Creation

Hi Tangle

Keep a civil tongue with your typing and I will respond to you.

Tangle writes: He did not declare a scientific fact, he was saying something that everyone knew.

All I know is that it was the position of science that if a person was sick that you would bleed them to make them well.

This continued to be the practice until around 1925.

Go to a blood bank and try to donate 80 ounces of blood and see what happens. That was what they took from Washington in 10 hours. You lose that much now and they would be pumping blood into you not taking it out.

Tangle writes: Had Moses explained *why* the goat dies as you quoted...... then I'd be impressed.

Moses did not say anything about the blood being the life of the flesh.

He did say the life of the flesh was in the blood.

quote:

---

Leviticus 17:11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.

---

As you can see from the enlarged text that Moses said the life of the flesh was in the blood. The energy and oxygen is what provides life to the flesh. The blood only provides the method for distribution.

So Moses wrote about what is now a scientific fact at least 2400 years before it was discovered.

That would be classified as a verified prediction.

God Bless,

So Moses wrote about what is now a scientific fact at least 2400 years before it was discovered. That would be classified as a verified prediction.

nope, Moses din't once mention energy or oxygen, as mentioned before he's not saying anything that somebody who witnessed something bleed out wouldn't know. You're imposing modern scientific knowledge on a fairytale.

Edited by DrJones*, : No reason given.

Hi Paul

AZPaul writes: And with good reason. Common sense has been shown so often to be so very wrong.

Are you sure common sense has been shown to be wrong?

Or are you confusing ignorance and stupidity which has no limits for common sense?

I saw several utube video's but I saw no actual proof of anything.

APaul writes: Lots of them.

None of them tell me where the universe came from.
None of them tell me why it exists.
None of them can tell me when it began to exist.
None of them can tell me where I came from.
None of them can tell me why I exist.
None of them can tell me where the first life form came from.

They can describe some things that exist and how they function.

AZPaul writes: One of the things science requires, yes REQUIRES, of a model in order to be considered a "Theory" is its ability to predict accurately.

Is the BBT a theory?
Is string theory a theory?
Is the bounce theory a theory?
Is inflation a theory?
Expansion is not a theory it is a fact. The universe is getting larger.

AZPaul writes: No. He probably knew, like most everyone else (they may have been ignorant but they were not stupid), that when a human or an animal bled too much it died. Can't help but notice that when you live on this planet.

But he did not write that the blood was the life.

He said the life of the flesh was in the blood.

I don't see how he could have know that as the circulation system of the blood was not discovered until the 1600's.

But he did write it down at least 2400 years before it was discovered.

AZPaul writes: So goes the mantra. The article of faith. The belief without evidence, without reason, without reality.

What mantra? What article of faith? When it comes to evidence I have more for what I believe than you do for what you believe. But if I explained it to you, you would not be able to understand it so I won't even try. I will just pray for you.

AZPaul writes: BTW, if we don't talk again before hand, Merry Christmas, ICANT.

And a Blessed Christmas to you and yours.

God Bless,

ICANT writes: Keep a civil tongue with your typing and I will respond to you.

I'm not a member of your congregation pastor, you may have noticed that I am not in awe of your enormous intellect and status. I'm not one of your bleeting sheep, I'm quite definately a goat. and I will respond to your nonsense as I see fit. Whether you respond or not is your problem not mine.

All I know is that it was the position of science that if a person was sick that you would bleed them to make them well.

Why is that all you know? We know rather a lot about blood letting yet you only pick out a few 'facts' to make your usual distorted and error-ridden case.

For a start blood letting was pre-science, practiced for thousands of years and finally *stopped* by science. It was practiced in Egypt around the time the stories that made it into your little books were being made up. Odd given Mose's special insights that it continued. The practice was essentially discontinued by the end of the 19th century.

quote:

---

One reason for the continued popularity of bloodletting (and purging) was that, while anatomical knowledge, surgical and diagnostic skills increased tremendously in Europe from the 17th century, the key to curing disease remained elusive, and the underlying belief was that it was better to give any treatment than nothing at all. The psychological benefit of bloodletting to the patient (a placebo effect) may sometimes have outweighed the physiological problems it caused. Bloodletting slowly lost favour during the 19th century, after French physician Dr. Pierre Louis conducted an experiment in which he studied the effect of bloodletting on pneumonia patients.[29] A number of other ineffective or harmful treatments were available as placebos—mesmerism, various processes involving the new technology of electricity, many potions, tonics, and elixirs. Yet, bloodletting persisted during the 19th century partly because it was readily available to people of any socioeconomic status.[30]

---

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloodletting

He did say the life of the flesh was in the blood.

And from that you tell us that what he meant was that blood is composed of white and red corpuscles and plasma, and that the haemoglobin in the plasma transports oxygen from the lungs to the 'flesh' and transports carbon dioxide away and so on.

And he didn't mean that he'd noticed that if blood drains out the 'flesh' dies?

That's just hilarious. But like I say, had Moses actually said anything like what you said about the composition of blood I would be more than impressed. But of course all he's reported to have said was what was already known to everyone at the time.

So Moses wrote about what is now a scientific fact at least 2400 years before it was discovered. That would be classified as a verified prediction.

That would only be classified as a 'verified prediction' by a total charlatan attempting to mislead his vulnerable audience.

People with a brain in their heads would classify it as an outright lie.

Hi Tangle

Tangle writes: But of course all he's reported to have said was what was already known to everyone at the time.

Name me one person including Moses that knew the life of the flesh was in the blood during his lifetime 2800 years ago.

Give me one reference to the life of the flesh being written about by anybody during the lifetime of Moses other than Moses.

He did not give a dissertation on the blood system. He had no microscope to look into blood and see what was there.

He only wrote something because he was either told too or led too by someone who had that information.

Matteo Realdo Colombo, (born 1516?, Cremona [Italy]—died 1559, Rome), clearly outlined circulation of venous blood from the right ventricle, through the pulmonary artery to the lungs, whence it emerges bright red after mixture with a “spirit” in the air, and returns to the left ventricle through the pulmonary vein. In his only published work of 1559 “On Things Anatomical”

At this time nothing was known of the function of the red blood cells in the blood system.

So in the 1500's BC Moses wrote about scientific facts that was not known in 1559 AD.

I can not find when the function of the red cells in the blood was discovered. But it was published in 1775 that we needed oxygen to live.

So whether you like it or not Moses wrote about the life of the flesh being in the blood at least 3,000 years before it was known.

How did he obtain that information is not known. I would tend to believe that the designer and creator of the human body and the blood in it transferred that information to Moses by some means. Did Moses understand it? I doubt very seriously he did. But he wrote it down as he was told to write the things he had been shown in a book.

Tangle writes: People with a brain in their heads would classify it as an outright lie.

Are you saying the statement "the life of the flesh is in the blood" is a lie?

God Bless,

Common sense has been shown so often to be so very wrong. Are you sure common sense has been shown to be wrong?

Not always but quite often, yes.

And "common sense" is subjective (the Earth looks flat to me). Not good for building a model of reality.

I saw several utube video's but I saw no actual proof of anything.

Proof? Who said anything about proof?

Reading comprehension, ICANT.

None of them tell me where the universe came from.

... yet.

None of them tell me why it exists.

Why the universe exists? You mean as in purpose?

"Purpose" is a human construct, an illusion, ICANT. There is no purpose.

None of them can tell me when it began to exist.

... yet.

None of them can tell me where I came from.

You have to look, ICANT.

BBT, Nucleosynthesis, Genetics, Evolution all have a say in answering that one.

None of them can tell me why I exist.

Purpose, again.

"Purpose" is a human illusion, ICANT. There is no purpose.

None of them can tell me where the first life form came from.

...yet.

They can describe some things that exist and how they function.

And many of our theories do that exceptionally well. That is all we ask of them.

One of the things science requires, yes REQUIRES, of a model in order to be considered a "Theory" is its ability to predict accurately. Is the BBT a theory?

Yes. Though we know it is not complete.

Is string theory a theory?

No. It is a hypothetical model.

Is the bounce theory a theory?

No. It is a hypothetical model.

Is inflation a theory?

Yes. Though we know it is not complete.

Expansion is not a theory it is a fact. The universe is getting larger.

You got one right. And the hypothesis as to why/how (not purpose but operation) is dark energy. Super strong evidence that an unseen energy exists, not so strong on the actual mechanisms involved.

AZPaul writes: No. He probably knew, like most everyone else (they may have been ignorant but they were not stupid), that when a human or an animal bled too much it died. Can't help but notice that when you live on this planet. ICANT writes: He said the life of the flesh was in the blood.

Did he? Is that the actual translation from the original?

Or was it something like "You bleed too hard you get dead."?

Can you show that he even was, let alone what he may/may not have said?

I don't see how he could have know that as the circulation system of the blood was not discovered until the 1600's.

He didn't. All he knew, and all your quote of him shows, is that he knew if you bleed too hard you get dead.

But he did write it down at least 2400 years before it was discovered.

No, he didn't. This smacks of desperate reaching for something "sciency" to defend the indefensible.

When it comes to evidence I have more for what I believe than you do for what you believe.

This forum is full of such religious proclamations, yet, no evidence is ever presented.

But if I explained it to you, you would not be able to understand it so I won't even try.

I suspect that is because you have nothing to present except smoke and mirrors.

The problem ICANT is that the smoke was blown away centuries ago to reveal that the mirror has always been broken.

I will just pray for you.

Ultimately unproductive but I appreciate the sentiment. Thank you.

ICANT writes: Name me one person including Moses that knew the life of the flesh was in the blood during his lifetime 2800 years ago.

Everyone did.

He did not give a dissertation on the blood system. He had no microscope to look into blood and see what was there.

No microscope? He had god to tell him about such stuff. Seems like a feeble excuse ICANT. If he wanted anybody to take any notice, he should have elabourated a little.

And, by-the-way, it was you who brought up the blood componants and began the lecture. Oh, look, here it comes again, more irrelevant google notes

quote:

---

Matteo Realdo Colombo, (born 1516?, Cremona [Italy]—died 1559, Rome), clearly outlined circulation of venous blood from the right ventricle, through the pulmonary artery to the lungs, whence it emerges bright red after mixture with a “spirit” in the air, and returns to the left ventricle through the pulmonary vein. In his only published work of 1559 “On Things Anatomical” etc etc

---

So whether you like it or not Moses wrote about the life of the flesh being in the blood at least 3,000 years before it was known.

Looks like I have to say it again then - everyone alive knew that blood was necessary for life. Got it? No-one alive knew how or why. Moses didn't know how or why. If the bible contained *that* kind of information and if Moses has said a little more than the blindingly obvious, I'd be a bit more impressed.

I pointed out to you that bloodletting was practiced in Mose's time and in his country. It seems that Moses's special knowledge wasn't particularly useful. I also pointed out that it was science that ended the practice not your primitive beliefs. If your beliefs had persisted we'd still be living in tents and dying at the age of 25.

Are you saying the statement "the life of the flesh is in the blood" is a lie?

I'm saying that you are lying by telling people that Moses had any special knowledge of blood. In the story he obviously only knew what everybody else knew. You have no clothes ICANT.

First off, Merry Christmas Mr.Tangle. I hope that you and yours have a good time with family and friends and that you all enjoy a healthy New Year.

Now on to our ongoing discussions.....

Tangle, to ICANT writes: But in fact, there's absolutely nothing in the bible that couldn't have been written by someone a few thousand years ago. Nothing. Not that they could even write of course.

I would argue that not everyone was intelligent nor was everyone so simple minded just because they couldn't write nor read. ICANT may argue that some of them had encounters with God and wrote about it or preserved it through oral tradition later written down. I would argue that some ancient wisdom is better than the established medical wisdom of today. One such example is fasting. It has done more to lower my blood sugars, reduce swelling in my legs (edema) and lower my A1C than any number of medications prescribed for me in the previous ten years.

I am very blessed to have a Medical Doctor who is a low carb proponent, knowledgeable about diet and endocrinology, and not sold out to the pharmaceutical industry. He is helping me take back control of my health and my life. He still has me on some medications of course, but we have cut out some of them and are working to eliminate all but the absolutely necessary ones for my condition and my diabetic issues. The ancients had no medicines of course except perhaps willow bark and a few herbs here and there...but they did know about fasting. Even animals use it naturally when they are ill or hurt. Moses may not have known the science behind his simple observations, but my point is that common sense is not universally common. The same ones who wrote the initial ideas expressed in the book are the ones in their own society capable and disciplined enough to grasp the truths. ICANT is arguing that it was science...and I can see your argument that he is attempting to use that argument to advance his beliefs and perhaps his book. People should be taught all sides of an issue. My experience shows that ancient "wisdom" was at times wiser than the educated medical and scientific establishment of today...who is driven by ulterior motives, in the case of pharmaceuticals at least.

Happy Mōdraniht

Phat writes: ICANT is arguing that it was science...and I can see your argument that he is attempting to use that argument to advance his beliefs and perhaps his book. People should be taught all sides of an issue. My experience shows that ancient "wisdom" was at times wiser than the educated medical and scientific establishment of today...who is driven by ulterior motives, in the case of pharmaceuticals at least.

ICANT is talking bollocks. He's hijacking the real, modern science that he doesn't understand and routinely corrupting and falsifying it and jemmying it to match platitudes from his bible in an attempt to make it sound sensible.

It is NOT science. There is no science in the bible; science only properly began in the 18th century. (I'll happily accept astronomy and mathematics that were rather brilliantly developed earler, particularly in the Greek and Islamic countries.)

Folk 'wisdom' was and is incredibly dangerous, it's mostly magical thinking rubbish and you were lucky if the 'remedies' didn't kill you. Until the scientific method came along nothing was tested, everything was hearsay and superstion. Most maladies were caused by demons requiring a charman. ICANT would have loved it.

Until the scientific method came along nothing was tested, everything was hearsay and superstition.

The point is that luck had nothing to do with my accepting the discipline of fasting. Science verified what the ancients intuitively knew. This whole love affair that you have with modern science is no better than what we have with what you call superstition. Eventually, science will prove us right, but it likely will take an event that shakes you out of your smug comfort zone in order for you to see it...and you will still have to believe by faith...there will not be solid facts handed to you. I do have solid facts to back up my acceptance of fasting. It no longer is ancient wisdom. Someday, God will be proven to be more than ancient superstition. The proof, however, will come individually and subjectively.

Phat writes: The point is that luck had nothing to do with my accepting the discipline of fasting.

I really hope it works out for you.

Science verified what the ancients intuitively knew.

They knew nothing Phat, they fasted for religious and traditional reasons.

This whole love affair that you have with modern science is no better than what we have with what you call superstition.

Says the man typing stuff into a computer that someone an ocean away can see instantly.

Eventually, science will prove us right, but it likely will take an event that shakes you out of your smug comfort zone in order for you to see it...and you will still have to believe by faith...there will not be solid facts handed to you. I do have solid facts to back up my acceptance of fasting. It no longer is ancient wisdom. Someday, God will be proven to be more than ancient superstition. The proof, however, will come individually and subjectively.

People have been saying that for thousands of years. It's just a dream Phat. But it's probably best for you not to wake up.

Have a lovely Christmas.

Hi Phat

Phat writes: I would argue that not everyone was intelligent nor was everyone so simple minded just because they couldn't write nor read.

Moses was raised in the house of an Egyptian Pharaoh as the son of the Pharaoh's daughter.

He had all the advantages of Egyptian knowledge that was available.
The Egyptians have been reading and writing since 3400 BC. That was 2600 years before Moses was born. So it is totally asinine for someone to say Moses did not know how to read and write. He lived in Pharaoh's house the first 40 years of his life. My dad told me "son it is better to not say anything and let people think you are stupid than to open your mouth and remove all doubt".

Phat writes: ICANT may argue that some of them had encounters with God and wrote about it or preserved it through oral tradition later written down.

Why would Moses's teachings need to be oral and wrote down later.

He would have been familiar with reading and writing and preserving records as he would have been active in the government in Egypt for 20 years or more. The Hebrews knew how to make clay tablets and they would also have known how to make scrolls out of animal hide.

Besides God told Moses and Aaron to write stuff in a book.

quote:

---

Exodus 17:14 And the LORD said unto Moses, Write this for a memorial in a book, and rehearse it in the ears of Joshua: for I will utterly put out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven.

---

quote:

---

Numbers 5:23 And the priest shall write these curses in a book, and he shall blot them out with the bitter water:

---

quote:

---

Deuteronomy 17:18 And it shall be, when he sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy of this law in a book out of that which is before the priests the Levites:

17:19 And it shall be with him, and he shall read therein all the days of his life: that he may learn to fear the LORD his God, to keep all the words of this law and these statutes, to do them:

---

quote:

---

Deuteronomy 31:24 And it came to pass, when Moses had made an end of writing the words of this law in a book, until they were finished,

31:25 That Moses commanded the Levites, which bare the ark of the covenant of the LORD, saying,

31:26 Take this book of the law, and put it in the side of the ark of the covenant of the LORD your God, that it may be there for a witness against thee.

---

So yes Moses could read and write and had 40 years to teach the children of Israel to read and write in their wilderness journey.

If you enlarge my profile picture you will see the writings that Moses would have used when he did his writings. It is called Paleo Hebrew.

Phat writes: My experience shows that ancient "wisdom" was at times wiser than the educated medical and scientific establishment of today

It still is

Phat writes: the educated medical and scientific establishment of today...who is driven by ulterior motives, in the case of pharmaceuticals at least.

I like you have diabetes and my HMO wants me not to cut my toe nails for fear of me nicking the meat and causing an infection. So I go to a podiatrist every three months. The insurance company is charged $90 and I have a $30 copay. On my last visit my doctor was not available and had a substitute taking his place. He cut 4 of my toes. I could have done a better job and saved myself $30 and Medicare $90. But I could go to a pedicurist and get the job done for $25 to $35 and get a better job. But between the government, HMO'S and the medical profession and their greed the tax payer has to pay through the nose.

Added by Edit.

For the last 4 months I have been on the keto diet which is a very low carb diet. (I consume less than 20g carbs a day)
I was having eye surgery and had to discontinue all my medicines for 10 days prior to surgery and I had to keep a close watch on my blood sugar. My morning readings were in the 80 to 121 readings with no meds to help keep it down. After my surgery I did not resume my metformin that I had been taking twice a day for the last 4 years. My blood sugar still remains in the 80 to 120 range. The high numbers be when I cheat on my diet and eat something with sugar in it.

God Bless,

Edited by ICANT, : No reason given.

Hi Tangle

Tangle writes: ICANT would have loved it.

No he wouldn't have.

Just like he don't like assumptions be peddled as fact today. Which is what your science concerning creation is based on.

God Bless,

Hi Tangle

Tangle writes: Everyone did.

No one knew the life of the flesh was in the blood until the circulatory system was discovered. After that discovery took place it was discovered that there was red blood cells in the blood that carried oxygen, and energy to each cell in the body for them to function.

But they did know that if you took all the blood out of an animal or human they would die. Which a lot different from understanding the circulatory system.

Why do you want to make ancient people ignoramuses in one breath and then the next say they knew what was not known until the 1900 hundreds?

God Bless,

ICANT, replying to Tangle writes: No he wouldn't have. Just like he don't like assumptions be peddled as fact today. Which is what your science concerning creation is based on.

It seems that the basic issue with Tangle is that he assumes that collective human wisdom knows more now than we did thousands of years ago. He is selective as to which wisdom and selective as to what the wisdom purports to teach. If you give him even a hint that the wisdom was intuitive or came from God, he will run faster than a cat needing a bath.

But that's ok...I have long since given up on convincing Tangle of anything except the fact that I like him as a verbal jousting opponent. I told him I might see him someday and he invited me to go fishing. Evidently, he hates the idea that I would extend the same courtesy to you....he sees you as a relic of superstition that should be placed in a museum.

In summary, Moses had as much wisdom and intuition as was available in his day and time. The scientific method involves a discipline that was not used in Moses time, but your point, if I understand it, is that Tangle is overstepping his own intelligence by declaring ancient wisdom as superstition and religion...though he does have a limited point. I stepped in to attempt to restore a bit of mutual respect...as per Forum Guidelines and as I am getting to know both of you better through online correspondence, I feel part of the conversation.

I magnified your avatar and saw the scrip. Ancients were hardly total slouches regarding intuition. Tangle seems to believe that once modern society disposes of religion and basic superstition, we will magically advance to populate the stars and cure social ills left and right. I am not so optimistic. I believe that humans need a communion and a relationship with God. It was meant to always be this way.

Creation=creativity. Whom better to ask about creativity than a Creator? Which does not mean that I dont consult google nor educated friends.

Tangle does not even respect apologists such as Dr.Craig Parson an Attorney who has a respectable series of videos on the Bible. He is a Lutheran.

Tangle basically argues that there is no such thing as wisdom which expounds on the Bible...that the Bible itself is all we have or ever had regarding the character and identity of God. Respectfully, I disagree with Tangle, but feel as if the argument will never get anywhere. You either believe or you don't.