Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
On the first insult “ clearly not familiar “ you are out.
You mean “ academic literature on science”
On the first word:
Let me point out most murderers are sent to jail or the electric chair on the basis of criminal forensic labs reports whose procedures are far better than any academic lab. It is criminal forensic pathologist speaking on these.
On the second word science is just a model. It is limited in scope. It can only model repeated observations. It has nothing to say on Something that does not repeat or cannot be repeated, why it happens or who did it. It only comments on observation. You just assume it will always do what it did yesterday.
It didn’t do the usual at Fatima. Something unique and extraordinary happened, on a day predicted 6 months before.
The evidence stands regardless of whether it appears in an academic journal.
Apart from which you only have to look at such as the utterly incompetent now thoroughly debunked dating of the shroud of Turin to recognise that academia loses all objectivity around phenomena presumed religious. Thankfully a few like Adler , carried on to show what the shroud really is. You won’t have heard of him. He didn’t follow the academic religiously held scepticism. He analysed what was there.
Indeed in most cases academia refuses to get involved, as the researchers primarily tesoriero / Willesee discovered. They used forensic labs who are happy to report on what they find, not report on their personal prejudice.
Let me tell you what happens when academia did get involved.
Two forensic pathologists at Bialystok university prepared sections of the samples they took from wafer at sokolka. The slides are there to see. They concluded as above. Heart myocardium.
The dean of the same university, determined to quash it, who had never even seen a sample or slides said it was red bread mould, despite the fact it looks nothing like. That is how unobjective academia is in trying to protect its sacred cows.
So if it’s science you want look at the forensic reports, comments of those who studied them.
If it is unobjective academic prejudice , go look at dawkins illinformed rants.
As for the rest , spare me the lazy tropes.
Science has nothing to say on who or what did it. Either for or against God. It codifies patterns in observations where they repeat, can be repeated , or are a logical consequence of the previous. It cannot conclude on cause either way.
Transubstantiation and prophecy are so far away from the existing model science would need rebuilding ground up to accommodate them, and even then i contend it could not.
so the score remains.
1/ Actual forensic evidence of abiogenesis in eucharistic miracles: 4
- ie creation of heart cells.
2/ Actual evidence of abiogenesis from chemical soup. Big fat zero.
- ie random chance chemistry leading to heart cells.
Not even a model conjectured.
Science even breaks its own rules to consider abiogenesis a valid hypothesis,
Let me know if that changes, till then I am with
1/ because there is actual evidence that has been investigated.
They always find some reason or another for such puzzles - if all else fails, 'God works in mysterious ways'.And that's an interesting aspect of our perception of reality. Given that we can communicate with others "reality" can be approximated by an ensemble of observations. Like the central limit theorem, we can close in on the most likely accurate perception of reality.
If the sun danced around in actual space and zoomed toward the earth and put off different colors, etc. it would have been seen all over the daylight side of the globe.
However "mass hysteria" or whatever the current hypothesis is for Fatima could easily have been limited to a group of people in one locality who had been staring up at the sun long enough to possibly damage their sight and wholly expecting a miracle to happen.
Occam's Razor is always good to bring out here.
But more to the point: why does God allow "miracles" from a theological point of view? The answer is obviously to impress on the viewer the reality and might of the Heavenly realm. My question is: why not do so for EVERYONE on earth? Why make it a few isolated events that only a select get to see and thus be saved while those who didn't see it are forced to wonder whether it was true or not?
Didn't God know that not every human blindly accepts the words of another person without fail?
I suspect you'll find that Mike only sees as credible the evidence claims that support his view, and reacts badly to any questioning of those claims.This isn't a literature citation. I will look up on my own (since it is clear you are not familiar with standard science-reference protocol).
Correct. That does not mean that God and miracles ipso facto "exist" per se.
Agreed, but the lack of evidence for something does not equal the positive evidence for a catch-all term like "miracles".
Let us assume you have modeled a system using a statistical model. You have a number of independent variables and dependent variables. The model can only explain 85% of the variance in the dependent variables. Are you 100% certain you have all the independent variables that may be in play? Are you accounting for "noise" in the data which may affect the fit?
The point being that in such cases you would not be in a good situation if you just said a "miracle" explains the remaining 15% of the variance.
This is not to say that miracles don't happen. I have no idea one way or the other. I've just never seen a miracle and I am unaware of any real miracles. It would be irrational to assume that all those things science has yet to understand are "miracles" since there are so many other possibilities. Possibilities we've seen throughout history.
The "God of the Gaps" theology is often dismissed by theologians precisely because it decreases the value of God by making Him smaller and smaller with each discovery in the sciences.
There's also the issue of potential error or just made up stories. Indeed I assume stories like the funeral of St. Christina the Astonishing is probably simply made up. (I assume you are familiar with the story that during her funeral she came back to life and flew up into the rafters of the church and made faces at the congregants). It is reasonable to assume maybe a death-like state could be confused with death at that time, but flying up into the rafters is quite something different.
The world is full of stories like that. Across all religions. So if a miracle is evidence of the God of Abraham we must also agree that the "milk miracle" is evidence of Ganesha's existence in Hindu.
That sounds like a companion to the 'convergence' theory of truth - the abstract ideal towards which all rigorous investigators will eventually converge.And that's an interesting aspect of our perception of reality. Given that we can communicate with others "reality" can be approximated by an ensemble of observations. Like the central limit theorem, we can close in on the most likely accurate perception of reality.
This ^^^Occam's Razor is always good to bring out here.
I suspect you'll find that Mike only sees as credible the evidence claims that support his view, and reacts badly to any questioning of those claims.
Refresh my memory, are you a flat earther?Refresh my memory- are you also a Noahs ark believer?
There is sufficient evidence to make some form of abiogenesis the best scientific hypothesis.
Refresh my memory, are you a flat earther?
Which is utter b@ll@x, but believe it if you prefer it to evidence.Skeptoid has an article about this: Illuminating the Fatima Miracle of the Sun.
Yet you don’t comment on the forensic evidence of those that have it.Ah ok, ifn you dont want to admit something just plead the
5th. We will understand.
Some miracles are " evidenced", others are in the bible but
didn't really happen
Yet you don’t comment on the forensic evidence of those that have it.
Dodge away. Make your evasion about someone else.
You going to evade for a third time?
Not answering at all is also evading.
My word construction was just fine as it was. Thanks.
Well, yes and no. What it does NOT allow (and this is basic inference, which you presumably know quite well) is to propose some unevidenced supernatural effect.
As I noted: if you ran a statistical model and you could only explain 85% of the variance in the data you would be acting improperly to assign the other 15% to "supernatural/miracle phenomena".
Personally I would doubt the Fatima example for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that it is far easier to explain the dancing of the sun in the sky due to:
1. Human errors in perception (especially after looking at the sun for an extended period of time and doing damage to their vision, etc.)
2. Human propensity for being mistaken about something (especially when primed to believe in "miracles")
As opposed to suggesting that the entire sun literally moved around in space and briefly came close to earth without causing world-wide effects.
You mean the 14-C dating of the Shroud that almost perfectly matches the first mention of the Shroud in the 14th century?
Doing science unscientifically does not make it better science.
Sounds like you are setting it up such that it doesn't have to follow the "falsification criteria" of normal science. Just make up a bunch of hand-waving stuff like saying they are "so far away from existing model science" in hopes of creating a fog of "excuses" for when they fail to show up as actual data in the real world.
Yet you still, strangely, have not provided any citation other than just waving your hands and vaguely mentioning people you have heard of.
This is where actually completing a graduate degree would come in handy. Again, citations make a difference.
Interesting. Why does life use ONLY regular organic chemicals that occur in non-living things all over the place? Why does life prefer a specific chirality that strangely matches the inorganic mineral surfaces that would have been an available substrate for the first life and it didn't wind up a complete racemic mixture?
No it doesn't. It's OK to admit you don't understand abiogenesis or biochemistry very well.
It is intetesting and rather sad when a person
trained in the rigorous discipline of scientific thinking
goes so wrong and throws it all away for magical
thinking, confirmation bias, self deception.
Dr K Wise is a good example. PhD in paleontology
but forced into total disregard for intellectual integrity
by irrational religious conviction.
"....even if all the evidence in the universe turned
against yec, I would still be yec as that is what the bible
seems to say".
If a person can believe in a world wide flood or
human heart tissue miracled into a crackerthere may
not be anything beyond belief, no matter how poorly
sourced, as long as it fits the preconceived (ie totally
anti science) notions.
For such as De. K Wise, a science background, real or otherwise doesnt make
the assertions more believable, it makes the claimant look
pathetic.
Not answering at all is also evading.
He may be wrong in believing in YEC who knows. But everyone else that discard God is wrong in the worst possible way, not only they ignore that God is still up there and made us, also that the only thing that matters in this life is finding Him, everything else passes away and is not of comparable value.
So Why do you disagree with forensic pathologists on samples you have never seen, and you would not be able to interpret them even if you had?
Study some of it before comment.
Good order.
None of the below worth commenting till you have.
Eg The unscientific dating of the shroud , and the way they tried to defend their nonsense , was a disgrace to all concerned.
It depends on your sincerity.How long must one look for God?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?