Even if theses wheels are Egyptian Chariot wheels, even dated to the period of the alleged Exodus, there would be no way of proving that this particular wheel was on a particular chariot chasing Israel.
But let's be fair. The chariot wheels Buz is talking about were "discovered" by Ron Wyatt, and they're widely believed to be figments of Wyatt's overactive imagination and efforts at self-promotion by making spectacular announcements. No one who requires actual evidence accepts Wyatt's claims.
But if Egyptian chariot wheels were actually discovered in a plausible location for the Exodus, and if they were dated to the proper period, then it would be positive and intriguing evidence consistent with the Exodus story. If other similar evidence were also found, such as remains of encampments from plausible locations and dates, then one would have to begin to concede that the Exodus might plausibly have really happened.
Buz has enumerated a great deal of evidence in this thread, and none of it appears to have any acceptance within the relevant communities of scholars. Much of it appears to be obviously bogus, such as the Horeb Rock. Rather than trying to convince Buz his evidence is bogus, which probably isn't possible, it might be better to just enumerate the scientific support for them, if any.
It's great that you saw a video and read a book. Please post again when you have some evidence to report.
Some of the dates have been questioned and debated due to the tendency of Pharaohs to skew the dates and obliterate info which might damage their own reputation. It also behooved Egypt to conceal, as much as possible, the devastation of Egypt's defense military so as not to embolden enemy nations to attack.
You need to stop finding excuses for why there's no evidence and instead find some positive evidence. Ask yourself what kind of evidence you would need to tell the difference between an event that never happened and one that was flawlessly covered up.
We need evidence which is more than just "consistent" with the Exodus story. We need evidence that actually supports the Exodus story. A hubcap from a '56 Chevy is consistent with a conspiracy to assassinate JFK but it adds no credence to a conspiracy theory.
For the sake of discussion let's say that the Exodus really happened and that there are chariot wheels from Pharaoh's army lying at the bottom of the Red Sea. If we eventually discovered these chariot wheels and through analysis discovered that they were at a plausible location and date for the Exodus, then you need a method that doesn't ignore this evidence.
It's interesting to watch both creationists and evolutionists employing the identical tactic from opposite sides. ICANT is presented a progression of skulls and says they do nothing more than "prove that a creature existed at one time that had that particular skull" (Message 350). Evolutionists in this thread are saying that, in effect, "all that proves is that Egyptian chariot wheels existed at the time of the Exodus."
Both sides are trying to connect the dots between pieces of evidence. The creationists are at somewhat of a disadvantage in that their evidence is either non-existent or made up, but to the extent they do have evidence we have to carefully and honestly consider its implications.
I'm not proposing that we ignore the evidence. I'm saying that even if the evidence is authenticated, it still needs to be connected to the actual events in question.
Bluescat48, who I was originally replying to, said that time and locality wouldn't prove any connection. If chariot wheels were the only evidence one had then that would be true, but it is rare for any single piece of evidence to prove anything, and the fact of the matter is that time and locality *are* a connection.
After a few posts the original argument is often lost. What I originally said back in Message 162 was that finding "chariot wheels" (plural) at a plausible time and location would be consistent with the Exodus, not that it would be corroborating evidence, and that the accumulation of additional evidence of things like encampments and so forth might eventually require one to concede that the Exodus might plausibly have happened.
Buz should be given credit for trying to weave together a fabric of consistent evidence supporting the Exodus. Unfortunately Buz is unable to recognize valid evidence, but my point is that if there were actual evidence supporting the Exodus then it wouldn't be valid to consider each fact in isolation and dismiss it simply because by itself it didn't prove the Exodus. To emphasize again, there are few things proven by a single fact.
I know that the Bibles have been confiscated in Saudi Arabia.
Were the Saudis confiscating Old Testaments? Or were they perhaps confiscating the normal western Bibles we're all familiar with that contain both Old and *New* Testaments?
As Theodoric has been trying to explain to you, Moses is a revered figure in Islam.
But Muslims would find the New Testament claim that Jesus is the son of God objectionable. The Koran even states at one point, "Allah is but one God. Allah forbid that he should have a son!" (4:171, look it up in you Koran). However, Islam does revere Jesus as a prophet.
Actually that's pretty good evidence that the darker area is down to geology - the upper strata are simply of dark-coloured rock.
If you scroll around and zoom in and out I think you'll become convinced that texture, shade and reduced angle of incidence with light from the sun are largely responsible for the darker regions. There do seem to be two colors of rock, light brown and a darker grayish brown:
Another factor is that the rocks of lighter color seem to be the more horizontal surfaces while the rocks of the darker color appear to be the more vertical surfaces. That the darker surfaces appear to have a rougher texture, consistent with stratified layers, also makes it likely that they're more vertical.
And if the rate of population increase after the flood was .5%/year then if the Exodus was 1000 years later then the population of the world at the time was 1176. In order to achieve a world population of, say, 40 million by the Exodus the growth rate would have had to have been about 1.55%/year, rather spectacular for any period before modern agriculture and modern medicine.
In fact the Gulf of Suez is actually very shallow with an average depth of about 40 feet and a maximum depth less than 100 feet. The Gulf of Aqaba though has an average depth of over 2600 feet and a maximum depth of over 6000 feet.
I don't know about the Gulf of Suez, but while researching this topic I read somewhere that the Gulf of Aqaba is an extension of the Great Rift Valley, so it makes sense that it's deep.
Isn't it also deep at the Nuweiba site? Not where Mollart was diving, but doesn't it get very deep a bit further from shore? Isn't there really no sign of a "land bridge"?
Google must have a bug in the embedded maps now. I tried to fix it so it's centered properly by going back to Google Maps and getting the embedded text again, but it just does the same thing.
Where are you finding the elevation information? What I said was based on just inspecting the satellite image. If you look at it there doesn't appear to be a mountain there, and pretty much dead center is what looks like a wash, i.e., low lying area where sediment/sand gathers.