No evidence will ever satisfy apriori sceptics.
Their resistance is a matter of belief, not science.
They demonstrate the same behaviour they criticise in others.
These are multiple events and locations , with nothing and nobody in common between the events or analysing teams.
In the one corner you have respected pathologists saying not only are these heart tissue, suffering trauma , with signs of life at time of sampling, who consider that science cannot explain them and for a myriad of reasons they would not know where to begin to fake them. How do you have modern human tissue with no nuclear code, only mitichondrial and white cells, blood pushed out of bread not in. These are the people who actually analysed them , took the samples etc. Actual cardiologists recognising heart tissue. That’s high quality evidence a court would accept.
in the Buenos airies event alone there are 8-10 independent scientists whose opinion was sought along the way.
In the other corner you have sceptics who were not there, have not seen the samples, wouldn’t know heart tissue if it hit them on the head saying it’s a fake.
How does a priest or others in a backward parish fool forensic science? How were they faked: science doesn’t know how to do that. Even if anyone knew how, there is no person in common to orchestrate the sequence of samples. So what evidence have you for fake? The chain of custody is irrelevant in that context because the samples themselves cannot be faked by any known process.
So beyond reasonable doubt they are what is claimed.
Inexplicable appearance of heart tissue with signs of trauma and life. Where once was only flour and water. All in connection with Eucharist.
The sceptic challenge is from belief not science.
Despite Harvard, NASA and rich philanthropists pouring a fortune into origin of life research, there is still not the first clue about the structure of the first cell that can evolve, whose antecedents were all non living.
You all believe that without evidence.
Disbelieve Eucharistic miracles with evidence.
Vive la difference!
It is different, but of, course, it doesn't change the fact that many of these claims have been shown to be hoaxes, and even the church has dismissed a number of them:
Weeping statues.
The claim that just because most of them are hoaxes doesn't mean they're all hoaxes needs high-quality evidence to be substantiated.
If the person making claims refuses to provide the evidence they site that is not my problem.
It is if you are making the claim.
Fine but they are using unsound logic. There can be no way to know if something is inexplicable since there is no way to know of explanations that they cannot think or know of. It is a fallacy.
You should prefer pathologists with sound logic. Your apriori skeptic comment is a just an ad hominem. I have told you why I think the evidence is unsound or not sufficient for belief. You have refused to engage these.
How can you possible rule out a hoax? This is where you make your mistake. You cannot rule out solutions that you don't know about. The only way to rule out a hoax is to provide evidence it is supernatural.
Except that is a different situation and claim. The Lego claim you are witnessing the unexplained. With the Eucharist you never witness anything supernatural. You just are analyzing human tissue that you cannot know where it came from.
I agree. And so does Dawkins that there is not enough evidence to believe how life began. However, again you cannot conclude then that it was supernatural. The scientific consensus on how life began is "we don't know".
How so? Why can't both be true?