http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/49187000/jpg/_49187732_49187731.jpg

New computer simulations have shown how the parting of the Red Sea, as described in the Bible, could have been a phenomenon caused by strong winds.

The account in the Book of Exodus describes how the waters of the sea parted, allowing the Israelites to flee their Egyptian pursuers.

Simulations by US scientists show how the movement of wind could have opened up a land bridge at one location.

This would have enabled people to walk across exposed mud flats to safety.

The results are published in the open-access journal Plos One.

The researchers show that a strong east wind, blowing overnight, could have pushed water back at a bend where an ancient river is believed to have merged with a coastal lagoon.

With the water pushed back into both waterways, a land bridge would have opened at the bend, enabling people to walk across exposed mud flats to safety.

As soon as the wind died down, the waters would have rushed back in.

The study is based on a reconstruction of the likely locations and depths of Nile delta waterways, which have shifted considerably over time.

"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).

"The parting of the waters can be understood through fluid dynamics. The wind moves the water in a way that's in accordance with physical laws, creating a safe passage with water on two sides and then abruptly allowing the water to rush back in."

The study is part of a larger research project by Mr Drews into the impacts of winds on water depths, including the extent to which Pacific Ocean typhoons can drive storm surges.

By pin-pointing a possible site south of the Mediterranean Sea for the crossing, the study also could be of benefit to archaeologists seeking to research the account.

In the Book of Exodus, Moses and the fleeing Israelites became trapped between the Pharaoh's advancing chariots and a body of water that has been variously translated as the Red Sea or the Sea of Reeds.

In a divine miracle, the account says, a mighty east wind blew all night, splitting the waters and leaving a passage of dry land with walls of water on both sides.

The Israelites were able to flee to the other shore. But when the Egyptian Pharaoh's army attempted to pursue them in the morning, the waters rushed back and drowned the soldiers.

Other scientists have also sought to explain the account through natural processes.

Some have speculated that a tsunami could have caused waters to retreat and advance rapidly. But the scientists behind the latest research point out that such an event would not have caused the gradual overnight divide of the waters or have been associated with winds.

Other researchers have focused on a phenomenon known as "wind setdown," in which a particularly strong and persistent wind can lower water levels in one area while piling up water downwind.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GM4_51K4PjM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jcis32BIODI&feature=watch_response

So now you can generate computer simulations of the Biblical stories we want to be literally true and MAKE them literally true.  We had that when I was a kid.  It was call the cartoons!
8)

i find this funny!!

i never could understand how people believed stuff like this, noah's ark, and the virgin mary were true stories......this was a time when if the weather was bad, "god" was angry at at people...
i guess an earthquake during the world series in 1989 meant players was on steroids ;D

i find this funny!!


Actually, this is pretty neat.

When a fundie digs around for proof (and when he finds none, fabricates something outright) that God Did It, it's funny.  When a scientist looks at a religious story and wonders WTF sort of natural phenomenon might have been interpreted as divine intervention by a bunch of pre-scientific people who had no idea what sort of phenomenon they were really dealing with, it's pretty neat.  This falls into the "pretty neat" category. 

The most interesting example of ancient myths explained by science is the myth of Atlantis, which is widely speculated to have been inspired by the eruption of Thera, aka present-day Santorini.  The volcano in question would have dwarfed Krakatoa, and the timing is right for the disapperance of the Minoans.  No, the Atlanteans weren't real, no, they weren't aliens, no, they didn't have flying cars.  But an island with an otherwise-functional civilization did cease to exist, by being blown to smithereens and then swallowed by the sea.  The people who eventually became the Greeks couldn't have missed the original event - and the myth of Atlantis is what survived after several centuries of people adding their own embellishments while retelling the story.

cool!!

now when are scientists gonna prove that bedrock existed.........and fred drove his car around with his feet! ;D

i agree its interesting to read about or watch video about tracing the origins of earth and its civilizations......but its hard for me to digest that scientists can figure out sheesh that happened 3,000 years ago...or a million years ago
you did use the word "speculate" and i hear that a lot about this.......speculate is not concrete evidence.........neither is hypothosis......

i love to watch the show "life after people', its great scientific stuff.....but there is no way i can believe thats how it would go down...its just fascinating to watch.

I'm a Red Sea Truther.  I think it was an inside job!
8)

Next a computer will show how a mother, in 1961, could have been transported to Kenya, given birth to a child, and returned to Hawaii moments later to file the birth certificate.  Really, it's true, it could have happened

In my experience, you can get computers to show you just about anything!

http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/12/icon_biggrin.gif

my computer got me laid...and parted the beach at coney island.....

my computer got me laid...and parted the beach at coney island.....


On Coney Island beach you lie on the sound and look up at the stars,
On Malibu Beach you lie on the stars and look down at the sand

In my experience, you can get computers to show you just about anything!

http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/12/icon_biggrin.gif


PORN!!!!! (and Debbie Does Dallas pics) O0

Actually, this is pretty neat.

When a fundie digs around for proof (and when he finds none, fabricates something outright) that God Did It, it's funny.  When a scientist looks at a religious story and wonders WTF sort of natural phenomenon might have been interpreted as divine intervention by a bunch of pre-scientific people who had no idea what sort of phenomenon they were really dealing with, it's pretty neat.  This falls into the "pretty neat" category. 

The most interesting example of ancient myths explained by science is the myth of Atlantis, which is widely speculated to have been inspired by the eruption of Thera, aka present-day Santorini.  The volcano in question would have dwarfed Krakatoa, and the timing is right for the disapperance of the Minoans.  No, the Atlanteans weren't real, no, they weren't aliens, no, they didn't have flying cars.  But an island with an otherwise-functional civilization did cease to exist, by being blown to smithereens and then swallowed by the sea.  The people who eventually became the Greeks couldn't have missed the original event - and the myth of Atlantis is what survived after several centuries of people adding their own embellishments while retelling the story.


I agree, Foo Bar. It is very rare for science to entertain religion in this manner let alone attempt to prove it so it is pretty neat whether the simulation is a speculative exercise or not.  :)

my computer got me laid...and parted the beach at coney island.....


never got me laid,now that's weird.  ???

never got me laid,now that's weird.  ???


Did for me...but I don't recommend it a way to, shall we say, part the Red Sea!

Too many crazy and dangerous people on those "adult" dating sites!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/07/nono.gif

Did for me...but I don't recommend it a way to, shall we say, part the Red Sea!

Too many crazy and dangerous people on those "adult" dating sites!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/07/nono.gif


I'd rather part "her" Red Sea (if you know what I mean)  ;)

I can't believe men are using technology to disprove the Bible. God gave us the power to make this technology real so we could use it to fend for ourselves in a fallen world, not to go against Him.

I can't believe men are using technology to disprove the Bible. God gave us the power to make this technology real so we could use it to fend for ourselves in a fallen world, not to go against Him.


God gave man free will.  Man used free will to create technology.  Man can use technology to try and prove or disprove God.  He will succeed in doing neither with technology.  It's a matter of faith in the silicon age as it was in the bronze age. 

One caveat, refer to the parable of the Tower of Babel.  If man uses his ingenuity to try and become God, he will be smacked down. 

God gave man free will.  Man used free will to create technology.  Man can use technology to try and prove or disprove God.  He will succeed in doing neither with technology.  It's a matter of faith in the silicon age as it was in the bronze age. 

One caveat, refer to the parable of the Tower of Babel.  If man uses his ingenuity to try and become God, he will be smacked down. 


Good point. What I meant to say was I can't believe men are using technology to TRY to disprove the Bible. Nothing can ever disprove it.

Good point. What I meant to say was I can't believe men are using technology to TRY to disprove the Bible. Nothing can ever disprove it.


In that case, those men are wasting their time.  The only sin involved, IMO, is people who are good with computers could be using the same time and energy for something useful.  Some Christians do argue that questioning God's existence is a sin in itself, but I don't see it that way.  

These guys were trying to prove the Biblical story of the crossing of the Red Sea is literally true according to the account in Exodus.  However, the ancient Hebrew name Yam Suph probably means "Reed Sea," or "Sea of Reeds." "Red Sea" is a mistranslation according to modern scholars.  A sea of reeds would be more of a shallow marsh, in this case between the African continent and the Arabian Peninsula around the present-day Suez Canal.  Such an inlet would have been subject to tidal influences as well as periodic flooding and dry spells.  Thus, the Israelites could have a ridge at an opportune moment while the Egyptian army could have been flooded out by tidal forces quickly thereafter while in pursuit.  

"Truth" or "fact."

We have just entered Advent in the Christian Church; however, modern scholars accept that Jesus was not born on December 25th, according to the descriptions in the Bible compared to weather in the region, as well as scientifically accepted astronomical data.  Jesus of Nazareth is likely to have been born in the spring between 7 and 4 b.c.  This is one of the "gotcha" moments for skeptics.  I suppose the Christian Churches could celebrate Christmas on May 25 instead of December 25, but quibbling about the exact date misses the spiritual significance.  The entire account Christians (including myself) accept as true is impossible by science.  For instance, a virgin birth denies the most basic elements of biology.  If the Pope in Rome decided it was time to celebrate Christmas according to scientific evidence, it would open the door for even greater skepticism and do absolutely nothing for the Christian faith.

Therefore, I do not declare Biblical accounts as literally true or false.
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/10/znaika.gif

Good point. What I meant to say was I can't believe men are using technology to TRY to disprove the Bible. Nothing can ever disprove it.


These men aren't trying to prove or disprove the Bible.  Really.  I know it looks like it (and I know that fundamentalist Atheists often try to make it look that way... and fundamentalist Theists often assume that any question is an attack on their belief systems - both groups of fundamentalists play off each other), but science really isn't in that business.  Science is about "how", not "why".

The philosophical point Maxwell and I are getting at is that of falsifiability.  There are lots of statements that can't be disproven - but that doesn't mean they're true.

Consider the following statement: "There is an invisible, incorporeal, cold-fire-breathing dragon hovering in my garage".  Nothing can ever disprove that either - it might even exist (but that's not the way to bet).  Whether it exists or not, it's a lot more more interesting to find out why I believe in it than to waste time trying to disprove its existence.

These men aren't trying to prove or disprove the Bible.  Really.  I know it looks like it (and I know that fundamentalist Atheists often try to make it look that way... and fundamentalist Theists often assume that any question is an attack on their belief systems - both groups of fundamentalists play off each other), but science really isn't in that business.  Science is about "how", not "why".

The philosophical point Maxwell and I are getting at is that of falsifiability.  There are lots of statements that can't be disproven - but that doesn't mean they're true.

Consider the following statement: "There is an invisible, incorporeal, cold-fire-breathing dragon hovering in my garage".  Nothing can ever disprove that either - it might even exist (but that's not the way to bet).  Whether it exists or not, it's a lot more more interesting to find out why I believe in it than to waste time trying to disprove its existence.


I gotcha. I never meant to spark such long posts, I was just defending my faith, that's all.

I gotcha. I never meant to spark such long posts, I was just defending my faith, that's all.


Karma - hey, long posts are half the fun of this place.  I just wanted to make it clear that neither I nor the scientists doing the Red Sea research were attacking it.  

(One beef I have with the Sagan essay that I cited is that he probably was, and for that - since he's dead - I apologize on his behalf.  Might have been his intent, wasn't mine, it's just a really sharp piece of writing that explains what "falsifiability" means.  Douglas Adams put it better in his discussion of the Babel Fish.  Any actual proof that God actually existed would remove any need for faith.)

I don't have faith in gravity (of either Newton's original formulation or Einstein's improved descriptions).  I have evidence that it usually works like Newton said, and I have evidence that Mercury's orbit does things that Newton's theory says it can't, but that Einstein's theory says it does.  I don't have faith in gravity because I've got evidence.

But the God idea?  So what if there's no evidence one way or the other?  Evidence is for theories, not faiths.

Karma - hey, long posts are half the fun of this place.  I just wanted to make it clear that neither I nor the scientists doing the Red Sea research were attacking it. 

(One beef I have with the Sagan essay that I cited is that he probably was, and for that - since he's dead - I apologize on his behalf.  Might have been his intent, wasn't mine, it's just a really sharp piece of writing that explains what "falsifiability" means.  Douglas Adams put it better in his discussion of the Babel Fish.  Any actual proof that God actually existed would remove any need for faith.)

I don't have faith in gravity (of either Newton's original formulation or Einstein's improved descriptions).  I have evidence that it usually works like Newton said, and I have evidence that Mercury's orbit does things that Newton's theory says it can't, but that Einstein's theory says it does.  I don't have faith in gravity because I've got evidence.

But the God idea?  So what if there's no evidence one way or the other?  Evidence is for theories, not faiths.


Perfect explanation. And thanks for the karma, you'll get some too.

These men aren't trying to prove or disprove the Bible.  Really.  I know it looks like it (and I know that fundamentalist Atheists often try to make it look that way... and fundamentalist Theists often assume that any question is an attack on their belief systems - both groups of fundamentalists play off each other), but science really isn't in that business.  Science is about "how", not "why".


Thank you and Karma.  Up until a few years ago I was agnostic.  I developed my Christian faith with 90% intellectual reasoning and 10% spiritual inspiration.  Thus, I am in favor of teaching the divine creation of the universe BUT not on the public's dime and NOT in science class.  

As you point out, faith involves epistemological unknowables.  "Intelligent design" is just a euphemism for "creationism."  It begs the question: Who designed the designer.  It is a cousin of the paradox: If God is almighty, can he make a rock so heavy he himself can't lift it? In my faith I believe there are mysteries of God the human mind is incapable of understanding.  

As Emo Phillips remarked: I used to think my brain was my favorite organ, then I thought, look who's telling me this!  It is supremely arrogant for humans to believe we are the most intelligent force in the universe.  However, the best method for finding out how things work, from a storm cell to a brain cell, is the scientific method.  

When science demonstrated how much more complicated a skin cell was than we previously thought, the "intelligent design" advocates pointed it out as proof of God.  No way it could have happened without Him.  I thought, maybe by God's standards, the cell mechanisms are elementary and we humans just aren't very bright!  

By that logic, why inquire at all?  It's too hard for us to understand so it must be God.  We didn't give up when Robert Hooke first observed cells under a microscope in 1665.  Why?  Because scientifically curious minds always want to know more.  It's the fearful and superstitious who dare not tread into God's domain.  

I see no reason for the conflict between faith and science.  Provided one is inclined to believe in God, I do see God gave humans a tiny sphere on one planet in which man can survive.  We can only live in submarine or subterranean spheres unless we bring surface atmosphere with us.  Extraterrestrial survival is next to impossible.  We can hardly get to the moon and we've never made it to Mars, let alone lived there.  Thus, the more you believe in intelligent design, the more of a militant ecologist you'd better be.  The Christian Right sees environmentalism as the devil's work...but they are a silly lot.  

The philosophical point Maxwell and I are getting at is that of falsifiability.  There are lots of statements that can't be disproven - but that doesn't mean they're true.

Consider the following statement: "There is an invisible, incorporeal, cold-fire-breathing dragon hovering in my garage".  Nothing can ever disprove that either - it might even exist (but that's not the way to bet).  Whether it exists or not, it's a lot more more interesting to find out why I believe in it than to waste time trying to disprove its existence.

Reminds me of Chomsky's "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously."  
;D

Think "Nineteen Eighty-Four," 2+2=5.  It was not enough for Winston to declare it was true in order that O'Brien stop torturing him, O'Brien required Winston to believe in his heart 2+2=5.  That is why I'm against illiberal societies.  You could form the cult of the Invisible Incorporeal Cold Fire-Breathing Dragon and terrorize your followers into believing it.  Eventually, your terrorized followers would forget the terror and involuntarily believe in the Dragon.  Going back to The Party's equasion, my faith declares 1=3 and 3=1 BUT it is metaphorical dogma not mathematical fact.  If you go to Holy Cross College, your mathematics professor is not going to open the semester with 1=3.  However, some backwoods dominionist homeschool teacher just might!

I gotcha. I never meant to spark such long posts, I was just defending my faith, that's all.


The stronger your faith, the less you need to defend it.  I came to God in the middle of life.  Monty Python's "The Life of Brian" is still one of my favorite movies, even though many Christians, including the Vatican, declare it blasphemous.  Monty Python is a satirical troupe.  If you don't like satire, don't watch MP.  While MP in TLOB was mocking the symbolism and rituals in Christianity, I do not see it as mocking the essence of Christianity.  Rather TLOB emphasizes the essence.

Catholics in particular get too wound up in symbols ("Follow the sandal," "Follow the gourd"), while Baptists in particular get too wound up in Revelation ("The dragon with eight flaming heads," etc.). 

MP does depict Jesus giving the Sermon on the Mount, they do not ridicule what Jesus is saying, they ridicule the way the people are misinterpreting it ("Blessed are the cheesemakers?") and fighting amongst one another while Jesus is speaking ("While he has got a very big nose.  Where are you two from, Nose City?"). 

When Brian says simply, "Don't judge other people or you might get judged too," the crowd is so dumbfounded they mock him.  Prescient of the rising Christian Right for 1979, the people wanted to hear about The Holy Gourd and the terrible dragon coming at the end of days, but had no interest in how to get along with one another in this lifetime.