Chariot Wheels in Red Sea
J M
A friend of mine returned from the Red Sea in December. Eric Lembcke
of Paradise California travelled with Ron Wyatt of Tennessee and Dr.
Lennart Moller, associate professor of the Karolinska Institute center
for Nutrition and Toxicology in Sweden and his freind "Rory."
"First day we got a bedouin to take us out on one of these flimsey boats.
I noticed that Rory had one of his tanks on backwards. I helped straighten
it out. Then we was that his weight belt was on backwards. We were
sweating out there in our suits as we fixed the belt. Ron had a video
camera and I had the light to shine it on what he wanted to video. A
$800 light. We got ready to go down and I get 10 feet and notice mylight
was not on me. I looked at my wrest and the light is gone.
" So I signaled, let's go up. When you lose something it hits you hard.
Especially when it belongs to someone else. I wanted to go down and look
for the light right then, but the professor said 'let's just go and search
for the parts'. So we went down for 45 minutes and didn't see anything
so we surfaced."
"I wanted tofind the light now so I went down and I saw the light and
resurfaced. When I surfaced I noticed that Rory was gone. But we could
see his bubbles so Ron says, 'why don't you go down and get him'. So I
go down 80 ft and five ft from the bottom and all of a sudden I noticed a
chariot wheel. It had 6 spokes and I could make out how round it was.
[Eric makes a circle with his hand - JM ].I could make out the round hub.
It was similar to the one we saw in Cairo at King Tutanhamen's exhibit.
" When Rory saw it his eye's got big. I mean big. He went straight down
and started yanking on it trying to pull it up. And he was kicking up silt.
I tried getting his attention to get him to stop. I could tell he was
breathing hard and he ran out of air so I shared my air with him and we
went straight up forgetting to pause as we're supposed to. I felt a little
dizzy after that. It was the first day of diving and when I discovered the
part it was getting dark.
"On the second day we went down again but we could'nt find the part.
Ron was able to photograph an eight-spoked one, however. Once you get
your eyes off something it's hard to find it again. It's a grayish blue
down there."
"The currents there are always changing and moving the sediments. One
day the parts may be covered and another day it's completely exposed.
The bottom is always moving constantly.
JM
Pangea
And this proves Creation?
Hezekiah
Pangea <xxpan...@earthlink.net> wrote in article
<01bd2e7a$53441320$3090d9cf@vucqpqlj>...
> And this proves Creation?
What are you friggin' talking about? He never even said that! He's just
talking about the chariot wheels that he found there in the Red Sea. He
never even uttered words about anything else! All this evidence does is
reinforce the exodus of the Hebrews (1446-1406 B.C.). The chariot wheels
with six spokes tells us that they were from the 18th dynasty during the
time of Amenhotep II. Therefor, the exodus seems a plausible story with
evidence to support it.
Thomas Scharle
In article <01bd2e7a$53441320$3090d9cf@vucqpqlj>, "Pangea" <xxpan...@earthlink.net> writes:
|> And this proves Creation?
Chariot wheels in the Red Sea prove creation as much as
does irreducible complexity in blood clotting.
Just that some people use bigger words.
--
Tom Scharle scha...@nd.edu "standard disclaimer"
Yang Hu
Once upon a time in there were 8 suns, and people suffered beacuse the
land was to hot. One day a great Chinese warrior who strength is rivaled
by non was asked by the suffering populace to relieve them of their
tribulation. He then drew a normal arrow made by a contempoary peasant,
endowed it with magic, and shot it at one of the suns. The first sun
fell, and disappeared from existence. He did this for seven times and
there was one left. As he was about to shoot the last one, the people
came up to him and asked him to spare the last sun for it is needed to
provide warmth. He agreed and left his arrows on the ground. This
happened 8,000 years ago around Cheng Du, a city in Northern China.
We know this is true because an archaeological team has uncovered
remains of a set of arrows that is consistent with the style and
technique of arrow making at the time. This should be seen as proof that
there were 8 suns 8,000 years ago.
How could this happen? We know that binary stars are posible. So the
solar system must have unwittingly captured a set of 7 orbiting suns as
it passes through the plane of the solar system. According to the
Chinese text, we know that such magical power of destorying the sun is
possible.
q.e.d
Yang
#28
Pangea
Hezekiah <toaste...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in article
<6avt6p$3...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>...
:
:
: Pangea <xxpan...@earthlink.net> wrote in article
Well then if this has no relevance to Evolution/Creation then he probably
should posted this on alt.bible.
:
C & S Marta
J M <mc...@dcsi.net> wrote in article <34D284...@dcsi.net>...
> A friend of mine returned from the Red Sea in December. Eric Lembcke
> of Paradise California travelled with Ron Wyatt of Tennessee and Dr.
> Lennart Moller, associate professor of the Karolinska Institute center
> for Nutrition and Toxicology in Sweden and his freind "Rory."
>
> "First day we got a bedouin to take us out on one of these flimsey boats.
> I noticed that Rory had one of his tanks on backwards. I helped
straighten
> it out. Then we was that his weight belt was on backwards. We were
> sweating out there in our suits as we fixed the belt.
I wouldn't go diving with someone who didn't even know how to put his
equipment on! Not outside a kiddie pool, anyway.
Christina.
Hellspawn
On 31 Jan 1998 12:51:22 -0500, J M <mc...@dcsi.net> wrote:
Why is it that nameless, Wyatt, and his buddies seem to be the only
people in the WORLD that know about these chariot parts?! Where is
Chuck Heston?!
Hellspawn
#11
J M
But without this man's goofs they wouldn't have found the chariot
wheels.
JM
J M
Pangea wrote:
>
> And this proves Creation?
>
>
This is one proof of the Bible. I suppose that Mose can cross through the
midst of the Red Sea and the world can't be created? I don't know about
this kind of logic.
JM
J M
Hezekiah wrote:
>
> Pangea <xxpan...@earthlink.net> wrote in article
> <01bd2e7a$53441320$3090d9cf@vucqpqlj>...
> > And this proves Creation?
>
> What are you friggin' talking about? He never even said that! He's just
> talking about the chariot wheels that he found there in the Red Sea. He
> never even uttered words about anything else! All this evidence does is
> reinforce the exodus of the Hebrews (1446-1406 B.C.). The chariot wheels
> with six spokes tells us that they were from the 18th dynasty during the
> time of Amenhotep II. Therefor, the exodus seems a plausible story with
> evidence to support it.
You're very knowledgeable about Egyptian history.
JM
J M
The numbers are increasing.
JM
J M
A friend of mine returned from the Red Sea in December. Eric Lembcke
of Paradise California travelled with Ron Wyatt of Tennessee and Dr.
Lennart Moller, associate professor of the Karolinska Institute center
for Nutrition and Toxicology in Sweden and his freind "Rory."
"First day we got a bedouin to take us out on one of these flimsey boats.
I noticed that Rory had one of his tanks on backwards. I helped straighten
it out. Then we was that his weight belt was on backwards. We were
Capella
Hellspawn wrote:
>
> On 31 Jan 1998 12:51:22 -0500, J M <mc...@dcsi.net> wrote:
>
> Why is it that nameless, Wyatt, and his buddies seem to be the only
> people in the WORLD that know about these chariot parts?! Where is
> Chuck Heston?!
>
> Hellspawn
> #11
JM told us a long time ago. According to him it's because the
evil atheistic archaelogists don't want the world to know that
God exists.
:^)
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Capella #5
Dallas, Texas
New:
Genesis 1 creation myth compared to much older Enuma Elish
Also over a hundred different Bible contradictions,
attrocities, errors, failed prophecies, etc... at:
Capella's guide to Atheism
http://web2.airmail.net/capella/aguide
J M
COUSTEAUNY wrote:
As you recall, I told you that I saw on your original e-maile that there
was a reference to the last two years of Cousteau's logs. YOu deleted
them and told me that was never written there. I contested that on
alt.atheism and resented your letter that had "poisoned the well". Since
you said you never did post that I e-mailed them and received this reply,
which to claim doesn't exit.
The rest are in the vaults, just as you said.
JM
Here's my e-mail:
> Dear Mr. McCoy,
> I'm a little confused by your question--do wish to purchase old copies of The
> Calypso Log? Or is there a particular subject you are need information about?
>
> At any rate, please call our toll-free number; 1-800-441-4395; that is our
> main U.S. office in Virginia; someone will be able to help you there. (I only
> have copies of the most recent logs; the past couple of years.)
>
> Thank you for your interest in The Cousteau Society.
>
> Best wishes,
> Lisa Rao
> Editor
> The Cousteau Society
g&g #750
J M <mc...@dcsi.net> wrote in article <34D2BF...@dcsi.net>...
> C & S Marta wrote:
> >
> > J M <mc...@dcsi.net> wrote in article <34D284...@dcsi.net>...
>
> But without this man's goofs they wouldn't have found the chariot
> wheels.
>
> JM
>
Glenn R. wrote:
Of course all of these goofs were brought on by god so that these poor
fools could discover the proof of the Moses exodus. Makes sense to me.
Seriously though, as a SCUBA diver, I can't imagine how it would be
possible to even get a tank on backwards. And, since the term used was
"tanks" it had to have been a double-tank harness. This would be virtually
impossible to get on backwards. The weight belt is made with a
quick-release buckle. Putting it on "backwards" would mean that it would
be easier for the other hand to release it but nothing more. An $800 light
would be quite a bit of equipment. I know several amateur underwater
photographers who own some very elaborate equipment. I don't think any of
them own a light that would cost anywhere close to $800. And these
bumbling idiots who don't even know how to put on a tank are swimming
around with an $800 light. I can't imagine that. And how on earth could
you be in the water and suddenly realize you have dropped a big light? I
know of no lights that would fit on your wrist (as this person indicated)
that would cost more than $50. Even cheap lights are pretty heavy and
bulky so not noticing that you had dropped one would be an amazing thing.
An $800 one would be a pretty sophisticated light like a strobe or
something hooked to a camera or something like that. When I go diving I
make damn sure that I know where I am and where everybody else is. We
would never be so stupid or treacherous to leave a buddy in the water where
his location would only be known from his bubble trail. If we ever find
anything interesting that can't be brought to the surface we would mark it
and return with a line from the boat to bring it up. These folks were only
in 80 feet and probably in pretty clear water. Finding something as
spectacular as an ancient wheel is something that no diver would ever
abandon without marking it in some way and diving to it again as soon as
the charts would allow the next dive. I have been fortunate to find some
old stuff and it is always exciting. However, everything that I have found
that is old wood has been extremely fragile. And, I have never found
anything nearly as old as this chariot wheel would have been. Maybe it is
possible for a 4,000 year old wooden-spoked wheel to have maintained some
structural integrity, but I sorta doubt it. Pulling on it as this guy
described almost certainly would have destroyed it. Plus if it was that
difficult to move and they made no attempt whatsoever to dig it out, I
seriously doubt that it would have moved merely under the influence of the
changing tide. And, by the way, why didn't they try to dig it out? Seems
really stupid to me. Everything this person says indicates to me that he
and his clumsy buddies know nothing about diving. I think the whole story
is a complete fabrication.
>
>
g&g #750
J M <mc...@dcsi.net> wrote in article <34D2C3...@dcsi.net>...
> for the light right then, but the professor said 'let's just go and
search
> for the parts'. So we went down for 45 minutes and didn't see anything
> so we surfaced."
>
> "I wanted tofind the light now so I went down and I saw the light and
> resurfaced. When I surfaced I noticed that Rory was gone. But we could
> see his bubbles so Ron says, 'why don't you go down and get him'. So I
> go down 80 ft
<blah blah blah snip>
Glenn R. wrote:
As I said in an earlier post, these guys are complete nuts. Everything
this person has said is a lie. Free diving in 80 ft for 45 minutes can be
damn hard on your health and then to go down again would be suicide. This
whole story is so full of ignorance it can't possibly be true.
Mark Bare
There are NO chariots at the bottom of the red sea JM, so quite wishing and
posting your made-up stories or someone else's made-up story. That sea
bottom has been EXTENSIVELY explored for just what you are trying to prove
is there and nothing has been found. There was no exodus and moses was
probably an egyptian whose story the hebrews just co-opted (imagine that)
J M wrote in message <34D284...@dcsi.net>...
>A friend of mine returned from the Red Sea in December. Eric Lembcke
>of Paradise California travelled with Ron Wyatt of Tennessee and Dr.
>Lennart Moller, associate professor of the Karolinska Institute center
>for Nutrition and Toxicology in Sweden and his freind "Rory."
>
>"First day we got a bedouin to take us out on one of these flimsey boats.
>I noticed that Rory had one of his tanks on backwards. I helped straighten
>it out. Then we was that his weight belt was on backwards. We were
>sweating out there in our suits as we fixed the belt. Ron had a video
>camera and I had the light to shine it on what he wanted to video. A
>$800 light. We got ready to go down and I get 10 feet and notice mylight
>was not on me. I looked at my wrest and the light is gone.
>
>" So I signaled, let's go up. When you lose something it hits you hard.
>Especially when it belongs to someone else. I wanted to go down and look
>for the light right then, but the professor said 'let's just go and search
>for the parts'. So we went down for 45 minutes and didn't see anything
>so we surfaced."
>
>"I wanted tofind the light now so I went down and I saw the light and
>resurfaced. When I surfaced I noticed that Rory was gone. But we could
>see his bubbles so Ron says, 'why don't you go down and get him'. So I
>go down 80 ft and five ft from the bottom and all of a sudden I noticed a
>chariot wheel. It had 6 spokes and I could make out how round it was.
>[Eric makes a circle with his hand - JM ].I could make out the round hub.
>It was similar to the one we saw in Cairo at King Tutanhamen's exhibit.
>
>" When Rory saw it his eye's got big. I mean big. He went straight down
>and started yanking on it trying to pull it up. And he was kicking up
silt.
>I tried getting his attention to get him to stop. I could tell he was
>breathing hard and he ran out of air so I shared my air with him and we
>went straight up forgetting to pause as we're supposed to. I felt a little
>dizzy after that. It was the first day of diving and when I discovered the
>part it was getting dark.
>
>"On the second day we went down again but we could'nt find the part.
Brian R. Speer
Hellspawn wrote:
> Why is it that nameless, Wyatt, and his buddies seem to be the only
> people in the WORLD that know about these chariot parts?! Where is
> Chuck Heston?!
He's been busy doing "Mysterious Origins of Mankind" for the Hare
krishnas. The only thing that made that show worth watching was when it
looked like Heston was about to burst into laughter as a result of his
script.
--Brian R. Speer
UC Museum of Paleontology
vesp...@socrates.berkeley.edu
C & S Marta
> >
> > On 31 Jan 1998 12:51:22 -0500, J M <mc...@dcsi.net> wrote:
> >
> > Why is it that nameless, Wyatt, and his buddies seem to be the only
> > people in the WORLD that know about these chariot parts?! Where is
> > Chuck Heston?!
Circumstantial evidence is like a trout in the milk.
Christina
C & S Marta
g&g #750 <gri...@gte.net> wrote in article <6b0ask$5o9$1...@gte1.gte.net>...
>
>
> J M <mc...@dcsi.net> wrote in article <34D2BF...@dcsi.net>...
> > C & S Marta wrote:
> > >
> > > J M <mc...@dcsi.net> wrote in article <34D284...@dcsi.net>...
> >
> > But without this man's goofs they wouldn't have found the chariot
> > wheels.
> >
> > JM
> >
> Glenn R. wrote:
>
> Of course all of these goofs were brought on by god so that these poor
> fools could discover the proof of the Moses exodus. Makes sense to me.
>
<well-written, point-by-point debunking of SCUBA diver's tale of finding
chariot wheels snipped>
Seems to me these people showed as much intellectual vigour and curiosity
as some of these so-called "abductees." While reputable people go to
amazing lengths to find ANY conclusive evidence to back up extraordinary
claims, somebody finds a metal probe that had been inserted into his
nostril, glances at it, and throws it away. And they expect me to believe
this hooey?
Christina
ps. If anybody is going to make up another cock-and-bull story, do us all a
favour. Do some research.
J M
g&g #750 wrote:
>
> J M <mc...@dcsi.net> wrote in article <34D2BF...@dcsi.net>...
> > C & S Marta wrote:
> > >
> > > J M <mc...@dcsi.net> wrote in article <34D284...@dcsi.net>...
> >
> > But without this man's goofs they wouldn't have found the chariot
> > wheels.
> >
> > JM
> >
> Glenn R. wrote:
>
> Of course all of these goofs were brought on by god so that these poor
> fools could discover the proof of the Moses exodus. Makes sense to me.
>
> possible to even get a tank on backwards. And, since the term used was
> "tanks" it had to have been a double-tank harness. This would be virtually
> impossible to get on backwards.
As a diver myself I know that you can put on a tank or tanks on
backwards. There are a couple of different ways to do that and you've
got to know what Eric means by that. Otherwise you are misleading this
newsgroup.
The weight belt is made with a
> quick-release buckle. Putting it on "backwards" would mean that it would
> be easier for the other hand to release it but nothing more. An $800 light
> would be quite a bit of equipment. I know several amateur underwater
> photographers who own some very elaborate equipment. I don't think any of
> them own a light that would cost anywhere close to $800. And these
> bumbling idiots who don't even know how to put on a tank are swimming
> around with an $800 light.
I don't think you get it. There are expensive lights like that. Obviously
you think I'm dense to that. But my friends Dea and Bill own a Dive shop.
You are obviously mistaken.
I can't imagine that. And how on earth could
> you be in the water and suddenly realize you have dropped a big light? I
> know of no lights that would fit on your wrist (as this person indicated)
> that would cost more than $50.
This light was attached to his wrist. Nobody said it was a wrist light.
Even cheap lights are pretty heavy and
> bulky so not noticing that you had dropped one would be an amazing thing.
> An $800 one would be a pretty sophisticated light like a strobe or
> something hooked to a camera or something like that. When I go diving I
> make damn sure that I know where I am and where everybody else is. We
The purpose and use of that light was to allow photography, or did you
note that?
> would never be so stupid or treacherous to leave a buddy in the water where
> his location would only be known from his bubble trail.
You know the rules of diving, and you seem to be very unfamiliar with
it. I know of countless times wherein I've heard of divers leaving other
divers. It's easy to do and unless you're a professional you tend to do
things like this. These were amateurs. Rory didn't seem to have the
experience.
If we ever find
> anything interesting that can't be brought to the surface we would mark it
> and return with a line from the boat to bring it up. These folks were only
> in 80 feet and probably in pretty clear water. Finding something as
> spectacular as an ancient wheel is something that no diver would ever
> abandon without marking it in some way and diving to it again as soon as
> the charts would allow the next dive. I have been fortunate to find some
> old stuff and it is always exciting. However, everything that I have found
> that is old wood has been extremely fragile. And, I have never found
> anything nearly as old as this chariot wheel would have been. Maybe it is
> possible for a 4,000 year old wooden-spoked wheel to have maintained some
> structural integrity, but I sorta doubt it.
These parts are coral encrusted which I have pointed out time and time
again on this news group (alt.atheism). There is absolutely no sign of any
wood. Eric told me that you could pass your hands through inbetween the
spokes, however.
Pulling on it as this guy
> described almost certainly would have destroyed it. Plus if it was that
> difficult to move and they made no attempt whatsoever to dig it out, I
> seriously doubt that it would have moved merely under the influence of the
> changing tide. And, by the way, why didn't they try to dig it out? Seems
> really stupid to me.
They tried to. It was getting late - I said it was getting dark and they
wanted to try again the next day.
Everything this person says indicates to me that he
> and his clumsy buddies know nothing about diving. I think the whole story
> is a complete fabrication.
Fabrication indeed. You need a dose of reality. You need to meet my
friend Eric and tell him that straight to his face.
JM
>
> >
> >
AJ Musgrove
First, I would like to apolgise to JM for responding both e-mail (he is
getting this
in e-mail) and on the newsgroup. JM, please respond on the newsgroup.
Sometimes
my posts 'get lost' and we are finally talking about a subject I have a
good
deal of knowledge about, scuba diving (a small obsession of mine), so I
want to
get in my $0.02 when I can.
And JM, for once, I'm not trying to be a prick. I honestly believe these
guys are
lying to you and I don't blame you for that. See my points about this
story.
J M wrote:
>
> A friend of mine returned from the Red Sea in December. Eric Lembcke
> of Paradise California travelled with Ron Wyatt of Tennessee and Dr.
> Lennart Moller, associate professor of the Karolinska Institute center
> for Nutrition and Toxicology in Sweden and his freind "Rory."
>
> "First day we got a bedouin to take us out on one of these flimsey boats.
> I noticed that Rory had one of his tanks on backwards. I helped straighten
One of this tanks? He wouldn't have more than one, that is only for
'cave
diving', and even then only one of those tanks is used (its a redudant
system because caves deny you easy access to the surface). Also, due
to the experience level (keep reading), I doubt he is certified to
even have a cave diving system, let alone know how to use it.
> it out. Then we was that his weight belt was on backwards. We were
> sweating out there in our suits as we fixed the belt. Ron had a video
> camera and I had the light to shine it on what he wanted to video. A
> $800 light. We got ready to go down and I get 10 feet and notice mylight
> was not on me. I looked at my wrest and the light is gone.
>
If he had his tank on backwards, the low-pressure hoses wouldn't have
lined
up with this Bouancy Control Device (BCD) power-inflator, the first
stage of
the regulator would have had the knob on the wrong side (facing his
head),
the 'octopus' wouldn't have lined up with whichever side the fastener
was
on (be it PADI or NASDS 'side' -- they are different for those that
don't
know). In short, even someone who had never been diving would even
notice
QUICK it was wrong without help.
About the weight belt, most people don't use one, they use an integrated
BCD weight
set. The only thing that could be 'backwards' about one is if it wasn't
setup for
a standard 'right hand release' for emergency situations (underwater
rescue). One
of my dive buddies is a 'lefty' so he puts his on backwards (yes, thats
a bad
habit he is in), and no one ever notices. I doubt anyone would notice if
'Rory'
had his on backwards.
The $800 light: Very doubtful. Even the professional lights (that are
insane
wastes of money and I call 'Q-Beams') cost less that $300. This is even
true in the Cayman Islands, which is the MOST expensive place in the
world
for diving. Back here is the good ole US you can pick 'em up for $150 or
so.
Already this guy is sounding like he doesn't know much, if anything,
about diving.
I doubt the credability already (and see later for more). As I said at
the
beginning JM, I'm not accusing you of lying, but I think your sources
may
not be entirely crediable.
> " So I signaled, let's go up. When you lose something it hits you hard.
> Especially when it belongs to someone else. I wanted to go down and look
> for the light right then, but the professor said 'let's just go and search
> for the parts'. So we went down for 45 minutes and didn't see anything
> so we surfaced."
>
Later in this message you mention that he bottom is at eighty feet. Now,
air
is consumed at a rate based on the current ATM pressure, which is nearly
three atmospheres there. The max depth breathing standard air is 120
feet
(100 if you are trained by NASDS, they are conservative). Below that you
must breath Nitrox or Tri-mix (else breathing is toxic due to pressure
and
gases), and both of these require licenses to aquire and training. Also,
neither one increases your bottom-time, just your max depth.
Anyway, I just checked my dive tables and it shows 80 feet (assuming an
80 c.f. tank) would be 25 mins. These are conservative numbers and based
on no work-load (you indicate they have workload), so I would guess that
with workload you would get 25 mins (I did away with the safety margins
on the charts) until it is completely out of air. If they used a 120 c.f
tank, they would get barely enough time to make 45 mins (I doubt it
would
last that long) and would be well into a decompression situation. This
is
doubtful, as people very much about this situation, and it is a
violation of
training (and sometimes laws) to enter decompression without special
training
(which 'Rory' obviously does not have). Also, if they used the 45 mins
and
entered deco, they wouldn't have the air to make it out of deco. In
short,
they'd be dead or critically injured. Where the big tanks help is diving
in
< 40 feet of water, but at 80 I usually dive with a 72 cubic foot to
make
sure I'm not tempted to go into decompression (and I'm adventurous, not
a
sane scientist).
> "I wanted tofind the light now so I went down and I saw the light and
> resurfaced. When I surfaced I noticed that Rory was gone. But we could
> see his bubbles so Ron says, 'why don't you go down and get him'. So I
> go down 80 ft and five ft from the bottom and all of a sudden I noticed a
> chariot wheel. It had 6 spokes and I could make out how round it was.
> [Eric makes a circle with his hand - JM ].I could make out the round hub.
> It was similar to the one we saw in Cairo at King Tutanhamen's exhibit.
>
You describe the worst 'saw tooth' profile I've ever seen. This is
exteremly
dangerous and could result in all sorts of problems. Since this story
doesn't
include a $20,000 trip to a decompression chamber (could you even find
one
there?), I can pretty safely say no one was diving the profile
described.
Now, I don't know much about how fast metals decay, so I'll pause with
talking
about what I know about for a second. Sometimes when diving in
freshwater
lakes I see old cars or something. They have only been there a few years
and are almost impossible to make out (I thought something was a
small car once, but on the map it was marked as a fire truck -- thats
how
hard it is to make out man-made things). With some work and excavation,
I don't
doubt that, if there are parts to be found, someone would find and
identify
them, but I can pretty safely say no one is going to just dive down,
happen
across one, and recognize it.
Now, back to what I do know about. They found what they were looking for
on there first dive. That is a big sea, and I don't know if you
appreciate
how truely slow you move in water. On one dive I did some serious
wandering
and when I surfaced, I was about 300 yards from the boat. Notice, first,
I
didn't go back down, 'saw-tooth' is bad, plus I was running low on air.
I
did a 'surface swim' back to the boat, it took many minutes. Also, the
work
involved means I would have sucked away any air I had left.
Here is a true story. Last time I was in Boston, I saw on the news a
story
about underwater rescue. They went down in a lake to find a body (it
took days) and tied a 'marker ballon' to it that floated on the surface,
with the intention of doing the retrieval the next day. That night
the marker broke free. I saw this my first night. The same divers
went down to locate again, had 'ok' visability, and when I left, 4
days later, they still hadn't found it. For verification, this was
just outside Boston over Thanksgiving of last year, I'm sure the news
agencies can be searched for this. (I'm curious how long it took them
to find the body again, if you look it up, please tell me).
> " When Rory saw it his eye's got big. I mean big. He went straight down
> and started yanking on it trying to pull it up. And he was kicking up silt.
> I tried getting his attention to get him to stop. I could tell he was
> breathing hard and he ran out of air so I shared my air with him and we
> went straight up forgetting to pause as we're supposed to. I felt a little
> dizzy after that. It was the first day of diving and when I discovered the
> part it was getting dark.
>
'forgetting to pause' is the least of their worries. For one thing,
this 'pause', without deco time, is 5 minutes at 15 feet. Second, the
bottom interval you mention would require a deco stop. Like I said, no
one
said anything about the $20,000 deco chamber trip, or the air embolism
(which
results in death usually).
> "On the second day we went down again but we could'nt find the part.
> Ron was able to photograph an eight-spoked one, however. Once you get
> your eyes off something it's hard to find it again. It's a grayish blue
> down there."
>
This being inland shouldn't look 'grayish blue'. The open ocean, such as
the
carribean, look blue due to a variety of things, including depth,
salinity,
gases and the bottom. The red sea, due to its geography, should look
very
much as any other similiar body of water would look, either yellowish or
greenish brown. Its a common misconception that all water looks blue
when
you are diving in it.
Also, you mention filming. If they were doing that they were undoubtly
using color correcting masks and cameras, this would have taken the
blue tent away from the beautiful waters of the carribean. Kicked-up
sediment looks white, yellow or brown, almost all the time.
> "The currents there are always changing and moving the sediments. One
> day the parts may be covered and another day it's completely exposed.
> The bottom is always moving constantly.
>
You mention strong currents. This makes searching extremly difficult
because you have to fight the current. For instance, in Cozumel, where
the currents are strong, you 'drift dive'. The boat follows your bubbles
and you just flow with the current. They would have used air in nearly
no time fighting that current, and I notice no where is it mentioned
they had a conveance device (and if an $800 light sounds expensive and
impressive to them, they couldn't afford the conveyances).
When learning to dive, I had a total of 8 class sessions and 4
'check-out'
dives before I was issued my certification ('C' Card). Without that
card,
no one will give me equipment, fill my air tanks, let me one their boat,
and diving is a felony. This applies in Turkey and most other countries
(I think the site you refer to is in Turkey). The dives you describe
could
not have been performed by people with knowledge.
I noticed a serious lack for the 'buddy system', which always happens in
diving. In short, I've seen lots of miserable divers I think will get
themselves killed one day, and I've seen lots of horrible dives, but I
have
never seen anything like is described here. There are parts that just
cannot
be true (the $800 light and 45 mins of air at 80 feet, for instance).
There
are some parts of this story that are deadly.
> JM
Like I've said a few times, JM, this is not a personal attack on you.
Also,
I'm not denying that people dive in the Red Sea, it is actually a fairly
popular destination for some. Of course, I've never heard of charriot
parts
in the Red Sea through all of those dives, although due to its location
in the world I'm sure there are some there somewhere (biblical or not,
surely someone sometime dumped one in there). What I'm saying is that
this story is impossible, and I hope I've given you sufficent
explanation
as to why. If not, I suggest you get your certification (its just cool
anyway,
even without a reason), and you will learn quick this story did not
happen.
For more information, try www.scubadiving.com, or just show this story,
as is, to your local dive shop. They will tell you the same. Also, try
rec.scuba here.
AJ
Ray Works
> Pangea <xxpan...@earthlink.net> wrote in article
> <01bd2e7a$53441320$3090d9cf@vucqpqlj>...
> > And this proves Creation?
>
> What are you friggin' talking about? He never even said that! He's just
> talking about the chariot wheels that he found there in the Red Sea. He
> never even uttered words about anything else! All this evidence does is
> reinforce the exodus of the Hebrews (1446-1406 B.C.). The chariot wheels
> with six spokes tells us that they were from the 18th dynasty during the
> time of Amenhotep II. Therefor, the exodus seems a plausible story with
> evidence to support it.
Actually, all his story proves is that someone at sometime managed to lose a
chariot wheel in the Red Sea. Without further investigation, all you have is
one wheel in the water. Now, find some more related objects (and in much
larger quantities) and you might have something.
Ragnar
Commandante Less-Than-Zero
J M <mc...@dcsi.net> wrote:
Plenty of myths have basis in real events. Doesn't mean the whole
bible is true.
--
"Cold-cock 'em when they turn the other cheek"
* ______________________________________________
\ L e s s ·.¸.·'·.¸.·'·.¸.· Before you\
\ T h a n ·.¸.·'·.¸.·'·.¸.· respond to|
\ Z e r o ·.¸.·'·.¸.·'·.¸.· this post,|
\.·'·.¸.·'·.¸.·'·.¸.·'·.¸.· have read|
\.·'·.¸.·'·.¸.·'·.¸.·'·.¸.· the FAQ!!!|
\.·'·.¸.·'·.¸.·'·.¸.·'·.¸.· Especially|
\ you fundie|
Commandante "Less-than-Zero" TROLLERS!!|
a l t . a t h e i s t no. 6 3 7 Thank you.|
----------------------------------------------\ /
JUST THE FAQ, MA'AM V
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/overview.html
ACv1.0 DUR4 STR5 BIT5 ACT1 DEF4 DEB5 CON2 SLM4 XTN5 PUB4
Louann Miller
In article <34D284...@dcsi.net>, mc...@dcsi.net says...
> A friend of mine returned from the Red Sea in December.
> " So I
> go down 80 ft and five ft from the bottom and all of a sudden I noticed a
> chariot wheel. It had 6 spokes and I could make out how round it was.
> [Eric makes a circle with his hand - JM ].I could make out the round hub.
> It was similar to the one we saw in Cairo at King Tutanhamen's exhibit.
Quick straw poll here. Given that chariots were used for a
couple of thousand years throughout the Middle East, of
which the Red Sea is a part, how many evilutionists are
willing to stipulate that 'Doc' McCoy's friend saw a chariot
wheel?
Thought so. Now, how many of you feel that this proves the
Moses story?
Next!
--
Our ISP is cyberramp.net -- you know the routine...
Michelle Malkin
In <6b0b5b$5o9$2...@gte1.gte.net> "g&g #750" <gri...@gte.net> writes:
>
>
>
>J M <mc...@dcsi.net> wrote in article <34D2C3...@dcsi.net>...
>
>> for the light right then, but the professor said 'let's just go and
>search
>> for the parts'. So we went down for 45 minutes and didn't see anything
>> so we surfaced."
>>
>> resurfaced. When I surfaced I noticed that Rory was gone. But we could
>> go down 80 ft
>
><blah blah blah snip>
>
>Glenn R. wrote:
>
>As I said in an earlier post, these guys are complete nuts.
Everything
>this person has said is a lie. Free diving in 80 ft for 45 minutes
can be
>damn hard on your health and then to go down again would be suicide.
This
>whole story is so full of ignorance it can't possibly be true.
>
years of his nonsense, I'm surprised that anyone bothers to respond to
his posts. I'm certain that he will come up with a new stupid topic
guaranteed to anger someone enough to cause them to respond to it. His
nonsense never ends, and it is totally for the purpose of wasting our
time. He is a troll - nothing more, nothing less.
Mickey
AJ Musgrove
g&g #750 wrote:
>
> J M <mc...@dcsi.net> wrote in article <34D2BF...@dcsi.net>...
> > C & S Marta wrote:
> > >
> > > J M <mc...@dcsi.net> wrote in article <34D284...@dcsi.net>...
> >
> > But without this man's goofs they wouldn't have found the chariot
> > wheels.
> >
> > JM
> >
> Glenn R. wrote:
>
> Of course all of these goofs were brought on by god so that these poor
> fools could discover the proof of the Moses exodus. Makes sense to me.
>
> Seriously though, as a SCUBA diver, I can't imagine how it would be
> possible to even get a tank on backwards. And, since the term used was
> "tanks" it had to have been a double-tank harness. This would be virtually
> quick-release buckle. Putting it on "backwards" would mean that it would
> be easier for the other hand to release it but nothing more. An $800 light
> would be quite a bit of equipment. I know several amateur underwater
> photographers who own some very elaborate equipment. I don't think any of
> them own a light that would cost anywhere close to $800. And these
> bumbling idiots who don't even know how to put on a tank are swimming
> you be in the water and suddenly realize you have dropped a big light? I
> know of no lights that would fit on your wrist (as this person indicated)
> bulky so not noticing that you had dropped one would be an amazing thing.
> An $800 one would be a pretty sophisticated light like a strobe or
> something hooked to a camera or something like that. When I go diving I
> make damn sure that I know where I am and where everybody else is. We
> anything interesting that can't be brought to the surface we would mark it
> and return with a line from the boat to bring it up. These folks were only
> in 80 feet and probably in pretty clear water. Finding something as
> spectacular as an ancient wheel is something that no diver would ever
> abandon without marking it in some way and diving to it again as soon as
> the charts would allow the next dive. I have been fortunate to find some
> old stuff and it is always exciting. However, everything that I have found
> that is old wood has been extremely fragile. And, I have never found
> anything nearly as old as this chariot wheel would have been. Maybe it is
> possible for a 4,000 year old wooden-spoked wheel to have maintained some
> described almost certainly would have destroyed it. Plus if it was that
> difficult to move and they made no attempt whatsoever to dig it out, I
> seriously doubt that it would have moved merely under the influence of the
> changing tide. And, by the way, why didn't they try to dig it out? Seems
> and his clumsy buddies know nothing about diving. I think the whole story
> is a complete fabrication.
>
> >
> >
I responded point by point the exact same way, as I am a scuba diver.
JM responded via private e-mail that I should stop spreading lies.
Michelle Malkin
In <01bd2ea4$38ba7560$0e1a...@default.shaw.wave.ca> C & S Marta
<ma...@fortress.cal.shaw.wave.ca> writes:
>
>
>
>g&g #750 <gri...@gte.net> wrote in article
<6b0ask$5o9$1...@gte1.gte.net>...
>>
>>
>> > C & S Marta wrote:
>> > >
>> > > J M <mc...@dcsi.net> wrote in article
<34D284...@dcsi.net>...
>> >
>> > But without this man's goofs they wouldn't have found the chariot
>> > wheels.
>> >
>> > JM
>> >
>> Glenn R. wrote:
>>
>> Of course all of these goofs were brought on by god so that these
poor
>> fools could discover the proof of the Moses exodus. Makes sense to
me.
>>
finding
>chariot wheels snipped>
>
>Seems to me these people showed as much intellectual vigour and
curiosity
>as some of these so-called "abductees." While reputable people go to
>amazing lengths to find ANY conclusive evidence to back up
extraordinary
>claims, somebody finds a metal probe that had been inserted into his
>nostril, glances at it, and throws it away. And they expect me to
believe
>this hooey?
>
>Christina
>
>ps. If anybody is going to make up another cock-and-bull story, do us
all a
>favour. Do some research.
>
child could have done a better job.
Mickey
J M
g&g #750 wrote:
>
> J M <mc...@dcsi.net> wrote in article <34D2C3...@dcsi.net>...
>
> > for the light right then, but the professor said 'let's just go and
> search
> > for the parts'. So we went down for 45 minutes and didn't see anything
> > so we surfaced."
> >
> > "I wanted tofind the light now so I went down and I saw the light and
> > resurfaced. When I surfaced I noticed that Rory was gone. But we could
> > see his bubbles so Ron says, 'why don't you go down and get him'. So I
> > go down 80 ft
>
> <blah blah blah snip>
>
> Glenn R. wrote:
>
> As I said in an earlier post, these guys are complete nuts. Everything
> this person has said is a lie. Free diving in 80 ft for 45 minutes can be
> damn hard on your health and then to go down again would be suicide. This
> whole story is so full of ignorance it can't possibly be true.
If you had read my post carefully you would know that I never said
anything about free diving in 80ft for 45 minutes.
If you want to be a good critic you have to at least pay attention.
JM
J M
Agreed. What we know about this man is that he kept making promises
that he couldn't keep. He said he could get them into Jordan and wasn't
able to. Etc. Etc. The fact that he left Eric wasn't right in the first place
either.
> > it out. Then we was that his weight belt was on backwards. We were
> > sweating out there in our suits as we fixed the belt. Ron had a video
> > camera and I had the light to shine it on what he wanted to video. A
> > $800 light. We got ready to go down and I get 10 feet and notice mylight
> > was not on me. I looked at my wrest and the light is gone.
> >
>
> If he had his tank on backwards, the low-pressure hoses wouldn't have
> lined
> up with this Bouancy Control Device (BCD) power-inflator, the first
> stage of
> the regulator would have had the knob on the wrong side (facing his
> head),
> the 'octopus' wouldn't have lined up with whichever side the fastener
> was
> on (be it PADI or NASDS 'side' -- they are different for those that
> don't
> know). In short, even someone who had never been diving would even
> notice
> QUICK it was wrong without help.
But then again that something about this man doesn't it?
>
> About the weight belt, most people don't use one, they use an integrated
> BCD weight
Not in mydiving sessions. My weight belt was so heavy that I almost
lost it when it came off. (In my training sessions)
> set. The only thing that could be 'backwards' about one is if it wasn't
> setup for
> a standard 'right hand release' for emergency situations (underwater
> rescue). One
> of my dive buddies is a 'lefty' so he puts his on backwards (yes, thats
> a bad
> habit he is in), and no one ever notices. I doubt anyone would notice if
> 'Rory'
> had his on backwards.
Well, the point is, Eric noticed it.
>
> The $800 light: Very doubtful. Even the professional lights (that are
> insane
> wastes of money and I call 'Q-Beams') cost less that $300. This is even
I will have to check on this. Either:
1. Eric misheard the cost.
2. There is such a light
3. I wrote down the wrong cost inmy notes.
> true in the Cayman Islands, which is the MOST expensive place in the
> world
> for diving. Back here is the good ole US you can pick 'em up for $150 or
> so.
First I need to find out who bought and owns the lamp. Was it the guy
from Sweden, or Ron Wyatt?
>
> Already this guy is sounding like he doesn't know much, if anything,
> about diving.
> I doubt the credability already (and see later for more). As I said at
> the
> beginning JM,
I think he's a newbie. He did stop 15 ft from the surface.
No. 45 minutes is not the time they spent down at that level. That was
never said. They spent 45 minutes of that day looking for parts. When
Eric went down to get Rory he he went down to the 80 ft level when he
spotted the chariot wheels. Everything is magnified under water.
> entered deco, they wouldn't have the air to make it out of deco. In
> short,
> they'd be dead or critically injured. Where the big tanks help is diving
> in
> < 40 feet of water, but at 80 I usually dive with a 72 cubic foot to
> make
> sure I'm not tempted to go into decompression (and I'm adventurous, not
> a
> sane scientist).
>
> > "I wanted tofind the light now so I went down and I saw the light and
> > resurfaced. When I surfaced I noticed that Rory was gone. But we could
> > see his bubbles so Ron says, 'why don't you go down and get him'. So I
> > go down 80 ft and five ft from the bottom and all of a sudden I noticed a
> > chariot wheel. It had 6 spokes and I could make out how round it was.
> > [Eric makes a circle with his hand - JM ].I could make out the round hub.
> > It was similar to the one we saw in Cairo at King Tutanhamen's exhibit.
> >
>
> You describe the worst 'saw tooth' profile I've ever seen. This is
> exteremly
> dangerous and could result in all sorts of problems. Since this story
> doesn't
> include a $20,000 trip to a decompression chamber (could you even find
> one
> there?), I can pretty safely say no one was diving the profile
> described.
In my dive classes I was told that Naui has their standards. I was also
told that some people do not the same physique. They can stand different
pressures. The Naui standards are made with extra precautionary
standards.
To say that it's impossible to find something is ridiculous. But it was
hard for them to locate it again. That part is true.
The video of the parts and the pictures that Wyatt has taken looks blue,
nonetheless.
>
> Also, you mention filming. If they were doing that they were undoubtly
> using color correcting masks and cameras, this would have taken the
> blue tent away from the beautiful waters of the carribean. Kicked-up
> sediment looks white, yellow or brown, almost all the time.
They aren't pros on filming. Amateurs.
>
> > "The currents there are always changing and moving the sediments. One
> > day the parts may be covered and another day it's completely exposed.
> > The bottom is always moving constantly.
> >
>
> You mention strong currents. This makes searching extremly difficult
> because you have to fight the current.
Yes. Very true. Ron has said before in our travels, I think at a
restaurant, that the currents make it hard to stay in one place. When
Eric go back up to the surface he said "I'm not moving there are some
Chariot parts down there." And Ron replied, "You may not be moving but
the current has moved you from where you were already!"
For instance, in Cozumel, where
> the currents are strong, you 'drift dive'. The boat follows your bubbles
> and you just flow with the current. They would have used air in nearly
> no time fighting that current, and I notice no where is it mentioned
> they had a conveance device (and if an $800 light sounds expensive and
> impressive to them, they couldn't afford the conveyances).
>
> When learning to dive, I had a total of 8 class sessions and 4
> 'check-out'
> dives before I was issued my certification ('C' Card). Without that
> card,
> no one will give me equipment, fill my air tanks, let me one their boat,
> and diving is a felony. This applies in Turkey and most other countries
> (I think the site you refer to is in Turkey).
Saudi Arabia.
The dives you describe
> could
> not have been performed by people with knowledge.
>
> I noticed a serious lack for the 'buddy system', which always happens in
> diving. In short, I've seen lots of miserable divers I think will get
> themselves killed one day, and I've seen lots of horrible dives, but I
> have
> never seen anything like is described here. There are parts that just
> cannot
> be true (the $800 light and 45 mins of air at 80 feet,
That is not the case. The 80 feet was Eric's attempt to get Rory. To my
stupidity, in my notetaking I omitted Eric's statement "We had to come
up quick. You can't stay very long down there."
for instance).
> There
> are some parts of this story that are deadly.
> > JM
Almost. But take the time to read my stuff carefully. The 45 minutes
was the time that they were out there before they found the parts.
> Like I've said a few times, JM, this is not a personal attack on you.
> Also,
> I'm not denying that people dive in the Red Sea, it is actually a fairly
> popular destination for some. Of course, I've never heard of charriot
> parts
> in the Red Sea through all of those dives, although due to its location
> in the world I'm sure there are some there somewhere (biblical or not,
> surely someone sometime dumped one in there). What I'm saying is that
> this story is impossible, and I hope I've given you sufficent
> explanation
> as to why. If not, I suggest you get your certification (its just cool
> anyway,
> even without a reason), and you will learn quick this story did not
> happen.
It did happen and you misunderstood what I wrote.
J M
> search
> > for the parts'. So we went down for 45 minutes and didn't see anything
> > so we surfaced."
> >
> > resurfaced. When I surfaced I noticed that Rory was gone. But we could
> > see his bubbles so Ron says, 'why don't you go down and get him'. So I
> > go down 80 ft
>
>
> Glenn R. wrote:
>
> As I said in an earlier post, these guys are complete nuts. Everything
> this person has said is a lie. Free diving in 80 ft for 45 minutes can be
> damn hard on your health and then to go down again would be suicide. This
> whole story is so full of ignorance it can't possibly be true.
I never wrote anything about free diving. No kidding. 80ft for 45 minutes
free diving? Ridiculous. I'm sorry you didn't read the text completely.
JM
Steve Geller
Yang Hu <"yanghu"@uci.edu (Yang Hu)> wrote:
>...remains of a set of arrows that is consistent with the style and
>technique of arrow making at the time. This should be seen as proof that
>there were 8 suns 8,000 years ago.
> How could this happen? We know that binary stars are posible. So the
>solar system must have unwittingly captured a set of 7 orbiting suns as
>it passes through the plane of the solar system. According to the
>Chinese text, we know that such magical power of destroying the sun is
>possible.
I have filed this tale, and will bring it out the next time a
creationist calls for "equal time".
J M
Mark Bare wrote:
>
> There are NO chariots at the bottom of the red sea JM, so quite wishing and
Saying something that is contrary to the truth, even if you're ignorant
of it, is called lying. Could you rephrase that?
JM
>
Michelle Malkin
In <MPG.f3d93705...@newshost.cyberramp.net> mil...@spamoff.net
>
>> chariot wheel. It had 6 spokes and I could make out how round it was.
>> [Eric makes a circle with his hand - JM ].I could make out the round hub.
>> It was similar to the one we saw in Cairo at King Tutanhamen's exhibit.
>
>couple of thousand years throughout the Middle East, of
>which the Red Sea is a part, how many evilutionists are
>willing to stipulate that 'Doc' McCoy's friend saw a chariot
>wheel?
>
>Thought so. Now, how many of you feel that this proves the
>Moses story?
>
>Next!
>
>--
>Our ISP is cyberramp.net -- you know the routine...
>
Mickey
J M
Mark Bare wrote:
>
> There are NO chariots at the bottom of the red sea JM, so quite wishing and
> bottom has been EXTENSIVELY explored for just what you are trying to prove
> is there and nothing has been found. There was no exodus and moses was
> probably an egyptian whose story the hebrews just co-opted (imagine that)
The chariot parts speak for themselves.
And you're just uttering your opinions regardless of fact.
JM
> J M wrote in message <34D284...@dcsi.net>...
> >A friend of mine returned from the Red Sea in December. Eric Lembcke
> >of Paradise California travelled with Ron Wyatt of Tennessee and Dr.
> >Lennart Moller, associate professor of the Karolinska Institute center
> >for Nutrition and Toxicology in Sweden and his freind "Rory."
> >
> >"First day we got a bedouin to take us out on one of these flimsey boats.
> >I noticed that Rory had one of his tanks on backwards. I helped straighten
> >it out. Then we was that his weight belt was on backwards. We were
> >sweating out there in our suits as we fixed the belt. Ron had a video
> >camera and I had the light to shine it on what he wanted to video. A
> >$800 light. We got ready to go down and I get 10 feet and notice mylight
> >was not on me. I looked at my wrest and the light is gone.
> >
> >" So I signaled, let's go up. When you lose something it hits you hard.
> >Especially when it belongs to someone else. I wanted to go down and look
> >for the light right then, but the professor said 'let's just go and search
> >for the parts'. So we went down for 45 minutes and didn't see anything
> >so we surfaced."
> >
> >"I wanted tofind the light now so I went down and I saw the light and
> >resurfaced. When I surfaced I noticed that Rory was gone. But we could
> >see his bubbles so Ron says, 'why don't you go down and get him'. So I
> >go down 80 ft and five ft from the bottom and all of a sudden I noticed a
> >chariot wheel. It had 6 spokes and I could make out how round it was.
> >[Eric makes a circle with his hand - JM ].I could make out the round hub.
> >It was similar to the one we saw in Cairo at King Tutanhamen's exhibit.
> >
> >" When Rory saw it his eye's got big. I mean big. He went straight down
> >and started yanking on it trying to pull it up. And he was kicking up
> silt.
> >I tried getting his attention to get him to stop. I could tell he was
> >breathing hard and he ran out of air so I shared my air with him and we
> >went straight up forgetting to pause as we're supposed to. I felt a little
> >dizzy after that. It was the first day of diving and when I discovered the
> >part it was getting dark.
> >
> >"On the second day we went down again but we could'nt find the part.
> >Ron was able to photograph an eight-spoked one, however. Once you get
> >your eyes off something it's hard to find it again. It's a grayish blue
> >down there."
> >
> >"The currents there are always changing and moving the sediments. One
> >day the parts may be covered and another day it's completely exposed.
> >The bottom is always moving constantly.
> >
> >JM
> >
J M
C & S Marta wrote:
>
> > >
How circumstantial can you get?
J M
Michelle Malkin wrote:
>
> In <01bd2ea4$38ba7560$0e1a...@default.shaw.wave.ca> C & S Marta
> <ma...@fortress.cal.shaw.wave.ca> writes:
> >
> >
> >
> >g&g #750 <gri...@gte.net> wrote in article
> <6b0ask$5o9$1...@gte1.gte.net>...
> >>
> >>
> >> > C & S Marta wrote:
> >> > >
Read my other posts on this subject Michelle and then decide.
JM
J M
Michelle Malkin wrote:
>
> In <6b0b5b$5o9$2...@gte1.gte.net> "g&g #750" <gri...@gte.net> writes:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >> for the light right then, but the professor said 'let's just go and
> >search
> >> for the parts'. So we went down for 45 minutes and didn't see anything
> >> so we surfaced."
> >>
> >> "I wanted tofind the light now so I went down and I saw the light and
> >> resurfaced. When I surfaced I noticed that Rory was gone. But we could
> >> see his bubbles so Ron says, 'why don't you go down and get him'. So I
> >> go down 80 ft
> >
> >
> >Glenn R. wrote:
> >
> >As I said in an earlier post, these guys are complete nuts.
> Everything
> >this person has said is a lie. Free diving in 80 ft for 45 minutes
> can be
> >damn hard on your health and then to go down again would be suicide.
> This
> >whole story is so full of ignorance it can't possibly be true.
> >
> years of his nonsense, I'm surprised that anyone bothers to respond to
> his posts. I'm certain that he will come up with a new stupid topic
> guaranteed to anger someone enough to cause them to respond to it. His
> nonsense never ends, and it is totally for the purpose of wasting our
> time. He is a troll - nothing more, nothing less.
>
> Mickey
I guess Michelle didn't read the post carefully either. No where does my
post have Eric read "we were swimming at 80 ft for 45 minutes."
Rather, it states that the first day they were out at the location for 45
minutes when he went down to get Rory. So, read my lips, "After 45
minutes Eric dives down to get Rory, goes down to the 80 ft level when
he spots a chariot part.
JM
J M
AJ Musgrove wrote:
>
> g&g #750 wrote:
> >
> > J M <mc...@dcsi.net> wrote in article <34D2BF...@dcsi.net>...
> > > C & S Marta wrote:
> > > >
> > >
> > > But without this man's goofs they wouldn't have found the chariot
> > > wheels.
> > >
> > > JM
> > >
> > Glenn R. wrote:
> >
> > Of course all of these goofs were brought on by god so that these poor
> > fools could discover the proof of the Moses exodus. Makes sense to me.
> >
And when I got the time I responded publicly. And you suppressed my
request that you ask for clarification before you spread your lies. No
where in my post does it say they were down in the 80 ft level for 45
minutes. Please read carefully.
JM
Kevin Huber
It looks to me like the person you wrote to had only two years of logs
and thats why he said you should call the number (i.e. those people
had more logs). I suspect you knew this, otherwise you'd have been
more forthcoming with this email.
It's one thing to claim something, have it pointed out that the claim
is false, and admit you goofed. It's another thing entirely to lie.
It's another thing still to lie and vehemently deny it in post after
post after post. I would suggest you apologize to Jay and admit
to yourself that you goofed.
-Kevin
"JM" == J M <mc...@dcsi.net> writes:
JM> COUSTEAUNY wrote: As you recall, I told you that I saw on your
JM> original e-maile that there was a reference to the last two years
JM> of Cousteau's logs. YOu deleted them and told me that was never
JM> written there. I contested that on alt.atheism and resented your
JM> letter that had "poisoned the well". Since you said you never did
JM> post that I e-mailed them and received this reply, which to claim
JM> doesn't exit.
JM> The rest are in the vaults, just as you said.
JM> JM
JM> Here's my e-mail:
>> Dear Mr. McCoy, I'm a little confused by your question--do wish to
>> purchase old copies of The Calypso Log? Or is there a particular
>> subject you are need information about?
>>
>> At any rate, please call our toll-free number; 1-800-441-4395; that
>> is our main U.S. office in Virginia; someone will be able to help
>> you there. (I only have copies of the most recent logs; the past
>> couple of years.)
>>
>> Thank you for your interest in The Cousteau Society.
>>
>> Best wishes, Lisa Rao Editor The Cousteau Society
Mark Isaak
In article <34D2BF...@dcsi.net>, J M <mc...@dcsi.net> wrote:
>This [chariot wheel in the Red Sea] is one proof of the Bible.
The Bible says nothing to suggest that there might be chariot wheels in
the Red Sea. Only mistranslations of the Bible say that. Wyatt and J M
apparently know as little about the Bible as they do about anything else.
--
Mark Isaak atta @ best.com http://www.best.com/~atta
"That which you know, you ignore because it is inconvenient. That
which you do not know, you invent." - J. Michael Straczynski
J M
Kevin Huber wrote:
>
> It looks to me like the person you wrote to had only two years of logs
> and thats why he said you should call the number (i.e. those people
> had more logs).
In vaults somewhere else. Cole knew they had looked only at two years
as that's what the original post said. Cole promptly deleated that portion
when I brought it to his attention.
I suspect you knew this, otherwise you'd have been
> more forthcoming with this email.
Now, who is forthcoming? Cole for deleting that portion of the post or
me for resenting the e-mail that spells out the truth?
>
> It's one thing to claim something, have it pointed out that the claim
> is false, and admit you goofed. It's another thing entirely to lie.
>
> It's another thing still to lie and vehemently deny it in post after
> post after post. I would suggest you apologize to Jay and admit
> to yourself that you goofed.
>
> -Kevin
Actually what I did was to give Cole plenty of time to accuse me of being
a liar. Now that the proof has been provide, who is the liar now?
JM
J M
Commandante Less-Than-Zero wrote:
>
> J M <mc...@dcsi.net> wrote:
>
> >Pangea wrote:
> >>
> >> And this proves Creation?
> >>
> >>
>
> >This is one proof of the Bible. I suppose that Mose can cross through the
> >midst of the Red Sea and the world can't be created? I don't know about
> >this kind of logic.
>
> Plenty of myths have basis in real events. Doesn't mean the whole
> bible is true.
Even when presented with the evidence the ultra skeptics deny the truth.
Hezekiah
> : <01bd2e7a$53441320$3090d9cf@vucqpqlj>...
> : > And this proves Creation?
> :
> : What are you friggin' talking about? He never even said that! He's
just
> : talking about the chariot wheels that he found there in the Red Sea.
He
> : never even uttered words about anything else! All this evidence does
is
> : reinforce the exodus of the Hebrews (1446-1406 B.C.). The chariot
wheels
> : with six spokes tells us that they were from the 18th dynasty during
the
> : time of Amenhotep II. Therefor, the exodus seems a plausible story
with
> : evidence to support it.
>
> Well then if this has no relevance to Evolution/Creation then he probably
> should posted this on alt.bible.
Last time I checked, the Bible consisted of more than just the first 2
chapters of Genesis.
J M
C & S Marta wrote:
>
> > >
> > >
> > > Why is it that nameless, Wyatt, and his buddies seem to be the only
> > > people in the WORLD that know about these chariot parts?! Where is
> > > Chuck Heston?!
>
> Circumstantial evidence is like a trout in the milk.
>
> Christina
Yeah, it's just circumstances. While the skeptics claim there is no way
for anyone to cross the Red Sea because of the extreme drop-off and
depth - here's a spot where they could. And the only spot that fits the
description and allows for the possibility.And of course there's the
path's gradual depth and descent. And to boot there's chariot parts there.
Circumstantial alright.
JM
tOAd
The story posted by J M exposes him as very gullable. To think that he
would be convinced by this story is laughable. Whoever thought up this
story had an amazing imagination, I just hope they don't make any money
off of making a fool out of J M!!!
HA!
Kevin Huber
Correlation. Causation. Why would a fundy care about those big
words?
-Kevin
"Louann" == Louann Miller <mil...@spamoff.net> writes:
Louann> Quick straw poll here. Given that chariots were used for a
Louann> couple of thousand years throughout the Middle East, of which
Louann> the Red Sea is a part, how many evilutionists are willing to
Louann> stipulate that 'Doc' McCoy's friend saw a chariot wheel?
Louann> Thought so. Now, how many of you feel that this proves the
Louann> Moses story?
Mark Isaak
>> equipment on! Not outside a kiddie pool, anyway.
>
>But without this man's goofs they wouldn't have found the chariot
>wheels.
Yes they would have. The divers could have put on welding goggles instead
of face masks and they still would have found the wheels. When you look
for something that hard, you'll find it whether it ever existed or not.
Hezekiah
> > What are you friggin' talking about? He never even said that! He's
just
> > talking about the chariot wheels that he found there in the Red Sea.
He
> > never even uttered words about anything else! All this evidence does
is
> > reinforce the exodus of the Hebrews (1446-1406 B.C.). The chariot
wheels
> > with six spokes tells us that they were from the 18th dynasty during
the
> > time of Amenhotep II. Therefor, the exodus seems a plausible story
with
> > evidence to support it.
>
> Actually, all his story proves is that someone at sometime managed to
lose a
> chariot wheel in the Red Sea. Without further investigation, all you
have is
> one wheel in the water. Now, find some more related objects (and in much
> larger quantities) and you might have something.
>
> Ragnar
Ah, I suppose I was assuming that you all knew about the discoveries made
in the Red Sea. There is a wadi on the coast that they think is Yam Suph,
where Moses and the Hebrews supposedly crossed. well, directly east of
this wadi, out in the Red Sea, they have found six-spoked wheels, pieces of
chariots, and armor that all date from the 18th dynasty period. Perhaps
the most interesting discovery is the skulls and skeletons in the armor
they have found. Therefor, these wheels and armor could not have just been
dumped off of a trade boat (Egypt traded in the Mediterranean anyway) but
there were many skeletons in armor from the 18th dynasty. This evidence
supports that the exodus did actually occur, and it did during the reign of
Amenhotep II.
Hezekiah
Melissa
In article <34D3D580...@earthlink.net>,
Ray Works <rwo...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> Pangea <xxpan...@earthlink.net> wrote in article
>> <01bd2e7a$53441320$3090d9cf@vucqpqlj>...
>> > And this proves Creation?
>>
He's just
>> talking about the chariot wheels that he found there in the Red
Sea. He
>> never even uttered words about anything else! All this evidence
does is
>> reinforce the exodus of the Hebrews (1446-1406 B.C.). The
chariot wheels
>> with six spokes tells us that they were from the 18th dynasty
during the
>> time of Amenhotep II. Therefor, the exodus seems a plausible
story with
>> evidence to support it.
>
>Actually, all his story proves is that someone at sometime managed
to lose a
>chariot wheel in the Red Sea. Without further investigation, all
you have is
>one wheel in the water. Now, find some more related objects (and
in much
>larger quantities) and you might have something.
Really, it could have been from a ship that sank on the sea carrying
a chariot. Or they probably have been using the sea for a junkyard
and toilet for thousands of years anyway. Don't want that chariot
anymore, toss it over the cliff, the sea will take it away.
- Melissa
To email me, remove the spam proofing character on both sides
of the @ in my address.
Michelle Malkin
In <01bd2e7a$53441320$3090d9cf@vucqpqlj> "Pangea"
<xxpan...@earthlink.net> writes:
>
>And this proves Creation?
>
Hell, no. All it proves is that nameless is a liar with the creative
writing skills of a third grader.
Mickey
J M
You don't get it. The person that I had the interview with is my friend.
He is a reliable source. He was not part of "them" and he doesn't work
for Wyatt and neither do the two men that were with him.
JM
> HA!
J M
Kevin Huber wrote:
>
> Correlation. Causation. Why would a fundy care about those big
> words?
Perhaps its because there are written records and artifacts to prove it.
JM
J M
>
> The Bible says nothing to suggest that there might be chariot wheels in
> the Red Sea. Only mistranslations of the Bible say that. Wyatt and J M
> apparently know as little about the Bible as they do about anything else.
And apparently all the translations that I've seen are wrong. King
James, New International Version, New American Version, the New
English Bible, etc. If by this statement you mean that the word Red Sea
is really the Reed Sea, then you're mistaken there, too. Look up First
Kings 9:26 and you'll read that Soloman built a fleet of ships by the Reed
(Red) Sea.
JM
Hezekiah
J M <mc...@dcsi.net> wrote in article <34D2BF...@dcsi.net>...
> Hezekiah wrote:
> >
> > Pangea <xxpan...@earthlink.net> wrote in article
> > <01bd2e7a$53441320$3090d9cf@vucqpqlj>...
> > > And this proves Creation?
> >
> > What are you friggin' talking about? He never even said that! He's
just
> > talking about the chariot wheels that he found there in the Red Sea.
He
> > never even uttered words about anything else! All this evidence does
is
> > reinforce the exodus of the Hebrews (1446-1406 B.C.). The chariot
wheels
> > with six spokes tells us that they were from the 18th dynasty during
the
> > time of Amenhotep II. Therefor, the exodus seems a plausible story
with
> > evidence to support it.
>
>
> You're very knowledgeable about Egyptian history.
>
> JM
Thank you, but I really don't know that much about Egypt. I have read up
on reasearch about the Exodus though, and I do know a bit about that.
Thank you for your comment though! :-)
Hezekiah
Mike Painter
J M wrote in message <34D284...@dcsi.net>...
This crap in various forms has been posted here several times. If the so
called wheels have any validity why don't you document then, photograph them
and then bring them to the surface for further analysis.
At least post enough information so that someone who is an experienced diver
does not question everything you did.
If you can just get into a boat float out a bit and consistently find
something as small as a wheel you are in the wrong business. You could fund
a massive expedition on your own just from money made doing recovery work.
Strange that something allegedly so important is so poorly documented - kind
of like the alien autopsy films. FAKE.
David Johnston
J M wrote:
>
> Hezekiah wrote:
> >
> > Pangea <xxpan...@earthlink.net> wrote in article
> > <01bd2e7a$53441320$3090d9cf@vucqpqlj>...
> > > And this proves Creation?
> >
> > What are you friggin' talking about? He never even said that! He's just
> > talking about the chariot wheels that he found there in the Red Sea. He
> > never even uttered words about anything else! All this evidence does is
> > reinforce the exodus of the Hebrews (1446-1406 B.C.). The chariot wheels
> > with six spokes tells us that they were from the 18th dynasty during the
> > time of Amenhotep II. Therefor, the exodus seems a plausible story with
> > evidence to support it.
>
> You're very knowledgeable about Egyptian history.
Or, he could be bullshitting. Because you see, I have trouble
believing that 6 spoked chariot wheels were only used in the
reign of Amenhotep II.
>
> JM
Dark Fader
J M oozed:
>
> Read my other posts on this subject Michelle and then decide.
>
> JM
"We" already have . Much to our chagrin.
By your "works", membrane, EVERYBODY knows YOU!
And what a BUTTWIPE you are!!!
You must think a lot of your "ability".
It stinks.
Just like YOU do!
Another serving of ad hominy?
"BUTTWIPE"?
.
Dark Fader
J M again excreted:
> > >This is one proof of the Bible.
That's fast and loose with what a "proof" is!
(And the "evidence" has been compromised).
YOU do NOT even "know" what a proof is.
And this is definitely NOT forensic "proof".
But, then, what the hell would YOU "know", ignorami?
(That's a multiple "ignoramus").
(by a power of ten).
(multiple stupidity).
> > Plenty of myths have basis in real events. Doesn't mean the whole
> > bible is true.
Yes. Some "myths" do.
But the next statement is a definite "non-sequitur".
Know what that is, Dimbulb?
"It does NOT follow".
But, a fortiori:
Noooo.
The WHOLE "book of lies" is obviously NOT TRUE!
(By many forensic tests).
It's totally in-admissable under the rules of evidence.
(Its integrity has been compromised).
(Mostly by persons like "YOU").
Who would do ANYTHING to support their heinous "beliefs".
Including, by Madelyn, (I can hardly believe this of a x-tian): LIE!!!
(Oh, no! Really?).
But it is a "truth" that surpasseth all logic, that it is ONLY for
demented individuals like YOU, oh great "FUNDIE-wipe", that accept
ANYTHING of biblical proportion as "truth" without adequate examination!
AND then attempt, transparently, to twist science to suit themselves and
then foist it off on us?
(Isn't that a Tort? Do WE have a cause of action?).
Can YOU "guess" why we are NOT even the slightest bit surprised that YOU
do?
And at the likes of YOU?
Now, YOU know what that makes YOU, little "JM", don't YOU? (Besides
being a "FUNDIE").
Try "inconsequential".
And perhaps, "a theme for comedy".
YES?
Logic is the wind beneath our wings.
"JM" is descriptive of the turds beneath our feet.
That we kick around.
Yes?
(Or,could it be, like Noxius Nixon, we won't have little "JM" to kick
around anymore?).
Could we be THAT lucky?
Oh, perish the thought!
.
wf...@enter.netxx
On 1 Feb 1998 00:05:44 -0500, J M <mc...@dcsi.net> wrote:
>
>Even when presented with the evidence the ultra skeptics deny the truth.
of course creationism raises this to a fine art...
>>
>> --
Doug Weller
On 1 Feb 1998 01:16:49 -0500, in sci.skeptic, Hezekiah wrote:
>
>
>Ah, I suppose I was assuming that you all knew about the discoveries made
>in the Red Sea. There is a wadi on the coast that they think is Yam Suph,
>where Moses and the Hebrews supposedly crossed. well, directly east of
>this wadi, out in the Red Sea, they have found six-spoked wheels, pieces of
>chariots, and armor that all date from the 18th dynasty period. Perhaps
>the most interesting discovery is the skulls and skeletons in the armor
>they have found. Therefor, these wheels and armor could not have just been
>dumped off of a trade boat (Egypt traded in the Mediterranean anyway) but
>there were many skeletons in armor from the 18th dynasty. This evidence
>supports that the exodus did actually occur, and it did during the reign of
>Amenhotep II.
Where was this published? I hope there is more evidence for it than for JM's
'wheels'. I'm getting a bit tired of all these stories where the evidence turns
out not to have been seen by anyone without an ax to grind.
Doug
Kevin Huber
Where's the chariot? Shouldn't there be many chariots and wheels?
Where are the written records from "Bilblical time"?
How do you know someone didn't throw an old wheel off a ship. Note
that I'm stil skeptical that this is actually a wheel.
-Kevin
"JM" == J M <mc...@dcsi.net> writes:
JM> Perhaps its because there are written records and artifacts to
JM> prove it.
dic...@yahoo.com
On 31 Jan 1998 15:26:23 -0500, "Pangea" <xxpan...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
> Hezekiah <toaste...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in article
> <6avt6p$3...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>...
> :
> :
>
> :
> : What are you friggin' talking about? He never even said that! He's just
> : talking about the chariot wheels that he found there in the Red Sea. He
> : never even uttered words about anything else! All this evidence does is
> : reinforce the exodus of the Hebrews (1446-1406 B.C.). The chariot wheels
> : with six spokes tells us that they were from the 18th dynasty during the
> : time of Amenhotep II. Therefor, the exodus seems a plausible story with
> : evidence to support it.
>
> should posted this on alt.bible.
posting the same drivel that he gets from Ron Wyatt. And cannot see that it is
totally silly nonsense. No evidence that the chariot parts in question had any
thing to do with escaping slaves. And posts no evidence that there were even
slaves escaping, other than the Bible. And noone but Wyatt and his cohorts are
the only ones who have ever seen the stuff he claims to have found. I would guess
that nameless will next be claiming to have bought the Golden Gate Bridge.
Dick (Chris) Craven
Professor of Modern Humor from the ICR
University of Ediacara
email: dic...@yahoo.com
Homepage http:/www.oz.net/~dickc
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted using Reference.COM http://WWW.Reference.COM
FREE Usenet and Mailing list archive, directory and clipping service
--------------------------------------------------------------------
g&g #750
>
>
> Even when presented with the evidence the ultra skeptics deny the truth.
> >
If you call your crazy story "evidence" then I guess I have no idea what
the word really means. I'm far from being an "ultra skeptic," I just don't
believe stories that have so many improbable things in them. I usually
call them lies, not "evidence."
>
>
Erik Marksberry
On 1 Feb 1998, J M wrote:
>
> Even when presented with the evidence the ultra skeptics deny the truth.
>
Evidence of what? A wheel? Sure, they found a wheel. Did they
have the qualifications to judge whether or not it was a _chariot_ wheel?
No. Did they see a chariot attached to the wheel? No. Do they have
samples to test and see if it's from Moses' time? No. In other words,
can they say anything with certainty besides they found a wheel? No.
JM, your "evidence" is crap. Get us the wheel, samples to test,
photos on a web page, opinions of experts, etc, and then you'll be on to
something.
--
Erik Marksberry
"Creation is, of course, unproven and unprovable by the methods
of experimental science."
Duane Gish, "Evolution; the fossils say NO!" p.21
Hellspawn
On 1 Feb 1998 00:05:44 -0500, J M <mc...@dcsi.net> wrote:
>Commandante Less-Than-Zero wrote:
>>
>> J M <mc...@dcsi.net> wrote:
>>
>> >Pangea wrote:
>> >>
>> >> And this proves Creation?
>> >>
>> >>
>>
>> >This is one proof of the Bible. I suppose that Mose can cross through the
>> >midst of the Red Sea and the world can't be created? I don't know about
>> >this kind of logic.
>>
>> Plenty of myths have basis in real events. Doesn't mean the whole
>> bible is true.
>
>
>Even when presented with the evidence the ultra skeptics deny the truth.
Is this some ultra-new usage of the word 'truth' that I am unfamiliar
with?
Hellspawn
#11
(hats off to Douglas Adams for inspiration)
Thad Bissett
J M (mc...@dcsi.net) wrote:
: Yeah, it's just circumstances. While the skeptics claim there is no way
: depth - here's a spot where they could. And the only spot that fits the
: description and allows for the possibility.And of course there's the
: path's gradual depth and descent. And to boot there's chariot parts there.
: Circumstantial alright.
Say whatever you want, JM, but we all know that there're lots of
other ways that a wheel could get onto the bottom of the Red Sea other
than by people crossing through it when the "Red Sea has been parted."
Also, from what I read, your friend only found ONE "chariot wheel". That
does not make "chariot partS", just "possible chariot part". See the
difference?
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
| Thad Bissett | I know not with what weapons World War III |
| Wake Forest University | will be fought, but World War IV will be |
| Dept. of Anthropology | fought with sticks and stones. |
| Undergraduate Program | -Albert Einstein |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Painter
Aside from the similarity of this thread to another some time ago when a
wheel was found in similar circumstances (urban myth time).
The flawed technical description of the dive itself.
The "unlikely" possibility that anything could be found in a recognizable
state after 3000 years.
Has anyone pointed out that the bible speaks of the sea of Reeds and not the
Red sea?
Hellspawn wrote in message <34d4acc1...@news.tiac.net>...
J M
Mike Painter wrote:
>
> Aside from the similarity of this thread to another some time ago when a
> wheel was found in similar circumstances (urban myth time).
> The flawed technical description of the dive itself.
> The "unlikely" possibility that anything could be found in a recognizable
> state after 3000 years.
Unfortunately you're basing you're "flawed technical description" of the
dive itself on a misobservation.
Typical evolutionist.
JM
J M
Kevin Huber wrote:
>
> Where's the chariot? Shouldn't there be many chariots and wheels?
> Where are the written records from "Bilblical time"?
There's a lot of parts down there. Some of them are buried under silt.
>
> How do you know someone didn't throw an old wheel off a ship. Note
> that I'm stil skeptical that this is actually a wheel.
The pointed questions that I asked Eric do not allow for that. Specifically
he had already gone to King Tut's exhibit in Cairo and saw identical
wheels in the museum. These wheels have eight or six spokes. I asked
him if the coral had covered the space in between the spokes and he said
no, but that you could see through the spaces. When Rory tried to yank
the part of the ground, Ibelieve he could not because it was attached to
an axel and the other wheel must be about five to six feet under the silt.
JM
J M
dic...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> On 31 Jan 1998 15:26:23 -0500, "Pangea" <xxpan...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Hezekiah <toaste...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in article
> > <6avt6p$3...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>...
> > :
> > :
> >
> > :
> > : What are you friggin' talking about? He never even said that! He's just
> > : talking about the chariot wheels that he found there in the Red Sea. He
> > : never even uttered words about anything else! All this evidence does is
> > : reinforce the exodus of the Hebrews (1446-1406 B.C.). The chariot wheels
> > : with six spokes tells us that they were from the 18th dynasty during the
> > : time of Amenhotep II. Therefor, the exodus seems a plausible story with
> > : evidence to support it.
> >
> > Well then if this has no relevance to Evolution/Creation then he probably
> > should posted this on alt.bible.
> It is not the relevance factor, rather the reality factor. Nameless keeps
> posting the same drivel that he gets from Ron Wyatt.
This is not from Wyatt but from a friend ofmine who went to the site to
check it out.
J M
Erik Marksberry wrote:
>
> On 1 Feb 1998, J M wrote:
> >
> >
>
> have the qualifications to judge whether or not it was a _chariot_ wheel?
> No. Did they see a chariot attached to the wheel? No. Do they have
> samples to test and see if it's from Moses' time? No. In other words,
> can they say anything with certainty besides they found a wheel? No.
There are cabs down there as well. According to the Bible God caused the
wheels to come off the hubs. Indeed that's what you find down there.
JM
J M
Thad Bissett wrote:
>
> J M (mc...@dcsi.net) wrote:
> : Yeah, it's just circumstances. While the skeptics claim there is no way
> : for anyone to cross the Red Sea because of the extreme drop-off and
> : depth - here's a spot where they could. And the only spot that fits the
> : description and allows for the possibility.And of course there's the
> : path's gradual depth and descent. And to boot there's chariot parts there.
> : Circumstantial alright.
>
> Say whatever you want, JM, but we all know that there're lots of
> other ways that a wheel could get onto the bottom of the Red Sea other
> than by people crossing through it when the "Red Sea has been parted."
> Also, from what I read, your friend only found ONE "chariot wheel". That
> does not make "chariot partS", just "possible chariot part". See the
> difference?
Now the skeptics keep on changing the story. First the story was that
there is no place on the Red Sea where the Israelites could cross (cliff
drop-offs and too steep). Now that a way has been found and chariot
parts to boot, the statement is "will, the wheels could of just fell of a
ship." IF we found Pharoah's crown they'd say, must of been some some
pot holder.
JM
-----------------------------------------------------------------
J M
Doug Weller wrote:
>
'. I'm getting a bit tired of all these stories where the evidence turns
> out not to have been seen by anyone without an ax to grind.
And you don't have an ax to grind?
>
> Doug
J M
Dark Fader wrote:
>
> J M oozed:
> >
> > Read my other posts on this subject Michelle and then decide.
> >
> > JM
>
> "We" already have . Much to our chagrin.
>
> By your "works", membrane, EVERYBODY knows YOU!
>
> And what a BUTTWIPE you are!!!
Emotionalism.
> You must think a lot of your "ability".
>
> It stinks.
>
> Just like YOU do!
>
> Another serving of ad hominy?
>
> "BUTTWIPE"?
Emotionalism.
Too much emotionalism.
Hezekiah
> > > Pangea <xxpan...@earthlink.net> wrote in article
> > > <01bd2e7a$53441320$3090d9cf@vucqpqlj>...
> > > > And this proves Creation?
> > >
> > > What are you friggin' talking about? He never even said that! He's
just
> > > talking about the chariot wheels that he found there in the Red Sea.
He
> > > never even uttered words about anything else! All this evidence does
is
> > > reinforce the exodus of the Hebrews (1446-1406 B.C.). The chariot
wheels
> > > with six spokes tells us that they were from the 18th dynasty during
the
> > > time of Amenhotep II. Therefor, the exodus seems a plausible story
with
> > > evidence to support it.
> >
> > You're very knowledgeable about Egyptian history.
>
> Or, he could be bullshitting. Because you see, I have trouble
> believing that 6 spoked chariot wheels were only used in the
> reign of Amenhotep II.
Well, the evidence supports the exodus ONLY because they are six-spoked
wheels. The Egyptians used different numbers of spokes during different
time periods. They later went on to use nine-spoked wheels. It's similar
to us going throgh different car models. If you found a dead skeleton in
the remains of a model A car, then you could reliably say that the person
was killed from 1900 to 1920. No one drives Model A's anymore. Thy're all
pretty much in museums. If you found a dead skeleton in a 1996 Saturn,
then they would have to have been killed from 1995 on (considering year
models are released the year before). See how it works? And besides, I
never said six-spoked chariot wheels were only used during the reign of
Amenhotep II. They were simply used during the 18th dynasty (1500-1200
B.C.).
Hezekiah
--
"The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they
have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good." -Psalm 14:1
Capella
J M wrote:
>
> Kevin Huber wrote:
> >
> > Where's the chariot? Shouldn't there be many chariots and wheels?
> > Where are the written records from "Bilblical time"?
>
> There's a lot of parts down there. Some of them are buried under silt.
Sure, and nobody wants to be the archaeologist that goes down in
history as the one that "verified" the bible, since there is no
evidence of miraculous deeds.
Nobody want to put these "Chariot parts" in their museam, after all
it was only supposed to be a miracle.
Get real JM.
>
> >
> > How do you know someone didn't throw an old wheel off a ship. Note
> > that I'm stil skeptical that this is actually a wheel.
>
> The pointed questions that I asked Eric do not allow for that. Specifically
> he had already gone to King Tut's exhibit in Cairo and saw identical
> wheels in the museum. These wheels have eight or six spokes. I asked
> him if the coral had covered the space in between the spokes and he said
> no, but that you could see through the spaces. When Rory tried to yank
> the part of the ground, Ibelieve he could not because it was attached to
> an axel and the other wheel must be about five to six feet under the silt.
>
And I heard that the sword that Marduk used to slice Tiamat into two
is laying at the bottom of a Persian lake, but people are too lazy
to go dreg it up and become famous and go down in history.
JM, do you understand why _your_ tale is hard to swallow now?
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Capella #5
Dallas, Texas
New:
Genesis 1 creation myth compared to much older Enuma Elish
Also over a hundred different Bible contradictions,
attrocities, errors, failed prophecies, etc... at:
Capella's guide to Atheism
http://web2.airmail.net/capella/aguide
Roger Rains
> Ah, I suppose I was assuming that you all knew about the discoveries made
> in the Red Sea. There is a wadi on the coast that they think is Yam Suph,
> where Moses and the Hebrews supposedly crossed. well, directly east of
> this wadi, out in the Red Sea, they have found six-spoked wheels, pieces of
> chariots, and armor that all date from the 18th dynasty period. Perhaps
> the most interesting discovery is the skulls and skeletons in the armor
> they have found. Therefor, these wheels and armor could not have just been
> dumped off of a trade boat (Egypt traded in the Mediterranean anyway) but
> there were many skeletons in armor from the 18th dynasty. This evidence
> Amenhotep II.
Uh huh... and all this supposed stuff is where exactly at the moment?
I've never heard of it existing anywhere except in Ron Wyatt's fevered
imagination. Ron knows how to get taken seriously. Get the stuff
excavated and properly evaluated and authenticated. This he has quite
assiduously avoided doing now for over a decade. He is selling the
archeological equivelent of the Brooklyn Bridge to a bunch of devout
people that he obviously considers witless rubes. Kind of sad really.
-RR-
Keith Morrison
J M wrote:
>
> Kevin Huber wrote:
> >
> > words?
>
> Perhaps its because there are written records and artifacts to prove it.
There are also written records and artifacts of a thriving Egyptian
civilization who somehow neglected to notice they were under several
miles of water, but you ignore them.
--
Keith Morrison
kei...@polarnet.ca
AJ Musgrove
J M wrote:
>
> g&g #750 wrote:
> >
> > J M <mc...@dcsi.net> wrote in article <34D2BF...@dcsi.net>...
> > > C & S Marta wrote:
> > > >
> > > > J M <mc...@dcsi.net> wrote in article <34D284...@dcsi.net>...
> > >
> > > But without this man's goofs they wouldn't have found the chariot
> > > wheels.
> > >
> > > JM
> > >
> > Glenn R. wrote:
> >
> > Of course all of these goofs were brought on by god so that these poor
> > fools could discover the proof of the Moses exodus. Makes sense to me.
> >
> > Seriously though, as a SCUBA diver, I can't imagine how it would be
> > possible to even get a tank on backwards. And, since the term used was
> > "tanks" it had to have been a double-tank harness. This would be virtually
> > impossible to get on backwards.
>
> As a diver myself I know that you can put on a tank or tanks on
> backwards. There are a couple of different ways to do that and you've
> got to know what Eric means by that. Otherwise you are misleading this
> newsgroup.
>
You are a diver. Fine, I am certified by NASDS (www.divesafe.com) as
Arthur
Musgrove. What about you, liar?
If you really are certified, tell us by who and under what name so we
can
verify it (you always demand verification).
> The weight belt is made with a
> > quick-release buckle. Putting it on "backwards" would mean that it would
> > be easier for the other hand to release it but nothing more. An $800 light
> > would be quite a bit of equipment. I know several amateur underwater
> > photographers who own some very elaborate equipment. I don't think any of
> > them own a light that would cost anywhere close to $800. And these
> > bumbling idiots who don't even know how to put on a tank are swimming
> > around with an $800 light.
>
> I don't think you get it. There are expensive lights like that. Obviously
> you think I'm dense to that. But my friends Dea and Bill own a Dive shop.
> You are obviously mistaken.
>
Wrong. You say later they are NOT professional photographers, they don't
have
color correcting lenses for their cameras (bluish everything), so why
would they
have a light like that? Give my a catalog number for a dive light that
costs that
much or admit you are full of shit.
> I can't imagine that. And how on earth could
> > you be in the water and suddenly realize you have dropped a big light? I
> > know of no lights that would fit on your wrist (as this person indicated)
> > that would cost more than $50.
>
> This light was attached to his wrist. Nobody said it was a wrist light.
>
I have a light that attaches to my wrist. Its funny, jumped off many
dive boats
and piers, and its never fallen off.
> Even cheap lights are pretty heavy and
> > bulky so not noticing that you had dropped one would be an amazing thing.
> > An $800 one would be a pretty sophisticated light like a strobe or
> > something hooked to a camera or something like that. When I go diving I
> > make damn sure that I know where I am and where everybody else is. We
>
> The purpose and use of that light was to allow photography, or did you
> note that?
>
A few lines you say "These were amateurs". In a responce to me you
indicated
they had substandard photography equipment (no color correction). This
doesn't
jive with this gold-plated light (must have been gold-plated to cost
that much)
you claim they use.
> > would never be so stupid or treacherous to leave a buddy in the water where
> > his location would only be known from his bubble trail.
>
> You know the rules of diving, and you seem to be very unfamiliar with
> it. I know of countless times wherein I've heard of divers leaving other
> divers. It's easy to do and unless you're a professional you tend to do
> things like this. These were amateurs. Rory didn't seem to have the
> experience.
>
On the contrary, people that are new to diving tend to stick very close
together.
Its when people have been doing it a while that they feel comfortable
enough
to wander off (generally speaking). I doubt you know much about diving.
> If we ever find
> > anything interesting that can't be brought to the surface we would mark it
> > and return with a line from the boat to bring it up. These folks were only
> > in 80 feet and probably in pretty clear water. Finding something as
> > spectacular as an ancient wheel is something that no diver would ever
> > abandon without marking it in some way and diving to it again as soon as
> > the charts would allow the next dive. I have been fortunate to find some
> > old stuff and it is always exciting. However, everything that I have found
> > that is old wood has been extremely fragile. And, I have never found
> > anything nearly as old as this chariot wheel would have been. Maybe it is
> > possible for a 4,000 year old wooden-spoked wheel to have maintained some
> > structural integrity, but I sorta doubt it.
>
> These parts are coral encrusted which I have pointed out time and time
> again on this news group (alt.atheism). There is absolutely no sign of any
> wood. Eric told me that you could pass your hands through inbetween the
> spokes, however.
>
Coral encrusted? So they very well could have been wagon wheels. You
said they
looked like the Egypian wheels. How could this be told if the shape was
all
that was available (there is a lot more to a chariot wheel than some
spokes). Pray
tell, through the coral that protected them how were they identified?
> Pulling on it as this guy
> > described almost certainly would have destroyed it. Plus if it was that
> > difficult to move and they made no attempt whatsoever to dig it out, I
> > seriously doubt that it would have moved merely under the influence of the
> > changing tide. And, by the way, why didn't they try to dig it out? Seems
> > really stupid to me.
>
> They tried to. It was getting late - I said it was getting dark and they
> wanted to try again the next day.
>
They wouldn't have gone done without marker equipment. The only
exception to that
would be if they were amazingly stupid, then I wouldn't believe ANYTHING
else
they say based on demonstrated ignorance.
> Everything this person says indicates to me that he
> > and his clumsy buddies know nothing about diving. I think the whole story
> > is a complete fabrication.
>
> Fabrication indeed. You need a dose of reality. You need to meet my
> friend Eric and tell him that straight to his face.
>
'friend Eric'. I doubt you have any friends. No one would put up with
your
lying this long. Didn't the bible say 'thou shalt not lie'. Maybe you
should reread that part.
> JM
>
> >
> > >
> > >
I suggest you learn to 'question authority' and quit believing the crap
people
feed you.
I bet car salesman LOVE when you come to the showroom. -- "god himself
drove
this model, we call it the Proof Of Creationism sedan" -- JM: "great,
I'll take 3"
AJ Musgrove
J M wrote:
>
> Mark Bare wrote:
> >
> > There are NO chariots at the bottom of the red sea JM, so quite wishing and
>
> Saying something that is contrary to the truth, even if you're ignorant
> of it, is called lying. Could you rephrase that?
>
When why do you keep claiming there are biblical chariot parts at the
bottom
of the red sea? Reread what you just said.
> JM
>
> >
irony is wonderful
sregoR .M divaD
J M wrote:
>
> Mike Painter wrote:
> >
> > Aside from the similarity of this thread to another some time ago when a
> > wheel was found in similar circumstances (urban myth time).
> > The flawed technical description of the dive itself.
> > The "unlikely" possibility that anything could be found in a recognizable
> > state after 3000 years.
>
> Unfortunately you're basing you're "flawed technical description" of the
> dive itself on a misobservation.
>
> Typical evolutionist.
There is no unified evolutionary position on the above topic,
consequently, there is no typical evolutionist position on the above
topic. Once again, it would appear to me, you are stereotyping to
simplify your position to "Godly Christian You" Vs. "The Evil Skeptical
Faithless Atheist God-denying Evilutionists." This is a false
dichotomy, and strikes me as a form of cowardice. Are you unable to
stomach the reality that a majority of "evilutionists" are as religious,
if not more so than you? The world isn't as black and white, I think,
as you would like it to be. Trying to make it so, as you seem to be
doing, is a sign of immaturity.
--
The Young American
=================================
Nuke A Gay Whale For Christ.
- American Bumper Sticker
.
J M
I'm a beginner. Just past the test in June. I have sent the money off yet
to get my card. If you want to verify this ask Bill or Dea Omler of the
Chico Dive shop in Chico.
>
> > The weight belt is made with a
> > > quick-release buckle. Putting it on "backwards" would mean that it would
> > > be easier for the other hand to release it but nothing more. An $800 light
> > > would be quite a bit of equipment. I know several amateur underwater
> > > photographers who own some very elaborate equipment. I don't think any of
> > > them own a light that would cost anywhere close to $800. And these
> > > bumbling idiots who don't even know how to put on a tank are swimming
> > > around with an $800 light.
> >
> > I don't think you get it. There are expensive lights like that. Obviously
> > you think I'm dense to that. But my friends Dea and Bill own a Dive shop.
> > You are obviously mistaken.
> >
>
> Wrong. You say later they are NOT professional photographers, they don't
> have
> color correcting lenses for their cameras (bluish everything), so why
> would they
> have a light like that? Give my a catalog number for a dive light that
> costs that
> much or admit you are full of shit.
I don't know. It has two lights, and batteries that you can't buyin a
supermarket.
>
> > I can't imagine that. And how on earth could
> > > you be in the water and suddenly realize you have dropped a big light? I
> > > know of no lights that would fit on your wrist (as this person indicated)
> > > that would cost more than $50.
> >
> > This light was attached to his wrist. Nobody said it was a wrist light.
> >
>
> I have a light that attaches to my wrist. Its funny, jumped off many
> dive boats
> and piers, and its never fallen off.
>
> > Even cheap lights are pretty heavy and
> > > bulky so not noticing that you had dropped one would be an amazing thing.
> > > An $800 one would be a pretty sophisticated light like a strobe or
> > > something hooked to a camera or something like that. When I go diving I
> > > make damn sure that I know where I am and where everybody else is. We
> >
> > The purpose and use of that light was to allow photography, or did you
> > note that?
> >
>
> A few lines you say "These were amateurs". In a responce to me you
> indicated
> they had substandard photography equipment (no color correction). This
> doesn't
> jive with this gold-plated light (must have been gold-plated to cost
> that much)
> you claim they use.
Perhaps I am mistaken. The professor from Sweden brought it.
>
> > > would never be so stupid or treacherous to leave a buddy in the water where
> > > his location would only be known from his bubble trail.
> >
> > You know the rules of diving, and you seem to be very unfamiliar with
> > it. I know of countless times wherein I've heard of divers leaving other
> > divers. It's easy to do and unless you're a professional you tend to do
> > things like this. These were amateurs. Rory didn't seem to have the
> > experience.
> >
>
> On the contrary, people that are new to diving tend to stick very close
> together.
> Its when people have been doing it a while that they feel comfortable
> enough
> to wander off (generally speaking). I doubt you know much about diving.
They should. But people tend to not stick together quite often too.
> > If we ever find
> > > anything interesting that can't be brought to the surface we would mark it
> > > and return with a line from the boat to bring it up. These folks were only
> > > in 80 feet and probably in pretty clear water. Finding something as
> > > spectacular as an ancient wheel is something that no diver would ever
> > > abandon without marking it in some way and diving to it again as soon as
> > > the charts would allow the next dive. I have been fortunate to find some
> > > old stuff and it is always exciting. However, everything that I have found
> > > that is old wood has been extremely fragile. And, I have never found
> > > anything nearly as old as this chariot wheel would have been. Maybe it is
> > > possible for a 4,000 year old wooden-spoked wheel to have maintained some
> > > structural integrity, but I sorta doubt it.
> >
> > These parts are coral encrusted which I have pointed out time and time
> > again on this news group (alt.atheism). There is absolutely no sign of any
> > wood. Eric told me that you could pass your hands through inbetween the
> > spokes, however.
> >
>
> Coral encrusted? So they very well could have been wagon wheels. You
> said they
> looked like the Egypian wheels. How could this be told if the shape was
> all
> that was available (there is a lot more to a chariot wheel than some
> spokes). Pray
> tell, through the coral that protected them how were they identified?
It's round, has a hub. I wasn't there.
> > Pulling on it as this guy
> > > described almost certainly would have destroyed it. Plus if it was that
> > > difficult to move and they made no attempt whatsoever to dig it out, I
> > > seriously doubt that it would have moved merely under the influence of the
> > > changing tide. And, by the way, why didn't they try to dig it out? Seems
> > > really stupid to me.
> >
> > They tried to. It was getting late - I said it was getting dark and they
> > wanted to try again the next day.
> >
>
> They wouldn't have gone done without marker equipment. The only
> exception to that
> would be if they were amazingly stupid, then I wouldn't believe ANYTHING
> else
> they say based on demonstrated ignorance.
Look fella, I'm telling the truth.
>
> > Everything this person says indicates to me that he
> > > and his clumsy buddies know nothing about diving. I think the whole story
> > > is a complete fabrication.
> >
> > Fabrication indeed. You need a dose of reality. You need to meet my
> > friend Eric and tell him that straight to his face.
> >
>
> 'friend Eric'. I doubt you have any friends. No one would put up with
> your
> lying this long. Didn't the bible say 'thou shalt not lie'. Maybe you
> should reread that part.
Look fella, the Bible says thou shalt not lie. I did not lie. Maybe you
ought to read it every once in a while.
JM
tOAd
Well - JM has presented us with a glorious account of how his friends
have discovered Chariot Wheels, of the correct "spokage" to be from the
time of the Exodus. Lets deconstruct this theory...
The First rebuttal comes from the expert PADI and dive people, who tell
us that the dive itself is almost unbelievable and that it is a miracle
that the divers did not burst upon retreating to the surface!
The next rebuttal is from the underwater archaeologists who balk at the
preservation of these wheels or wheel in such an environment. However,
personally I think that It quite possible for this to occur. The sea is
quite a preservationist.
Being a christian, I would love to agree with the YEC's, and in this
discovery, but I cannot.
Given the population density of the region at the time, and the
extensive travel through the region by Egyptions, I am not surprised
that a wheel could be found...but it does not prove anything except that
it came off of a chariot from the right time period.
Most non-fundamental Christians, like myself, are not as gullable as JM,
and do not believe in a young earth. I personally hold evolution to be
the truth, no matter what my religious beliefs.
tOAd
Mike Painter
It probably is a misobservation. I only have the text you supplied to go on
and my own expertise in the field of diving. Even my beginning students
would have had brains enough to take a piece of string and a float along
with them.
Couple this with the same type of story posted some time ago, the
unwillingness of any of the alleged participants to reveal any details of
this (to them) important find and you have an urban legend.
We will not mention what something like a wheel would look like a hundred
years after being immersed in salt water. Sorry, the crap about it being
protected with some growth does not explain it.
I'd be happy to show you an anchor dropped in less saltier and colder water
after just a hundred years or so.... Just send money.
PS You might see what your bible actually says about the body of water
involved.
J M wrote in message <34D3F7...@dcsi.net>...
>Mike Painter wrote:
>Unfortunately you're basing you're "flawed technical description" of the
>dive itself on a misobservation.
>
>Typical evolutionist.
>
eldyn...@aol.com
I am simply amazed at the response to this post--99 and counting on my server (What the hell, I'll make it an even 100). Even taking into account the fact that nameless himself posted a third of those, that still means an awful lot of people take seriously the obligation to reply to this hogwash.
Don't get me wrong, I don't mean this as criticism of those who responded. But it is remarkable there are so many, given the following:
1. The story is very likely a fabrication.
2. If not, it is highly likely that the diver was mistaken in what he saw.
3. If he were not mistaken, there would be no reason to connect it with any particular point in history.
4. If it could be dated, it is very unlikely to have been contemporaneous with Moses.
5. If it could be shown that it was deposited on the sea floor during Moses' lifetime (+/- whatever dating error) We would have no reason to connect it with any purported miracle.
I vote "looney"
(Whoops, that's the answer for Ed Conrad. Sorry)
Tim DeLaney
The moving finger writes, and having writ, moves on.
Nor all your piety nor wit shall lure it back to cancel half a line.
Nor all your tears wash out a word of it
Yang Hu
Steve Geller wrote:
> I have filed this tale, and will bring it out the next time a
> creationist calls for "equal time".
this is an actual folk tale from China.
Yang
#28
Tony Smith
Yang Hu wrote:
>
> Once upon a time in there were 8 suns, and people suffered beacuse the
> land was to hot. One day a great Chinese warrior who strength is rivaled
> by non was asked by the suffering populace to relieve them of their
> tribulation. He then drew a normal arrow made by a contempoary >
<<Snip>>
possible.
> q.e.d
>
> Yang
> #28
Are you for real?
----------------
Tony Smith
Tony Smith
J M wrote:
>
> Kevin Huber wrote:
> >
> > Correlation. Causation. Why would a fundy care about those big
> > words?
>
> Perhaps its because there are written records and artifacts to prove it.
>
>
What records?
Registration details of the chariot perhaps?
Parking fines?
-----------------
Tony Smith
Dark Fader
J M shit:
>
> Typical evolutionist.
>
> JM
Typical? typical?
What the fuck would YOU know of "typical"?
YOU know JACKSHIT about anything scientific, asshole.
YOU have amply demonstrated your extreme IGNORANCE of anything
scientific.
YOU are a scientific moron. (Is that lower that an imbecile?).
Every time YOU open your fecal-encrusted orifices, skatological coils of
immense size
emanate.
(Ain't that a gorgious picture? Oh, Great Master of Ordure?).
Crawl back under your creators rock, BUTTWIPE!
YOU have been exorcised and blessed (blasted).
Now assume your usual posish, slave!
.
Bruce Munro
In article <34D507...@ix.netcom.com>,
Roger Rains <rra...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> [Regarding Ron Wyatt's imaginary chariot wheels]
>He is selling the
>archeological equivelent of the Brooklyn Bridge to a bunch of devout
>people that he obviously considers witless rubes. Kind of sad really.
Well, Ron's right about one thing anyway!
Bruce Munro
In article <34D3DF...@dcsi.net>, J M <mc...@dcsi.net> wrote:
>Erik Marksberry wrote:
>>
>> On 1 Feb 1998, J M wrote:
>> >
>> > Even when presented with the evidence the ultra skeptics deny the truth.
>> >
>>
>> Evidence of what? A wheel? Sure, they found a wheel. Did they
>> have the qualifications to judge whether or not it was a _chariot_ wheel?
>> No. Did they see a chariot attached to the wheel? No. Do they have
>> samples to test and see if it's from Moses' time? No. In other words,
>> can they say anything with certainty besides they found a wheel? No.
>
>There are cabs down there as well. According to the Bible God caused the
>wheels to come off the hubs. Indeed that's what you find down there.
So that's where they all are, never a cab around here when you need one.
Dark Fader
J M, the great prevaricator, lied in his usual way:
> Look fella, I'm telling the truth.
Sure.
Of course.
Gee, I guess we can just bow down to such "convincing" non-evidence of
"truth"!
Hey, group, this is the same asshole who claims the ACTUAL truth of
"Noahs ark"!
He uses the same old tired "argument" to "prove" that, too.
(He wasn't very convincing with the "ark", either).
He gave up on that when he realised that a 100-year old man couldn't
lift thousand-pound beams up to 4-story height in order to build a
WOODEN aircraft-carrier-sized "boat" containing "samples" of all life on
the entire earth!
Without even a forklift!
Or, cut and shape and place, with precision, millions of board-feet of
hard lumber.
Without a power saw!
Un-fuckin' believable!!!
.
Dark Fader
Yang Hu wrote:
> this is an actual folk tale from China.
>
> Yang
> #28
Just like the "creation" folk tale in the US of A!
Obviously.
(But try to tell "JM" the "Great Prevaricator" that Yang!
He is SUCH a BUTTWIPE!
Yes?
.
Yang Hu
Tony Smith wrote:
> Are you for real?
I exist, therefore I have a student I.D. number
Yang
#28
Yang Hu
Dark Fader wrote:
[the tale of the 8 suns]
> Just like the "creation" folk tale in the US of A!
Yang
#28
Yang Hu
Tony Smith wrote:
> Are you for real?
just a spoof....
Yang
#28
Dark Fader
From: J M, the Great Prevaricator:
>Emotionalism.
>Too much emotionalism.
Tch, tch, BUTTWIPE, at a loss for words?
You just keep saying the same old shit over and over and over again.
Can't say anything significant or important?
Don't you EVER get the "message"?
YOU are simply WRONG.
We just don't give a shit about the likes of YOU!
And your fuckin' LIES.
YOU just can not accept that. Can YOU?
It is driving you nutz (Or at least, more nutz than you were).
Now.
Be a nice little slavish "FUNDY-WIPE".
Assume the bent over posish.
.
Shooty
> J M, the great prevaricator, lied in his usual way:
>
> > Look fella, I'm telling the truth.
>
>
> Sure.
>
> Of course.
>
> Gee, I guess we can just bow down to such "convincing" non-evidence of
> "truth"!
>
> Hey, group, this is the same asshole who claims the ACTUAL truth of
> "Noahs ark"!
>
> He uses the same old tired "argument" to "prove" that, too.
>
> (He wasn't very convincing with the "ark", either).
>
>
> He gave up on that when he realised that a 100-year old man couldn't
> lift thousand-pound beams up to 4-story height in order to build a
> WOODEN aircraft-carrier-sized "boat" containing "samples" of all life on
> the entire earth!
>
> Without even a forklift!
>
> Or, cut and shape and place, with precision, millions of board-feet of
> hard lumber.
>
> Without a power saw!
>
> Un-fuckin' believable!!!
>
The cutting of the timbers and the raising to position aren't such a
problem. The Royal Dockyards at Woolwich and Chatham built the big first
raters without power tools, they substituted muscle power. Mind you, they
had hundreds of men all experienced for generations in building ships,
they had steel tools and highly detailed plans evolved over generations of
ships to help them. The top craftsmen were highly paidfor their day.
Plus a first rate ship is a lot smaller than the size that would be needed
to hold the 16,000 'kinds' that have been proposed for the Ark.
Shooty