"Chariot Wheels" In the Red Sea

I would be lying then. Because in this video, no evidence was offered whatsoever. Like the video you provided in the earlier thread, all they did was assert, assert, assert and assert. No evidence whatsoever was shown for anything, especially not for chariot wheels.If you think it did, could you be specific and point to where in the video any evidence was offered for anything they claim? Perhaps you could do this in Jar's thread?

Did you watch the dvd segment which I cited? Mollar explains that the coral reefs common to the gulf body of water were orderly and closely knit in larger beds whereas the floor region which he researched and photographed was a scattered junk yard like litter of blotches of coral crusted formations, a few which resembled wheels and axels.Given the quantity of formations and considering that several millenniums of time had done it's toll along with gulf currents, etc, one should assume that a signle ship wreck of a few charriots from some other source would be very unlikely.Keep in mind, as well, all of the corroborating evidence that led the explorers to that site in the first place, it being the only site which fit the corroborating data relative to it.This wheel thread is somewhat a waste of time, since it becomes essentially a divide and conquer thread for skeptics when debated, void of all of the corroborating stuff supportive to it.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

Any actual facts or evidence to support these claims, or is it more or less just what it looked like to him? Any actual facts or evidence about the incidence of shipwrecks and the cargo thereupon, or about the currents, or it is just what he guessed? Did he do any experiments to support his claims about the effect of several millennia of submersion on the type of material he found, or did he just speculate? Well, I've asked some specific questions designed to probe the factual support behind what you've said. You can ignore those questions or you can answer them. The former would make this thread a waste of time, the latter might actually produce some progress.

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

​

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

​

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

​

...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist

Which offers NO evidence that they were chariot wheels. He presents ZERO evidence there was even one chariot wheel. Read what you write and what they said in the video. There were NO Chariot wheels. Was even a single sample taken? But there was no evidence there was even one chariot wheel. And the whole area was Egypt. Guess how the Egyptian troops moved over the many, many centuries they ruled that area? There were Egyptian troops and chariots there for many, many centuries. But you have presented no corroborating evidence even though there is a thread open and waiting for you.We are waiting anxiously for you to present any evidence.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

I've done archaeology for a long time, and one thing I've learned is until you bring back the goods you've got nothing.And then if it is an unusual claim you better have it documented several different ways.And I mean documented, not just hearsay or "it seems to be" or "it looks like" but hard evidence.If you claim chariot wheels, you better be able to show the materials that went into them and the method of manufacture (both needed to establish when they were made, and who made them). With samples of the wood scientists could determine the species, and perhaps the origin, of that wood. They could radiocarbon date the wood and perhaps get a tight estimate of the age. The metal in the rims might be distinctive to a particular people and chemical analysis might be able to establish that. There are a lot of other tests that might be made depending on what has survived, and the condition it is in.But shapes in coral just doesn't add up to real evidence.Buz, pick up a recent technical journal dealing with archaeology and see what the articles are like. And I don't mean an apologists' journal--try one put out by some professional scientific organization or a university archaeology department. You can get a lot of the tables of contents on the web, and the actual journals in any good university library.If you do this you should quickly see the difference between these journals and what you have been citing for us.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

quote:

---

Did you watch the dvd segment which I cited? Mollar explains that the coral reefs common to the gulf body of water were orderly and closely knit in larger beds whereas the floor region which he researched and photographed was a scattered junk yard like litter of blotches of coral crusted formations, a few which resembled wheels and axels.

---

Dealt with in the OP. Even if these formations grew around wheels (which itself is unproven) there is nothing that says that they are chariot wheels specifically or dates them back to anywhere near the correct time.

quote:

---

This wheel thread is somewhat a waste of time, since it becomes essentially a divide and conquer thread for skeptics when debated, void of all of the corroborating stuff supportive to it.

---

Not at all. You referred to chariot wheels found in the Red Sea (Message 72). This thread documents the fact that you don't have a single real example. Just a bunch of religious apologists ignoring tons of real evidence and jumping to conclusions.

this old chestnut again? we were looking at this (singular, iirc) picture of what looked kinda sorta like maybe a sorta wheel-shaped thing, but nobody had ever actually, you know, sampled it to find out - about a year or more ago.it's not proof of *anything* except, well, I guess it's pareidolia to see shapes, even when those shapes aren't faces?if i was less charitable i'd call it "making shit up".

Hi, Theodoric. Sarcasm. I should have seen that coming.You said: "Buz knows where to find the wheel he and Archy should go get it" (Message 11).I said they'd probably get arrested by Muslims if they did go get it. I was hoping it would invoke images about Buz in prison in a Muslim country that we could all laugh at.But instead, I got talked down to because I decided to interpret "go get it" to not mean "go look at it."What gives, dude?

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Said Captain Obvious, with a smirk.Evidence, Buz. It's an English word with a meaning.

Gee looks like I am apologizing all over. I guess when I have to debate with Buz and the other creos, I forget about the rational people that are also here. Please accept my apology.There are some people here that are very limited in their scopes. My thought was the not being able to "get it" was another lame creo excuse as to why they couldn't follow up and research this.I should have caught it when you used truthorfiction.com. I love these sites that claim to have the truth but have no references or sources for their assertions.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Hi, Theo. No sweat, dude. I wasn't actually as clear as I thought I was, so I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that my joke got past you.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Exactly how does excuses about why the primary research is 'not done' give actual evidence? Does excuses provide evidence for the Chariot wheels?Surely, with all this supposed expertise, some evidence can actually be presented?Also, for some reason I am skeptical about when someone is promoting their own expertise, particularly when they are promoting claims that are universally rejected by professional archeologists, and they are amateurs that are promoting a religious adgenda.

And exactly how did those assertions those round spots were chariot wheels make them so? What evidence do you have that these pictures are actually chariot wheels, rather than natural formations?Hope? Confirmation bias? Fantasy?