Where Science And The Bible Meet

Oh, oh, oh! I know! I know! Teacher Peg, please pick me!Your straw-man failed at the doorstep. Anyone can understand that if something bleeds too much, it is going to die. I highly doubt that any culture was ignorant to this fact. Naturally, lore would claim that blood is the life force of us.Little did they know, that no one part of our system is truly the only part we need.As has been aptly put, the lack of oxygen can lead to the death of a person, regardless of their blood volume. Here are a few others:

• The removal of one's brain matter (or a significant enough portion of it) leads to one's death, regardless of their blood volume.
• The removal of one's digestive tract leads to one's death, regardless of their blood volume.
• The removal of one's liver leads to one's death, regardless of their blood volume.
• The removal of one's spinal column can lead to one's death, regardless of their blood volume.
• The removal of one's skeleton leads to one's death, regardless of their blood volume.

Do I really need to go on? Pack up the argument Peg, it has died from loss of blood

Well, if Jesus never mentioned the eye of the needle, and it is written in the Gospels that he did, how do you know if any of it is even true? Kind of hard for him to mention the eye of the needle, when it didn't even exist.Edited by Michamus, : Corrected minor typos

Oxygen, water, and nutrients. It stops receiving nutrients, oxygen, and water for it's affected cells. What happens to the blood if you don't have bone marrow? By your own logic bone marrow is the essence of life, as red blood cells could not continue to exist without it. ROFL! HAHAHA! Man Peg, you have really got me rolling now. Are you honestly telling me you confused a parable Jesus gave in Luke about a Camel going through the "Eye of a needle" (a GATE) with a sewing needle? Where is your Biblical knowledge now? ROFL!

I'm guessing that you meant "the heart to beat". Other than that, I agree with your entire post.

ROFL! That's a good one man. I really needed that laugh today. It's much appreciated.

And those would be...?

You claimed there to be blood replacements that are better than normal blood... Still waiting for you to list me some.{Hint: Everything you listed there is either for a dehydrated patient, or a volume expander.
For instance: (Normal Saline or NS) a .9% saline to water ratio used for dehydrated patients (Lactated Ringers Solution or LR) an electrolyte rich fluid used for extremely dehydrated, or burn patients. (Dextrose Saline or DxS) a solution containing 5% glucose which the body's cellular tissue can metabolize as energy (typically used with LR) Hypertonic Saline - used in treating hyponatremia and cerebral edema Dextran based Plasma volume expander Another Dextran base Plasma volume expander A protein based volume expander that works on the capillary level Potassium rich fluid used in patients with potassium deficiency Why did you list LR twice? Did you not think I would know the difference and become quickly overwhelmed at a longer list? Yes, all of these listed items will increase fluid volume, but hey will not replace blood. Not one of these items is a blood replacement.Do bear in mind that you are discussing this topic with a Combat Medic who has seen first hand the uses, and affects of ALL BUT TWO of these products (hypertonic saline and gelafusine). I have been thoroughly trained on IV therapy, and the various uses these fluid therapies provide. Now that we have established that there are NO CURRENT non-blood alternatives that perform the ACTUAL function of blood, we can move on.
(As I understand, there has been research done on synthetic blood replacement fluids, but the ringer came in the form of a massive increase in the patient's probability of heart attack, and various other undesirable cardiovascular conditions)

Has your argument really become this desperate?Not one individual here has said that "blood has nothing to do with keeping us alive". The statements thus far have been "Blood is merely one part of a matrix that collapses in the absence of any one part". Everyone that has eyes, and a brain knows that you die if you lose too much blood.This includes the ancients. Do you really think they weren't smart enough to say... "Hey look, Joshua just died... maybe it has something to do with all the red liquid stuff that came out of him. I mean he was perfectly normal before it all started flowing out of him." It is only natural that they would conclude that an individuals life is dependent on the amount of blood they have.The only difference is, they were not nearly as advanced as we are, and so they had no means of discovering that blood is not the only component necessary to sustain life.My rebuttal to your ludicrous claim on Message 170 is evidence that blood is essential to life, but life is not dependent upon blood alone. If I were to remove your spine from C1 down, would you be able to continue living? Why not? After all, you still have the same amount of blood (assuming I could achieve zero blood loss during this feat)What about the removal of you liver? Or your heart? What about the removal of your kidneys? Surely you could live if I removed your brain, or bone marrow?The problem you are having here is that you refuse to accept that life is more than just the amount of blood something has. Rather than accepting that perhaps you were a little presumptuous in that observation, you would prefer to make yourself look the greater fool by making statements like the one above.

You obviously have never seen someone ACTUALLY hung or stoned. It is always a bloody mess. The only reason you think there "must be more to it than that" is because you want to attribute knowledge to a civilization that pre-dates (by millenia) the knowledge you are trying to attribute to it. Trying to change the subject again are we? Everyone agrees that the Bible claims blood to be sacred to god. The only problem is, that isn't the particular claim the Bible makes about blood that you cited.You have clearly stated in multiple posts a position that endorses ICANT's claim of: This claim has been thoroughly refuted. Rather than owning up to the fact that you were indeed wrong, you have attempted several times to slither out of it through attempting to change the subject. You can't shake me Peg, I pay attention quite well. I have executed objective discourse with you no differently than I would with a friend positing new ideas. I have created a reputation for my hardball tactics in discussion. I expect no more from you, than I expect of myself.

Why would this necessitate the Christian god... or even any god at all? Would an advanced alien civilization not be enough of a "what if" example?Why do you feel the need to make the leap from "Wow, that is interesting, and I have no idea why that would be" to "therefor, MY god must have been the reason" So then, you think that god spoke to these people (prophets), and then they wrote down what they thought he said or meant?This would be a reasonable explanation for the inaccuracies throughout the Bible on various topics from breeding to basic mathematics. Why the need to dig deep? Most of the time I hear (or read) an individual state that one needs to dig deep, it usually means that the person needs to disregard hard science in favor of "what ifs" and "mysteries to science". I rarely see these individuals actually posit any usable theory that can be utilized on a functional level. I really have no idea what you are getting at with this. I have a feeling it is simply being lost in writing.

More than likely you are correct. I at least wanted to give the guy an opportunity to rephrase what he was saying. I agree that it more than likely would be no more successful than his prior attempt, judging by his inability to utilize the English language in a professional, or technical manner.

No apology is needed. Not many people are able to speak/read/write in more than one language. Heck, even here in the United States, there is a good percentage of people who don't know how to speak/read/write in one language. This is assuming we have reached the final destination of scientific inquiry. We have not. This however does not invalidate the knowledge we have gained.Some people regard the ancients as primitives, which may rightly be put, but they are the forerunners to our own knowledge. What knowledge we have gained has been directly a result of the precession of knowledge through generations. This is why I completely agree with your statement:

quote:

---

Also if we, in the future, will be able to do this, we have to be grateful in any case to ancient epochs’ scholars. We have build on their knowledges and ideas. Isaac Newton once said that he feels himself like a dwarf on the shoulder of giants.

---

Well there are numerous inaccuracies that are now known to be patently false.For instance Genesis makes mention of non-streaked goats looking at streaked rods, which makes them give birth to streaked offspring.There is also the statement with the molten sea that Pi = 3, when modern mathematics show it to be 3.14(do I really need to go further ).There are other inconsistencies as well, such as who slayed Goliath, how large the Army of Israel was on a given date, etc.**** Don't worry. It takes a little getting used to, but I think I am getting used to how you write.Edited by Michamus, : changed from qs to quote for clarityEdited by Michamus, : Additional quote and response (Below ****)

No problem. I can already see your English is improving From what it would appear to me, you are saying we are merely a middle point in a long progression of increased understanding, and our position is no different than that of the ancients in that regard. I would agree with you, if I understand what you are saying correctly. What would you consider "did more deep"? What would you determine as the meaning of "what the Scriptures really say"?I would say from my own personal, and accredited experience in scriptural study, that "what the scriptures really say" is exactly that, what they say. If you can show me contextually, or etymologically how I am mistaken in my observation on these inaccuracies, that I would concede. The issue however is that these are known inaccuracies that have been known for quite some time. You are missing the point. Who told Jacob to have the flocks look upon the rod, and why? If you want to know what the scriptures really say, then you need to actually read the entire story or series of events. Or... the ancients noticed that a single striped parent coupled with a plain parent can produce striped offspring. You need to realize that domestication and breeding of animals occurred millenia before the first book of the Bible was written.