Irenaeus, Siteadmin, Check users, oversight, Administrators
351,132
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 117:
Line 117: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Biblical scientific foreknowledge (view source)
Revision as of 03:25, February 1, 2015
, 03:25, February 1, 2015→Digestive system
Also, as part of the Jewish kosher law a pork is on the list of prohibited foods. Under cooked pork can transmit Trichinosis, a parasitic disease that can infect muscle tissue, the brain, and the central nervous system, among other [[parasite]]s and zoonotic diseases. [[Creation denial|Creation deniers]] can counter this point only with such desperate non-arguments as asking why God had to create trichinae at all and then allow them onto the [[Ark]].
Also, as part of the Jewish kosher law a pork is on the list of prohibited foods. Under cooked pork can transmit Trichinosis, a parasitic disease that can infect muscle tissue, the brain, and the central nervous system, among other [[parasite]]s and zoonotic diseases. [[Creation denial|Creation deniers]] can counter this point only with such desperate non-arguments as asking why God had to create trichinae at all and then allow them onto the [[Ark]].
=== Dietary ===
====Animal Toxicity====
In 1953 [[David Macht|Dr. David I. Macht]], a Johns Hopkins researcher, conducted toxicity tests on many different kinds of animals and fish and concluded that the toxicity of Levitically [[Clean and unclean animals|"unclean" animals]] was higher than that of the [[Clean and unclean animals|"clean" animals]], and that the correlation with the description in Leviticus was 100%.<ref name=Macht1>Macht, David I., MD. "[http://members.dslextreme.com/users/hollymick/Macht1953.pdf An Experimental Pharmacological Appreciation of Levitcus XI and Deuteronomy XIV]." ''Bulletin of the History of Medicine'' 27(5):444-450, September-October, 1953. Accessed September 12, 2008.</ref> Macht's study in terms of classifying kosher and non-kosher animals matched the kosher classification performed by James W. Atz, Ph.D., Curator and Dean Bibliographer in the Department of Ichthyology of the American Museum of Natural History, NY, NY and Adjunct Professor of Biology, Graduate School of Arts and Science on New York University. Dr. Atz's list of kosher and non-kosher animals was published by the Orthodox Union in Kosher Guide and in the Orthodox Union Kosher Consumer Directory.<ref name=Atz>Atz, James W., contrib. "[http://www.kashrut.com/articles/fish/ KASHRUT.COM - Kosher and Non-kosher fish]" Scharf Associates, 2008. Accessed September 12, 2008.</ref> According to a list of kosher and non-kosher fish published by the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, deciding what fish have scales, in the Orthodox Jewish community, appears to involve semantics as scales which are not visible to the human eye or scales that cannot be removed without tearing the skin are not considered "scales" in terms of the Torah law for determining which fish are kosher. It appears that Jewish religious authorities do appeal to well known Torah commentators.<ref name=Goldberg>Goldberg, Chaim. "[http://www.kashrut.com/articles/fishfaq/ Consumers’ FAQ’s on Kosher fish]." Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, 2004. Accessed September 12, 2008.</ref> Also, [[David Macht|Dr. Macht's]] classification of swans as kosher is in accordance with the research done at Ohr Somayach Institutions in Jerusalem, Israel.<ref name=ask1>"[http://ohr.edu/ask/ask210.htm Ask the Rabbi - Are swans kosher]?" Ohr Somayach Website, Ohr.edu, October 24, 1998. Accessed September 12, 2008.</ref> Furthermore, Dr. Macht states in the peer reviewed journal ''Science'' that the toxicology test he used was a reliable method for detecting zoological toxins as it was a toxicology test sensitive to these type of toxins, and therefore one could conclude it was also suitable for testing the toxicity levels of fish, meat, and poultry.<ref name=Macht3>Macht, D.I. , Science 1930, 71 :302</ref> (The toxicological method that Dr. Macht used was also cited in the Journal of Laboratory and Clinical Medicine.<ref name=Macht2>Macht, D.I. and Macht, M.B. ''Journal of Laboratory and Clinical Medicine'' 1941, 26: 597</ref> In addition, Dr. Macht was an expert in cobra venom, which is a zoological toxin. Macht's conclusions, however, were challenged by three of his science community peers in a Seventh Day Adventist publication although one partially affirmed his study.<ref name=Harris>Harris, Lester E., Jr. "[https://archive.is/20070709234205/members.dslextreme.com/users/hollymick/web/ministry-1954-March-p37.htm This Question of Unclean Meats]." Ministry Magazine, March 1953, p37-38. Accessed September 12, 2008.</ref> This was partly due to a likely unfamiliarity with what food is kosher and non-kosher. Also, perhaps they were unfamiliar with the toxicity test Dr. Macht used, and its apparent effectiveness in testing zoological toxins.
In the short term, eating non-kosher food often appears to have no dramatic ill effects in general. For example, the Arabs, who do not eat kosher, consider camel to be a delicacy. Clearly, non-kosher Arabs do not fall dead right after eating camel meat. However, the long term optimality of eating clean versus unclean meat is an unanswered question of science. Also, eating non-kosher foods clearly has some nutritional benefit. For example, shrimp and pork contain protein. The New Testament declares, {{Bible quote|For every creature of God is good, and nothing is to be refused if it is received with thanksgiving; for it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.|book=1_Timothy|chap=4|verses=4-5|version=NKJV}}
In regard to the aforementioned verse, it could be argued that prayer does sanctify food. The Bible has plenty of verses regarding God's protection. Also, it could be argued that the benefits outweigh the costs in all foods and thus all food is good. Clearly there is some nutritional goodness in foods that the Torah declared unclean (for example, shrimp has protein). What foods are optimal from a empirically tested science viewpoint is often controversial. In short, in regard to eating strictly a kosher diet versus a non-kosher diet, science has no definitive answers at the present time. From a Christian theological point of view, it could be argued that food should not be a impediment to anyone making a decision to become a Christian. It should be noted that orthodox Christian believers in Biblical scientific foreknowledge believe that Christians can eat the food that was declared [[Clean and unclean animals|unclean]] in the Old Testament, and {{Bible ref|book=1_Timothy|chap=4|verses=4-5}} and {{Bible ref|book=Galations|chap=2|verses=7-16}} make this very clear.
In addition to the aforementioned study testing kosher and non-kosher foods for toxicity levels, [[David Macht|Macht]] developed evidence indicating that combining meat and milk tended to be more toxic than either foodstuff alone.<ref name=Macht4>David I. Macht, Medical Leaves 1940; 3:174-184</ref> In addition, he compared conventional animal slaughtering versus kosher slaughtering and determined that kosher slaughtering produced less toxic meat.<ref name=Macht4/>
A 1985 study by Nanji and French found that there was a significant correlation between cirrhosis and pork consumption (Macht claimed that swine was more toxic than the animal meat the Bible called clean).<ref name=Nanji>Nanji AA, and French SW. "[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=2858627&dopt=Abstract Relationship between pork consumption and cirrhosis]." ''Lancet'' 1985 Mar 23, 1(8430):681-3. Accessed September 12, 2008.</ref> Modern pork production methods are different from ancient methods of raising pigs, so the result of this study might be hard to apply to the ancients or those who raise pigs by [[organic farming]] methods, without the use of hormones or antiobiotics.
Jane Cahill reported in [[Biblical Archaeological Review]] that the toilets of a Jewish household in [[Jerusalem]] were examined and no [[parasites]] or [[infectious disease|infectious agents]] were found.<ref name=Cahill>[http://cojs.org/cojswiki/It_Had_to_Happen,_Jane_M._Cahill,_Karl_Reinhard,_David_Tarler_and_Peter_Warnock,_BAR_17:03,_May/Jun_1991. It had to happen, Scientist Examines Ancient Bathrooms of Romans 586 B.C.] by Jane Cahill and Peter Warnock. BAR May/June 1991</ref>
Today, some "alternative medicine" practitioners do not recommend pork to their patients and subscribed advisees. Their reasons include the possible content of hormones, antibiotics, and pesticides, and also the undiscriminating diet of the pig. Joseph Mercola, DO, who has a private practice in alternative general medicine, writes:{{cquote|Pigs are scavenger animals and will eat just about anything. Their appetite for less-than-wholesome foods makes pigs a breeding ground for potentially dangerous infections. Even cooking pork for long periods is not enough to kill many of the retroviruses and other parasites that many of them harbor.<ref name=Mercola>Mercola, Joseph, DO, ed. "[http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2008/07/12/are-there-deadly-superbugs-in-your-pork.aspx?source=nl Are There Deadly Superbugs In Your Pork]?" <http://www.mercola.com/>, July 12, 2008. Accessed September 12, 2008.</ref>}}
Dr. Mercola does not even recommend pasture-raised pork, because wild boars will often infect herds of pork with [[Trichinella spiralis]] or other parasites.<ref name=Mercola/>
===Feasibility of abiogenesis===
===Feasibility of abiogenesis===