29 Apr 12
The fact that the bible does not mention bacteria, perhaps the earth's most prevalent and widespread form of life, is a proof that the bible was written by men and not god. Men certainly did not know about bacteria until a few hundred years ago. Had men known of bacteria in biblical times, bacteria would have been mentioned considering their relationship with diseases which were mentioned.
.
29 Apr 12
Originally posted by 667joeTo say nothing of viruses. They are even more plentiful than bacteria.
The fact that the bible does not mention bacteria, perhaps the earth's most prevalent and widespread form of life, is a proof that the bible was written by men and not god. Men certainly did not know about bacteria until a few hundred years ago. Had men known of bacteria in biblical times, bacteria would have been mentioned considering their relationship with diseases which were mentioned.
.
Even dust mites are not mentioned, they are too small to see with the naked eye.
If the bible had been inspired by a god, surely it would have mentioned the medical problems parasites can cause, instead there are words about not eating pork and such clearly based on the idea that sometimes pork makes you sick. No mention of why though.
Curious, eh.
29 Apr 12
1 edit
Originally posted by 667joeThe Holy Bible says God created everything seen and unseen. The unseen would include such thing as bacteria. Not all plants and creatures that God created was mentioned in the Holy Bible. God gave Adam the priviledge of naming those creatures he could see.
The fact that the bible does not mention bacteria, perhaps the earth's most prevalent and widespread form of life, is a proof that the bible was written by men and not god. Men certainly did not know about bacteria until a few hundred years ago. Had men known of bacteria in biblical times, bacteria would have been mentioned considering their relationship with diseases which were mentioned.
.
God said his creation was good when he finished and we know that not all bacteria today is bad. Evil, pain, and suffering came into the world as a result of our rejection of God's perfect plan.
I think the fact that some early men lived to be nearly 1000 years old indicates
that these unseen things may have taken time for some of them to become bad enough to kill us. But God provided ways for us to overcome their evil effects. The Olive Leaf has the distinction of being one of the few medicinal plants mentioned in the Bible. Studies show that Olive Leaf extract is a potent antimicrobial that has inhibited the growth of every human pathogen it has been tested against, including viruses, bacteria, protozoa, fungi and yeast.
We have an awesome God. HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord! 😏
P.S. Olive Leaf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olive_leaf
29 Apr 12
Originally posted by 667joeYou are hilarious, do you ever think through your posts? As you say bacteria was only known of by science a hundred (or so)years ago; are we to disregard the works of Newton based on your logic?
The fact that the bible does not mention bacteria, perhaps the earth's most prevalent and widespread form of life, is a proof that the bible was written by men and not god. Men certainly did not know about bacteria until a few hundred years ago. Had men known of bacteria in biblical times, bacteria would have been mentioned considering their relationship with diseases which were mentioned.
.
29 Apr 12
Originally posted by RJHindsInteresting.
The Holy Bible says God created everything seen and unseen. The unseen would include such thing as bacteria. Not all plants and creatures that God created was mentioned in the Holy Bible. God gave Adam the priviledge of naming those creatures he could see.
God said his creation was good when he finished and we know that not all bacteria today is bad. E ...[text shortened]... alleluYah !!! Praise the Lord! 😏
P.S. Olive Leaf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olive_leaf
When we take antibiotics bacteria are killed. Not all die quickly and some require repeated doses of the antibotic before they are killed. Especially if people take only part of their course of antibiotics, then the bacteria they do kill will be those least able to resist, while the survivors will be by definition the more resistent bacteria. Thus people retain in their bodies a reduced population of bacteria which is selectively more resistent to antibiotics. The same process can recur with a different type of antibiotic. Again, selectively the more resistent strains are the ones to survive and reproduce. Over time, with a growing population of increasingly resistent strains of bacteria, antibiotics become less effective.
The declining effectiveness of antibootics is readily and simply explained by the theory of natural selection. It is not necessary to know anything much beyond what I have written here. For example we do not really need to examine the bacteria in detail and understand their structure to identify what quality gives them greater or lesser resistence, though that might be useufl to know for other related reasons. All we need to know is the way inadequate doses of antibiotic can give rise to resistent strains. Natural Selection tells us this in very simple and readily useful terms.
Remind me how the Bible would explain this process and why that type of religious explanation would be of any help to medicine?
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
29 Apr 12
Originally posted by 667joeThere are far more bacterial, fungal, and other 'foreign" cells in and on the human body, than there are human cells in or on it. There are hundreds, or thousands, of species. We could not live without them.
The fact that the bible does not mention bacteria, perhaps the earth's most prevalent and widespread form of life, is a proof that the bible was written by men and not god. Men certainly did not know about bacteria until a few hundred years ago. Had men known of bacteria in biblical times, bacteria would have been mentioned considering their relationship with diseases which were mentioned.
.
29 Apr 12
1 edit
Originally posted by divegeester-no.
You are hilarious, do you ever think through your posts? As you say bacteria was only known of by science a hundred (or so)years ago; are we to disregard the works of Newton based on your logic?
You lost the point: Newton was just a man with finite intellect so you should not be surprised that he would not know about and show this knowledge by mentioning bacteria, viruses etc before their discovery. 'God' is supposed to have infinite intellect and the Bible is 'supposed' ( according to some ) to be the word of God so 'he' should have knowledge of bacteria, viruses etc before their discovery and yet 'he' didn't mention them in the Bible which should be a surprise ( for believers ) because what better way to convince us in the modern age of reason that 'his' word is true by predicting and saying what we would one day discover?
29 Apr 12
5 edits
Originally posted by RJHinds
The Holy Bible says God created everything seen and unseen. The unseen would include such thing as bacteria. Not all plants and creatures that God created was mentioned in the Holy Bible. God gave Adam the priviledge of naming those creatures he could see.
God said his creation was good when he finished and we know that not all bacteria today is bad. E alleluYah !!! Praise the Lord! 😏
P.S. Olive Leaf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olive_leaf
The unseen would include such thing as bacteria.
-yes, we know in this modern age of science that the category of “unseen” generally would include such things as bacteria.
The problem here is that the Bible doesn't say that the category of “unseen” generally would include such thing as bacteria, viruses etc. So how can we rationally know that the author of the Bible specifically knew about bacteria, viruses etc merely because the Bible said with a vague statement that 'things' are made by things unseen? ( partly “vague” because it didn't elaborate on what these “ things unseen” are; spirits? ghosts? What? ) .
it would be infinitely more impressive if the Bible said: “all solid things and even air and water are entirely made by things too small to be seen with thy unaided eye and are hard to split in two but one day man will split some in two and will invent a machine called thy holy transmission electron microscope ( TEM ) that will make images of these things for us to see.” ( this obviously would be about atoms and not bacteria )
why doesn't the Bible say any stunningly convincing correct prediction like that? -just one will do. -after all, it IS supposed to have the word of “God” in it.
29 Apr 12
Originally posted by finneganThe Holy Bible is not meant to be a biology or medical book to explain everything in nature to you. But we have learned that God has given all creatures an immune system and the ability to adapt through reproduction. But god has not given creatures the ability to change into another kind of creature. So just forget that, it don't happen. It's in the Book! HalleluYah !!!
Interesting.
When we take antibiotics bacteria are killed. Not all die quickly and some require repeated doses of the antibotic before they are killed. Especially if people take only part of their course of antibiotics, then the bacteria they do kill will be those least able to resist, while the survivors will be by definition the more resistent bacteri ...[text shortened]... xplain this process and why that type of religious explanation would be of any help to medicine?
29 Apr 12
Originally posted by humyThe authors of the Holy Bible may or may not have know about such things as atoms, electrons, protons, bacteria, or any of these things too small to see. These men were inspired by God to write what they did. Many times they did not understand what they were writing. God was not interested in them recording that kind of information, apparently. But God has provided us with the ability to search out and discover these wonders of God's creation. HalleluYah !!!The unseen would include such thing as bacteria.
-yes, we know in this modern age of science that the category of “unseen” generally would include such things as bacteria.
The problem here is that the Bible doesn't say that the category of “unseen” generally would include such thing as bacteria, viruses etc. So how can we rationally know t ...[text shortened]... n like that? -just one will do. -after all, it IS supposed to have the word of “God” in it.
29 Apr 12
Originally posted by 667joeI've always wondered why the Vedas were more explicit with information regarding the human body and medicine where it is strangely absent in the bible-as are a lot of other things.
The fact that the bible does not mention bacteria, perhaps the earth's most prevalent and widespread form of life, is a proof that the bible was written by men and not god. Men certainly did not know about bacteria until a few hundred years ago. Had men known of bacteria in biblical times, bacteria would have been mentioned considering their relationship with diseases which were mentioned.
.
(maybe not completely absent from the bible, but definately not a major theme , whereas health and biology are a major theme in life in general and should interest just about any human being , especially if he or she is planning for/has a baby)
29 Apr 12
Originally posted by RJHindshttp://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=TPwPfPvz5Jo
The authors of the Holy Bible may or may not have know about such things as atoms, electrons, protons, bacteria, or any of these things too small to see. These men were inspired by God to write what they did. Many times they did not understand what they were writing. God was not interested in them recording that kind of information, apparently. But God ha ...[text shortened]... us with the ability to search out and discover these wonders of God's creation. HalleluYah !!!
30 Apr 12
Originally posted by humyYes I did miss that, my apologies to 667joe.
-no.
You lost the point: Newton was just a man with finite intellect so you should not be surprised that he would not know about and show this knowledge by mentioning bacteria, viruses etc before their discovery. 'God' is supposed to have infinite intellect and the Bible is 'supposed' ( according to some ) to be the word of God so 'he' should have knowledge of ...[text shortened]... ason that 'his' word is true by predicting and saying what we would one day discover?
It's just not at all compelling as "proof" as he claims.