Did the Biblical Exodus ever happen?

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.

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.

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.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

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.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

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!

Ok, then why should we accept that there was? Because it fits your story so nicely? Burden of proof, Buz. You say it was there, it's up to you to show evidence for that. Why not? I don't know, you show me. Better yet, show there was a delta in the first place. 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. Which is irrelevant. You say that there was, now show it to be the case.Edited by Huntard, : No reason given.

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!

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...

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.

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:

---

Lennart Mller is from Sweden. He is a research scientist in the field of medicine and DNA-research. Dr. Mller has studied a number of subjects (limnology, marine biology, toxicology, chemistry) at the Universities of Uppsala and Stockholm and has a doctors degree in medicine from the Karolinska Institutet (KI). KI (established 1810) is the medical university of Stockholm (http://www.ki.se) and one of the leading international medical universities. The faculty decides about the Nobel Prize in Medicine.

​

Lennart Mller has been at KI since 1982 and holds a position as professor (which in Sweden is the highest academic level, in other countries professor indicate a university teacher). Mller is head of the Research Laboratory of Analytical Toxicology and the professorship is in environmental medicine.

​

The research is international to its character with collaborations with many different universities around the world. Mller has been lecturing in, collaborating with and visiting many international universities and has in total traveled in more than 60 countries.

​

In addition to the normal work for a scientist, to publish scientific articles, Dr. Mller has published a number of books. The books are in subjects like theology, ethics, cancer, urban air, environmental medicine, archeology and scientific images (see "Other Books" on this web site). The books are published by publishing houses like The Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, The Swedish Cancer Society, Prevent, Cordia, EFS, Scandinavia Publishing House, Karolinska University Press and international publishers of the different translations. Under the heading "Other Books" images of the cover of books are shown and for three books web sites are available.

​

The different books are published in seven different languages and there are further translations ongoing

---

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. Debatable. 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, 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. Though the mountain having a dark top is debatable, it does not stand alone but is supportive to the other cited evidence. Debatable. LoL. In 14 pages you and the pack have not empirically falsified scientist Mollar's hypothesis regarding this phenomena. 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. 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.

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

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.

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. 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. 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. 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. Buz, you presented NO evidence that there is some burned moutain. To claim that you did is simply false. No Buz, it is not debatable. To claim that you have presented any evidence is simply false. Mller (note the spelling} presented no evidence. I doubt that you even know what evidence is. Sorry but your ducks are all dead ducks. 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!

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 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.

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.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.