Creation vs. Evolution

[KieranMurphy]

There is also no way to ever prove how the universe was created, so why do we guess in a science class? I'm saying if we're going to guess, lets look at ALL the possibilities. That's all...

There's nothing wrong with teaching students current scientific theories of how or why the universe exists. If a theory is genuinely controversial or has yet to be confirmed experimentally or observationally, then make that clear in the science class.

But Creationism simply isn't a scientific theory. It's not even a coherent theory. Are we talking about Young Earth Creationism which insist that geologists, astronomers, archaeologists, linguists, evolutionary biologists, etc. are all wrong when they talk of things that 50,000 years old or events that happened millions of years ago? What about Old Earth Creationism which agrees that the universe is indeed billions of years old but that evolution isn't a valid scientific theory? What about Theistic Evolutionism which is a religious idea that accepts that evolution is obviously a valid scientific idea with mountains of evidence to back it up, but that it was God's method or creating life, or that God set the initial conditions in place for evolution to happen, knowing how it would unfold? Maybe we should also teach Muslim Young Earth Creationism. Or Hindu Old Earth Creationism which says that people have been around for hundreds of millions of years.

The Raelians are a group who believe that life was seeded on earth by aliens who genetically engineered humans. Let's see Creationists pushing to have that alternative taught in science classes. It's about as scientifically valid as the kind of Young Earth Creationism that some lobbyists want taught in schools.


KM.

 

[Famine]

And if you want to piss Creationists off, mention the Raelians.

 

[Pako]

Too bad theres no real documented evidance cited and reviewed by others. And I've been an avid follower of the Discovery Channel; the supposed osuary of Jesus' brother, David (I think that was his name) was just proved to be a fake and is no longer at the Royal Ontario Museum.

No real documented evidence cited and reviewed by others? You can't be serious can you? Scholars have been studying the scriptures of the Bible for a very long time. The Bible is real documented evidence that millions of people read and accept every single day. Every time I touch it, feel it, read it......it seems like pretty real documentation to me. People have tried to prove the Bible to be fiction/myth by comparing out of context content to try and show contradictions that can't be explained. If you want to go there, fine, it's already been explained at length and if you want to find fault in something, you probably will. In looking at the scriptures in context, however, it paints a much different picture.

So, read the evidence before you or ignore it. It's your choice to take or leave it, but the proof is in the puddin ’.

 

[Pako]

Answer this though, why can't I believe in both? Why must it be set in stone that it's either creationism or evolution with no two ways around it? The way I see it, evolution/natural selection is all part of the will of God.

I have often thought this myself. I see science as proving God's existence with answering all the "How'd he do that?" questions.

 

[Pako]

There's nothing wrong with teaching students current scientific theories of how or why the universe exists. If a theory is genuinely controversial or has yet to be confirmed experimentally or observationally, then make that clear in the science class.

But Creationism simply isn't a scientific theory. It's not even a coherent theory. Are we talking about Young Earth Creationism which insist that geologists, astronomers, archaeologists, linguists, evolutionary biologists, etc. are all wrong when they talk of things that 50,000 years old or events that happened millions of years ago? What about Old Earth Creationism which agrees that the universe is indeed billions of years old but that evolution isn't a valid scientific theory? What about Theistic Evolutionism which is a religious idea that accepts that evolution is obviously a valid scientific idea with mountains of evidence to back it up, but that it was God's method or creating life, or that God set the initial conditions in place for evolution to happen, knowing how it would unfold? Maybe we should also teach Muslim Young Earth Creationism. Or Hindu Old Earth Creationism which says that people have been around for hundreds of millions of years.

The Raelians are a group who believe that life was seeded on earth by aliens who genetically engineered humans. Let's see Creationists pushing to have that alternative taught in science classes. It's about as scientifically valid as the kind of Young Earth Creationism that some lobbyists want taught in schools.


KM.

Why in science class don't we just say, "We really don't know how the universe was started.......".

I have never seen it presented that way. It has always been, "This is how it happens........", then at the end of a semester they tell you, "And that's what we speculate…...". I have nothing against science, yeah to science! It's the curriculum and how it's presented that I have a problem with. Maybe it’s different now, I haven’t looked at public school curriculum for science in 14 years, so maybe they don’t present it this way anymore…..Poor selection by the school in my opinion.

Honestly, they teach this guess work as fact, but ignore all other possibilities....that's all I'm saying.

 

[code_kev]

Why in science class don't we just say, "We really don't know how the universe was started.......".

That's why it's called a theory. Some times they are just accepted as the evidence is over whelming, such as the Dinos dying out 65 million years ago, the Earth OBVIOUSLY being over 6 thousand years old (don't even mention calenders), as I said before, they would believe the moon was made of banana skins if the bible said so.

I love the fact that creationists can never explain why you never find the remains of modern animals with dinosaurs. Odd that...hahahahahaha. Also does the bible mention the ice age at all, or do the creationist deny that too?

There is also no way to ever prove how the universe was created, so why do we guess in a science class? I'm saying if we're going to guess, lets look at ALL the possibilities. That's all...

I for one trust modern scientists over some story tellers a few thousand year ago. Lets also look at the possibility that God, if he exists had NOTHING to do with the bible, and it was wrote by random people, with a rough knowledge in history.

 

[Tacet_Blue]

Lets also look at the possibility that God, if he exists had NOTHING to do with the bible, and it was wrote by random people, with a rough knowledge in history.

That's a very real possibility

It was put together in its modern form by a Roman Emperor in AD600 and called the Codex Vaticanas.
The pre AD600 Bible would be unrecognisable to the people here...it certainly had no verse and chapter numbers. The Romans liked organisation and created all those Chapter II Verse XI things, and it has remained in that form since.

Why anyone would think that a Roman Emperor's version of the Bible is the word of God does not compute

Edit: Age of Codex is estimated to be AD500..not 600. Don't mention Calendars it's the same one used by Biblical Scholars

 

[Pako]

That's a very real possibility

It was put together in its modern form by a Roman Emperor in AD600 and called the Codex Vaticanas.
The pre AD600 Bible would be unrecognisable to the people here...it certainly had no verse and chapter numbers. The Romans liked organisation and created all those Chapter II Verse XI things, and it has remained in that form since.

Why anyone would think that a Roman Emperor's version of the Bible is the word of God does not compute

Edit: Age of Codex is estimated to be AD500..not 600. Don't mention Calendars it's the same one used by Biblical Scholars

You keep on trying to bait a debate over calendars..... Speak your mind already, I'm sure it will be good.

 

[Duke]

You keep on trying to bait a debate over calendars..... Speak your mind already, I'm sure it will be good.

That's in response to Brian/MrktMkr, who was stuck on the issue of calendars for a while.

 

[Pako]

My bad, guess we don't need to revisit that one....

https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/search.php?searchid=314633

 

[code_kev]

Why don't you find modern day animals buried along side dinosaurs? Why do they allways avoid this question...*titter*. I just want to hear their GREAT explanation!

"well umm noah...didn't errr like dinosaurs, and uhhh God...buried them...and aged them...too ughhhh test our faith, HOW DARE THEE QUESTION GOD!!!11. And then he fossilised them...and uhhh scientists LIE, yes that's it, now excuse me, I'm going to read my fundie website, made by people with zero scientific knowledge. I'll believe anything in a religious context, no matter how ridiculous! Who needs real scientists when I have a book wrote by sheep farmers who believed in magic, they have all the answers I need."

Wow this makes me sound like a total asshole. I'm not, I do respect religion, I just don't respect those who blindly follow lies.

 

[Pako]

Why don't you find modern day animals buried along side dinosaurs? Why do they allways avoid this question...*titter*. I just want to hear their GREAT explanation!

"well umm noah...didn't errr like dinosaurs, and uhhh God...buried them...and aged them...too ughhhh test our faith, HOW DARE THEE QUESTION GOD!!!11. And then he fossilised them...and uhhh scientists LIE, yes that's it, now excuse me, I'm going to read my fundie website, made by people with zero scientific knowledge. I'll believe anything in a religious context, no matter how ridiculous! Who needs real scientists when I have a book wrote by sheep farmers who believed in magic, they have all the answers I need."

Wow this makes me sound like a total asshole. I'm not, I do respect religion, I just don't respect those who blindly follow lies.

Why do you think there aren’t any modern day animals found with dinosaur fossils?

Through our different methods of dating, we have been able to map when different species of animals existed.

Or....to play the advocate, find the Garden of Eden and start digging.
Or....on the 5th afternoon, God created the great beasts to roam the earth and after he saw they we're eating everything in site, he killed them all off knowing that his future creation made in his own image could use the fossil fuel.

There are always going to be questions that we won't have answers to, but it's great that your thinking about the questions!

 

[Tacet_Blue]

You keep on trying to bait a debate over calendars..... Speak your mind already, I'm sure it will be good.

Yep...what the Duke said

I'm trying to avoid the debate, I 'm hoping now that we are all in agreement about BC being "Before Christ" and AD being "in the year of our Lord" or Anno Domini. I have been using dates provided by serious Biblical Scholars, that date Noahs Flood to be around 900BC only to be told "on what Calendar".

I accept that the 6 days thing could be 6 thousand years, as God's days might be a little longer than ours but when it comes to dating events...we are all using the same Calendar now..( I hope ), which is the Gregorian one...(Roman again...also the Latin Anno Domini is Roman too...coincidence?)

The article about the evidence of a massive flood in the Black Sea is very interesting, but I was pointing out the miss match in dates...that shouldn't over shadow it's importance, as there was an advanced civilisation that was wiped out because of it. That I find fascinating. Civilisation is older than we may have thought...

 

[PS]

NO FAULT DISCLAIMER: Under no circumstance, are the views herein to be taken seriously or with ill intent. These posts do not necessarily express the views and/or opinions of the poster and holds no liability according to the "No Fault Clause" of 1976. This is to insure that nothing that anyone states, in written word or otherwise, will be held responsible for anything they may have said or wanted to say. Furthermore, these posts do not necessarily express the views or opinions of the site or anyone else on the site or the entire universe for that matter. If you read this much so far, then I must have really captured your attention, as this was not meant be read, but rather just to protect me against malicious attacks of any above said statements.

So we should just disregard everything in your argument now, then? Oh should we take it in to consideration but not take it seriously or hold you to your word?

And btw, your sig is 10 lines long.

 

[Danoff]

Or....on the 5th afternoon, God created the great beasts to roam the earth and after he saw they we're eating everything in site, he killed them all off knowing that his future creation made in his own image could use the fossil fuel.

...and when people started dying 30 years (or 1000 years or however long you think people lived in the garden of eden) later? Why is it that there is such an ungodly amount of time between dinos and even early rocks and when the oldest human remains are dated?

 

[Swift]

Yeah, that's right. I'm back.

Ok, this is stupid. This thread is totally ridiculous. Why? Because you're not arguing equal concepts. Creationism tells the entire story while evolotion simply rides on another theory.

You simply can't compare them. I find it utterly laughable that you all are going into such details as dinosaurs. Oh yeah, they existed. But dang, who cares. According to the evolutionary theory that I've been lead to understand, they aren't even part of our "family tree" So just drop it.

Let's try this. How about instead of talking about the beginning, let's talk about what should be tought in schools. I believe that both angle should be tought to give the children the oppurtunity to choose. Children aren't as dumb as most people would like to think. They will figure out what's right for them.

Talking about dinosaurs and calendars is just downright dumb.

 

[ledhed]

Swift you can teach Creation in a class for religion . You cant teach it in science class because its not science..in science you need proof . in science class you have to sweat the little details like dinosuars.

 

[Danoff]

Swift you can teach Creation in a class for religion . You cant teach it in science class because its not science..in science you need proof . in science class you have to sweat the little details like dinosuars.

👍

 

[Swift]

Swift you can teach Creation in a class for religion . You cant teach it in science class because its not science..in science you need proof . in science class you have to sweat the little details like dinosuars.

If you go buy pure scientific evidence. Evolution is a theory. It's NOT a fact. So, how can you teach a theory as fact without showing alternatives? Huh?

Man, Our brains are so finite that we have to put everything in terms we can understand. Did it even cross any of your minds that the creation of life and this galaxy is simply beyond our comprehension? Nope, I forgot. You only believe what you can see or what you can put in your hand.

 

[Famine]

I find it utterly laughable that you all are going into such details as dinosaurs. Oh yeah, they existed. But dang, who cares.

Meaning "Creationism cannot and does not explain them, so I will discount any argument containing them."

Come on, Swift. In any discussion about what happened in the past you need to explore the past. If you're going to throw out any piece of the jigsaw which doesn't fit your preconceived ideas, we're not going to get anywhere, are we? Preconceived ideas = unscientific.

I should imagine that paleontologists care.

If you go by pure scientific evidence. Evolution is a theory. It's NOT a fact. So, how can you teach a theory as fact without showing alternatives? Huh?

A theory which has a vast amount of... pure scientific evidence behind it. In fact everything in science IS a theory, rather than fact - and as I said earlier, you're happy to use the results of the scientific method to be on this site. What makes this section of the scientific method valid and the section dealing with things you don't agree with invalid?

If you're going to teach alternatives - in a science class - which do not have any basis in science, you may as well cancel all school because any idea which anyone has to explain anything is, according to your above argument, as valid as anything with vast amounts of scientific evidence to back it up.

Imagine Swiftschools:

"Why?"
"Because."
"Cool!"

Still, at least you'd have the best-educated kids on Earth - no-one would ever get anything but 100% in any test.

 

[Touring Mars]

Let's try this. How about instead of talking about the beginning, let's talk about what should be tought in schools. I believe that both angle should be tought to give the children the oppurtunity to choose. Children aren't as dumb as most people would like to think. They will figure out what's right for them.

That's pretty much the only reason I care about this whole debate... because I firmly believe that Creationism has no place in our schools... and the U.S. Supreme Court agrees. I'm not against teaching religious education in schools, or having an open debate about the origins of life, but 'Creationist Theory' as it stands is simply nonsense, and should not be considered as complementary to Evolution theory as a Science. By all means, teach children that Science cannot answer many questions about where we came from, but by the same token, 'Creationism' actually tries to pass off as fact things that are just simply untrue. By all means teach children about the values that the Bible and various religions stand for, but do not feed them with falsehoods like 'the Earth is actually 6000 years old' and that Dinosaur fossils are not really millions of years old. Creationism doesn't make the message of the Bible any clearer... if you're going to teach children the value of the Bible, atleast do it properly, and omit the creationist nonsense..

 

[Swift]

That's pretty much the only reason I care about this whole debate... because I firmly believe that Creationism has no place in our schools... and the U.S. Supreme Court agrees. I'm not against teaching religious education in schools, or having an open debate about the origins of life, but 'Creationist Theory' as it stands is simply nonsense, and should not be considered as complementary to Evolution theory as a Science. By all means, teach children that Science cannot answer many questions about where we came from, but by the same token, 'Creationism' actually tries to pass off as fact things that are just simply untrue. By all means teach children about the values that the Bible and various religions stand for, but do not feed them with falsehoods like 'the Earth is actually 6000 years old' and that Dinosaur fossils are not really millions of years old. Creationism doesn't make the message of the Bible any clearer... if you're going to teach children the value of the Bible, atleast do it properly, and omit the creationist nonsense..

First, I'm really getting tired of people calling the bible untrue and not be able to disprove it. If you don't believe in it, fine. But don't call it a lie and call it a day. If I did that to the evolutionary theory, I'd be called a closed-minded fundie that can't except reality. But when you refute the bible with no evidence, it's just being scientific.

Second, the supreme court has ruled on things before that were wrong and fundamentally unjust. Like seperate but equal. it was later overturned, but they let it happen for a good long while.

Third, the word of God is not something you can just pick and choose what you want to be truth and what is nonesense. Either you believe it or you don't. If you don't, cool, but stop ragging on it just because it has as many or more wholes then the Evolutionist theory.

Meaning "Creationism cannot and does not explain them, so I will discount any argument containing them."

I should imagine that paleontologists care.

A theory which has a vast amount of... pure scientific evidence behind it. In fact everything in science IS a theory, rather than fact - and as I said earlier, you're happy to use the results of the scientific method to be on this site. What makes this section of the scientific method valid and the section dealing with things you don't agree with invalid?

If you're going to teach alternatives - in a science class - which do not have any basis in science, you may as well cancel all school because any idea which anyone has to explain anything is, according to your above argument, as valid as anything with vast amounts of scientific evidence to back it up.

Imagine Swiftschools:

"Why?"
"Because."
"Cool!"

Still, at least you'd have the best-educated kids on Earth - no-one would ever get anything but 100% in any test.

Ok, fine. Why did the dinos die? Do you even know for sure?

And who said teaching about the origin of man in science class? I certainly didn't. I just said tought in general.

That was so funny about the Swiftschool thing. Quite frankly your everybit as narrowminded as you claim me to be. Everything that I have stated or believe in I can prove from the word of God. I don't believe it because I say it. I don't believe it because my pastor says it. I believe it because the word of God says it and I have a personal relationship with Jesus.

So, what you're saying is that if anyone has a concept of "hey, science CAN'T exlpain this. " you will refute it because it's not scientific?

 

[smoovejas]

By all means teach children about the values that the Bible and various religions stand for, but do not feed them with falsehoods like 'the Earth is actually 6000 years old' and that Dinosaur fossils are not really millions of years old.

How would you teach the values of the Bible and say that children should follow them, but omit the other truths that it teaches? If you believe that what the Bible teaches is good for our children, then all of it should be taught. I understand what the Supreme Court is doing, but there is no reason to pick and choose the verses that we want to believe in the Bible. You will either believe in what the Bible says, or you will not.

 

[Tacet_Blue]

Did it even cross any of your minds that the creation of life and this galaxy is simply beyond our comprehension? Nope, I forgot. You only believe what you can see or what you can put in your hand.

Galaxy?! Do you mean universe...or is there one God in charge of each Galaxy.

If you are going to teach a religious story in a science class, then why stop at Christianity. You claim that the Bible is the only proof you need, as it is the "Word of God", well, here are some more books that all claim to be the "Word of God", they all have their own story on the creation.

Bhagavad Gita
Bahai Texts
Buddhist Texts
Confucian Texts
Corpus Hermeticum
Divrei Torah
Enuma Elish
Ethiopian Texts
The Egyptian Book of the Dead
Hindu Texts
Islamic Texts
Jain Texts
1st and 2nd Books of Jeu
Mormon Texts
Nag Hammadi Texts
Pistis Sophia
Taoist Texts
Sepher Yetzirah
Shinto Texts
Sikh Texts
Tibetan Book of the Dead
Urantia Book
Zen Texts
Zoroastrian Texts

Should we teach them all in Science
An example creation myth:

In the beginning there was darkness everywhere, and Chaos ruled. Within the darkness there formed an egg, and inside the egg the giant Pangu came into being. For aeons, safely inside the egg, Pangu slept and grew. When he had grown to gigantic size he stretched his huge limbs and in so doing broke the egg. The lighter parts of the egg floated upwards to form the heavens and the denser parts sank downwards, to become the earth. And so was formed earth and sky, Yin and Yang.

Pangu died, and his body went to make the world and all its elements. The wind and clouds were formed from his breath, his voice was thunder and lightning, his eyes became the sun and moon, his arms and his legs became the four directions of the compass and his trunk became the mountains. His flesh turned into the soil and the trees that grow on it, his blood into the rivers that flow and his veins into paths men travel. His body hair became the grass and herbs, and his skin the same, while precious stones and minerals were formed from his bones and teeth. His sweat became the dew and the hair of his head became the stars that trail throughout heaven. As for the parasites on his body, these became the divers races of humankind.

Edit: the point of that story is, just because you don't believe it, doesn't make it untrue, and can you disprove it?

 

[Touring Mars]

Did it even cross any of your minds that the creation of life and this galaxy is simply beyond our comprehension? Nope, I forgot. You only believe what you can see or what you can put in your hand.

Of course it does... any scientist will say that the REAL origins of life and of the Universe will almost certainly remain a mystery... so why do Creationists feel the need to invent the 'truth'?

And besides, Creationists are actually talking about the origins of Earth too.. they seem to be saying that Earth and the rest of the universe were created at the same time... in a funny way, they're right... the atoms were made at the same time... but as a celestial body, the Earth is far younger than the age of the Universe.... now that is scientific fact, and there is literally billions of tonnes of evidence to prove it.

In any case, you guys are missing my point slightly... I'm opposed to teaching Creationist Theory in schools because I do not see why Creation Theory is necessary. It doesn't add anything to the value of the Bible or the teachings of religion one little bit. Creationism is close-minded. It is their interpretation of the Bible that I believe is wrong, and not anyone elses... Do you really think that the Bible is meant to be taken absolutely literally, word for word? Creationist Theory does, but I (for one) do not. Surely there is content in the Bible that is intended to be metaphorical, figurative, allusionary or otherwise not exactly literal?..... it doesn't make it any less meaningful... but saying that the whole Bible is literal fact is, unfortunately, just a matter of opinion, and that is what Creationist theory can only ever be... one possible interpretation, one opinion... should we teach children our opinions? Why don't we just tell them who to vote for while we're at it..? By the same token, Evolution Theory is also one possible interpretation, but it is a framework for understanding the mechanism behind irrefutably established scientific facts... therefore, teach the facts, and allow the individual to develop their own theories and opinions...

The Bible (to my limited knowledge) is full very useful moral messages and first hand accounts of actual historical events... but that is not up for question. Even the most devout skeptic will agree with that... the argument is not about the value of the Bible or Scripture. Its about a small but vocal minority who think that their interpretation is more valuable than everyone elses.

So meet us half way here... why defend Creationists who flatly refuse to accept that their interpretation is misguided?

How would you teach the values of the Bible and say that children should follow them, but omit the other truths that it teaches? If you believe that what the Bible teaches is good for our children, then all of it should be taught. I understand what the Supreme Court is doing, but there is no reason to pick and choose the verses that we want to believe in the Bible. You will either believe in what the Bible says, or you will not.

By all means teach children what the Bible says... by all means discuss what it is supposed to mean... but don't teach them that Genesis is literal fact when it isn't. It doesn't need to be. It gets the point over quite well in a metaphorical way... that the event of Creation is a mysterious and awesome thing. Why then invent a shroud of pseudoscientific nonsense to try to explain exactly how it happened?

 

[Famine]

Ok, fine. Why did the dinos die? Do you even know for sure?

Nope. Hence the phrase:

In fact everything in science IS a theory, rather than fact

Does the Bible have any point of view on how the dinosaurs died out?

And who said teaching about the origin of man in science class? I certainly didn't. I just said tought in general.

Well, you SAID:

Evolution is a theory. It's NOT a fact. So, how can you teach a theory as fact without showing alternatives? Huh?

Which hints that you believe that where evolution is taught, alternatives to evolution should be taught alongside it. And you teach scientific theory in what classes?


Again, what alternatives do you advocate teaching?

Everything that I have stated or believe in I can prove from the word of God.

Which is of course proof of itself. Or something.

And yet you say you don't NEED proof, because religion isn't scientific - but here you are again, citing that you can prove things written in a book are true because they're written in the book.

So, what you're saying is that if anyone has a concept of "hey, science CAN'T exlpain this. " you will refute it because it's not scientific?

I said that where now?

There's lots of things science currently has either no ability or a limited ability to explain. But they are researched using the scientific method.

I say again, you trust the scientific method enough as it is - for the computer you're at, the chair you're sitting on and even the technology used to produce the pages of the Bible you read. And yet when the scientific method crosses the path of something you believe in and says it is unlikely to be true, you throw science out of the window and rail against scientists for being "narrow-minded" and "ignorant" (yet more Ad Hominems). Do you not see the inherent conflict in believing in science when you want to yet decrying the SAME science when you don't want to believe it?

 

[Swift]

Your current tone is that if it can't go through the scientific method, then it's not true. That's what you've been saying and has been your argument. Like all the references to the internet and what not. You know, science can be wrong. It used to be thought that you had to bleed the "bad blood" out of a person to make them better. That was medical science was it not? Just because it whent through the scientific method doesn't guarantee it's validity.

 

[Famine]

It used to be thought that you had to bleed the "bad blood" out of a person to make them better. That was medical science was it not?

Yes. Remind me of all the peer-reviewed papers and double-blinded studies that were done in the 11th Century that proved this.

Oh, right.

Just because it whent through the scientific method doesn't
guarantee it's validity.

No, it guarantees its scientific validity.

Aaaand, now I've answered your questions, will you be so kind as to answer mine?

 

[Tacet_Blue]

It used to be thought that you had to bleed the "bad blood" out of a person to make them better. That was medical science was it not?

You realise that Leeches are being once again used in hospitals...their anticoagulant properties have proved invaluable in restoring the blood flow to partially severed hands...and to help skin grafts take hold

 

[Swift]

You realise that Leeches are being once again used in hospitals...their anticoagulant properties have proved invaluable in restoring the blood flow to partially severed hands...and to help skin grafts take hold

Yep, I do knkow that. But I didn't say leeches did I? I just said bleeding. And in any case, they are used for a different purpose then what I was talking about. So, that's really not too relevant to what I was saying.