Scientific Contradictions

[Rode Neagle]

Inthe Book of genesis it is said that the Universe was created in 6 days. But from the scientific perspective it is impossible. It took billions of years. Also the chronology the bible mentions is inconsistent with modern science. More information here.

Thanks for asking here. Christians believe the Bible does not in fact contain contradictions, and the people who say it does have mostly not studied it closely. The specific issues you raise are resolved as follows:

The Bible does not explicitly contradict science, but when looking at the Bible as a textbook it only appears to contradict. The general statement that science and the Bible contradict each other is equivalent to saying that Lee Child's books about Jack Reacher (or other novels or other styles of books like cookbooks) contradict science. Those books are novels and for a different purpose, though they have some facts in them they are not a supplement or replacement for science. I am not saying that the Bible is a novel or fiction, but the point is that it's a different purpose.

If the Bible is a textbook of sorts, then it's a textbook about faith.

Regarding each item...1. The story of Genesis is a story of creation not from a science perspective, but of faith and reason. It answers the question 'why' nit 'how'. We see evidence in this as there are two stories of creation in the Bible, plus the one story doesn't have the sky created until the second day (or the heavens and Earth by the end of the first day), so if there was no day/night right away how could one measure what a full day was? The point of this story is different than the cliff notes if "a brief history of time". The author makes many points and one thing he uses is a literary device. God makes Earth, it's good, sky good, animals good, water good...until he made humans it was VERY GOOD. The point is we are more than animals or water or sky and this sets up for the rest of the story.

The author starts the psalm by saying it's a parable, a story to teach. This is doesn't contradict anything as it's stated it's supposed to be a simile and metaphor and more literary devices. Even the one line out of context makes this reference. Additionally, is is not that the earth will live forever or never be destroyed, rather it was founded or established forever which is very different. I am married, and will be forever, though I may die, I cannot unmarry, I will forever be bonded to my wife, "till death do us part", but at that point I am still technically married as that can't be undone then.

The quote from Hebrews is again out of context and part of a larger story and used as a simile and metaphor, just as the author states in the first line. Additionally, the passage states both perish and founded forever for the earth, but those are not opposed to each other.

Again context and not contradicting at all. The author states in the story that it is meant in the garden of Eden. It is also not contradicting that all as it is revealed that the tree Adam and Eve shouldn't eat from they were told they would die if they ate from it, although that sounds poisonous in some way, they don't die at all when the do eat of it. Again, more story to show certain points.

The site is secure.

The ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

The determination of appropriate dietary strategies for the prevention of chronic degenerative diseases, cancer, diabetes, and cardiovascular diseases remains a challenging and highly relevant issue worldwide. Epidemiological dietary interventions have been studied for decades with contrasting impacts on human health. Moreover, research scientists and physicians have long debated diets encouraging alcohol intake, such as the Mediterranean and French-style diets, with regard to their impact on human health. Understanding the effects of these diets may help to improve in the treatment and prevention of diseases. However, further studies are warranted to determine which individual food components, or combinations thereof, have a beneficial impact on different diseases, since a large number of different compounds may occur in a single food, and their fate in vivo is difficult to measure. Most explanations for the positive effects of Mediterranean-style diet, and of the French paradox, have focused largely on the beneficial properties of antioxidants, among other compounds/metabolites, in foods and red wine. Wine is a traditional alcoholic beverage that has been associated with both healthy and harmful effects. Not withstanding some doubts, there is reasonable unanimity among researchers as to the beneficial effects of moderate wine consumption on cardiovascular disease, diabetes, osteoporosis, and longevity, which have been ascribed to polyphenolic compounds present in wine. Despite this, conflicting findings regarding the impact of alcohol consumption on human health, and contradictory findings concerning the effects of non-alcoholic wine components such as resveratrol, have led to confusion among consumers. In addition to these contradictions and misconceptions, there is a paucity of human research studies confirming known positive effects of polyphenols in vivo. Furthermore, studies balancing both known and unknown prognostic factors have mostly been conducted in vitro or using animal models. Moreover, current studies have shifted focus from red wine to dairy products, such as cheese, to explain the French paradox. The aim of this review is to highlight the contradictions, misconceptions, and scientific facts about wines and diets, giving special focus to the Mediterranean and French diets in disease prevention and human health improvement. To answer the multiplicity of questions regarding the effects of diet and specific diet components on health, and to relieve consumer uncertainty and promote health, comprehensive cross-demographic studies using the latest technologies, which include foodomics and integrated omics approaches, are warranted.

Translating research into practice is a central priority within the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Roadmap. The underlying aim of the NIH Roadmap is to accelerate the movement of scientific findings into practical health care provisions through translational research.

Despite the advances in health sciences, emerging infectious diseases have become more frequent in recent decades. Furthermore, emerging and reemerging pathogens have led to several global public health challenges. A question, and to an extent a concern, arises from this: Why our health care system is experiencing several challenges in encountering the coronavirus outbreak, despite the ever-growing advances in sciences, and the exponential rise in the number of published articles in the first quartile journals and even the ones among the top 1%?

Translational research is an evolving concept. As defined by NIH, Type 1 Translation applies basic scientific discoveries to human health care under controlled conditions. Type 2 Translation promotes the adoption of the outcomes of promising clinical research by community-based health care under uncontrolled and often uncontrollable conditions [1]. Translating research into practice is a central priority within the National Institutes of Health Roadmap. The underlying aim of the NIH Roadmap is to accelerate the movement of scientific findings into practical health care provision through translational research, so that the improvements in the health of the nation can be realized [2].

Yet, has the society really progressed with the application of knowledge at the same pace of the rise in the number of published scientific articles, the increase of society's knowledge about diseases, prevention mechanisms, screening. and treatment approaches, and the improvement of general public health?

Today, the entire world is challenged by the Covid-19 pandemic. Consequently, this imperative question arises: Why our health care system is experiencing several challenges in encountering the coronavirus outbreak, despite the ever-growing advances in sciences, and the exponential rise in the number of published articles in the first quartile (Q1) journals and even the ones among the top 1%?

Providing a response to the above question requires a great deal of thought and foresight; a number of sub questions emerge as a result: What is the main purpose of publishing articles? Is the main aim of published articles really to raise public awareness and to promote critical thinking within scientific communities to combat diseases?

The Virus spread rapidly in all continents, and the international, national, and regional statistical reporting on the number of infections, and mortalities have become part of the day-to-day life in several countries. Simultaneously, biomedical and pharmaceutical companies have started the race to find a low-risk treatment or a trustworthy vaccine. Moreover, the scientific community have engaged extensively in scientific research projects, and consequently the number of COVID-19 related research articles is rising swiftly. In Iran, for instance, according to statistics reported by the World Health Organization (WHO), on August 27, 2020, the number of reported cases and deaths due to Covid-19 were 363,363 and 20,901, respectively [5], while only in the Scopus database [6], Iranian authors have registered 26,709 articles in 2020 alone. Scopus is the largest abstract and citation database of peer-reviewed literature, with bibliometrics tools to track, analyze and visualize research. It contains over 22,000 titles from more than 5,000 publishers around the world, covering the fields of science, technology, medicine, social sciences, and arts & humanities. Scopus has 55 million records dating back to 1823, 84% of these contain references dating from 1996 [6].

Before this particular pandemic, at least two similar epidemics were experienced in the world, i.e. the H1N1 and H5N1 influenza epidemics. Thus, several countries have had the experience of, rather successfully, dealing with epidemics, yet with the COVID-19, the disease has spread globally with high mortality rates, resulting in financial, social and political crises in several countries, with potentially many other upcoming consequences, many of which are currently unknown. Washing hands with soap and water, covering the nose and mouth when sneezing, social distancing, as well as avoiding close contact with people with the disease symptoms are listed among the most important preventive measures by WHO. Despite the simplicity of these measures, the pandemic is still spreading.

3a8082e126