Hoo-kay.

So, what we have here is a case not where you believe in science itself but, rather, you believe that this 'study' merits being considered having been carried out in anything resembling a 'scientific' fashion.

Dubious materials and non-independently substantiated claims do not a scientific discovery make. See also anti-vaxxers and believers (note that word btw) in chiropractic "medicine".

One cannot start with a more or less planned narrative and then essentially make the findings fit said narrative (either by citing vaguely correlative similarities to one thing or another or outright falsifying the findings themselves) and call it 'science'. I mean, I suppose of course one can, but when the jig is finally up and the study shown to be faulty (whether by choice or by accident), the 'findings' are rightly discarded as either inadvertent mistake or, as I highly suspect in this case, falsehoods purposely presented as truths for whatever reason. Trying to strengthen another's faith by foisting a lovely-sounding lie upon them is ultimately as nutritive as offering a starving man a picture of a Christmas ham.

I'm a big dumb shitlib baby

I will keep a look for it in Nature.

Congrats on being better than me, Psycory.

This post right here... it’s the reason why I often rub Don’s head (the one that sits on his shoulders). It makes him uncomfortable, but I’m just trying to steal some of his razor-sharp observation through osmosis.

The victims are the American People and the Republic itself.

Me too! But Nature does have a ridiculously high rejection rate, maybe they will have better luck at someplace that has a lower impact factor.

I have been reading this discussion as someone who teaches research methods twice a year, it has been enjoyable.

Me too! But Nature does have a ridiculously high rejection rate, maybe they will have better luck at someplace that has a lower impact factor.

I have been reading this discussion as someone who teaches research methods twice a year, it has been enjoyable.

Careful or RPB is going to start calling you a scientist disparagingly in every fifth post.

The future holds the possibility to be great or terrible, and since it has not yet occurred it remains simultaneously both.

One can't claim a planned narrative when DNA across centuries can't be explained away.

Good chat though. If you have an idea or thought bring it to the board and we can all discuss it. Or not.

I'm a big dumb shitlib baby

I can’t even compliment a fellow board member without being intimidated by an admin. Sad!

The victims are the American People and the Republic itself.

Many that is true, but an incomplete statement.

So does wine turn into blood every time? Does bread turn into distressed heart muscle every time? Not just once in a while?

I mean I could go and get a sample of the wine at my local church on Sunday and test it for DNA. It should contain it right? And the host will certainly test positive for distressed heart muscle? Or just human DNA?

Many that is true, but an incomplete statement.

Careful or RPB is going to start calling you a scientist disparagingly in every fifth post.

RPB said it was easy
It's such a shame for us to post
RPB said it was easy
He never said that it would be this hard
He thinks he's Kendrick Lamar

Ok so I've arranged for a DNA test of the transsubstantiated bread and wine from a church near my house.
The result is guaranteed to contain human DNA right?

Incidently it's pretty cheap to test for the presence of human DNA. As long as you're just testing for its presence and not a comparative analysis with another person it's under $100.

Anyhow... So another question could be answered... if the DNA in the host is human we have to assume it's Jesus dna... We'll know once and for all if he's really a white guy.

This will be a groundbreaking experiment.

Congrats on being better than me, Psycory.

Another shot at my catholic education or my understanding of it: I always thought "this is the body and blood of Christ" was completely symbolic.

It is supposed to become the body and blood of Christ. The Lutherans have a more nuanced view of that.

This reminds me of when Mormons tried to prove part of the book of Mormon that said Native Americans were descendants of Laman (who was wicked, and thus his descendants were marked with dark skin: Native Americans were the dark-skinned descendants of Lamanites). An important part of the Book of Mormon...well they tested the DNA and Laman was NOT the father.
LDS response: attempts to excommunicate the scientists involved in the research.

Many that is true, but an incomplete statement.

I am no scholar, obviously, but my understanding is that it literally becomes body and blood.

Many that is true, but an incomplete statement.

I'm a big dumb shitlib baby

I can’t believe this is an actual discussion.

Many that is true, but an incomplete statement.

It's more fun to be a victim

There will never be an effective vaccine. I'll never get one anyway.

bLUEHOST ???

So does wine turn into blood every time? Does bread turn into distressed heart muscle every time? Not just once in a while?

I mean I could go and get a sample of the wine at my local church on Sunday and test it for DNA. It should contain it right? And the host will certainly test positive for distressed heart muscle? Or just human DNA?

The victims are the American People and the Republic itself.

Wow.

First of all, Cry more

Secondly, aren't you actually a scientist? If not, I apologize. And I did not mean to disparage you either way.

The victims are the American People and the Republic itself.

I think you have been to mass before if I remember correctly.

Many that is true, but an incomplete statement.

As someone who has gone back and forth with RPB myself over the last couple of weeks, he has a point.

One scientist posts results from a study he obviously hasn't even read, and you post a concurring response to a study you hadn't known about, or read.