Bible and science contradictory?

[Duality]

The topic of the thread is "bible vs science". My point is that the bible is the biggest comic book of fiction ever told. I'm not saying anything as far as if a god exists, it's absurd to think a magical being exists who created everything out of nothing, and still watches over us all every single day and what not. I'm merely humoring the notion that if some kind of being does exist (which is highly unlikely), it sure as hell isn't what the Christian bible says it is.



That's a load of BS. They didn't come to accept God as a conclusion based on their work in the science feel. It was a preconceived notion that they already had! They were conditioned by society to believe that a ominous being existed that controlled everything, and they assumed that these laws were his creation.

interesting. i'm not going to even begin argue for the bible because it is very hard to make a case for the legitimacy of it with what science has shown us. however i think it's good that you do have somewhat of an open mind to there actually being a God. i understand your still skeptical but it's nice to see that even in your mind there is a possibility. my case is for the acceptance of God, i'm no master on the bible or do i heavily promote christianity, i just have a strong belief in the Lord based off of personal experiences and faith.

 

[Pickle]

i just have a strong belief in the Lord based off of personal experiences.

did a christian administer you his penis?

 

[Braaq]

did a christian administer you his penis?

 

[Zigurd]

I just want to post a little thing for you guys.

Usually theists believe atheists are close minded. But the truth cannot be more different. Theists are the ones with a close mind.

Atheists often can accept the fact that maybe there is a God, because they base their knowledge upon proof and evidence. For now there is no evidence for a God, but they don't discard the possibility 100%. I, for one, don't believe in God... but if I were given evidence for his existence I would believe.

Now, look at theists. They CANNOT even imagine there is no God.

 

[Duality]

I just want to post a little thing for you guys.

Usually theists believe atheists are close minded. But the truth cannot be more different. Theists are the ones with a close mind.

Atheists often can accept the fact that maybe there is a God, because they base their knowledge upon proof and evidence. For now there is no evidence for a God, but they don't discard the possibility 100%. I, for one, don't believe in God... but if I were given evidence for his existence I would believe.

Now, look at theists. They CANNOT even imagine there is no God.

for the most part you're right. as long as the athiest came to his conclusion based off evidence and a logical thought process and giving an honest effort to finding God.

 

[BigBen]

$10,000 to the first person who can explain to me physiologicaly, any of the following.

1) How Mary got pregnant without getting creampied.

2) How Jesus could be dead for like 72 hours (considering you start to get massive brain cell death in 4 minutes) and come back alive.

explain this then 15 minutes with no oxygen and no pulse. shes just fine now.

 

[Glex]

15 minutes is a far cry from 3 days, Beno.

 

[BigBen]

15 minutes is a far cry from 3 days, Beno.

the point was she should not be alive, where is her massive brain cell death at? Now i am seriously doubting IS credibility if he is wrong about that what else is he wrong about?

Seriously i am over these threads.

 

[Glex]

Seriously i am over these threads.

Oh come now, you say that every time.

Under extraordinary circumstances, 'miraculous' things can happen. I would sooner believe a few other things are miracles than that story. Perhaps she's some kind of freak of nature. Perhaps the story got it wrong/it was sensationalized; after all, they did mention icing her down and it's no secret that people can be dead for a long time and revived as long as they're kep cold in the interim.

 

[Ironslave]

Now i am seriously doubting IS credibility if he is wrong about that what else is he wrong about?

LOL. k, you made the personal attack, so I will respond.

Give me a break, if you'd like to debate any aspect whatsoever of human physiology, be my guest. It clearly says how they had her in a controlled hospital setting with doctor supervision and were able to induce cooling, which substantially reduces oxygen requirements in brain cells, this is a documented FACT (1). Comparing 15 minutes on and off in this setting, to being stuck dead in a cave for 3 days (43,20 minutes) is pathetic. This just proves your ignorance in science, since your views of science come secondary to your views on religion.

If you knew anything about neurophysiology, you'd know that cardiac arrest causes massive glutamate release in brain cells. Since you don't know this, and you also don't know the elementary physiology of glutamate, it is an excitatory neurotransmitter, and causes brain cell swelling and ion influx, particularly calcium (2). It is a documented fact that brain cells die within minutes of cardiac arrest, ignoring this is ignoring science(3).

Cerebral recovery from more than 5 min of cardiac arrest is hampered by complex secondary derangements of multiple organ systems after reperfusion.

 

[Skeptic]

This has become quite the interesting discussion.

 

[Hypocrisy86]

when the third tabernacle is built
thats a sign of the beginning of the end
and two have already been destroyed i believe
or the rapture

 

[Hypocrisy86]

forgot that 75% of Earths population goes to hell
Non-believers have to choose "hell or heaven"
Those marked with the beast/sign go to hell
believers disappear

 

[frezzy]

Seems like quite a few people visit thesaurus.com before they try and post. that's nice.

 

[Hypocrisy86]

Seems like quite a few people visit thesaurus.com before they try and post. that's nice.

no i went to a private school some odd years back
didnt like it but i
took bible classes, its just its hard to live thru
when this shit is actually starting to take place.
if you believe it.

 

[frezzy]

don't worry, not referring to you man

 

[Ironslave]

Seems like quite a few people visit thesaurus.com before they try and post. that's nice.

I looked and have no idea what posts you are referring to. If it's my posts, you're wrong.

 

[Ironslave]

Before the ambulance arrived she was dead for 15 minutes not when she was brought to the hospital.

Bullshit she was, it's impossible.

Comments from Dr. Steven Novella, clinical neurologist, assistant professor and Director of General Neurology at Yale University School of Medicine.

I have noticed in recent months several examples of absolutely horrific medical science journalism. The two most common themes are a medical miracle that has doctors baffled, or the stunning (yet dubious) medical breakthrough. In the latter category have been a number of cases of people “brought back from the dead” - people who were presumed dead or brain dead but who survived none-the-less.

Now we are being treated to another story in this same genre. Val Thomas, 59, had a couple of heart attacks resulting in cardiac arrest. Her doctors managed to get her heart going again. They then induced hypothermia for 24 hours. The purpose of this (which was not properly related in any news account) is to protect the brain from neurological damage.

After the period of hypothermia, when she was being warmed back up, she had another cardiac arrest. The details at this point are too vague to reconstruct confidently. It is reported that she was on a ventilator but was not recovering consciousness. The prognosis was grim and so the decision was made to withdraw care. However, she was kept on a ventilator so that she could potentially be an organ donor.

From my experience in these cases, it seems that her heart was beating but she had a poor blood pressure and she remained comatose (not surprising following multiple cardiac arrests and induced hypothermia). Therefore the decision was made to take her off the ventilator, but they kept her on as a possible organ donor. But then, after removing her from the vent and IV’s she awoke.

This is not an unusual occurrence at all. In fact I frequently warn families in such situations that their loved-ones may survive even after we take them off the ventilator. We often cannot be sure what will happen.

The only difference in this case appears to be outstandingly terrible science news reporting. The reporting, originating from NewsNet5 out of Cleveland Ohio, mixed together details from the family and the doctors, but never put the story together. The news story was then dutifully copies and paraphrased by numerous secondary news outlets - without any evidence that a single reporter or editor along the line exhibited even the slightest journalistic skepticism, or had the proper background to see that the story made no sense as it was being told.

For example, FoxNews wrote this:

Thomas’ heart stopped around 1:30 a.m. Saturday and doctors said she had no pulse. Rigor mortis started to set in, and she was placed on a respiratory machine.

That last sentence is laughable - why would you ever put someone with rigor mortis on a ventilator? You also would not put someone on a ventilator if they had no circulation. Rigor Mortis occurs 2-4 hours after tissue death. It is the result of muscle cells having no energy - the no-energy state of muscle fibers is the contracted position. It takes energy in the form of ATP to relax and rest the muscle fibers so that they can contract again.

There is no coming back from rigor mortis. To suggest that this patient had rigor mortis and then came back to life is absurdly ignorant. Every journalist involved with this story who let that claim pass should be ashamed of their own incompetence.

Where did that claim come from? The doctor interviewed made no mention of it (or any other salient details - just that she had no signs of neurological function, which is expected in that situation - but more on that below). The family members did mention it, however. They commented that her fingers were stiff and bent back. They likely misinterpreted this as rigor mortis (or the reporters did themselves). However, tight fingers could have results from the induced hypothermia, or from poor (but not absent) tissue perfusion.

It is also reported that she had no pulse of her own.” What does that mean? Did she have some other pulse? Was she actively being given chest compression? Was her heart being paced with an external pacemaker? We are not told. Or, was it just that the nurse did not feel a pulse? After a cardiac arrest, with a decreased blood pressure, it is easy to miss a pulse. Every now and then patients are sent to the morgue only to wake up there - their faint pulse and shallow respirations were simply missed.

We are also told that the patient has no brain waves for 17 hours. Again - what does “no brain waves” mean? I doubt they would have kept her on EEG monitoring this entire time. The doctor who was interviewed said she had no signs of neurological function - but how detailed was the exam? Was a neurological consult called? Did the family or the reporter assume that “no neurological function” is the same as “no brain waves?” It is probable that the patient was simply unresponsive, but did not have a true absence of all signs of brain function. Again - pretty typical for someone who just suffered cardiac arrest.

The real story here is the sorry state of much of science reporting, and the way new stories are propagated through the internet without any follow up journalism. The problem seems to stem largely from the trend in recent years to have fewer science journalists and for generalists to cover science stories.

A competent science journalist should have had the background and common sense to realize that the story, as told, did not make sense. The family (who were just responding to an emotional situation and should not be relied upon for accurate medial information) were giving many details that did not fit or were not in proper context. It sounds like the reporter collected together a bunch of isolated facts about the case but had no idea how to put them together into a coherent medical story.

Most egregious, however, is the reporting that the patient was in rigor mortis before awakening. I would think that basic common sense would be enough to raise a red flag about this detail. The reporter should then have then specifically verified this detail with the doctor, and if they did not get a clear or sensible answer do some further expert follow up.

Perhaps the news editors thought this was not a “science” story but a “human interest” (i.e. fluff) piece. That may help explain the gross journalistic incompetence, but it does not excuse it. The bottom line is that they got the story wrong and misinformed the public.

Mainstream journalism is slowly dying in the age of the internet. This will probably lead to bloggers (or whatever comes after blogs) largely filling the gap. But if journalists want to maintain their central position in news reporting they are going to have to do a better job.

Ben, if you look at something like this, and automatically believe it and attribute it to your blind faith in god, do yourself and possible future patients/clients a favor right now, don't work in a science related field. If you can't pick up on these basic high school level science laws, you don't belong doing it professionally.

 

[BigBen]

Bullshit she was, it's impossible.



Ben, if you look at something like this, and automatically believe it and attribute it to your blind faith in god, do yourself and possible future patients/clients a favor right now, don't work in a science related field. If you can't pick up on these basic high school level science laws, you don't belong doing it professionally.

I did not say i automatically believed it was blind faith in anything u made that assumption. An made it incorrectly. If nature does not work by strict laws then their could be no sure way to say weather or not any philosophy or psychology or mathematics is truly correct, and we clearly know better than that.

LOL @ basic high school science laws. You need to let me speak for myself instead of making assumptions about how you assume i am thinking or what my statements mean bc you are doing so incorrectly.

I say their is more than one way to interpret things and that u should try thinking outside of the box sometimes it would make u a much better person. I think just like in anything everything should be challenged until it is an absolute truth. Thinking outside of the box does not mean ignoring how things work iron slave it is just a different interpretation of the result. These interpretations are narrowed dwn by experimentation until we in fact have a truth that becomes a law that nature must abide by. Again we have succeeded in discovering what nature already knew. And i dont mean on basic levels.

i did not say what happened to that lady was a miracle i am sure their is perfect logic behind it. She was dead for 15 minutes. If in fact she had no oxygen to her body and she was dead U have to start from that point to come up with a reasonable answer. I can accept a scientific explanation from that point, but from no other starting point bc nothing besides that happened. i dont accept this to be the result of what some call a miracle i accept this to be the result of specific laws of nature created by a intellegent designer, the same laws that make gravity apply to us and the same laws that hold the planets in their orbit.

 

[Ironslave]

I did not say i automatically believed it was blind faith in anything u made that assumption. An made it incorrectly. If nature does not work by strict laws then their could be no sure way to say weather or not any philosophy or psychology or mathematics is truly correct, and we clearly know better than that.

LOL @ basic high school science laws. You need to let me speak for myself instead of making assumptions about how you assume i am thinking or what my statements mean bc you are doing so incorrectly.

I say their is more than one way to interpret things and that u should try thinking outside of the box sometimes it would make u a much better person. I think just like in anything everything should be challenged until it is an absolute truth. Thinking outside of the box does not mean ignoring how things work iron slave it is just a different interpretation of the result. These interpretations are narrowed dwn by experimentation until we in fact have a truth that becomes a law that nature must abide by. Again we have succeeded in discovering what nature already knew. And i dont mean on basic levels.

i did not say what happened to that lady was a miracle i am sure their is perfect logic behind it. She was dead for 15 minutes. If in fact she had no oxygen to her body and she was dead U have to start from that point to come up with a reasonable answer. I can accept a scientific explanation from that point, but from no other starting point bc nothing besides that happened. i dont accept this to be the result of what some call a miracle i accept this to be the result of specific laws of nature created by a intellegent designer, the same laws that make gravity apply to us and the same laws that hold the planets in their orbit.

Well, you started it by stating I had lost all credibility on this forum, because you claimed I was wrong on brain cells dying within 4 minutes without oxygen (I'm not wrong), and used this news story to prove your example. Since this was a religious thread, and I think you posted this before also in another religious thread, I assumed this was your way of showing some sort of god given miracle to save this woman. I clearly proved one physiological explanation, then you responded by assuring me she was in cardiac arrest for 15 minutes with no help, as the story was told.

I can accept the notion it is possible that laws were created by an intelligent designer, I have no way of ever proving that true or false. But that is not the issue, and based on posts you've made on the forum, this isn't all you believe. The issue is that somehow, Jesus was able to go 4,320 minutes without any heartbeat! The issue is believing that Jesus' resurrection is even humanly possible, or he was conceived to a virgin mother, or any of that other bullshit.

Believing in an intelligent designer who made laws is unlikely, but there's no way of proving it wrong.

Believing in Christianity bullshit is just pollution for the mind of society, since so much of it is easily proved impossible.