Sea of reads, my butt. Science vindicates Exodus Account. :: Free Realms

#7 Sep 26 2010 at 12:07 PM Rating: Good

__DEL__1681085903309

Scholar

21,720 posts

AshOnMyTomatoes wrote:

So this study proves that God, at the behest of Moses, sent a 63 mph wind to hit the Red Sea at a certain angle at a certain time, just in time for some Hebrews to walk through but kill some Egyptians?

Because that's what the Bible says happened.

Absolutely!

No, not really.

#8 Sep 26 2010 at 12:08 PM Rating: Default

-REDACTED-

Scholar

1,150 posts

Nothing was said here.

Edited, Sep 27th 2010 6:55pm by ShadorVIII

#9 Sep 26 2010 at 12:17 PM Rating: Excellent

__DEL__1618186764728

Sage

5,684 posts

Quote:

All I'm saying is that an actual crossing of the Red Sea must now be at least acknowledged as a possibility.

#10 Sep 26 2010 at 12:19 PM Rating: Excellent

__DEL__1625444348715

Sage

3,362 posts

You do realize it takes several lines of converging evidence to verify an event, right? This is what I find hilarious about the really religious people. "Evolution? There's not enough evidence! Yeah there's lots of it, but it's not enough!" Then, in the same breath, "Hey, it's possible that something similar to my holy book could have happen. My holy book has been proven!"

Also, this is extraordinarily old news. I watched this on some documentary several years ago. And it's "reeds." Call me when they find some actual evidence beyond having it be an extremely unlikely possibility; I'm pretty sure that's what most of the Biblical events are regarded as, anyways.

#11 Sep 26 2010 at 12:39 PM Rating: Good

__DEL__1618186764728

Sage

5,684 posts

It's basically mathematically impossible that we are the only planet with life on it.

Therefore Scientology is truth.

#12 Sep 26 2010 at 12:42 PM Rating: Good

__DEL__1649636418093

Sage

30,646 posts

Quadkit wrote:

You do realize it takes several lines of converging evidence to verify an event, right? This is what I find hilarious about the really religious people. "Evolution? There's not enough evidence! Yeah there's lots of it, but it's not enough!" Then, in the same breath, "Hey, it's possible that something similar to my holy book could have happen. My holy book has been proven!"

Yeah, I was going to post something like, "I love how science is evil and out to get religion when it says something you don't like, but if it could be used to your advantage, it should be taken as prefect truth."

Most likely what happened is that this strong gust of wind happened, someone saw it, and thought it would make a neat story that someone could "cross the red sea" while being pursued, and then the sea falls back in and crushes the pursuers.

#13 Sep 26 2010 at 12:45 PM Rating: Excellent

Anyway, there was a hippo sat there waiting to do his act. -Karl Pilkington

Bloodle-Oodle-Oodle

13,007 posts

The One and Only ShadorVIII wrote:

AshOnMyTomatoes wrote:

The One and Only ShadorVIII wrote:

AshOnMyTomatoes wrote:

The One and Only ShadorVIII wrote:

Daymn, you mean the Bible was right after all?

No, that's not what this means at all.

Really?

Quote:

"The simulations match fairly closely with the account in Exodus," said the study's lead author Carl Drews, from the US National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR).

So this study proves that God, at the behest of Moses, sent a 63 mph wind to hit the Red Sea at a certain angle at a certain time, just in time for some Hebrews to walk through but kill some Egyptians?

Because that's what the Bible says happened.

Daymn, you is obtuse.

No. The study says that a strong east wind (to use the Bible words) could, in fact, have parted the Red Sea, allowing the children of Israel to cross, then faded out, drowning Pharoah's army. Specifically, I was contrasting this with the previous widely held view that "no, such thing would be impossible, they must have fled through a swamp."

All I'm saying is that an actual crossing of the Red Sea must now be at least acknowledged as a possibility. Whether you believe the wind was a coincidence or an act of Yahweh on behalf of His people, it is at least possible that a "strong east wind" allowed them to cross the actual Red Sea.

Ok, yes, that is what you're saying now. In the original post, you said "the bible is right."

Personally, I suspect that many stories from the bible and other religious mythologies have some grain of truth to them, but over the course of time have become exaggerated and embellished. For example, I have no difficulty believing that some bearded old ****** came down off of a mountain and started telling people that God told him to tell them how to live.

____________________________

#14 Sep 26 2010 at 12:47 PM Rating: Good

__DEL__1625444348715

Sage

3,362 posts

Belkira the Tulip wrote:

Quadkit wrote:

You do realize it takes several lines of converging evidence to verify an event, right? This is what I find hilarious about the really religious people. "Evolution? There's not enough evidence! Yeah there's lots of it, but it's not enough!" Then, in the same breath, "Hey, it's possible that something similar to my holy book could have happen. My holy book has been proven!"

Yeah, I was going to post something like, "I love how science is evil and out to get religion when it says something you don't like, but if it could be used to your advantage, it should be taken as prefect truth."

Most likely what happened is that this strong gust of wind happened, someone saw it, and thought it would make a neat story that someone could "cross the red sea" while being pursued, and then the sea falls back in and crushes the pursuers.

I wouldn't say 'most likely,' especially without any real evidence. It could have happened, sure. (Which still wouldn't prove God, sorry to tell Shador) It also could be complete, fabricated bollox.

#15 Sep 26 2010 at 12:48 PM Rating: Decent

__DEL__1624839416029

Sage

6,481 posts

Quote:

most biblical scholars and archeologists insist that the Israelites' crossing did not take place at the Red Sea at all. The original Hebrew (yam suph), they contend, should be translated as Sea of Reeds, not Red Sea. So where's the Sea of Reeds? It depends whom you ask. In the somewhat specious History Channel documentary Exodus Decoded, Simcha Jacobovici (aka the Naked Archaeologist) places the Israelites' crossing in the Bitter Lakes, a reedy marshland north of the Gulf of Suez that was subsumed during the construction of the Suez Canal.

An wind event with an estimated likelyhood of once every 2400 years is totally more likely than a translation error/exaggeration of a ~3200 year old story.

Quote:

All I'm saying is that an actual crossing of the Red Sea must now be at least acknowledged as a possibility.

I'm confused as to why you think Moses being told by god (who must be using "see the future magic"/"wind magic") exactly when a ridiculously rare fluke of nature was going to happen is ~~significantly~~ any more believable than "god did it with river parting magic".

Edited, Sep 26th 2010 3:08pm by shintasama

#16 Sep 26 2010 at 1:00 PM Rating: Good

__DEL__1649636418093

Sage

30,646 posts

AshOnMyTomatoes wrote:

Ok, yes, that is what you're saying now.

I see no difference between what you said originally and what he countered with, personally.

#17 Sep 26 2010 at 1:02 PM Rating: Good

Anyway, there was a hippo sat there waiting to do his act. -Karl Pilkington

Bloodle-Oodle-Oodle

13,007 posts

Belkira the Tulip wrote:

AshOnMyTomatoes wrote:

Ok, yes, that is what you're saying now.

I see no difference between what you said originally and what he countered with, personally.

All I'm saying is that he started off stating "The bible is proven true" and ended up switching to "wind could have caused part of a sea to dry up temporarily." These statements are worlds apart, and I wanted him to admit it himself.

Edited, Sep 26th 2010 2:03pm by AshOnMyTomatoes

____________________________

#18 Sep 26 2010 at 1:07 PM Rating: Good

__DEL__1649636418093

Sage

30,646 posts

AshOnMyTomatoes wrote:

Belkira the Tulip wrote:

AshOnMyTomatoes wrote:

Ok, yes, that is what you're saying now.

I see no difference between what you said originally and what he countered with, personally.

All I'm saying is that he started off stating "The bible is proven true" and ended up switching to "wind could have caused part of a sea to dry up temporarily." These statements are worlds apart, and I wanted him to admit it himself.

Edited, Sep 26th 2010 2:03pm by AshOnMyTomatoes

This is what I was talking about:

The One and Only ShadorVIII wrote:

AshOnMyTomatoes wrote:

So this study proves that God, at the behest of Moses, sent a 63 mph wind to hit the Red Sea at a certain angle at a certain time, just in time for some Hebrews to walk through but kill some Egyptians?

Because that's what the Bible says happened.

No. The study says that a strong east wind (to use the Bible words) could, in fact, have parted the Red Sea, allowing the children of Israel to cross, then faded out, drowning Pharoah's army.

Except for substituting "some Hebrews" with "the children of Israel" and "some Egyptians" with "Pharoah's army," he said the exact same thing you did.

But I see what you mean.

#19 Sep 26 2010 at 1:27 PM Rating: Default

-REDACTED-

Scholar

1,150 posts

Nothing was said here.

Edited, Sep 27th 2010 6:55pm by ShadorVIII

#20 Sep 26 2010 at 1:30 PM Rating: Good

Anyway, there was a hippo sat there waiting to do his act. -Karl Pilkington

Bloodle-Oodle-Oodle

13,007 posts

The One and Only ShadorVIII wrote:

Christ in a handbag! I shoulda known this would happen here. *sigh*

Maybe from now on I should just post in threads where I happen to agree with you godless liberal hippie pinkos (i.e. gay rights, the sky is blue, chocolate is good, big business is bad, or just about anything except abortion, guns, and the Bible).

I don't disagree that this study proves that wind can cause shallows to empty. I do disagree with you stating that this means "the bible is right." Admit that there's a difference, and I have no problem.

____________________________

#21 Sep 26 2010 at 1:34 PM Rating: Good

Demea

Official Shrubbery Waterer

14,659 posts

NO U

____________________________

Jophiel wrote:

I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.

#22 Sep 26 2010 at 1:35 PM Rating: Default

-REDACTED-

Scholar

1,150 posts

Nothing was said here.

Edited, Sep 27th 2010 6:55pm by ShadorVIII

#23 Sep 26 2010 at 1:38 PM Rating: Excellent

Anyway, there was a hippo sat there waiting to do his act. -Karl Pilkington

Bloodle-Oodle-Oodle

13,007 posts

The One and Only ShadorVIII wrote:

Fine, whatever. You win. God is dead, etc. DIAF.

Yes, heaven forbid I ask a bit of academic honesty from someone coming here with a scientific claim.

Learn2applyscience, n00b. And then go weep for my immortal soul, what else is there to do on a Sunday?

____________________________

#24 Sep 26 2010 at 1:43 PM Rating: Good

Omegavegeta

Sage

8,236 posts

Quote:

God is dead

Nope, He's unnecessary.

____________________________

"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin

#25 Sep 26 2010 at 1:52 PM Rating: Good

__DEL__1625444348715

Sage

3,362 posts

Are you really going to go into a hissy fit because you got called out on ********* You're making conclusions without evidence. Period. It's not scientific.

#26 Sep 26 2010 at 1:52 PM Rating: Good

paulsol

Sage

4,158 posts

Quote:

Daymn, you mean the Bible was right after all?

Even if the Bible account of the Red Sea story was even slightly correct, wich it isn't, which is obvious if you actually read the original scientists studies as opposed to the BBC report of the report, then how do you explain talking snakes, virgin births and zombie ressurection?

Anomalous weather conditions also?

Ps. Nothing personal, but I truly hate your avatar. It makes me want to punch small girls. Which, I have to say, isn't normal for me.

____________________________

"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.