Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 52 (9178 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Anig
Upcoming Birthdays: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 918,102 Year: 5,359/9,624 Month: 384/323 Week: 24/204 Day: 24/21 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Kent Hovind
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9341
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 207 of 349 (627388)
08-02-2011 10:38 AM
Reply to: Message 190 by Buzsaw
08-01-2011 10:03 PM


Re: Debating creationists
Whether or not you believe Lennart Moller's marine research in Aqaba proved anything, he was not practicing his religion, what ever it be. He was doing science. No?
You have been asked numerous times to show this scientific evidence. As of yet you have to shown anything. Links to him or his crappy "documentary" are not evidence. Can you show anything scientific in his "research"?

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by Buzsaw, posted 08-01-2011 10:03 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9341
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


(6)
(1)
Message 230 of 349 (627596)
08-02-2011 10:30 PM
Reply to: Message 228 by Buzsaw
08-02-2011 9:59 PM


Moller again
That's not true. They researched the whole region, establishing corroborative evidence. Moller researched to falsify other sites. You need to view the video and read his book to get a handle on all that he did.
Bullshit. As has been shown to you numerous times on numerous threads that all Moller has is assertions. He has NO evidence. You can not even list his evidence.
I'm not sure, but perhaps if they were to show that they removed items they would be in some kind of legal trouble with the nations whose waters they were in. Being an archaeologist, I'm sure you know that there are some sites where it is best not to disturb the field of phenomena.
More baseless assertions. You have never provided anything to support these wild ass assertions. Show that there were legal issues or issues with disturbing the artifacts or admit this is something you pulled out of your ass.
If, in your mind their research was incomplete and more study needed to be done, that does not negate the research they did as something other than science. That is often the case with many scientists projects. More study may need to be done.
Don't you find it odd that no historians or archaeologists give Moller any support? Is there a grand conspiracy?
His whole chariot wheel thing is just a rehash of Wyatt's lies.
quote:
The made for TV film also featured Dr. Lennart Moller and was titled, The Exodus Revealed and one portion of it featured not the actual gilded wheel photographed by Wyatt but a digital recreation of it
Announcer: While most of the possible artifacts found off the coast of Nuweiba are covered with coral, one significant discovery was not.
Dr. Lennart Moller: There is one find at the Nuweiba location that is of great interest, and that is the gilded wheel. [digital ‘recreation’ appears on screen, based on photo taken by Ron Wyatt] It is a wooden basic structure of the wheel and it is covered with gold or electrum, a mixture of silver and gold, and corals have not been able to grow on it. [really? why not? see questions below] It’s been very well preserved, although it’s very fragile. It seems like the wooden content has been dissolved. So I mean you could break it if you tried to remove it.
Announcer: After its discovery the fragile wheel-shaped veneer was photographed, then left in place on the sea floor. Later analysis revealed that its dimensions and design resembled four-spoked chariot wheels painted on an 18th Dynasty tomb wall near the biblical date of the Exodus.
Note that Moller does not say he discovered this gilded wheel, nor that he saw it, photographed it, nor touched it. There is no undersea footage of the gilded wheel in the film but merely a digital reconstruction of a photograph taken by Wyatt in the 1970s. But note that although almost no coral is shown touching this bright shiny wheel, based on Wyatt's photo, still there are plenty of thick corals growing on one another and seen all over the actual seabed of the Red Sea as shown in the film. Neither does Wyatt's original photo provide clear evidence as to whether the small piece of coral seen on the wheel simply was placed there or not, it doesn’t seem particularly well attached, not compared with the vast conglomerations of corals in the general area. And contra a statement made by Dr. Moller in the film, there does not appear to be any reason why coral should not be able to grow on an object made of gold, silver or a mixture of both, as any archeologist can demonstrate who has dug up objects made of all sorts of ancient precious metals from the sea with coral growing on them.
Source
Moller had a conclusion before he did any research. That is not science.
quote:
While ostensibly scientific, Mller’s perspective is at the same time explicitly anti-rational (p. 15). We should not be too sure of ourselves and our powers of reasoning. Only God is perfect, says Mller, and humankind is frail and weak. Look at the Titanic, it sank even though it was supposed to be unsinkable! This is, put mildly, a weakness in Mller’s research strategy. Mller is a Christian and thus strongly biased toward the belief that the hypothesis that he sets out to test has been formulated by God himself.
Successful scientists believe in all statements until they have been disproved, according to Mller. Having offered this parody of Popper’s criterion, he sets out on his biblical trek through time and space from Abraham in Ur to Moses on Mount Sinai. Soon it becomes clear that Mller is not in fact trying to disprove his hypothesis. Quite the contrary: he searches intensively for anything that fits with it. The idea that the selected texts are historically true is not a hypothesis for Mller, it is the basic axiom of his investigations. To the extent that he takes his pseudo-Popperian philosophy of science seriously at all, Mller appears to feel that the task of disproving the hypothesis is the reader’s job, not his.
Source

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by Buzsaw, posted 08-02-2011 9:59 PM Buzsaw has seen this message but not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9341
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 232 of 349 (627659)
08-03-2011 9:20 AM
Reply to: Message 228 by Buzsaw
08-02-2011 9:59 PM


Re: Coyote's (abe: Creation Science) Evasion
I am going to tell you the same thing I told Artemis Ent. If you are going to give my post a thumbs down, why don't you ahve the balls to respond to the post. Why does it deserve a thumbs down? What in it is so objectionable?
Put up or shut up.
Arty won't put up, will you?

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by Buzsaw, posted 08-02-2011 9:59 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9341
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


(1)
Message 254 of 349 (627838)
08-04-2011 1:26 PM


hilarity ensues
While looking up more about this crap I came across this site
Page not found – Pinkoski.com
Where it says.
quote:
UPDATE: New tests done!
There have been some "controversies" about the depth of the underwater landbridge that extends across the Gulf of Aqaba from the beach at Nuweiba -- and in May of 2000 a group from Australia and New Zealand went to the site and did extensive testing using Simrad CE32 Chart Plotter plus GPS to carry out depth soundings. It seems that the British Admiralty maps are inaccurate and unreliable -- our new tests matched the results of the Israeli Marine Geology Mapping & Tectonics Division. The Israelis report, "There IS a land bridge off Nuweiba" -- but we must remember that the Exodus happened over 3,400 years ago, and the underwater landbridge will have eroded and deteriorated over the years.
See an Update about this discovery on Page not found - Anchor Stone International and see the new depth printout at Page not found - Anchor Stone International
Both the links are dead.
Hilarious.
Also no where is there a reference to the supposed Israeli claim.
Maybe this is what they wanted to link to, but it doenst seem to provide any evidence at all.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9341
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


(1)
Message 258 of 349 (627871)
08-04-2011 7:12 PM
Reply to: Message 257 by Dirk
08-04-2011 6:22 PM


Wait for it
The claim will be made that the area between the Elat Deep and the Arabonese Deep is a potential landbridge.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by Dirk, posted 08-04-2011 6:22 PM Dirk has seen this message but 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