Evidence of miracles.

[Clizby WampusCat]

The entire "god of the gaps" falasy, presumes that because the universe itself is increasingly "known" by science, there is less and less place in it for a God to hide in it. But that very premise is a misunderstanding.

We don't know and more importanlty cannot know what the universe IS, eg how many dimensions it has, we can only model what it usually does in as far as phenomena that repeat, within our limited senses , which is projection of a reality into our sensor space.

An ardent evolutionist will tell you develop only as far as is needed to get a survival advantage. So we cannot sense it all, or the beings in it, or perhaps even most of it.

We cannot be certain that what it usually does, is what it always does. Or whether we share it with things and beings we cannot sense most of the time. The creature that lives in the dark, does not have eyes. If humans are not a threat to it, it has no need to develop senses.

Kant rationalises this, as the "noumena" the underlying reality, and the "phenomena" of how we perceive them. Plato postulated a shadow world, and that our sense of the universe was a mere shadow of a reality.

Science is a marvellous tool. But that is all.

I agree that we do not know everything about the universe. However, that is not good evidence to conclude that miracles can or do happen. That has to be demonstrated with good evidence. "I don't know" is a perfectly good answer until further evidence is found.

Kids grow up thinking science explains the actual universe. Not our perception of it. The two are radically different.

How can you say it is radically different if you cannot provide good evidence of the radically different universe?

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

In the context of fatima, the "quick drying clothes" and even more astounding is the quick drying ground , simply doesnt add up.

All eye witnesess agree that it was torrential rain for hours, that stopped only at the beginning of the apparition, that had left a quagmire. Then 10 minutes later as recorded by all, they and the ground were stone dry.

It was so dry, it was one of the things the witnesses said in many cases unprovoked - all spoke of the torrential rain. Why would they make up an unnecessary detail ?

Even if the accounts are true, how do you know it was a supernatural cause?

 

[SelfSim]

Kids grow up thinking science explains the actual universe. Not our perception of it. The two are radically different.

.. and yet you can't provide any evidence that 'it', and our perceptions of it', justify regarding those as being separable entities.
So much for your claims of being an evidence driven 'scientist'!

 

[SelfSim]

How can you say it is radically different if you cannot provide good evidence of the radically different universe?

The absence of that 'good evidence' leads us towards the conclusion that 'the radically different universe' is, inescapably, just another undistinguished belief, which will always find miraculous justifications amongst the minds of unscientifically thinking believers.
Will he ever admit to it being no more than that?

 

[AV1611VET]

Exaggeration doesn't always mean making taller

You'd think the Loch Ness Monster would be ninety feet long by now.

 

[Mountainmike]

If one of you would actually study some of the phenomena I post, then you will be wiser about evidence.

Meanwhile...of the 5 forensically analyzed eucharistic miracles, all yeiled traumatized human heart myocardium, with inexplicable white cells. They should not be there but they are. The samples are years old and white cells lyse after minutes or hours in vitro. So these samples were also alive at sampling time. So this is true abiogenesis. Life from inert materials (bread).

It did not happen by successive small change over billions of years. The conversions were not from life and were progressive over a few days.


Multiple samples many different forensic teams, all came to the same conclusion, including that the bread was so intermingled at the edge of the heart it was impossible to fake. That blood forced its way out of the bread not in!

All of the samples yielded massive positive tests for human blood, human flesh, but no nuclear genetic code. A fraud would have the DNA of the fraudster or victim.

HOT OFF THE PRESS

But here is the kicker, one of the eucharistic miracles, and the inexplicable bleeding statue of cochabamba were also analysed by the recently developed italian technology for single white cell MITOCHONDRIAL DNA. The samples both had no nuclear DNA but they do yeild mitochondrial (MATERNAL) DNA.

Turns out that both the statue and the eucharistic miracle have the same mitochondrial haplogroup of middle eastern origin. At very least that haplogroup match is 1/16000000 against happening.



As Einstein once said "coincidence is Gods way of remaining anonymous"

Now considering that there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever of the "critical step" in random chance abiogenesis as Dawkins would have it, either whether random chance abiogenesis happened , how it happened , or what happened... no postulated mechanism. No postulated intermediate.

The present score on abiogenesis evidence
Theistic Abiognesis 5 - Dawkins variety 0 . Nada . None. Zip. Nothing.
He has no idea. Not a clue. No evidence whatsoever.


Harvard put their name, as did other wealthy sponsors and NASA behind various projects to investigate the origin of life. They all drew a blank for how the 18000 protein chemical factory and software (our minimum cell came to be out of soup)
Not even comjecture about a candidate for the minimum evolving cell. ( the acid test) all the rest is at best plausibility arguments, not evidence.

..but they still keep saying it "must have happened" even though they have no evidence it actually did. So Dont you dare talk about lack of evidence.

The stuff in kids books on life from chemical soup is unsubstantiated unevidenced BS!!!!!

So Keep up.
The REAL evidence for abiogenesis (theistic style) is fascinating.

Get hold of a copy of "My human heart" tesoriero. Just published. It will get you up to date.

Also it is increasingly likely a similar single cell mitochondrial test will be done on the shroud, or sudarium to see if that matches mitochondrial dna of eucharistic miracles too. Who would bet against it? The letter is on pope francis desk as we speak, being urged to do it by those who investigated the buenos airies miracle at his behest. Im guessing francis collins will also be putting pressure to do it.

After all, who was the only person in history claimed to have no human father but did have a mother? It seems there is evidence of that. Mitochondrial vs nuclear DNA profiles.

I like evidence.

The absence of that 'good evidence' leads us towards the conclusion that 'the radically different universe' is, inescapably, just another undistinguished belief, which will always find miraculous justifications amongst the minds of unscientifically thinking believers.
Will he ever admit to it being no more than that?

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

If one of you would actually study some of the phenomena I post, then you will be wiser about evidence.

Meanwhile...of the 5 forensically analyzed eucharistic miracles, all yeiled traumatized human heart myocardium, with inexplicable white cells. They should not be there but they are. The samples are years old and white cells lyse after minutes or hours in vitro. So these samples were also alive at sampling time. So this is true abiogenesis. Life from inert materials (bread).

Can you point me to the evidence you have for this? I would like to actually study the evidence.

 

[Mountainmike]

Can you point me to the evidence you have for this? I would like to actually study the evidence.

A precis of each of the eucharistic miracles is on "therealpresence.org".

To get more you will need to buy books.
eg the actual test reports for tixtla are in "cronica do milagre eucharistico" castarnon. Or the english reports on Lanciano.

Buying tesoriero and willessees books ( particularly "unseen" and as I just pointed at

"my human heart", identifies the scientists involved in the miracles

Avalailable at reasontobelieve.com.au

Mike willessees book " a sceptics search for meaning" - a world leading investigative journalist who was converted by his attempt to debunk all the above, discoverhing they were real science.

There are plenty of videos out there. Google "eucharistic miracle" buenos airies, sokolka, legnica etc. or "cochambamba statue bleeding"

Also tesorieros videos are usefuls summaries
These were all forensic labs that decided the science. Most did so, not knowing what the samples were until after testing, becuase many refused to get involved if they knew before hand.

There are more open minded scientists like robert lawrence (pathologist) son of the nobel prize winner, who investigated such as the cochabamba statue. Various heart specialists identified heart myocardium in the eucharistic miracles.

Many univeristies refused to get involved, if they knew the source, and other pathologists were harrassed and even silenced for just documenting what they saw. Soubaniec / Sokolka

As I said - For a complete precis get hold of the newly released "my human heart" from reasontobelieve.com.au

To give an idea , in the case of the cochabamba statue it was filmed live over hours, on several occasions so certainly was not tampered whilst bleeding or crying . It was CT scanned, so no internal pathways even hairs breadth. The forensic reports by such as Lawrence who took his own samples (and re CT scanned it!) not only identified epithelial cells (also smashed up and traumatised) with white cells and scab tissue (that can ONLY form in vivo not in vitro) - and also vegetative matter identified as thorn.
Not so surprising for a blood mark from a crown of thorns!

Take any of these and ask yourself the question. How were they faked? Scab tissue cannot form just by dripping blood in a hoax. White cells lyse after hours post mortem. The flesh must be ALIVE.

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

All of the samples yielded massive positive tests for human blood, human flesh, but no nuclear genetic code. A fraud would have the DNA of the fraudster or victim.

Is it your contention that Jesus had no nuclear DNA?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Tell me you don't know much about OOL research with out saying you don't know much abut OOL research.

Now considering that there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever of the "critical step" in random chance abiogenesis as Dawkins would have it, either whether random chance abiogenesis happened , how it happened , or what happened... no postulated mechanism. No postulated intermediate.

The present score on abiogenesis evidence
Theistic Abiognesis 5 - Dawkins variety 0 . Nada . None. Zip. Nothing.
He has no idea. Not a clue. No evidence whatsoever.


Harvard put their name, as did other wealthy sponsors and NASA behind various projects to investigate the origin of life. They all drew a blank for how the 18000 protein chemical factory and software (our minimum cell came to be out of soup)
Not even comjecture about a candidate for the minimum evolving cell. ( the acid test) all the rest is at best plausibility arguments, not evidence.

..but they still keep saying it "must have happened" even though they have no evidence it actually did. So Dont you dare talk about lack of evidence.

I don't know why you brought up abiogenesis, but it is the only mildly interesting thing in you post.

The simplest single-cell lifeform around today has been evolving for 3.5 to 4 billion years. It is a very highly evolved creature. (Likely has more generations to the OOL than we do, since our ancestors moved to much longer reproductive cycles many hundreds of million years ago.)

There are many proposed paths to go from self-replicating molecules to proto-cells. It is my understanding that OOL researchers think there are *too many* paths.

Dawkins is right. The Earth was once devoid of life and now has life. Under the standard assumptions of science, life must have arrived or arisen naturally on Earth in between. If it could be demonstrated that no possible natural path could create life on Earth, then a non-natural path would likely be a better explanation, but until that time, a natural origin of life on Earth is the more parsimonious solution.

 

[AV1611VET]

Under the standard assumptions of science, life must have arrived or arisen naturally on Earth in between.

Under the "standard assumptions of science" at one time, was:

1. Thalidomide safe to take?
2. The Challenger GO for throttle-up?
3. Pluto our ninth planet?
4. L'Aquila safe to return to?
5. The Titanic a safe mode of travel?
6. Hydrogen an acceptable fuel for airships?
7. The Florida footbridge going to save lives?
8. The Deepwater Horizon a good place to celebrate a seven-year period without a lost-time accident?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Under the "standard assumptions of science" at one time, was:

1. Thalidomide safe to take?
2. The Challenger GO for throttle-up?
3. Pluto our ninth planet?
4. L'Aquila safe to return to?
5. The Titanic a safe mode of travel?
6. Hydrogen an acceptable fuel for airships?
7. The Florida footbridge going to save lives?
8. The Deepwater Horizon a good place to celebrate a seven-year period without a lost-time accident?

The "standard assumption" is "methodological naturalism" (i.e., nothing supernatural). None of your list of engineering and regulatory failures (with your planet bugaboo thrown in for good measure) are about non-natural causes.

 

[AV1611VET]

The "standard assumption" is "methodological naturalism" (i.e., nothing supernatural).

Are you using fancy terms to say God had nothing to do with:

1. Thalidomide
   
2. The Challenger
   
3. Pluto
   
4. L'Aquila
   
5. The Titanic
   
6. The Hindenburg
   
7. The Florida footbridge
   
8. The Deepwater Horizon

 

[Hans Blaster]

Are you using fancy terms to say God had nothing to do with:

1. Thalidomide
   
2. The Challenger
   
3. Pluto
   
4. L'Aquila
   
5. The Titanic
   
6. The Hindenburg
   
7. The Florida footbridge
   
8. The Deepwater Horizon

Do you have proof that your god caused any of those things? That would be a miracle. [Are you trying to confuse us by making a thread *on* topic?]

 

[AV1611VET]

Do you have proof that your god caused any of those things?

Did I say He did?

I only made the point that "standard assumptions of science" can, and have been, wrong.

So wrong, in fact, that people die.

So wrong, in fact, that it catches even the most learned by surprise.

So to say, "Under the standard assumptions of science, life must have arrived or arisen naturally on Earth in between," isn't a strong enough statement to try and convince us to abandon Genesis 1.

 

[Hans Blaster]

So to say, "Under the standard assumptions of science, life must have arrived or arisen naturally on Earth in between," isn't a strong enough statement to try and convince us to abandon Genesis 1.

That's not what I was doing. I'm trying (but I suspect futilely) trying to explain to Mike that abiogenesis is a scientifically reasonable proposition. He is trying (I think?) to claim that abiogenesis is so impossible (or super unlikely) that there must be a god shoved into the that "gap" in the natural progression of the Earth. He is wrong about it being impossible, even if we don't yet know what the mechanism was. (Or, even if there was one.)

 

[AV1611VET]

That's not what I was doing.

Okay, sorry.

I misunderstood you.

 

[Mountainmike]

Im actually arguing FOR abiogenesis of the theistic kind (the meaning is life from no life - as opposed to biogenesis, which is life from life) the evidence says it actually happened in eucharistic miracles.

As for random chance. I was answering self sim who said "no evidence" of miracles.

Right boot. Wrong foot.

Yes there is - there is Plenty of evidence of abiogenesis happening both in eucharistic miracles and indeed in blood / flesh on statues. Life from no life.
White cells, that dont lyse in vitro show life. And are utterly unexplained. Because normal white cells die most mortem, so fast, they can use it as a test for time of death. They dont survive in vitro at all.
Also scabs on the statue are evidence of life. Scabs dont form post mortem.

Just no evidence whatsoever of abiogenesis of the random kind. And until you have a mechanism, energy of reaction, likelihood of components existing within reaction range , you cannot guess how probable it is or whether it is possible let alone probable. Until you postulate the necessary complexity of the first evolving living cell, you can get no closer to that answer.

Abiogenesis, life from soup is not a "fact" as dawkins claims. There is neither evidence nor mechanism. It is not even therefore a hypothesis . It is pure speculation. I might even accept it if there is ever evidence, that that is one way life started. But there is none, and the longer people look at it, the harder the problem gets.

That's not what I was doing. I'm trying (but I suspect futilely) trying to explain to Mike that abiogenesis is a scientifically reasonable proposition. He is trying (I think?) to claim that abiogenesis is so impossible (or super unlikely) that there must be a god shoved into the that "gap" in the natural progression of the Earth. He is wrong about it being impossible, even if we don't yet know what the mechanism was. (Or, even if there was one.)

 

[Hans Blaster]

Im actually arguing FOR abiogenesis of the theistic kind (ie life from no life) the evidence says it happened in eucharistic miracles.

As for random chance. I was answering self sim who said "no evidence" of miracles.

Right boot. Wrong foot.
Plenty of evidence of abiogenesis happening both in eucharistic miracles and indeed in blood / flesh on statues. Life from no life.

So, you're arguing for some sort of "divine spontaneous generation" then. Abiogenesis is about the origin, not turning dead wheat cells into human cells. (Miraculously or otherwise.)

Just no evidence whatsoever of the random kind. And until you have a mechanism, energy of reaction, likelihood of components existing within range , you cannot guess how probable it is or whether it is possible.

Now you are back to abiogenesis and not understanding the problem in the slightest.

 

[Mountainmike]

So, you're arguing for some sort of "divine spontaneous generation" then. Abiogenesis is about the origin, not turning dead wheat cells into human cells. (Miraculously or otherwise.)

.

Ive no idea how it was done - nor can science ever try to explain it, it breaks too many rules of the model we have. The evidence says it happened.

Im arguing semantics of words. Abiogenesis is a generic term for life from no life. It does not just refer to the supposed life from soup. Flesh from bread by whatever process is just as valid to use the term abiogenesis. I distinguish it by saying theistic.

Now you are back to abiogenesis and not understanding the problem in the slightest.

It is because I understand it, and I have been utterly underwhelmed by the scope of the responses to such as the harvard initiative, I know that the only response the scientific community has is no idea how random abiogesis happened - if it did happen. There are just a few plausibility arguments for some of the bricks, and processes that might have been involved.

It is not real until someone proposes 1/ a first cell structure which clearly can evolve to what we know, 2/ a process for that but 3 /all of whose predicates are inert dead matter. What dawkins calls the critical step.