how about refuting the corroborative evidence that I have cited rather than incessantly demanding more? If you can't empirically falsify what I have given, you can't truthfully say that I've supplied no supportive evidence for the Exodus.
You're doing it wrong, Buz.
Providing evidence for an event is not taking a story from the Bible, and then looking for pieces of evidence that would fit within that story if it were true.
You have to start with the evidence, and then show how it leads to a conclusion of the event happening.
Finding a chariot wheel in the sea isn't really corroborative evidence of the story from the Bible if it simply doesn't contadict it and happens to be lying in the spot you'd expect it to. You need to eliminate the possibility of coincidence for it to be evidence pointing to the event.
The scientific method does not begin with the evidence, as I understand it. It begins with the hypothesis.
A hypothesis based on the observation of a phenomenon, i.e. evidence.
The correct way to use your evidence would be to observe the charriot wheels, columns, tracks, landing zone, whatever, and then use that to conclude that they were from an event during the Exodus by eliminating other possibilities until we're left with that one.
The wrong way to do it is to take the story of the Exodus, and then use the charriot wheels, columns, tracks, landing zone, whatever as pieces of evidence that do not contradict the story, but also could possibly be from the event discribed in the story.
If you're not eliminating other possibilities, like it being some mundane wheel that had nothing to do with the Exodus, then your conclusion isn't following from the evidence, its just a post hoc rationalization of some neat stuff you've seen.
The hypothesis was premised by the data in the Biblical record. Wyatt began from his hypothesis that the Biblical record was reliable. He proceeded from that record to falsify it by studying the satellite maps and other data. He embarked on his expeditions into the regions named in the Bible, exploring for evidence of things cited in the record.
Yes, this, and how you're approaching it are the wrong way to do it.
Bottom line in all that has been debated in this and other Exodus threads: Nobody can henceforth truthfully allege that Buzsaw has cited no supportive I say supportive evidence for the Biblical Exodus.
I don't think so, because you did it wrong. Message 283
Reading the Exodus, interpreting the story, guessing at the location, and then finding a wheel...
The wheel is not supportive evidence that the Exodus happened. Its a post-hoc rationalization of something neat that you found.
If you're not eliminating other possibilities for the wheel then you're not supporting anything.
It's not the wheel. It's wheel and axle formS encased with coral. These forms are lying on an underwater field which is fairly void of much else such as rocks, etc. There is one which is notable in that it appears to be an upright axle with a wheel shaped form. The form resembles a pedestal table.
It doesn't matter, I'm granting you this as evidence for the sake of argument.
This, corroborated by so much other evidence descriptive of the flood account is significant supportive scientific evidence of the Exodus event as described in the Biblical record.
No, this is where you're wrong. Its a common misunderstanding. You're assuming causation from the correlation. You have not eliminated any other possibilities. It is a post hoc rationalization of something neat that you've found.
It is not scientific.
For example: I thought I could control the weather with my dancing. I did a rain dance yesterday, and today it rained.
According to you, that would be supportive evidence of the legitimacy of my Rain Dance.
It is not.
I have not ruled out other possibilities as the cause of the rain.