Re: No Absolute Bible Refutation

On Aug 18, 12:48 am, "A.Carlson" <amca...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 10:54:55 -0700, mc...@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:

<clip>

4. Subsurface radar shows a rib pattern:

http://wyattmuseum.com/images/wpe1C.jpg

Highly fudged drawings aren't a "rib pattern".

The picture of the scans was looked over by Tom Fenner of GSSI and he
said "those are the results I had hope to get last year."

But you also know damn well that isn't all he has said about said
(very brief and limited) scans.

No it's not Carlson. The disagreement that Fenner had was that he
failed to achieve the results and thought that the radar was probably
tampered with. I wrote to GSSI, the makers of the radar, and they
told me that tampering was impossible. That proves that Fenner does
not know his instruments.






Except for in the minds of creationists (IE, morons like yourself) the
issue was never about whether or not Tom Fenner looked favorably on
the scant 'evidence' provided to him that day but whether or not Ron
'The Con' provided sufficient evidence to support the elaborate claims
he was making about an elaborate man-made structure he could only
claim lay beneath the site.

But you have the facts wrong. Fenner never contended that the radar
scans were limited. You can't provide a single cite to prove that.
If a scan of just 1/3 of the site proved ribs, both longitude and
latitude, that would be sufficient. The fact is, you shouldn't get
any rib structure in any scans if this were merely natural geography.
And I guess this is the information that you are trying to cover up.




The fact that Tom Fenner, a far more experienced person that your pal
the nurse anesthetist (and with none of the abysmal baggage Con Man
Ron carried regarding his own credibility), could never replicate
Wyatt's findings is mere icing on the cake.

When someone like Fenner contradicts himself (stating live on movie
film, that he sees a pattern in his OWN radar scans) and later denying
it (while claiming that if he is seen in this with a "bunch of holy
mollies" that this would "discredit him as a scientist") this
discredits him and not the scans. You have never addressed this.



No one, including Wyatt,
has ever produced convincing evidence that doesn't rely on the
gullibility of the already converted.

False, leading archeologist Ekrem Akurgal, an atheist, believed that
it was a boat.





5. Metal detector scan done by J. Baumgarnder.

Which would have been useless, as metal detectors don't work for more than a
few inches under ground.

2-3 ft or more depending on size of object underground and size of the
detector loop.

And exactly how deep was this alleged formation again that your pal
the nurse anesthetist made so many elaborate and still unsubstantiated
claims about?

And wasn't Dr. Baumgardner the one who at least had the integrity to
drill a few core samples to verify whether or not what he thought was
there really was? That was a far cry from any of the totally
inadequate and often manipulative measures that your pal Ron 'The Con'
took.

Here you've got the facts wrong. The permit for the coring was
obtained by Ron Wyatt.



A video that Dana tweedy hasn't seen.

Which may not even exist. Even if it did, it's not evidence of anything but
a bunch of guys ran around on a rock formation.

I was offering it on my website for $25 before the video became an
object of contention, thus proving your contention false. And how can
you say it's a video of guys running around when you haven't seen it?
Are you playing god?

I'm not sure that I've seen any scenes from that particular video but
I have certainly seen video of them traipsing around with their
dowsing rods.

You mean you saw David Fasold with a dowsing rod. But you never seen
Baumgardner with metal detector? Why? Are you ignorant?



Do you still believe in and defend the use of dowsing
rods?

So do you believe in the use of metal detectors?




It certainly didn't cast them in a good light. of course
neither did Wyatt's own claims about finding virtually every last
major biblical find backed by nothing but his own word even when the
situation suggested far more evidence would be available if he wasn't
lying through his teeth.

The editor of Bible Archeology Review magazine believes that Wyatt's
Jebel Al Lawz is Mt Sinai, and so do some other scientists. A Swedish
scientist and head of a team of other scientists have taken sides with
Wyatt. Supporters include Robert Cornuke and Larry Williams.






Have you ever gotten around to finding any credible evidence that
supports his outlandish claim about the number of Israeli officials
suffering a horrendous death at the hand of your god because they had
the audacity to try and muscle in on Wyatt's own personal Ark of the
Covenant find? How can so many people die in such a spectacular way
and yet there is no evidence whatsoever (other than your pal Ron 'The
Con' Wyatt's worthless word) that such an event ever took place?

Wyatt has never provided any evidence for this. Since you haven't
seen the evidence how can you say it's false?






So that's a fact.

No, that's and excuse for why the structure doesn't match the dimentions.

I'm
glad that you disagree with me here, because it shows that you don't
even understand simple concepts.

Wow, another irony meter down the drain..... Your making up stories for
why
things don't match is not evidence. Excuses are not "simple concepts".

What irony, Tweedy?

That you are accusing others of not understanding simple concepts, when you
can't even understand simple triginometry.

When you contradict yourself? Stating that boats do not splay, that
splaying is not due to entropy, and an assortment of other gaffs?
Explain your contradictions.

Care to explain dowsing or justify it's use?

Care to explain metal detecting and it's use?



Care to explain why your nurse anesthetist pal should be considered
more credible

Care to explain why Dr Ekrem Akurgal and Dr Bayractutan support the
Ark?



than a number of far more qualified individuals on
subjects that are directly related to the fields that they specialized
in?

Care to explain why you said nobody supports the Ark and I immediately
tore into that idea, ripped it to pieces with the fact of leading Dr
Ekrem AKURGAL, the discoverer of the Hittite kingdom and author of
numerous papers in peer reviewed papers? Care to explain why you had
to lie?




Care to explain how a conventional metal detector that could only
detect a foot or two down would be at all useful for a claimed
structure that, if it even existed, would be far deeper than that?

Care to explain why you have never seen the 1985-6 Noah's Ark video or
why you were ignorant of Ekrem Akurgal?






You've just chopped up my arguments rendering
them unintelligible

Your "arguments" are unintelligible on their own.

and then insert "wow, another irony metter down
the drain." Dana Tweedy is very brash when it comes to cutting up
sentences so he doesn't have to deal with arguments.

You don't have any "arguments" worthy of the name. You whine about
"cutting up" your claims, when you can't come up with any answers for my
points.

I did. You are much to incoherent.

"boats splaying is silly."

"Boats splay due to gravity."

Non-existent boats don't do anything!

Care to explain why you haven't seen the 1985-6 Noah's Ark Field
Survey video and care to explain why you do not know who Ekrem Akurgal
was? Care to explain it?





Secondly, Moses was educated in the wisdom of the Egyptians.

Moses was most likely a legendary figure. Since Moses wasn't alive
during
the "Noah's Ark" story anyway, so what?

Your claim about Moses being a legendary figure is a mere guess off
the top of your head.

It's not a "guess" but a conclusion from the evidence. There is no
mention
of a Moses in Egyptian records.

But there is evidence. Moses was thutmoses II.

What evidence for that claim??

It's easy. The Bible tells us when Solomon reigned. Every Bible
scholar understands this. Through correlation we work back the date of
the exodus and it comes out to the time of Thutmoses III. He would
have been the perfect pharoah of the Exodus. And there is only one
time that a single woman became an object of attention and that would
be Hatshepsut. Thust Thutmoses II was Moses. The pharoah's daughter
would be Hatshepsut or Nefure when she was young.

Of course the historic exodus itself didn't even occur as reflected in
the bible, but then what's new.

According to your hypothesis a woman should not even have been
important in any period of Egyptian history, and of couse that was
falsified.



he disapeared without
a trace.

Evidence for this assertion?

I read about it in Egyptian history books

Did it have an orange cover?

Was it a geology textbook with a Haeckel chart, the one that was
verified and said not to exist?



Perhaps there actually are a few history books that also incorporate a
biblical or biblically inspired point of view but then that could
hardly be considered independent corroboration if the stories
themselves come straight from the bible or from a biblical tradition.

Maybe you're just a scoffer.

II Peter:3::3 "Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last
days scoffers,"

"5 For this they are willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of
God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water
and in the water: whereby the world that then was, being overflowed
with water, perished:



Afterward many of his monuments, along with Hatshepsut, were
vandalized.

As were many monuments in Egypt. So what?

Which ones?

There was that one pharaoh who tried to bring monotheism to Egypt.
Once he was gone his successors carried out a lot of such vandalism.

Akenaten was the pharoah after Thutmoses III. He would have been
alive during Joshua's invasion of Israel. Akenaten tried to start
monotheism, that is worship of the SUN alone. Why? Because one day
the sun stood still for a long time in the horizon. And since Joshua
caused the sun to stand still we would expect this to happen. Akenaten
apparently felt, what the Hittites called the "omen of the sun," to be
a threat by the sun god, a demand to worship it only. Why would
Akenaten feel the threat or make this conclusion? Egypt had just gone
through a series of plagues and also the royal Egyptian army had been,
with Tutankamen III destroyed in the Red Sea.

The historical facts are these:

Akenaten would have been in Egypt during Joshua's invasion. This fact
is established because Thutmoses II was Moses (his statue shows him
with a semitic nose). The only significant woman was Hatshepsut and
she fit in the right period of time. And excavations at Jericho show
that the last scarabs found there were from Thutmoses III, the Pharoah
that dies in the Red Sea. There are NO scarabs from any later
pharoahs found there. The Hittites also had an "Omen of the sun" which
corresponded with Akenaten's monotheism. Also fact is that the
widowed pharoah wrote a letter to the Hittites,w hich were previously
their enemies, asking for a husband, because there was nobody but
slaves for her to marry in Egypt. This implies all the military men,
all the priesthood, and other dignitaries, were all destroyed. She
said she could marry nobody but slaves. Why did the widowed wife of
Thutmoses III write to her enemies and how could Egypt be emptied of
its dignataries. (That scenario sounds like a made up story, because
it's sounds farfetched, yet, I have posted the exact text several
years ago on this newsgroup.)




Christians themselves had a habit of obliterating symbols that they
had problems with. Just like with what they did to all of those pagan
stones in the vicinity of the Durupinar site where early Christians
carved crosses over the pagan symbols. One or two of these stones
even happened to coincidentally appear to have eight crosses on them.

That's a made up story. In fact ultraviolet rays reveals your theory
to be false. In fact anchorstones that are still buried in the mud,
but only slightly exposed show no carvings at all.






We know exactly who Moses was and we know that he didn't
stick around for very long. And we also know from the records that he
wasn't from Egyptian stock.

Where are you getting this, or are you simply making it up on the spot?

No, but you are making it up on the spot.

The facts are:

Exodus says that Moses was educated by Egyptians.

Which is not evidence. It's simply an assertion.

Dana Tweedy now asserts that the book of Exodus doesn't say that Moses
was educated by Egyptians. It does say so.

It's an assertion Moses even existed. Citing the Bible as evidence for the
Bible is circular reasoning.

Tweedy messes up. He says that Exodus doens't say that Moses was
educated an Egyptian.

Good god! Are you really that retarded? (my apologies to retarded
people for comparing them to you)

Are you disagreeing? Dana did respond that that Exodus doesn't say
that Moses was educated an Egyptian.




Exodus DOES SAY things about Moses but the point that Tweedy so
clearly was making was that this doesn't make it so! To use the Bible
to back up the Bible would be no different than using Moby *** to
back up the historicity of Captain Ahab.

That's quite silly. The Bible has been used to find cities. It's a
geological map written down on paper. It plainly tells us to look in
the mountains of Armenia for a 300 cubit long Ark. And strangely
enough, some 12 or so miles south of Mt Ararat such a structure
exists. All the evidence I have described has been intentially ignored
by you. And further you ignore the contradictions made by your
comrade. You should scold him for stating boats do not splay, then
backtracking and saying that boats splay due to gravity. And of course
you should really chide him for stating that splaying is not entropy/




Now he says that citing the Bible as evidence is
circular reasoning. He evidently forgot the entire argument that I put
forth. I said that the Ark is 515 ft long per Egyptian Royal cubit.
And then I said that Moses was educated an Egyptian and that Jewish
tradition was that Moses wrote the Torah.
The fact that this Ark
is 515ft long certainly fits the puzzle perfectly. In fact my
argument is the puzzle argument.
The Puzzle Argument. When all the facts fit perfectly in the puzzle
and explain every curve and every fitting.

Only if you ignore a plethora of counter-evidence that clearly
contradicts the claims being made.

You've basically ignored the Puzzle argument.

What did I expect anyway?

JM



Yes there is iron oxide and other minerals at the ...

read more »



.

Loading