Evidence of miracles.

[AV1611VET]

It's just a label.

Yup ... just a label.

Labeling themselves to be wise, they became fools.

 

[AV1611VET]

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

It helps me avoid things and exposes how people think.

Like Linnaeus.

And speaking of getting "hung up on labels," evolution has more labels than Campbell soup.

In fact, they're so quick to assign labels, they'll assign a label to a peccary tooth before a dentist even looks at it.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

It helps me avoid things and exposes how people think.

Like Linnaeus.

And speaking of getting "hung up on labels," evolution has more labels than Campbell soup.

In fact, they're so quick to assign labels, they'll assign a label to a peccary tooth before a dentist even looks at it.

Even though you've been shown repeatedly how that wasn't evolution and how that claim has been shown to be wrong more than times than I care to count.

This all just shows how you think more than anything else and really, it's just sad.

 

[AV1611VET]

Even though you've been shown repeatedly how that ... claim has been shown to be wrong ...

Which came first? the label or the showing that it was wrong?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Which came first? the label or the showing that it was wrong?

Doesn't matter if it was labeled, since it was shown to be wrong.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Doesn't matter if it was, since it was shown to be wrong.

"Wasn't", maybe?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

"Wasn't", maybe?

Should have added the word labelled. Adding wasn't doesn't make sense.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Should have added the word labelled. Adding wasn't doesn't make sense.

Sorry. I read only part of the conversation.

 

[AV1611VET]

Doesn't matter if it was labeled, since it was shown to be wrong.

Which came first, the label or the showing?

 

[AV1611VET]

"Wasn't", maybe?

Maybe science should have taken a clue from Zenith first?

"The quality goes in, before the name goes on."

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Which came first, the label or the showing?

Why does it matter? Nebraska Man was ultimately shown to be wrong, and it was only taken as fact by a small number of scientists and sensationalist newspaper in the US because they wanted something to show that the US was different to the world.

 

[AV1611VET]

Why does it matter? Nebraska Man was ultimately shown to be wrong, and it was only taken as fact by a small number of scientists and sensationalist newspaper in the US because they wanted something to show that the US was different to the world.

Then I'll just take Post 520 with a grain of salt.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I’ve described the pattern numerous times.

Not just where it occurred ( your issue)

I wasn't asking about the "pathology" patterns, I was asking about the socio-geographic patterns.

Evidence of miracles.

You haven't really been address the first (and most important questions) previously:

1. Are these only found in Catholic churches?
2. Where on Earth are these occurrences located?

[pathology snip]

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.

[pathology snip]
Occam’s razor is useful. Simplest explanation is best.

I'm not sure you completely understand parsimony.

These are all "after the fact" investigations from what I've heard, so our acceptance of the evidence is *entirely* dependent on our willingness to believe those investigators.

If only some of these cases were repeating, then more rigorous (external) evaluation could take place. For example, if this miracle kept recurring every pentecost in the same church investigators could be prepared to secure the chain of evidence.

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!

I don't know. Why do you keep replying?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Then I'll just take Post 520 with a grain of salt.

Even though it shows you doing exactly what I said: you getting hung up on labels and taking them as be all and end all for science.

 

[Hans Blaster]

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

Give me just one name.

I don't have a specific name, but it is my understanding that the relevant biology communities were moving from the Linnnean system to cladistics to describe relationships. The "higher taxa" especially are often disregarded as what is a "family" or "class" might not be quite the same level of evolutionary separation in different areas.

The binomial nomenclature of H. sapiens, etc., is still going to be used as it would be exceedingly inconvenient to reference species by a completely different name with no overlap. The names have history and are easier to remember than some catalog number. Imagine that instead of H. sapiens humans were instead known as 233.38-Z7/8Q-33D8-38S.21-C. It would be like referring to your favorite minor planet by its catalog number 134340. What a mess.

Science is full of frozen nomenclature that doesn't reflect the modern understanding. Planetary nebulae are not plantary systems, but rather the low-density ejecta of a low-mass star ionized by the remnant core, but that name isn't changing anytime soon. Electrons don't "orbit" in orbitals even though chemists and (to a lesser extent) atomic physicists still use the term for electronic quantum states. Nuclear physicists still refer to alpha and beta particles even though they have known them as "He-4 nuclei" and "electrons" for a century.

The name is not the thing. The map is not the territory.

 

[AV1611VET]

The name is not the thing. The map is not the territory.

I think I'll just take Post 513 with a grain of salt.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I think I'll just take Post 513 with a grain of salt.

Too much salt is bad for your health.

 

[Mountainmike]

That's clearly not a reasonable claim.

Of course it is reasonable.
Pathologists state unequivocally , the white cells should not exist in vitro after hours. But they did.
They state blood can’t clot ex vivo. But it has on a statue.
Human tissue with DNA and recently living should sequence, it didn’t.

in all cases repeated.
Etc
Etc

That means they have no idea how it can happen, which means they cannot reproduce it!
Etc
I Can’t be bothered with the Sophistry on this forum any more.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Of course it is reasonable.
Pathologists state unequivocally , the white cells should not exist in vitro after hours. But they did.
They state blood can’t clot ex vivo. But it has on a statue.
Human tissue with DNA and recently living should sequence, it didn’t.

in all cases repeated.
Etc
Etc

That means they have no idea how it can happen, which means they cannot reproduce it!
Etc
I Can’t be bothered with the Sophistry on this forum any more.

You keep making these claims but don't show any evidence to back them up. Why?

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

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.

I agree the truth is the truth no matter what I believe about it. But the say-so by pathologists is not convincing evidence.

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?

It is your job to give good evidence for your claims. I have never said they are wrong.

I will only answer you again if you challenge a point of science this time as presented by the pathologists.

I responded to a video you presented as evidence. I gave you the reasons why I thought the evidence was not good enough for belief. You still have not responded to them.

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.

I have no idea. I never said they were faked or the pathologists were wrong.

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?

Again, I never said he got anything wrong.

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

I understand. But where is the evidence that supports their opinion?

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

This gives good evidence that you are not a skeptic. Something is not assumed to be true until someone proves otherwise. Something needs good evidence to either believe it is true or to believe it is false. Otherwise we cannot know what the truth is.

You also fall victim to the logical fallacy of incredulity a lot. Just because you don't now how to do something does not make it impossible.

You also seem to think that because I don't believe these miracles to be true then I believe them to be false. This is untrue. I never said they were faked or false.

Also, you made the claim that I am an apriori sceptic. You never gave any evidence to support this claim.