The relevence of Biblical claims to science

Fair Questions MrHambre. I would like my example to stand, so I will interact with your objections:

quote:

---

1) Presumably all societies, even non-Judeo-Christian ones, have newborns whose vitamin K levels fluctuate the way you describe. What use is this fluctuation in the majority of human societies, which do not circumcise their young?

---

God's desire is for all people to be His children. His perfect creation, then, should be equipped to handle His commands. It is like asking why God allowed a person born blind to still have an eye I think.

quote:

---

2) Do female newborns have the same fluctuations in vitamin K levels? Why would they, if the Bible says nothing about female circumcision?

---

They do not interestingly enough, which is why it seems particularly miraculous that only males on the 8th day have enormously high levels.

quote:

---

3) Wouldn't it make more sense for males to be born without foreskins, thus making it unnecessary to mutilate them in a procedure that a surprisingly large amount of physicians consider unsafe, useless, and barbaric?

---

Of course we could postulate what would make more sense to us, but if there is a creator, should we really tell Him how He could have done it better? There is a great deal of symbolism and identity which goes along with that practice. It is the same reason people wear wedding rings. Sure, you don't have to, but you do it as a symbol of your identity with the oneness of your marriage partner.I hope these responses are helpful. I'm not sure your objections really undermine the example.

MikeHagger,You're not really seeing the correlation correctly, IMHO.

quote:

---

This is a fine example of why the theistic mindset is so useless in the sciences. Coming to the question of this vitamin spike, the theist sees an example of the hand of their god (and no other in spite of most people in the world believing in some god other then the christian one) and claims a victory for their faith and the support of good science (good science of course being defined as that science the conclusions of which agree with their preconceptions.)

---

It's fair, since I am supporting the claims of the Bible as useful to answer the "whys" that science cannot, that I would explore them, wouldn't you think? Futher, if it is some other religion and God that is true, the point still stands: science on its own does not answer the "why" question in regards to the vitamin K spike. It is a mystery to science divorced from creation claims (choose your creative God with a believeable explanation.)

quote:

---

Now, a real thinker and researcher (one who, if he has faith, is rightly not looking to it for these answers), approaching the same question of the vitamin spike and the day on which circumcisions should be done, might say, "Well, look at that. After a few generations of doing circumcisions the Jews saw that those done on the eighth day after birth turned out better, so they started doing them all on that day. Then, it later got written into their holy books".

---

You have not proven anything at all. I claim that science cannot explain the vitamin K shoot. Your hypothetical does not address this. Even if the Jews figured out the best day after trial and error as opposed to hearing a voice from some creator, that does not explain why the vitamin k shoots up just in males just that day.

How is this anything more than just a complex form of the god of the gaps argument?Just because we don't currently know why the spike happens does not show that science is completely incapable of figuring out why the spike occurs.You need to give an example of where science would necessarily not find the answer based on the limitations of science. Giving an example where science is simply lacking or dosen't give a damn dosen't count.This message has been edited by Jazzns, 12-21-2004 12:14 PM

Maestro,I agree with the way Mike Hager responded to your "Biblical Science" claims, but I feel there is more to add.First off, I think you're wrong that this "miraculous" vitamin K spike occurs only in males. Please cite a relevant bit of research to support your claim. I think it's fairly universally accepted that all newborns have low levels of this blood-clotting vitamin in their first week of life, after which they rise to adult levels. I see nothing miraculous in the phenomenon. Your explanation only says that ancient Jewish tradition decreed that male newborns be mutilated when it was known that their wounds would clot properly.This begs the question of why they should be mutilated at all, which you seem to think is irrelevant. Isn't the answer to this "why" question in the Bible? I actually feel that, in fact, we do have the right to ask the Creator why He would have given males foreskins if He intended men to live without them. I need a better reason to mutilate a newborn son than an ancient tradition tells us to.The responses you've been given actually do undermine your example. You are arguing that the Bible is giving us wisdom about phenomena that science alone is not equipped to understand. I think your claim has been soundly refuted if you're resorting to extremely unscientific explanations concerning God's mysterious intentions.regards,
Esteban Hambre

I for one, would like some reference outside of creationist websites that:

1. infant's vit K levels rise so significantly, or peak on day 8
2. female infant's levels do NOT
   

The only medical reference I can find refers to the need to give newborns vit K shots to help with prothrombin production, and that when intestinal bacteria levels start increasing in about a week, vitamin K levels start rising and reach adult level around 6 weeks of age. (Interestingly, this is for both male AND female infants)Some interesting citations on IIDBRequest RejectedIf this is suppose to be a biblical science claim, you need to show references.

---

Asgara
"Embrace the pain, spank your inner moppet, whatever....but get over it"http://asgarasworld.bravepages.com
http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com

contracycle,Why have you belittled my examples? They are good examples. You can reject my claims if you want, but your reasons are not really substantial. If that is how you will object to my claims, I really don't have much else to say, and you have won.

quote:

---

Thats becuase your argument rests almost entirely on semantic manipulation.

---

I make some specific claims with specific examples.

quote:

---

How are miracles possible? -- Subject not in evidence - miracles cannot be shown to exist/happen and cannot be tested. Claim rejected.

---

Oh? Just like that? If I have to test a miracle to prove that it happened, then you have to test the big bang to prove that it happened. Yeah, I know what you will say, "We know we can't prove it." Right, but you choose to believe it then. Then you will say, "Because the evidence suggests that is the best explanation." Fine, but don't reject my claim then. Miracles have been seen to have happened, and that they are miracles is the best explanation. You really do not have any substantial way to reject this simple claim. It is a serious question and a relevent example to the topic. Give it a little more weight please, or we will go nowhere.

quote:

---

What causes people to act unkindly, aggressively, selfishly, etc to one another? -- Self-interest and programming. See other threads. Claim rejected.

---

Excuse me? Do you think nobody cares about this question? Why do you think so much scientific study goes into trying to figure out how the brain is wired and makes people go looney? This is a particularly valid concern for this world, and it is a concern that scientists have looked at over time in various fields. You can't just reject this claim. I am saying that science cannot fully answer that question, and science has tried to answer it as much as it can.

quote:

---

the only way they will be fully explained is through science.

---

Is this prophesy? I thought we didn't do that here?! There are plenty of things that certainly haven't been fully explained by science yet. I think my claim is fair: The Bible answers some of these questions that science has failed to. Now you are making prophetic predictions about what science will do in the future with no evidence that it will. Please be fair with me then!

quote:

---

The spiritual realm affects the physical realm. -- This claim is ridiculous, and I see no reason to accept it without compelling evidence. Please cite such evidence.

---

Well..my whole argument hardly hinges on it. Miracles are an example. And, as we discussed, I have about as much substance to that explanation as you have to the claim that science will answer every question in the future. Subsequestly, perhaps some others would like to explore the existence of miracles a bit more. It might be a little off topic, I don't know.

quote:

---

One that is presented in a very dishonest manner - without controls or citations or references. What exactly is our basis for thinking that vitamin K is any way relevant to the handling of pain or bleeding, such that it might be useful in this context?

---

Dishonest? This is already starting to feel very pointless. Well...FYI, if you really want a published paper about the vitamin K thing: Page not found - Apologetics Press

Compare the claim here:

quote:

---

...babies vitamin K shoots up miraculously on the eighth day...

---

With the version on this apologetic site: No mention of a miraculous spike on the eighth day at allOr this sitehttp://www.parentsplace.com/.../qas/0,,166598_101139,00.html
Pediatrician Robert Steele writes This apologetic site claims that it is prothrombin levels that peak on day 8. But there is still no sign that it is in any way "miraculous" - just look at the graph.Page not found - Apologetics PressAnd as this pro-circumcision article admits the relative speed of clotting can be identified by observation: Page not found – Heritage HouseThis message has been edited by PaulK, 12-21-2004 12:30 PM

Well I told you that creationist often had poor reading comprehension. Now you've demonstrated it.You've cited one of the same articles I found - but you claimed that it supported you even though it clearly claims a peak in prothrombin, not vitamin K and does not show your miraculous spike, either.

I am seeing the correlation correctly... it doesn't exist.Also, I wasn't trying to prove anything, I was showing that a better explanation for the two associated "facts" could be proposed without recourse to mythology, so why bother with mythology.Nothing in the bible has anything to do with the findings of science and should be kept as far as possible from the process of science, for the reason I gave. Applying theistic concepts leads to explanations at one over complicated (i.e. by adding a god, which is always an unneeded extra factor) and over simplified (goddidit).Also, I realized that I was taking your word on the existence of this increased vitamin k level, which turned out to have been an error. I searched the net and consulted with a few health professionals. I found no reference and none of the health professionals had heard of it. So, if your example is to mean anything, show some good documentation that it exists. I strongly suspect this will turn out to be like missing rib in men (you know, the one that was used to make Eve) I and my schoolmates believed in when I was six... a plain lie.

PaulK,Thanks for the response. A few thoughts...but I am trying to catch up in this thread (I'm the only one on my side) so I'm going to have to let some of it go uncritiqued.

quote:

---

How are miracles possible?
The assumptions here are:
1) That miracles ARE possible
2) That they are scientifically investigable
3) That scientific investigation will not produce the correct answer
4) That the Bible contains the correct answer

---

I am assuming 1). I am not assuming 2) though. In fact, part of my point is that science is ill equipped to handle the existence of miracles. I guess the debate would be, then, whether or not miracles happen. Maybe a new thread is in order for that. Let me just say, though, if you really, truly believe that nothing miraculous and unexplainably otherworldy and mysterious has happened in the history of this world, I guess that is your right. I think it suggests you should check out history books and things in addition to your science books then.

quote:

---

Well science has a lot to say on this one, too. But how can it be shown that the Biblical answer IS correct ?

---

This, my friend, is why Christians are coming onto this forum and suggesting that we have seen a history of evidence that the Bibles claims work out to be true in peoples lives and that they make sense. We were hoping that claim would be enough for you to say, "Ok, let's scrutinize it then and see if it is a useful barometer or not." But you refuse to. I can't make you obviously, but...there it is I guess.

quote:

---

Even assuming that it is entirely correct so far as the scence goes (which I doubt)

---

It's true I'm not much of a scientist, but this is quite verifyable. Do me the honor of not assuming I'm mistaken until you can prove it. I included a link to one such report, and you can do your own research easily too.

quote:

---

It is hard to conclude that the rise on the eight day is FOR the purpose of circumcision.

---

I hardly think that makes my example any less viable for consideration. The question is whether there are questions science can't answer that the Bible can (putting aside if the answers are wrong of verifiable at this point). I have shown with the example that there is a question science can't answer that the Bible does answer. Let us start somewhere please. What I'm trying to suggest is that the Bible is full of answers that science can't answer. It amazes me that you haven't, in your study of science, come up with questions you can't answer with science. Maybe I'm fooling myself, but many of you appear to be groping for answers. I'm suggesting there are some very good ones worth a look.

quote:

---

Giving an example where science is simply lacking or dosen't give a damn dosen't count.

---

Is there some scientific formula I can follow to filter my examples? For example, I'm curious why,

quote:

---

1. Why are there no predators on Barro Colorado?

​

2. Why are there tigers on Bali but not Lompok?

​

3. Why is the venom of Bothrops insularis 3-5 times more toxic than any other member of the Bothrops genus?

​

4. Why are there 23 species of tenrecs on Madagascar, but not one single species found anywhere else in the world, even in similar habitats, even as fossils?

​

5. Explain the disappearance of the once highly diverse orders of ammonites and trilobites. Why did they disappear at different times?

---

passes the "science gives a darn" filter but,Why does a baby's vitamin K shoot up really friggin high only in males only on the 8th daydoesn't pass the "science gives a darn filter?"

You have not shown this to be true. Please, if you are going to continue to use this please show medical references. You have been shown by many here that this is NOT so.

---

Asgara
"Embrace the pain, spank your inner moppet, whatever....but get over it"http://asgarasworld.bravepages.com
http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com

MrHambre,A few posts ago I cited a source which has more specifics. Yes, the levels are low the first week, but the point is that on day 8 only, the level shoots up something like a 100% in males only, then goes down to normal levels. This is a temporary spike, so it is more interesting than you thinking. If we were just talking about levels going up after a week and the Jews figuring that out, I agree, it wouldn't be all that special, but that is not what is going on as the report I linked to claims.

You totally missed the point. The key here is that you cannot just offer something we just don't understand YET as evidence of something that the bible explains better then what could be achieved through science.Just because we don't know some subtle biochemical process about babies might just mean that no one has bothered to look into it yet.You did not show in your example how science is incapable of discovering a meaningful reason for the phenomenon. All you showed is that science would probably not discover YOUR reason for the phenomenon based on a personal correlation with a section of the bible.

I beg your pardon? You've shown nothing resembling this whatsoever! You've *asserted* some things about Vitamin K, with no support, some of which have already shown to be wrong!