101098

Hi Im new to this & I havent got much time right now, but it always amazes me the way science is able to think up new models when new facts prove the old theories wrong. I dont mean that in a derogatory manner! Science works on a best fit model basis. If you look at the current standard model for physics on an universal scale at least then we have relavalistic mechanics, But before that we had newtonian mechanics. I think before that we had eucldian geometery. My point is this, as new phenomina are measured and quantified we replace the old models BUT THE NEW MODELS MUST exhibit similar behaviour to ALL the known phenomina in existance at that time. Not just the new Phenomina that caused the old model to be displaced. I'll state the obvious here because it only dawned on me a while ago so please forgive me but science does tend to use terms like "only possible explanation" but when Euclidian geometery was TopDog it clearly wasnt the only possible explanation as both newtonian and relatavistic mechanics also mimiced the behaviour of the world as the ancients understood it. Likewise when newtonian mechanics was king in victorian times relatavistic mechanics also mimiced the universe as the victorians understood it. So if you go back to the ancient greeks a second. There were at least 3 models mimiced the set of behaviours known to the ancient world. So it seems unclear how you can prove youve got the "only possible explanation" which I read about so often. It seems undeniable that the number of given models that will correctly mimic any set of phenomina is unknown. So when you read any article which claims this is the only explanation be wary , I dont think we have a way of calculating how many other possibilities there are so thats effectively a lie or a badge of incompetence. Of course you can setup ridiculously simple examples which may well only have 1 solution, but the universe is a wonderous and varied place so please no artificially simple scenarios. Occam's razor is a statement of faith not a law of physics and even it doesnt say the solution is simple. Just to pick the simplest of the candidates

Jesus drank wine! as already quoted people called John insane because he niether drank and ate only locusts and stuff. They called Jesus a drunk because he did drink and feast etc. Maybe God arranged John to be a tea totaller specifically so Jesus could say "hey you want it both ways, which is it? " People rarely get drunk on fruit juice. Also Jesus 1st miracle. Turned water into wine. Theres no reason to think hebrew couldnt distinguish between wine and grape juice. Imagine the wedding. Orders to the servants: Ok now remember the adults get wine but the kids can have wine instead? Hebrew would have evovled the first time all tge kids came home blind drunk from a wedding to distinguish between the two surely! Plus its a wedding! Theres wine in those barrels not fruit juice! After people are a bit drunk they nolonger notice the quality of the drink. They dont care anymore. The same cant be said for fruit juice. The bible does take a dim view of being a drunkard if thats your point I agree, but I dont think thats the same as banning wine full stop at all