|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Did the Biblical Exodus ever happen? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12998 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Hi Buz,
I've posted a number of requests for evidence from you, but have not as yet seen any satisfactory responses. Other participants have also noted the lack of evidence, and the thread's topic is becoming less and less about the Exodus and more and more about cajoling you into following rule 4 of the Forum Guidelines:
So I'm going to close this thread now. If there comes a time when you're willing to build your points around evidence then please post a note to Thread Reopen Requests 2.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12998 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Please keep the focus of discussion on the evidence supporting your position or the thread will be closed again.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12998 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Buzsaw writes: This is a big fuss about little of consequence. My point was only that animals were in the camp and there was a golden calf worshiped. So far as I'm aware, the scripture doesn't give any details about just how the worship was done. If any alter was involved Moses would have destroyed it. The images plus the fact that the mountain is guarded says something about there being some significant activity there at some point in time. If you have any information about the following then please present it:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12998 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Buzsaw writes: It is supportive corroborating evidence to the account. That's it, just as Robert Ballard's evidence of salt water vs fresh water was corroborative evidence of his hypothesis relative to the yet to be analyzed logs at the bottom of the Black Sea. Nothing relating to either amount to much standing alone. It would be helpful if you could adjust your terminology a bit. Evidence is only corroborative when it strengthens or buttresses other evidence:
Corroborating Evidence Evidence complementary to evidence already given and tending to strengthen or confirm it; additional evidence of a different character on the same point.
Your evidence doesn't really do that, and your claims that it does is causing the other participants in this thread to spend a lot of bandwidth pointing this out. The evidence you do have is better termed circumstantial evidence:
circumstantial evidence
n. Evidence not bearing directly on the fact in dispute but on various attendant circumstances from which the judge or jury might infer the occurrence of the fact in dispute. Circumstantial evidence used by prosecutors arguing before juries who think like you has caused the return of guilty verdicts that later DNA testing overturns. Circumstantial cases are easy to build, but they're like a house of cards because they collapse with the first piece of hard evidence. Let me clarify by example. After a knife murder, finding a knife of the right size in the home of the suspect would be considered circumstantial evidence. Finding blood on the knife that matched the victim would be corroborating evidence. Coincidentally, Ingmar Guandique is being sentenced in Washington D.C. today for the murder of Chandra Levy, a former federal intern. He was convicted on the basis of this evidence:
Because this is all circumstantial evidence, the first piece of hard evidence that turns up could easily overturn the conviction. Using your chariot wheel evidence as an example for applying these same criteria, finding circular coral on the floor of the Gulf of Aqaba is circumstantial evidence. Dating the remains of whatever the coral is attached to to the 18th dynasty of Egypt would be good corroborating evidence. Obtaining expert opinion that the object is an actual chariot wheel from the 18th dynasty would be excellent corroborating evidence. Please, no replies to this message. Edited by Admin, : Grammar. Edited by Admin, : Improve wording.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12998 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Hi Buz,
I did request that there be no replies to my message. I'm not here to discuss this with you. I do understand that you disagree with my position. Whether you decide to follow my requests to at least some reasonable degree is your decision. Please, no replies to this message.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12998 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Buzsaw writes: You're resorting to (as others have attempted) to divide and conquer, discounting the aggregate line-up of supportive evidence. I suggest that you read or reread about that in the thread, before arriving at an objective conclusion. I need to remind you that throughout this thread the other participants have been complaining that you have presented no evidence, and that you have been responding that you have. In response to this back-and-forth so that discussion can return to the thread's topic I asked that you collect your evidence together. In my Message 366 I asked that you provide this evidence:
And in my Message 427 I asked that you provide this evidence:
Thank you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12998 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Buzsaw writes: I have no further evidence than what I have cited. If you choose to close the thread or disqualify me from further participation, that's your call. You claim you have presented evidence in this thread. Others say you haven't. Rather than continuing this, "Yes I did, no you didn't" I want you to settle the issue by collecting all that evidence into a single message.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12998 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Hi Buz - please see the message this is a reply to.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12998 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Hi Buz,
I requested that you collect your evidence into a single post because you kept claiming you had described a lot of evidence. To repeat this claim yet again while continuing to ignore my request is not very good form. Your pattern has become this: post evidence that no one accepts and everyone questions, then stop responding to arguments and just claim you've already posted the evidence. The strong possibility that your Coffee House thread proposal would follow a similar course is a good part of the reason AdminPD declined to promote it. Please refrain from posting to this thread again unless it is to describe your evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12998 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Regarding this from Buzsaw in his PM to you:
Buzsaw writes: I am not allowed to post in the Exodus thread without additional evidence... This is untrue. I said nothing about additional evidence. Here is a quote from my last post to Buzsaw in this thread in Message 472:
Admin writes: I requested that you collect your evidence into a single post because you kept claiming you had described a lot of evidence. To repeat this claim yet again while continuing to ignore my request is not very good form. Your pattern has become this: post evidence that no one accepts and everyone questions, then stop responding to arguments and just claim you've already posted the evidence. The strong possibility that your Coffee House thread proposal would follow a similar course is a good part of the reason AdminPD declined to promote it. Please refrain from posting to this thread again unless it is to describe your evidence. When Buzsaw is prepared to comply with my request that he gather the evidence he's claimed he already presented in this thread into a single post then he is free to resume participation. Until that time I would prefer that he no longer post to this thread.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12998 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Hi Buz,
Thank you for collecting the evidence you've presented thus far in this thread into a single message, Message 506. We're going to call this your reference message. From here on in when you claim that you've already presented evidence, this is the message in which people must be able to find that evidence. If the evidence isn't in this message then that means you haven't presented the evidence yet. For instance, you say, "Objections were aired about the shallows at Nuweiba. I offered possible scenarios on that...", but the scenarios are not in this message. Therefore you must describe these scenarios if requested, instead of claiming you've already presented them. PaulK replied in message Message 508 and briefly touched on a number of issues. To help move the discussion forward I would like to focus discussion on a single issue at a time, the first being the burnt top of Mount Sinai. You do not describe any evidence in your reference message Message 506 that the mountain you claim is Mount Sinai has a burnt top. Please present this evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12998 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Buzsaw writes: The delta sandbar is not purely hypothetical. Your refuse to acknowledge the possibility of my scenarios. You're not being asked about possible scenarios. Your claim is that there was a sandbar there. What is your evidence that there was a sandbar there?
Buzsaw writes:
The delta sandbar is not purely hypothetical.jar writes:
Fine. Where is the evidence of the delta sandbar?Buzsaw writes: I've explained my position on that count. Jar is asking for evidence. Message 506 is your reference message for evidence in this thread, and there is no evidence for a sandbar in that message. Please describe your evidence for a sandbar at that location during Exodus times. Also, please describe your evidence that your choice for Mount Sinai has a burnt top unlike other mountains in the region.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12998 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Buzsaw writes: Can we agree that Nuweiba beach is essentially a large delta formed from the Wadi Waki and the canyon (Colored Canyon?) which it emerges from? No one doubts Nuweiba Beach exists. If all you're asking is whether it is conceded that Nuweiba Beach exists then since a quick check of Google Maps in satellite mode clearly shows a large sandy extension into the Gulf of Aqaba there can be no doubt that it exists. Unless it is somehow important to your case that a river be responsible for for the formation of Nuweiba Beach I suggest you drop the parts about Nuweiba Beach being a river delta. By the way, Wikipedia, Google and Google maps searches did not find Wadi Waki. What you were actually requested to provide is the evidence that a sandbar existed at Nuweiba Beach during the time of the Exodus. You were also asked to provide evidence that your choice for Mount Sinai has a burnt top unlike other mountains in the region.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12998 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Hi Buz,
The pattern you have been exhibiting in this thread is that you first post messages like this last one, and then when people reply asking for your evidence you respond that you've already posted your "corroborating evidence supportive to your hypotheses." The problem I'm trying to address is that there's never any evidence in any of your posts, including this one. Please provide your evidence that there was a sandbar during the time of Exodus off the coast at Nuweiba. Please provide your evidence that your chosen site for Mount Sinai has a blackened top unlike other mountains in the region. These are simple requests. Please fulfill these requests before going off in other directions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12998 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
Buzsaw writes: Some credentialed scientists would take issue with you on that count. I see Nuweiba as supportive to the catastrophic Biblical flood, more so than to a relative uniformitarion view. By raising new unevidenced claims you are distracting attention from your earlier unevidenced claims. One unevidenced claim at a time. When the time comes I will ask you to describe the evidence these "credentialed scientists" used to conclude that Nuweiba was formed catastrophically. I have a number of times requested your evidence that there was a sandbar off the coast of Nuweiba at the time of the Exodus. Please describe this evidence now. Once you've described this evidence and it has been discussed we can move on to your other claims. You are too easily distracted by the other participants. You can respond to them all you like and that's fine, but you must also respond to my request for the evidence of a sand bar off Nuweiba. Because I've asked for this evidence so many times now I'm going to ask you to respond to this request before you respond to anything else.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024