Evidence of miracles.

[Clizby WampusCat]

I Can’t be bothered with the Sophistry on this forum any more.

Mountainmike also could not be bothered to provide the evidence he says he has. Claims are not evidence.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Of course it is reasonable.
Pathologists state unequivocally, the white cells should not exist in vitro after hours. But they did.

Firstly, that's a different claim - you said, "Nobody has a clue how it is possible to fake them."
Secondly, a few pathologists aren't everybody.
Thirdly, white blood cells can be isolated from forensic blood samples many hours after the crime.

They state blood can’t clot ex vivo.

This is incorrect - blood clots on exposure to air or external surfaces. In fact, it's hard to stop it clotting outside the body (silicone containers will delay it).

The reported claims of these pathologists appear to be extremely unreliable. This doesn't help your case.

I Can’t be bothered with the Sophistry on this forum any more.

So stop posting it.

 

[partinobodycular]

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.

The problem is that without the original source we have no way of knowing if you're simply paraphrasing, exaggerating, or misinterpreting what the authors actually said or claimed. Until you provide us with some sort of corroborating evidence they're simply your claims.

 

[partinobodycular]

Labeling themselves to be wise, they became fools.

Let me get this straight...are you saying that humans aren't wise?

 

[AV1611VET]

Let me get this straight...are you saying that humans aren't wise?

I'm saying that humans that label themselves "wise" run the risk of later becoming atheists.

It's a Biblical principle that Paul brings out.

And I've seen it happen before.

Split Rock, who used to post here (and I wish he'd come back), is a good example.

I'll see if I can find our conversation.

 

[partinobodycular]

I'm saying that humans that label themselves "wise" run the risk of later becoming atheists.

So you're saying that if they agree with you then they're wise, but if they don't then they're not?

 

[AV1611VET]

So you're saying that if they agree with you then they're wise, but if they don't then they're not?

Here's where I got into it with Thaumaturgy and Split Rock:

Post 31

 

[SelfSim]

I'm saying that humans that label themselves "wise" run the risk of later becoming atheists.

I'd say, (in that hypothetical), that humans labelling themselves as 'wise', (which is a rarity from my experience), have missed the understanding of the concept of wisdom. Some might just call that ignorance rather than wisdom.

Also, the entire notion you're propagating here, dismisses all religious leaders, (Priests, Pastors, Rabbis, etc), from being wise and they must also be atheists.
If this were true, then why do so many religious people consult them for spiritual advice?

 

[Mountainmike]

By a few pathologists, you mean all of the tens involved in multiple investigations. No dissenting voices.

If you cared to look it up, you would see leucocyte concentration and lysing can be used as an estimate of time of death. So no pathologist thinks they can exist in vitro for more than hours , but they did!
which is one of the reasons several said they were inexplicable.

The question of fraud has been raised. No hypothesis can be found.

Spare me the sophistry. They don’t think the samples should exist, which also means they ruled out obvious mechanisms for fraud.

Dozens of pathologists have seen them, that’s what they think.
I prefer them to CF

If you come up with an idea for fraud, that meets ALL of the observed characteristics I’m fascinated. How do you suppress PCR?

Till then , this has run its course.
The fascinating thing is all of you probably accept abiogenesis from chemical soup, with no evidence that it happened, when or how, no idea of a process or structure for the first cell.

I have specific evidence of abiogenesis , where , when, the structure and tests.

So for the present these trumps Darwin’s view,

The stakes are high. Darwin said any life from other than small change would violate his theorem.

In at least 6 instances forensic evidence indicates that happened.

Im off - farewell.

Firstly, that's a different claim - you said, "Nobody has a clue how it is possible to fake them."
Secondly, a few pathologists aren't everybody.
Thirdly, white blood cells can be isolated from forensic blood samples many hours after the crime.


This is incorrect - blood clots on exposure to air or external surfaces. In fact, it's hard to stop it clotting outside the body (silicone containers will delay it).

The reported claims of these pathologists appear to be extremely unreliable. This doesn't help your case.

So stop posting it.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Dozens of pathologists have seen them, that’s what they think.

Oh, it's dozens now... so you say, but you can't or won't provide any substantiating evidence ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[Hans Blaster]

I'm saying that humans that label themselves "wise" run the risk of later becoming atheists.

It's a risk worth taking.

 

[AV1611VET]

It's a risk worth taking.

QV please: Pascal's wager

 

[Hans Blaster]

QV please: Pascal's wager

Pascal's wager is ill-formed and pointless. It's built on false premises.

 

[AV1611VET]

Pascal's wager is ill-formed and pointless. It's built on false premises.

I pray you change your mind before it's too late.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I pray you change your mind before it's too late.

Don't bother. Save your efforts for something less futile.

 

[AV1611VET]

Don't bother. Save your efforts for something less futile.

Too late!

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

By a few pathologists, you mean all of the tens involved in multiple investigations. No dissenting voices.

You going to name them? Or actually present their work?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

You going to name them? Or actually present their work?

It's been rounded up to dozens now: "Dozens of pathologists have seen them..."

 

[Mountainmike]

It's been rounded up to dozens now: "Dozens of pathologists have seen them..."

Bearing in mind there were at least 7 named giving an opinion on Buenos airies across 3 continents (others scientists still , later involved in mitochondrial testing of white cells) . Various genetic labs too.

So there are 5 phenomena , 4 Eucharistic + Cochabamba.
More if you count sudarium ( edices had several ) + lanciano on top.

Then it would be surprising if less than 20 were involved total.
Even if it were 10 does it matter?
Same results declared in multipl locations. Multiple people. No dissenting views.

Not a single scientist conjectured fraud, or false analysis , of those who looked at the samples. You could name most of them if you ever bothered to look in free videos and sites. But you never will.

There were of course the usual sceptic idiots , like the dean of Bialystok declaring sokolka red mould, having never actually seen the samples or the slides. That is how sceptics and CF behave.
Others like stuttgart refused to test it because they were frightened it might be real, when they heard what the sample was!

Of the posters here I respected you until the day you quoted skepdic , the least scientific site on the web, if that’s how far the level of debate has sunk, no point in discussing it more. Keep closing your eyes and reading skepdic, It’s easier than science.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Bearing in mind there were at least 7 named giving an opinion on Buenos airies across 3 continents (others scientists still , later involved in mitochondrial testing of white cells) . Various genetic labs too.

So there are 5 phenomena , 4 Eucharistic + Cochabamba.
More if you count sudarium ( edices had several ) + lanciano on top.

Then it would be surprising if less than 20 were involved total.
Even if it were 10 does it matter?
Same results declared in multipl locations. Multiple people. No dissenting views.

Where is the evidence? These are just claims.

Not a single scientist conjectured fraud, or false analysis , of those who looked at the samples. You could name most of them if you ever bothered to look in free videos and sites. But you never will.

There were of course the usual sceptic idiots , like the dean of Bialystok declaring sokolka red mould, having never actually seen the samples or the slides. That is how sceptics and CF behave.
Others like stuttgart refused to test it because they were frightened it might be real, when they heard what the sample was!

Non of this is good evidence for your claim.

...no point in discussing it more.

This is the third time you said you were done posting on this thread.