While you guys might view SwordOfGod as a bit unorthodox, nevertheless the Bible DOES say that grasshoppers have legs for jumping and legs for walking.
Quite astonishing for "desert nomad goat herders with an IQ of -100"
Scientists didn't even know that until recently.
Also remember when scientists used to think bloodletting was a viable option? Yet, the Bible states that the life is in the blood. In the Bible for thousands of years and ignored by scientists until they saw it didn't work.
Something based on observing nature like counting an insect's legs, should not be a stretch for any group. Ancient people like the Mayans figured out a lot of advanced stuff by observing nature and keeping accurate records. If the Middle Eastern desert nomads had never seen or heard of a grasshopper and yet knew accurate things about them, I would consider it strange, possibly even miraculous. I will chalk up the number of legs problem to translation errors, because who can't count to six?
But I won't continue the grasshopper discussion, because you have decided that if the bible says it, whatever it is, it has to be accurate and true. Even if it is neither, and you have to twist words to change their meaning. I don't have any such bias. If the bible is basically true in some places, I have no problem with that. The bible is a compilation drawn from lots of different sources and some of them were correct. Even a broken clock is right sometimes.
Now, that part about scientists advocating bloodletting is clearly not accurate. If people are just trying anything and everything in an unsystematic scattershot fashion, and not even keeping records as to the outcomes, you can't call it science
. Science is based on applying a rational, systematic method to try to determine what appears to be true. The European "heroic medicine" of the Middle Ages up through the 19th century was not rational or systematic, and certainly not scientific.
Bloodletting was based on desperation and ignorance of what caused sickness--the bible evidently neglected to tell people a few sentences about how to determine what works by using the scientific method, basic hygiene and the importance of boiling water, (ie germ theory) or even a list of helpful herbs and useful medicines, as opposed to spending hundreds of pages discussing forbidden foods, magic rituals and evil spirits.
To be considered scientific, the result--or something very like the result-- has to be repeatable, and has to work when different people do it. And the outcome has to be better than random chance. So, one person with leprosy getting better from prayer or by applying bird's blood or being touched by a magic healing person could just be coincidence or one lucky event.
People have tried all kinds of unlikely things to treat illness, because they were ignorant, desperate, and because the prayers, rituals and instructions from various religions did not work consistently
! If people had found the instructions in the bible--like praying a certain way or to certain beings or to apply bird's blood, or to be touched by the magic healing person-- to be consistently effective in treating illness, we would never have needed to develop the scientific method. We would all just pray the right way to the right being, apply bird's blood or let the magic healing person touch us and get well.
Modern medical science is about figuring out what works
better than random chance-- and works not just once, but consistently, and for lots of people. However, that is only part of it. Some things ancient societies observed and practiced turned out to be scientifically accurate, like using willow bark tea for pain. That led to the discovery of aspirin. But until you do controlled tests
and, ideally, you figure out why it works, you can't say it was scientific, even though it worked.
In order to honestly say that scientists approved of bloodletting
, you would have to show at the very least that somebody did controlled experiments of some sort, and compared the results of patients treated by bloodletting with controls who were not so treated. And that ideally, these people figured out the connection, if any, between bloodletting and disease.
If scientists had found that bloodletting worked in the treatment of a certain disease, then we would still be doing that today. And, surprise surprise, after doing actual science, we found that bloodletting--while harmful in most general cases-- is useful for some specific diseases!
As it turns out, you are doubly wrong. Life is not in the blood. Iron, and sometimes too much iron, is in the blood. Bloodletting, done unscientifically
does harm, but when used scientifically
, it does work.
Could you save us all a lot of time and look sh!t up (and not just in religious sources) before you post ignorant statements? Or would that limit you too much?