How did that happen?

[Dark Knight]

Since we are all engineers, and with an analytic mind, let us try this: Explain some extraordinary events from the Bible and from any other book, magazine, report, etc.

First I propose to explain how Moses did split the Red Sea so the people of Israel could escape from the Egyptians. What is the explanation for that? An earthquake? A tornado? How did that happen?

 

[Exception Collection]

Since we are all engineers, and with an analytic mind, let us try this: Explain some extraordinary events from the Bible and from any other book, magazine, report, etc.
First I propose to explain how did Moses did split the Red Sea so the people of Israel could escape from the Egyptians. What the explanation for that? An earthquake? A tornado? How did that happen?

I heard a while back that someone had offered a calculation for hydrologic systems that allowed part of the red sea to be cleared of water at a certain time.

Here's the abstract: http://www.maik.ru/abstract/physatm/3/physatm4_3p482abs.htm

Now, the accuracy of this is up for debate, I haven't looked over the paper directly and quite frankly wouldn't trust my review as much as the original writer's anyway (Flow etc is one of my weakest areas in Civil). Still, my understanding is that it was fairly well-reviewed, and is fairly close to the literal retelling of the Bible.

How about The Flood?

Edit: You know, I'm not sure this is a great place to put this. Do we want to have it moved to a subsection, or do we want to just remove it from the board? I'm fine with discussing religion, but it's like politics - it devolves into screaming or "me vs. you" far too easily.

 

[Dark Knight]

Be my guest. Do not post here if that makes you feel better.

 

[Exception Collection]

Be my guest. Do not post here if that makes you feel better.

Oh no, I have a fairly thick skin, and as a logical/thinking/not-always-literalist Christian I like to think my views on the subject can keep things interesting. I'm just thinking about the general site issues - we don't necessarily want a full thread of people wrangling and tearing throats out in plain view of the public. Let's save that for a subforum!

Here's a less religious one: Arthur. Did he exist?

 

[Master slacker]

Here's a less religious one: Arthur. Did he exist?

Yeah, he's got his own cartoon on PBS.

 

[Capt Worley PE]

Here's a less religious one: Arthur. Did he exist?

Yeah, he's got his own cartoon on PBS.

They made a cartoon about a rich but loveable drunk?

 

[Fudgey]

Be my guest. Do not post here if that makes you feel better.

Oh no, I have a fairly thick skin, and as a logical/thinking/not-always-literalist Christian I like to think my views on the subject can keep things interesting. I'm just thinking about the general site issues - we don't necessarily want a full thread of people wrangling and tearing throats out in plain view of the public. Let's save that for a subforum!

Here's a less religious one: Arthur. Did he exist?

Wow, calling youself interesting isn't arrogant or presumptuous in any way. I find most of your posts are done simply with the intent of stirring the pot.

 

[NCcarguy]

OR....maybe there is only ONE explaination????

I've seen enough stories from "Brilliant" scientists to know that every single time they come up with a reason scientifically where something happened, it's always in line with something that's stated in the bible. I just wonder why they feel the need to prove something that they already know can't be proven. It's kinda like the big bang theory. It's a theory, since NO ONE was there when it happened.

 

[goodal]

Wow Major, that was a pretty impressive, degrading rant on a religion that is held to by a vast majority of people on this planet (including myself). That said, it doesn't offend or surprise me that some hold to those views. It does, however, help me understand you a little more.

About Biblical "miracles". I believe (YES, believe, not know, afirm or can prove) that alot of the biblical miracles can be attributed to natural physical phenonemon. God made all this stuff, so why not use it. Ex. the wormwood star mentioned in revelations could be a comet crashing to earth. Korah being swallowed by the earth could have been an earthquake, as well as the walls of Jericho falling. I don't think Him using His creation diminishes His Omnipotence because He still had to cause it to happen and happen the way He wanted. Now, I also believe that there are some miracles that can't be explained. They require faith. I also have no problem with stating this, because all other religions (evolution included) require a great amount of faith as well. The crossing of the Red Sea is probably one of them because, even if you could part the waters, there is no explainable way to dry the ground like the Bible says. Manna is probably another unexplainable one. We could try to calculate the amount of strength that it would have required for Samson to push over stone pillars, but that would probably yield an astronomical number. How about "how hard would David have to have thrown the stone for it to sink into the head of Goliath?" How much heat was required to maintain a pillar of fire to lead the hebrews around the desert for 40 years. Cool idea, just probably not answerable because they are miracles by nature.

PS. You and I have done the yelling/name calling thing before. Not trying to start that again. Just a reply. Thats all. Please notice I capitalized all the references to God in my post. Even if you do believe your post, I think you probably posted it to get a reaction. Well I guess it worked.

 

[goodal]

This ought to be good, badal is reading the thread...
opcorn:

you know me well.

 

[wilheldp_PE]

They require faith. I also have no problem with stating this, because all other religions (evolution included) require a great amount of faith as well.

This is where my problem with religion lies. Evolution is not a religion, it is a scientific theory. It does not require faith. It is a hypothesis that scientists are actively trying to prove or disprove based on research and testing. It is not a perfect theory, nor is it fact. The theory may be proven, dis-proven, or updated based on new research or testing at any time.

Religion, as you stated yourself, requires faith that things we know to be impossible (like walking on water or turning water to wine) were accomplished by human of holy descent.

 

[Exception Collection]

Wow, calling youself interesting isn't arrogant or presumptuous in any way. I find most of your posts are done simply with the intent of stirring the pot.

Some of them are. Some of them aren't. I like to play the "devil's advocate". Again, it keeps reasonable conversation going, which (as I said) I like to think makes things more interesting - not that I myself am more interesting, but that when people are challenged they tend to think more. I know I do.

Here's a less religious one: Arthur. Did he exist?

Yeah, he's got his own cartoon on PBS.

I meant KING Arthur. You know, sword in the stone, another sword capable of cutting other swords in half, etc?

But, yeah, there are probably plenty of calculations out there to prove that it happened, just like there are "flood geology" papers and proofs that bronze age people could have lived a thousand years and dinosaur fossils labeled as being 4,000 years old in a museum at Liberty University... yes, those things exist, but they are entirely rejected by the scientific community.

No, not entirely. While the vast majority of what you cited are rejected - the bones and the bronze age age issue in particular - there are other "miracles" (like the walls of Jericho, for example) that can be explained scientifically. Scientists should approach the matter as they would any other issue, by not jumping to conclusions; they start with a hypothesis ("Is it possible to have a section of the Red Sea dry up?") and then prove or disprove it.

Of course, my viewpoint is "OK, it might have happened, or it might be a parable... it doesn't matter to me". And since I'm not trying to prove them or approach the matter scientifically - they are a matter of faith, not science - I assume accuracy until proven incorrect.

 

[goodal]

They require faith. I also have no problem with stating this, because all other religions (evolution included) require a great amount of faith as well.

This is where my problem with religion lies. Evolution is not a religion, it is a scientific theory. It does not require faith. It is a hypothesis that scientists are actively trying to prove or disprove based on research and testing. It is not a perfect theory, nor is it fact. The theory may be proven, dis-proven, or updated based on new research or testing at any time.

Religion, as you stated yourself, requires faith that things we know to be impossible (like walking on water or turning water to wine) were accomplished by human of holy descent.

It doesn't sound like theory to me when every single time a person on TV talks about the age of the earth they say something like, "Since the earth evolved 4 BILLION years ago bla bla bla" and they always emphasize billion to drive home the point. Not that I'm an expert or anything close to one but I could go on and on about this, but I'm not going to be held responsible for derailing this thread.

BTW, how much energy would it have required to form the universe via an explosion from material no larger than a dot the size of a period?

 

[Exception Collection]

But see, why believe something extroadinary until it is proven not to be true, when in every other aspect of our lives we simply don't believe extraodinary claims until they are proven to be true. I think the reason is because you were told to believe it since you were first able to understand the spoken language. It is the same as Santa Claus, as a child, many people were told Santa was real, but then when they got older, the adults let them in on the little secret, so the truth comes out. This is the same thing with religion, except, the adults still believe it and the spell never gets broken.

Why do I, personally, believe? It's not because of the way I was raised - well, maybe partially, but not entirely. I haven't spent my entire life a believer.

And on a side note, I never believed in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny. Well, not since I can remember (5-6) at least.

 

[knight1fox3]

They require faith. I also have no problem with stating this, because all other religions (evolution included) require a great amount of faith as well.

This is where my problem with religion lies. Evolution is not a religion, it is a scientific theory. It does not require faith. It is a hypothesis that scientists are actively trying to prove or disprove based on research and testing. It is not a perfect theory, nor is it fact. The theory may be proven, dis-proven, or updated based on new research or testing at any time.

Religion, as you stated yourself, requires faith that things we know to be impossible (like walking on water or turning water to wine) were accomplished by human of holy descent.

The theory of gravityThe germ theory of disease

These are two other theories that started out as hypotheses and have continued to be tested over time yet still hold to be about the best explanation that we have for the questions they seek to answer. The theory of evolution is the same thing. While there are gaps in the theory, it doesn't mean that it isn't just as true as the other two. It just means that we have not yet found the missing links.

lusone: :appl:

 

[goodal]

But see, why believe something extroadinary until it is proven not to be true, when in every other aspect of our lives we simply don't believe extraodinary claims until they are proven to be true. I think the reason is because you were told to believe it since you were first able to understand the spoken language. It is the same as Santa Claus, as a child, many people were told Santa was real, but then when they got older, the adults let them in on the little secret, so the truth comes out. This is the same thing with religion, except, the adults still believe it and the spell never gets broken.

Major, youve used two things to prove your point that actually derail it completely, Santa Claus and Zeus. There is no one on earth saying either is real, any credible written evidence for either and, in fact, everyone knows they are complete fabrications. There is written evidence, with verifiable authenticity, for the God of the bible, there is physical proof for some events that are recorded in the Bible and untold millions have been slain for this God because of what he has done for them. Yes, both of us were blessed to have been born in a christian family. I pity and pray for those that were'nt, but that doesnt reduce my faith in or love for the God that caused the whale to swallow Jonah. Back on point, how much O2 would have had to be in the whales belly for a man to survive for 3 days?

 

[Exception Collection]

It doesn't sound like theory to me when every single time a person on TV talks about the age of the earth they say something like, "Since the earth evolved 4 BILLION years ago bla bla bla" and they always emphasize billion to drive home the point. Not that I'm an expert or anything close to one but I could go on and on about this, but I'm not going to be held responsible for derailing this thread.
BTW, how much energy would it have required to form the universe via an explosion from material no larger than a dot the size of a period?

The age of the earth is verifiable - roughly - through scientific means. The expansion of the universe is now "visible" to us; based on the rate of said expansion, the age of the universe itself is calculable. Those are not theories. They are as close to fact as it is possible to obtain.

Evolution - we've seen microevolution in play. Macroevolution, on the other hand, is harder to find - it doesn't happen every day. At this point, it is a theory, but it is the most likely correct answer for "How did humanity end up the way it did". Now, you can argue that Evolution is guided by the Hand of God instead of purely statistics and quasirandom chance - but by doing so, you are taking it from a debate about the scientific to a debate about the religious.

(I approve of the idea of I.D. being taught in public schools - as a one or two lines, basically what I said above, with the appended remark "and religion isn't something verifiable in a science class, so we're ignoring that for now.")

 

[chaosiscash]

It is the same as Santa Claus, as a child, many people were told Santa was real, but then when they got older, the adults let them in on the little secret, so the truth comes out.

WHAT??!!

:i_cry:

 

[Dark Knight]

It is the same as Santa Claus, as a child, many people were told Santa was real, but then when they got older, the adults let them in on the little secret, so the truth comes out.

WHAT??!!

:i_cry:

:lmao:

 

[Dark Knight]

It is the same as Santa Claus, as a child, many people were told Santa was real, but then when they got older, the adults let them in on the little secret, so the truth comes out.

WHAT??!!

:i_cry:

:lmao: