Buzsaw writes:
If they stood alone, the value of them as evidence would be diminished.
Well, that's the whole point isn't it? If you look at the coral alone, they are not wagon wheels. If you look at the Gulf of Aqaba alone, there's no sand bank. If you look at the black mountain top, there are black mountain tops all over the place.
If someone says to you: "there is no sandbank at Nuweiba" then you say: "but look at the wagon wheels." But if someone says to you: "there are no wagon wheels" then you say "but look at the sandbank".
But that is not how it works. According to you, there should be wagon wheels
and there should be a sand bank, or evidence of its former existence. If it is shown to you that the coral is not a wagon wheel (as has been shown to you), then you must drop it from your argument,
if you are honest. But that is not what you do. You keep referring to it as "corroborating evidence" without explicitly making clear what exactly that evidence is. And that is, to be honest, dishonet.
The point is, you keep referring to "corroborating evidence"without making explicit what exactly that "corroborating evidence" is. And that allows you to keep referring to it, even though each of your individual evidences (the sandbank, the wheels, the black mountain top etc) have been refuted in their own right.
And that's your whole strategy: keep your "evidence" fuzzy and inexplicit in hope that we can't refute it. It might work for you, but it certainly doesn't work for me.