"The Exodus Revealed" Video II

Are you saying that you HAVE presented objective evidence?? Maybe if you could put a link to the post where you have done so!!Assertions of this kind are meaningless without the ability to back up your claim.I am rather new on the forum, and I would love to see where you present objective evidence your claims. Where is the evidence that the story of
Exodus is more than a story?

quote:

---

My point was - all the evidence suggests it took place at 2pm, but it happened at 3pm. Don't mess with Columbo!

---

When one considers the evidence, they are to consider all the evidence. The proponents of Wyatt don’t seem to get this -- Columbo, would have. Notice Columbo asks a lot of questions before he forms his conclusions. Your question was misleading since you didn’t give a date or a context, but of course that was your point. ;-)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.If you take Crashfrog’s analogy of connecting the points, then the suitable analogy of Wyatt’s and Moller’s works would be to draw the picture they want, ignore most of the dots, and add a few that might be there is only someone would look.

Sorry, I gave up on reading the bible and trying to find evidence for the stuff in it a long time ago.

---

The Laminator
For goodness's sake, please vote Democrat this November!

quote:

---

Originally posted by ramoss

​

But, if the evidence can not be provided, and all we get is insults to Charles, it doesn't look to good for either you or Buzz.

---

Hi ramoss,As you have stated, you are rather new on the board. So I thought it might be well to let you know that, not knowing Ned, you have apparently misinterpreted his post.Ned was simply needling buzsaw a little; that's all.Good to see you aboard, don't be a stranger,Amlodhi

Ramoss,There is no evidence. If there was evidence it would have been put forward. It would be better if they had paraphrased the "badges? We don't need not stinking badges" substituting "evidence" for "badges".Wyatt was a talented performer who had a dog and pony show that played really well to those who want to believe it. These kind of things have appeared in relgion down through the ages, "the pieces of the true cross" to " the Book of Mormon". They love the tapes and his talks and simply lack sufficient education in science to know what consistutes evidence. There is no science here and no intent to do science on Wyatt's part. That is my conclustion in a nutshell.I've grown weary of this thread.lfen

Could you even spell e v i d e n c e before you came here? Why don't you look the word up in the dictionary?--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not quite all. Charlie was soundly implicated in it.

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.

I suggest you go back to the Exodus Video I thread and begin reading through page 43 where it ends. Then read this thread, Video II. If then you see no evidence, get back to us and begin refuting what we consider to be evidence if you can come up with something better than has already been tried.

removed by author.This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 08-11-2004 08:06 PM

quote:

---

You may be calm, but you are being very irritating about it. You remind of Cherryfunk from SPSW--where you constantly ask something that requires a moutain load of explanation, without doing some research on your own. It's like you almost enjoy watching us suffer if we can't give you a straight forward answer just the way you like. You intentionally ask your questions in ways that you know could trap us--and leave us no room to describe circumstances. My statement was a bit rash--and uncalled for--and for this I apologize.

---

I really have little interest in mediating, so don’t take this as comment specific to the dispute.I have wanted to comment on this for some time, but I kept finding myself distracted. Still, after the Columbo tangent.Let us say that there is a cookie forum on the internet. One day someone posts that they have seen the perfect cookie recipe. When pushed they offer that they think there was flour, some kind of encrusted chocolate chips, butter, sweetner, eggs, salt, a bit of baking powder, and a secret ingredient in the recipe. Others respond asking them for measurements and the poster tells them they can send away for a video explaining everything, but of course they should get the book since not all the measurements are given in the video. Some point out that with those ingredients, dozen’s or even hundreds of cookies might be the result. Someone else points out that depending on the measurements the results might not even be a cookie. A lone voice points out that if the baking powder is not a real recipe then you might even be making mole. A huge fight breaks out over whether the chocolate is sweet, semi-sweet, or bitter chocolate. Someone points out that since we do not know where the chocolate came from it might be M&Ms.I do not want to go on too long about this. The point is that if the person had posted a proper recipe then a proper discussion could take place. Asking others to do the research is like listing the ingredients and then telling people to play with the amounts.I have notice you mentioning the amount of effort you and others have spent to find the evidence, on one hand you should not have to spend the effort, on the other you really should not have to spend the effort. Like the person selling a cookbook, Wyatt and Moller (in their respective positions) should present their work better. To get scientist to take them seriously, they will have to do this at some point. That you have to spend so much effort simply to try to answer questions even more demonstrates how poor of a job they have done.

He can use that in another thread, though IMO you'll lose credibility supporting Wyatt's ark theories.

quote:

---

Incidentally Trae, this mountain is not too far away from you.

---

Neat, thanks, I will have to look for it next time I travel though there. I think we’d both agree that this only demonstrates the importance of checking to see what is known about what appears to be a find. I have been surprised at how many finds just turn out to be things found in nature. Just typing that gives me pause. The ark is a natural formation, the ‘five cities’ are natural formations, and the brimstone is a natural formation. As a pattern, it surely makes me even more suspicious that the coral shapes are just natural formations of coral.

quote:

---

At a personal level, I would have no problem with Jabal al Lawz being Mt. Sinai or with Nuweiba being the exodus crossing. But it has certainly not been demonstrated that they are.

---

Agreed. Some might say that finding Mt. Sinai would prove the inerrancy of the Bible. Logically, that would require finding Mt. Sinai at a period consistent to one claimed in Bible, or consistent with an event of the Bible. Anything other than some use of that nature can be explained away as someone later incorporating or creating a mythos.Unlike what has been suggested here by others, physical evidence of a historical Exodus does not equate proof of a Biblical God, anymore than proof of a historic Troy is proof of Poseidon, Apollo, et al.

quote:

---

But I think its wise to research a subject before making blind assertions, something you seem either incapable or unwilling to do yourself (an exhibition of almost the entirety of your contribution to this thread).

---

You could address the issues you are already familiar with. That you have to do research outside of the book and video suggests to this reader that neither the book nor the video present the case as convincingly as we have been led to believe.

Edited by Lam.This message has been edited by Lama dama ding dong, 08-11-2004 10:33 PM

---

The Laminator
For goodness's sake, please vote Democrat this November!