"The Exodus Revealed" Video II

quote:

---

Have you viewed the video? We have it, Ned. You people don't have it for much of your alleged imperical stuff.

---

What are the potential falsifications of the conclusions of the researchers?What are all of the alternative explanations for how the evidence appears?What other contradictory evidence that they found do they discuss, and do they discuss the contradictory evidence found by others?If they are doing real science, not propaganda, they will prominently discuss the above, because scientists always do this in their papers.

quote:

---

You've been told repeatedly that restrictions are in place as to how much testing is permisable and what evidence we have, being the chariot parts as researched from both East and West shores along with the corroborating other evidences. Why don't you stick to refuting all this stuff we have rather than repeated demands for more? Secular cience doesn't have all the links and data on all their alleged claims. Why don't you allow us the same consideration?

---

What are the potential falsifications of the conclusions of the researchers?What are all of the alternative explanations for how the evidence appears?What other contradictory evidence that they found do they discuss, and do they discuss the contradictory evidence found by others?If they are doing real science, not propaganda, they will prominently discuss the above, because scientists always do this in their papers.

quote:

---

We are claiming there are none being used by the researchers we are referencing. If you think there are, it's up to you to produce. That's what you demand of us. Turn about's fair play.

---

So, in other words, the researchers you are referencing can think of no other explanations for how the evidence appears as it does? None at all?Then they are not doing science.If you are saying that the ONLY explanation the researchers could ever accept is the one they WANTED TO FIND BEFORE THEY EVER LOOKED AT THE EVIDENCE, then they are not doing science.

quote:

---

If you think there are better alternatives, show us something better. That burden lies on you, again, just the same as you demand of us.

---

Every good scientist who is expert in their field (especially if it is a frontier) understands that there will be a lot of trial and error. There will be a lot of attempts to explain phenomena and not all of them will be correct, in part or in full.As such, every scientific paper that is published addresses any alternative explanations that exist or that can be imagined, or that need to be explored in future work.Where in this research do they mention, say, that the Egyptians have no record whatsoever of the Jews being enslaved in Egypt?

quote:

---

Please refrain from cluttering the thread with unspecified questions and begin producing productive input posts.

---

If you had cared, over the years, to actually familiarize yourself with the format of real scientific papers at all, buz, you might have learned that my request would be easy to find in pretty much any paper.Scientists bend over backwards to show in their papers how they might be wrong, and how other research that has already been done contradicts theirs.It's all part of the rigor of real scientific methodology. Scientists aren't allowed to just show how they think they are right, they also have to show how they might be wrong.Where have these researchers listed where they might be wrong?

quote:

---

.....And if you will approach this thread objectively and in good faith, you will not only acknowledge the evidence that has been presented but will learn all you can about the facts of the matter as those who've produced the evidence have.

---

...but if I cannot trust that the researchers have followed an objective, corrected-for-bias, rigorously self-doubting scientific protocol, how can I remain open minded?I cannot trust the researchers to have done their research properly. chances are, they are simply cerry picking the evidence and are avoiding talking about alternative explanations.

quote:

---

Yours is obviously preformed and/or eroded. Ours is obviously a one time solid boulder split down the middle.

---

What are the differences that make it "obvious" to you? If you put two samples in front of me, how can I tell the difference between rock that appears to have been eroded or preformed with a split and one that is a one time solid boulder split down the middel thousands of years ago?Please be very specific in your explanation.

quote:

---

Ours has obvious waterflow evidence as in the Biblical record which your doesn't have.

---

What is this "obvious" water flow evidence?What does it look like, what are it's typical characteristics, does it appear anywhere else in the world, etc.?IOW, how can I know, given two examples, which one is water flow eviodence and whaich one isn't?also, please explain how this water flow evidence is important to this specific case, and why finding it in this location confirms your theory. Would finding it elsewhere be problematic?Please be very sopecific in your explanation.

quote:

---

We fully expect people to offer alternative interpretations -- that is normal and acceptible -- but at the same time there is a point reached when the alternative ideas are just being STUBBORN and FOOLISH DIVERSIONS that are nothing but persistent sorry attempts at disagreeing!

---

You don't understand.I am wondering where are the possible alternative explanations which the researchers present themselves in their reporting of their research?This is SOP in real science. In real scientific papers, the scientists bend over backwards, within the paper itself, to explain what all of the problems with their hypothesis are, and how they could be wrong, and how other research contradicts theirs, and what further research needs to be done.Where have these researchers done this? What are the probelms they have identified with their theory? What other research contradicts theirs?If this is absent from their report, it is highly likely that they are not performing a scientific investigation.It is highly likely they are just "finding" what they wanted to find, even if it isn't there.

quote:

---

And you pros who should know better and who are not versed in the matter at hand should do the scientific thing and set out to scientifically debunk the evidence presented rather than outright reject it.

---

Well, that's what I'm trying to do.Please answer posts #91 and #92 in this thread buz.I asked you very specific questions regarding methodology and evidence.

A reply to messages #91 and #92, if you please, sir.

quote:

---

The shape of the boulder, position of the split and appearance of a split rather than erosion.

---

What are the differences in the shapes of the boulders?If you put them down in front of me, how would I tell the difference?What are the differences in the positions of the splits?If you put them down in front of me, how would I tell the difference?Be specific.

quote:

---

Look at the Wyatt evidence, shockingly absent are comments about what others thought about the evidence. Wyatt and Moller both raise this to extreme levels of intellectual dishonesty in how they present their supporting evidence. He just simply ignores what other people have said about the sites. He ignores that there are explanations of the pillars, the so-called altar, that there is no evidence of the mountain being burned on top after formation, that the drawings on the altar aren’t of the style or type that would be expected, and further that those drawings make no sense in conjunction with the Exodus story, etc.

---

I agree.I addressed this issue to buzsaw way back in message #91 or #92 of this thread, got ignored, had to pester him to get an answer, and he just handwaved it away as being "more yada".I tried to explain that dealing with alternative explanations and conflicting evidence and other contadictory findings in one's research papers is SOP for real scientific methodology.Buz didn't want to hear it, I guess, do he shut his mind to that reality.

I like my new saying better: "Respect those who have earned it."

quote:

---

Disrespect is also earned.

---

Agreed.

quote:

---

Try to think how frustrating it might be if you were trying to prove something,

---

Actually, in real scientific investigation, people aren't "trying to prove" things.The fact that you indicate that this is what these people were doing just shows 1) that you don't know enough about the scientific process to have that be a red flag to you that they aren't doing science, and 2) they aren't doing science.In real scientific investigation, a hypothesis is constructed to try to explain some natural phenomena. Then, the hypothesis is tested to see if it holds up.Your folks have a preconceived idea of what they want the outcome to be, and they are ony interested in making a case for the results of testing to be what they want them to be. They do not include in their report, therefore, any problems or alternative explanation for why anything appears as it does.Take buz and the split rock nonsense.I have simply asked him how, if two samples were set down in front of me, I could tell which one was the special exodus kind and a regular split rock. I've asked him at least 3 times, and all he says is "it's obvious".Maybe I'm dense or something, but I have no idea what makes it "obvious" to him, and I wanted him to explain it to me. So far, no explanation.Why should I belive him if he can't even begin to explain why the split rocks are so different?

quote:

---

and an archaeologist came along and supported your claim. But then he dissapears before he reveals his name.

---

Yeah, it sucks. Too bad.

quote:

---

Wouldn't you at least want to tell others that you know an archaeologist said this, but yet you couldn't find out his name?

---

Maybe what happened is that there actually is no archaeologist.

quote:

---

If you guys only knew what Ron went through...he was ready to pull out his hair because it was so difficult to keep things organized...people made it very hard for him.

---

Poor Ron.The fact remains that you cannot use imaginary or unnamed people to support your arguments.THE EVIDENCE SUPPORTS (or not) YOUR ARGUMENTS, not people.

quote:

---

But no, all his camp is doing is criticize the ones who's done all the research of observation and study.

---

That's what scientists do all the time, buz.Your problem is that the methodology of these people is clearly terrible.Anybody can understand bastic scientific methodology, which is why we are able to rip these "findings" up so easily.Remember what I said about the absence in this research report of potential falsifications, problems with the findings, and others' findings that contradict theirs?Remember how I explained how this kind of thing is found in every real scientific paper?While you chose to not address any of these points and instead handwave them away, they are most certainly part of the normal rigor of scientific methodology.From what we have seen so far, the methodology is so poor and the findings so cherry picked and biased towards a preconceived outcome that it is laughable.

hangover prevention:before going to bed, drink as many glasses of water as you can possibly get down your neck.hangover cure:water
water
more water
orange juice
bananas
ibuprofen