Just Accidental?

[Olinda]

I understand and respect that. I do not feel that I need to lay down and suffer fools gladly ... but that's a different threat (that is likely to get me in trouble with Rule 1).

Fair enough. For me the sticking point was the blood transfusion issue. . . which could have discouraged people from accepting appropriate medical treatment. Unlikely, but possible.

But I wonder, how do I/we use science and logic to shore up a faith based belief?

As on this thread, by
* misapplying logic rules
* postulating a conspiracy theory to try to explain the lack of acceptance of the religious beliefs
* searching for quotes and videos that seem to support the religious beliefs, preferably by qualified and eminent scientists
* stretching the religious beliefs a bit to try to fit. . .eg, discarding the "7 day" part of creation.

Not that this is the fault of the thread originator, who has only accepted the "truth" as her religion defines it and tried to defend it.

 

[Sapiens]

Fair enough. For me the sticking point was the blood transfusion issue. . . which could have discouraged people from accepting appropriate medical treatment. Unlikely, but possible.


As on this thread, by
* misapplying logic rules
* postulating a conspiracy theory to try to explain the lack of acceptance of the religious beliefs
* searching for quotes and videos that seem to support the religious beliefs, preferably by qualified and eminent scientists
* stretching the religious beliefs a bit to try to fit. . .eg, discarding the "7 day" part of creation.

Not that this is the fault of the thread originator, who has only accepted the "truth" as her religion defines it and tried to defend it.

I do not recall ever having:

• misapplied logic rules. I think the only two I've pointed out are argument from ignorance and argument from authority.
• postulated a conspiracy theory to try to explain the lack of acceptance of the religious beliefs. I'm not real big on conspiracy theories and I am an Atheist who has no problem with a lack of acceptance of religious beliefs.
• searching for quotes and videos that seem to support the religious beliefs, preferably by qualified and eminent scientists. I do not support religious beliefs.
• stretching the religious beliefs a bit to try to fit. . .eg, discarding the "7 day" part of creation. Not guilty, quite the opposite.

Sorry, but a search yields no mention of "blood transfusion" in this thread.

 

[Olinda]

I do not recall ever having:

• misapplied logic rules. I think the only two I've pointed out are argument from ignorance and argument from authority.
• postulated a conspiracy theory to try to explain the lack of acceptance of the religious beliefs. I'm not real big on conspiracy theories and I am an Atheist who has no problem with a lack of acceptance of religious beliefs.
• searching for quotes and videos that seem to support the religious beliefs, preferably by qualified and eminent scientists. I do not support religious beliefs.
• stretching the religious beliefs a bit to try to fit. . .eg, discarding the "7 day" part of creation. Not guilty, quite the opposite.

Sorry, but a search yields no mention of "blood transfusion" in this thread.

Sorry, Sapiens, perhaps I was not clear enough. The thread originator did those things IMO; you did not.
What I meant was that I responded to her in detail on the thread she started where (again IMO) she grossly overstated the risks of blood transfusions, but tried to stay in the background here. (It was called "Are Blood Transfusions Really Life Saving")

Other responders were handling the scientific points on this thread better than I could anyway. I learned quite a lot from yourself and Jose Fly, thanks!

 

[Sapiens]

Ah, thank you for explaining, I was a bit confused ... and thanks for the nice words, it is pleasant for a change, there are not many of them here,

 

[Deeje]

Fair enough. For me the sticking point was the blood transfusion issue. . . which could have discouraged people from accepting appropriate medical treatment. Unlikely, but possible.

You will find out from several medical sources that blood transfusion is not the life saving procedure it was claimed to be.

FAQs | The Center for Bloodless Medicine and Surgery at Johns Hopkins

'Bloodless' surgery avoids risks of transfusion

How Jehovah’s Witnesses Are Changing Medicine

Should Anyone Be Given a Blood Transfusion?

Advantages of Transfusion-Free Medicine and Surgery – Penn Medicine

I personally know several Witnesses who were told point blank that they would die without blood....none of them did and that included a young girl whose spleen was ruptured in a car accident, an woman with an ectopic pregnancy and a man with bowel cancer whose hemoglobin was extremely low. The first two recovered quickly without blood, to the surprise of their doctors and the last man was refused surgery by quite a few surgeons because of his refusal to accept blood. He found a surgeon who was willing to comply with his wishes and recovered well from the surgery. Another man had complex open heart surgery without blood. I also know of those who had major orthopedic surgery without blood. And these are just people I know....there are thousands who recover well without blood every year. The number of doctors changing their mind on this issue is growing rapidly.

People should be dissuaded from accepting blood transfusions.....they are far from good medical practice and can be fatal.

Patient Blood Management (PBM) | National Blood Authority
https://www.blood.gov.au/patient-blood-management-pbm
The two words you never want to hear when speaking about a medical procedure are "morbidity and mortality" but they are stated with regard to blood transfusions by doctors who are experts in their field. According to the Australian Government media release, (linked above) it is clear that people live in spite of blood transfusions, not because of them.

The Creator who designed our blood knows what should and should not be done with it. He equates it with life itself.

 

[Derek500]

Ah, great. Another JW who thinks that blood transfusions are bad. JW's wonder why they are so despised in the Christian community? JW's lie. About everything.

 

[savagewind]

Ah, great. Another JW who thinks that blood transfusions are bad. JW's wonder why they are so despised in the Christian community? JW's lie. About everything.

They do not lie about everything. They are Christians and they say that to believe in the salvation of God by Jesus Christ is the only right way. Are you saying that is a lie?

 

[Sapiens]

They do not lie about everything. They are Christians and they say that to believe in the salvation of God by Jesus Christ is the only right way. Are you saying that is a lie?

That's fair, as long as you give proper consideration to lying vs. delusion.

 

[savagewind]

That's fair, as long as you give proper consideration to lying vs. delusion.

Yes, I know. The poster identifies himself/herself as Christian. Obviously, I wouldn't post the same thing to you.

 

[Sapiens]

You will find out from several medical sources that blood transfusion is not the life saving procedure it was claimed to be.

FAQs | The Center for Bloodless Medicine and Surgery at Johns Hopkins

'Bloodless' surgery avoids risks of transfusion

How Jehovah’s Witnesses Are Changing Medicine

Should Anyone Be Given a Blood Transfusion?

Advantages of Transfusion-Free Medicine and Surgery – Penn Medicine

I personally know several Witnesses who were told point blank that they would die without blood....none of them did and that included a young girl whose spleen was ruptured in a car accident, an woman with an ectopic pregnancy and a man with bowel cancer whose hemoglobin was extremely low. The first two recovered quickly without blood, to the surprise of their doctors and the last man was refused surgery by quite a few surgeons because of his refusal to accept blood. He found a surgeon who was willing to comply with his wishes and recovered well from the surgery. Another man had complex open heart surgery without blood. I also know of those who had major orthopedic surgery without blood. And these are just people I know....there are thousands who recover well without blood every year. The number of doctors changing their mind on this issue is growing rapidly.

People should be dissuaded from accepting blood transfusions.....they are far from good medical practice and can be fatal.

Patient Blood Management (PBM) | National Blood Authority
The two words you never want to hear when speaking about a medical procedure are "morbidity and mortality" but they are stated with regard to blood transfusions by doctors who are experts in their field. According to the Australian Government media release, (linked above) it is clear that people live in spite of blood transfusions, not because of them.

The Creator who designed our blood knows what should and should not be done with it. He equates it with life itself.

Even one of the articles you cite says:

"One older Jehovah’s Witness who underwent surgery at Englewood had severe anemia and died in the I.C.U. when his organs failed, a situation that transfusion might well have averted."

I agree that minimizing blood loss and need for transfusions makes sense, but I wonder if we should be expending medical resources on people who, on an irrational basis, are unwilling to accept the full suite of potentially required treatment(s)?

 

[Sapiens]

Yes, I know. The poster identifies himself/herself as Christian. Obviously, I wouldn't post the same thing to you.

If you want to have a private discussion, use the "conversation" feature.

 

[savagewind]

If you want to have a private discussion, use the "conversation" feature.

OK. Boss. I think I would like for @Deeje to see that post.

 

[Olinda]

You will find out from several medical sources that blood transfusion is not the life saving procedure it was claimed to be.

FAQs | The Center for Bloodless Medicine and Surgery at Johns Hopkins

'Bloodless' surgery avoids risks of transfusion

How Jehovah’s Witnesses Are Changing Medicine

Should Anyone Be Given a Blood Transfusion?

Advantages of Transfusion-Free Medicine and Surgery – Penn Medicine

I personally know several Witnesses who were told point blank that they would die without blood....none of them did and that included a young girl whose spleen was ruptured in a car accident, an woman with an ectopic pregnancy and a man with bowel cancer whose hemoglobin was extremely low. The first two recovered quickly without blood, to the surprise of their doctors and the last man was refused surgery by quite a few surgeons because of his refusal to accept blood. He found a surgeon who was willing to comply with his wishes and recovered well from the surgery. Another man had complex open heart surgery without blood. I also know of those who had major orthopedic surgery without blood. And these are just people I know....there are thousands who recover well without blood every year. The number of doctors changing their mind on this issue is growing rapidly.

People should be dissuaded from accepting blood transfusions.....they are far from good medical practice and can be fatal.

Patient Blood Management (PBM) | National Blood Authority
The two words you never want to hear when speaking about a medical procedure are "morbidity and mortality" but they are stated with regard to blood transfusions by doctors who are experts in their field. According to the Australian Government media release, (linked above) it is clear that people live in spite of blood transfusions, not because of them.

The Creator who designed our blood knows what should and should not be done with it. He equates it with life itself.

@Deeje, you have already cited all of these sources in your thread on blood transfusions, and they have been discussed there. I can see no good reason for dragging this thread off-topic just to post them again.

The conclusion on the thread "Are Blood Transfusions Really Life Saving?" was that they are; even the video you cited says so. It was not established that the JW religious refusal to accept blood is a position supported by science.

I would also suggest that reposting the material on a completely different thread as if it had not already been debated does suggest that you are more interested in preaching than discussion.

 

[leibowde84]

We don't know how long ago God created the universe...he simply doesn't tell us. Nor does he tell us how long the creative "days" were. We know that they were not 24 hours long....only that they had a beginning and an end. The Creator is not a magician, but a powerful entity who can create matter.

The Genesis account is quite specific about what was created and on what "day". Humans were last on the scene. How did Moses know that? How did he know that life began in the oceans and in the skies?

where in Genesis does it claim that life began in the oceans and in the skies?

 

[Deeje]

The conclusion on the thread "Are Blood Transfusions Really Life Saving?" was that they are; even the video you cited says so. It was not established that the JW religious refusal to accept blood is a position supported by science.

LOL Selective hearing eh? What part of "greater risk of morbidity and mortality" did you not understand? Our position is well supported by science actually.

The cystoscope evidence was there for all to see. Red cell delivery was impeded by blood transfusion, not enhanced. Missed that bit did too did you?

I would also suggest that reposting the material on a completely different thread as if it had not already been debated does suggest that you are more interested in preaching than discussion.

You can "suggest" whatever you like.....those who refuse to acknowledge what is stated by experts in their field make me smile, because that is exactly what we get accused of doing. Only experts who support your views are treated as credible. Here are doctors admitting that blood is not good medicine and yet people with your mindset, which include some died-in-the-wool redneck doctors, refuse to acknowledge advances in their other fields of medicine. The video speaks to those who haven't got their fingers in their ears.

Since blood is an integral part of human creation, why not discuss this amazing substance in this forum? Is it just an accident too? Why is the body's first response to reject the foreign tissue? Immune response should tell us something, shouldn't it? It's a bit like side effects of pharma medications.....it's the body's way of telling us that it is not happy.....that what is administered is incompatible with the systems that the Creator already has in place.

 

[Deeje]

where in Genesis does it claim that life began in the oceans and in the skies?

Genesis 1:20-25:
"Then God said: “Let the waters swarm with living creatures, and let flying creatures fly above the earth across the expanse of the heavens.” 21 And God created the great sea creatures and all living creatures that move and swarm in the waters according to their kinds and every winged flying creature according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 With that God blessed them, saying: “Be fruitful and become many and fill the waters of the sea, and let the flying creatures become many in the earth.” 23 And there was evening and there was morning, a fifth day.
24 Then God said: “Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds, domestic animals and creeping animals and wild animals of the earth according to their kinds.” And it was so. 25 And God went on to make the wild animals of the earth according to their kinds and the domestic animals according to their kinds and all the creeping animals of the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good."

 

[gnostic]

Genesis 1:20-25:
"Then God said: “Let the waters swarm with living creatures, and let flying creatures fly above the earth across the expanse of the heavens.” 21 And God created the great sea creatures and all living creatures that move and swarm in the waters according to their kinds and every winged flying creature according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 With that God blessed them, saying: “Be fruitful and become many and fill the waters of the sea, and let the flying creatures become many in the earth.” 23 And there was evening and there was morning, a fifth day.
24 Then God said: “Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds, domestic animals and creeping animals and wild animals of the earth according to their kinds.” And it was so. 25 And God went on to make the wild animals of the earth according to their kinds and the domestic animals according to their kinds and all the creeping animals of the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good."

Quoting Genesis 1:20-25 doesn't really leibowde84's question...

...and it certainly doesn't prove that god did any "creating" or being responsible for creation of different animals.

Please define "kind"?

Do scientists (particularly biologists) use "kinds" over "orders, "tribes", "families", "genera", "species"?

I actually believe that you really don't understand the biological concepts of species and speciation.

You don't even understand the biblical "kinds", since to date, you have never given any unambiguous "scientific" definition to "kind".

How many times have people here asked you to define what "kind" is, and why "kind" is better than species, but you have constantly dodge and evade in responding to their requests?

 

[Olinda]

Our position is well supported by science actually.

Pure assertion, no facts. As usual. For instance, on the whole thread you provided not a single medical concern over autologous blood transfusions, yet your religion forbids these.

The cystoscope evidence was there for all to see. Red cell delivery was impeded by blood transfusion, not enhanced. Missed that bit did too did you?

As I replied on p24-25 of the appropriate thread, that was a single case, no mention of complications or other conditions, and the video did not claim it as evidence. Fortunately those pages are there to show which of us has selective hearing or memory problems.

Only experts who support your views are treated as credible. Here are doctors admitting that blood is not good medicine

And here for the umpteenth time you have misquoted your video, unless you can show me where a doctor actually said that. For goodness sake, the title actually starts with "Blood Transfusions Save Lives"

and yet people with your mindset,

Ad hominem. And you know nothing about my mindset.

which include some died-in-the-wool redneck doctors, refuse to acknowledge advances in their other fields of medicine. The video speaks to those who haven't got their fingers in their ears.

The video advises the same caution as for any other invasive medical procedure; perfectly appropriate. It does not support your assertions.

Since blood is an integral part of human creation, why not discuss this amazing substance in this forum? Is it just an accident too? Why is the body's first response to reject the foreign tissue? Immune response should tell us something, shouldn't it? It's a bit like side effects of pharma medications.....it's the body's way of telling us that it is not happy.....that what is administered is incompatible with the systems that the Creator already has in place.

Ah, a belated attempt to relate it to topic. If you can provide evidence that blood must have been created, it would work. Otherwise, otherwise.

 

[leibowde84]

Genesis 1:20-25:
"Then God said: “Let the waters swarm with living creatures, and let flying creatures fly above the earth across the expanse of the heavens.” 21 And God created the great sea creatures and all living creatures that move and swarm in the waters according to their kinds and every winged flying creature according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 With that God blessed them, saying: “Be fruitful and become many and fill the waters of the sea, and let the flying creatures become many in the earth.” 23 And there was evening and there was morning, a fifth day.
24 Then God said: “Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds, domestic animals and creeping animals and wild animals of the earth according to their kinds.” And it was so. 25 And God went on to make the wild animals of the earth according to their kinds and the domestic animals according to their kinds and all the creeping animals of the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good."

This is most likely wrong though. All evidence points to life beginning in the ocean, then gradually evolving to be able to walk on land. Then, much later, certain species evolved to be able to fly. So, life did not begin in the water and the sky.

 

[Deeje]

Quoting Genesis 1:20-25 doesn't really leibowde84's question...

I believe it did.....
Here was the question...
"where in Genesis does it claim that life began in the oceans and in the skies?"

Here was the answer....
"Then God said: “Let the waters swarm with living creatures, and let flying creatures fly above the earth across the expanse of the heavens.” 21 And God created the great sea creatures and all living creatures that move and swarm in the waters according to their kinds and every winged flying creature according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 With that God blessed them, saying: “Be fruitful and become many and fill the waters of the sea, and let the flying creatures become many in the earth.” 23 And there was evening and there was morning, a fifth day."

So....I did answer his question.

I actually believe that you really don't understand the biological concepts of species and speciation.

I understand perfectly well what a species is. I also understand that "speciation" means different species of a specific "kind" of creature. Adaptation produces variety within a species. It does not turn one "kind" into another "kind" of creature altogether. There is no proof for that.

The suggestion that we are descended from bananas (as one poster claimed) is as ludicrous as asserting that amoebas eventually became dinosaurs. I see evolutionists accusing us of believing in fantasy....but you seriously don't see a bigger one in your own beliefs?

How many times have people here asked you to define what "kind" is, and why "kind" is better than species, but you have constantly dodge and evade in responding to their requests?

I have explained several times. No dodges or evasion.....sorry you missed them....

A "kind" can be explained by using the creatures that Darwin himself observed on the Galapagos Islands....the very ones that gave him the idea of evolution in the first place.
What did Darwin see? He saw finches with different shaped beaks, but he did not observe these birds morphing into other species of birds or other creatures at all. Variety within a species is what he saw. Same with the iguanas....they were still clearly iguanas, but adapted to a marine environment. I am beginning to wonder about you 'evolutionary science believers' and how readily you accept the notions that science promotes with no real evidence that a slow process of evolution ever took place. The evidence 'suggests' to us deliberate acts of creation that appear suddenly in the fossil record. There are no "intermediate" creatures linking the ones found (or should I say bits of them) even though millions of years are supposed to have elapsed. You would think with all those species that have come and gone that we would see a clear evolutionary process....but it just isn't there. The gaps are huge. All I see is the suggestion that it "may have" or "could have" happened. Well, creation "may have" or "could have" just as easily taken place. I believe that we have more actual evidence for our beliefs than you do. How many times would you like me to say it?