Germ theory of disease

[seebs]

Originally posted by Didaskomenos

Perhaps not, but a theory of divine healing would. Nowhere does the Law even talk of evil spirits as causing sickness. In fact, many of the purity rituals included washing and avoidance of physical contact, which together seem oddly to precursor our precautions against germs. IMO, that helps argue that maybe God did have a hand in the formulation of the Law. I certainly wouldn't give the Israelites themselves credit for the germ theory of disease.

It is simply not demonstrable that everyone involved with the Bible saw a demon behind every sickness. However, I get your point (and agree) that the Bible is not meant to be used for a medical text, a science book, or anything but a guide to moral and spiritual matters. Whether the Israelites understood anything about germ theory or not.

According to sources I've seen since I started the thread, the idea that disease in general was a result of posession started around 300BC, and was pretty much prevalent by 100BC. Thus, its appearence in the NT.

It's interesting that the Hebrews pursued cleanliness, because, in backlash against Roman pagan standards of bathing, Christians were moderately opposed to it for quite some time. "Oops."

 

[Stormy]

Matthew 12:22Then they brought him a demon-possessed man who was blind and mute, and Jesus healed him, so that he could both talk and see. 23All the people were astonished and said, "Could this be the Son of David?"
24But when the Pharisees heard this, they said, "It is only by Beelzebub, the prince of demons, that this fellow drives out demons."
25Jesus knew their thoughts and said to them, "Every kingdom divided against itself will be ruined, and every city or household divided against itself will not stand. 26If Satan drives out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then can his kingdom stand? 27And if I drive out demons by Beelzebub, by whom do your people drive them out? So then, they will be your judges. 28But if I drive out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.


Jesus knew their thoughts and said to them

Seebs: This does not say that Jesus agreed that this case was a demon possession but only that he knew how they thought. God does not seem to desire to alter the course of human physical understanding ... only Spiritual.

Look at all the stuff on leprosy, and consider how important they thought *ritual* cleanliness was. The germ theory of disease would not predict that making sacrifices of animals to atone for your uncleanliness would help.

Now you are hitting again upon the mind and its involvement with healing. They truly believed that a sacrifice to God would help. It was a show of Faith. Christ was the ultimate sacrifice and we are saved by Faith because we believe.

But I am not sure that any of us humans posses the ability, by Faith,to alter reality of life in regard to illness and death. We must depend upon medicines. I think that Prayer may be our only true link to Supernatural healing.


The Bible is the inspired work of the Holy Spirit. But the humans that lived at the time were no different than we. They only had the knowledge of the physical world that they had thus far acquired. I disagree if you are placing the words that Jesus spoke as being faulty.

But I do believe that the words of the Bible are to heal our souls not our bodies. With one can the other be far behind?

If Man could only begin to LOVE in the way Christ taught.

 

[seebs]

At the same time, Christ certainly answers in terms of driving out demons... but yes, He may well have been answering their suspicions, not addressing the nature of the world. Nonetheless, it's pretty easy to see why many Christians were, at first, unwilling to accept the germ theory of disease as unbiblical, just like heliocentrism and all sorts of other stuff.

I don't think Jesus was lying, or incompetent, but I do think that the implications people generally read into His statements were poor ones for a long time.

It's really fascinating getting to *see* the process by which people gradually come to believe that Christianity is not incompatible with a scientific result. I sort of feel bad for people in the future; they'll look back and have no idea what it was *like*.

 

[Didaskomenos]

Originally posted by seebs


According to sources I've seen since I started the thread, the idea that disease in general was a result of posession started around 300BC, and was pretty much prevalent by 100BC. Thus, its appearence in the NT.

It's interesting that the Hebrews pursued cleanliness, because, in backlash against Roman pagan standards of bathing, Christians were moderately opposed to it for quite some time. "Oops."

It's true: the early Christians began to see public, mixed bathing as a moral problem and thus banned it. As time progressed on into the Middle ages, most began to ban bathing altogether, due to the "temptations" of nakedness. Perhaps these Christians from then on through depended too much on the Bible to keep them clean.

 

[Christian Soldier]

Seebs listed Matthew 4:24 as a verse that allegedly supports his view. However, it actually supports me strongly. Please note that devil possession is listed separately from "divers diseases and torments", lunatics and palsy---making it quite clear that none of them were caused by devil possession:

"And his [Jesus] fame went throughout all Syria: and they brought unto him all sick people that were taken with divers diseases and torments, and those which were possessed with devils, and those which were lunatic, and those that had the palsy; and he healed them."

 

[Cantuar]

Cantuar, he is right. As he has clearly demonstrated with this link to Spetner, some of the so-called 'evidence' against evolution just goes back to hand-waving.

Hand-waving doesn't derive directly from any bit of Scripture - its just what evolution-deniers do to cool themselves off when they are presented with evidence in favor of evolution.

Jerry, that's why I said "eventually." Scratch the surface of any book or website about creation science and you'll get to the Bible or the Koran. He only needs to look at the TrueOrigins page about "A Theory of Creation," and it's "God did this" and "God did that" and the usual old chestnuts about why science is wrong about everything. The home page of that site may well be making an effort to appear as scientifically based as TalkOrigins, but EVENTUALLY we're talking biblical creation stories. Again. Of course. As always.

 

[Cantuar]

40 articles sounds decent. I hope that the ICR wasn't counting letters to the editor and such. I wonder why someone equipped to use the methods of science, at least well enough to publish 40 papers in peer-reviewed literature would abandon those methods so completely in areas where he is paid for his theologically correct views. What is your explanation?

When I checked Pub Med for Gish D, apart from the pulmonary stuff I came across one article in Science that was about education in Kansas from a couple of years ago and seven papers on nucleic acids and analogues and their various sorts of therapeutic activities - all dating from the 1970s. Pity he didnt' stay in that line of research, I think he could have helped develop anti-HIV drugs.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov:80/entrez/query.fcgi?CMD=search&DB=PubMed

 

[Christian Soldier]

"When I checked Pub Med for Gish D, apart from the pulmonary stuff I came across one article in Science that was about education in Kansas from a couple of years ago and seven papers on nucleic acids and analogues and their various sorts of therapeutic activities - all dating from the 1970s. Pity he didnt' stay in that line of research, I think he could have helped develop anti-HIV drugs."

"Publications: (partial list)

Gish, Duane T. "The Application of p-Nitrobenzyl Chloroformate to Peptide Synthesis" (F. H. Carpenter, co-author). Journal of American Chemical Society. 1952. Vol. 74. p. 3818.

Gish, Duane T "p-Nitrobenzyloxcarbonyl Derivatives of Amino Acids" (F. H .Carpenter, co-author). Journal of American Chemical Society. 1953. Vol. 75. p. 950.

Gish, Duane T "Preparation of Arginyl Peptides" (F. H .Carpenter, co-author). Journal of American Chemical Society. 1953. Vol. 75. p. 5872.

Gish, Duane T. "A Synthetic Preparation Possessing Biological Properties Associated with Arginine-Vasopressin".(V. du Vigneaud and P. G. Katsoyannis, co-authors). Journal of American Chemical Society. 1954 Vol. 76. p. 4751.

Gish, Duane T. "Unexpected Formation of Anhydro Compounds in the Synthesis of Arginyl and Glutaminyl Peptides" (P. G. Katsoyannis, G. P. Hess, and R. J. Stedman, co-authors). Journal of American Chemical Society. 1956. Vol. 78. p. 5954.

Gish, Duane T. Synthesis of Peptides Related to Arginine-Vasopressin" (V. du Vigneaud, co-author). Journal of American Chemical Society. 1957. Vol. 79. p. 3579.

Gish, Duane T. "Synthesis of Two Protected Hexapeptides Containing the N-Terminal and C-Terminal Sequences of Arginine-Vasopressin" (P. G. Katsoyannis, G. P. Hess, and V. du Vigneaud, co-authors). Journal of American Chemical Society. 1958. Vol. 80. p. 2558.

Gish, Duane T. "Synthesis of the Pressor-Antidiuretic Hormone, Arginine-Vasopressin" (V. du Vigneaud, P. G. Katsoyannis, and G. P. Hess, co-authors). Journal of American Chemical Society. 1958. Vol. 80. p. 3355.

Gish, Duane T. "Lysine Tolerance in Infants" (E. Dubow, A. Maher, and V. Erk, co-authors). Journal of Pediatrics. 1958. Vol. 52. p. 30.

Gish, Duane T. "Studies on the Amino Acid Sequence of Tobacco Mosaic Virus (TMV) Protein I. Fractionation of Products of Tryptic Hydrolysis by Countercurrent Distribution" (L. K. Ramachandran and W. M. Stanley, co-authors). Archives of Biochemistry and Biophysics 1958. Vol. 78. p. 433.

Gish, Duane T. "Studies on the Amino Acid Sequence of Tobacco Mosaic Virus (TMV) Protein II. The Amino Acid Sequences of Six Peptides Obtained from a Tryptic Digest" (L. K. Ramachandran, co-author). Journal of American Chemical Society. 1959. Vol. 81. p. 884.

Gish, Duane T. "The Amino Acid Sequence of a Pentadeca-peptide Obtained from a Tryptic Digest of the Protein of Tobacco Mosaic Virus" Biochimica et Biophysica Acta. 1959. Vol. 35. p. 557.

Gish, Duane T. "The Isolation of the C-Terminal Peptide from a Tryptic Digest of Tobacco Mosaic Virus (TMV) Protein Establishing a Third Tryptophan Reside in TMV" Biochemical and Biophysical Research Committee. 1959. Vol. 1,p. 67.

Gish, Duane T. "Studies on the Amino Acid Sequence of Tobacco Mosaic Virus Protein III. The Amino Acid Sequence of a Pentadecapeptide From a Tryptic Digest" Journal of American Chemical Society. 1960. Vol. 82. p. 6329.

Gish, Duane T. "The Complete Amino Acid Sequence of the Protein of Tobacco Mosaic Virus" (A. Tsugita, J. Young, H. Fraenkel-Conrat, C.A. Knight, and W. M. Stanley, co-authors). Proceedings of the National Academy of Science. 1960. Vol. 46. p. 1463.

Gish, Duane T. "Studies on the Amino Acid Sequence of Tobacco Mosaic Virus (TMV) Protein IV. The Amino Acid Sequences of An Eicosapeptide and a Heptadecapeptide Isolated From a Tryptic Digest of TMV Protein" Journal of American Chemical Society. 1961. Vol. 83. p. 3303.

Gish, Duane T. "Nucleic Acis. 11. Synthesis of 5'-Esters of 1-B-D-Arabinofuranosylcytosine Possessing Antileukemic and Immunosuppressive Activity" (R. C. Kelly, G. W. Camiener, and W. J. Wechter, co-authors). Journal of Medicinal Chemistry. 1971. Vol. 14. p. 1159.

Gish, Duane T. "Nucleic Acids. 12. Synthesis of the L-Enantiomer of 1-B-D-Arabinofuranosylcytosine and of 2, 2-Anhydro-1-B-D-Arabinofuranosylcytosine" (G. L. Neil and W. J. Wechter, co-authors). Journal of Medicinal Chemistry. 1971. Vol. 14. p. 882.

Gish, Duane T. "Immunosuppressive, Antiviral and Antitumor Activities of Cytarabine Derivatives" (G. D. Gray, F. R. Nichol, M.M. Michelson, G. W. Camiener, R. C. Kelly, W. J. Wechter, T. E. Moxley, and G. L. Neil, co-authors). Biochemical Pharmacology. 1972. Vol. 21. p. 465.

Gish, Duane T. "Nucleic Acis. 14. Synthesis and Antiviral Activity of Some 5'Esters of 9-B-D-Arabinofuranosyladenine (Ara-A)" (H. E. Renis, B.A. Court, E.E. Eidson, and W. J. Wechter, co-authors). Journal of Medicinal Chemistry. 1973. Vol. 16. p. 754.

Gish, Duane T. "The Continuing Search for the Magic Bullet: Cytarabine, 1974 Symposium Aph-Academy of Pharmaceutical Sciences" (with 16 co-authors). Abstract of American Pharmacology Association. 1973. Vol. 3. p. 70.

Gish, Duane T. "Ara-Cytidine Acylates, Use of Drug Design Predictors in Structure-Activity Relationship Correlation" (W. J. Wechter, M.A. Johnson, C. M. Hall, D.T. Warner, A.E. Berger, A. H. Wenzel, and G. L. Neil, co-authors). Journal of Medicinal Chemistry. 1975. Vol. 18. p. 339.

Gish, Duane T. "Nucleic Acis. 16. Orally Active Derivatives of Ara-Cytidine" (W. J. Wechter, M.E. Greig, G. D. Gray, T. E. Moxley, S. L. Kuentzel, L. G. Gray, A. J. Gibbons, R. L. Brivvin, and G. L. Neil, co-authors). Journal of Medicinal Chemistry. 1976. Vol. 19. p. 1013.

Gish, Duane T. "Peptide Synthesis" Protein Sequence Determination. (Ed. S. B. Neddleman: Springer-Verlag, Berlin). 1970."

 

[Cantuar]

PubMed didn't miss them, it only goes back to 1966.

 

[Christian Soldier]

"Jerry, that's why I said "eventually." Scratch the surface of any book or website about creation science and you'll get to the Bible or the Koran. He only needs to look at the TrueOrigins page about "A Theory of Creation," and it's "God did this" and "God did that" and the usual old chestnuts about why science is wrong about everything. The home page of that site may well be making an effort to appear as scientifically based as TalkOrigins, but EVENTUALLY we're talking biblical creation stories. Again. Of course. As always."

Cantuar's post is proof positive that evolutionists see primarily only what they wish to see. He conveniently failed to mention the dozens of science articles at TrueOrigins that don't say "God did this", nor do they refer to Bible verses for their scientific arguments.

Also, the "A Theory of Creation" article he mentions, was written in response to the tired evolutionist canard that Creationists have no definable theory. The article proves otherwise.

For just one example of an excellent scientific article at TrueOrigins, with no "God did this" and "that" statements as Cantuar falsely claims:

Cantuar Refuted Here

 

[Christian Soldier]

"PubMed didn't miss them, it only goes back to 1966."

For whatever reason, it listed only 7 of his 42 scientific papers---and you and Jerry were clearly attempting to use the incomplete Pub Med listing as "evidence" that Gish isn't an accomplished scientist. You are wrong.

 

[chickenman]

I love all these "improbability of evolution" arguments. Its like arguing about the improbability of italy, argentina and france not making it to the semi finals of the world cup. The fact is it obviously isn't as improbable as they're making out because it did happen.

 

[Christian Soldier]

"I love all these "improbability of evolution" arguments. Its like arguing about the improbability of italy, argentina and france not making it to the semi finals of the world cup. The fact is it obviously isn't as improbable as they're making out because it did happen."

Prove it. Your argument is illogical and inane.

 

[chickenman]

prove it?

I think the onus is on those saying its improbable to explain why the DNA and fossil evidence so clearly supports evolution

you can start with explaining the thread on viruses, when you're finished you can try to explain urate oxidase pseudogenes in the "please explain" thread. If you manage a reasonable explanation which doesn't include common descent you can then try to explain the fossil record

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by chickenman
prove it?

I think the onus is on those saying its improbable to explain why the DNA and fossil evidence so clearly supports evolution

You mean that fossil evidence of macroevolution from 99.9875% of the fossil record that nobody has yet provided? That non-existent fossil evidence clearly supports evolution?

 

[chickenman]

how about the explanation for urate oxidase pseudogenes which no-one has yet provided?

 

[Cantuar]

Cantuar's post is proof positive that evolutionists see primarily only what they wish to see. He conveniently failed to mention the dozens of science articles at TrueOrigins that don't say "God did this", nor do they refer to Bible verses for their scientific arguments.

No, I saw them; you're still missing the point. Any source that's trying to refute the entire theory of evolution is a source that's depending on religious arguments when you follow its trail back far enough. That's why I said "eventually." I'm very well aware of creationist sites that appear to be just about science, but at some point - and usually that point is their own theory that they wish to promote instead of evolution, we get back to Goddidit. Which is exactly what your TrueOrigins site did. It wasn't talking about an alternative to evolution that is also a scientific theory based on scientific evidence; it was talking about God.

Also, the "A Theory of Creation" article he mentions, was written in response to the tired evolutionist canard that Creationists have no definable theory. The article proves otherwise.

The article showed very well that creationists' theory depends on scripture, not on science. Or is it just coincidence that the description of the theory is Genesis dressed up in scientific terminology?

 

[Jerry Smith]

Ok, CS, at least prior to 1970 Gish was an accomplished scientist. Nevertheless, I do not withdraw my comment that he has not been true to the methods of science. The bullfrog protein debacle is just one of many examples.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by npetreley


You mean that fossil evidence of macroevolution from 99.9875% of the fossil record that nobody has yet provided? That non-existent fossil evidence clearly supports evolution?

Nick,

No one has met your challenge. Several of us have explained to you why there can be evidence for evolution in 99.9875% of the fossil record without your challenge being met. Several of us have given examples of that evidence, including faunal succession, transitional fossils and transitional series of fossils at macroevolutionary levels.

I don't know if you wish to avoid saying false things, but if you do wish to do so, then you will need to avoid saying that no one has yet provided fossil evidence of macroevolution from 99.9875% of the fossil record.

By the way, in answer to your question - one need look no further than .0125% of the fossil record in order to discover overwhelming and undeniable evidence of macroevolution.