Eucharistic Miracles

Mountainmike said:

There are nuances to these stories that few people know.
1 They were analysed by several different forensic labs whose day job is criminology
2 They are real human flesh and blood group AB (rare) but yield only mitochondrial (maternal) DNA. Normal DNA is not found. Impossible to fake.
3 The flesh is heart myocardium impossible to remove in a living body, and showing massive evidence of physical trauma.

4 The white cells are proof of life! at the time of sampling despite being in water for years in some cases.

5 The flesh is intimately woven into the bread in a way that would be impossible to fake.

Click to expand...

Mountainmike said:

Peer reviewed "studies that prove existence of supernatural" seems to me to be a misunderstanding of what science is, and what it can prove. In simplistic terms Science cannot prove God, until someone builds God into the abstract model of science.

If you think it would get a Nobel prize, you do not understand the scientific establishment! It is bought in to life being a chemical accident and consciousness being a biochemical function.It will not accept anything else.

You do know do you, that most so called "valid science " is never peer reviewed. Because even if you can get funding for repeats (you cannot) no journal will publish work that is not original. Science hides behind peer review when it suits it.


Once the scientific establishment discovers what they are asked to test, they refuse to test it.

That said many samples HAVE been validated by well reputed forensic labs who were just given a sample and asked to state what it is. You will find the reports in books.

One such lab refused to test it, until told what it was and then said "we will not test it, because if you are right it undermines the ethos of our university which is built on darwinism". So much for universities following truth. They dont. If they had a shred of integrity they would test it , on the basis of belief it would fail their test, but it doesnt!.

In fact the whole of evolution science is built on a gaping void. Abiogenesis. THe smallest cell is bigger and more complex than even the worlds most complex chemical factories. A self evolving chemical factory is presumed sprung into existence from inert matter. There are no antecedents. No intermediates have ever been found or postulated. It cannot be repeated. It has never repeated. The pathway to the first cell is more complex than what followed.
Yet the presumptino of appearance of that cell out of nothing is "peer reviewed science!". The reality for those who study the cell, the problem of how it came to exist becomes harder not easier the more it is studied.

Abiogenesis is the atheist faith not science.

In real sceince abiogenesis does not even qualify as a hypothesis, let alone a theory. Do you understand why?

Click to expand...

Mountainmike said:

As someone who has studied eucharistic miracles and compiled a fairly extensive library on them, I am curious to know how much such as Buenos Airies, Sokolka, Legnica, Tixtla etc are known by the general catholic population?

There are nuances to these stories that few people know.
1 They were analysed by several different forensic labs whose day job is criminology
2 They are real human flesh and blood group AB (rare) but yield only mitochondrial (maternal) DNA. Normal DNA is not found. Impossible to fake.
3 The flesh is heart myocardium impossible to remove in a living body, and showing massive evidence of physical trauma.

4 The white cells are proof of life! at the time of sampling despite being in water for years in some cases.

5 The flesh is intimately woven into the bread in a way that would be impossible to fake.

And together they debunk darwins theory who said. "that if any example of life is found that is not from small steps from other life it disproves my theory" These are alive, and went in one step from inert bread to real flesh. Science has no answer.

How many are aware of the details? Im curious to know how much the catholic world knows of the details?

Click to expand...

Mountainmike said:

Peer reviewed "studies that prove existence of supernatural" seems to me to be a misunderstanding of what science is, and what it can prove. In simplistic terms Science cannot prove God, until someone builds God into the abstract model of science.

If you think it would get a Nobel prize, you do not understand the scientific establishment! It is bought in to life being a chemical accident and consciousness being a biochemical function.It will not accept anything else.

You do know do you, that most so called "valid science " is never peer reviewed. Because even if you can get funding for repeats (you cannot) no journal will publish work that is not original. Science hides behind peer review when it suits it.


Once the scientific establishment discovers what they are asked to test, they refuse to test it.

That said many samples HAVE been validated by well reputed forensic labs who were just given a sample and asked to state what it is. You will find the reports in books.

One such lab refused to test it, until told what it was and then said "we will not test it, because if you are right it undermines the ethos of our university which is built on darwinism". So much for universities following truth. They dont. If they had a shred of integrity they would test it , on the basis of belief it would fail their test, but it doesnt!.

In fact the whole of evolution science is built on a gaping void. Abiogenesis. THe smallest cell is bigger and more complex than even the worlds most complex chemical factories. A self evolving chemical factory is presumed sprung into existence from inert matter. There are no antecedents. No intermediates have ever been found or postulated. It cannot be repeated. It has never repeated. The pathway to the first cell is more complex than what followed.
Yet the presumptino of appearance of that cell out of nothing is "peer reviewed science!". The reality for those who study the cell, the problem of how it came to exist becomes harder not easier the more it is studied.

Abiogenesis is the atheist faith not science.

In real sceince abiogenesis does not even qualify as a hypothesis, let alone a theory. Do you understand why?

Click to expand...