First of all, neither natural selection nor evolution says that humans are extra-intelligent, hairless apes. Humans did not evolve from apes. What evolution says is that humans and apes have a common ancestor. Both natural selection and evolution are considered scientific fact, and do not go one inch past what the evidence shows. And coping mechanisms are far different from natural selection or evolution. I’ve developed coping mechanisms for many things in my life, and none of them are passed on through my genes. Evolution is the passing of a genetic trait, one that gives the possessor an advantage, to the next generation.

Back to the walking on ice issue: Has anyone read the entire research article? No? Yet you are dismissing it? I posted a link to it earlier. Read it before you try to dismiss it.

On another note, the only evidence in favor of Jesus walking on water is word of mouth, committed to writing some decades after his death. A few people claimed to have seen it and it got written down sometime later. That’s pretty weak evidence as far as I’m concerned. And while it can’t be proven that he walked on ice because we can’t go back in time, the possibility gives us “reasonable doubt” that he walked on water. Reasonable doubt is all I need to dismiss an alleged miracle.

"You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come up with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to" -- C.S. Lewis

Yes, Kang, I read the entirety of the linked pdf. That's why it took me 5 pages into this thing to post on the actual topic. Even if he managed to float on a massive ice floe, it's still pretty d*** impressive -- as miraculous, if not more so, than walking on water. May I have your permission to dismiss the theory now?

An interesting scriptural reference that you might appreciate, Kang ... Luke 16:19-31, I'll paraphrase. This rich bloke has died, after having spent his life walking every day past some sorry beggar at his gate. Turns out that the beggar makes it into heaven, but the rich guy ends up in hell. The rich guy asks that the beggar be sent back to tell his family to change their ways. Abraham, who happens to be nearby, responds, "They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them." And the rich guy says, "No, no, they'd listen to the beggar back from the dead!" Abraham comes back with, "If they don't listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead."

You, Kang, remind me of that story. Jesus rose from the dead -- if I'm wrong, show me his body, show me his tomb, show me where the Jews or the Romans put his remains on display to beat the "urban legend" of his resurrection. You have Moses and the Prophets, yet you do not believe, even if someone rises from the dead. Rather, you persist in posting anti-Christian material, as if to somehow demonstrate to all of us how firm and true your beliefs are.

I've done this before. It's really not that difficult. When I was a kid ( winter of '77 in Speedway, Indiana), a large creek near our house (Big Eagle Creek) froze over and when it started to thaw in the spring, we were able to break large chunks of ice on the banks off by jumping up and down on them and float down the creek standing on them. Worked like a charm. I got sick for a week (had to jump off the ice into very cold water eventually), but no one mistook me for the saviour of mankind.

I really think this whole argument is moot. Trying to explain how Jesus walked on water is, to me, no different than trying to explain how Noah packed so many animals into the Ark. There was no Ark, so it's useless in even arguing about it.

Mike

Like IROC said, walking on a flow of ice doesn’t seem all that big of a deal to me. It is, as I have said before, reasonable doubt. If we were in a courtroom today, and 50 people said they saw someone walk on water, and one scientist said there could have been enough ice to support that person, what would the result be?

Likewise for the resurrection. That he was just unconscious is reasonable doubt. All you have to support you is an urban legend (you said it, not me). You are choosing urban legend over reasonable doubt, which is a logical explanation of the events that doesn’t require a miracle.

It’s your choice, but just be aware that is the choice you are making. I choose logic and reason, you choose urban legend.

Thanks Maffett,

I’m glad these comments meant something to you. I’ve posted them before, and have hardly received comment. It makes me wonder if anyone reads them. Maybe people don’t understand them, or they are just too far out of the mainstream Or perhaps they hit the nail so directly on the head they just get denied…

Kang, If mankind needs this religious instinct so to make us civilized, are folks like us doing civilization harm by blowing holes in the religious house of cards?

What's worse, someone teaching my kids that the world was created in seven days, or someone with no fear of eternal damnation hurting them?

In other words, some folks need religion more than they need science.

I attend church with my wife and kids. I go through the motions, the pomp and circumstance. I feel I lead a Christian life. I pray with my family at meals. I tithe. I am allowing my kids to believe what they hear in Sunday school verbatim. This was how I was raised.

But I do not hide science from them. Just as it was with me, I'm sure there will come a day when my kids come to me and say, wait a minute... this doesn't make sense. Something is not quite lining up right. Fortunatley my folks didn't hide science from me either.

We hunt arrowheads and fossils as a hobby here in Tennessee. Someday my kids will want to know how a arrowhead can be 8,000 years old according to science when "the book" doesn't go back that far. It's hard for me even to comprehend a million years. That 350 million year old trilobite I'm sure will bring on even more talk.

At the same time, I feel that my religious upbringing helps me to be a good me. And even if my kids disregard the science, as many, many people do, I would rather take that risk than have them not be good people.

One thing that does trouble me is when religion forces its way into politics. I don't like abortion. But like many things I don't like, smoking, adultry, heavy drinking, gambling, don't necesarily need to be outlawed. But I'd be willing to let the antiabortionist, religious crowd win a few rounds if they promise not to vote for a nut case for president again. Someday, I believe everyone will see that this administration has done far more harm than good.

"I really think this whole argument is moot." -Mike

The only thing worth reading in this entire thread!

The one thing that I can't stand about this thread is the premise of it. I constantly hear non-believers echo that they loath having Christians force their ideas on them, and here we have non-believers trying to force their ideas on Christians. Do you not see the hypocracy?

Good point, but I like to think that we’re past the point where we needed that gene. Now we have civilization, laws, the golden rule, science, etc. We needed religion more when we were still cave men and that’s all we had.

I agree completely. See the guy on the other thread who apparently has no empathy for his fellow human beings.

Don’t even get me started! :) :)

What makes you think you are being forced to believe anything? The hypothesis that Jesus walked on ice has simply been offered as an alternative to the claim that he walked on water.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by kang
[B]Now we have civilization, laws, the golden rule, science, etc. We needed religion more when we were still cave men and that’s all we had.

I generally agree. Common law has to a great extent replaced what started out as religious doctrine. But is common law strong enough to keep the Stalins and Hitlers of the world in check?

Also, I wonder how many soldiers jumped off the boat and stormed Normandy thinking they were part of struggle between good and evil.

Kang,

Maybe "forced" was the wrong word to use. It just seems like the point of this thread is for non-believers to try and show believers that they are wrong. Which is exactly the same point of the Mormons who show up at your door. It just gets me when non-believers always say that hate having Christian ideas shoved at them, then they turn around and do the exact same thing with thier ideas to Christians.

BTW I had a good buddy in college dress up as a Mormon for Halloween one year. He had the narrow black tie, bike helmet and everything. One of the funnier costumes I can remember.

I have a hard time buying all this "forced" and "threatened" emotions running back and forth.

I don't feel forced or threatened by any religion, right wing or no wing. And I'm not trying to force anyone to think anything.

I don't feel threatened by my kids being exposed to various views. I am confident they have or will have enough self-confidence and self-esteem that they will not be brain washed one way or the other. The facts are the facts, and I think they will be able to sort them out as good as anyone.

I guess there are folks that do get easily brain washed and I should feel for them. But religion is generally a good thing, so why worry about that either?

Can anyone tell me why my "registration date" is 1969? How old was I then?????:confused: