Well, not specifically, but they all fall into the “it’s a miracle!” category. And of course, there are “God’s mysteries”. I heard that one a lot in Catholic school.
Right, but the Bible going to tell you so much about those things, and you can certainly learn a lot of specifics about any of them without the Bible. Even the most religious person is not going to want to be operated on by a brain surgeon who got all his knowledge about the brain from the Bible.
I dunno - JH’s do refuse blood transplants, after all. There probably are people that crazy out there.
Exactly. There are lots of fundamentalists (I can’t put a number to them), who don’t want any surgeon operating on them and would rely on faith healing.
Most of these people die quietly and we never hear about them. But every year or so, a story hits the press about parents who let their children die because they imagine they can pray them back to health.
Even among the very religious, most people fall into the “I sent you a helicopter, dummy!” line of thinking: they’ll ask people to pray and then find a doctor. Jehovah’s Witnesses and Christian Scientists are seen as extremely weird.
[quote=“Boyo_Jim, post:104, topic:609198”]
Exactly. There are lots of fundamentalists (I can’t put a number to them),]
don’t worry you and the beast can keep trying.
jk 
Ok, gibberish again. I mean, the words are English, but their construction makes no sense at all.
my apologies, i thought you were one of the people who claimed to read and study scriptures. upon further research i verified that you were not and as such you would miss the attempt at humor.
as long as we are being intellectually honest…the title of your linked article, “scientists finally find out how bees fly” hardly qualifies as an urban legend. a retraction would be appreciated.
also, your linked article on ocean depths explained that much of the ocean floor has yet to be explored. this is probably what the OP had in mind. why would it matter? hydrothermal vent communities come to mind. scientists always thought life could not exist without light—wrong.
lastly, i think people could learn much by reading posts by good people such as marley and me.
i just realized i double posted and now have triple posted. is this allowed? if not please forgive a poor newbie.
What? There is an urban legend that says bees should not be able to fly because their bodies are un-aerodynamic. It’s false. Secondhand Lion said we don’t know how bees fly, which I’m pretty sure was a reference to that myth. We do know that.
I was responding to Secondhand Lion, who said we’ve never explored the deepest point in the ocean. We have. Not only is that wrong, it’s been the subject of jokes on this message board for years. I’m not arguing that we’ve explored every inch of the ocean floor.
To begin with I have to wonder what you mean by “always.” I doubt it’s a recent discovery that fungi don’t need light to live. Or worms. As far as the ocean goes, marine biologists have known for decades that there fish and other organisms that lived in lightless environments. The first exploration of Challenger Deep was more than 50 years ago. I think some fish that live in lightless environments were discovered more than a century ago, although obviously we couldn’t send crafts down to those depths at that time. In any event, if scientists believed that in the past, they were wrong. They were also wrong if they believed life couldn’t exist in the conditions surrounding thermal vents since it’s now considered possible that life began in just those conditions. Scientists have often been wrong in the past, they may have been wrong in these specific instances. Now scientists (and the rest of us) know better. Maybe you are proposing that this is a problem for science, but it isn’t. Science does not depend on scientists being infallible, and it’s presumed that they aren’t. Secondhand Lion was saying there are lots of things science can’t tell us - and while there are plenty of unanswered scientific questions, most of the actual example he posted were flat out wrong.
And don’t worry about the double posting. You might want to practice with the multi-quote function, but you’re not breaking any rules.
Have you ever actually read the Bible? Where does it say that God wrote anything directly? Moses wrote, the prophets wrote, Christians believe Paul wrote. Neither God nor Jesus wrote anything themselves.
And it is clear, if you study Genesis especially, that the Bible is the mixing of several human written versions. Why is the creation myth told in two different ways? Why are their both Chronicles and Kings? Why is the most important book, supposedly given to Moses, not mentioned until the time of Jeremiah or so? The ark is mentioned all the time, but it is odd that the prophets with supposedly a direct line to God know nothing of his word.
so we have went from dark matadors to higg’s bottom and still can’t agree on terminology. perhaps i am mistaken about what an urban legend is.
you mean like…bill clinton the pope and beatty white travel to the ocean floor where they walk into a bar type jokes? or something else entirely? it’s ok either way i mean you guys need to have fun too.
by always i meant prior to. i was not making a specific scientific argument. vent communities is just what came to mind first. is being wrong a problem for science? no, not at all. i will explain the problem in another post below as i do not want to time out again and have to retype.
how’s this?
The problem as promised.
Take a journey with me. The scene, a forum more than 100 years ago. At the dawn of when Al Gore first invented the internet.
Picture the following exchange:
leo1851: y’all zealots are all the same. you abide by some ancient book written two thou…i mean 1900 years ago. answer me a question. how did God survive before he said “let there be light?” huh, answer that. we know the nothing can live without light. it’s peer reviewed.
SpeakingSoftly: yes, perhaps kind sir, but consider the possibility of life thriving in a more harsh environment such as the bottom of the ocean floor.
BoyoJimCharterMember: gibberish i say gibberish.
i could go on, but you get the point. and if you don’t hopefully you laughed.
Quoting from unexplainedstuff.com, “Urban legends are unverifiable stories about outlandish, humorous, frightening, or supernatural events that have achieved wide circulation.”
I actually have no idea what point you’re trying to make here.
Not great, really. If you’re going to quote and respond to multiple parts of a person’s post, you need to break up the quote tags. If you insert your comments into the middle of the quote box, it gets confusing. It also makes it impossible to quote your posts and strictly speaking it’s against the rules here. If you want to respond to me point by point after I say
Then you have to highlight the text you want to answer and press the “quote” button. It’s the one that looks like a cartoon speech bubble. You can also type out additional quote boxes. They look like this: [noparse]
[/noparse].
So you type
Your answer here.
Your answer here.
[/noparse]
Your answer here.
And it’ll look like this:
Your answer here.
Your answer here.
Your answer here.
This is little more work but it’s a lot clearer.
Ok, thanks for your time and energy. Unfortunately, I apparently do not understand what you are saying and I have not been able to string together words in correct order for you to be able to grasp what I am saying.
Again, for the record…science is not bad…science can be good (no matter how many times you assert it does not mean I said it). As I did say, decide for yourself. People are just as blind on both sides of the issue. Make sure their foundational arguments are solid and for goodness sake, use some common sense. Until the foundation is solid, anything that is built on top is suspect.
I will leave the experts on here decide who I am and what my education level is (after 1 post). I will just say I am a…uh…lets go with janitor…that should help you dismiss me easier…yeah…janitor. This is all I will post in here, but alas, you will not get me to go away…you guys need me too bad 
I don’t think anyone is having trouble understanding what you are saying. You’ve said some stuff that is understandable and unquestionably wrong. If your point is that we don’t have complete scientific explanations for many things, I’d say that’s not in dispute. But you seem to think that means something that it doesn’t.
I don’t think that’s true. It’s a false equivalence.
For example, if you argue that we don’t know how bees fly or haven’t been to the deepest part in the ocean… well, nevermind. The problem is that you don’t seem to have a firm understanding of what science is.
You’ve made nine posts now, and your job or education doesn’t matter. If you’re wrong, you’re wrong.
What does this mean? What is “the issue”? Scientists just do their own thing, doing experiments and interpreting the results. If religious people have a problem with it, they’ll have to deal with it. What are either sides “blind” to exactly?
The foundation of any scientific theory is always solid. It doesn’t mean it’s perfect. A building can have a solid foundation without being completely indestructible. Scientific theories are built on evidence currently available. If more evidence comes to light that requires the theory to be altered, then it is altered, and the foundation becomes even stronger. What is “suspect” about it?
I’m disappointed. No one actually did the standard (ughhh, not again) joke, so I will.
Yes we have…