"The Exodus Revealed" Video II

But he's implicating his own claims that our evidence is bogus. Now let's have him back up that claim by some research by his camp. But no, all his camp is doing is criticize the ones who's done all the research of observation and study. Nothing is really going to be refuted here until someone from you all's camp is willing to spend some bucks, take some time and go out there and have a look. That would be scientific refutation. Talk refutation from living room quarterbacks is cheap. For cryin out loud, youall's refutees are'nt even willing to observe the video, let alone go out and spend thousands, risk the lives and take the time to scientifically refute.This message has been edited by buzsaw, 08-13-2004 01:27 AM

Yah, tell me about it, Ned. Some seem to argue against Webster that it's not scientific to observe and study things for evidence. That's the message I'm reading from them.This message has been edited by buzsaw, 08-13-2004 01:25 AM

THen you're not reading it right.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 08-13-2004 02:11 AM

Oh yes, the usual rant.Not one cogent criticsm of the points I raised. Just personal attacks.Aside from Sibelrud's crank writings - and I'm sure that you would denounce hom for being "New Age" if it was not more convnenient to claim him as a supporter - the fact remains that his qualifications are not relevant to what he is quoted as saying, and what he is quoted as saying is from a book, and it is wrong according to the editor of the web page. So why count him ?And perhaps you could identify which "The Near East Museum" Blaine is working at and his area of experties ?

It isn't clear in Genesis 1 - not unless you assume it was originally a monotheistic story (which is in doubt).But it's also not clear that it is intended as a plural - or that it does not refer to the Biblical God - in Exodus 32:4 which is the point in question.

In other words you'll use the shoddy reportign of Wyatt and co to smear Muslims.You really are evil. And I mean that.

If you want to be treated by the same standards as secular scientists then fine.Please start producing the peer-reviewed papers supporting Moller and Wyatt's claims.The fact is that your claims are bieng investigated. And it turns out that all the "evidence" is either:
Trivial
Inconclusive without further investigation
Or outright false.Science certainly doesn't work by the standards that unexamined claims must be assumed true until an expert says otherwise as you claim.And nobody has adequatley answered the points about the apparentuse of metal in the "chariot wheel" formations and rust supposedly associated with them. Do you have any evidence that if there is anything underlying these formations it is NOT from the 19th or 20th Century AD ? Or is it just the opinions of Wyatt and Moller that should be accepted by default ?

I can understand how some people unfamiliar with science and evidence come to certain conclusions. Two relatives once, when I was a child, yelled at me when I said that snow was ice. To their minds ice was hard, snow not being hard therefore could not be ice. These were not stupid people, just uninformed and not well educated.I do have problems with are those who when operating from a lack of knowledge are also inconstant with their approach. Those that call others to use common sense that they will not themselves use.Their argument: The drawings on the altar are important since Exodus mentions this type of idol worship.Counter Argument from Common Sense: Pagan markings would have made any Jewish altar unclean. If Moses had seen this as a Jewish altar, he would have surely destroyed it as an abomination.

quote:

---

The Israelites made a golden calf. Would it not be reasonable to think that the people around this alter would have made inscriptions in relation to the golden calf?

---

It might be reasonable at one point, but clearly unreasonable at a later one. Why would the Jews let such a defiled altar remain?

quote:

---

and the fact that Egyptians would portray numerous deities in relief on their altars (considering that Isreal had almost exclusively Egyptian traditions), it is reasonable to conclude that the other gods being referred to were etched into the altar--ergo, the petroglyphs we see.

---

That’s a fact? Are you sure? Let us say you are. Would they portray them in the same way they are portrayed here? It does not seem reasonable that Egypt would have such a high standard of art and the art used here all so completely primitive.

how about you prove something?Do you really still claim that your evidence is scientific ? Experts who don't have names? Evidence that has disappeared into the night?How far are we going to take this?Ron Wyatt is a fraud, an out and out liar.This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 08-13-2004 04:27 AM

They can't even provide a letter from the expert who supposedly validated one of the wheels, let alone anything resembling a formal study.

quote:

---

Also, the "table like structure" is clearly an axel with 2 chariot wheels on either end.

---

Many corals have circular and/or radial structures. Also, you’re falsifying your own premise, since God made all the wheels of the chariots come off.

I think this is the best creationist quote ever

Hi Hydarnes, I really really really would like you to support this claim.Brian.