the same group of people touched.

So you don’t have an Egyptologist who has studied any artifact wheel then certified the finding.