Another thing I don't understand about the creationist position...

[USincognito]

The heart is a complex organ, and heart tissue found in eucharistic miracles did not occur as successive slight modification.

Nor was it "introduced". Whilst the proportion of some of the samples which was human flesh/blood was noted as an increasing amount over a period of weeks, and a substitution does not do that, nor is the DNA of the samples a fraudster.
These are independent teams and labs that investigated, independent places, indepenent continents.
So there is no common fraudster possible.

Did I miss the citation for this outrageous claim earlier in the thread?

 

[Mountainmike]

In order...

1. Yes, life is complex and we don't yet know how God did it. That's the problem of abiogenesis. Be sure to let us know how and When He did it. And note my earlier point that he could simply have animated mud, so why life is so hideously complicated is actually a problem for you to explain.

2. The tree of life is, as someone once said, more a tangled bush than a simplistic tree. Generally shown as a simple tree to make comprehensible to the lay public a monstrously complex aspect of evolution. It's the fact of evolution that makes it so complex.

3. Yes, we are agreeing that God created life and designed the processes for it having evolved. We understand the first, but not yet the second. Any input you have on how you think He did it will be welcomed.

4. Life started. That's a fact. God started it. We'll agree with that. How He did it is unknown. Again, your input will be welcomed.

5. If you want to start a thread on consciousness, then feel free.

What appears to result from your posts is that you say that GOD has done all this. And I'll agree. Now if you'd be so kind as to explain how you think He did it then we'll have something interesting to talk about other than bleeding plaster statues in obscure Bolivian towns.

There are two issues here of course,
The evidence, and the interpretation which is a matter of faith.
( eg Anyone who postulates development from simpler cells than we know, is acting on belief)

So to belief.
Was Bolivia or EM just a demonstration to a sceptical world that He can create life as he wills?

And to prove the reality of a eucharist which is normally hidden. After all what we see and what IS are two different things, as philosophers have told us for millenia.

John 6 is specific, and the references to eating His flesh and drinking His blood were so graphic that many of his followers left in disgust. He used the word that means gnaw not consume. Drawing back the veil to see flesh and blood is consistent with that.

 

[Bradskii]

Did I miss the citation for this outrageous claim earlier in the thread?

Miracles are self perpetuating. If someone did a scientific examination of some tissue and found out it was bovine, then we'd get 'It was human and now God has changed the biological source from Man to cow! Another miracle! Suck that up, Darwinists!'

 

[Bradskii]

So to belief.
Was Bolivia or EM just a demonstration to a sceptical world that He can create life as he wills?

Who on EARTH could possibly argue that a God who is omnipotent could not create life as He wills? What a dumb question...

As I said, we don't know how He started life. Abiogenesis is a mystery at this point. And why it started off so complex is a problem which you noted but are yet to explain. And we know He proceeded from there. He left a monstrous amount of evidence. If you think all that evidence is wrong, then produce your own for whatever means you think He took.

Spoiler alert. Bloody tears from a plastercast is not it.

 

[Frank Robert]

My suggestion is for the first time in your life you look at the forensic evidence of Eucharistic miracles.
then you can judge the veracity of what is actually there, and who was involved.

I agree with @Bradskii, it does not change anything nor does it tell us anything about creation, abiogenesis or evolution. A creator deity could have easily done all this by providing the natural laws as many theistic evolutionists believe, especially Catholic Christians. See: BioLogos.

Just for the record, I agree that the evidence in cases of Eucharistic miracles is scientific evidence but it is not forensic evidence as it was not for legal proceeding. In a previous post I brought up miraculous cures for cancer and HIV. The evidence from biopsies, antigen/antibody tests, lab tests and imaging tests are also scientific evidence but not forensic evidence for the same reason.

 

[Belteshazzar(Daniel)]

Didn't I ask you how we determine which it parts of the bible we are to take literally and which metaphorically? There must be a way to do it. Can you please explain it to me?

If you believe than the Spirit of Truth will lead you into ALL Truth. I cannot tell a person who does not believe the Word for to them it is foolishness. So what you believe is truth will be your truth. I am not the one you ask if you really seek it it can be found. For if any man ask for wisdom God will give it.

 

[Frank Robert]

If you believe than the Spirit of Truth will lead you into ALL Truth. I cannot tell a person who does not believe the Word for to them it is foolishness. So what you believe is truth will be your truth. I am not the one you ask if you really seek it it can be found. For if any man ask for wisdom God will give it.

Most people who are religious were born into their religion. So my question: Do only Christians have the truth?

 

[Bradskii]

If you believe than the Spirit of Truth will lead you into ALL Truth. I cannot tell a person who does not believe the Word for to them it is foolishness. So what you believe is truth will be your truth. I am not the one you ask if you really seek it it can be found. For if any man ask for wisdom God will give it.

I don't know what to believe is the literal truth and what is meant to be metaphorical. I want to know how you know. What method you use to determine tbe difference. Because it makes a huge difference.

I can't do it on my own, as you say. You obviously know how so tell us how.

 

[Belteshazzar(Daniel)]

Most people who are religious were born into their religion. So my question: Do only Christians have the truth?

There is only One Truth that being Jesus. I was not born into Christianity. God revealed Himself to me when I looked for Truth. If there were more than one Truth than if one wanted to believe that 2+2=5; why or how would they be corrected if they held that as their truth even though it is wrong?

 

[Mountainmike]

Who on EARTH could possibly argue that a God who is omnipotent could not create life as He wills? What a dumb question...

As I said, we don't know how He started life. Abiogenesis is a mystery at this point. And why it started off so complex is a problem which you noted but are yet to explain. And we know He proceeded from there. He left a monstrous amount of evidence. If you think all that evidence is wrong, then produce your own for whatever means you think He took.

Spoiler alert. Bloody tears from a plastercast is not it.

it is not a “ dumb question” since most of the world don’t believe it.

It is a demonstration to those who do not Believe.

It is also a demonstration of transubstantiation which science can never explain and confirms the Catholic view,

There is no evidence for life less complex than the simplest cell. How we got there is unknown. What happened after that is an illdefined mess of assumptions only some of which can be explained , the tree of life is a fog.

If you believe that is how life formed, from one source then evolution took over , then you have you to explain it not me, including how it accounts for consciousness.
As far as logic is concerned , if He can create at all, it could have created at any stage , or multiple stages.

 

[Frank Robert]

There is only One Truth that being Jesus. I was not born into Christianity. God revealed Himself to me when I looked for Truth. If there were more than one Truth than if one wanted to believe that 2+2=5; why or how would they be corrected if they held that as their truth even though it is wrong?

Then you were one of the lucky ones. What happens to the nearly 6 billion people who were born to other religions or that didn't get the message?

 

[Frank Robert]

it is not a “ dumb question” since most of the world don’t believe it.

It is a demonstration to those who do not Believe.

It is also a demonstration of transubstantiation which science can never explain and confirms the Catholic view,

There is no evidence for life less complex than the simplest cell. How we got there is unknown. What happened after that is an illdefined mess of assumptions only some of which can be explained , the tree of life is a fog.

The Theory of Evolution is one of the best-substantiated theories in the history of science. It is supported by evidence from a wide variety of scientific disciplines, including genetics, which shows that different species have similarities in their DNA. Creationists are in denial of a natural world with zero evidence. Denial is the strongest defense mechanism that humans have. Denial occurs when you refuse to accept reality or facts. People in denial may block external events or circumstances from the mind so that they don't have to deal with the emotional impact. In other words, they avoid painful feelings or events.

If you believe that is how life formed, from one source then evolution took over , then you have you to explain it not me, including how it accounts for consciousness.

Why do you say that? Many animals have consciousness. We know many animals can recognize themselves, but that is minor. What convinced me was learning was learning that chimpanzees show empathy and altruism just like humans do.

Not only do they show empathy but they are capable of beating humans in highly complex memory games

Ayumu is a 7-year-old chimpanzee.... Can you beat Ayumu in this memory test? CLICK ON LINK https://web.archive.org/web/201310061... and take the free test to see if your memory is as good as a chimp's!

As far as logic is concerned , if He can create at all, it could have created at any stage , or multiple stages.

It is also logical that a creator deity could have easily providing the natural laws for evolution which is what we observe today.

 

[Mountainmike]

The Theory of Evolution is one of the best-substantiated theories in the history of science. It is supported by evidence from a wide variety of scientific disciplines, including genetics, which shows that different species have similarities in their DNA. Creationists are in denial of a natural world with zero evidence. Denial is the strongest defense mechanism that humans have. Denial occurs when you refuse to accept reality or facts. People in denial may block external events or circumstances from the mind so that they don't have to deal with the emotional impact. In other words, they avoid painful feelings or events.

Why do you say that? Many animals have consciousness. We know many animals can recognize themselves, but that is minor. What convinced me was learning was learning that chimpanzees show empathy and altruism just like humans do.

Not only do they show empathy but they are capable of beating humans in highly complex memory games

Ayumu is a 7-year-old chimpanzee.... Can you beat Ayumu in this memory test? CLICK ON LINK https://web.archive.org/web/201310061... and take the free test to see if your memory is as good as a chimp's!

It is also logical that a creator deity could have easily providing the natural laws for evolution which is what we observe today.

Which is no answer to the main points in my post you quote made to another poster.
In as far as it related to evolution, the burden is on him not me.

For the last time, I will explain my position and then move on.:

1/You wrongly equate an unspecified "evolution" (there is no single theory, there is a hotpotch of theories, hypotheses and outright conjecture) as the presumed the journey to life.

But Abiogenesis is pure speculation right up to a massively complicated minimum cell as part of the simplest organisms we know. These minimum cells are self repairing self evolving self perpetuating chemical factories of thousands of chemicals that take many volumes to even to describe. Before that is a complete blank of evidence. After it is an ill defined fog. To pretend that life is somehow solved whilst ignoring 99.9% of the journey is intellectual nonsense. The simplest Life we have evidence for, is very very complicated. And we still do not know how it got from there to the most complex forms of life.

2/ The state of OOL is hyped out of all proportion mainly because atheists have no other avenue than to assume life was all a chemical accident.
Reality? I dont know but " I believe" is the only valid answer as a scientist , so that is MY answer too. I do not know, and netiher does anyone else. If someone explains a pathway to a the simplest cells and organisms we know, then I will take a view. I have been looking at protocell research for 50 years. It is remarkable how little is still known despite the copious volumes of money thrown at it.
I have not rejected a guided form of evolution. However that is long way from accepting it. I do not know. Nor does anyone.

3/ The scientific evidence for EM indicates cells created in present time without evolution as a cause.
If cells can be created in our present time, all other bets are off for the rest of life, since you cannot know how many starts to life there were, or at what stage they were created.

4/ None of that accounts for consciousness, and more importantly the evidence separability of consciousness from the brain. If it is not a chemical process, abiogenesis and chemical evolution cannot account for it, and therefore they cannot account for life.

5/ The theory of evolution is not one of the best substantiated on any metric. Not least because there is no single theory.( Despite repeatedly being called a theory!) . The other laws at least have proper definitions! so you can test them! So which do you mean? The molecular genetics? Common descent? Survival of fittest? The organism tree? Which?


PS It is meaningless to distinguish "forensic evidence" from "scientific evidence".
I find much of what you say is pure sophistry.

In that case
First - because the test were because done by accredited forensic labs and pathologists whose normal day job is criminology. ( so done to those standards by those staff)
Second - A DNA test done on GMP validated equipment has the same veracity wherever it is done, but it is more likely to be done outside academia because by and large academic labs do not carry the same standards, they cannot afford to, or the impact on their working practices.

Third - To show the distinction is pointless. Something that did turn legal...

At sokolka the polish rationalist society declared that if the sample was indeed heart tissue as the pathologists declared, then the public prosecutor should look for a body, since it can only have arisen from a crime, which no doubt the office would be obliged to take seriously at some level.
So At what point did the investigation change from scientific to forensic? The same people doing the same things to investigate it.So the difference is? Did it change back from forensic to scientific when the prosecutor lost interest? The distinction is totally academic!

Thankfully there is no murder, because in all these cases the DNA yielded in effect "bar code zero" of human DNA. Human identity is by repeats of redundant sequences. These did not show the ID repeats, which is part of why they are not reproducible and therefore not fraud.. However the MtDNA haplogroups showed the samples were indeed human. Morphology showed human heart. In some of the cases it was possible to say even which part of the heart.








.

 

[Frank Robert]

Which is no answer to the main points in my post you quote made to another poster.
In as far as it related to evolution, the burden is on him not me.

For the last time, I will explain my position and then move on.:

1/You wrongly equate an unspecified "evolution" (there is no single theory, there is a hotpotch of theories, hypotheses and outright conjecture) as the presumed the journey to life.

But Abiogenesis is pure speculation right up to a massively complicated minimum cell as part of the simplest organisms we know. These minimum cells are self repairing self evolving self perpetuating chemical factories of thousands of chemicals that take many volumes to even to describe. Before that is a complete blank of evidence. After it is an ill defined fog. To pretend that life is somehow solved whilst ignoring 99.9% of the journey is intellectual nonsense. The simplest Life we have evidence for, is very very complicated. And we still do not know how it got from there to the most complex forms of life.

2/ The state of OOL is hyped out of all proportion mainly because atheists have no other avenue than to assume life was all a chemical accident.
Reality? I dont know but " I believe" is the only valid answer as a scientist , so that is MY answer too. I do not know, and netiher does anyone else. If someone explains a pathway to a the simplest cells and organisms we know, then I will take a view. I have been looking at protocell research for 50 years. It is remarkable how little is still known despite the copious volumes of money thrown at it.
I have not rejected a guided form of evolution. However that is long way from accepting it. I do not know. Nor does anyone.

3/ The scientific evidence for EM indicates cells created in present time without evolution as a cause.
If cells can be created in our present time, all other bets are off for the rest of life, since you cannot know how many starts to life there were, or at what stage they were created.

4/ None of that accounts for consciousness, and more importantly the evidence separability of consciousness from the brain. If it is not a chemical process, abiogenesis and chemical evolution cannot account for it, and therefore they cannot account for life.

5/ The theory of evolution is not one of the best substantiated on any metric. Not least because there is no single theory.( Despite repeatedly being called a theory!) . The other laws at least have proper definitions! so you can test them! So which do you mean? The molecular genetics? Common descent? Survival of fittest? The organism tree? Which?


PS It is meaningless to distinguish "forensic evidence" from "scientific evidence".
I find much of what you say is pure sophistry.

In that case
First - because the test were because done by accredited forensic labs and pathologists whose normal day job is criminology. ( so done to those standards by those staff)
Second - A DNA test done on GMP validated equipment has the same veracity wherever it is done, but it is more likely to be done outside academia because by and large academic labs do not carry the same standards, they cannot afford to, or the impact on their working practices.

Third - To show the distinction is pointless. Something that did turn legal...

At sokolka the polish rationalist society declared that if the sample was indeed heart tissue as the pathologists declared, then the public prosecutor should look for a body, since it can only have arisen from a crime, which no doubt the office would be obliged to take seriously at some level.
So At what point did the investigation change from scientific to forensic? The same people doing the same things to investigate it.So the difference is? Did it change back from forensic to scientific when the prosecutor lost interest? The distinction is totally academic!

Thankfully there is no murder, because in all these cases the DNA yielded in effect "bar code zero" of human DNA. Human identity is by repeats of redundant sequences. These did not show the ID repeats, which is part of why they are not reproducible and therefore not fraud.. However the MtDNA haplogroups showed the samples were indeed human. Morphology showed human heart. In some of the cases it was possible to say even which part of the heart.

I will no longer answer you point by point because your are in denial.

You deny all evidence that is contrary to your belief but never produce contrary evidence.
Apologetics ≠ Scientific evidence.

Examples: you deny chimp empathy. No reason or contrary evidence for your denial. Dito chimp memory.

You continuously attack science that is contrary to your beliefs and scientists' work you dislike. Never an iota of evidence to back up your beliefs, you even fail to supply any links to sources for your opinions. You don't even give credit for where you get your opinions or apologetics.

You continue to harp on abiogeneis without the slightest understanding that it is a legitimate area of research. Again no source for your babbling that it's too complicated.

I have stated a dozen times I do not disagree that there are miraculous cures. If there is scientific evidence for eucharistic miricles I consider them in the same vein as spontaneous remission of cancer (SR)of cancers that which are backed up with scientific evidence.

I provided my sources of why Forensic evidence ≠ Scientific evidence.

You deny it but fail to provide any legitimate sources to back up your denial. Following good practices for forensics dose not make forensics evidence scientific. You believe it does but are unable show any evidence for your belief.

Here it is again:

Forensic Science: Problems and Solutions​

Forensic Science: Problems and Solutions - Innocence Project

Through the examination of more than 360 DNA exonerations, the Innocence Project has seen many examples of problems in the foundation or application of forensic science, including: Unreliable or invalid forensic discipline. Studies

innocenceproject.org

Forensic science, or more specifically, problems in forensic science, contributes to many wrongful convictions, as seen in in nearly half (45%) of DNA exoneration cases and one-quarter (24%) of all exonerations in the United States.​

​

The main reasons:​

Unreliable or invalid forensic discipline.​

Insufficient validation of a method.​

Misleading testimony.​

A second source:

How Scientific Is Forensic Science?

How Scientific Is Forensic Science? - JSTOR Daily

We like to think that physical evidence is a foolproof way to lock in a conviction. The problem is that forensic science isn't exactly a science.

daily.jstor.org

"We like to think that physical evidence is a foolproof way to lock in a conviction. The problem is that forensic science isn’t exactly a science."

And another:

Is Forensic Science Scientific? Crime lab errors and privacy issues raise concerns.​

Forensic Science Scientific? Crime lab errors and privacy issues raise concerns. ​

​

... new technologies can also mislead the public about how forensic science is actually practiced. Most forensic technicians work in local government crime labs that lack certification requirements, accreditation programs, or effective education opportunities for technicians. Major studies of forensic science have shown that many crime lab methods are unscientific and too often involve guesswork, contributing to false convictions. Meanwhile, privacy experts worry that genomic crime-fighting tools could be misused to surveil Americans who have never committed a crime or even taken a DNA test.​

​

I am sure you will continue to deny the sources but you will fail to support your denial. I have no idea of why you think anyone would take your word for opinions you continuously fail to back up.

 

[dlamberth]

It is also logical that a creator deity could have easily providing the natural laws for evolution which is what we observe today.

Or that the Creator deity IS the natural laws of evolution that we observe today.

 

[Bradskii]

it is not a “ dumb question” since most of the world don’t believe it.

It is a demonstration to those who do not Believe.

It is also a demonstration of transubstantiation which science can never explain and confirms the Catholic view,

There is no evidence for life less complex than the simplest cell. How we got there is unknown. What happened after that is an illdefined mess of assumptions only some of which can be explained , the tree of life is a fog.

If you believe that is how life formed, from one source then evolution took over , then you have you to explain it not me, including how it accounts for consciousness.
As far as logic is concerned , if He can create at all, it could have created at any stage , or multiple stages.

You're repeating yourself. You are again just claiming a miracle occurred. And as I said, for the purpose of this discussion I'll agree.

And yet again you say we don't know how abiogenesis ocurred. Nobody is arguing that, so why you keep on about that I don't know. Do you want to say God did it? O.K. No problem. Let us know when you find out how.

And as you have rightly pointed out the incredible complexity of even the most basic of life forms you might take a stab at why it is so and we're not just animated dirt.

And one more time you point out the messy bramble bush that shows how things are connected (and connected they are) as opposed to a neatly trimmed tree. Was someone arguing against that at some point? No, they weren't. And you might take a shot at why it is so complex if God designed it as such. That it's so messy is exactly what we'd expect from the process as we uderstand it. It's not a random process, but there's enough random aspects to make it look just as it does. It certainly doesn't look like it was designed. How about you take a shot at that as well?

And good grief...it's down to me to explain how evolution ocurred? There are countless scientists working on countless aspects of it producing countless papers with a galactic amount of evidence produced over decades. As Frank said, it's one of the strongest, if not the strongest, scientific theory that has ever existed. And what do you have to counter it? A plaster bust weeping tears.

And you want to have your views treated seriously?

 

[AV1611VET]

Or that the Creator deity IS the natural laws of evolution that we observe today.

Including "heat death"?

 

[Frank Robert]

Or that the Creator deity IS the natural laws of evolution that we observe today.

I guess that depends on one's beliefs.

 

[Mountainmike]

You're repeating yourself. You are again just claiming a miracle occurred. And as I said, for the purpose of this discussion I'll agree.

And yet again you say we don't know how abiogenesis ocurred. Nobody is arguing that, so why you keep on about that I don't know. Do you want to say God did it? O.K. No problem. Let us know when you find out how.

And as you have rightly pointed out the incredible complexity of even the most basic of life forms you might take a stab at why it is so and we're not just animated dirt.

And one more time you point out the messy bramble bush that shows how things are connected (and connected they are) as opposed to a neatly trimmed tree. Was someone arguing against that at some point? No, they weren't. And you might take a shot at why it is so complex if God designed it as such. That it's so messy is exactly what we'd expect from the process as we uderstand it. It's not a random process, but there's enough random aspects to make it look just as it does. It certainly doesn't look like it was designed. How about you take a shot at that as well?

And good grief...it's down to me to explain how evolution ocurred? There are countless scientists working on countless aspects of it producing countless papers with a galactic amount of evidence produced over decades. As Frank said, it's one of the strongest, if not the strongest, scientific theory that has ever existed. And what do you have to counter it? A plaster bust weeping tears.

And you want to have your views treated seriously?

I hold the scientific view , nobody knows how life formed, and the simplest organisms we know about are incredibly complex.
There are plenty of papers, and a lot of money poured into the hole. But All are of them are in essence conjecture. At best they try to define parts of what might have happened. Ie plausibility , Even if parts of a pathway are shown possible, there is no guarantee that is how it happened.

“ Evolution “ is not a single theory, it is a collection of theories , hypothesis and pure guess. So “it “ is not an “ it” and whilst individually some are strong, only one of them taken individually does not account for life.
A chain is as strong as the weakest link , which chain includes pure conjecture , so taken Together , the conjecture that life is a product of abiogenesis and evolution -is neither a theory, nor a fact nor strong.

It might of course be true. I don’t have a problem if it is.

But the evidence is nowhere near strong enough to claim it as fact, only as conjecture.

if you want a strong theory you can actually test - try for example - kinetic theory of gasses or special relativity .

So spare us the utterly ridiculous idea it is sttong theory , let alone strongest. It betrays a woeful ignorance of science by all who claim that!
It Makes me wonder whether people who claim that, know any other theories At all? Do you?


But then I’m a scientist in the true sense of the word.
not an “ evolution accounts for life” wishful thinker / believer.

As a scientist I go where evidence leads, whether I like the conclusion or not.
unlike evolutionists I am happy to separate what I believe , from what I can substantiate with evidence.

As for what I i believe - i believe the universe is a product of intelligent design and creator, although I cannot say How, indeed , were there multiple starts to life? Who knows?
but like evolutionists, that’s just my belief.

There is actual scientific evidence life was created in the present time, and it is far more than for “abiogenesis happened as a random chemical event”

 

[Bradskii]

I hold the scientific view , nobody knows how life formed, and the simplest organisms we know about are incredibly complex.
There are plenty of papers. All are of them are conjecture. At best they try to define parts of what might have happened.

“ Evolution “ is not a single theory, it is a collection of theories , hypothesis and pure guess. So “it “ is not an “ it” and whilst individually some are strong, taken individually they do not account for life.
A chain is as strong as the weakest link , which chain includes pure conjecture so taken Together they are neither fact not strong.

if you want a strong theory you can actually test - try for example - kinetic theory of gasses or special relativity .


But then I’m a scientist in the true sense of the word.
not an “ evolution accounts for life” wishful thinker / believer.

I go where evidence leads.
unlike evolutionists I am happy to separate what I believe , from what I can substantiate with evidence.

You keep repeating the same thing. Yes, nobody knows the exact process of abiogenesis. Including you. Is this all we're going to get from now on in? Evolution doesn't account for life. It's a completely separate discipline from abiogenesis.

You say you go where the evidence leads but all you've given us are bleeding statues. Which again has absolutely nothing to do with abiogenesis or evolution. It neither explains the first or discounts the second.

Looks like you've blown yourself out. Nothing more to offer, no explanations given, no questions answered and no evidence produced. What a complete waste of forum time...