PaulK

quote:

---

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

To be fair they are named in the link
Dr. Roy Knutsen "Emeritus Bible Professor" at Northwestern College - apparently a small private Bible college in St. Paul.

​

Dr. B Michael Blaine "Archaeologist/Curator The Near East Museum" - which "The Near East Musueum" is not said, but his comments seem at odds with what I've read. (Finkelstein argues quite convincingly that the placenames best fit the situation of the 11th Century). I'd ask Brian to look it over but it seems clear to me that he is arguing as a religious apologist rather than an unbiased expert (calling Exodus "an eyewitness account" is rather a giveaway).

​

Dr Bryant Wood - another apologist. Again, I'd ask Brian but his reports from Jericho have come in for heavy criticism.

​

Dr. Robert Siblerud an Environmental Physiologist and apparently a real crank. He was co-founder of this defunct organisation http://www.padrak.com/ine/INE2.html

​

Just read the description of this book:
http://www.wexclub.com/AncientScience/pages/inbg.html

---

SEE! I knew it PaulK...I knew it. Whenever we provide you with names, then you revert to questioning everything about them, and whether they should be taken seriously. And GIVE ME A BREAK about "unbiased expert"....There are scientists who are Pro Creation, and Pro Evolution. What do you think the scientists that are Pro Creation are going to do? Try and prove creation. And Pro Evolutionists? Try and prove evolution!Like Hydarnes says "SHEER POPPYCOCK!". Your reasoning is putrefying.Once again, vainless attempts to try and disprove the Bible. Face it, you guys don't want a God involved with your lives---that's the only reason you're fighting all of this so hard. The ONLY reason. Maybe not outwardly, but deep inside it is.This message has been edited by Lysimachus, 08-12-2004 09:14 PM

---

~Lysimachus

quote:

---

OK - it's quite clear what is occuring here - they have no evidence -none is forth-coming.

​

They are just waiting till we get sick of asking and give up - they will then claim to have answered all our questions.

​

How is any debate intended to occur when they refuse to either supply the names of people supporting their evidence or withdrawn such claims.

---

Think what you like Charles. It doesn't matter to me anymore.

---

~Lysimachus

quote:

---

And you actually believe this statement? There is, as Charles suggests no hope whatsoever then. You are delusional.

---

Try to think how frustrating it might be if you were trying to prove something, and an archaeologist came along and supported your claim. But then he dissapears before he reveals his name. Wouldn't you at least want to tell others that you know an archaeologist said this, but yet you couldn't find out his name? Put yourself in these shoes---If you guys only knew what Ron went through...he was ready to pull out his hair because it was so difficult to keep things organized...people made it very hard for him.You guys don't have the faintest clue of what I'm really trying to emphasize...so I'll just leave it at that.This message has been edited by Lysimachus, 08-12-2004 09:23 PM

---

~Lysimachus

What is there really left to say?How do we conduct a debate with someone who makes such claims?Let's get this straight - how do you know WHAT this person said? Is it a conversation with you? or is it what Ron relates on a book or in a website? So the guy was just wandering around and then disappeared back into the night? how do you even know he was an archaelogist, he could have been a taxi driver - maybe he was one of the people who stole the other wheel?Are you really claiming that you get someone to examine evidence but don't ask his name?I have seen some feeble evidence in my time but trying to cite a prof with no name takes the biscuit!This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 08-12-2004 09:26 PMThis message has been edited by Charles Knight, 08-12-2004 09:31 PM

Actually, I'm sorry. I didn't think of it from that point of view. I guess it would be frustrating.However, maybe you could look at it from the other point of view too. You speak of the totality of evidence and how it has to be taken all together.Well, I see missing wheels, missing archeologists, missing geological analysis and so on. There is a trend there that suggests something to me.

Yes, Ned...how frustrating to be told
"we have A, B, C, D, E, F..and it is evidence that G happened"When the sequence is looked at it turns out that B might really be W ... E is consistent with P, T, and Z ... some guy, who I assure you is an expert, says C is correct ...When questioned all we get is...I SHOWED YOU how A, B, C, D, E, and F lead right to G, it is the TOTALITY of the evidence.

---

Asgara
"Embrace the pain, spank your inner moppet, whatever....but get over it"http://asgarasworld.bravepages.com
http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com

quote:

---

Well, I see missing wheels, missing archeologists, missing geological analysis and so on. There is a trend there that suggests something to me.

---

Interesting. And yet you happen to never see the ones that are there.

And that is your problem.You are trying to prove something.

You are trying to prove something.

​

That is not the way science works.

You are working on the same false premise that Creationists use.You have already defined your conclusion.Conclusion first.Then you find, manufacture, modify, create, manipulate evidence to fit your conclusion.That is not science.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

The word "elohim" can either refer to Jehovah, the Biblical god or generically for any god. You go by the context to determine which in the Bible. In Genesis one and Exodus 32:11 it is very clear from the context that it refers to Jehovah, the god of the Bible.

Oops, double post.This message has been edited by buzsaw, 08-13-2004 12:05 AM

It is not at all clear that anything is "out there". It seems no one can examine what is supposed to be out there. The pictures that some seem to think are so convincing don't look so convincing to me. Would you care to go over what "wheels" there are?What I'm remembering so far is that there was one brought back; it is missing.There is one to fragile to move somewhere on the bottom and we have enhanced pictures of it only.There are a bunch of lumps of coral which have as much resemblance to wheels as clouds do to dragons.Is there anything else to do with wheels that I've missed?

Mmmm, pardon, but make that one missing wheel. And if I read right, one un-named archeologist, an Arab, likely Muslim who knows full well that to work with Christians, it might be good for his physical welfare for him to remain anonymous. As for the missing analysis, don't forget the other two factors of observation and study which apply to assembling evidence. These are abundant as has been shown.

OK, Ned, me friend, hows about you doing the forum rule thing and show where any bonafide archeologist in scientific academia is denying these to be chariot wheels? We've presented our case with what we consider to be evidence concerning the wheels. Our case rests with that. Now you who are clammoring for testing and so forth need to get someone who you consider to be bonafide arecheologists to research, test and prove our evidence to be bogus.

Ned isn't the one making the evidentiary claim.

---

Asgara
"Embrace the pain, spank your inner moppet, whatever....but get over it"http://asgarasworld.bravepages.com
http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com

Well, then, hows about you people ceasing and desisting from demands that we do prove everything. C'mon give us a break and for once allow us the same leeway secularistic science uses in their pet hypotheses and theories.