Just Joined - Christian with Paleontolgy Background

Welcome Jeff,I hope you find EvC to be as great an intellectual stimulant as I find it to be

Hi Jeff, Are you talking about the chemical proportion of our blood versus the oceans ?If so, you should take a look at thisElement Blood Seawater
Sodium 3220 10800
Chlorine 3650 19400
Potassium 200 392
Calcium 50 411
Magnesium 27 1290
Phosphorus 36 0.09
Iron 1 0.004
Copper 1 0.001
Zinc 1.1 0.005
Chromium 1.1 0.002
Bromine 4 67
Fluorine 1.1 1.3
Boron 1 5
Selenium 0.9 0.0001(In mg/litre) Sorry I wasn't able to put more spaces between the numbers.This isn't similar at all.Oh and also in case you aren't familiar with forums and how to make neat little quote boxes like I did:

Wow, let's stop studying Hieroglyphs as well then, I guess. If it's impossible for us to understand their intended meaning even if we can read them ...

Red-blooded evidence - creation.comThey themselves reference to:Burtis, C.A., Ashwood, E.R., Clinical Chemistry, W.B. Saunders Company, Philadelphia, 1994 edition.Baselt, R.C., and Cravey, R.H., Disposition of toxic drugs and chemicals in Man, Year Book Medical Publishers, Inc, Chicago, 1989 edition.For blood chemistry, and:The New Encyclopedia Britannica, 15:925, 15th Ed., 1992.for seawater chemistry.Anyways, as they say in the article, this argument should make little sense even for a proponent of evolution. Amphibians came out of the water like 350M years ago. Does anyone expect that seawater back then will have the same chemistry as right now ? Surely not, so whoever thought of comparing our blood with current water proportions had a flawed reasoning from the outset.

Hi Jeff,You'll have to explain more explicitly this statement: Because the relationship between the two isn't evident for me at least.I would suggest, however, that if you want us to discuss this particular subject you should make a new thread in the 'Proposed new topic' section. As this is not the thread to start a full-scale discussion.Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.

Well you said even if we do read it, we can't know what the author intended to say. This is saying that trying to understand the text is useless. Your basis for this was that the author died two millenia ago.I used an analog situation where the author also died two millenia ago, implying that your logic would also mean we couldn't know what the author intended. And what is the point of studying it if we can't understand it ?

Ok, so it has nothing to do with the age of the text, except more age means maybe more opportunities for it to be changed. But you need to have evidence that it has been change, just because it's old doesn't mean it was changed, or if the author is still alive.I agree with your position here, but I feel you changed the goalpost a bit on this one.