|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 6181 days) Posts: 58 From: Pasadena, CA Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Where Science And The Bible Meet | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ochaye Member (Idle past 5239 days) Posts: 307 Joined: |
'It would surely help if people did that instead of looking at it through 21st century eyes.'
There will always be a faction or factions unable to resist doing so. For one thing, to treat the Bible as a science textbook subjects it to inapplicable criticism. For another, to make the basis of a belief system based on personal trust an intellectual one by itself makes it Christian only in name, lacking the motivation to effect personal moral change. Thirdly, the view of creation in six literal days with a day of rest supports a very part-time mock version of Christianity based on a 'sabbath' or 'Lord's day', which observance is inimical to Christianity. Edited by ochaye, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4930 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
Rahvin writes: Still, scientists are working on artificial blood - that is, an alternative means of carrying nutrients to the body, so that blood donations will no longer be required. they've already done that there are plenty of non-blood alternatives that are better then blood.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Michamus Member (Idle past 5158 days) Posts: 230 From: Ft Hood, TX Joined: |
Peg writes:
And those would be...?
there are plenty of non-blood alternatives that are better then blood.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4032 Joined: Member Rating: 9.2 |
they've already done that there are plenty of non-blood alternatives that are better then blood. ...doesn't that completely refute the idea that "the life is in the blood?"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4930 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
eg, Gelafusine, Rheomacrodex, Macrodex, Saline, Hartmanns solution, Ringers solution, Darrows solution, Hypotonic saline, Destrose saline...etc
all stuff they use to increase fluid volume
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 735 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
"The life is in the Ringer's?"
I like it!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4190 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
Peg writes: there are plenty of non-blood alternatives that are better then blood. Michamus writes: And those would be...? Peg writes: Gelafusine, Rheomacrodex, Macrodex, Saline, Hartmanns solution, Ringers solution, Darrows solution, Hypotonic saline, Destrose saline...etc all stuff they use to increase fluid volume So are you dsaying one should get rid of blood a replace it withGelafusine, Rheomacrodex.... Edited by bluescat48, : quote goof Edited by bluescat48, : ditto Edited by bluescat48, : dittto ouch!!! There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002 Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969 Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Michamus Member (Idle past 5158 days) Posts: 230 From: Ft Hood, TX Joined: |
Peg writes:
You claimed there to be blood replacements that are better than normal blood... Still waiting for you to list me some.
eg, Gelafusine, Rheomacrodex, Macrodex, Saline, Hartmanns solution, Ringers solution, Darrows solution, Hypotonic saline, Destrose saline...etc
{Hint: Everything you listed there is either for a dehydrated patient, or a volume expander.For instance: Peg writes:
(Normal Saline or NS) a .9% saline to water ratio used for dehydrated patients
SalinePeg writes:
(Lactated Ringers Solution or LR) an electrolyte rich fluid used for extremely dehydrated, or burn patients.
Ringers solutionPeg writes:
(Dextrose Saline or DxS) a solution containing 5% glucose which the body's cellular tissue can metabolize as energy (typically used with LR)
Destrose salinePeg writes:
Hypertonic Saline - used in treating hyponatremia and cerebral edema
Hypotonic SalinePeg writes:
Dextran based Plasma volume expander
RheomacrodexPeg writes:
Another Dextran base Plasma volume expander
MacrodexPeg writes:
A protein based volume expander that works on the capillary level
GelafusinePeg writes:
Potassium rich fluid used in patients with potassium deficiency
Darrows solutionPeg writes:
Why did you list LR twice? Did you not think I would know the difference and become quickly overwhelmed at a longer list?
Hartmanns solution Peg writes:
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. all stuff they use to increase fluid volume 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.
Peg writes:
Now that we have established that there are NO CURRENT non-blood alternatives that perform the ACTUAL function of blood, we can move on.
there are plenty of non-blood alternatives that are better then blood.
(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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Asteragros Member (Idle past 3400 days) Posts: 40 From: Modena, Italy Joined: |
I think this argument is out of the track of the topic. Nevertheless, I should tell Wisdom it’s not worth to lug the alleged reliability of the Kuran in this thread (if ever the administrators will permit us to continue to dialogue in this track I surely don’t back down from it). The Coranic theologists have yet a hard roe to hoe with, for example, their own doctrine nsikh and the manskh, that is, the annuller and the annulled, that permits some previous Coranic verses to be abrogated by later ones. This doctrine triggers a logical reaction that makes more difficult believing the dependability of this sacred text, since now the chronological order of the suras became essential to establish the non-abrogated section of the Kuran (but, sad to say, Coranic theologists are not agree until today to the exact chronological list of the Suras). So, when this agreement will be reached we may start to speak about the reliability of the Kuran, in another forum, I suppose.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4930 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
bluescat48 writes: So are you dsaying one should get rid of blood a replace it withGelafusine, Rheomacrodex.... sure why not? apparently blood has nothing to do with keeping us alive...its just a fluid isnt it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Michamus Member (Idle past 5158 days) Posts: 230 From: Ft Hood, TX Joined: |
Peg writes:
Has your argument really become this desperate?
sure why not? apparently blood has nothing to do with keeping us alive...its just a fluid isnt it?
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4032 Joined: Member Rating: 9.2 |
We know that, despite the claims of Peg and her literal reading of the Bible, blood has no special connection to life any more than the other myriad components of the human body. "The life" is no more "in the blood" than it is in the breath, or the lymph, or the cerebro-spinal fluid, all of which are also required for human life.
There is no magic wishy-washy "life force," in the blood or otherwise. This is a decidedly primitive view of life taken from a culture with only the most basic understanding of life and the human body. It's not a reflection of some profound truth, or even a miraculous "scientific" revelation from God. It's the result of the simple observation that sufficient blood loss causes death, and the extrapolation that blood must therefore be "special." Remember, in the remaining context of the Bible, blood is treated differently than other body parts or fluids - Jesus' blood is supposed to wash away sins; God demands animal blood sacrifice in the Old Testament. But today, we know that life is not a magical energy field, or ethereal mist contained in living things. "Life" is simply a specific and complex set of self-replicating chemical processes; interruption of those chemical processes causes death, and that interruption can be caused through myriad ways, not limited to simply removing all blood from an animal. Putting blood into an inanimate object does not give it life.Most living things on the planet (plants, bacteria, insects, crustaceans, etc) do not have blood at all. Human tissue can survive without blood given a substitute nutrient substrate (which is how we grow skin grafts and cell cultures). Even the Bible seems conflicted, because in Genesis it seems that life is in breath:
quote: We know, of course, that there is no mystical "breath of life" either - but this demonstrates that the Bible is not making a profound revelation of scientific information when it says "the life is in the blood;" rather, it is promoting a common primitive view of what life is. You cannot live without blood. But you also cannot live without your kidneys, or your liver, or your lungs, or your heart, or your immune system, or your lymphatic system, or your brain, or your spine, or your skeleton, or your skin, or your digestive system... There is nothing special about blood relative to any of these other systems. The Bible is simply, flatly, incorrect, as would be expected of a text written by people with no real understanding of what constitutes life.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Asteragros Member (Idle past 3400 days) Posts: 40 From: Modena, Italy Joined: |
On the contrary, do you really understand what constitutes life? I’m sick and tired about discourses like: this text was writed for ancient gawks that didn’t know this or that. If this would be the point the future inhabitants of this planet (two or three centuries from now) will have to guffaw on our puerile views about, for example, physics (the 21th century primitive peoples didn’t comprehend in what physical context can be encapsulate the two apparently states of the light: wave or particle? What a simple men they were!). Granted, the Bible is a complex book, but this lofty attitude as regards the people that received this text is not useful at all. What we called science today has not a conclusive structure but a dynamic one. Paul Valry once said We have to call Science only the ensemble of the successful recipes. And all the rest of it is literature.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4190 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
Asteragros writes: On the contrary, do you really understand what constitutes life? I’m sick and tired about discourses like: this text was writed for ancient gawks that didn’t know this or that. If this would be the point the future inhabitants of this planet (two or three centuries from now) will have to guffaw on our puerile views about, for example, physics (the 21th century primitive peoples didn’t comprehend in what physical context can be encapsulate the two apparently states of the light: wave or particle? What a simple men they were!). Granted, the Bible is a complex book, but this lofty attitude as regards the people that received this text is not useful at all. What we called science today has not a conclusive structure but a dynamic one. Paul Valry once said We have to call Science only the ensemble of the successful recipes. And all the rest of it is literature. I would certainly hope that the future humans will consider us as archaic. If not then humans will have regressed . Throughout the civilized history of humans each succeeding era has thrown out archaic ideas or modified others. As long as this occurred civilization advances. The point is that the writings of a particular era reflect that era. When one tries to use this in a modern context then one gets to the problems that exist between ie: creationists & evolutionists. Edited by bluescat48, : sp Edited by bluescat48, : ditto There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002 Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969 Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4930 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
Michamus writes: 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. Im sure not everyone died due to blood loss. People who where hung or stoned or drowned did not die due to blood loss.So i dont think you could say thats why the bible writers wrote that 'life is in the blood' there must have been more too it then that. Michamus writes: 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. The bible view is that blood is sacred to God. Can you prove otherwise? btw, you need to lighten up
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024