Evidence of miracles.

[Mountainmike]

Looks like they have you where they want you -- with cash in hand.

The cult skeptics have you where they want you!
Beliefs all programmed.
Including Refusal to read anything that might challenge your apriori belief.

Difference is, I’ve read all dawkins books , which is how I know they are a mixture of wishful thinking and pseudoscience.

I’ve read skeptic nickells books ( the one who won a critical thinking award). He makes every logical error you can.
His idea of science “ it didn’t look like blood, so it can’t have been”.

I’ve read the opposing view , I don’t shy from it like you and this forum.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

I’ve read the opposing view , I don’t shy from it like you and this forum.

Then why have you not responded to my post 392?

Evidence of miracles.

I spent a lot of time evaluating your evidence and you just stopped responding top me. I am going to assume it was an oversight.

 

[Hans Blaster]

The cult skeptics have you where they want you!
Beliefs all programmed.
Including Refusal to read anything that might challenge your apriori belief.

Difference is, I’ve read all dawkins books , which is how I know they are a mixture of wishful thinking and pseudoscience.

I’ve read skeptic nickells books ( the one who won a critical thinking award). He makes every logical error you can.
His idea of science “ it didn’t look like blood, so it can’t have been”.

I’ve read the opposing view , I don’t shy from it like you and this forum.

I don't find your blood miracles interesting, otherwise I might.

[This accusation is somewhat ironically amusing given that I found this site because I spent a couple afternoons reading deep into a series of (pseudoscience) claims about physics.]

 

[Mountainmike]

Then why have you not responded to my post 392?

Evidence of miracles.

I spent a lot of time evaluating your evidence and you just stopped responding top me. I am going to assume it was an oversight.

Why would i respond? Your post is a mixture of straw men, non sequiturs , sceptic tropes, misunderstandings & insults.

Challenge the science by all means, but do it with science.
State By What process can you create any sample that is as observed? It beat pathologists to explain them. Do you know better.

At the end of all of the haze of words, the following still remains true and unchallenged.

That There are a group of samples from several independent places and events that are impossible to fake by any known process. Tissue has appeared , it cannot have been substituted, because nobody knows how to make it, or where to get it from, or how to get it to survive in the condition as analyzed.

There are no dead bodies of victims with their hearts torn out. even if they were, the samples would decay, they would not have white cells, they would not occur progressively. They would not be intermingled with bread. They would have DNA of the victim.

Pathologists state it is traumatized Heart tissue ( statue epithelial tissue) that demonstrates the signs of recent life in vitro , which is impossible. It has a lot of human nuclear DNA but will not sequence, but all gave maternal DNA.

Whilst it is Impossible to “ prove” a miracle because of limitations of science not evidence, these occur in situations that appear to confirm many of the claims of christian doctrine.

Bread apparently became flesh in the Eucharist. The subject has no paternal DNA but only maternal. No human father
The heart shows the kind of severe beating consistent with the known sufferings of Christ.
Life - complex organism - appeared without successive small change.

This is evidence of abiogenesis occurring recently and not as a random accident out of chemical soup, for which there is no evidence or mechanism.

It doesn’t matter whether you are convinced or not. You are not an experienced pathologist. You can only listen what they have to say.
I detailed what they said.

It’s not my job to prove anything. I draw your attention to what all the pathologists said. Do you have the temerity to decide they were wrong?

I will only answer you again if you challenge a point of science this time as presented by the pathologists. What did they get wrong? How were they faked? Explain a hypothesis. Substitution doesn’t work unless you know how to fake it to substitute.

Zugibe wrote over 100 papers on the heart and heart pathology. He was a cardiac specialist and state pathologist. Like Engels at legnica. What are YOUR credentials to say the specialists got it wrong?

This is not my opinion vs your opinion.
This is pathologists opinion vs your opinion.

I am a real sceptic. It’s science that convinces me.
So convince me they were wrong.

 

[Mountainmike]

I don't find your blood miracles interesting, otherwise I might.

[This accusation is somewhat ironically amusing given that I found this site because I spent a couple afternoons reading deep into a series of (pseudoscience) claims about physics.]

Eureka! We got there.

They are not interesting, so you haven’t studied them.
Trouble is, pure logic says, you cannot then have a valid opinion on them.

( Leaves me wondering why have you spent all thread offering an opinion on something you therefore confess to knowing little about. Hardly scientific is it?
Indeed as a piece of self awareness, you might consider why you spend so long offering opinion on something you know little about, and are not even interested in by your own admission! Find something that interests you enough to study it! Get a life!)

 

[Hans Blaster]

Eureka! We got there.

They are not interesting, so you haven’t studied them.
Trouble is, pure logic says, you cannot then have a valid opinion on them.

( Leaves me wondering why have you spent all thread offering an opinion on something you therefore confess to knowing little about. Hardly scientific is it?
Indeed as a piece of self awareness, you might consider why you spend so long offering opinion on something you know little about, and are not even interested in by your own admission! Find something that interests you enough to study it! Get a life!)

I asked you a question or two about the pattern of these claims and you've chosen to ignore it. I think the pattern is meaningful do you?

 

[Mountainmike]

I asked you a question or two about the pattern of these claims and you've chosen to ignore it. I think the pattern is meaningful do you?

I’ve described the pattern numerous times.

Not just where it occurred ( your issue)

But the common scientific pattern between unconnected events analyzed by unconnected pathologists.

Traumatized Cardiac tissue. No DNA sequence. Maternal DNAfrom Middle East. Evidence of recent life in vitro. Still attached to bread in some cases.

The simplest explanation, that combines what is known of where they were found and what was founf? The Catholic belief of what happens in the eucharist stated for 2000 years is right.

How do priests who know nothing of pathology make fake samples that science has no idea how to replicate and deems inexplicable? And how was the same party trick done on the sudarium, or at lanciano millennia ago. Before anatomy was understood, let alone surgery!
Occam’s razor is useful. Simplest explanation is best.

But you are not interested you say, why should I waste time replying?
Could it be you are only interested in trying to debunk, without studying what you are trying to debunk?? How unscientific!

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

@Mountainmike, why haven't you responded to my post #460?:

If you have all their works, why won't you cite them? Quote them? Link to them?

Why do you refuse to do even a smidgen of work to try and get us onto your side? You want us to learn but you do nothing to teach.

 

[AV1611VET]

Why do you refuse to do even a smidgen of work to try and get us onto your side?

We're trying, Warden.

Jesus is drawing.

John 12:32 And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.

We're compelling.

Luke 14:23 And the lord said unto the servant, Go out into the highways and hedges, and compel them to come in, that my house may be filled.

Jesus is knocking.

Revelation 3:20 Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.

We're testifying.

Matthew 5:16a Let your light so shine before men,

We're building buildings, writing hymns, giving lectures, even making bumper stickers.

Matthew 5:16b ... that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.

We're handling Q & A.

1 Peter 3:15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:

Acting peculiar.

Deuteronomy 14:2 For thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God, and the LORD hath chosen thee to be a peculiar people unto himself, above all the nations that are upon the earth.

Some of us are even dying to see you guys get saved.

Hebrews 11:35b ... and others were tortured, not accepting deliverance; that they might obtain a better resurrection:
36 And others had trial of cruel mockings and scourgings, yea, moreover of bonds and imprisonment:
37 They were stoned, they were sawn asunder, were tempted, were slain with the sword: they wandered about in sheepskins and goatskins; being destitute, afflicted, tormented;
38 ( Of whom the world was not worthy: ) they wandered in deserts, and in mountains, and in dens and caves of the earth.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

We're trying, Warden.

The question was in no way directed at you and I don't care for your answer.

 

[AV1611VET]

The question was in no way directed at you and I don't care for your answer.

I understand.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

But each sample shows some different heteroplasmy, so not the same sample used in each case.

Not at all consistent then...

Although possibly consistent with each sample coming from a different individual - unless mitochondrial DNA comparison shows otherwise - does it?

Nobody has a clue how it is possible to fake them.

That's clearly not a reasonable claim. Maybe you mean that you get the impression that the people involved were puzzled by the samples. How many of those involved were asked if the samples could be faked?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Maybe you had better read what I wrote again:

My point is that, according to evolution, we are "Homo sapiens," which means "wise men."

Evolution can take a hike.

The taxonomic name "Homo sapiens" is not 'according to evolution', it's just the taxonomic name of our species - courtesy of Carl Linnaeus, a full hundred years before the Theory of Evolution was proposed.

But if it was 'according to evolution', your post would imply that someone who accepts evolution must therefore think humans are wise, which is just as absurd.

 

[AV1611VET]

The taxonomic name "Homo sapiens" is not 'according to evolution', it's just the taxonomic name of our species - courtesy of Carl Linnaeus, a full hundred years before the Theory of Evolution was proposed.

But if it was 'according to evolution', your post would imply that someone who accepts evolution must therefore think humans are wise, which is just as absurd.

Show me one person, including yourself, that embraces evolution without embracing the Linnaean classification system.

Give me just one name.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Show me one person, including yourself, that embraces evolution without embracing the Linnaean classification system.

Give me just one name.

That comment makes no sense.

 

[AV1611VET]

That comment makes no sense.

Here's the point:

Anyone referring to themselves as "wise," be it under a classification system, or because they're moralizing, or because they just have a feeling of grandeur, Paul says it can (and did) cause them to make themselves out as fools.

Romans 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Here's the point:

Anyone referring to themselves as "wise," be it under a classification system, or because they're moralizing, or because they just have a feeling of grandeur, Paul says it can (and did) cause them to make themselves out as fools.

Romans 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

There's a point where even being humble starts to become bragging, and continually spamming that quote reaches that point.

The classification of Homo Sapiens is not to say wise to mean "I am smart! Much smarter than anyone else!". It means wise as in that humans have the ability to rationalize, to plan, to think, to have knowledge.
Heck, just looking up the definition of wise on Google gives us this:
-having or showing experience, knowledge, and good judgement

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Show me one person, including yourself, that embraces evolution without embracing the Linnaean classification system.

Give me just one name.

Irrelevant. Before the ToE was a thing, people accepted that our species was called 'Homo sapiens'. That didn't mean they therefore thought we were wise. It's just a label.

 

[AV1611VET]

The classification of Homo Sapiens is not to say wise to mean "I am smart! Much smarter than anyone else!". It means wise as in that humans have the ability to rationalize, to plan, to think, to have knowledge.

I don't care if it means, "I have two eyes."

Call yourself "wise," and you're in for a reality check.

I've seen many people do just that.

They start out a Christian, embrace evolution, and the next thing you know ... bam ... they renounce their faith and embrace atheism.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I don't care if it means, "I have two eyes."

Call yourself "wise," and you're in for a reality check.

I've seen many people do just that.

They start out a Christian, embrace evolution, and the next thing you know ... bam ... they renounce their faith and embrace atheism.

You get so hung up on labels it's not even funny.