- This topic is empty.
- Posts
But blood is not a chemical compound, it is a mixture of different kinds of cells suspended in plasma, and a clot is a chemical cooperation between cells. Even if you ignore concepts of abiogenesis, science can go a lot further back than the appearance of clotting mechanisms, and it can provide explanations which the blood clots myth does not, especially when you consider that myth it in its koranic context.
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Oct. 28 2010,22:58) But blood is not a chemical compound, it is a mixture of different kinds of cells suspended in plasma, and a clot is a chemical cooperation between cells. Even if you ignore concepts of abiogenesis, science can go a lot further back than the appearance of clotting mechanisms, and it can provide explanations which the blood clots myth does not, especially when you consider that myth it in its koranic context. Stuart
Wouldn't that make it a “compund”?Quote (t8 @ Oct. 28 2010,23:15) I can explain how a cake is made and make no mention of the person who baked it.
So what?
Indeed. So what?Stuart
Quote (bodhitharta @ Oct. 29 2010,05:39) Quote (Stu @ Oct. 28 2010,22:58) But blood is not a chemical compound, it is a mixture of different kinds of cells suspended in plasma, and a clot is a chemical cooperation between cells. Even if you ignore concepts of abiogenesis, science can go a lot further back than the appearance of clotting mechanisms, and it can provide explanations which the blood clots myth does not, especially when you consider that myth it in its koranic context. Stuart
Wouldn't that make it a “compund”?
No.Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Oct. 29 2010,17:10) Quote (bodhitharta @ Oct. 29 2010,05:39) Quote (Stu @ Oct. 28 2010,22:58) But blood is not a chemical compound, it is a mixture of different kinds of cells suspended in plasma, and a clot is a chemical cooperation between cells. Even if you ignore concepts of abiogenesis, science can go a lot further back than the appearance of clotting mechanisms, and it can provide explanations which the blood clots myth does not, especially when you consider that myth it in its koranic context. Stuart
Wouldn't that make it a “compund”?
No.Stuart
How do you define Compound?Quote (bodhitharta @ Oct. 29 2010,20:29) Quote (Stu @ Oct. 29 2010,17:10) Quote (bodhitharta @ Oct. 29 2010,05:39) Quote (Stu @ Oct. 28 2010,22:58) But blood is not a chemical compound, it is a mixture of different kinds of cells suspended in plasma, and a clot is a chemical cooperation between cells. Even if you ignore concepts of abiogenesis, science can go a lot further back than the appearance of clotting mechanisms, and it can provide explanations which the blood clots myth does not, especially when you consider that myth it in its koranic context. Stuart
Wouldn't that make it a “compund”?
No.Stuart
How do you define Compound?
The Holy Wikipedia has this:A chemical compound is a pure chemical substance consisting of two or more different chemical elements that can be separated into simpler substances by chemical reactions. Chemical compounds have a unique and defined chemical structure; they consist of a fixed ratio of atoms that are held together in a defined spatial arrangement by chemical bonds.
Blood is not a pure chemical substance. It is a mixture that changes its composition almost constantly. The process of drying changes the ratio between the numbers of atoms of each element.
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Oct. 30 2010,06:39) Quote (bodhitharta @ Oct. 29 2010,20:29) Quote (Stu @ Oct. 29 2010,17:10) Quote (bodhitharta @ Oct. 29 2010,05:39) Quote (Stu @ Oct. 28 2010,22:58) But blood is not a chemical compound, it is a mixture of different kinds of cells suspended in plasma, and a clot is a chemical cooperation between cells. Even if you ignore concepts of abiogenesis, science can go a lot further back than the appearance of clotting mechanisms, and it can provide explanations which the blood clots myth does not, especially when you consider that myth it in its koranic context. Stuart
Wouldn't that make it a “compund”?
No.Stuart
How do you define Compound?
The Holy Wikipedia has this:A chemical compound is a pure chemical substance consisting of two or more different chemical elements that can be separated into simpler substances by chemical reactions. Chemical compounds have a unique and defined chemical structure; they consist of a fixed ratio of atoms that are held together in a defined spatial arrangement by chemical bonds.
Blood is not a pure chemical substance. It is a mixture that changes its composition almost constantly. The process of drying changes the ratio between the numbers of atoms of each element.
Stuart
Well, then is it consisting of several compounds?Quote (bodhitharta @ Oct. 30 2010,09:44) Quote (Stu @ Oct. 30 2010,06:39) Quote (bodhitharta @ Oct. 29 2010,20:29) Quote (Stu @ Oct. 29 2010,17:10) Quote (bodhitharta @ Oct. 29 2010,05:39) Quote (Stu @ Oct. 28 2010,22:58) But blood is not a chemical compound, it is a mixture of different kinds of cells suspended in plasma, and a clot is a chemical cooperation between cells. Even if you ignore concepts of abiogenesis, science can go a lot further back than the appearance of clotting mechanisms, and it can provide explanations which the blood clots myth does not, especially when you consider that myth it in its koranic context. Stuart
Wouldn't that make it a “compund”?
No.Stuart
How do you define Compound?
The Holy Wikipedia has this:A chemical compound is a pure chemical substance consisting of two or more different chemical elements that can be separated into simpler substances by chemical reactions. Chemical compounds have a unique and defined chemical structure; they consist of a fixed ratio of atoms that are held together in a defined spatial arrangement by chemical bonds.
Blood is not a pure chemical substance. It is a mixture that changes its composition almost constantly. The process of drying changes the ratio between the numbers of atoms of each element.
Stuart
Well, then is it consisting of several compounds?
A blood clot contains very large number of compounds mixed together, which is the point. Your blood clot starting point for humans cannot reasonably be called the beginning of life because the combination of compounds that makes up the mixture would come about before that point, and the fact remains (as demonstrated by endogenous retroviruses and molecular clock data) that humans have many non-human ancestors.Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Oct. 30 2010,11:17) Quote (bodhitharta @ Oct. 30 2010,09:44) Quote (Stu @ Oct. 30 2010,06:39) Quote (bodhitharta @ Oct. 29 2010,20:29) Quote (Stu @ Oct. 29 2010,17:10) Quote (bodhitharta @ Oct. 29 2010,05:39) Quote (Stu @ Oct. 28 2010,22:58) But blood is not a chemical compound, it is a mixture of different kinds of cells suspended in plasma, and a clot is a chemical cooperation between cells. Even if you ignore concepts of abiogenesis, science can go a lot further back than the appearance of clotting mechanisms, and it can provide explanations which the blood clots myth does not, especially when you consider that myth it in its koranic context. Stuart
Wouldn't that make it a “compund”?
No.Stuart
How do you define Compound?
The Holy Wikipedia has this:A chemical compound is a pure chemical substance consisting of two or more different chemical elements that can be separated into simpler substances by chemical reactions. Chemical compounds have a unique and defined chemical structure; they consist of a fixed ratio of atoms that are held together in a defined spatial arrangement by chemical bonds.
Blood is not a pure chemical substance. It is a mixture that changes its composition almost constantly. The process of drying changes the ratio between the numbers of atoms of each element.
Stuart
Well, then is it consisting of several compounds?
A blood clot contains very large number of compounds mixed together, which is the point. Your blood clot starting point for humans cannot reasonably be called the beginning of life because the combination of compounds that makes up the mixture would come about before that point, and the fact remains (as demonstrated by endogenous retroviruses and molecular clock data) that humans have many non-human ancestors.Stuart
So then blood is complex and a combination of specific compounds that don't naturally form?Quote (bodhitharta @ Oct. 30 2010,12:48) Quote (Stu @ Oct. 30 2010,11:17) Quote (bodhitharta @ Oct. 30 2010,09:44) Quote (Stu @ Oct. 30 2010,06:39) Quote (bodhitharta @ Oct. 29 2010,20:29) Quote (Stu @ Oct. 29 2010,17:10) Quote (bodhitharta @ Oct. 29 2010,05:39) Quote (Stu @ Oct. 28 2010,22:58) But blood is not a chemical compound, it is a mixture of different kinds of cells suspended in plasma, and a clot is a chemical cooperation between cells. Even if you ignore concepts of abiogenesis, science can go a lot further back than the appearance of clotting mechanisms, and it can provide explanations which the blood clots myth does not, especially when you consider that myth it in its koranic context. Stuart
Wouldn't that make it a “compund”?
No.Stuart
How do you define Compound?
The Holy Wikipedia has this:A chemical compound is a pure chemical substance consisting of two or more different chemical elements that can be separated into simpler substances by chemical reactions. Chemical compounds have a unique and defined chemical structure; they consist of a fixed ratio of atoms that are held together in a defined spatial arrangement by chemical bonds.
Blood is not a pure chemical substance. It is a mixture that changes its composition almost constantly. The process of drying changes the ratio between the numbers of atoms of each element.
Stuart
Well, then is it consisting of several compounds?
A blood clot contains very large number of compounds mixed together, which is the point. Your blood clot starting point for humans cannot reasonably be called the beginning of life because the combination of compounds that makes up the mixture would come about before that point, and the fact remains (as demonstrated by endogenous retroviruses and molecular clock data) that humans have many non-human ancestors.Stuart
So then blood is complex and a combination of specific compounds that don't naturally form?
No, it is a result of natural selection, so it is a natural occurrence.Let's not forget that it is not me who has made specific claims about the importance of blood clots in a human origins myth, so it is not up to me to disprove anything; the burden of proof does not lie with me.
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Oct. 30 2010,13:09) Quote (bodhitharta @ Oct. 30 2010,12:48) Quote (Stu @ Oct. 30 2010,11:17) Quote (bodhitharta @ Oct. 30 2010,09:44) Quote (Stu @ Oct. 30 2010,06:39) Quote (bodhitharta @ Oct. 29 2010,20:29) Quote (Stu @ Oct. 29 2010,17:10) Quote (bodhitharta @ Oct. 29 2010,05:39) Quote (Stu @ Oct. 28 2010,22:58) But blood is not a chemical compound, it is a mixture of different kinds of cells suspended in plasma, and a clot is a chemical cooperation between cells. Even if you ignore concepts of abiogenesis, science can go a lot further back than the appearance of clotting mechanisms, and it can provide explanations which the blood clots myth does not, especially when you consider that myth it in its koranic context. Stuart
Wouldn't that make it a “compund”?
No.Stuart
How do you define Compound?
The Holy Wikipedia has this:A chemical compound is a pure chemical substance consisting of two or more different chemical elements that can be separated into simpler substances by chemical reactions. Chemical compounds have a unique and defined chemical structure; they consist of a fixed ratio of atoms that are held together in a defined spatial arrangement by chemical bonds.
Blood is not a pure chemical substance. It is a mixture that changes its composition almost constantly. The process of drying changes the ratio between the numbers of atoms of each element.
Stuart
Well, then is it consisting of several compounds?
A blood clot contains very large number of compounds mixed together, which is the point. Your blood clot starting point for humans cannot reasonably be called the beginning of life because the combination of compounds that makes up the mixture would come about before that point, and the fact remains (as demonstrated by endogenous retroviruses and molecular clock data) that humans have many non-human ancestors.Stuart
So then blood is complex and a combination of specific compounds that don't naturally form?
No, it is a result of natural selection, so it is a natural occurrence.Let's not forget that it is not me who has made specific claims about the importance of blood clots in a human origins myth, so it is not up to me to disprove anything; the burden of proof does not lie with me.
Stuart
So there was some sort of pre-blood fluid that ran through animal life?Or have all insects and animals always had actual blood?
This is all irrelevant.
You said humans were made from clotted blood. Can you explain your claim, or might it be that if you cannot explain it then you should question why you claimed it in the first place?
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Oct. 30 2010,15:27) This is all irrelevant. You said humans were made from clotted blood. Can you explain your claim, or might it be that if you cannot explain it then you should question why you claimed it in the first place?
Stuart
I already explained to you that I did not know but I deferred to you about the unque quality of blood and it hasn't seemed to evolve or has it?Quote (bodhitharta @ Oct. 30 2010,16:31) Quote (Stu @ Oct. 30 2010,15:27) This is all irrelevant. You said humans were made from clotted blood. Can you explain your claim, or might it be that if you cannot explain it then you should question why you claimed it in the first place?
Stuart
I already explained to you that I did not know but I deferred to you about the unque quality of blood and it hasn't seemed to evolve or has it?
Which unique quality do you mean?Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Oct. 30 2010,16:33) Quote (bodhitharta @ Oct. 30 2010,16:31) Quote (Stu @ Oct. 30 2010,15:27) This is all irrelevant. You said humans were made from clotted blood. Can you explain your claim, or might it be that if you cannot explain it then you should question why you claimed it in the first place?
Stuart
I already explained to you that I did not know but I deferred to you about the unque quality of blood and it hasn't seemed to evolve or has it?
Which unique quality do you mean?Stuart
It's life giving qualities, did that evolve?Quote (bodhitharta @ Oct. 30 2010,22:21) Quote (Stu @ Oct. 30 2010,16:33) Quote (bodhitharta @ Oct. 30 2010,16:31) Quote (Stu @ Oct. 30 2010,15:27) This is all irrelevant. You said humans were made from clotted blood. Can you explain your claim, or might it be that if you cannot explain it then you should question why you claimed it in the first place?
Stuart
I already explained to you that I did not know but I deferred to you about the unque quality of blood and it hasn't seemed to evolve or has it?
Which unique quality do you mean?Stuart
It's life giving qualities, did that evolve?
That is begging the question of whether blood has life-GIVING properties, which is the assertion you are already making.You are on a fishing expedition here. If you cannot already explain HOW blood can be used to give rise to humans then maybe the better option is to withdraw the claim until you can.
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Oct. 31 2010,09:37) Quote (bodhitharta @ Oct. 30 2010,22:21) Quote (Stu @ Oct. 30 2010,16:33) Quote (bodhitharta @ Oct. 30 2010,16:31) Quote (Stu @ Oct. 30 2010,15:27) This is all irrelevant. You said humans were made from clotted blood. Can you explain your claim, or might it be that if you cannot explain it then you should question why you claimed it in the first place?
Stuart
I already explained to you that I did not know but I deferred to you about the unque quality of blood and it hasn't seemed to evolve or has it?
Which unique quality do you mean?Stuart
It's life giving qualities, did that evolve?
That is begging the question of whether blood has life-GIVING properties, which is the assertion you are already making.You are on a fishing expedition here. If you cannot already explain HOW blood can be used to give rise to humans then maybe the better option is to withdraw the claim until you can.
Stuart
I asked you did blood evolve and yes it must have life giving properties otherwise we could bleed out and drink water and electrolytes and still live.Quote (bodhitharta @ Oct. 31 2010,09:41) Quote (Stu @ Oct. 31 2010,09:37) Quote (bodhitharta @ Oct. 30 2010,22:21) Quote (Stu @ Oct. 30 2010,16:33) Quote (bodhitharta @ Oct. 30 2010,16:31) Quote (Stu @ Oct. 30 2010,15:27) This is all irrelevant. You said humans were made from clotted blood. Can you explain your claim, or might it be that if you cannot explain it then you should question why you claimed it in the first place?
Stuart
I already explained to you that I did not know but I deferred to you about the unque quality of blood and it hasn't seemed to evolve or has it?
Which unique quality do you mean?Stuart
It's life giving qualities, did that evolve?
That is begging the question of whether blood has life-GIVING properties, which is the assertion you are already making.You are on a fishing expedition here. If you cannot already explain HOW blood can be used to give rise to humans then maybe the better option is to withdraw the claim until you can.
Stuart
I asked you did blood evolve and yes it must have life giving properties otherwise we could bleed out and drink water and electrolytes and still live.
So your question is whether the life-sustaining functions of blood evolved, not life-giving. The distinction would not normally be important but in this case you are already claiming that blood gives rise to life.So, do you mean life-sustaining, and if so, the evolution of which function of blood are you particularly interested in? There are so many that entire books could be written on the subject.
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Oct. 31 2010,10:01) Quote (bodhitharta @ Oct. 31 2010,09:41) Quote (Stu @ Oct. 31 2010,09:37) Quote (bodhitharta @ Oct. 30 2010,22:21) Quote (Stu @ Oct. 30 2010,16:33) Quote (bodhitharta @ Oct. 30 2010,16:31) Quote (Stu @ Oct. 30 2010,15:27) This is all irrelevant. You said humans were made from clotted blood. Can you explain your claim, or might it be that if you cannot explain it then you should question why you claimed it in the first place?
Stuart
I already explained to you that I did not know but I deferred to you about the unque quality of blood and it hasn't seemed to evolve or has it?
Which unique quality do you mean?Stuart
It's life giving qualities, did that evolve?
That is begging the question of whether blood has life-GIVING properties, which is the assertion you are already making.You are on a fishing expedition here. If you cannot already explain HOW blood can be used to give rise to humans then maybe the better option is to withdraw the claim until you can.
Stuart
I asked you did blood evolve and yes it must have life giving properties otherwise we could bleed out and drink water and electrolytes and still live.
So your question is whether the life-sustaining functions of blood evolved, not life-giving. The distinction would not normally be important but in this case you are already claiming that blood gives rise to life.So, do you mean life-sustaining, and if so, the evolution of which function of blood are you particularly interested in? There are so many that entire books could be written on the subject.
Stuart
Whenever “Blood” would have been considered vital for life
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
