Thank you for taking the time to report the following comment to the administrator of this site.
Please complete this short form and click the submit button to process your report.
Comment in question
Posted by Wattree, on 07-31-2008 02:26,
Part 2:
In support of the contention that Moses allegedly parted the Red Sea, you wrote, “
"New Scientist [magazine] reported that two physicists at the University of Tokyo applied an extremely strong magnetic field to a horizontal tube partially filled with water. The water rushed to the ends of the tube, leaving the middle section dry. The phenomenon, discovered in 1994, works because water is weakly diamagnetic, repelled by a magnet. The established phenomenon of water moving from where a magnetic field is very high to where it is lower has been dubbed The Moses Effect. New Scientist noted: 'Pushing water around is easy—if you have a big enough magnet. And if you do, then nearly anything is possible.'”...
What’s your point–are you trying to tell me that Moses was a magnet? This is a complete and total non sequitur.
You then edited Professor Akira Yamada’s statement that, “While it is correct to say that [a miracle] cannot be understood as of now from the standpoint of the science in which one is involved (or from the status quo of science), it is wrong to conclude that it did not happen, simply on the authority of advanced modern physics or advanced modern Bibliology. Ten years from now, today’s modern science will be a science of the past. The faster science progresses the greater the possibility that scientists of today will become the target of jokes, such as "Scientists of ten years ago seriously believed such and such."’—Gods in the Age of Science."
You are the one who inserted “[miracle]” in that statement. By doing so, you change the entire context of his statement. You could have just as easily inserted “[the benefits of child molestation].”
Opinions
