Total Posts:131|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Science and the Bible

medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2012 10:05:51 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Since neither side can provide a knockout case for or against the Creation story, or the Noah's Ark story, let's look beyond those two issues.

Skeptics, what are some other parts of the Bible that you feel are refuted by science??

Believers, what are some areas of the Bible that you feel are supported by science??
====================================

I'll start out with a few examples. I believe that the Bible's dietary instructions are evidence of an omniscient being warning the author of things that are bad for humans. The warnings against eating fats is a perfect example. Cardiovascular disease is the number one killer, and the leading cause of CV disease is fats, but they couldn't have known any of this back then, without some divine intervention.

Another example is the Bible's treatment of blood as being unclean. Today we know about bloodborne pathogens, and how the transmission of those pathogens spreads infectious disease. They couldn't have known such things, though. Yet the Bible outlines the same routine that is followed on ambulances, and in healthcare facilities, even today. Anything that is touched by blood, or other bodily fluids must be cleaned and sterilized, or disposed of in a very particular manner.

Even when moral considerations are left out of the discussion, the treatment of sex by the Bible is not without good reason, and enforcement likely served those populations very well by avoiding outbreaks of serious diseases. Many diseases spread by sex would have been fatal to those people, and in some cases still are. Everything that the Bible speaks against, promiscuity, incest, homosexuality, and beastiality, carries significant health risks. Those who engage in these acts are at a much higher risk for being contagious, and are a risk to spread disease to other people. That fact alone is likely a significant reason for the penalty being so severe. All moral considerations aside, remaining abstinent until marriage, and remaining monogamous throughout the marriage, was and still is, the only sure-fire way to avoid health problems related to sexual activity.

I don't see any way possible that these people could have known these things back then. I believe that this is evidence that God, in His infinite wisdom, gave us rules to help us protect ourselves, through divine inspiration of the authors. Science supports these rules, thus science supports that the Bible is God's word, which ultimately means that science supports God's existence.
Microsuck
Posts: 1,562
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2012 10:32:03 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/22/2012 10:05:51 AM, medic0506 wrote:
Since neither side can provide a knockout case for or against the Creation story, or the Noah's Ark story, let's look beyond those two issues.

The Creation story is knocked out via the scientific evidence for evolution --> http://www.talkorigins.org...

I believe that I made a knockout punch against the Noah's Flood story --> http://reasonalliance.blogspot.com...


Skeptics, what are some other parts of the Bible that you feel are refuted by science??

1. Noah's Flood
2. Creation account (via evolution/natural selection)
3. The Biblical age of the Earth.
Wall of Fail

Devil worship much? - SD
Newsflash: Atheists do not believe in the Devil! - Me
Newsflash: I doesnt matter if you think you do or not.....You do - SD

"you [imabench] are very naive and so i do not consider your opinions as having any merit. you must still be in highschool" - falconduler
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2012 10:36:55 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
If it were a knockout punch then I would be in agreement. Since I'm not, then it's only a knockout punch for those who choose to believe your argument, thus it really isn't much of a knockout, if other people aren't convinced.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2012 11:06:31 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/22/2012 10:32:03 AM, Microsuck wrote:
At 9/22/2012 10:05:51 AM, medic0506 wrote:
Since neither side can provide a knockout case for or against the Creation story, or the Noah's Ark story, let's look beyond those two issues.

The Creation story is knocked out via the scientific evidence for evolution --> http://www.talkorigins.org...

I believe that I made a knockout punch against the Noah's Flood story --> http://reasonalliance.blogspot.com...


Skeptics, what are some other parts of the Bible that you feel are refuted by science??

1. Noah's Flood
2. Creation account (via evolution/natural selection)
3. The Biblical age of the Earth.

I asked for this thread to look beyond the Creation, and Noah's Ark stories.

Your argument against the Creation story stipulates that it doesn't deal with the ultimate origins of life, which the creation story does. Evolution does not speak to the creation of life itself, therefore is not a refutation.

The Biblical age of the earth is merely an interpretation. As such, it is not an effective refutation, since there are interpretations that explain the discrepancy. The dating methods themselves, are not foolproof, therefore aging the earth is at best, a rough estimate. When that rough estimate is combined with a possibly flawed interpretation of what the Bible actually means, I find the argument wholely unconvincing.

Your argument against the Noah story is not concrete refutation, though there are some fair points made. There exists an interpretation which reconciles what we think we know today, with what you think the Bible means, and therefore, I find your argument unconvincing.
ScottyDouglas
Posts: 2,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2012 11:08:27 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/22/2012 10:32:03 AM, Microsuck wrote:
At 9/22/2012 10:05:51 AM, medic0506 wrote:
Since neither side can provide a knockout case for or against the Creation story, or the Noah's Ark story, let's look beyond those two issues.

The Creation story is knocked out via the scientific evidence for evolution --> http://www.talkorigins.org...

I believe that I made a knockout punch against the Noah's Flood story --> http://reasonalliance.blogspot.com...


Skeptics, what are some other parts of the Bible that you feel are refuted by science??

1. Noah's Flood
2. Creation account (via evolution/natural selection)
3. The Biblical age of the Earth.

I'll be back and to knockout you out, Soon!
TheAsylum
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2012 11:37:18 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/22/2012 10:05:51 AM, medic0506 wrote:
Since neither side can provide a knockout case for or against the Creation story, or the Noah's Ark story, let's look beyond those two issues.

LOL! You mean science can't disprove that the Earth is 5 000 years old and that Noah fit all of the animals of this Earth on one boat?
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2012 11:41:08 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/22/2012 10:05:51 AM, medic0506 wrote:
I'll start out with a few examples. I believe that the Bible's dietary instructions are evidence of an omniscient being warning the author of things that are bad for humans. The warnings against eating fats is a perfect example. Cardiovascular disease is the number one killer, and the leading cause of CV disease is fats, but they couldn't have known any of this back then, without some divine intervention.

It's just cause-causality. At that time, whoever ate the most animal fat became fat. People who were fat died earlier. Ergo, you shouldn't eat a lot of fat.

Another example is the Bible's treatment of blood as being unclean. Today we know about bloodborne pathogens, and how the transmission of those pathogens spreads infectious disease. They couldn't have known such things, though. Yet the Bible outlines the same routine that is followed on ambulances, and in healthcare facilities, even today. Anything that is touched by blood, or other bodily fluids must be cleaned and sterilized, or disposed of in a very particular manner.

Again, cause-causality. It was pretty obvious that diseases can be transferred from people to people at that time. It's only logical that they can be transferred via bodily fluids.

Even when moral considerations are left out of the discussion, the treatment of sex by the Bible is not without good reason, and enforcement likely served those populations very well by avoiding outbreaks of serious diseases. Many diseases spread by sex would have been fatal to those people, and in some cases still are. Everything that the Bible speaks against, promiscuity, incest, homosexuality, and beastiality, carries significant health risks. Those who engage in these acts are at a much higher risk for being contagious, and are a risk to spread disease to other people. That fact alone is likely a significant reason for the penalty being so severe. All moral considerations aside, remaining abstinent until marriage, and remaining monogamous throughout the marriage, was and still is, the only sure-fire way to avoid health problems related to sexual activity.

Homosexuality carries no inherent health risks. Promiscuity is evolutionary beneficial by men. Bestiality is just weird.. but not really any dangerous. Incest, unlike the others, is evolutionary detrimental.

I don't see any way possible that these people could have known these things back then. I believe that this is evidence that God, in His infinite wisdom, gave us rules to help us protect ourselves, through divine inspiration of the authors. Science supports these rules, thus science supports that the Bible is God's word, which ultimately means that science supports God's existence.

Not that hard.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
imabench
Posts: 21,229
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2012 11:43:17 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I believe that there is probably a case where science knocked out the parting of the Red Sea by Moses....
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2012 11:52:26 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/22/2012 11:37:18 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 9/22/2012 10:05:51 AM, medic0506 wrote:
Since neither side can provide a knockout case for or against the Creation story, or the Noah's Ark story, let's look beyond those two issues.

LOL! You mean science can't disprove that the Earth is 5 000 years old and that Noah fit all of the animals of this Earth on one boat?

What would you say to those who aren't literalists??
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2012 11:58:35 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/22/2012 11:52:26 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 9/22/2012 11:37:18 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 9/22/2012 10:05:51 AM, medic0506 wrote:
Since neither side can provide a knockout case for or against the Creation story, or the Noah's Ark story, let's look beyond those two issues.

LOL! You mean science can't disprove that the Earth is 5 000 years old and that Noah fit all of the animals of this Earth on one boat?

What would you say to those who aren't literalists??

That God created the Big Bang?

There's no way to disprove it but there is no evidence for it either so it's erroneous to take it as correct.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
ScottyDouglas
Posts: 2,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2012 12:01:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/22/2012 11:43:17 AM, imabench wrote:
I believe that there is probably a case where science knocked out the parting of the Red Sea by Moses....

Really? So science can make God not capable of doing all things. God can do anything. He created the possibility of science and He is not servant of it.
TheAsylum
ScottyDouglas
Posts: 2,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2012 12:02:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/22/2012 11:37:18 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 9/22/2012 10:05:51 AM, medic0506 wrote:
Since neither side can provide a knockout case for or against the Creation story, or the Noah's Ark story, let's look beyond those two issues.

LOL! You mean science can't disprove that the Earth is 5 000 years old and that Noah fit all of the animals of this Earth on one boat?

Nope, science hasn't! Oh..it is 6,000+
TheAsylum
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2012 12:11:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/22/2012 12:02:56 PM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
At 9/22/2012 11:37:18 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 9/22/2012 10:05:51 AM, medic0506 wrote:
Since neither side can provide a knockout case for or against the Creation story, or the Noah's Ark story, let's look beyond those two issues.

LOL! You mean science can't disprove that the Earth is 5 000 years old and that Noah fit all of the animals of this Earth on one boat?

Nope, science hasn't! Oh..it is 6,000+

Great argument. When you are saying that science is incorrect, you must give scientifically verifiable data to support your hypothesis.

For example, the age of the Earth is about 4.5 billion years based on radiometric dating:

http://pubs.usgs.gov...

Your turn.

On a side note, people like you are the most intolerable of the religious twerps. Individuals such as Medic at least try to back up their assertions with a side of facts or common sense. You, on the other hand, are the most close minded chauvinistic prick that I have ever met. Attempting to prove something, all you do is call people names instead of presenting them with scientific facts in a scientific debate. You give religion a bad name.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2012 12:17:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/22/2012 10:05:51 AM, medic0506 wrote:
Since neither side can provide a knockout case for or against the Creation story, or the Noah's Ark story, let's look beyond those two issues.

stopped reading here.

I generally don't hate anyone, but some people do disgust me. I think its disgusting when someone takes a 1sided issue and pretends as if they still have a leg to stand on....I think it's disgusting when you stare forced, hard, logic in the face, and pretend as if it doesn't follow. I think its disgusting when when people are dishonest about their beliefs. And what you just did here,is disgusting.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,926
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2012 12:21:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/22/2012 10:05:51 AM, medic0506 wrote:
Since neither side can provide a knockout case for or against...the Noah's Ark story, let's look beyond those two issues.


Welllllll....

http://biologos.org...
http://biologos.org...
http://biologos.org...
http://biologos.org...
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
imabench
Posts: 21,229
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2012 12:22:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/22/2012 12:01:32 PM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
At 9/22/2012 11:43:17 AM, imabench wrote:
I believe that there is probably a case where science knocked out the parting of the Red Sea by Moses....

Really? So science can make God not capable of doing all things. God can do anything. He created the possibility of science and He is not servant of it.

Why is it that when Christians try to defend a claim in the Bible that is scientifically impossible, theyre only argument to support it is "God did it!!!"
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
ScottyDouglas
Posts: 2,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2012 12:26:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/22/2012 12:11:33 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
You, on the other hand, are the most close minded chauvinistic prick that I have ever met. Attempting to prove something, all you do is call people names instead of presenting them with scientific facts in a scientific debate. You give religion a bad name.:
I call people names? What? Did you not just say twirp and prick. Oh..preach on brother! I do not need scientific evidence, My Bible and God is all the evidence needed. Stay physical, brother.
TheAsylum
ScottyDouglas
Posts: 2,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2012 12:28:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/22/2012 12:22:08 PM, imabench wrote:
At 9/22/2012 12:01:32 PM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
At 9/22/2012 11:43:17 AM, imabench wrote:
I believe that there is probably a case where science knocked out the parting of the Red Sea by Moses....

Really? So science can make God not capable of doing all things. God can do anything. He created the possibility of science and He is not servant of it.

Why is it that when Christians try to defend a claim in the Bible that is scientifically impossible, theyre only argument to support it is "God did it!!!"

Because, God did it! Read the Bible, it is a sure fire nonmiss!
TheAsylum
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2012 12:30:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/22/2012 12:26:47 PM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
At 9/22/2012 12:11:33 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
You, on the other hand, are the most close minded chauvinistic prick that I have ever met. Attempting to prove something, all you do is call people names instead of presenting them with scientific facts in a scientific debate. You give religion a bad name.:
I call people names? What? Did you not just say twirp and prick. Oh..preach on brother! I do not need scientific evidence, My Bible and God is all the evidence needed. Stay physical, brother.

Why are you here? Debating is for open-minded reasonable people. You're a closed minded fool...what's the purpose of you being here, to annoy everyone else?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2012 12:31:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/22/2012 11:41:08 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 9/22/2012 10:05:51 AM, medic0506 wrote:
I'll start out with a few examples. I believe that the Bible's dietary instructions are evidence of an omniscient being warning the author of things that are bad for humans. The warnings against eating fats is a perfect example. Cardiovascular disease is the number one killer, and the leading cause of CV disease is fats, but they couldn't have known any of this back then, without some divine intervention.

It's just cause-causality. At that time, whoever ate the most animal fat became fat. People who were fat died earlier. Ergo, you shouldn't eat a lot of fat.

lol...most of the people ate pretty much the same things. It's not like they had a choice between McDonald's, Wendy's, Hardee's, or Abraham's Goatburgers. How did they differentiate who ate what, and how much, and keep track of those trends?? Where is any evidence for this??

Another example is the Bible's treatment of blood as being unclean. Today we know about bloodborne pathogens, and how the transmission of those pathogens spreads infectious disease. They couldn't have known such things, though. Yet the Bible outlines the same routine that is followed on ambulances, and in healthcare facilities, even today. Anything that is touched by blood, or other bodily fluids must be cleaned and sterilized, or disposed of in a very particular manner.

Again, cause-causality. It was pretty obvious that diseases can be transferred from people to people at that time. It's only logical that they can be transferred via bodily fluids.

Again, how would it have been obvious to them that it was something inside the blood causing disease?? Just stating that this would have been obvious to them is an absurd statement. How would they even have known that the person who touched the blood, got a disease, unless they followed that person to judge his health throughout his life. It's not like a person who is infected automatically starts pickling and changing colors as soon as they are infected. The disease process takes time to manifest. And again, you have no evidence for that being the case.

Even when moral considerations are left out of the discussion, the treatment of sex by the Bible is not without good reason, and enforcement likely served those populations very well by avoiding outbreaks of serious diseases. Many diseases spread by sex would have been fatal to those people, and in some cases still are. Everything that the Bible speaks against, promiscuity, incest, homosexuality, and beastiality, carries significant health risks. Those who engage in these acts are at a much higher risk for being contagious, and are a risk to spread disease to other people. That fact alone is likely a significant reason for the penalty being so severe. All moral considerations aside, remaining abstinent until marriage, and remaining monogamous throughout the marriage, was and still is, the only sure-fire way to avoid health problems related to sexual activity.

Homosexuality carries no inherent health risks.

Aids, HIV, colo-rectal problems, bladder infections and cystitis. People who don't work in the healthcare field might buy this, but those of us who see these people as patients, and the associated symptoms, know better.

Promiscuity is evolutionary beneficial by men.

It's only beneficial to more quickly proliferate the species. This doesn't make it any less likely to spread what would have been fatal STD's.

Bestiality is just weird.. but not really any dangerous.

Beastiality can indeed transmit diseases.

Incest, unlike the others, is evolutionary detrimental.

Yes, it is genetically likely to cause birth defects, and like I said, would have been dangerous to a people who weren't equipped to care for handicapped individuals.

I don't see any way possible that these people could have known these things back then. I believe that this is evidence that God, in His infinite wisdom, gave us rules to help us protect ourselves, through divine inspiration of the authors. Science supports these rules, thus science supports that the Bible is God's word, which ultimately means that science supports God's existence.

Not that hard.

It's hard if you look for answers that actually work.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2012 12:32:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/22/2012 12:26:47 PM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
At 9/22/2012 12:11:33 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
You, on the other hand, are the most close minded chauvinistic prick that I have ever met. Attempting to prove something, all you do is call people names instead of presenting them with scientific facts in a scientific debate. You give religion a bad name.:
I call people names? What? Did you not just say twirp and prick. Oh..preach on brother! I do not need scientific evidence, My Bible and God is all the evidence needed. Stay physical, brother.

LOL! So first you say that "science didn't disprove something" and then you say that "you don't need scientific evidence?"

Also, I said that you insult people and provide no scientific evidence for your assertions. I'm fine with being the former.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2012 12:33:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/22/2012 11:43:17 AM, imabench wrote:
I believe that there is probably a case where science knocked out the parting of the Red Sea by Moses....

I would argue that science could only show that it can't be accomplished by human means. I don't believe that science can prove that a creator God, couldn't perform this miracle.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,926
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2012 12:33:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/22/2012 12:17:35 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/22/2012 10:05:51 AM, medic0506 wrote:
Since neither side can provide a knockout case for or against the Creation story, or the Noah's Ark story, let's look beyond those two issues.

stopped reading here.

I generally don't hate anyone, but some people do disgust me. I think its disgusting when someone takes a 1sided issue and pretends as if they still have a leg to stand on....I think it's disgusting when you stare forced, hard, logic in the face, and pretend as if it doesn't follow. I think its disgusting when when people are dishonest about their beliefs. And what you just did here,is disgusting.

Take a look in the mirror, bro. You know "log in your eye" and all that.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2012 12:37:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/22/2012 11:58:35 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 9/22/2012 11:52:26 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 9/22/2012 11:37:18 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 9/22/2012 10:05:51 AM, medic0506 wrote:
Since neither side can provide a knockout case for or against the Creation story, or the Noah's Ark story, let's look beyond those two issues.

LOL! You mean science can't disprove that the Earth is 5 000 years old and that Noah fit all of the animals of this Earth on one boat?

What would you say to those who aren't literalists??

That God created the Big Bang?

There's no way to disprove it but there is no evidence for it either so it's erroneous to take it as correct.

lol...Again, LK, if you can't prove how it's done, nor can you disprove someone else's idea, then you really have no clue how it happened and therefore are wrong in just asserting that God didn't do it, and expect that assertion to stand as fact for anyone but yourself.
ScottyDouglas
Posts: 2,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2012 12:37:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/22/2012 12:32:10 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 9/22/2012 12:26:47 PM, ScottyDouglas wrote:


LOL! So first you say that "science didn't disprove something" and then you say that "you don't need scientific evidence?"

Also, I said that you insult people and provide no scientific evidence for your assertions. I'm fine with being the former.

I did not insult you, You insulted me! Because my Bible and God is all I need. I know that insults you! You bold it like it is a mistake or stupid, LOL, OK.
TheAsylum
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2012 12:38:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/22/2012 12:33:57 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 9/22/2012 12:17:35 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/22/2012 10:05:51 AM, medic0506 wrote:
Since neither side can provide a knockout case for or against the Creation story, or the Noah's Ark story, let's look beyond those two issues.

stopped reading here.

I generally don't hate anyone, but some people do disgust me. I think its disgusting when someone takes a 1sided issue and pretends as if they still have a leg to stand on....I think it's disgusting when you stare forced, hard, logic in the face, and pretend as if it doesn't follow. I think its disgusting when when people are dishonest about their beliefs. And what you just did here,is disgusting.

Take a look in the mirror, bro. You know "log in your eye" and all that.

You're a reasonable Christian....can you please tell medic and scottydouglas that they're being idiots?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2012 12:40:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/22/2012 12:31:13 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 9/22/2012 11:41:08 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 9/22/2012 10:05:51 AM, medic0506 wrote:
I'll start out with a few examples. I believe that the Bible's dietary instructions are evidence of an omniscient being warning the author of things that are bad for humans. The warnings against eating fats is a perfect example. Cardiovascular disease is the number one killer, and the leading cause of CV disease is fats, but they couldn't have known any of this back then, without some divine intervention.

It's just cause-causality. At that time, whoever ate the most animal fat became fat. People who were fat died earlier. Ergo, you shouldn't eat a lot of fat.

lol...most of the people ate pretty much the same things. It's not like they had a choice between McDonald's, Wendy's, Hardee's, or Abraham's Goatburgers. How did they differentiate who ate what, and how much, and keep track of those trends?? Where is any evidence for this??

I can think of a few ways. First, rich people at that time likely ate more meat than their poorer counterparts. Therefore, they got fatter but their lifespan did not necessarily extend longer relative to their increased nutrition than their poorer counterparts. Another way is just that some people ate more meat and were more likely to suffer from chest pains (cardiovascular problems).

Another example is the Bible's treatment of blood as being unclean. Today we know about bloodborne pathogens, and how the transmission of those pathogens spreads infectious disease. They couldn't have known such things, though. Yet the Bible outlines the same routine that is followed on ambulances, and in healthcare facilities, even today. Anything that is touched by blood, or other bodily fluids must be cleaned and sterilized, or disposed of in a very particular manner.

Again, cause-causality. It was pretty obvious that diseases can be transferred from people to people at that time. It's only logical that they can be transferred via bodily fluids.

Again, how would it have been obvious to them that it was something inside the blood causing disease?? Just stating that this would have been obvious to them is an absurd statement. How would they even have known that the person who touched the blood, got a disease, unless they followed that person to judge his health throughout his life. It's not like a person who is infected automatically starts pickling and changing colors as soon as they are infected. The disease process takes time to manifest. And again, you have no evidence for that being the case.

There were doctors at that time. I'm sure that one of them decided to see what would happen if they put diseased blood into healthy blood- it's not like it's a completely revolutionary technique.

Another reason could be that those that ate diseased birds were eating their blood, and they received the disease. Therefore, something on the inside of the animal had to be spreading the disease.

Even when moral considerations are left out of the discussion, the treatment of sex by the Bible is not without good reason, and enforcement likely served those populations very well by avoiding outbreaks of serious diseases. Many diseases spread by sex would have been fatal to those people, and in some cases still are. Everything that the Bible speaks against, promiscuity, incest, homosexuality, and beastiality, carries significant health risks. Those who engage in these acts are at a much higher risk for being contagious, and are a risk to spread disease to other people. That fact alone is likely a significant reason for the penalty being so severe. All moral considerations aside, remaining abstinent until marriage, and remaining monogamous throughout the marriage, was and still is, the only sure-fire way to avoid health problems related to sexual activity.

Homosexuality carries no inherent health risks.

Aids, HIV, colo-rectal problems, bladder infections and cystitis. People who don't work in the healthcare field might buy this, but those of us who see these people as patients, and the associated symptoms, know better.

All of this can be attributed to the fact that homosexual males are less likely to use condoms than their heterosexual counterparts.

Promiscuity is evolutionary beneficial by men.

It's only beneficial to more quickly proliferate the species. This doesn't make it any less likely to spread what would have been fatal STD's.

Marginal benefit>marginal cost- otherwise it wouldn't have been selected for.

Bestiality is just weird.. but not really any dangerous.

Beastiality can indeed transmit diseases.

Not necessarily more than just regular sex.

Incest, unlike the others, is evolutionary detrimental.

Yes, it is genetically likely to cause birth defects, and like I said, would have been dangerous to a people who weren't equipped to care for handicapped individuals.

Yes, but this could all be found out at that time.

"Oh look, Muhammed al Jumool had sex with his sister, Allah al Jumool."

"Their baby looks like a retarded pigeon; we better not have sex with our relatives."
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
ScottyDouglas
Posts: 2,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2012 12:41:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/22/2012 12:38:34 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/22/2012 12:33:57 PM, popculturepooka wrote:


Take a look in the mirror, bro. You know "log in your eye" and all that.

You're a reasonable Christian....can you please tell medic and scottydouglas that they're being idiots?:

Conforming to this world, its politics, its logics and its proclaimed sciences is not a reasonable thing to do for a Christian. Also popculture is reasonable and proclaimed that at you.
TheAsylum
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2012 12:42:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/22/2012 12:37:20 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 9/22/2012 11:58:35 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 9/22/2012 11:52:26 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 9/22/2012 11:37:18 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 9/22/2012 10:05:51 AM, medic0506 wrote:
Since neither side can provide a knockout case for or against the Creation story, or the Noah's Ark story, let's look beyond those two issues.

LOL! You mean science can't disprove that the Earth is 5 000 years old and that Noah fit all of the animals of this Earth on one boat?

What would you say to those who aren't literalists??

That God created the Big Bang?

There's no way to disprove it but there is no evidence for it either so it's erroneous to take it as correct.

lol...Again, LK, if you can't prove how it's done, nor can you disprove someone else's idea, then you really have no clue how it happened and therefore are wrong in just asserting that God didn't do it, and expect that assertion to stand as fact for anyone but yourself.

O.K, let's assume that both the God hypothesis and the Big Bang created itself hypothesis are on equal ground. Therefore, any evidence to either one would tip the scales to one side.

It's been mathematically proven that the Big Bang can arise out of nothing.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
ScottyDouglas
Posts: 2,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2012 12:46:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/22/2012 12:42:42 PM, Lordknukle wrote:


It's been mathematically proven that the Big Bang can arise out of nothing.

Wouldn't you have to prove the Big-Bang before ever assuming to mathematically proving that it could arise from nothing?
TheAsylum