Can Science explain This?

[Doveaman]

I'm much more impressed with water skippers or water striders than some bozo trying to pretend he can do same thing Christ did.

The wind and waves were much more active when Christ did it, so I don't think he is trying to imitate Christ. Nevertheless, it is still impressive.

Jesus really did walk on water, this "magician" who knows what he did or didn't do, and frankly I don't care.

The observational evidence suggests he did walk on water and nothing to suggests otherwise. We should always follow the evidence. We can't go wrong when we follow the evidence.

Or can we?

 

[Dave Ellis]

The observational evidence suggests he did walk on water and nothing to suggests otherwise. We should always follow the evidence. We can't go wrong when we follow the evidence.

Or can we?

No, that's not what the observational evidence points to.

The observational evidence is that this man is an illusionist, it's his job to create images like this that are otherwise impossible. Therefore, we should first assume based on evidence that this is his newest illusion.

We can also back that up by the fact that countless other illusionists have created the same general effect going back centuries.

It's the same reason why we don't believe that Criss Angel can actually fly, the evidence would suggest he's putting on a show.

 

[morningstar2651]

How did he do it?
What is the explanation?

 

[morningstar2651]

Walking On Water
Look, we all can see a man walking on water. Why are you guys trying so hard not to believe what we all can see?

I don't get it.

If you have evidence that it's only an illusion, then provide the evidence.

If not, then let the observation speak for itself.

Surely an observation can serve as evidence, right?

We have observational evidence of a man walking on water, but no evidence that it's an illusion.

There is plenty of evidence that this man is not walking on water. For instance - it's physically impossible for a full grown human to walk on water (give it a try sometime). Several people have explained to you that he is not walking on water.

I suggest you apply rigor to this experiment, go out and walk across a river and see if you can replicate the results. If you can't replicate the results, perhaps you're willfully allowing yourself to be deceived.

You refuse to see the evidence because it contradicts what you want to believe. Your blind faith in miracles has crippled your ability to think.

 

[morningstar2651]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dycpIPTFJ04

 

[morningstar2651]

Combine the above illusion with a variation of this and you have successfully walked on the Thames.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=voVj8zVTWCA

 

[Loudmouth]

Can you explain how he walked on water, or how he appeared to be walking on water?

No guessing please. Evidence only.

Can you explain why we should suspect that he is using supernatural powers?

 

[Cute Tink]

Walking On Water
Look, we all can see a man walking on water. Why are you guys trying so hard not to believe what we all can see?

I don't get it.

If you have evidence that it's only an illusion, then provide the evidence.

If not, then let the observation speak for itself.

Surely an observation can serve as evidence, right?

We have observational evidence of a man walking on water, but no evidence that it's an illusion.

No evidence that it's not an illusion either.

He entered the water at a very specific location and looked carefully before he got in.

He's not walking "on" water, but on something under the water, because his feet stay slightly submerged.

It's a cool trick, but one played out by lots of magicians.

 

[morningstar2651]

Perhaps the walking on water trick has something to do with the permit he received from the port authority of London to construct an underwater structure in the Thames right before performing the trick?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovmVRMjDLi8

 

[morningstar2651]

 

[hagiograph]

A invisible bridge perhaps?

I dunno but I'm ready to start a religion worshipping him.

Hallelujah!

 

[hagiograph]

David Copperfield did this kind of stuff all the time

Wait...do I need to start worshiping David Copperfield?

Oh man...I was just starting my new religion around the other guy! C'mon!

 

[hagiograph]

The Bridge just has to be multi secitional that collapses or is lowered after they walk by it

Why all this hypothesizing? "A Miracle" explains it so much easier! And more elegantly!

 

[morningstar2651]

Perhaps the walking on water trick has something to do with the permit he received from the port authority of London to construct an underwater structure in the Thames right before performing the trick?

Funny how the OP scurries off without a word as soon as evidence is posted...

Or maybe he tried to replicate the experiment and went for a long walk off a short pier.

 

[Doveaman]

The observational evidence is that this man is an illusionist

Provide evidence that what he did is only an illusion. Show me the submerged bridge.

 

[Doveaman]

He's not walking "on" water, but on something under the water, because his feet stay slightly submerged.

Provide evidence he is walking on something. No guessing.

 

[Doveaman]

I suggest you apply rigor to this experiment, go out and walk across a river and see if you can replicate the results. If you can't replicate the results, perhaps you're willfully allowing yourself to be deceived.

It is silly to conclude something did not, or cannot, happen just because you cannot replicate the results, especially after observing it happened.

All it means is that you cannot replicate what you just observed.

Can you replicate how dark energy is able to expand space?

I didn’t think so.

Perhaps the walking on water trick has something to do with the permit he received from the port authority of London to construct an underwater structure in the Thames right before performing the trick?

Provide evidence this is what he did. No guessing.

Funny how the OP scurries off without a word as soon as evidence is posted...

You did not provide any evidence at all. You are simply making unsubstantiated claims based on wild guesses.

We all observed Dynamo walking on water, we even have video evidence and eyewitness reports to prove it. That's more than enough evidence to convict a bank robber who was observed robbing a bank.

If you have evidence he is not robbing the bank (walking on water) then provide the evidence and stop with the wild guesses.

You observed it but you don’t believe it. Typical.

 

[Cute Tink]

Provide evidence he is walking on something. No guessing.

I'm not guessing. It is very established that this is how the trick is done, because that's what it is: a trick. I don't think we need to establish that he's walking on something, because he is in fact walking, therefore, he is walking on something.

You assume that he must be walking on water because that's what you want to believe. Considering the fact that he is not walking on the surface of the water, it's not a guess to understand that he is walking on something else. This is an established trick.

 

[Archie the Preacher]

Criss Angel - Walk On Water Revealed

Look for yourselves.

Finding this took me about ten seconds doing a Bing search. Not high praise for anyone who claims to be a seeker or skeptic.

 

[Doveaman]

Criss Angel - Walk On Water Revealed

In case you missed it, we are talking about Dynamo, not Chris Angel. Please follow.

Look for yourselves.

Finding this took me about ten seconds doing a Bing search. Not high praise for anyone who claims to be a seeker or skeptic.

The videos reveal how the masked man did it and maybe how Chris Angel did it in a little swimming pool, but the videos do nothing to demonstrate how Dynamo did it in a river.

Demonstrating how one bank was robbed doesn't prove how the other bank was robbed.

Verifying one doesn't prove the other. You need to verify all.