Jesus May Have Walked on Ice, Not Water, Scientists Say

[Des]

I neither believe nor doubt that Jesus walked on water, but I think scientists are scraping the barrel with this one.:rolleyes:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/04/0406_060406_jesus.html?source=rss

A freak cold spell that covered parts of a lake with ice could explain the biblical tale about Jesus walking on water, says a team of U.S. and Israeli scientists.

But several experts have questioned the scientific basis of the study, and many have dismissed the findings as implausible.

According to biblical accounts, the disciples of Jesus crossed a freshwater lake known as the Sea of Galilee, in northern Israel, before Jesus went up a mountain to pray.

On their way back at night, a violent storm trapped the disciples' boat in the middle of the sea. It was then that Jesus walked out to the boat and calmed the storm, according to the Bible.

"A rare set of weather events may have combined to create a slab of ice about 4 to 6 inches [10 to 15 centimeters] thick on the lake, [making it] able to support a person's weight," said Doron Nof, an oceanographer at Florida State University in Tallahassee, Florida.

His findings appear in this month's issue of the Journal of Paleolimnology.

Springs Ice-

Nof bases his theory on a unique freezing mechanism he calls "springs ice."

This forms when warm, salty springs flow into a freshwater lake, preventing the lake from freezing entirely in cold weather.

Springs linked to this kind of freezing are found in Tabgha, Israel, a region where many archaeological features associated with Jesus have been found.

According to Nof, ice on the Sea of Galilee may have been created by a combination of factors.

"About 2,500 years ago, there was a cold period that was almost 10ºF [5.5ºC] lower than today," he said.

[Bryan]

I was kind of offended by the way one of the news networks (I think it was NBC) covered this story. The anchor said something like "Here's a challenge to one of your long-held beliefs...." One of MY long-held beliefs? They assume we're all Bible thumpers I guess.

[Dee]

An Amazing Thing Happened
The Argument from Miracles

The argument from miracles simply says, There have been events throughout history that are not explicable by natural processes, and this suggests the supernatural at work. While this is not direct evidence of God, any argument that supports the existence of the supernatural supports the existence of God.

The argument from miracles (by which I mean events that cannot be explained my natural means) is not popular because it seems so unscientific. And, well, it is unscientific.

However, that is not a problem with the argument, but - I suspect - with the way scientists are trained, which prompts some of them reject supernatural phenomenon.

And there is a good reason for this. If a scientist is going to make progress in understanding the natural world, he or she can't just say, "Wow, a miracle!" then kick back on his sofa. No, it makes sense to pretend there is no such thing as the supernatural and look instead for a natural explanation.

Fine, but if a natural explanation cannot be found, it is perfectly reasonable for a scientist to say, "Well, I'm not sure what's going on here; I don't see any natural explanation, so perhaps we're dealing with a supernatural occurance." But I don't hear that very frequently.

I think many scientists know that this is a reasonable approach, and that rejecting miracles is just a convenience that helps them in their work. Perhaps they are afraid if they say something about the supernatural that they'll be mocked by peers who will think them too lazy to search for a natural cause.

Whatever the reason, too often the response when cornered is, "We're always making progress, and no doubt some day we'll understand the natural cause of that as well."

Or, if the miracle was long ago, say Jesus walking on water, the critics will claim the people were fooled (Jesus knew where the rocks were) or that people embroidered upon the story or, in their simplemindedness, they mistook a natural event for a miracle.

Yeah, maybe. But leaning too heavily on these responses strikes me as an evasion. No doubt science is always making progress, but saying that "some day" science will answer the question may just be a way of avoiding the issue today. And, while the arguments against historical miracles may also be true, they seem a bit too easy. Many events in history that nobody ever dreamed of doubting could be discounted by the same logic. Whoops! The Peloponesian Wars never happened. Zing! Socrates was a figment of our imagination. Poof! Archimedes' never existed.

There are undoubtedly tens of thousands of reports of miracles, from many cultures and throughout time. Perhaps many of them, or even most of them, have a natural cause, but it is false to say that because many are explicable that all are explicable

http://www.sacklunch.net/ArgumentsForGod/miracles.html