Pharaoh's chariots found in the Red Sea? ( Holy Moses! )

World Net Daily ^ | June 21, 2003 | Joe Kovacs

[Smokin' Joe]

Given the poor condition of wood and iron recovered from sunken 300-400 year old Spanish wrecks near Florida, what would the condition be of wooden chariot parts submerged for thousands of years in warm relatively shallow water?

Maybe so, but it seems to me that the Egyptians of this time period used mainly Bronze. The Hittites had iron, and that made them nasty folks to fight with....

[Jorge]

The Bible has NEVER been proven wrong, so this is not surprising at all. What is surprisng is how man goes out of his way to try to avoid proving the absolute historical accuracy of it.

Unfortunately, many people work so hard all their lives to deny God's truth...only to realize too late that could have saved their souls. Tragic.

[Quix]

I think the corssing research Wyatt did was solid. And some Sinai stuff I forget whether it was done by him or someone he knew.

Don't know about Aararat sp?

The Crucifixion, Ark of The Covenant sounds like something God would do--but time will tell. I believe it is NOT time for it to be revealed yet. But getting closer by the day.

Have gone up and down on whether Wyatt was authentic, a charlatan or not. I believe now he was not a charlatan. It remains to be seen what he found will prove to be validated. But I think the crossing stuff has been proven sufficiently for me to believe it.

[Quix]

Great point!

[Quix]

Wellllllllllll if you consider the evidence for evolution to be

Gargantuan . . . that explains plenty about your screening for evidence skills and criteria.

Sigh.

[Quix]

I agree.

[Quix]

"CLEAR" transitions from species to species?

You must be joking.

That's about like Shrillery Hellery calling Dillbo the most honorable husband she knows because he smiles so sweetly on camera.

[Quix]

Well said.

Much agree.

[Radix]

Do you have any pictures from your vacation at the Black Sea from 7000 or so years ago?

[fso301]

I'm not an Egyptologist or student of military antiquities but my guess is the Egyptian chariots were largely composed of wood due to it's weight. Fasteners and decorations may have been metallic but I suspect the axle, wheels, floor and apron were largely wooden.

At growth rates of 1/2 inch per year, corals would have long ago overgrown their original seed material (metal chariot parts) and would now be large coral reefs. To have a recognizeable chariot part, recovered now, it would have needed to have been buried at or shortly after the Egyptian army was destroyed.

[comebacknewt]

Nice post. My way of thinking on this follows yours pretty closely.

I have never considered evolution and creationism to be competing ideas.

[Smokin' Joe]

Agreed on the probable composition. However, rates of coral growth and sedimentation/scouring of sediments cannot be assumed to be constant. Wood may or may not have provided appropriate anchor points for coral if the wood was covered with sediment rapidly, and the amount of coral growth is dependant on numerous factors as well. Too many variables in the equation.

You are right about burial, but the mechanism of closing walls of water could have provided plenty of suspended sediment with no prevailing current.

Coral growth and sedimentation could be significant, or nearly negligable; the conditions which would promote organic decay (water circulation, nutrient flow, oxygenation) would also enhance coral growth to a point. They are not a given, however. Even so, encrustation of wooden artifacts should provide even crude molds, which properly found and investigated, should yield at least the gross morphology of the void space, and thus, be identifiable to some degree. Wood has survived long internment under water in the proper conditions, though little known to be from this era.

If this is a shipwreck, there should be evidence of cargo, ballast, and a ship, with some fittings unique to that (maritime) venue. The debris field should be limited in size (by the size of the vessel).

If an army on the march, another assemblage of artifacts would be expected of a more terrestrial bent, one significantly larger than a ship could contain, and dispersed in such a fashion that would make a maritime source unlikely.

Imagine drowning a large force of foot soldiers, horse, and chariots. Even if the chariots were made from wood too dense to float, or adorned/fitted heavily eonugh to stay submerged, only the soldiers encumbred by sufficient goods, armor, or weapons to hold their bodies on the bottom after bloating would stay in place. Putrefaction, bloating, and a west wind could have delivered numerous weapons into the hands of the Hebrews, literally coming ashore.

I was thinking, though that any force of significant size should have contained a fair metallic component in the debris, (clasps, buckles, ornaments, if not weapons, (projectile points, etc.) In the absence of ferrous metals, (no magnetic anomaly), this might be tougher to detect, but there should still be a substantial amount of material which should have been left on the bottom.

Politics of the region will likely make thorough investigation difficult, if not impossible, which is a pity. This is intriguing as an archaeological problem, the potential religious significance is astounding.

[mdmathis6]

I understand the esoteric difference between a working hypothesis(essentially a "supposition of order" or road-map of reason to provide an orderly acquisition of data for testing and formation of knowledge by inductive and deductive means) and settled theory(accepted working axioms gained by observation of data via the successful working out of and reproducible experimentation with various WORKING HYPOTHESES as relates to observed data phenomena). Settled theorems may have parts(or holes) that are not wholly demonstrable by logically observed data; though applications of whole theorems may be useful in explaining a given phenomena and even be useful in creating new knowledge, inventions, medical benefits, that advance our knowledge and standard of living.
Now I just said a mouthful! We have working theories of gravity, physics, light ect each made up of hypotheses supported by observable data. It is given that we don't know everything about each of the above, how it all works, ect but we know enough to predict behavior of each under give conditions. The atomic bomb worked even though Einstein had incorrect data regarding the transit of venus as it related to his theory of relativity. When the corrections were made, his theory was merely strenthened, not destroyed.

The arguement with accepting evolution as settled theory(hence the layman's term "just a theory") is that there are too many unsupported hypotheses in the thought and experimental processes regarding evolution to even call it settled theory. We can't really reproduce the conditions of early earth though we make suppositions of what is was like, and we can manipulate carbon and enzymes in a lab. Even the notion of how to define what evolution is, is being fought over by the pre-eminent scientists in the field.
All theories are considered "falsifialbe" which is different from "fact". I think that is what the hick religious trailer park crowd have in mind when they say "evolution is not a fact, it is just a theory, and not a very good one at that!

[AmericaUnited]

My personal belief is that "evolution" may have occurred, but that it is/was guided evolution

I see... You're really a closet creationist. :)

[AmericaUnited]

Your post 90 was very interesting. Do you have any links for the "recreation" theories?

[dark_lord]

Nope. But if you check out the NIV translation (for example, here, and follow the footnote, you will see the accepted alternate translation of "was" is, in fact, "became". Do that, and think about the implications.

[clamper1797]

Christians do not believe your theory and you're wasting your breath on us.

So don't confuse them with fact

[clamper1797]

My personal belief is that "evolution" may have occurred, but that it is/was guided evolution

Mine too

[clamper1797]

I COMPLETELY disagree with this stupid IDIOTIC theory that somehow the world is 6,000 years old.

You got that right

[UnklGene]

Now then, Gene. See all the trouble you've generated?
( "Here's another fine mess you've gotten us into,
Stanley!" )