Parting the waters

Fanny Cradock

I was surprised to see that Yahoo carried an article about hydrodynamic modelling into the Exodus story of the parting of the Red Sea. In short, it is believed that if 63mph winds blew over a certain point in the Nile for a number of hours the waters would literally part leaving a wall of water on either side. This seems to fit nicely with the Biblical account.

I'm sure there will be resistance from all sides - from those who don't believe in God and from those think that miracles cant have a naturalistic dynamic. Anyway, I found it to be an interesting read.

https://www2.ucar.edu/news/parting-waters-computer-modeling-applies-physics-red-sea-escape-route

homer911

Thanks Fanny - its always nice to see Science being used to support Religion - doesnt happen very often!

Fanny Cradock

You would be surprised!

Of course, the conflict thesis happens to sell more books. So perhaps that is why we hear so much about it.

Patrickof

homer911 wrote: »

Thanks Fanny - its always nice to see Science being used to support Religion - doesnt happen very often!

Huh?

Surely its the exact opposite. They've just demonstrated that the sea could have parted when subjected to certain wind conditions. Therefore it's no longer a miracle.

PDN

Patrickof wrote: »

Huh?

Surely its the exact opposite. They've just demonstrated that the sea could have parted when subjected to certain wind conditions. Therefore it's no longer a miracle.

The Bible simply says there was a wind and the waters parted. Whether God did it by means of a miracle or not is immaterial.

Fanny Cradock

Patrickof wrote: »

Therefore it's no longer a miracle.

It doesn't follow that because a plausible mechanism has been described there is no divine intervention involved. Perhaps you don't fully understand what people mean by a miracle. A miracle isn't always considered to be an interruption of a natural law, it can be an event ordained by God and contained within the boundaries of natural law. Indeed, in this context a law is only a description of how we understand things, it isn't binding as such. In principle a natural law can be revised and overturned at any point.

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

It doesn't follow that because a plausible mechanism has been described there is no divine intervention involved.

No but it doesn't support that claim either, which was what was being put forward.

You basically have something that can naturally occur being attributed to God. If it can naturally occur that would seem one less reason to suppose God had anything to do with it.

Now if you have a completely independent reasons to suppose that God did have something to do with it, then that is fair enough.

But that still doesn't mean this supports religion, as claimed.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

The Bible simply says there was a wind and the waters parted. Whether God did it by means of a miracle or not is immaterial.

Not to the question of whether the science supports religion.

Twin-go

PDN wrote: »

The Bible simply says there was a wind and the waters parted. Whether God did it by means of a miracle or not is immaterial.

PDN the Bible says as I', 100% sure you are aware:

Exodus21-22 wrote: »

21Then Moses stretched out his hand over the sea, and the LORD drove the sea back by a strong east wind all night and made the sea dry land, and the waters were divided. 22And the people of Israel went into the midst of the sea on dry ground, the waters being a wall to them on their right hand and on their left.

With this same logic the "Lord" causes Tsunami, the "Lord" causes earthquakes. So the "Lord is responsable for all the death and distruction if he is responsible for parting the Red sea.

PDN

Twin-go wrote: »

PDN the Bible says as I', 100% sure you are aware:

The Bible says God did it by a wind. The verses you quote don't make it clear whether this was by a miracle (ie something contrary to the laws of nature) or simply utilising those laws.

With this same logic the "Lord" causes Tsunami, the "Lord" causes earthquakes. So the "Lord is responsable for all the death and distruction if he is responsible for parting the Red sea.

I don't know how you reach that conclusion, but logic appears to have had little say in your thought processes.

Just because God used a wind on one occasion, it does not follow that every natural event is His direct work.

homer911

Patrickof wrote: »

Huh?

Surely its the exact opposite. They've just demonstrated that the sea could have parted when subjected to certain wind conditions. Therefore it's no longer a miracle.

With Pharoah's army bearing down on the Israelites, I'd call this a miracle due to the timing alone! Even if Science proves its possible, its not exactly an everyday or predictable occurence!

Turtwig

That's cool! Whether God did it or it was just pure luck for Moses, doesn't matter the fact such a phenomenon can occur is cool.:)

Fanny Cradock

Wicknight wrote: »

No but it doesn't support that claim either, which was what was being put forward.

You basically have something that can naturally occur being attributed to God. If it can naturally occur that would seem one less reason to suppose God had anything to do with it.

Now if you have a completely independent reasons to suppose that God did have something to do with it, then that is fair enough.

But that still doesn't mean this supports religion, as claimed.

I agree and that is why I've not claimed otherwise. My post to Patrickof was challenging the notion that a natural explanation necessarily eliminates the possibility of a miracle occurring. People understand that a miracle (if such things exist) can have naturalistic mechanisms as well as being an outright interruption of natural laws.

This research supports the claim made in Exodus 14:21-22 that a strong east wind turned back the waters. This research doesn't tell us if the findings are evidence of a miracle - be it an interruption of natural law attributed to God or an event occurring within the scope of natural law that is attributed to God - or a natural event not connected with God. Indeed, nobody connected to this research has, AFAIK, made the claim that "we have found a mechanism for an event occurring in the bible, therefore it "supports religion". I don't know what you mean implying this "supports religion". Religion doesn't have any relevance to what is presumably reported in Exodus as a historical event. And to this end, Carl Drews, the lead author, says, What this study shows is that the description of the waters parting indeed has a basis in physical laws."

Turtwig

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I agree and that is why I've not claimed otherwise. My post to Patrickof was challenging the notion that a natural explanation necessarily eliminates the possibility of a miracle occurring. People understand that a miracle (if such things exist) can have naturalistic mechanisms as well as being an outright interruption of natural laws.

This research supports the claim made in Exodus 14:21-22 that a strong east wind turned back the waters. This research doesn't tell us if the findings are evidence of a miracle - be it an interruption of natural law attributed to God or an event occurring within the scope of natural law that is attributed to God - or a natural event not connected with God. Indeed, nobody connected to this research has, AFAIK, made the claim that "we have found a mechanism for an event occurring in the bible, therefore it "supports religion". I don't know what you mean implying this "supports religion". Religion doesn't have any relevance to what is presumably reported in Exodus as a historical event. And to this end, Carl Drews, the lead author, says, What this study shows is that the description of the waters parting indeed has a basis in physical laws."

And it might also help explain how humans throughout history have managed to reach places that were deemed inaccessible unless you constructed a well designed raft. Who's to say that given some of the extreme climates our planet suffered in the past that this mechanism didn't provide bridges for people to cross bodies of waters that they otherwise couldn't?

(That's just me speculating btw )

Fanny Cradock

Malty_T wrote: »

That's cool! Whether God did it or it was just pure luck for Moses, doesn't matter the fact such a phenomenon can occur is cool.:)

Dare I say that it is not just cool but super cool?

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I don't know what you mean implying this "supports religion". Religion doesn't have any relevance to what is presumably reported in Exodus as a historical event.

I didn't, homer911 did

Thanks Fanny - its always nice to see Science being used to support Religion - doesnt happen very often!

Twin-go

PDN wrote: »

The Bible says God did it by a wind. The verses you quote don't make it clear whether this was by a miracle (ie something contrary to the laws of nature) or simply utilising those laws.


I don't know how you reach that conclusion, but logic appears to have had little say in your thought processes.

Just because God used a wind on one occasion, it does not follow that every natural event is His direct work.

But it does "prove" that he can control nature to suit his needs. So he could have prevented these natural disasters. To stand by and doing nothing is as bad as if he controlled them himself. It cannot work both ways. If something good happens it must be Gods work, something bad happens it's a natural disaster.

Fanny Cradock

Wicknight wrote: »

I didn't, homer911 did

Thanks Fanny - its always nice to see Science being used to support Religion - doesnt happen very often!

Fair enough. But why bring it up in a post addressed to me?

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Fair enough. But why bring it up in a post addressed to me?

Were you disagreeing with Homer911? If so apologies, you seemed to be taking up where he had left off.

PDN

Twin-go wrote: »

But it does "prove" that he can control nature to suit his needs. So he could have prevented these natural disasters. To stand by and doing nothing is as bad as if he controlled them himself. It cannot work both ways. If something good happens it must be Gods work, something bad happens it's a natural disaster.

Well of course He can control nature to suit His needs. He's omnipotent.

However, if you wish to discuss why God chooses to intervene at some times rather than others, then that takes us into the discussion of theodicy and free will. This has been discussed to death numerous times on various threads - and you are free to find one of them and contribute to it. But, to try to hijack this thread will be considered trolling and moderated as such.

Fanny Cradock

Wicknight wrote: »

Were you disagreeing with Homer911? If so apologies, you seemed to be taking up where he had left off.

I was talking about the conflict thesis and that this implies. But, hey, it looks like we both picked the conversation at the wrong point. Apologies.

Fanny Cradock

PDN wrote: »

... that takes us into the discussion of theodicy and free will.

Yeah, we really don't need another theodicy debate.

Twin-go

PDN wrote: »

Well of course He can control nature to suit His needs. He's omnipotent.

However, if you wish to discuss why God chooses to intervene at some times rather than others, then that takes us into the discussion of theodicy and free will. This has been discussed to death numerous times on
various threads - and you are free to find one of them and contribute to it. But, to try to hijack this thread will be considered trolling and moderated as such.

But it is totally relevant. The thread is about how science proved an event from the bible could have happened natually. This means that either the event really wasn't a divine miracle or that God controlled nature to his own ends to save his people on this occasion, but he refuses to do so in modern times.

wolfsbane

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Yeah, we really don't need another theodicy debate.

You going to obstruct Twin-go's free-will in order to prevent this evil?

Fanny Cradock

Twin-go wrote: »

But it is totally relevant. The thread is about how science proved an event from the bible could have happened natually. This means that either the event really wasn't a divine miracle or that God controlled nature to his own ends to save his people on this occasion, but he refuses to do so in modern times.

It is not relevant and you have been told on two occasions. This thread is about a specific piece of research that appears to support a rather extraordinary event recorded in the Bible. It is not a thread about theodicy and how we attempt to square bad things with a good God.

Fanny Cradock

wolfsbane wrote: »

You going to obstruct Twin-go's free-will in order to prevent this evil?

Most certainly

Turtwig

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Dare I say that it is not just cool but super cool?

Maybe, but I think this is more along the lines of super cool.:)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FhBn1ozht-E

Water is simply a cool substance.

hivizman

Having read an article about this discovery in todays edition of The Times, could I propose a slightly different angle?

A type of argument that is sometimes advanced as a criticism of the reliability of the Bible is to identify some event narrated in the Bible and to argue that the event contradicts nature. The person advancing the argument usually holds as a fundamental belief that nothing that contradicts nature is possible. Hence the Bible is reporting on an impossible event and as a consequence it is unreliable. The classic argument along these lines is to assert that it is simply impossible for someone who has died to come back to life, so the resurrection could not have happened in the way narrated in the gospels, and therefore the gospels are unreliable.

I have come across (can't give specific references at the moment) the argument that Moses could not possibly have led the Israelites across the Red Sea because the phenomenon of parting the waters was physically impossible. Therefore the suggestion that the Red Sea waters could have been parted along the lines described in Exodus (whether the "cause" is God or nature) enhances the reliability (or reduces the unreliability, depending on how you look at it) of the Bible.

So a discovery that weakens the claim that parting the Red Sea was a miracle (something outside nature) ends up strengthening (if only marginally) the authority of the Bible.

Twin-go

hivizman wrote: »

So a discovery that weakens the claim that parting the Red Sea was a miracle (something outside nature) ends up strengthening (if only marginally) the authority of the Bible.

I disagree, I think it does weaken the authority of the Bible. If something that was thought of as a miracle is now proven possible in nature there is nothing miraculous about it and we don't need to use God to explain it.

The fact is people at the time, 2000 years plus ago atributed what they didn't understand to God. Natual disasters like floods were God showing he was angry. Eclipses of the Sun and Moon were warning signs from God. People suffered from disease because they were sinners, etc. But, we can now use science to explain all this. Our world is becoming less mysterious but no less wonderful.

The greater our understanding of our world and the universe the lesser our need to use God to fill in the gaps in our knowledge.

georgieporgy

yeah I think you're right. 2000 years ago people were stupid and now we're smart and getting smarter all the time.

Zombrex

georgieporgy wrote: »

yeah I think you're right. 2000 years ago people were stupid and now we're smart and getting smarter all the time.

2000 (more like 4000) years ago a lot of people were ignorant of natural processes.

They still had a strong desire to understand and explain, which is why they attributed things to processes they did understand and seemed natural to them, ie agents in nature working for human like reasons.

So I'm not sure you could call them stupid

georgieporgy

evidently they were wrong though and "we" are right?..... or are we?;)

optogirl

homer911 wrote: »

Thanks Fanny - its always nice to see Science being used to support Religion - doesnt happen very often!

How does this support religion - if this is the case then Moses just happened to be there when this happened

Twin-go

georgieporgy wrote: »

evidently they were wrong though and "we" are right?..... or are we?;)

They just had no evidence for their assertions. In the case of Exudos, they didn't know how the waters parted so it must be "God". Were as scienctific experiments have show how the parting may of happened in nature.

It's like a magic trick that you don't know how to do, its magic! Then you are shown how its done and its magic is lost.

Zombrex

georgieporgy wrote: »

evidently they were wrong though and "we" are right

It looks that way.

You can never prove anything about the natural world, or know anything for absolute certain. What you can do is construct working models and test how accurate these models are. We use a methodology that produces far more accurate results than most people 4000 years ago. The closest to modern standards would have been the Greeks who had started to form logical methodologies for studying the natural world (ie natural philosophy)

Fanny Cradock

Twin-go wrote: »

They just had no evidence for their assertions. In the case of Exudos, they didn't know how the waters parted so it must be "God". Were as scienctific experiments have show how the parting may of happened in nature.

The Biblical account implies the same thing - strong winds blew from the east throughout the night and the waters parted. That is what this research was based upon. What this research can't say is whether God was behind the wind or not.

Why do you suppose that God wouldn't use natural forces to fulfil his will?

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

The Biblical account implies the same thing - strong winds blew from the east throughout the night and the waters parted. That is what this research was based upon. What this research can't say is whether God was behind the wind or not.

Why do you suppose that God wouldn't use natural forces to fulfil his will?

That isn't the issue though is it?

Why suppose God did do this?

I assume you have a reason that is independent to the event itself? I mean you aren't going to just believe anyone who says "Oh that was God" when something happens simply because they said it was. You wouldn't believe someone who said "Oh that was God" if it started raining.

And if you don't have this independent reason for suppose that in this case they were correct by attributing it to God, then that removes a significant reason to suppose this was actually God.

It comes down to basically trusting the judgement of a group of people feeling for their lives who witnessed an event they wouldn't have understood. Given the human tendency, particularly back then, to attribute things like that to benevolent forces in nature, it is highly plausible to suppose that they would attribute to God even if they didn't know for sure it was anything to do with God.

The idea that they could simply be wrong seems far more likely than the idea that it actually was God, doesn't it? (without this other reason I mentioned above of course)

Twin-go

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

The Biblical account implies the same thing - strong winds blew from the east throughout the night and the waters parted. That is what this research was based upon. What this research can't say is whether God was behind the wind or not.

Why do you suppose that God wouldn't use natural forces to fulfil his will?

But the researchers can say that God was not involved in their experiment so it can be deduced that God is not a required variable for the parting of the waters to happen.

Why do you suppose that God would use natural forces?
I would assert if an all powerfull omnipiotent being wished to part waters he would not need to use the wind. He would have more efficent methods at his disposal.

Fanny Cradock

Wicknight wrote: »

That isn't the issue though is it?

Why suppose God did do this?

Did you not read the bit where I said, "What this research can't say is whether God was behind the wind or not" Neither you nor I can say what role - if any - God played in the parting of the waters.

Wicknight wrote: »

I assume you have a reason that is independent to the event itself?

If I do have reasons I haven't discussed them here, nor have I stated that my conclusion about God's interaction in the only correct conclusion.

Wicknight wrote: »

It comes down to basically trusting the judgement of a group of people feeling for their lives who witnessed an event they wouldn't have understood.

I think that this research is objective evidence that one of the fantastic events found in the OT might just have happened. In short, it is supporting a historical claim. If you and Twin-go want to tease out some existential meaning from this research then knock yourselves out. But I'm not interested in that line of reasoning.

Wicknight wrote: »

The idea that they could simply be wrong seems far more likely than the idea that it actually was God, doesn't it? (without this other reason I mentioned above)

Quite aside from the fact that this is beyond the research - how do you know that it is more likely that they were wrong?

PDN

Twin-go wrote: »

But the researchers can say that God was not involved in their experiment so it can be deduced that God is not a required variable for the parting of the waters to happen.

Nobody has ever said God was a required variable. To be honest, you don't actually seem to understand what Christians believe, because you're arguing against a position that nobody holds.

Christians have never posited a 'God of the gaps' argument to explain how the Red Sea parted.

Why do you suppose that God would use natural forces?

Why not? He created the natural forces, so why not use them? For example, when Jesus walked from Galilee to Judea, we don't think that He was contravening any laws of nature. His body operated by normal chemical reactions, gaining nutrition through food, execreting waste through His bowels, His central nervous system conveying the messages necessary to take each step. God uses natural processes all the time.

I would assert if an all powerfull omnipiotent being wished to part waters he would not need to use the wind. He would have more efficent methods at his disposal.

And I would assert that your understanding of how an all-powerful omnipotent being (what other kind of omnipotent being is there?) should operate is so limited as to make your assertion meaningless.

I do hope we're not going to go down the road of arguing that an omnipotent being should do things efficiently. We've had to put up with that illogical silliness more than enough recently.

Fanny Cradock

Twin-go wrote: »

But the researchers can say that God was not involved in their experiment so it can be deduced that God is not a required variable for the parting of the waters to happen.

And that is why this research mentions nothing about God.

Twin-go wrote: »

I would assert if an all powerfull omnipiotent being wished to part waters he would not need to use the wind. He would have more efficent methods at his disposal.

I reject your assertions. All you are saying is, "I wouldn't do it this way, so neither would God.". I don't see why all powerful God (so powerful you mentioned it twice) should be concerned with efficiency. Haven't we had this discussion before?

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Did you not read the bit where I said, "What this research can't say is whether God was behind the wind or not" Neither you nor I can say what role - if any - God played in the parting of the waters.

True, but that isn't that relevant to what I or Twin-go was saying.

We have a natural event and a group of people proclaiming it was God but with no understanding of these events and a tendency to subscribe things to God even if they aren't.

So isn't the most rational conclusion that it more than likely wasn't God? Which is what Twin-go was saying if I'm following.

Would you agree that people are wrong about God's involvement in natural events more than they are right?

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I think that this research is objective evidence that one of the fantastic events found in the OT might just have happened. In short, it is supporting a historical claim. If you and Twin-go want to tease out some existential meaning from this research then knock yourselves out. But I'm not interested in that line of reasoning.

Then why do you keep asking people about why God wouldn't have done this? That seems rather beside the point. God might have done anything and everything, but that means nothing.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Quite aside from the fact that this is beyond the research - how do you know that it is more likely that they were wrong?

Because people through history have made these claims rather a lot (as is our natural tendency to do), and unless God does everything anyone ever claimed he did more likely than not they are wrong.

PDN

It might be good to note that, for Christians, there are at least three possible scenarios here that could reasonably be described as a miracle.

a) God supernaturally intervened and worked a miracle that 'broke' the laws of nature (leaving aside for now the discussion as to whether such 'laws' exist or are simply a human construct to describe how things are normally observed to occur). I think that the biblical text certainly makes this first option a real possibility, as the idea of walls of water being on either side of the Israelites as they crossed does not sound like what is described in the OP.

b) God intervened, but did so by manipulating natural forces. This would still be seen by most people as a miracle.

c) God, in His omniscience, knew that the unusual wind and tidal conditions were going to occur at a certain date and time. Therefore He instructed the Israelites to be at the water's edge at just the moment when the event would occur. In one sense you could argue that this was little different from Jesuit missionaries impressing Chinese emperors by predicting a solar eclipse. However, it can still be viewed as a miracle in that supernatural knowledge was required above and beyond what could have been gained by anyone using the scientific methods of the time.

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

So isn't the most rational conclusion that it more than likely wasn't God? Which is what Twin-go was saying if I'm following.

Let's see. A massive crowd of people, following instructions from God, are trapped by an army but just happen to be at the edge of the Red Sea just at the precise moment when a once-in-a-lifetime meterological event will make it possible for them to cross. Then, also at just the right time, the waters rush back to drown the pusuing Egyptians.

So isn't the most rational conclusion that it more than likely wasn't God? Only if you're the kind of person that believes that you can, totally by chance, expect to win the Euromillions jackpot twice in a row, having predicted beforehand that such a thing would happen.

Fanny Cradock

Wicknight wrote: »

True, but that isn't that relevant to what I or Twin-go was saying.

Great! So while I've been attempting to stick to the topic, I'm somehow to blame for not addressing your tangential concerns.

Wicknight wrote: »

So isn't the most rational conclusion that it more than likely wasn't God? Which is what Twin-go was saying if I'm following.

I have no idea. But then again I'm not the one talking about the likeness of God's intervention. Rather, I'm saying that this research is evidence that an event recorded in the Bible might actually have occurred.

Wicknight wrote: »

Would you agree that people are wrong about God's involvement in natural events more than they are right?

Again, I have no idea. How could I know such a thing? I also don't know what some people's tendency to attribute a free parking spot to God's intervention has to do with this story. You seem to be slipping into something like a proof by example fallacy.

Wicknight wrote: »

Then why do you keep asking people about why God wouldn't have done this? That seems rather beside the point. God might have done anything and everything, but that means nothing.

I don't keep on asking people this. I challenged Twin-go's a proiri assertion that God must act in a certain way.

Wicknight wrote: »

Because people through history have made these claims rather a lot (as is our natural tendency to do), and unless God does everything anyone ever claimed he did more likely than not they are wrong.

And how can we determine that God didn't do x, y and z? Again, what has any other claim of divine intervention got to do with the parting of the sea story?

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

Let's see. A massive crowd of people, following instructions from God, are trapped by an army but just happen to be at the edge of the Red Sea just at the precise moment when a once-in-a-lifetime meterological event will make it possible for them to cross. Then, also at just the right time, the waters rush back to drown the pusuing Egyptians.

Who said they are following instructions from God?

I mean if you have already introduced God into this then it is sort of game over, which is what I was saying to Fanny. If you had independent reasons for believing that God was involved in all this then there is little point discussion it.

But then you have some what jumped the gun.

Looking at it from the position of an open mind when we haven't already decided to believe one version of what was happening, which is the more rational conclusion, from a non-biased position?

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I don't keep on asking people this. I challenged Twin-go's a proiri assertion that God must act in a certain way.

Sigh. I really not interested in playing this games again.

In response to the question if they were "wrong" Twin-go asserted this

They just had no evidence for their assertions. In the case of Exudos, they didn't know how the waters parted so it must be "God". Were as scienctific experiments have show how the parting may of happened in nature.

to which you replied

Why do you suppose that God wouldn't use natural forces to fulfil his will?

Which I pointed out isn't relevant to Twin-go's point.

Do you actually disagree with Twin-go? They had no evidence for their assertions, or understanding of the phenomena they were observing?

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

And how can we determine that God didn't do x, y and z? Again, what has any other claim of divine intervention got to do with the parting of the sea story?

Because it all comes down to trusting the descriptions of what these people think was happening.

JimiTime

PDN wrote: »

Let's see. A massive crowd of people, following instructions from God, are trapped by an army but just happen to be at the edge of the Red Sea just at the precise moment when a once-in-a-lifetime meterological event will make it possible for them to cross. Then, also at just the right time, the waters rush back to drown the pusuing Egyptians.

So isn't the most rational conclusion that it more than likely wasn't God? Only if you're the kind of person that believes that you can, totally by chance, expect to win the Euromillions jackpot twice in a row, having predicted beforehand that such a thing would happen.

That is the naturalistic worldview. Even if it sounds extremely implausible, its still more plausible than having a supernatural element. Anything, no matter how ludicrously sounding, as long as it can possibly(used loosely) have a 'natural' explaination, is more probable/plausible than having to factor in any kind of supernatural element.

Thats how I percieve it anyway (the naturalistic worldview that is).

On a side note, I don't like the term, 'miracle'. Just something about it doesn't feel right. It just has a bit of a 'rabbit from a hat' feel about it. Maybe its just me though.

God using his created elements to his ends is indeed a great sign of his power. Hurricane's happen, no big deal. If a guy was able to say, 'I command a hurricane to occur', and the elements answer, thats a bit more of a deal.

Craven99

Not defending either position of a god inspired miracle or a natural event but all I would like to point out is that this is only a computer model of a proposed event which could have had the same effect as a reported even in the bible. So no where has this been shown to be accurate and there has been no evidence of this ever occurring anywhere ever.
Up and until this model has been peer reviewed and demonstrated to be shown to be possible and witnessed I do not think anyone should be getting too excited one way or the other

JimiTime

Craven99 wrote: »

Not defending either position of a god inspired miracle or a natural event but all I would like to point out is that this is only a computer model of a proposed event which could have had the same effect as a reported even in the bible. So no where has this been shown to be accurate and there has been no evidence of this ever occurring anywhere ever.
Up and until this model has been peer reviewed and demonstrated to be shown to be possible and witnessed I do not think anyone should be getting too excited one way or the other

TBH, this Christian doesn't really care either way. These kind of stories are filed under, 'really? Thats interesting isn't it' anyway.:)

Fanny Cradock

Wicknight wrote: »

Sigh. I really not interested in playing this games again.

I'm not playing any games. Why is it that you assume people are playing games when they don't agree with you?

Wicknight wrote: »

In response to the question if they were "wrong" Twin-go asserted this

They just had no evidence for their assertions. In the case of Exudos, they didn't know how the waters parted so it must be "God". Were as scienctific experiments have show how the parting may of happened in nature.

But this research - the whole point of this thread - is not making any claims about God involvement in this event.

Wicknight wrote: »

Which I pointed out isn't relevant to Twin-go's point.

And his assertions and your likely interpretation isn't relevant to the OP - which has been my point all along. So there :P

Wicknight wrote: »

Do you actually disagree with Twin-go? They had no evidence for their assertions, or understanding of the phenomena they were observing?

I don't think it is of much relevance to the research - you know, the whole point of this thread. I have said on multiple occasions that "this research can not say is whether God was behind the wind or not".