Scientist Observes Planet Being Formed

Here is a link to an article that speaks about the timing of circumcision:

http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=13&article=1118

This isn't the article I initially read but it reads the same. (This is just one example of medicine supporting scripture.)

 

If there is one thing religious apologists try to do well is that they do their best to inject modern mechanics with old world Biblical text just to bear some relevancy in secular times. What these individuals did was interpret the story based on what they know now, as opposed what was lacking in information back then.

Back in those days, people deemed circumcision was a necessity and it lacked any medical reasoning behind it. Otherwise, it book would have delved into it further.

 

A necessity? Circumcision was a physical demonstration of God's covenant with the Jewish people.

 

That's not based on science though. That's based purely on religious conviction with little bearing or a strong need to feel "wanted" or "empowered". It's like garring.

 

Are we in the same conversation? My point was that God commanded Abraham to circumcise Jewish males on a certain day, the 8th day. The article lends medical support - the 8th day is the perfect day to perform that procedure because the body is best able to heal itself beginning on that day. I'm saying that modern medicine supports what God commanded. You asked me for factual information that science/medicine supports scripture. There it is.

 

What does circumcision, which is a cultural issue, have to do with science? IIRC it was a mandate from a deity in the biblical old testament. In the US, it became fashionable as a prevention for masturbation in the early 20th century, but never caught on as much in Europe. Here, the numbers have dropped considerably in the last 30 years. I flatly refused to have my son cut.

 

Traditionally, 8 days in the Jewish faith. I still don't see the connection to science, but I'll keep reading.

 

The data there is quite old, do you have anything newer? Some of that dates to 1935, and our understanding of the processes involved in maturation have changed radically since then.

(Today, babies are tested on the second day after birth for Vitamin K deficiency, so it doesn't really track that that would be a "low point," or we'd have a lot more Vitamin K deficient children. The article also notes this about boy children specifically, and I'm not aware of a difference in the development of vitamin K issues being specific to males.)

 

Specifying a day doesn't amount to anything scientific. Plus, circumcisions aren't a necessity at all. It's more to do with a religious ritual and as Pixie pointed out, very archaic practice with little to no means.

 

You cant be serious. You BEGIN the thread with...

..and then act all indignant because DK said you think cold? WTH?

What's with you rudely trying to alienate and insult those who differ in thought, in a thread where you desire people to take a look at your perspective??

 

There's nothing "rude" about my beginning thread. That's plain old observation based on something that shouldn't even be of a controversy. And if you bothered reading the entire thread and the exchanges Andrae and I had, then you'd understood why I made the comment there. He ASSUMED that because I'm void of belief, that everything is empty.

And secondly, this isn't "my" perspective. This whole article is evident and supported by factual understanding on how things work. People like to inject ideas which holds little to no credibility in this particular field of study. You're too damned quick to start something and not fully get the damn picture.

 

I did read the WHOLE thread. So did you start this thread out for DK? If NOT, then my post point stands intact - if you invite others at the beginning to read into your views, do so invitingly and don't be RUDE about it.

Your exchanges with DK happened later on, so don't be a kettle.

 

Chopra just wrote a book with another atheist scientist. Its based on their differing perspectives. The interview with them both was fascinating. I think i can get an online audio of the interview to show you...

 

There's nothing RUDE about my initial post. How is telling the truth about those who blatantly dismiss anything science related rude? This article is for anyone interested in reading and yes, I did refer to those who are Young Earth Creationists or those who dismiss any area of evolution. That's not being rude. That's simply challenging intellectual dishonesty. This wasn't for anyone specific in mind here. Just my general input.

Secondly, noticed how Pixie disregarded that comment and focused on the article itself and what information provided? Yeah...that's called contributing to the topic. Now how about you? Are you going to blow off steam because there's little activity on here or will you contribute to the topic at all?

 

Pixie didn't pick up on your very RUDE ass! - I DID, however.

When you begin by a thread by calling fellow posters whom you assume won't agree with you, "woefully ignorant, intellectual dishonest, delusional-minded, STUPID and archaic thinkers" - all in one breath...and then insist you're merely being truthful just because they dismiss your theories - even though no-one had yet to speak...is what's pure delusion - on your part. (and no, you didn't refer to "Young Earth Creationists or those who dismiss any area of evolution", so stop with your nonsense. This is a highly debatable subject and if you are NOT open to another's POV, then you are in no position to chastise them for the very attitude you are exuding also.

I'll contribute my opinion to those whom I see are open to discussion.

 

Wow, I had to mention these said individuals by actual name so that people would know who I'm referring to? That's spoon-feeding individuals who are oblivious to the entire discussion on evolution and ID. That was the whole point. Anyone who even remotely looked into it can pick up on that.

You REALLY need to read into all this instead of going on a menopausal tirade. They aren't my theories as much as the general science community who has been refuting creationist claims. And this article was the entire point of it. This shouldn't even be a controversy nor should be debated because people "have different beliefs."

Guess what? This is a proven theory and those who tend to argue against it are very much likely ignorant of the subject matter. I'm around people like that all the time and even if evidence (tangible and factual) have been presented, people STILL won't acknowledge it. There are some things that we DO KNOW and this is one of them. Don't dismiss it and call it "simply another theory". That just makes you as bad as them.

 

Here is what I referred to in my other post. If you or others WITH OPEN MINDS have some time to set aside to listen or even listen in batches, it's a thought-provoking insight as these two experts in their fields debate (and at times extrapolate) on mainly the science community's view of the universe.

Debate: Science vs. Spirituality
Show Audio
Listen with Windows Player High Low
Listen with Coast Player
(Pop-up blockers may need to be disabled)
Download MP3s

IMPORTANT: Some mobile devices do not download MP3s.
Please use your desktop computer if this is the case.

Date: 10-13-11
Host: George Noory
Guests: Deepak Chopra, Leonard Mlodinow

http://www.coasttocoastam.com/show/2011/10/13

 

Gotta cosign that. What you highlighted was the entire reason why I said something to him in the first place. Like I stated before, atheist like him and fanatic Christians are insufferable. They make statements that alienate everyone that doesn't think like them and then have the nerve to wonder why people tell them to fuck themselves.

 

Damn dude you got disrespectful real quick. Fam you started this thread with hostility. You've offered other articles that some of the Christians made shitty statements about and I stood with you because I firmly believe in everyone's right to openly discuss and explore their thoughts but you can do it respectfully dude. Just saying.

 

Thanks for posting this. I really like his theories on life and the human experience. It seems like hardcore scientist are completely against assigning meaning to life. I don't know whether or not its true but its interesting to think about.