Magic DNA! It's a Miracle!

Just bear with me...



Even if she did receive magically new DNA, that doesn't magically unmurder those people she killed when she was... you know... still evil.

[I really hate how becoming Christian means she's all forgiven and stuff... new DNA means she's not accountable. See the problem here? Get out of jail free card--well then, what's stopping Christians from murdering all the time?]

Also, notice the big fat fallacies--appeal to authority and bandwagon appeal. I'm your preacher man, so listen to me, listen to this story I gotz for ya'allz. Now watch this... it's inspirational--stand up like a moron and raise your hands in praise--hallelujah! 
I kept waiting for him to cite a source... but then I remembered... that's only something rational people who are in search of the unadulterated truth do.

On a side note: there is a plausible scientific explanation for changing DNA. It's a rare medical condition regarding ones genetic make up called Chimera DNA. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Discussing the Historicity of Jesus with a Christian Agnostic

Image
Steven Jake, the author of the up and coming blog  TheChristian Agnostic , [1]  wrote a rather thorough response to my lengthy comment asking him about the state of the evidence regarding the historical Jesus. I am pleased he took the time to write a thorough response. I only feel that such a thorough response deserves my own more detailed response as my initial comment was merely that—a comment. So without further ado I will address some of Steven Jake’s comments and concerns. Initially Steven Jake (henceforth SJ) posted a quote from New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman claiming that there is an abundance of evidence for a historical Jesus. I merely contested this claim asking for what evidence we have that would be considered historically reliable. As I see it there is none. That doesn’t mean, however, I don’t think there  wasn’t  a historical Jesus, just that we cannot prove if there was or wasn’t and so I remain agnostic as to the historicity of Jesus—not a mythicist
Read more

Conflating Atheism and Agnosticism is a Mistake

Image
In a discussion over at Bud's blog Dead Logic , a reader asked a question I have been hearing more and more recently. It's a good question, so I thought I would do my part to try and answer it. Doesn't admitting to being an agnostic instead of an atheist FEEL like you're being wishy-washy, or not fully committing to your "belief"? ... I understand that it's only honest to say that we CAN'T be sure, but I sure do hate to show weakness (real or perceived) in an argument. Not at all.  Agnosticism deals with knowledge.  Atheism deals with belief.  The Agnostic position cannot assume whether a thing like a God could exist or not given the lack of sheer evidence for such a things existence. Therefore knowing with any given certainty just isn't possible. The agnostic then makes the claim that a definitive answer with regard to "knowing" of God's existence cannot be given either way. Atheism, however, can state with assurance t
Read more