I've also had to revise my position that the tsunami would not necessarily be from North to South. Rather it would come from both directions, causing significant erosion in the sand bar but feasibly leaving some evidence due to the swish-swash from both directions.
How does this position of yours constitute evidence? Is the idea that your ability to come up with a feasible explanation for discrepancies in depth makes it more likely the Exodus happened?
Allegations aren't evidence, and your shifting the story every few posts isn't the most persuasive approach. I'd suggest debugging your theories before you post them is better.
t's a given. Folks who avoid accountability to a higher power will never acknowledge one whit of evidence supportive to such a power such as the Exodus evidence is.
Yes, I think that's true.
It's also true that folks who do acknowledge accountability to God almost universally believe that Ron Wyatt was a fraud and that none of his evidence related to the Exodus, Noah's Ark, the Ark of the Covenant etc., is real despite their beliefs that all of those things are real. I think empirical evidence of any significant Biblical event would be kinda neat, but neither my faith in God nor my salvation requires such evidence.
I really wish you'd stop labeling all people who disagree with you on this issue as heathens and non Christian. Perhaps a little time with Hebrews 11 might provide a reminder of how Christians operate.
Evidence terms are being bandied about here in a non-standard way. In particular circumstantial evidence is getting a bad rap.
Circumstantial evidence means evidence that requires a logical inference to reach a conclusion. The opposite of circumstantial evidence is direct evidence which requires no inference. Among the few things that constitute direct evidence are eye witness accounts and confessions.
DNA evidence is circumstantial evidence.
Circumstantial evidence is generally more reliable than most direct evidence, because humans are imperfect, and direct evidence usually involves subjective human impressions. The only kind of evidence anyone should expect to see in this thread is circumstantial evidence. Moses, Pharoah, and their peers are long gone and they did not have video recorders.
Evidence should consists of things that if factual make it more likely that the Exodus happened. A good story describing something that might explain a lack of evidence is not evidence.
I fail to see why Nuweiba is so important to you as it might be to Wyatt. There are a number of other more believable sihtes where the Israelites could have crossed which are shallower.
I don't think there is any great mystery about that. Buzsaw wants the crossing to be where Wyatt claims to have made his finds, because those finds are essentially all of physical evidence anyone has even alleged.
quote:Bingo! You make my point, Theodoric. No river formed the delta. It was formed suddenly by the Noaic catastrophic flood
You are glossing over Theodoric's point. There is no delta. There's a beach. Why wasn't that beach formed like other beaches? So far, all you've said on the subject is that you believe the Noah's Flood explanation is better than a uniformitarianism based explanation.
But what is the secular explanation for beach formation? Does the shallowness of the "wadi" assuming there is one there, have any impact on beach formation according to the scientific explanation?
I don't believe you have any clue as to how geologists beieve beaches form, and accordingly that your personal judgment of whether a Flood based explanation is more feasible than the secular explanation is worthless.
Why should it need be the highest to be supportive?
I think it's fine that it's the highest in that region, but there's no black top in evidence.
If this is the same mountain that Wyatt identified, how would you test the hypothesis that Wyatt simply looked at a topographical map of the region and picked out the highest one.
It is indirect corroborative evidence of sorts.
Evidence of sorts? What the heck does that mean?
Indirect evidence conventionally means just circumstantial evidence, which in turn simply means facts other than an eye witness account, so that we must draw inferences to reach our conclusion. Circumstantial evidence is typically more reliable and trust worthy than eye witness accounts.
The strength of our evidence relies on establishing facts, and making strong or even inevitable inferences. What you provide is without exception weak in both areas.
We expect that your evidence must be indirect. Everyone except God who was there has been long since dead, and since we are asking for evidence outside of the Bible, Moses' written testimony is unavailable, and he died centuries ago.
But when you say indirect, Buzsaw, you mean something entirely different. By indirect, you mean potential facts that have only the most marginal probative value, assuming one is willing to accept a story that for which there is little to no evidence.
For example, a beach is evidence because it means that there might have been a tsunami, for which tsunami there is no evidence, that might have removed other probative evidence. A guard post is evidence because it might possibly be for the purpose of concealing actual convincing evidence. A mountain top in the midst of other mountain tops, that may or may not be blackened as might others differently from others, is evidence, because, uh, what?
Most of this stuff is just excuses for why there is no actual indirect evidence.
And then there is Ron Wyatt who supposedly is not lying this time, and his purported evidence, most of which is equally as weak as the stuff you provide when it isn't completely non existent or simply more excuses for not having evidence.
I'm not a Bible skeptic. I think evidence regarding a site for the Exodus crossing would be fascinating. But the stuff you describe in this thread appears to be right out a von Daniken book. You don't even seem to mind taking liberties with the Biblical account.
Now you claim that when you said sandbar you actually meant delta?
I believe the idea is that the crossing was on a bridge of sand, but that we shouldn't call that bridge a sandbar. The delta is supposed to be evidence of the sand, and the tsunami is a euphemism for Flood damage.