Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 53 (9179 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Anig
Upcoming Birthdays: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 918,057 Year: 5,314/9,624 Month: 339/323 Week: 183/160 Day: 0/19 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evidence for the Biblical Record
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2401 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 12 of 348 (550323)
03-14-2010 4:59 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by ICANT
03-14-2010 4:25 PM


Re: For the sake of sanity.
ICANT writes:
I would think science would disagree with you creating the heaven and the earth in your lifetime.
Well, seeing as he is from "A vast, undifferentiated plane". I'd say the normal flow of time has no effect on him. Now, pay him the respects your creator deserves! Or burn in hell!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by ICANT, posted 03-14-2010 4:25 PM ICANT has not replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2401 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 39 of 348 (550483)
03-15-2010 7:09 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Buzsaw
03-15-2010 5:35 PM


Some comments on the video
The first bit about Joseph: They just assert that Joseph = Imhotep, and then assert a whole lot more things about what Joseph did in Egypt. They show no evidence for any of this.
Then about Moses: They assert his adopted mother was Hatshepsut, and that his name was Senmut. His adult name (yeah, a name change, sure) is supposed to be Thutmoses II. Evidence for Moses being Thutmoses II is supposed to be his "hebrew shaped nose". Again, no evidence whasoever. Lots of other unevdienced assertions follow.
Before we get to the actual crossing, speculation about the route the isrealites supposedly took. No evidence that they actually took this route presented. Also, we get some talk about a supposed egyptian fort that was supposed to have stood there. A structure is shown, but no evidence for the claim that this was an Egyptian fort. Some assertions are made about where the pillar of clouds was and went.
We see "an amazing marker", a pillar that had once fallen over, but is now resurrected again. This is the pillar that marks the point of crossing, or so we are told. But, you guessed it, no evidence is provided. We are told a "matching column" is on the other side. We never see this pillar, though. They do sneakily show some footage of the same pillar, as if to try to fool the audience. Very dishonest. We get told about inscriptions on the "other" pillar. We of course are never shown these inscriptions. The inscriptions on the "Egyptian pillar" were removed by Egyptians, or so we are told. Nowhere is this shown to be the case. They use Google Earth to zoom in on the pillar on the "Egyptian" side. Of course, they never zoom in to the "other pillar".
The first underwater picture is shown, this is supposed to be a chariot wheel with three of its four spokes. It looks like a rock to me. Proof that it's a chariot wheel? 90 degree angles, which proves it's a man made structure. Of course, the angles aren't 90 degrees. We are told that using metal detectors, divers have found metal in the "hubs that were found". We are neither shown these hubs, nor shown any evidence that they in fact contain iron. We see more weird shapes that are supposed to be chariot wheels. We are told Wyatt has found many artefacts here. We are not shown any. Formations are shown that "could have once been a chariot cab", seems even the makers of the film aren't too sure about what it is. Another choral with a drawing of a chariot wheel imposed upon it is shown. It doesn't even come close. We are shown a "shrunken hoof" and a femur covered in coral, some more bones are shown. Yes, I'm sure nothing ever drowned there, except when the exodus happened. Some more "chariot wheels". The premier find, is a gold veneer. We are shown something shiny in the water. Curiously, this isn't covered in coral. Everything else in the film is.
And that kinda concludes the video. Wow, that's the best you can come up with? I want my 45 minutes back.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Buzsaw, posted 03-15-2010 5:35 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Buzsaw, posted 03-15-2010 9:35 PM Huntard has replied
 Message 64 by PaulK, posted 03-16-2010 2:54 AM Huntard has replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2401 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 63 of 348 (550531)
03-16-2010 2:51 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by Buzsaw
03-15-2010 9:35 PM


Re: Some comments on the video
Buzsaw writes:
1. The hypothesis of the research begun was the Biblical description of what should be evidenced.
2. The Biblical description required the following:
A. A route towards Midian in Arabia in the region of Jethro, Moses's father in law.
B. A route that would lead to entrapment, but large enough area to accomodate a large number of people at the shore of the crossing.
C A route that would lead to an area where a pillar was erected.
D A route that would lead to a mountain showing evidence of being burnt at some time.
F. A route that would lead to a crossing where some evidence of chariot debris might be found.
G. A route that would lead to a crossing which on the other side would be a split rock and evidence of a water flow from the rock.
H. A route that perhaps would be evidence of bull worship inscriptions.
I. A region where an oasis of water and greenery might be found some distant inland.
All nice and dandy, Buz, but where's the evidence they took this route?
Check.
What check? I don't dispute they found a pillar, I dispute it is of significance. They show no evidence of this pillar being what they claim it is. They simply assert it.
Huntard, et al, scientist Lennart Moller takes the position that here's the evidence.
Not in the film he doesn't. No evidence whatsoever is shown. There is however done a lot of asserting.
Let the evidence speak for itself and let each decide for themselves about the evidence.
It would be nice if they'd show any then.
That's how science works.
No, science begins with evidence. There is absolutely no evidence presented for any assertion made in the film. No evidence that Imhotep = Joseph, no evidence that Moses = Senmut = Thutmose II, no evidence for the route, no evidence for the fort, no evidence for the pillar, and so on.
Regardless of your assessment of the evidence, it is bonafide scientific evidence for evaluation, i.e. bonafide creation science.
And once again, not a shred of evidence is presented in the film, there are only assertions. The best example of this is the choral. They say they are chariot wheels, they don't provide any evidence for that claim though. And that's generally the theme throughout the film.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Buzsaw, posted 03-15-2010 9:35 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2401 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 65 of 348 (550539)
03-16-2010 6:24 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by PaulK
03-16-2010 2:54 AM


Of course!
Now I remember! Hatshepsut is the one that had that huge ass temple built, isn't she? I should have caught that one, having some interest in ancient egypt. I should've recognized the names.
Thanks for the info!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by PaulK, posted 03-16-2010 2:54 AM PaulK has not replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2401 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 68 of 348 (550552)
03-16-2010 9:32 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by Buzsaw
03-16-2010 9:15 AM


Re: Yah, and the debate goes on numerous reputable scientists on both sides of the debats
Buzsaw writes:
At any rate it is unusual. Moller, et al claim it is not lava rock. I assume they assertained that from some available data.
So, even you, who is one of their staunchest proponents, haven't actually seen the evidence fo their claims? How do you think to convince anyone else then?
The alleged burning was from a supernatural source which perhaps penetrated into the soil and rocks to a very hot temperature.
More assertions without evidence. How do you know it is because of a fire, how do you know this fire was supernatural, how do you know it penetrated into the rock? Any evidence for any of these claims?
The significance relative to evidence is that it matches up nicely with the other corrobrative evidence necessary to lend support to the account.
What other evidence, you haven't shown any.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Buzsaw, posted 03-16-2010 9:15 AM Buzsaw has seen this message but not replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2401 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 72 of 348 (550577)
03-16-2010 1:27 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by greyseal
03-16-2010 1:10 PM


Re: Incessantly Denying The Evidence
Not to mention had a very large part of its army (or was it the entire army?), and its Pharaoh killed. What do you think neigbouring countries, knowing the wealth of Egypt would've done at this time? Invade of course, and take over. Curiously, that didn't happen. I wonder why....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by greyseal, posted 03-16-2010 1:10 PM greyseal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by greyseal, posted 03-17-2010 1:59 AM Huntard has seen this message but not replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2401 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 74 of 348 (550579)
03-16-2010 1:43 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by Buzsaw
03-16-2010 12:54 PM


Re: Incessantly Denying The Evidence
Buzsaw writes:
Paulk and Huntard, you both miss the importance of corroboration.
Anything can be made to coroborate when told centuries after the fact and using observations from the time of telling, like Greyseal pointed out.
These observable things are all corroborating one another. As per the the record, these evidences should line up in the right sequence.
Again, what evidence? So far all I've seen is assertions. Point me to something here Buz.
The important thing about the mountain is that it's top is black and that it follows in line with the bull inscriptions, the split rock, the unusual chariot like formations in the sea, the relatively shallow area of the sea in which they were sited, the beach, surrounded by mountains with a way in but no escape route out, and the land of Midian to where the record says they would meet Jethro.
And the evidence that any of this was the actual site where this happens is? I want evidence Buz, not your assertion that this must be the site, because it fits the story so well. Is this the only site that fits the story? Apparently not, many have been offered. Why is this one the real deal? Because you assert it is?
The other corroborating ducts perfectly alligned in the right secquence is supportive that the black mountain top could likely have been burned as per the record.
Where is the evidence for this? This is the second time I ask you. You say it "could likely have been" been burned. So, it's also possible it wasn't? In other words, you don't know? Then why insist this is the case? By supernatural fire no less, that penetrated the ground, you assert. Is there anything about this that you can show any evidence for?
Regardless of how you rate the evidence, it is, in fact part and parcel of the aggregate evidence.
Evidence? What evidence? Assertion is not evidence.
You people insist on throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
There isn't even a bathtub to contain it all in.
You people, et al evolutionists and BBists
What's that got to do with anything? I'm also a gravitationist, and a germist and a... Oh you know, anything that has evidence for it. Unlike your assertions.
don't have all of your ducks lined up perfectly and verifiable either.
I don' t suppose you have any evidence for this assertion either?
You have your weak and your strong arguments, just as I do here.
You don't even have that. You have assertions, and that's it.
By the way you are acting here, I could say where's your actual observable evidence that alleged scientific abiogenesis is the explanation for life origin?
1) We're working on it. 2) That's off topic here, and has nothing to do with the fact of the exodus happening or not.
That's totally not observable physically with the naked eye, whereas all of the corroborating evidence ducks lined up perfectly which I have cited relative to the Exodus.
So does all the evidence for abiogenesis. In fact, as we can demostrate all the claims made so far about abiogenesis, I'd say it's a lot stronger then your assertions.
Come on. Let's be fair, balanced and reasonable in demanding evidence.
Then show me some. Come on, show me a chariot wheel being lifted from the sea, show me it being tested and found to match the wheels from the 18th dynasty. Show me Moses = Senmut = Thutmose II, show me the fort is an actual Egyptian fort, show me the "other pillar" with inscriptions. Show me anything at all.
If you choose not to ascribe to the evidence, fine, but don't incessantly keep on falsly arguing that Moller, Wyatt, et al's research has produced no evidence whatsoever.
Then where is it? Where are their reports, where are their studies, what tests were done, where was it peer reviewed? Anything, anything at all?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Buzsaw, posted 03-16-2010 12:54 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2401 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 81 of 348 (550595)
03-16-2010 4:33 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by PaulK
03-16-2010 3:57 PM


Re: More on Gulf of Aqaba
Those maps looked familliar to me, so I searched the video again, and sure enough, there it was, the same map, used in the videa, showing the depth to be more then 800 metres! Cant' believe I missed that the first time!
Here's a screenshot I took, the numbers should be readable when you enlarge it (it's taken at a very high resolution ) (I put in the name "NUWEIBA", to make it more clear):
Damn, these guys are stupid!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by PaulK, posted 03-16-2010 3:57 PM PaulK has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Buzsaw, posted 03-16-2010 6:13 PM Huntard has replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2401 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 104 of 348 (550657)
03-17-2010 2:41 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by Buzsaw
03-16-2010 6:13 PM


Re: More on Gulf of Aqaba
Buzsaw writes:
We all know what a mighty force of rushing water can do, don't we? Think of the enormity of the return. . We don't know whether there was an equal volumn on the North as on the South, or just how this all happened. At any rate, it would likely be the force of a great back and forth tsunami, especially if one side returned first and the other overlapped it. Likely there was extensive erosion, particularly in the middle deeper area. This plus possible earth quakes at some time, shipping and currents may have changed the topography of the sandbar area of the Gulf from what it was millenniums ago when the alleged Exodus took place.
Guess, I'll have to ask again, hopefully not in vain this time. Do you have any evidence for this? Where are the tests run to show this happens?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Buzsaw, posted 03-16-2010 6:13 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2401 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 105 of 348 (550660)
03-17-2010 4:30 AM
Reply to: Message 101 by Buzsaw
03-16-2010 11:55 PM


Re: Heaps of Jeeps.
Buzsaw writes:
The topic title calls for evidence, Apothecus. Do what you want with the evidence which I've cited.
But that's just it Buz. You haven't cited any evidence! You have cited a route you say they took, but didn;t provide any evidence they took it. You cited the video I watched and wrote that little piece about as evidence, but absolutely nothing in there was actually corroborated with any evidence at all.
I guess I'll better make this very clear:
Where is the evidence?
We could debate the unknowns till the cows come home, just as with the alleged singularity of the BB, abiogenesis and that stuff.
Why do you keep bringing this up? It has nothing to do with the topic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Buzsaw, posted 03-16-2010 11:55 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by Buzsaw, posted 03-17-2010 8:17 AM Huntard has replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2401 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 108 of 348 (550675)
03-17-2010 8:40 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by Buzsaw
03-17-2010 8:17 AM


Re: Observing the Evidence.
Buzsaw writes:
Huntard, get a passport...
Check.
...go and see the route, look at the beach, hire a diver and look in the water,...
While I'm sure there will be a lot to see there, why should I do this? You haven't done this, and you're convinced. So, what evidence convinced you? Remember, asserting is not evidence.
...risk you life and go ashore on the other side...
Nice Buz, very nice....
....view the column, look at the split rock and the water wash, check out for oasiss in the region, check out the geography as to where Midian was,
Again, why should I? I'm not gonna find anything there. At least, nothing you have provided me here is filling me with high hopes. I'd rather spend my money on more useful stuff.
Have a look at the photographed bull inscriptions near the bottom of the burnt mountain, get back to us and report if the evidence is as I have described and if it matches the Biblical account.
I'm sure there are bulls there. What I dispute is that they were carved there during the exodus. Any evidence for that?
Thanks in advance, be careful to stay alive and enjoy the trip! Buz.
Again, while I'm pretty sure many amazing and beatiful things can be seen there, I'm not going to spend my money on doing the research that was already done and didn't turn up anything at all. If there really is compelling evidence, how hard is it for you to point to it and say: "There it is, this is hard evidence that the exodus happened!". You haven't done any of this, however. You have cited some things the route should have, if it were to fullfill the criteria of the story. Ok, fine, I'll grant you that, the route does. This is completely irrelevant however! The route can match it perfectly, does this mean they actually took it? NO! That is what I want evidence for, them actually taking the route!
The same goes for the Pillar. You assert it was erected there by the jews. Well, show me evidence for that. Then show me evidence that it was erected because of the exodus. Show me evidence for the "other pillar", show me evidence the coral are chariot wheels.
To make a long point short:
SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Buzsaw, posted 03-17-2010 8:17 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by Buzsaw, posted 03-17-2010 10:55 AM Huntard has replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2401 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 109 of 348 (550679)
03-17-2010 9:36 AM


About the sheer amount of people
One more thing I'd like to discuss.
What about the sheer amount of people involved. They number in the millions (anyone got a more or less accurate estimate?)
I did some calculations, If we allow each person a 50 cm by 50 cm square to move in (which I think is way too small, but meh). And given that they would walk in columns of 100 people wide (they really couldn't have done more then that with all the canyons). At 5,000,000 people, this would make it 50 metres wide, by 25 Km long! An average walking speed is about 3-4 Km/hour, this would mean that when the first ones stopped to make up camp, it would take the last people to arive at this camp at least 6 hours to reach the site. At which time the first ones would have to be on the move again (remember, they are being pursued).
Even at half those people (2,500,000) it would still be 12.5 Km long. That's still 4 hours before the last ones arive.
That's just undoable, man.

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2401 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 113 of 348 (550692)
03-17-2010 11:03 AM
Reply to: Message 111 by Buzsaw
03-17-2010 10:55 AM


Re: Show Me The Evidence.
Why do you keep deflecting to off-topic stuff? Got no evidence to show?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Buzsaw, posted 03-17-2010 10:55 AM Buzsaw has seen this message but not replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2401 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 153 of 348 (550900)
03-19-2010 9:10 AM
Reply to: Message 148 by Buzsaw
03-18-2010 8:43 PM


Re: Denial Of The Evidence
Buzsaw writes:
Nobody in this thread but Peg and preacher ICANT would ever admit to anything smacking of supernatural regardless of how much evidence was cited
I would. If any evidence were actually cited. Your interpretations of prophecy are not evidence. Are you 100% sure this is what meant there? Has god told you this? It could not refer to any future event that still has to pass? This is the problem with this cited "evidence" of yours. It's just your interpretation.
Care to come up with some actual evidence?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by Buzsaw, posted 03-18-2010 8:43 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by Buzsaw, posted 03-19-2010 9:30 PM Huntard has replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2401 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 172 of 348 (550995)
03-20-2010 6:28 AM
Reply to: Message 155 by Buzsaw
03-19-2010 9:30 PM


Re: Denial Of The Evidence
Buzsaw writes:
Huntard, it's like any history book or text book. For the most part, there's nothing to interpret. You read the words and they mean what they say.
Ok. So this bit:
quote:
And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy.
Means that there will actually be a beast with seven heads and ten horns. Glad we cleared that up.
If the writer says Mt Sinai is in Arabia, the land of Midian, etc, what's there to interpret?
Notning. Neither is there anything tho interpret when he says there will be a beast with seven heads and ten horns. It's clear that there will be a beast with seven heads and ten horns.
If he says Israel will be restored and invaded as a land of unwalled villages and ungated, what's there to interpret?
Clearly nothing.
n ancient days they needed the walls. In these latter days, city walls and gates are irrevelant, so you read, think and go figure.
Of course. Which is why you and Peg completely agree on what the bible says.... Oh...Wait...
Creationists regard your interpretation of what is observed on earth and in the cosmos as faulty but when it comes to wording, in most cases you read it and apply it at face value.
And how do we tell when we are to read literally (as in the beast with ten heads and seven horns part), or when we are to "interpret" (as in the unwalled city part)?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by Buzsaw, posted 03-19-2010 9:30 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024