[Zionist Conspirator]

This is not only not a natural change but a change irrelevant to the subject of the natural sciences. Science can deal with a gold annulus but cannot say whether it is merely a ring or a wedding ring. Science can describe sexual intercourse but cannot determine whether it is sacred or profane, virtuous or vicious.

What you obviously refuse to consider is that the process of the creation of physical reality (along with all its natural laws and processes) is by the very nature of things every bit as outside the purview of science as is your transubstantiation.

The only reason for rejecting one and accepting the other is sociological: you don't wish to be associated with "those people."

[Mad Dawg]

What you obviously refuse to consider

Mind reading. And, as it happens, false. AND irrelevant to the particular point of suggesting that special creation (or whatever) is analogous to transubstantiation.

I avoid conversations with people who leap to conclusions and base rudeness on the conclusions to which they leap. Conversations with people who switch from one point to another are fruitless.

There seemed to be a false analogy offered between transubstantiation and matters of scientific "law". My remarks were addressed to that false analogy, which I think you brought up, not to the larger question.

But I think I may be seeing a demonstration of the topic of the original post. I don't know why these conversations have to get so heated.

[Religion Moderator]

you obviously refuse to consider

Reading the mind of another Freeper is a form of "making it personal."

Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.