Evidence of miracles.

[Opdrey]

If you discount Eucharistic miracles

Well, given that the Eucharist ALWAYS transsubstantiates it shouldn't just show up as organ tissue on ONE occasion.

Life from soup there is none.

And supernatural special creation has ZERO EVIDENCE as well.

Even you recognised there is a difference between non living and living.

I'm still not comfortable with you saying that about me. I think I've been pretty clear on the commonality between living and non-living chemistry.

Of course the real problem with your disavowal of the distinction of non living to living is that that is the meaning of abiogenesis. How can you discuss it, if you do not accept the definition in the first place? Strange!

Because I don't necessarily think there's anything special about abiogenesis. It's a cool part of chemistry we have yet to fully explore. I am made of the same stuff as what we find on earth. I'm made up of things that occur naturally without life. I am made up of sugars and amino acids. I am simply made up of C, H, O, S, N, P and a few other dribs and drabs. There is literally nothing about my chemistry that is different from regular chemistry. Not a thing.

That's why they teach biochem in the chem department.

 

[Mountainmike]

There you go.
Final refuge of a faith based sceptic who disregards the science.
It must have been a bacteria! Despite the fact heart specialists ( several on several continents) said it was heart myocardium!

The sections look nothing like a bacteria. But it must have been right? Because otherwise it wouldn’t fit you apriori world view. Tell me. How does a bacterium look like heart tissue , has white cells that yield a HUMAN mitichondrial sequence? I’d love to hear your professional chemists view of that!

You showed your true colours with that that post, You are Faith based apriori sceptic who cares not about science if it disagrees with yoyr world view!

Pointless conversing further.
THE END.

The SON of a Nobel Laureate??? Well, that changes everything!



And I'm fine with that. You are correct. I have not studied the various writings of people who think it was a real miracle. It sounds like there might have been the possibility of a bacterium which gave some of the chemical markers but I don't know much in detail about it.

I am curious, though, given that the Eucharist always transsubstantiates in the Mass wouldn't this experiment be easy enough to run over and over and over again? Several times on Sunday or Saturday evening?



I will probably do so once I get a bit more time and I'm more bored. In the meantime I'll wait for more data to come in from the literally millions of transsubstantiations that occur every week across the globe in Catholic Churches all over the world.

Remember: you are the one on here that is the postgraduate scientist.

 

[Mountainmike]

I simply remind you I think I share dawkins view of the defining characteristic of life. Many others share it too. If you disagree what is your definition?

Since you are a postgraduate scientist I would think you would handle debate a bit better. Instead you scream about everyone insulting you while you insult them.

Scientists can definitely be nasty in debates and fight pretty harshly, but you seem to come outta the gate swinging. Maybe dial it back a bit.

 

[SelfSim]

If you disagree what is your definition?

If you had knowledge of abiogenesis hypotheses, you wouldn't ask such an utterly irrelevant question.
All hypothetical definitions, especially those of what 'life' is (and isn't), are contextually dependent and subject to revision. In the context of mainstream abiogenesis hypotheses, they play no role of dependency whatsoever. You should know this before you set out trying to downplay the credibility of mainstream abiogenesis hypotheses ..

 

[SelfSim]

There you go.
Final refuge of a faith based sceptic who disregards the science.
It must have been a bacteria! Despite the fact heart specialists ( several on several continents) said it was heart myocardium!

The sections look nothing like a bacteria. But it must have been right? Because otherwise it wouldn’t fit you apriori world view. Tell me. How does a bacterium look like heart tissue , has white cells that yield a HUMAN mitichondrial sequence? I’d love to hear your professional chemists view of that!

Miserably poor experimental controls and fraud .. that's how.
Prove me wrong!

 

[Opdrey]

There you go.
Final refuge of a faith based sceptic who disregards the science.

I get it. Anger feels good. But please note that I actually am FINE with you having your faith. It is religious faith. I tried to be civil, but apparently you are incapable of that.

It must have been a bacteria!

I said I had read something that vaguely mentioned a bacterium. I didn't say it MUST be that.

You showed your true colours with that that post, You are Faith based apriori sceptic

a priori (not one word, it's two). And I have not been able to understand why you use it unless it just makes you feel like it demonstrates your 4-sigma IQ. It doesn't really fit here.

who cares not about science if it disagrees with yoyr world view!

Pointless conversing further.
THE END.

You are a great witness for your faith. You have done well. Good job. You are truly a defensor fidei!

 

[Opdrey]

I simply remind you I think I share dawkins view of the defining characteristic of life. Many others share it too. If you disagree what is your definition?

Why does it matter? There is nothing "magical" about life. It is just regular organic chemistry. Sure it does some cool things, but nothing "magical". There is literally no aspect to the biochemistry of living things that cannot be explained FULLY using regular chemistry which applies to non-living things as well.

 

[partinobodycular]

Since you have never looked at the evidence, and despite your ego you are not a forensic pathologist, I defer to him. Oh… and the 20? Or so pathologists involved in all of those phenomena..

While this entertaining discussion has been taking place I've had time to do a little bit of Googling. I didn't need to buy a book or anything. It seems that there's a very odd phenomena taking place when it comes to eucharistic miracles. If they take place north of Mexico they invariably turn out to be the result of fungus. Yet if the same event occurs south of the border it quite often turns out to be real human heart tissue. Although the two can actually look quite similar.

But no need to take my word for it, unlike some people I have no problem with providing the corresponding links. Some of these websites and events you're likely familiar with.

Blood-red host is no miracle, lab tests show
‘Bleeding host’
eucharistmiracledallas
Science: The miraculous microbes of Bolsena | New Scientist
A Miraculous Fungi – Skeptasmic
Visions of Jesus Christ.com - Eucharistic Christmas Miracle in Buffalo?

What do I make of this strange geographical discrepancy? I think that people can be prone to bias, personal ambitions, and incompetence...and as such they either misinterpret or misrepresent simple fungus as being the miraculous manifestation of human tissue. I also think that your "world class" forensic teams probably aren't as world class, or as unanimous in their conclusions, as you seem to think they are.

Keep in mind, that the last time that I tried Googling your so-called forensic experts it didn't turn out so well for them. But I'll gladly try again.

 

[Hans Blaster]

The forensic pathologist ( son of a Nobel laureate) who examined both the Cochabamba statue and the Buenos airies so called Eucharistic miracle thinks it is compelling evidence.

This might be the weirdest case of "credentialism" I've ever seen.

What are you going to suggest next? That the son of the head of state should be head of state? Shesh!

 

[TLK Valentine]

This might be the weirdest case of "credentialism" I've ever seen.

The night is young...

 

[Opdrey]

This might be the weirdest case of "credentialism" I've ever seen.

To be fair, the son of Nobel Laureate Luis Alvarez is a famous geologist who was integral in finding the Ir anomaly at the KT boundary and further establishing the asteroid hypothesis for the extinction of the dinosaurs!

 

[partinobodycular]

The forensic pathologist ( son of a Nobel laureate) who examined both the Cochabamba statue and the Buenos airies so called Eucharistic miracle thinks it is compelling evidence.

To be fair, the son of Nobel Laureate Luis Alvarez is a famous geologist who was integral in finding the Ir anomaly at the KT boundary and further establishing the asteroid hypothesis for the extinction of the dinosaurs!

Okay now I'm confused, is he a forensic pathologist or geologist? There would seem to be just a wee bit of difference between the two.

 

[SelfSim]

To be fair, the son of Nobel Laureate Luis Alvarez is a famous geologist who was integral in finding the Ir anomaly at the KT boundary and further establishing the asteroid hypothesis for the extinction of the dinosaurs!

You think its fair to introduce such irrelevancies?

 

[Opdrey]

Okay now I'm confused, is he a forensic pathologist or geologist? There would seem to be just a wee bit of difference between the two.

Just pointing out that sometimes the children of Nobel Laureates do some incredible science!

 

[SelfSim]

Just pointing out that sometimes the children of Nobel Laureates do some incredible science!

What people are, is defined by the way they think and what they do as a result of that thinking .. and not by genetics.

 

[partinobodycular]

@Mountainmike let's go look at your world class forensic team again. Let's begin with probably the most esteemed of them Dr. Frederick Zugibe. He's the pathologist that Ron Tesoriero chose to lead the investigation into the Buenos Aires Eucharistic miracle.

Now Mr. Tesoriero claims that he knew nothing of Dr. Zugibe's religious beliefs before selecting him.

"We knew nothing of Dr Zugibe’s religious belief beforehand and he was told nothing of the origin of the sample. Dr Zugibe had no trouble identifying what he was seeing under the microscope."
​

Eucharistic Miracle | Reason To Believe

This statement can only mean one of two things, either Mr. Tesoriero is incompetent or he's a liar. There's absolutely no one in the entire world who was more renowned at the time for their work on religious pathology than Dr. Zugibe. He was THE EXPERT on the crucifixion, and his resume on the subject is so extensive that it's impossible for me to list here. But it includes numerous books, annual seminars, documentaries, and movies. In fact only months before Mr. Tesoriero selected him to examine the Buenos Aires evidence he had been the professional consultant on the movie "The Passion of the Christ". His infatuation with proving the authenticity of Catholic miracles is so much a part of his life that even now he's buried in a cemetery near Fatima.

https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/zugibeburial.pdf

It stretches credulity to think that Mr. Tesoriero wouldn't have been well aware of Dr. Zugibe's religious beliefs. But whatever the truth is Mr. Tesoriero couldn't have chosen a more biased person if he'd tried. If anything Dr. Zugibe's previous history should have disqualified him from the job, and Mr. Tesoriero's failure to do so is either incompetence or an attempt to find a sympathetic "expert".

This leads me to wonder, what else is Mr. Tesoriero not telling us about his so called experts.

 

[Mountainmike]

At least you have looked up some of the history.

Kudos for at least that.

I think we should BAN all apriori sceptics from any analysis because of their a priori beliefs don’t you? It provably screwed up the shroud dating- read the transcripts. Their beliefs always do get in the way.

Take the dean of Bialystok - who tried to override the professors on sokolka who declared it heart tissue, declaring it red bread mould. Problem was He had neither seen the samples nor the tissue sections and chemical tests. So apriori sceptics should not be let lose near religious objects. They are a disgrace to their professions.

So Now let us discuss the ONLY important factors.
1/ zugibe was a heart specialist.
2/ he was a pathologist used to looking at cardio damage.
3/ he did not know the origin of the sample so it could not have influenced his decision.
4/ he declared it traumatized cardiac tissue
5/ the tissue sections are there to see for others who want to verify.
6/ he refused to believe initially that it could have been held in vitro because white cells were proof of recent life.

That list is what matters,
The evidence is what matters

Instead of your pathetic attempts at discrediting people.
What is your comment on the EVIDENCE and science?
We have heard plenty about your apriori prejudice!

Lawrence who declared the samples “demonstrated strong credible evidence of created life in the Eucharist “ or similar phrase, and he was not religious at all. Do you believe him?

@Mountainmike let's go look at your world class forensic team again. Let's begin with probably the most esteemed of them Dr. Frederick Zugibe. He's the pathologist that Ron Tesoriero chose to lead the investigation into the Buenos Aires Eucharistic miracle.

Now Mr. Tesoriero claims that he knew nothing of Dr. Zugibe's religious beliefs before selecting him.

"We knew nothing of Dr Zugibe’s religious belief beforehand and he was told nothing of the origin of the sample. Dr Zugibe had no trouble identifying what he was seeing under the microscope."
​

Eucharistic Miracle | Reason To Believe

This statement can only mean one of two things, either Mr. Tesoriero is incompetent or he's a liar. There's absolutely no one in the entire world who was more renowned at the time for their work on religious pathology than Dr. Zugibe. He was THE EXPERT on the crucifixion, and his resume on the subject is so extensive that it's impossible for me to list here. But it includes numerous books, annual seminars, documentaries, and movies. In fact only months before Mr. Tesoriero selected him to examine the Buenos Aires evidence he had been the professional consultant on the movie "The Passion of the Christ". His infatuation with proving the authenticity of Catholic miracles is so much a part of his life that even now he's buried in a cemetery near Fatima.

https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/zugibeburial.pdf

It stretches credulity to think that Mr. Tesoriero wouldn't have been well aware of Dr. Zugibe's religious beliefs. But whatever the truth is Mr. Tesoriero couldn't have chosen a more biased person if he'd tried. If anything Dr. Zugibe's previous history should have disqualified him from the job, and Mr. Tesoriero's failure to do so is either incompetence or an attempt to find a sympathetic "expert".

This leads me to wonder, what else is Mr. Tesoriero not telling us about his so called experts.

 

[Mountainmike]

Which is why I ( and many others ) declare life as self replicating AND self evolving.
Crystal growth ( which is altogether incomparable) is not self evolving either.

So you introduce yet another straw man.
You attempt to attack my argument by misrepresenting it, again,in this case leaving out the word evolving!

Read up on critical thinking. It is pointless discussing until you do.
You do know how ridiculous your analogy sounds! Are you that desperate?

My comment on Lawrence was to demonstrate he came from a background of scientific realism not faith. He had none. It seems to be material to others here.

It is bunk of course, I agree, who he was doesn’t matter: what matters is good science. Not the beliefs of the scientists.

Where it does matter is when faith based sceptics, like the dean of bialystock, make statements on sokolka without knowledge or harry gove involved in misdating the shroud. Goves actions more than anyone else led to the misdating. All the emails and letters are compiled in marinos book for those interested,

What lawrence did have was both the skills and an enquiring open mind.
Unlike the closed minds here.

In a very real sense CRYSTAL GROWTH is a "self-replicating system". It relies on a substrate and chemical coordination on that substrate.

But I'm guessing MountainMike won't say making ice in the fridge is making life.



When one has a 4-sigma IQ and is a "postgraduate" they are allowed to be their own lexicographer.

 

[Mountainmike]

Although the two can actually look quite similar. .

No they don’t. Not to a cardiologist and pathologist.
Only to someone like you….seemingly.

so we are how many pages on??

Would just one of you now like to discuss the evidence , not faith based apriori opinions of it, sceptic tropes that have no connection to the facts ,lazy stereotypes, False analogies, Skeptoids rantings, endless straw men , or attempts to discredit the scientists. You will never succeed with the last, there are simply too many involved.


What matters is their science. So comments on the science please.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The argument on complexity of the first living thing is also critical.
As I keep repeating. It cannot be ARBITRARILY simple and STILL self replicate , and still Self evolve. The simplest chemical - take a hydrogen molecule cannot do it.

I agree, no argument there. I take it that by 'arbitrarily simple' you mean totally lacking complexity, which would arguably apply to a fundamental particle. Nobody claims that self-replicators are arbitrarily simple, that's just silly.

That is the very definition of “irreducible complexity”.

Well, no. Irreducible complexity is complexity that cannot arise by stepwise modification.

What is The simplest structure you can conjecture that is living? What were the antecedents? That IS the step they call abiogenesis.

Sure. And?

Whatever your views on irreducible complexity from other places, the argument is very valid in this context. As for THE trial , behe picked a bad example. He should have picked this, the judge contradicted his own argument in the judgement, so the judgement was ridiculous in critical thinking. But then that is lawyers for you…

I've given you links that provide a variety of hypotheses for how the first life arose. As I said before (why you no listen?), if you want to critique a particular hypothesis, go ahead, I'm listening.