It is NOT a spurious argument. It is logical...
    Looking at the world and the vast number of things required to sustain life; I believe Earth, and the things on Earth are created. (Two Bears)

You made me smile again: Do you believe it because it is logical or does it become logical because you believe it?

Bill, your calculation is alright but the result is consistent with reports about De Deus: According to reports he treats up to
3000 people a day, making the blind see and paraplegics walk, and curing cancers and other illness. He does all this
without medication of surgical invasions of the body.

Three thousand a day and sometimes a day off to recover from the hard work.

He can even make the blind see, I've read it on the internet!

To which I would add that he rather makes some people, who in a physical sense can see, blind.

That's why the word 'faith' in some contexts is preceded by the word 'blind'.

Now back to an old argument from John H.: But science has shown to disprove its previous conclusions SO often that it should be obvious that, though scientific method is valid, the conclusions drawn from it are as fluid as faith and belief.

(1) You seem to take self-correction as a reason to trust less in results from science. For me, it is completely different. I have much more trust in knowledge systems that change with new findings than in those that have been laid down centuries ago and are never changed. I never had much trust in authoritative teachings in my life and any gurus and masters I have met have always failed to impress me except for their combination of low knowledge with high confidence.

(2) If you look back at the history of science in any field, you'll see that, on the one hand, what was measured nearly always came closer to a kind of asymptote, so the remaining error getting smaller each decade (nothing fluid like faith in that) and, on the other hand, that the changing theories were nearly always getting better at making prediction, even if the underlying principles could be vastly different. Newton's beautiful theory is wrong. Period. But the predictions it has made are for the usual speeds extremely close for all practical purposes. Einstein's theory makes better on target predictions for what happens to motion near big masses or at high speed. One day it most probably will be found to be wrong in what it assumes as the basic mechanism. But that doesn't make the predictions wrong. Sometimes scientists even make theories the mechanisms of which they already know to be wrong just because these theories make good predictions.

Wolfgang