Wallener

...to show us those digging permits you claim Wyatt had.

RED DAVE

From Lysimachus:
1) That you respond to my charge of antisemitism contained in your remark as follows:
2) That you demonstrate that these two pillars exist on opposite sides of the crossing you are alleging is the real Moses crossing.

3) That you show any record, in or out of the Bible, showing that Solomon or anyone else set up such pillars.

4) That you give one piece of physical evidence concerning the location of the Ark of the Covenant.

4) And, just for fun, would you comment on Vendyl Jones' claim that he has fouind the location of the Ark of the Covenant in a very different place from Wyatt.

And once you do this, I have more homework for you.

RED DAVE

Amaleq13

If you truly speak for praxeus, then you both would appear to have a drastically over inflated opinion of the strength of the arguments you have presented. For example, even if, as you suggest, Sauron's explanation of the pillars is totally without merit, all you've actually established is that the pillars could be considered consistent with the story you have told. In fact, that's pretty much all you've managed to establish throughout this entire discussion:

The evidence can be interpreted to be consistent with the story you tell. That's it. In addition, the majority of the presented evidence consistents of ambiguous photographs rather than actual objects that have been professionally examined by various experts.

I don't know whether you really think that constitutes a compelling argument but I strongly suspect, given my experience with him, that praxeus knows better. While I fully agree that the above meets the relatively low standards of skepticism held by the typical Believer and is more than sufficient to be considered supportive of prior-held convictions, it is entirely inadequate to convince anyone who did not have faith in the truth of the story beforehand.

A consideration of non-biblical archaeological finds might be helpful for you to understand what kind of standards are required for rational conclusions. Establishing that a given wreck belonged to Blackbeard requires quite a bit more than shadowy pictures and the mere possibility that it can be interpreted as consistent with a story about Ed Teach.

gregor

Had this blather not been posted on the day the second group of god-following fundmentalists set off bombs in London, it might be merely an ignorant rant, if not pardonable. Instead it's truly offensive.

Promise you'll hang around through August when another Wyatt-inspired prediction fails yet again.

MiddleMan

Lysimachus provided us with a picture of one of "Solomon's pillars" from the "ark discovery" website. I went there and had a look around. I was not convinced by their evidence until I ran across this picture:




Isn't that Charlie Heston holding the 10 Commandments? And not only that, but I can see the burning bush on top of Jebel el Lawz in the background!! Holy moley! It must be real!

Sauron

1. That is not why you & praxeus dropped out. You left because people kept asking for evidence, and you couldn't give any. The evidence you *did* offer turned out to have one or more of the following flaws:

(a) easily explained as something else (parts from modern ships);
(b) contradictory to your claim, or contradictory to what is known about the time period or the nature of such artifacts;
(c) hopelessly ambiguous or unprovenanced; or
(d) mis-identified by you two and/or your friend, Ron Wyatt.

2. When you found out that mere assertions and ambiguous claims weren't winning anyone over, you found yourself in a bind. You realized that a rigorous support of your claim was far more work than you came prepared to do -- far, far more work. So now you pretend that the problem is with the skeptics, instead of with the weaknesses in your case. How lame.

Face it: your claims are extraordinary. And you know what they say: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. So far the quality of your evidence wouldn't be enough to support an *ordinary* archaeological claim, much less this outlandish fairy tale that you've been spinning out for us.

Thus demonstrating that you don't read. It wasn't merely my statement that these are natural rock formations; I also quoted from six distinct sources that demonstrated that.

Except that six distinct sources say I am right. If you think they're wrong, then you'll have to do better than (more) mere assertion.

1. The Pillars of Solomon are exactly what I described: natural stone formations. However, perhaps you are talking about something totally different, artifacts found on a shore? But with coincidentally the same name? Fine. Let's explore that idea.

2. You have extremely detailed descriptions of these alleged findings. Let's see the proof of them. The first thing we'll need is some evidence for the pillar, the lip, the involvement of the Egyptian govt, etc. Evidence - got any? Given your past behavior of making stupendous claims that you support with hazy photographs and unprovenanced artifacts, though, I won't hold my breath.

Let's see the proof for that as well. Cite the location and dig site/year for the Ashkelon pillars. Also, the dating for them and the archaeologist and/or institution sponsoring the dig.

The facts are that you have presented no facts. You're full of piss and vinegar when it comes to assertions, but facts are in short supply. And yes -- I did look at your photos. They don't constitute facts, for reasons I'll list below.


Yes. Or find them on the internet. If you want to rescue such claims from the Weekly World News / National Inquirer / alien abduction genre, then you're going to need something more than claims and hazy photographs.

Oh, don't worry about me; I can take care of myself. And if anyone is coming across like a fool on this board, it sure isn't me.

1. Yep. Scan it. And make sure it's a clear scan as well.

2. I don't know why you would be appalled; you shouldn't be. Your claims are extraordinary; you should expect people to ask for proof.

It looks like a piece of iron pipe, that someone stood up on a rock in order to take an amateur photo.

Another piece of pipe, encrusted. Or any of the other items I will shortly list, below. The color is different between the two photos as well. Why would that be?

So far this is hardly convincing. :rolling:

Wrong. that is EXACTLY the type of archaeology that is needed here. This may very well be man made - but it could be:

• part of a canalwork piping from 1800;
• part of a piece of oil pipeline made in 1921;
• a part from a sunken ship - such as a propeller drive shaft - from 1942;
• a piece of cargo that was abandoned in 1973;

In short, you haven't proven anything. The fact that something is man made does not automatically make it centuries old from Solomon's time. Where is the inspection certificate? The geological analysis? That's how Oded Golan got caught in his forgery, you know. So why shouldn't we follow the same process here?

There may also be natural processes that could form such phenomenon; I don't know; I'm thinking of the Giant's Causeway at the moment. However, it appears that we were talking about different "Solomon's Pillars".

But at least after all this back and forth, the source of confusion is now made clear. No one in the world calls these things in the grainy pictures "Solomon's pillars" -- no one except for Ron Wyatt and his team of pseudo-scientists, that is. Indeed, no one looking at these would mistake them for pillars. So when an attempt was made to google for "Solomon's Pillars" on the web, it returned the only actual item known by that name -- the natural rock outcroppings that I described earlier.

I'll deal with your next diatribe in a separate post.

Sauron

Incorrect. My comments on fundamentalism ARE facts - what's more, my comments USE facts to discredit fundamentalism.

You can believe any ridiculous thing you want to about fundamentalism -- all I care about is what you can prove. So far, that hasn't been much at all.

There is no evidence of this. Your personal wishful thinking isn't good enough.

Hm. Well, as I look around the world right now, countries and people that *do* believe in God are committing....murder, crime, brutality, with no mercy in any corner. So the evidence indicates rather the opposite of your claim: the more someone believes in God, the more likely they are to engage in such atrocities.

You are correct; I would not agree to it - why should I? Your statement is false. It's amazing that you could say this, without seeing the mistakes yourself. But I guess it falls to the rest of us to point them out.

1. There have been numerous times in history where people did not believe in God. Or, where they were outright pagan, and believed in other gods besides the judeo-christian one. Yet the outlandish things you claim above did not happen. Your statement is thus easily disproven.

2. There are countries even today -- such as Japan -- that have near zero belief in God. Yet Japan has a very low crime rate, the opposite of your silly scenario. Again, you're statement is easily disproven.

3. Standards of morality do not have to derive from religion either. In fact, in most cases it is better if they do not derive from religion, since religion cannot be proven and disagreements cannot be resolved except by brute force. Morality based upon brute force is bad for a society.

1. You should be asking me to avoid the facts. After all, it would certainly be better for you I avoided facts -- because the more I concentrate on facts, the more tattered and laughable your position becomes.

2. Data? Data? Excuse me, but you haven't presented any data, either head-on or through the back door, either. So I'm not worried.

RED DAVE

I guess the Ron Wyatt groupies took their toys: the Ark of the Covenant, Noah's Ark, Solomon's Pillar, Pharoah's Chariots, etc., and moved away.

Can't have no fun in this neighborhood any more.

RED DAV

John A. Broussard

Don't kid yourself. It's a hydra-headed dragon we're dealing with.

Lysimachus

I really sorry for the adamant stances taken by most of you. You guys really have no idea just how much there is to know regarding Ron's discoveries.

Right now as I speak, work is being accomplished. WAR and a group of over 60 people are making headway in the Garden Tomb area toward the chamber where we believe the Ark to reside. Much progress is taking place, and we are truly excited about it. This is a huge team with big funding behind it, right in the midst of the IAA's surveillance. And no, WAR hasn't been kicked out like other groups end up getting. They're one of the few groups the IAA actually trusts.

The Garden Tomb area is "Palistinian claimed territory", yet "Israeli occupied territory". This area belonged to the Palistinians and the Israeli's confiscated it during the 1967 war between the Israelis and the Palistinians.

The fact that these permits are to be kept confidential is PERFECTLY understandeable. If the Palistinians learn that "legal digs" regarding the Ark of the Covenant are taking place on "their land"--land that they to this stay still feel is theirs, it could cause an outright war...Jihad. They could give the Israeli Government a very hard time, and so WAR is doing EXACTLY what they are told. Keep this dig confidential, which means, don't go releasing permits.

So all we can do now is talk about it and surmise. But there is no way for me to prove to you that there is a legal permit. I'm just telling you how it works, and you can take what I say or trash it. It's your choice.

And as for all the mumble jumble about me not providing a shred of evidence for "exaggerated claims". You'll just have to not believe, I guess. For some people, the evidence I provided is considered just that, "evidence". For some of you I have not provided evidence. Tough willies.

I find it severely offensive on how I can be mocked on my standing of fundamentalism. When I state "fundamentalism has helped to prevent this world from falling into utter mayhem and destruction", I'm not speaking about the popular ever-growing fundamentalism you see on TV and in your church across the street. I'm talking about "true fundamentalism" that is rarely seen, and not perceived by the naked eye. A people that hold true to principle and put to practice what they believe in their daily lives, and not just have the theory of the truth. "Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it."--Matthew 7:14

The reason so many think fundamentalism has brought ruin and made things worse than better, is because the fundamentalism they are perceiving really isn't true fundamentalism. But because God does have a faithful few, He is being merciful to the rest of the world and holding back the winds of strife. This is very easy for even a child to understand.

But anyway, at least I feel satisfied that I did my part. No, if you think that my duty is to answer everyone of your questions, then you're wrong. My duty is not to do that. It's to provide a basis of what these discoveries are all about, and then for you to do your own research. I'm not here to write a book. I'm here to tell you there is plenty in these books for you to get your hands on, although I might be gracious enough to provide a quote here and there.

If you want to believe that Dr. Moller is totally lying and making up garbage, for example, that the pillars in Ashkelon resemble or even exist, that is not my problem. I can only tell you the research he has done. I've read several archaeological books by Ph.Ds that provide photos of various objects, and do they tell you EXACTLY where the object is located in the city they claim it is? Bogus, Moller provides no more evidence in his book than most Ph.D.s. A certain level of trust has to be given at some point. Only a critic, who is desperate in wanting to disprove the other, will go to such lengths as to make their opponent describe detailed instructions as how to arrive to the exact location of the object. I say this reasoning is utter insanity, and I only see it demonstrated when it comes to anything related with scripture or biblical archaeology, unfortunately.

I guess Sauron's understanding of data is of different interpretation than mine. He feels he's right no matter what, and that he's got his "facts" straight. Well, how can you reason with a mind like that? It's not possible. He's going to tell you something isn't data, while others consider it data. Heh, I guess all one can do is leave it at that when it gets this far off the road.