Roller

Hello!

I'm discussing blood transfusion with theist on one of the boards (he's a Jehovah Witness so you can imagine that). Now, he rambled on about how blood transfusion is actually bad for the patient and how recovery is faster with patients who didn't received transfusion. I told him that its better to receive transfusion and recover slowly (if that's the case to begin with) than not to receive and end up in a state from which no recovery is possible. Also, I reminded him that JW's are not abstaining from blood transfusion because of some scientific knowledge that only JW's are aware of, but of goat herder ramblings 3000 years ago. Anyway, I deconstructed his ramblings. Now he mentioned something about blood properties that present a great problem for the theory of evolution. It seems that I've pressed him to the corner and he's just throwing things at me hoping I'll stop.

Since I believe you've probably heard every single creationist argument there is, what kind of "problem" would that be? I want to be able to jump at him before he elaborates it any further.

Also, he mentioned that on the eight day, infants have best blood coagulation and that's why circumcision is performed on eight day. That's supposed to mean a scientific knowledge in the Bible. I just think its trial and error, until they stumbled upon 8 day and saw how the infants bleed less than other days. That way they concluded how circumcision is best performed on that day. But is the coagulation even better after eight day?


Thank you.

Undercurrent

It could be Behe's ramblings on blood clotting that he is referring to. There's a bit of commentary here.

Roller

Undercurrent wrote:
Thank you for your quick response and input on this.

Kosmo

Funny, I've heard this argument too. I imagine you've hit the nail on the head, that there may be some actual primitive scientific knowledge in the bible originally obtained through trial and error, acknowledging the observation that circumcisions had optimal healing after approximately 7-days. Though that hardly verifies the rest of the bible.

Depending on who you ask, it takes approximately 7-9 days to populate the gut with the proper flora to produce enough vitamin-K (essential for blood clotting) for normal coagulation. It doesn't necessarily get better after 7-9 days, but it is certainly deficient up until that point.

Roller

Thank you for your reply Kosmo.

It seems probable that some primitive scientifical knowledge can be obtained through trial and error. And I agree that that hardly confirms anything about divine inspiration of the Bible. If neighboring Egyptians were capable of building pyramids, than I guess some Canaanite tribe was capable of gaining knowledge were discussing here.

Wasn't there some creationist rambling about hemoglobin?

Undercurrent

I think even that gives too much credit. Is there really a "best time" to lob off a bit of a baby's fun bits in homage to a tribal war god? I think that the weeks wait was probably a practical consideration (give mother and baby a chance to rest after birth and find a rabbi to do the deed) and any "scientific" reason has been applied retroactively by apologists.

If the period had been given as 20 days, there would have been some other justification for why 20 days was the best.

Roller

I found this "scientific foreknowledge" argument on the web also. It's here

Is that eight day maybe just a coincidence because of mother had to rest for seven days? Since God rested on seventh day, mother has to rest for seven days (if she's not that unlucky to give a birth to a girl, than it's fourteen). So maybe that's just a coincidence and got nothing to do with fact that infant will bleed less after 7 days?

Hmmm... Seems like this is wandering out of Evolution/Creation forum.

Kosmo

Perhaps. I suppose I was just giving them the benefit of the doubt. But it was formerly believed that circumcision had hygienic benefits (although with modern bathing practices this is not the case and the procedure is purely cosmetic.) And afterall, it is better (i.e. less risky) to wait at least one week before performing a circumcision.

Whether or not the bible had it right through sheer coincidence, or if it were based on some primitive knowledge, I suppose, is irrelevant.

charlie d

It seems to me this would be most likely the result of simple trial and error. For instance, the Talmud also recommended that male children of women whose brother suffered from bleeding should not be circumcised - one of the first references to hemophilia and its genetics (for some reason, God forgot to also tell that to the Jews when they were writing the Torah, but the Jews figured it out by themselves a few centuries later).

Similar cases of ancient costumes related to health and hygiene are very widespread (think of the universal cultural taboo against incest).

Craig

As a former JW, let me give you some advice-

First, remind him that the prohibition is supposed to be based on the bible, not how well transfusions work. Remind him it's a faith issue that he shouldn't be trying to justify by other methods. This fact was pounded into our heads at the meetings.

Second, his information is FALSE. The JW leadership puts out lying scientific "facts" that are easily disproven. However, witnesses are not allowed to read anything critical of the religion so of course they never find out how much they have been mislead.

Ask him why some blood components are allowed while others are not. Then ask him why components not allowed in the past are now allowed. Then ask why organ transplants are now OK, while 25 years ago they weren't. Then ask how he feels about those JWs that died by refusing blood elements or organs that were forbidden in the past but are now allowed.

Way more lives are saved by giving blood than are lost due to complications from getting it, a fact that the witnesses miss.

You probably aren't going to get anywhere, they are pretty well brainwashed to ignore anything that conflicts with their beliefs.