Archeologists in Canada have discovered the fossil of a previously unknown species that shows features of both land- and water-dwelling mammals. Though not a direct ancestor of modern seals, the fossil nevertheless gives clues to how today’s water-dwelling mammals evolved.
One begins to wonder how complete the fossil record needs to be before Creationists admit they’ve been wrong all along. Something tells me no amount of completeness will ever satisfy them.
Good news for creationsits
Replication of protein recovery from Dinosaur bones.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/324…
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pag…
Karl — why would this be good news for creationists? I'm serious. I don't understand.
But before you leap in joy… please be aware that every single study to date has been unable to extract 'Dino-DNA'. There are many reasons for this – but the simplest is that the Dino-DNA is both degraded by time, and scavenged by other bio-predators (bacteria and fungi).
Every single case of 'pre-historic' DNA has on closer examination turned out to be prosaically simple (bacteria or fungi).
Based on current knowledge – I would expect this to be more of the same. It is not impossible. Just highly improbable. And as in all science – extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. So far this has not been fully peer reviewed, nor have samples & techniques been made available to other labs for verification.
If true – this is groundbreaking work. Worthy of the highest honors.
But it still doesn't provide any support for creationism.
So, I'll ask again — why do you think this is good news for creationists?
Tony, Karl is a Young Earth True Believer. That every bit of soft tissue extracted from dinosaur bones turned out to be of microscopic modern species does not phase him. That the age of the Earth has little to do with evolutionary theory does not dissuade him. That the age of the world was known to be at least tens of millions of years by the time that Darwin was born does not concern him. Evolution must be false because the Earth is Young.
The Bible clearly states that the world is flat, and in certain translations implies that it may be young. This is TRUTH. Never mind the billions of pieces of evidence that only make sense if interpreted in another way.
Thank-you Dan for getting some of what you said right concerning my take on this matter.
I do believe there is much more historical value to the Bible than any atheistic naturalist would be willing to come to terms with. I also believe that evolution is not empirical science, rather it is a hypothetical-inductively constructed psuedo-history that requires more faith than does the concept of design that creationism requires.
Any theory that tries and tries to dissuade me from considering its antithesis, by claiming nothing more than circumstantial evidence has no hold over my thoughts. I admit faith in what I believe. Those who only believe they use logic to construct any theory of origins are sadly mistaken. When one claims to have silenced the opposition through a consensus of the experts, I always wonder why the minority report just refuses to go away?
I also do believe that the consensus of scientists regarding the interpretation of unwitnessed events is only hearsay, it might be true, but I have no compulsion to believe the evidence is overwhelming.
Dan and I have gone round and round the mulberry bush concerning radiometric dating.
Tony, I bring this issue back because another scientific group besides the original has found similar (actually more protiens) than the original study. No one has stated they have found functional DNA. They have found what they seem to think (or believe) are actual not fully decayed celluar components that were originally parts of the marrow of these bones.
Dan and some others believe the materials are not actual proteins from the marrow but are remnants of something else (fungus of the bonegus for example) that has managed to use the inner bone locations to thrive in some more recent time frame.
Either way as I see it, if these bone had either bone marrow components proper or food materials for the fungus to stay alive for 65 to 80 milion years this science is a rather odd distraction as these bones are suppose to have next to no chance of anything being not decayed in them.
Problem is they are finding more and more bones with similar results which even the stubborn naturalists are finding they can't keep ignoring.
Karl.
You are delusional. For a science teacher, you are scarily so.
There are countless empirical* examples of evolution (ring species, and others – see TalkOrigins for a host of examples and links to the actual research), but the most recent (and also most celebrated, is Dr. Richard Lenski's amazing decades long experiment in the evolution of citrate-metabolism among sub-populations of E. coli bacteria (paper at PNAS here).
* empirical – you do know what the word means, don't know? According to McGraw-Hill
How much evidence do you want scientists to collect before you are willing to call it 'empirical'? At last count there were over 200,000 papers on Evo-Devo alone. There is so much work in this field that it is driving rapid changes in the traditional scientific publishing infrastructure, with the giants being superseded by faster, internet based publishing (using exactly the same peer-review processes, but in a more 'web 2.0' flavor)
The theory of evolution has gathered so much evidence that the theory has been able to predict experimental results with precision, depth and rigor. It is one of the cornerstones of modern science, and without it biology as-a-science would be about as advanced as 14th century alchemy.
I feel sorry for your students.
Karl
Firstly – thanks for the correction – I know it wasn't DNA but the phrase (Dino-DNA) was simply too good to not use. I should have incorporated a caveat. How silly of me.
But that is minor, compared to what I see in your ongoing commentary: I see a strong pattern of confirmation bias in your comments.
When science identifies something that you can bend to support creationism – you do so, regardless of the veracity or depth of support for the claim. In this you are exactly like those proponents of cold fusion (which is where, exactly).
So we now have exactly TWO papers that purport to suggest valid protein fragments in geologically ancient fossil remains, and loudly proclaim a success for creationism. Real science – as I said before – requires extraordinary evidence for such an extraordinary claim.
What more prosaic alternatives are there – these must first be eliminated! Recent contamination (anytime in the past few hundred-thousand years would suffice, to leave such fragments) – is there any evidence of this in the fossil or the surrounding strata? Are the discovered structures indicative of 'deep time' (in terms of protein evolution) or are they morphologically similar to modern proteins. There are many others, but I'm not a biologist, so I wouldn't purport to know all of the possible avenues to be explored.
So – as I said… I'd be amazed but happy to see confirming evidence… that would mean a gold-rush of new knowledge and investigation, and could only be of benefit to science (which is about understanding reality). I still don't see any reason to propose creationism, anywhere.
I agree this data doesn't do a thing to confirm creationism directly.
Karl writes:—"I do believe there is much more historical value to the Bible than any atheistic naturalist would be willing to come to terms with."
Depending on their particular field of interest, that's an unsupportable statement. You're drawing conclusions based on assumtions.
Also:—"I also believe that evolution is not empirical science, rather it is a hypothetical-inductively constructed psuedo-history that requires more faith than does the concept of design that creationism requires."
So observed evolution in the laboratory of single-celled organisms isn't empirical science. Hmm. Epidemiologists base their research of historical opinion. Hm. Geneticists chart genomes and solve the riddles of inherited traits because something else is at work that they can't see, not the logical trellis of evolution. Hm.
You know what. I have come to conclusion that you just don't want it to be true. And that desire makes it impossible to see the research for what it is.
Creationism is not the antithesis of evolution. There is no process corollary involved. It is not like comparing natural selection to Lamarckianism, because there is no mechanism described as counterargument.
But, as you say, you have gone round and round the mulberry bush with all of us on this. Perhaps it would be better to stop and ask how the mulberry bush got there. Evolution actually offers a mechanism and a process. Creationism is no more than "Abracadabra!"
It is a well-documented psychological fact that people who like to be dazzled by magic really don't want to know how the trick is done and actually tune out when an explanation is offered. They opt for the Wow, rather than the How. I think that's sufficient to explain some people's enamored state regarding creationism.
Anything I state as "I believe" is not meant to need scientific facts to confirm my rationality. Nor must it conform to others perspectives concerning the natural world.
I recognize the mechanism of creation to be found in the existence, plan and presence of a designer and creator. There could have been any number of actual ways for how physical matter and energy began to interact that was initiated from a spiritual dimension that was neither pure energy nor physical matter. Any of these possible ways of interaction would therefore also be considered a "mechanism." So to say there is "no mechanism(s)" in creationism is very presumptuous.
If everything else were considered equal, the theory with more possibilities for being true would be more rational.
There are many more ways for supernatural events to happen than there are for the crude hard task master of random variation acted upon natural selection that leads to the existence of new common traits which eventually lead to the descent of new species.
When one is limited to only what is physical there are fewer options. It makes more sense from a spiritual perspective that spiritual beings could have been and still are in competetion with each other and their creator for control of every new creation. This includes the material and immaterial world. In this regard not everything that is created has a direct attachement or immediate traceable connection back to the original creator.
It is the leap from "I believe" to "I have no others options to consider" that requires scientific facts to confirm my rationality
Karl: Too bad you weren't born in the Middle Ages where you wouldn't have to deal with real scientists.
Karl writes:—"So to say there is “no mechanism(s)” in creationism is very presumptuous."
No it's not, because…
"I recognize the mechanism of creation to be found in the existence, plan and presence of a designer and creator."
The existence you claim is an assumption not a demonstrated fact, so you have shown no mechanism. Because…
"There are many more ways for supernatural events to happen than there are for the crude hard task master of random variation acted upon natural selection that leads to the existence of new common traits which eventually lead to the descent of new species."
There are no "ways" for supernatural events to happen because we have (a) no working model for what a supernatural mechanism would be and (b) it is by definition something which occurs outside any material mechanism. In short, the instant you say Supernatural you are Elvis and you have left the building.
Because…
"In this regard not everything that is created has a direct attachement or immediate traceable connection back to the original creator."
Which means you concur that there is no demonstrable mechanism. But that only means that where none exists on the one hand, when you find one on the other, reason dictates you go with the mechanism until it is proved utterly useless.
Finally…
"It is the leap from “I believe” to “I have no others options to consider” that requires scientific facts to confirm my rationality"
Then you have abandoned any functional definition of science and in fact have limited yourself to an ideological litmus test for what constitutes supportable hypotheses. That is not science and reality is not required to confirm your "rationality."
Now follow this: if, as you insist, there is a creator who ordered all of material existence not only into being but into its various forms, at some point between the Word and the Act there will have to be a point of interface—a kind of phase transition will have had to have taken place, which will leave a great big question mark in the physical traces. In a way, the sought-after Higgs Boson could represent such a trace. So if you want to bridge that gap, then you need only find the hole between Nonexistence and Existence which would have to be there and build a working hypothesis of how nothing phases into something. Then you have the beginnings of a scientific rationale to explain creationism.
But you would also have the kind of demonstrable evidence that negates faith. You would precipitate a theological crisis, because suddenly now the creator can be shown to have to conform to process. He would be limited.
Your statement that the theory that presents more possibilities necessarily is superior to one with fewer is backward reasoning. Taken from the point of view of a writer who is asked about ideas, I tell my students that I could care less about ideas, ideas are a dime a dozen, any duffus can manufacture ideas, I want to see execution, I want to see what you do with your ideas. And that's when you find that not all ideas are malleable in such a way as to provide workable material.
So now, the hypothesis that offers the most possibilities is not the one most likely to be anywhere near the truth. The possibilities first have to be Possible and secondly have to show workable, testable process.
Creationism does not have a mechanism. It's an idea that does not "play" in the real world.
Karl said:
I believe Karl is a badly written attempt at passing the Turing Test. (Eliza was a much better conversationalist)
I believe Karl is a straw man, a manikin, a sock-puppet.
I believe Karl needs to step back and learn to read for comprehension. That first requires that assumptions and prejudice is left at the door.
Karl uses words, but he appears to lack any understanding of their common meaning.
His perspective is that 'if I can imagine it, it must be real'. Rational people learn in Kindergarten that is not a true statement. Many take years to internalize it. Some, like Karl, hold onto it and demand that the rest of us agree with their delusions.
Karl – the supernatural has no foundation in reality. It is not demonstrably true. It is, in fact, demonstrably false. Belief in such absurdities is equivalent to belief in mermaids and fairies and unicorns. Those were perfectly valid and commonly held beliefs too, at one time.
You may recognize the following quotation:
Yes – First Corinthians 13:11.
The bible does have some good things to say – it is the work of many well-meaning men (and possibly women) over the centuries.
You should maybe listen and read for comprehension. It's time to grow up.
Thankfully, most theists are not creationists; or we'd have more of a problem than we do.
Evolution has such overwhelming evidence to support it that it's no longer in doubt. It's science; or there is no such thing. I am a Christian, and I can only wonder why a minority of Christians are so dedicated to the inerrancy of the Jewish Bible, when not even religious Jews are. Charles Darwin was a devout Christian when he formulated the theory, and most Christians have no problem with science, which has proved him right beyond doubt. (Quite a few do science. And almost all the great scientists of the past were theists, from Galileo to Einstein, et al et al.) It's not only not necessary to be so blindly convinced that every word in the Torah is literal history–it's clear that it's not. Torah interpretation is best left to the Jews, who have been doing it for thousands of years and at least know Hebrew; and who are rarely creationists.
Karl, by your definition (in your last post), *Darwin* should have been a creationist. At the end of The Origin of Species, he says that ultimately The Creator set everything in motion. What he thought was set in motion was evolution, of course. You have a loopy definition of creationism.
Science is the best way yet we've come up for understanding the material world. Science backs evolution unequivocally. You can call black white, but that doesn't make it so.
The proper domain of religion is the transmaterial. If it starts quarreling with science, it leads to error and delusion.
Glinda – the scariest thing about Karl, is that he teaches science at a christian school. I worry for the education those kids receive with Karl deciding the direction of their science education.
Field trips to a museum in Kentucky, no doubt.
It is simply amazing how Tony C can take a scripture written by the Apostle Paul who was probably the most philosophically minded Christian Biblical author and assume he knows what Paul was refering to, and what he was trying to communicate when he wrote First Corinthians 13:11.
First of all, Paul held this regarding natural philosophy.
Colossians 2:8 See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ.
Since Paul wrote this statement he couldn't have simply meant that to grow up means to accept what Tony C and the atheists, or Karl K and the theists have to logically say about science and the material world.
No, Paul is stating there is something much more important than trusting in any man's interpretation of the natural order of things and that there is something about the nature of science itself that has no business trying to tell others about matters that simply are not open to scientific review, such as faith, hope and love. Read the whole of chapter 13 and you will notice that knowledge as man knows and uses it will one day be done away with, so growing up means somehow learning anew all over again, what really is important in a values or spiritual sense.
Faith hope and love, but the greatest of these is love.
Chapter 13 of Corinthians does not emphasize knowledge in the sense most people do, it emphasizes the thought processes that build and maintain ongoing relationships that are only possible through faith in common people and presuppositions, hope in spite of our sinful nature, and sacrificial love for others that has little if any self interest in its actions.
Faith, hope and love are altruistic whereas opposing interpretations of the material world versus the non-material world are just about pointless in the end.
If I were to say you have faith in science, you would probably disagree. If I were to say I try to have faith in God you would probably say, that's idiotic because God doesn't exist.
If I were to say your only hope is based upon what you and your fellow man can accomplish, I don't know how you would respond. If I were to say I have hope that God's plan for creation and people is working out exactly as He planned, you would say, "Yeah, right."
If I were to say of you, that until I (Karl) agree to see things fully as you do you will hold friendhip and respect as something reserved for others. I'll let you finish the rest of the analogy.
The love and mercy of God is the only thing that prevents this entire world from falling into utter destruction. That is an uncommon but thoroughly natural prospect I consider nearly everyday, not because I'm pessimistic of the spiritual direction of mankind, although I am, not because I'm a fear monger, although you will say I am, but because even though I would like to be able to say I have some special ability to transform your ideas concerning this material world, I realize I don't and will at some point have to simply defend your right to say and be what you decide is best for you.
Karl
Your ability to twist anything into a positive spin for your brand of christianity would amaze but for one thing – it's exactly how you've been indoctrinated. Glinda is christian, and finds your views repulsive and un-christian.
You simply find it impossible to 'take off the Jesus-glasses'.
My point in using the quote from Corinthians was not to suggest Paul, or the Bible, was divine – but the opposite. There are nuggets of wisdom. But also a lot of hate-filled, misogynistic crap.
As Glinda says – why don't you guys start with what jesus was actually reported as saying (per the bible) instead of focusing on interpretation though a homophobe (Paul) or on the OT.
That you can say this with a straight face convinces me you are delusional: The love and mercy of God is the only thing that prevents this entire world from falling into utter destruction.
Have you read any history?
On whose side was god during the two world wars? During Vietnam, or Croatia, or Iraq? Or for that matter, the Thirty Years war, or the War of the Roses, or the Spanish-American war, or …?
Do you understand? These were all human conflicts, where everyone, on every side, believed god to be on their side. And this is what you call god saving us from destruction? If this is saving, I'd hate to see active participation.
Your god is hateful and vengeful, and twists reality to fit a narrowly prejudiced perspective, where women are property, children are to be indoctrinated, and non-believers are apostate and are discarded to suffer unending punishment for simply not caring to follow such a spiteful bastard.
Love and Mercy? More like psychosis.
It's simply amazing how Karl just knows that his interpretation of everything in the bible stands ahead of mine (or yours, if you too are not a fundamentalist christian).
Karl – I've read the bible many times, as a young man, and as an adult. I've also read many other religious texts (the Bhagavad Gita, Book of Mormon [woot!], and the Koran [courtesy of a college friend]), as well as many anthropological studies of religion and society.
I have a lot of other knowledge (and very smart scholarly resources) that provides me the opportunity and ability to interpret a book however I so wish! That might seem shocking to you, but the bible is just a book. The tales in it are subject to interpretation, and my interpretation (your jesus colored glasses notwithstanding) is just as valid as yours.
One parting thought, based on my reading and thinking about religion over many years.
In the end, most of fundamentalist Christianity looks awfully like a cargo cult – none of you have any clue why you perform your actions (other than "that's the way we've been taught"), but you're all sure and certain that if you do them just right, the cargo gods will come back and heaven will be on earth.
On whose side was god during the two world wars? During Vietnam, or Croatia, or Iraq? Or for that matter, the Thirty Years war, or the War of the Roses, or the Spanish-American war, or …?
I agree that those who think God (or human consensus) chooses sides in any conflict of man versus man, or philosophy versus philosophy, or religion verses non-religion are indeed delusional. God chooses to authenticate only two things, faith that acts upon a belief that He exists and love for all including those you do not see eye to eye with.
You tell me to stick to what Jesus said, I just did! You are the one who brought Paul into the discussion.
Karl:
I brought a single comment by Paul into the discussion. I could have used a comment from Twain, or Shakespeare, or Tennyson… such use does not imply that I agree (or intend to appropriate or support) the entire body of work of the person quoted! The quote means exactly what the quote means. Again, your ability to interpret what you read is hampered by your 'god-goggles'.
But I need to thank you for the rest of your comment: you just admitted your delusion.
The majority of your arguments have been special pleading for your religion (that schools should be explicitly called secular, that you should not be required to pay taxes for schools you don't use since you choose to use a religious school instead, etc.)
You can't have it both ways.
Either your god is personal (as you attest in your latest post): in which case it may legitimately inform your personal judgments, but may not impose upon others in the public sphere.
Or you want your god to be public, inform public morals, and be central to public decisions.
Tell which it is, because I'm now extremely confused.
You say you're not a libertarian, but you demand the right to not pay for public services that you don't use.
You say your god is private, but you wish to impose religious teachings into the public arena.
so give.
Tony C.
I am not the one that leads these discussions off the beaten path. In the future I will point out where what I have written has been mis-characterized and leave it at that.
The topic of this thread was suppose to be concerning bad news for Creationists. I suggested one evidence that was potentially not bad news for creationists and I find myself needing to either ignore or answer those who strike up diatribes that have nothing to do with the article. In the future I will try to ignore the diatribes to keep the discussion on topic.
It might help if those who start the threads try and make them a little less entertaining or political by how they describe the newest piece of the overwhelming evidence.
Others discuss magic and the world of weird and its not supernatural, when a christian does so he's off his or her rocker.
I don't use my faith in God to offend people, but I can't prevent you from finding me offensive. I prefer to be able to dialog without a sack over my head, but again I guess that's what public and secular is all about.
Karl
Comments threads often go where they will – the initial post is often only the opening phrase in a symphony of words, and may only occasionally be heard among other themes. If a thread strays completely off the rails – that's perfectly fine by me. This is not a controlled classroom debate, with defined rules. It's a conversation – sparked by the topic posted, but thereafter at the whim of those who choose to comment. Conversations should be organic. I like it like this. Perhaps it's too laissez-faire for you?
That being said, I'm nonplussed by your latest comment.
Since when has anyone here suggested that 'magic' is not supernatural? Belief in 'real' magic is not supported by observation or other evidence. It';s supernatural by definition! Weird covers a multitude: anything out of the ordinary – including internet memes like "i can haz cheezeburger?" and rickrolling, to snake-oil cures and homeopathy and reiki. Weird is not necessarily supernatural, it may just be weird!
However, the foundations of your belief system are assuredly supernatural – as you continually attest.
It is my presumption that belief of (or based on) the supernatural is, by definition, delusional. A delusion shared by many other people does not make it a non-delusion, merely a popular delusion. From Merriam-Webster
The only proof you have is that which you supply yourself, or a book that was indisputably written by men (which is no proof).
You then continue to say that you don't use your faith in god to offend. However, when you proclaim against homosexuality or gay marriage, you are being offensive. When you assert that you are moral, and I'm not, you're offensive. When you assert that yours is a religion of love, yet everything you say is divisive, that's offensive.
You also play the victim card, continuously. Let me tell you – Christians 'own' the USA. Your propaganda is everywhere. I need to pass a dozen church billboards just to get to the supermarket. If there is a victim here it is the secularists who have to put up with in your face proselytizers and lack of real representation (how many congresscritters are atheist or avowedly secular? None! In a country where 20% are non-demoninational!)
As I've said before — your religion is yours, and you may do with it as you will – just don't preach to me and expect me to accept (or respect) your gospel.
If you want to argue and dispute, that's fine – bring it on. I want some real discourse. But don't say you are being gagged. Your perspective is one based in religion – fine. Does that mean that you are incapable of argument unless supported by a bible quote? I hope not!
You are perfectly free to say – According to my beliefs, I think this is wrong, for reasons X Y & Z. – we'll then debate those reasons. Just as you debate my commentary and my reasons. It's perfectly acceptable to agree to disagree!
The problem is we don't get ANY of Karl's reasons. We just get bible.
Karl wrote, "On whose side was god during the two world wars?"
I had intended to not wade into any of Karl's comments, because to do so is obviously a waste of energy, but his comment above, about whether or not the god-of-the-Bible takes sides in wars, has an important history. In fact, military victories were a key factor in both Christianity and Islam becoming global religions. For Christianity, Constantine's invasion of Italy in 312 c.e., was a turning point in elevating Christianity from being an obscure religious sect to being the official state religion. In 300 c.e., a person could be executed for claiming to be a Christian; in 400 c.e., one could be executed for *not* claiming to be a Christian. Such was the impact of military success.
Likewise, early Muslims relied heavily on military victories to justify their faith, to silence critics and to attract more followers (much as radical Islamists still do today).
I am less familiar with the history of Judaism, but I would imagine that it, too, benefitted from military success in its very early years.
The notion of "my god can beat your god" is is not unique to monotheistic religions. In pantheistic religions, worshippers pray to various gods in the belief that one god can help them overpower the bad deeds of some other god whom they believe is plaguing them. Monotheistic religions just make the process simpler: whomever wins the battle must be god's favorite. At least, so say the victors who, of course, are the ones who write the history books.
The phenomenon is not restricted to ancient times. Consider, for example, the vast numbers of evangelical Christians who reportedly sat-out the 2008 U.S. presidential election. Apparently, they saw how utterly incompetent their Chosen One (Bush) had been and concluded that maybe their god wasn't as powerful as they thought he was.
Going back to my original post, and to Karl's comment that began the above comment thread, I would also point out that even if scientists do find protein in dino fossils (a surprise given current beliefs about the lifespan of protein molecules), this would not undermine evolutionary theory. It would merely add to current understanding of protein durability in fossils.
Readers interested in the *extensive* archeological evidence of transitional species can find a lot more information on the Internet. This website is a good place to start: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional…..
Karl writes:—"Others discuss magic and the world of weird and its not supernatural, when a christian does so he’s off his or her rocker."
Just for the record, to me it's all of a piece. Magic, UFOs, past-lie regression, all the stuff you find crammed into pop fantasy novels, Urantia, Atlantis, all of it—it's the same kind of addle-brained, "oh, wouldn't it be cool if the world worked according to whim" thinking, and to me people who embrace that stuff are just as off their rocker (in that instance) as are people who believe wine actually turns into blood and bread into flesh after a shaman mutters a few words over it. The universe doesn't work that way and while it may be fun to play pretend with such concepts for the purposes of fiction, it is sloppy-headed, wish-fulfillment thinking. All of it.
Weird shit happens all the time—the degree to which it is inexplicable is relative to the lack of useful information we have about it. That's all.
Your average rational person is as unconvinced of the power of wiccan spells, crystals, alien anal probes and "The Secret" (damn you Oprah) as they are by the utterance of a Hail Mary or the Lord's Prayer or whatever buzz-words are popping up in those enormous Walmarts for Jesus that are on tv late at night.
I think the only real difference between magical spells and religious miracles is a combination of (a) how many people still believe in them and (b) how long they've been around – which are both related to grumpypilgrim's point about how successfully such things are spread and enforced. Following Nicea, Christianity was enforced and imposed on the Roman empire – via the sword – as a political measure. But for a small twist of fate or one sleepless night on the part of Constantine you could be living in a Pagan nation instead of the allegedly "Christian" nation you have now. And then Pat Robertson would be exhorting the pow-ah of the Great Mountain Spirit (blessed be his escarpments) instead of the Holy Spirit as they beg you for money.
—————
Hey, Mark: you said "past-lie regression".
Typo or a bit of a Freudian slip there? I'll go with the latter if you don't mind 🙂