It’s not my account. It’s the account of those who researched it.
I am a sceptic too, which is why I took the trouble to get the evidence.
I have no time at all for people who want to conclude without special knowledge , or even studying it first. Like all here, and skepdic. Skepdic as always creates a trope based on no evidence , no examination, that does not even match the facts.
Anyone who quotes skedpic against investigation forensic pathologists lacks any credibililty. The statue was CT scanned several times. Which says there is no pathway. But the idiots of skepdic didnt even consider - even if it explains blood, it does not explain scabs (ie life) white cells in vitro (life) or where human blood with no nuclear DNA code comes from to fake it. As always skepdic is utterly useless.
There are no valid objections since none are based on the evidence, none have bothered to get it.
if one lab says “ there’s no DNA code” is interesting , not conclusive .
If several say it of this sample , that says this sample or testing is an anomaly.
if multiple labs testing similar samples from similar unrelated circumstances, and there is no question that all are testing the same sample it is beyond reasonable doubt.
The different samples matter. When several radiocarbon labs tested the same sample with the same method, it was one test repeated not several tests. And it was the biggest mistake in dating history. So yes scientists screw up. Nonsense is still nonsense even when talked by Zurich, oxford and arizona labs. But in that case they didnt just screw up. They actually fiddled the numbers! Lost all credibility same day.
But there is so much evidence on this. that the burden of proof has reversed. It is a fact there is no DNA code, until someone can give a reason why all the labs simultaneously failed on multiple different independent samples. There is no sensible hypothesis.
Of course "inexplicable" like scabs forming in non vital blood, is not a miracle.
But between these samples they appear to confirm.
1/ Created life, not life from small change
2/ A virgin birth (virtue of no nuclear DNA pattern, only maternal)
3/ Bread becomes flesh.
Since those ARE the primary christian doctrines it is clearly evidence of a miracle. Science cannot say it , because is just a limited tool, a man made tool that codifies patterns. Here is a new pattern. Eucharistic samples do not have a DNA code. It repeated so it is science.
Anyway. Since those here have descended to quoting skepdic, its clear they have no interest in science only skepdic tropes.
You are welcome to them, but dont ever confuse scientific proces
with belief based tropes on skepdic.
Nobody here has said, "It must be fraud" or "the pathologists must be wrong" - the fact that you need to strawman our arguments this way is telling.
We simply don't find your account convincing - and we're well aware that accounts written in books have no special claim to accuracy or lack of bias, and that experts can say silly things, can be cherry-picked, misquoted, and misattributed. We've also seen that looking into the background of some of the supposedly expert, honest, unimpeachable, unbiased, and independent professionals involved in these cases has discovered them to be nothing of the sort.
You claim to be a scientist yet seem unable to understand why these claims are not good evidence. There may be good evidence, but we've yet to see it - 'buy the book' is not it ('Chariots of the Gods' anyone?).
You have been unwilling or unable to answer the concerns about these stories except by saying how much you trust everyone involved and by posting a Gish-gallop of much you believe in various other unrelated but equally dubious claims, as if that makes any of them more credible. It's evidence that makes them credible or not.
Don't you see how railing against scientists and sceptics, because they question the evidence or want more than anecdotal evidence, is an illogical and/or irrational response?
