Understanding through Discussion

Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 81 (8971 total)
194 online now:
DrJones*, GDR, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), Tangle (4 members, 190 visitors)
Newest Member: Howyoudo
Post Volume: Total: 875,368 Year: 7,116/23,288 Month: 1,022/1,214 Week: 34/303 Day: 34/37 Hour: 0/2

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   [sic] Transubspeciation
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1554 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003

Message 1 of 11 (332106)
07-15-2006 11:42 PM

The ancient Catholic Mass is centered around the sacrament of Communion.

When the Catholic priest presides over Mass spoken in old Latin he raises the unbroken round wafer and says "hocest corpus meus" = "this is my body". These Latin words are the origin of our English phrase "hocus pocus". The Catholic Church claims at this precise moment, that is, when the priest speaks the elements in the chalice (wine) and the wafer (bread) transmutes (hocus pocus) into the literal blood and body of Christ.

These facts show the heathen origins of the Catholic Mass. Bible students know when Jesus instituted the interpretation of Passover His blood was in His veins and His flesh was on His bones. Both elements are and were SYMBOLS representing the two-fold atonement work of Christ. Jesus broke the bread unlike the unbroken wafers of Baal-sun worship (which originated in Egypt).

Protestants attribute the Mass rite as crystal clear evidence of the invisible effects of Satan's corruption presence. NOBODY CAN SPEAK AND HAVE ONE SUBSTANCE TRANSMUTE ITSELF INTO ANOTHER SUBSTANCE (hocus pocus/black magic) - except God. Catholic transubstantiation is pure heresy originating from the dark mind of Satan.

Modern rational minds laugh at religionists over things like transubstantiation. Can you imagine Einstein or Sagan or Dennett or Hawking considering the "validity" of transubstantiation ? It is dismissed a priori just as fast as anyone claiming the Earth is flat.

In other words, it worked on religionists (people who have awareness of God) therefore, it should work on secular (people who have no awareness of God).

When Darwin speaks bears can transmute themselves into whales (First edition), Origin of Species.

When Goldschmidt speaks a reptile or a bird is hatched from one or the others egg.

When Tim White speaks apes transmute themselves into hominids.

When Gould speaks "punctuationism" (hocus pocus) evolution very quickly conforms with the fossil record.

When Darwinists speak Clergymen came from molluscs (materialistic explanation for the existence of God in the minds of believers; common ancestry). [Desmond & Moore "Darwin" page XVIII, 1991]

We know the crust of the Earth shows no evidence of speciation whatsoever. Darwin recognized this fact as did Gould. What justifies "the fact" of speciation ?

When Darwinists speak.

The Cathloic priest uses his standing and his robe and collar to insulate any objections to transubstantiation. Darwinists use their educational credentials in like manner.

What could possibly make modern educated men believe in transubspeciation when the observable crust of the Earth falsifies the idea in its tracks ?

The effects of the presence of the invisible person of Satan.

Catholic priest and the modern Darwinist are shown to be identical.

Ray Martinez

Edited by AdminAsgara, : moved from PNT - The Queen

Edited by Herepton, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Brad McFall, posted 07-16-2006 9:53 AM Cold Foreign Object has responded
 Message 8 by John A. Davison, posted 07-18-2006 7:20 AM Cold Foreign Object has responded

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1554 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003

Message 3 of 11 (332294)
07-16-2006 6:47 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Brad McFall
07-16-2006 9:53 AM

Re: concept vs construction of concepts
Hi Brad:

Well, it is hard for me to “rationalize” that the people you named a priori dismiss “things like transubstantiation.” Is there actual information that Einstein dismissed it?

You must be kidding....

In case you are not then I think it safe to assume if Einstein did not believe in the existence of the soul and a personal God capable of being embraced through revelation; then it is equally safe to assume he did not believe in transubstantiation.

Now, have you read,
Jammer's book on the history of mass with Einstein intro?

While reading this, I %was% able to relate RATIONALLY the notion of transubstantiation to the issue of unobservables in scientific theories by giving a certain reading between the lines over the transition to premodern notions beyond the Greek division of fire, earth, air, and water. This was thought by me in the 80s and is no longer particularly the track my mind runs over and over again.

No, I have not read the book mentioned.

Are you saying an insight was suddenly triggered while reading a book on physics that recognized the concept of transubstantiation in a scientific argument or principle ?

Also you could know something about

Kervran's elemental transmutation review

Negative. I quickly scanned the link and its content and the science is way above my head.

because this idea provides a basis to carry the thought of macroscopic unobservables in biology right back to this historical analysis via Jammer provided one dealt with modern skepticism in physics. You can learn from Von Weisacker (“Unity of Science”) that the word “transmutation” was used simultaineoulsy in biology and physics during the 20s and 30s.

Fascinating Brad. But what is YOUR point....make an application revelant to the OP thesis ?

Thanks for reminding me about an old thought I had had on the relation of speciation and transubstantiation. Unfortunately we substitute a single judgement often where mentally more than one probably does exist.

This thought actually helps to answer my first query above. I think you are saying that the OP suddenly reminded you of the religious concept while innocently reading a physics book. If so, this is the point of the OP. The ORIGIN of transmutation is Pentateuchal prohibited RELIGIOUS worship (idolatry). I have not traced the exact path of the concept as to how it was introduced into science, but, the point is, that transmutation is not indigenous to science or scientific thought.

The next earliest emergence of transmutation outside of the Old Testament that I am prepared to argue comes in the New Testament. When Christ resurrected His burial cloth was left with an imprint of His face. Science has determined that the image on the Shroud was caused by heat and light. The image is now verified as the result of scorching and not any paints or dyes (one side only three dimensional).

Radiocarbon dating of the Shroud is now proven inaccurate....the dates produced are now viewed as scatter....because there is evidence that the Shroud was subjected to a transmutation phenomenon....the carbon 14 ratios were blown making an accurate dating impossible. [Dr. Gene Scott]

Critics say radiodating does not work on cloth or fiber anyway.

The point is transmutation is a supernatural concept. Darwinists, undoubtedly, have no interest in finding out how the same made its way into their minds. The OP answers this question SINCE THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF SPECIATION IN THE FOSSIL RECORD. Therefore, we have evidence of the effects of the presence of something invisible (not the atomic particles of physics) but Satan. How could the Darwinist think transmutation has occurred if there is no physical observation corresponding with the idea ? Homology is circumstantial falsified by many monkey wrenches that are hand-waved away by saying "natural-selection-did-it".

Where are observable intermediate effects of natural selection besides varieties ? Reductionist extrapolationism (transubspeciation) gone amok.

If it really is possible for one creature to transsubstatiate itself into another (and this will be doubted up and down on EVC) the issue of "symbols" will be a result with consequences for philosophy before it is for theory in biology. That last statment is impossible to establish if one seeks a priori rejection without concurrent synthesis of empirical determinations. This is what "modern" science defensively wears the hat of.

I have read this paragraph numerous times and your point is just beyond my grasp.


Edited by Herepton, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Brad McFall, posted 07-16-2006 9:53 AM Brad McFall has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Brad McFall, posted 07-16-2006 7:53 PM Cold Foreign Object has responded

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1554 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003

Message 5 of 11 (332556)
07-17-2006 2:09 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Brad McFall
07-16-2006 7:53 PM

The Science of Satan
There can be "unobservables" that are not "Satanic" but it is true some of my fasincation for them was to maintain the thought that there are not bad things but only good ones. If that is an error on my part it does not do away with the incursion of the substance of it all in science itself, whether in biology or physics.

I could be wrong but I feel you bristle at my invocations of Satan. The feeling is falsified by no secular type snickering in your posts.

Of course there are unoberservables unconnected to Satan - I made that point previously by citing the invisible atomic particles of physics. That point said, if it was unclear, that physicists accept the existence of things invisible by the effects of their presence. The effects of Satan's invisible presence is deduced the exact same way.

Darwinists are one trick pony's. They have no range of knowledge or expertise from the end of the Stone Age (c.4000 BC) to the 15th century and 20th century AD. In between these dates is calendar history of mankind dismissed as the conspiracy of myth by the ancients. In other words, there is nothing to gain for their atheistic worldviews = why they brand the entire swath of time myth.

That swath of time happens to contain all of the evidence proving the Bible. An objective person can now see why the myth-card is played by the Darwinist. Evolutionists are experts in everything that might have happened before the end of the Stone Age because all of the evidence is corruptible and wholly dependant upon subjective interpretation. Post Stone Age is the crystal clear evidence of archaeology and history and science proving the Bible = why the myth card is NEEDED.

The matter of fact tones used by Darwinists pertaining to things hundreds of millions of years ago is unfalsifiable evidence of the degree of delusion they are suffering under. Yet, the physical evidence proving the existence of many Biblical miracles at face value, which is only single digit thousands of years old, is scoffed at unlike fossil scraps that need a storyteller.

The Bible says Satan has one objective: destroy the validity of God's word so that there is no basis to trust God.

We see the effects of the invisible devil in the inexplicable dismissal of physical evidence during calendar history by persons who claim to be loyal to evidence where ever it may lead.

Darwinists prove the Biblical claim of Satan's objective and the fruits of the effects of his invisible presence. Either way the Bible is proven true.

Ray Martinez

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Brad McFall, posted 07-16-2006 7:53 PM Brad McFall has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Brad McFall, posted 07-17-2006 6:49 PM Cold Foreign Object has responded

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1554 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003

Message 7 of 11 (332681)
07-17-2006 7:55 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Brad McFall
07-17-2006 6:49 PM

Re: The Science of Satan
Yes modern physicists ( I have two brother Phd physcists; one works now in IT and the other teaches thermodynamics and mechanics in Metz, France)have moved away from the simple claim of things based on the effects of their presence. This was noted by many moderns in the literature as the LOSS of "innersight" (a Germanword). But in so losing this ability....

Brad, can you, in lay language, tell me more about this loss of "innersight" ?

What caused the loss, who lost it, and what did they lose ?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Brad McFall, posted 07-17-2006 6:49 PM Brad McFall has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Brad McFall, posted 07-18-2006 8:03 AM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1554 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003

Message 10 of 11 (332925)
07-18-2006 1:56 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by John A. Davison
07-18-2006 7:20 AM

Am I banned from this thread also?

Negative. Tell us your thoughts.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by John A. Davison, posted 07-18-2006 7:20 AM John A. Davison has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by John A. Davison, posted 07-18-2006 2:58 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:

Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020