RE: paleonet Creationism again

From
Date
In-Reply-To
Reply-To
Well, yes. All the same, Chris, it seems to me that Galilee fishermen would
know what ice was, which vitiates the argument that Jesus may have walked on
ice, even if a mistranslation were not involved. If ice could form on the
lake, it could equally well form in waterpots overnight. These biblical
speculations too often display a yearning to reach beyond the evidence and
even beyond common sense. I speak as someone who subscribed to 'Biblical
Archaeology Review' for about a decade, and have read a good deal of such
speculation. Among other things, there has been an awful lot of forgeries of
biblical artefacts over the years, always with plenty of people, including
experts, who deeply want to believe.

Say, has any of you reread the relevant passage in the New Testament? It's
available in many versions (startlingly different in English translation!)
on the Web. Just search for "Matthew 14". Matthew says that the time was
"the fourth watch of the night" and the boat was well offshore. He made a
point of mentioning a contrary wind and waves. Smooth ice? Not even a
possibility to anyone who reads the text literally. What do you think a
fundamentalist would make of the ice idea, which defies common sense as well
as standard biblical interpretation? Well, I suppose we won't have to guess;
it will be all over the Web within a few days.

Andrew K. Rindsberg
Geological Survey of Alabama



-----Original Message-----
From: paleonet-owner@nhm.ac.uk [mailto:paleonet-owner@nhm.ac.uk] On Behalf
Of baldwin
Sent: Friday, April 07, 2006 10:26 AM
To: paleonet@nhm.ac.uk
Subject: Re: paleonet Creationism again


A relatively recent and perhaps the biggest and most public example of 
your point "what if this biblical account was based on historical 
events"  is the Black Sea flood with scientists (Ryan, Pittman + a 
number of Turkish marine scientists, et al) and 'popular 
"""scientists""" ' (Ballard, et al) building, presenting, and critiquing 
various constructions. Ryan and Pittman tried to address some of the 
beyond-just-the-Bible aspects and broad commonality of the flood story.

I try to explain to my students that even if such a body of work "fails" 
it does so because of the workings of science rather than by the 
nonsensical and irrelevant machinations of ill-informed producers of the 
large number of religious web sites that deal with this same topic!

For scientists to pretend that myths (be they religious or otherwise) do 
not exist or are beneath their dignity to consider, albeit in an oblique 
or glancing way (as with the issue of walking on a frozen lake) then 
science seems to me to be pointlessly confining and elitist. It 
distances us from those that we want to have an interest and 
appreciation of science. And that cannot be in our interests.

Chris Baldwin

David Kopaska-Merkel wrote:
> Michael
>  
> You are certainly not the only one who has a problem with this kind of
> article.  I admit to some misgivings because of the very danger you 
> mention: the opportunities for misunderstanding in the media and by the 
> public.  There is a long tradition in historical science of posing the 
> question "what if this biblical account was based on historical events; 
> is there any way the events could have happened without supernatural 
> intervention?"  Gerry Friedman, the carbonate geologist, is very 
> interested in this and has done some work on it.
>  
> I don't think we need to limit ourselves to events reported in the
> Bible.  There are other ancient documents containing descriptions of 
> events that appeared to the authors of the original reports to be 
> miraculous.  Maybe they were.  However, the modern scientific 
> perspective is to look for a natural explanation first.  The medieval 
> religious perspective was to look for a miraculous explanation first and 
> I think many modern Christians still take that approach.
>  
> David
>  
> 
> David C. Kopaska-Merkel
> Geological Survey of Alabama
> P.O. Box 869999
> Tuscaloosa AL 35486-6999
> (205) 247-3695 (direct line/voice mail)
> (205) 349-2852 (switchboard)
> fax 349-2861
> www.gsa.state.al.us
> 
> To join sednet, an e-mail group for discussion of sedimentology, send 
> a blank e-mail message to sednet-subscribe@yahoogroups.com.
> 
> To join a new list about science education in Alabama, send a blank
> e-mail message to ALScienceEdNews-subscribe@yahoogroups.com.
> 
>  
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
> From: paleonet-owner@nhm.ac.uk [mailto:paleonet-owner@nhm.ac.uk] On 
> Behalf Of Michael Rasser
> Sent: Friday, April 07, 2006 2:35 AM
> To: paleonet@nhm.ac.uk
> Subject: AW: paleonet Creationism again
> 
> In fact I did understand the meaning of the article, but I agree with
> Tony that I was too quick and hypercritical and I am sorry to the people 
> who are concerned.
>  
> I was annoyed about the article because I read about it in a newspaper
> and the context was something like: "Well, there is another strange 
> scientist who is doing strange studies and mixing science and religion 
> in a dubious way". In the meantime I see that I should have blamed the 
> journalist, but not the authors and the editor.
> Again: sorry for this.
>  
> Nevertheless, I have problems with this type of eye-catchers, because
> they provoke this type of response in the public media - but obviously I 
> am the only one.
> Well, all of us has to find a way to gain publicity.
>  
> Anyhow, I learned my lesson and next time I will sleep one night 
> before
> I post a thread.
>  
> Compunctiously,
> Michael
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
> Von: anthony.butcher@port.ac.uk [mailto:anthony.butcher@port.ac.uk]
> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 6. April 2006 16:08
> An: paleonet@nhm.ac.uk
> Betreff: re: paleonet Creationism again
> 
> Please do not be so quick to criticise and post...
> 
> I think you have mis-understood or mis-read the intentions of the 
> authors: they are trying to show scientifically that a human being may 
> have been able to walk across the lake (on ice) that Jesus was 
> reported to have performed the miracle of walking on water upon, and 
> thus that it was not actually a miracle.  I have only read their 
> abstract, but I believe that it clearly explains their views and 
> reasons (see highlighted quotes below)
> 
> Obviously (as myself) you are not religious, but you have to consider
> whether you believe the Bible is entirely ficticious, or based upon 
> actual events and historical figures, tales of whom have been 
> exaggerated and elaborated upon to produce the religious tome recognised 
> today.
> 
> I believe the authors of the paper, and the editors, were right to
> include this for publication: they are, in fact, providing evidence 
> AGAINST creationsim and ID!  Impartial, accurate, scientific evidence is 
> all we can provide in the ID/creationsim 'debate', and they appear to 
> have done this, so I wholeheartedly agree with the publication of this
work.
> 
> The conclusion of their abstract reads (with relevant points 
> highlighted):
> 
> 'On this basis, it is proposed that the unusual local freezing process
> might have provided an origin to the story that Christ walked on water. 
> Since the springs ice is relatively small, a person standing or walking 
> on it may appear to an observer situated some distance away to be 
> ?walking on water?. This is particularly true if it rained after the ice 
> was formed (because rain smoothes out the ice?s surface). Whether this 
> happened or not is an issue for religion scholars, archeologists, 
> anthropologists, and believers to decide on.
> 
> As natural scientists, we merely point out that unique freezing
> processes probably happened in that region several times during the last 
> 12,000 years.'
> 
> 
> Best regards to all,
> 
> Tony
> 
> (p.s. I swore I would never enter the ID debate on Paleonet......now 
> where did I put that hair shirt......?!!)    ;o)
> ___________________________________
> 
> Dr Anthony Butcher
> S.E.E.S.
> University of Portsmouth
> Burnaby Building
> Burnaby Road
> Portsmouth
> PO1 3QL
> United kingdom
> Tel:  (+44) 23 9284 2258
> Fax: (+44) 23 9284 2244
> anthony.butcher@port.ac.uk ___________________________________



-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.3.5/303 - Release Date: 4/6/2006