Posted on 03/19/2010 4:56:11 PM PDT by chessplayer
What if Darwin's theory of natural selection is inaccurate? What if the way you live now affects the life expectancy of your descendants?
(Excerpt) Read more at guardian.co.uk ...
This is a sweeping generalization that suggests that all religions base remediation of illness on faith healing, and that all people who use prayer and faith in their lives are religious zealots who eschew any other possible remedies. It also denies the reality that many if not most of today's believers utilize both prayer and medical science.
It also ignores the fact that leprosy in the Bible was treated as a disease. I don't recall one instance where it was attributed to demonic activity.
Many of the OT hygiene requirements were very effective in preventing the spread of disease.
If the doctors in the days of Simmelweis had simply followed the OT protocol of dealing with dead bodies, the maternal and infant death rate in the hospitals in those days would have dropped dramatically.
Instead, when Simmelweis was imploring doctors to simply wash their hands in between patients, he was mocked and ridiculed by the scientific community of his day. So much for scientific consensus.
People have no end of fun ridiculing the Bible for it's lack of *scientific* content, and yet, until the last couple hundred years when science finally discovered the germ theory of disease, the Bible was revolutionary and way ahead of its time in its hygiene practices.
It's reputed that the hygiene practices of the Jews kept the death rate among the Jews during the Black Plague significantly lower than elsewhere in Europe.
That’s not how epigenetics works. Environmental things that you will pass on to your daughter happen to you when she was in your womb (since that’s when all of her eggs are formed). Similarly, environmental things that you will pass onto her that you got from your own mother happened to your mother when you were in the womb.
For boys, it’s things that happen to them when they are just before puberty, when sperm production is being finalized.
The poster enjoys insulting folks of faith and exploits with glee mischaraterization of any negative response to his insults.
Seems to be characteristic of by far the most evolutionists.
Sometimes when discussions don't go well the best tactic is to not fight the facts but the source. I noted this individual because he has spent his life working in this field and is much more knowledgeable than I on the subject. He is willing to admit the shortcomings of the current orthodoxy in science.
WM: Scripture is a reliable source because it's veracity has been established by the fulfillment of prophesy, witnesses statements to supernatural events and most importantly the resurrection of Jesus the Christ
K: Oh, yeah, the "prophesies," depending how you read (into) them. That's not a proof either.
I'm surprised a Christian would deny the veracity of Scripture. Maybe it's that muddled "Tradition" that's led you to this. I would really urge giving a Bible focused church a chance, it might change your thinking.
My limited experience with this community is that they are usually driven by a desire to accomplish something meaningful in their field.
AMEN! AMEN! AMEN!
Some of my voluminous responses to certain questions/comments reflect my interest in responding to them, and my ignoring of others to the lack of such interest for a variety of reasons. My advice to you: less mind-reading is always in order.
Despite that rather tortured construction, I perceive that you are merely gainsaying my statement, without offering reason for your attitude
I apologize for the tortured sentence structure (somehow the pasted and the deleted got mixed up).
I didn't offer a reason because it should be self-evident. If you think medicine and prayer are mutually inclusive maybe you should offer an explanation.
It's still there, right alongside "Ask and it shall be given to you."
Taken in the context you seem to be suggesting, "Ask and it shall be given to you" and "Thy will be done" are contradictory.
The Bible also promises that "all things you ask in prayer, believing, you will receive." So, if one asks for cure and it doesn't happen, there is only one conclusion to be drawn from that—you don't really believe, and God knows it, even if you try to convince the world and yourself otherwise.
But, ultimately it is either God's will or man's. Either you accept your fate and submit to God and his decision, or you nag him to do you favors and your will!
It seems to me most Christians do the latter. (I don't know what believers in other religions do, but I suspect the same thing)
["Sometimes, that's all that'poor "standard of care" because it is unreliable and unpredictable."] I'm not trying to be contentious, but that's another tortured construction which I'm having trouble figuring out. Surely you don't mean to imply that medical science is 100% reliable and predictable?
Again, I apologize. Obviously in my FR editor part of my sentence was erased by mistake. What I was saying is that sometimes, after everything else had failed, a prayer is all that's left.
Nevertheless, a prayer is a poor standard of care because it is unreliable and unpredictable. And by that I certainly did not imply that medical standard of care is 100% reliable and predictable. I don't know where you are getting such nonsense!
We actually know the predictability of standard medical care. Can you say the same for prayers?
Then why nag God to heal someone?
["Why would they want to live here, in this sinful world, when they could be with God?"] Because there are so many dear souls such as yours that Our Father in Heaven would not have us leave here for lost.
So, you are suggesting that Christian here on earth "save" souls like mine? LOL! Talk about self-righteousness! Thanks but no thanks. I don't need human "intercession." I will take my chances with God, if there is one.
Really? Sounds like some are reading more into it than there is. IIRC, the Bible says the Holy Spirit will teach you all things (you need to know).
["The Bible only commissions that believers preach the Gospel and baptize."] That's like saying that a PhD in Mathematics only knows how to add.
It's not what you know but what the Bible says you ought to do; do only God's will—preach the Gospel and baptize.
What "pejorative?" Doubt is not pejorative.
["Could you provide specific examples where I equate some with all?"] You have generalized about Biblical beliefs, the nature of prayer, the attitude of believers ..... in fact, generalization is the most prevalent thing found in your writing.
Sounds like a gross generalization to me. Again, can you provide specific examples or are you appealing to anecdotal "evidence" (hearsay)?
When I ask you for specific examples of me making sweeping generalizations, you retort with sweeping generalizations! That's pathetic.
No, don't read into things. What it means is that if we did what religion teaches (from the Bible) we would still be chasing "demons" out of the lepers, 1st century AD style. It is precisely because (even religious) people don't do only what the Bible teaches them that we have advanced in our knowledge and cure of the disease, as we have advanced in our concept of social standards when compared to those in the Old Testament.
Thank you for making it clear that the object of your faith in evolution is a "doctrine." As for the doubt, well, I suspect paucity only in your kaffeklatch."
It is a doctrine based on evidence gathered. As for little doubt that species evolve, that can be demonstrated on various levels, and has been. Drug resistance is a perfect example of evolutionary adaptation, producing resistant strains through mutation. New strains of flu virus remind us of this every year.
As for my "kaffeklatch" what can I say, coming from a Christian doesn't surprise me.
Ad yet things change, even in a closed system.
By that bizarre reasoning then, Jesus didn't believe.
He prayed in the garden that the cup He was to drink (going to the cross) would pass from Him but God didn't take it away.
Some things have to happen. If Jesus had been spared the cross, there'd be no salvation for the world.
The apostle Paul wouldn't be classified as a believer either. He had a *thorn in the flesh* a *messenger of Satan to buffet him* and prayer three times that God would remove it from him and God didn't.
Your reasoning is flawed.
Nevertheless, a prayer is a poor standard of care because it is unreliable and unpredictable. And by that I certainly did not imply that medical standard of care is 100% reliable and predictable. I don't know where you are getting such nonsense! We actually know the predictability of standard medical care. Can you say the same for prayers?
Medical science has nothing to brag on on predictability. Doctors can tell you what they expect the outcome to be, but there's regularly something going wrong with some supposedly simple, minor procedure that kills someone, or some unexpected reaction to medication, or some case where medication doesn't do what it's supposed to, and people die from that.
As far as people not wanting to die, it's perfectly natural. Sure we know that heaven is a better place, but there is still the will to live that God ingrained into each one of us. And dying is not a natural event that man is supposed to endure. Man wasn't initially created to die. It's a result of the fall and the sin we commit.
Besides, there are other factors that play into it. Aside from being used as an instrument in someone's salvation, there are simply cases where people don't want their family, especially small children, to go through the pain and trauma that dying would cause them.
Knowing that someone is in heaven and you'll see them eventually is consolation, but watching people around you die is not a fun thing to go through regardless.
Now, now.
Some folks are not REALLY in the market for sound reasoning or reasonableness.
Because I didn't understand your answer. It didn't seem responsive to my question.
You wrote: "energy can neither be created, or destroyed, even through the point of the big bang." This is a flat contradiction of the Biblical account of the beginning, which holds that God created the universe ex nihilo — out of "nothing." There was no energy, no laws, no nothing, before the Creation.
Since clearly you do not hold this view, I had hoped you would explain to me the basis of your position. All you give me is the law of identity, A = A. Yet logic didn't exist before the creation either. And in any case, God himself is not bound by the rules of Aristotelian logic.
There is no fatal contradiction between the existence of energy and the Creator ("prime mover") of the universe, as you allege. Indeed, the statement in the Gospel of John — "Let there be Light!" — can be interpreted as the inception of energy. God creates with Light. In my recent reading, I've come across the scientific conjecture that a great many biological processes may actually be triggered by virtual photon interactions....
So where you see a "contradiction," I do not.
12"I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. 13But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. 14He will bring glory to me by taking from what is mine and making it known to you. 15All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit will take from what is mine and make it known to you.
16"In a little while you will see me no more, and then after a little while you will see me."
Taking verses out of context gets you nowhere. Jesus is talking about the work the Holy Spirit is to do in regards to revealing truth about Jesus.
It's not what you know but what the Bible says you ought to do; do only God's will—preach the Gospel and baptize.
On the contrary, you aren't very familiar at all with Scripture.
Micah 6:8 He has showed you, O man, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.
There is way more that God commands people to do than that. Just read Paul's epistles some time.
Let's try this again......
mm:It also ignores the fact that leprosy in the Bible was treated as a disease. I don't recall one instance where it was attributed to demonic activity.
Show us where the Bible teaches that leprosy is a result of demonic activity.
FWIW, that comment of yours was a pretty sweeping generalization there, completely unfounded and baseless. You have no evidence at all on which to base that conclusion. Or do you? Could you provide it?
Examples, please.
And just how have we *advanced* in our concept of social standards compared to the OT? They're different, no doubt, but what makes ours more *advanced* and there's less so?
Clearly......
We don't rape and pillage anymore.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.