View Full Version : What is Christianity's Weakest Link
PsychoticEpisode
07-13-08, 09:11 PM
Is there a particular part of Christianity that in your opinion brings it down, makes it worthless or even laughing stock?
Many in North America are exposed to it on a daily basis but for some of us the whole religion is poppycock. A Bible full of contradictions, a God that sacrifices His own son(sort of), plus several events and personages that do more than raise an eyebrow.
Even a believer may have an opinion on where the religion is weakest. Surely atheists have their own ideas.
lightgigantic
07-13-08, 09:18 PM
in the words of one prominent bishop, the only problem with christianity is that its not practiced properly
thats the problem with religion in general - the higher the values, the less likely people will be able to adhere to it
PsychoticEpisode
07-13-08, 09:31 PM
in the words of one prominent bishop, the only problem with christianity is that its not practiced properly
thats the problem with religion in general - the higher the values, the less likely people will be able to adhere to it
Who sets those values LG? Are they set by the various hierarchy or is it a matter of personal interpretation of scripture? Not trying to be smart, just looking for answers.
lightgigantic
07-13-08, 10:35 PM
Who sets those values LG? Are they set by the various hierarchy or is it a matter of personal interpretation of scripture? Not trying to be smart, just looking for answers.
the values are part of the system of discipline (seven deadly sins, ten commandments etc)
the value of hierarchy is something like the value of maintaining a road. If a road is too poorly maintained you can easily end up going somewhere else if you try to follow it.
Simon Anders
07-13-08, 10:40 PM
that letting himself get crucified was an act of love.
and a good role modeling.
we are still cleaning up that mess.
What is Christianity's Weakest LinkThe story of A&E, without them causing original sin, which they could not have possibly done, the story is so full of holes it could get used as a sponge, all that came after was pointless.
For me the most confusing part is how a Jesus grumbling on his way to the crucifix [for sedition] became a saviour who died for everyone's sins.
S.A.M, Muslims believe in Jesus. The only difference is that they think the wrong person was crucified. IOWs, Jesus fooled them.
Steve100
07-14-08, 01:19 PM
The way that we are meant to love God when evidently he does not love us (if he/she/it exists).
The weakest part of Christianity is the same as any religion - the absence of evidence that might show that the claims have any truth.
The weakest part of Christianity is the same as any religion - the absence of evidence that might show that the claims have any truth.
That is the weakest link in many things. There is no real evidence to confirm evolution. And that is the truth. As a matter of fact evolution has major problems when you get right down to it from the beginning. These are things that cannot be explained and no can answer. So then why should i believe in evolution?
spidergoat
07-14-08, 01:29 PM
The contradictory nature of the Old Testament vs. the New.
I have one for you guys.
Where did blood come from? Sounds like a stupid question, on the surface. But think about it and give me the answer.
And remember - you asked for this.
Let me guide this along. There is no blood in bacteria, you say 'bacteria mutates', i say 'so what'. When did blood appear?
That is the weakest link in many things. There is no real evidence to confirm evolution. And that is the truth. As a matter of fact evolution has major problems when you get right down to it from the beginning. These are things that cannot be explained and no can answer. So then why should i believe in evolution?
So why not give us a few examples of where evolutionary theory falls down rather than make sweeping generalisations.
You say there is no real evidence to confirm evolution. You are wrong.
Beleieve me Myles, i have no religious motivations and i can understand the questions people have. It is a personal choice but i have no interest in religious .vs non-religious.
So why not give us a few examples of where evolutionary theory falls down rather than make sweeping generalisations.
You say there is no real evidence to confirm evolution. You are wrong.
I did not make a sweeping generalization. I asked specifically about blood but you will want to talk about the easy stuff. Even then you need a certain amount of faith to ascribe to simple life forms evolving into extremely complex lifeforms. The thing is that people see bacteria and how powerful they are and assume too many things. And i think that is where the problem is.
I asked about blood but we take it for granted, this fluid that allows organisms to rise to another level.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood
It is just the same and i would be rehashing all my previous posts regarding this issue. I asked questions and no one can answer my questions.
Is there a particular part of Christianity that in your opinion brings it down, makes it worthless or even laughing stock?
Well, in general the "weakest link" is that there isn't really any evidence that any of it is true. Other than a 2000+ year old book that also has stories of talking plants and animals, people surviving in the stomachs of whales, and people magically conjuring things out of thin air.
If you want to talk about specific problems rather than the general lack of evidence that any of it is true, there's the fact that several places in the NT bluntly say that Jesus' second coming will occur some time fairly shortly after his death - within a generation, at least. Since it hasn't happened yet, it appears that the bible is at best impossible to be taken literally. If you took it literally, Jesus would be back by now. Since he hasn’t come back, the bible is either non-literal or wrong.
Beleieve me Myles, i have no religious motivations and i can understand the questions people have. It is a personal choice but i have no interest in religious .vs non-religious.
I did not make a sweeping generalization. I asked specifically about blood but you will want to talk about the easy stuff. Even then you need a certain amount of faith to ascribe to simple life forms evolving into extremely complex lifeforms. The thing is that people see bacteria and how powerful they are and assume too many things. And i think that is where the problem is.
I asked about blood but we take it for granted, this fluid that allows organisms to rise to another level.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood
I am not interested in your religious affiliations . That is entirely your own affair.
But you said , among other things, that there is no evidence to support evolution. That is wrong. I asked you for some examples to support your view.
spidergoat
07-14-08, 03:48 PM
Never mind Myles, what's the deal with the blood?
John,
That is the weakest link in many things. There is no real evidence to confirm evolution. And that is the truth. As a matter of fact evolution has major problems when you get right down to it from the beginning. These are things that cannot be explained and no can answer. So then why should i believe in evolution?I think you are talking about abiogenesis. Evolution is fact, it is the proposed processes of evolution that can be controversial.
But we can see how evolution could be true, my point is that there is no evidence to show how something supernatural could be true. It has no precedent.
Christianity's weakest link is its adherents.
John,
I think you are talking about abiogenesis. Evolution is fact, it is the proposed processes of evolution that can be controversial.
But we can see how evolution could be true, my point is that there is no evidence to show how something supernatural could be true. It has no precedent.
Thanks Chris. I appreciate the honest response. At least you are capable of understanding and acknowledging the problems. This is where belief comes in and of course i respect your beliefs. I am lucky that this stuff is not forced on me, there are people here who have no real interest in science and they beat people over the head with this BS.
If you are talking about the definition of evolution then it is factual.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=DiV&pwst=1&defl=en&q=define:evolution&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title
Of course the problems are obvious and i know until these issues are resolved then we obviously dont have an answer.
The first issue to resolve, for the sake of this thread, will be blood.
The second issue will be the transformation from simple lifeforms to complex. In actuality they are related but we can view them in an individual context.
Can you show me the natural cause\precursor\reason for the creation of blood?
Christianity's weakest link is its adherents.
Well then you and spidergoat adhere to evolution but spidergoat is a shoe maker (it's true) and you are what?
spidergoat
07-14-08, 04:40 PM
The blood cell is a specialized cell that transports oxygen through a system. There are bacteria that specialize in iron (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_bacteria). I am sorry, Myles, I thought John had some biblical explanation in mind, some little known factoid about Christianity and blood.
There are no "weak links" in the Theory of Evolution, nothing that could contradict the basic theory. There are some details for which we only know what is most likely to have happened. Contrast that to Christianity, which merely has... a book.
Doesn't Christianity have Jesus?
Be that as it may, you are Jewish. Havent you heard that none of the questions i am asking falls out of line with Jewish beliefs?
SG:There are bacteria that specialize in iron.
And? I said a few posts ago that there is a fixation with bacteria. Are you saying that bacteria thought of or decided to create humans?
Well then you and spidergoat adhere to evolution but spidergoat is a shoe maker (it's true) and you are what?
What is the relevance of that question ? You say spider is a shoemaker. So what ? I judge posts based on their content, not the occupation of the poster.
" Go thou and do likewise ! "
spidergoat
07-14-08, 05:01 PM
We evolved from simpler organisms that resembled bacteria. There is nothing irreducible about having blood. It's no more difficult to evolve than an eye, or skin.
Jesus didn't write the Bible, but even if he did, it would all still be heresay. The Theory of Evolution has evidence that is observer independent.
I do not believe Jewish beliefs, I'm only ethnically Jewish.
The blood cell is a specialized cell that transports oxygen through a system. There are bacteria that specialize in iron (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_bacteria). I am sorry, Myles, I thought John had some biblical explanation in mind, some little known factoid about Christianity and blood.
There are no "weak links" in the Theory of Evolution, nothing that could contradict the basic theory. There are some details for which we only know what is most likely to have happened. Contrast that to Christianity, which merely has... a book.
John has an interesting view on the stains on the Shroud of Turin.
SG:There are bacteria that specialize in iron.
And? I said a few posts ago that there is a fixation with bacteria. Are you saying that bacteria thought of or decided to create humans?
You do ask some silly questions. Of course bacteria created humans. It was agreed upon at the general synod of small things and the vote in favour of creating humans was carried by a majority.
Doesn't Christianity have Jesus?
Be that as it may, you are Jewish. Havent you heard that none of the questions i am asking falls out of line with Jewish beliefs?
Christians haven't got Jesus though they like to think they have, They have a belief in a Jewish prophet called Jesus whose existence is doubtful.
Christianity was started by a nasty epilectic called Paul who had a fit and fell off his donkey. He attributed his "vision" to god. That' what Christians have and they are welcome to it.
We evolved from simpler organisms that resembled bacteria. There is nothing irreducible about having blood. It's no more difficult to evolve than an eye, or skin.
The thing is that it makes absolutely no sense. Cant you see that? Bacteria do not create or specifically show me where has this been observed? The confusion stems from the fact that they they allow life to exist. Bacteria do not do anything but what they were designed to do. I know full well that bacteria sustain life. This is a big difference from creating all the diversity we see simply because of some belief that they wanted to or for what reason exactly?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_eel
High-voltage EODs are emitted by the main organ and the Hunter's organ that can be emitted at rates of several hundred Hz. [1] These high voltage EODs may reach up to 650 volts. The electric eel is unique among the gymnotiforms in having large electric organs capable of producing lethal discharges that allows them to stun prey.[2] There are reports of animals producing larger voltages, but the typical output is sufficient to stun or deter virtually any other animal. Juveniles produce smaller voltages (about 100 volts). Electric eels are capable of varying the intensity of the electrical discharge, using lower discharges for "hunting" and higher intensities for stunning prey, or defending themselves. When agitated, it is capable of producing these intermittent electrical shocks over a period of at least an hour without signs of tiring. The species is of some interest to researchers, who make use of its acetylcholinesterase and ATP.[3][4]
The electric eel also possesses high-frequency sensitive tuberous receptors patchily distributed over the body that seem useful for hunting other Gymnotiformes.[1
It looks to me like there was a real, physical "super scientist" somewhere.
The thing is that it makes absolutely no sense. Cant you see that? Bacteria do not create or specifically show me where has this been observed? The confusion stems from the fact that they they allow life to exist. Bacteria do not do anything but what they were designed to do. I know full well that bacteria sustain life. This is a big difference from creating all the diversity we see simply because of some belief that they wanted to or for what reason exactly?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_eel
It looks to me like there was a real, physical "super scientist" somewhere.
There can't have been a super scientist. As any born-again twit will tell you , all scientists are atheists. Keep away from Kansas.
Myles, where do you get this stuff from?
spidergoat
07-14-08, 05:21 PM
You say it makes no sense, because you don't understand it. Simple organisms don't set out to create new things, but they can't help it. The replication process has errors. These errors are sometimes advantageous, and become more numerous. Evolution is trial and error. The errors die to a greater degree. The successes go one to build on that success. This causes such wonderous structures as electric eels. You are starstruck by the cult of science. You think only human scientists can create incredible things, (and by extension some super-scientist in the form of God), but their achievements are almost always outclassed by nature- a blind stupid process only slightly more intelligent than total randomness.
Myles, where do you get this stuff from?
The internet and idiots knocking on my door.
The internet and idiots knocking on my door.
You are getting older, perhaps you should think about things.:)
Evolution is trial and error. The errors die to a greater degree. The successes go one to build on that success. This causes such wonderous structures as electric eels.
SG, look at what you just wrote.
Get what right? How would evolution even know it got something right or wrong? This needed to be done millions of times. Then we will have to believe that there was desire to get things right but desire by whom? by what?
You are getting older, perhaps you should think about things.:)
That's a mighty fine answer son!What does it mean ?
Look, you are attempting to take us down a blind alley. The sort of questions you ask about evolution have been dealt with ad nauseam. You should think about whether you are likely to come up with some insuperable objection that has eluded the anti-evolution brigade. I think it is unlikely, but if you disagree, go and read up on evolution and you will be able to answer your own questions
Well the seed of doubt are easily planted then.
Well the seed of doubt are easily planted then.
Only in your mind. Try a course in positive thinking and avoid ID sites
I never read any ID sites, this comes naturally for me.
I never read any ID sites, this comes naturally for me.
Glad you have an excuse. That explains a lot
spidergoat
07-14-08, 05:42 PM
SG, look at what you just wrote.
Get what right? How would evolution even know it got something right or wrong? This needed to be done millions of times. Then we will have to believe that there was desire to get things right but desire by whom? by what?
There are trillions of creatures being born every second. This happened every day for 3-4 billion years. Those that got it wrong died, or didn't reproduce as well. Those that got it right survived to make more of themselves. It's a passive, unplanned process. Eastern religions like Taoism are aware of the power of passivity. Their concepts aren't Gods, they don't make things, it's a passive quality inherent in matter/space. We aren't created, we grow.
You don't have to believe there is a desire to "get it right", there isn't any such thing. You are conditioned to think this way by the error that is the orthodox Christian (or Jewish) worldview.
There are trillions of creatures being born every second. This happened every day for 3-4 billion years. Those that got it wrong died, or didn't reproduce as well. Those that got it right survived to make more of themselves.
So what? Of course you jumped from simple lifeforms to complex lifeforms because you dont want to talk about that. Everyone pretty much agrees with the statement you made above.
Here is where the disagreement comes in:
It's a passive, unplanned process.
Ecosystems do not just develop on their own. If you want to believe that then you are entitled to your opinion.
synthesizer-patel
07-14-08, 06:14 PM
In my view the weakest link in Christianity is the same for pretty much every religion - a direct linear relationship between the sophistication of human beings, and the amount of acts of direct divine intervention on earth.
Back in days of old, god would appear all the time to ignorant sheep herders in the desert, part seas for them, make ordinary humans impermeable to fire etc etc - these days the best we can get is a cinnamon roll shaped like the virgin mary or holy aubergines (sounds like something robin would say) - we need god less often to explain our lives, so we invent him less often - proof that god is a creation of man and not the other way around.
Ecosystems do not just develop on their own.
suppose you explain how they do develop then please.
spidergoat
07-14-08, 06:26 PM
So what? Of course you jumped from simple lifeforms to complex lifeforms because you dont want to talk about that. Everyone pretty much agrees with the statement you made above.
Here is where the disagreement comes in:
Ecosystems do not just develop on their own. If you want to believe that then you are entitled to your opinion.
Even the simple organisms are complex. We are just collections of them. It's a matter of degree. Ecosystems evolve too, the relationships between creatures are often mutually beneficial and self-regulating. If they weren't, they would soon stop working, which means the organisms die, which means only the working relationships are the ones that last. Evolution is really more amazing than most people want to think about.
PsychoticEpisode
07-14-08, 08:31 PM
There are many things about Christianity that have me baffled. One I don't quite get is why Christians do not call themselves Jews. Afterall, they have the pedigree and Messiah, so they must be more Jewish than anyone else on Earth.
This is where I get confused. For Jews who do not believe the Messiah has arrived, would they not still be Jewish if He/She/It suddenly showed up? Why don't the Christians call themselves Jews since the Messiah has already been here?
suppose you explain how they do develop then please.
That was a poor choice of words. Evolving from something new to being established and mature but for me the main thing is design. Thats what i see all around and i think it goes deeper than a belief system. Perhaps it is like being born with a preference or a predisposition.
John,
If you are talking about the definition of evolution then it is factual.No not really. I meant biological evolution is a fact. And by fact I mean confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to conclude anything else. Such evolution has occurred and is occurring. The subtleties of the how is where there is technical debate.
If I am in a room with a box in the corner and I leave and return and I find the box in another corner, I know the box has been moved but I do not know how. The fact the box has moved is the parallel with biological evolution. We can see from history that life has been changing over billions of years. This is fact (the box has been moved). The actual mechanisms of change is what constitutes evolutionary theories (how or what moved the box).
The first issue to resolve, for the sake of this thread, will be blood.An odd item to choose. In the context of this thread this is still a natural substance. Whether we do or do not understand an origin of such a substance doesn’t give any credence to proposing that a supernatural fantasy is a cause.
The second issue will be the transformation from simple lifeforms to complex. In actuality they are related but we can view them in an individual context.Can you demonstrate any instance where something complex does not arise from something simpler? You will fail. There is no arena where complexity does not arise from simpler components or simpler prior forms. We have no reason to conclude that complex life did not evolve as does everything else from simpler variations.
Can you show me the natural cause\precursor\reason for the creation of blood?Can you show any possibility that a supernatural fantasy could be a cause as an alternative? Again an alleged inability to show a natural cause does not give any credibility to a supernatural alternative.
John,
Evolving from something new to being established and mature but for me the main thing is design. The only example we have of anything capable of intelligent design is man's intelligence. Can you show any example of anything that man designed that was not the result of something simpler that he adapted? Again you will fail.
The very basis of your argument that life was designed is based on the only example of a capability to design, i.e. man, and he has never designed anything complex from scratch.
Everything evolves. And everything is a result of evolutionary processes. We know of no exception.
Can you show any possibility that a supernatural fantasy could be a cause as an alternative? Again an alleged inability to show a natural cause does not give any credibility to a supernatural alternative.
Exactly. It's hilarious when creationists criticize science for not having a perfect, all-encompassing explanation for how something evolved, and then conclude that it must have been magical. As if that was a reasonable explanation.
It's just the same sad sort of thing that people have been doing for ages; attributing things that they can't completely explain to the supernatural.
synthesizer-patel
07-15-08, 05:34 PM
That was a poor choice of words. Evolving from something new to being established and mature but for me the main thing is design. Thats what i see all around and i think it goes deeper than a belief system. Perhaps it is like being born with a preference or a predisposition.
do you mean design as in design of individual structures in organisms or design as in the overal design of the ecosystem?
either way they are both delusions - if ecosystems are designed, why are they not designed like a ood engineer would design a similar complex system made of multiple interdpendent parts - i.e with built-in redundancy to prevent them from collapsing when man interfers with them - after all God knew what we would do with them and gave us express permission to do this.
Why are so many physiological processes and physical structures so badly designed - photosynthesis uses such a bizarre, long winded inefficient and illogical physiological pathway that whoever designed it was clearly retarded - same goes for the lunatic who thought up the design for the human eye - a layer of cells covering the light receptor cells? wtf is the point in that? and why on earth did god design freakin snails with better eyes than we have ?
lightgigantic
07-15-08, 06:56 PM
John,
No not really. I meant biological evolution is a fact. And by fact I mean confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to conclude anything else. Such evolution has occurred and is occurring. The subtleties of the how is where there is technical debate.
If I am in a room with a box in the corner and I leave and return and I find the box in another corner, I know the box has been moved but I do not know how. The fact the box has moved is the parallel with biological evolution. We can see from history that life has been changing over billions of years. This is fact (the box has been moved). The actual mechanisms of change is what constitutes evolutionary theories (how or what moved the box).
it's curious how you go from this
Can you show any possibility that a supernatural fantasy could be a cause as an alternative? Again an alleged inability to show a natural cause does not give any credibility to a supernatural alternative.
to this
fair enough about the box, but what about blood?
I mean if you haven't actually observed the blood change, why are you offering anything less than a supernatural fantasy?
do you mean design as in design of individual structures in organisms or design as in the overal design of the ecosystem?
Probably overall. As in terra forming and seeding.
I think it has been done many times before with pretty much identical outcomes. It's probably been done on this planet more than once and definitely on other planet's. But the question is by whom, by what?
Who is flying around space doing this?
LG,
fair enough about the box, but what about blood?
I mean if you haven't actually observed the blood change, why are you offering anything less than a supernatural fantasy?Why choose a fantasy as a preference over a simple don't know?
lightgigantic
07-16-08, 09:24 PM
LG,
Why choose a fantasy as a preference over a simple don't know?
actually that is what I am asking you
shedevilx
07-16-08, 09:27 PM
people, everything is under control now that I'm back
i love you my brothers and sisters
Jesus
greenberg
07-17-08, 03:52 AM
Is there a particular part of Christianity that in your opinion brings it down, makes it worthless or even laughing stock?
Several points:
One, it's not clear what "Christianity" is. The people who call themselves "Christians" have vastly different definitions of what it means to be a "Christian". To say nothing of the vast disparities between the behaviors of the people who call themselves "Christians".
Two, lack of or unclarity about authoritative institutions in the form of organizations of believers, teachers, and secondary literature (ie. commentaries to and interpretations of sacred texts); instead, there is a miriad of smaller traditions or even just individuals who each have their somewhat different interpretation of the sacred texts, and more or less their own definitions of terms. As such, it's not clear what "Christianity" is about; and the few things that some people who call themselves "Christians" do agree on are so general or so abstract that they are useless, impossible to implement in daily practice.
Three, the above wouldn't be so bad, were it not that many people who call themselves "Christians" agree on one thing: That one has to choose one of their interpretations at one's peril, for if one chooses wrongly, one will go to hell for all eternity.
In practice, what is commonly referred to as "Christianity", is basically some kind of "freestyle religion" that teaches eternal hell for all who don't choose the right one among all those freestyles offered by people who call themselves "Christians".
Freestyle and threates of eternal hellfire are an absurd combination.
You are Christianity's Weakest Link.
Goodbye!
Lg,
actually that is what I am asking youSo what's your point? Blood is a natural substance. We know natural processes can lead to natural results.
A supernatural object has no precedent and is a fantasy, i.e. a god/spirit/soul etc.
If we cannot pinpoint a natural process that leads to a natural substance then suggesting a supernatural cause is not a credible option (no precedent) and this would imply we would NEVER discover a natural process, and as history shows it often takes time to discover the causes of things which at first we do not understand.
lightgigantic
07-17-08, 07:29 PM
Lg,
So what's your point? Blood is a natural substance. We know natural processes can lead to natural results.
actually all we see are metonymic slices of cause and effect. And as it relates to your original statement on the issue, if you can't see the cause, there's no need to speculate.
So why do you speculate?
A supernatural object has no precedent and is a fantasy, i.e. a god/spirit/soul etc.
not sure if I follow you here
anything that doesn't have a precedent is a fantasy?
Well how come the big bang was/remains part of the fundamental pedagogy of astronomy?
If we cannot pinpoint a natural process that leads to a natural substance then suggesting a supernatural cause is not a credible option (no precedent) and this would imply we would NEVER discover a natural process, and as history shows it often takes time to discover the causes of things which at first we do not understand.
so its more like an assumptive truth of logic?
kind of like if one man can dig a 10ft hole in 10 hours, ten men could dig a 10ft hole in one hour?
Lg,
actually all we see are metonymic slices of cause and effect. And as it relates to your original statement on the issue, if you can't see the cause, there's no need to speculate.
So why do you speculate?There is a difference between inductive probability and fantasy speculation. One has a statistical basis the other has zero basis. Religious claims fall into the latter case of course.
not sure if I follow you here
anything that doesn't have a precedent is a fantasy?
Well how come the big bang was/remains part of the fundamental pedagogy of astronomy?No. I said “A supernatural object has no precedent and is a fantasy”. Natural objects have ample precedent.
If we cannot pinpoint a natural process that leads to a natural substance then suggesting a supernatural cause is not a credible option (no precedent) and this would imply we would NEVER discover a natural process, and as history shows it often takes time to discover the causes of things which at first we do not understand.
”
so its more like an assumptive truth of logic?
kind of like if one man can dig a 10ft hole in 10 hours, ten men could dig a 10ft hole in one hour?Huh? I do not see how any of what you said relates to anything I said.
lightgigantic
07-18-08, 04:39 PM
Cris
Lg,
“
actually all we see are metonymic slices of cause and effect. And as it relates to your original statement on the issue, if you can't see the cause, there's no need to speculate.
So why do you speculate?
”
There is a difference between inductive probability and fantasy speculation. One has a statistical basis the other has zero basis. Religious claims fall into the latter case of course.
so how many cases of "changing blood" has been observed when you draw up the statistics for it?
“
not sure if I follow you here
anything that doesn't have a precedent is a fantasy?
Well how come the big bang was/remains part of the fundamental pedagogy of astronomy?
”
No. I said “A supernatural object has no precedent and is a fantasy”. Natural objects have ample precedent.
the big bang has a precedent?
Where?
In Isaac Asimov novels?
“
If we cannot pinpoint a natural process that leads to a natural substance then suggesting a supernatural cause is not a credible option (no precedent) and this would imply we would NEVER discover a natural process, and as history shows it often takes time to discover the causes of things which at first we do not understand.
”
so its more like an assumptive truth of logic?
kind of like if one man can dig a 10ft hole in 10 hours, ten men could dig a 10ft hole in one hour?
”
Huh? I do not see how any of what you said relates to anything I said.
we have successfully pinpointed that one man can dig a 10ft hole in 10 hours therefore it it truthful and absolutely not an issue of fantasy to advocate that ten men can dig a 10ft hole in 1 hour.
do you follow?
vBulletin® v3.8.1, Copyright ©2000-2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.