Evidence of miracles.

[partinobodycular]

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.

But you haven't given us evidence of any of this. Can you quote these scientists for us? A source that we can check for ourselves would be even better. Otherwise it's simply conjecture on your part, and totally dismissible on our part.

Until you're willing to present us with actual evidence your claims have very little if any merit.

And the longer you go without providing us with said evidence the more dubious they become.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

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.

Still no evidence? What about some direct quotes from some named pathologists out of these 'dozens' that can be verified to confirm your claims?

 

[Ophiolite]

Still no evidence? What about some direct quotes from some named pathologists out of these 'dozens' that can be verified to confirm your claims?

It is frustrating when members talk about evidence, decry others for ignoring it, but hesitate to actually present it in a viable format. It's almost as if they intuitively recognise it lacks substance. Ah well!

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

It is frustrating when members talk about evidence, decry others for ignoring it, but hesitate to actually present it in a viable format. It's almost as if they intuitively recognise it lacks substance. Ah well!

It's telling that some, when challenged on inadequate evidence, ignore or hand-wave criticism and double-down on the claims, becoming more assertive, more insistent, and hyperbolic, showing extreme confirmation bias and unable to concede any weakness in their position. Looks like a kind of backfire effect...

 

[AV1611VET]

It's telling that some, when challenged on inadequate evidence, ignore or hand-wave criticism and double-down on the claims, becoming more assertive, more insistent, and hyperbolic, showing extreme confirmation bias and unable to concede any weakness in their position. Looks like a kind of backfire effect...

Others, when it's explained to them that a given event or series of events didn't generate any evidence, or it did, but the evidence was removed or cleaned up for legitimate reasons, will display their versions of the backfire effect, usually in the form of blasphemy, then go elsewhere and ask or demand evidence for the same event or series of evens from someone else.

 

[Belk]

Others, when it's explained to them that a given event or series of events didn't generate any evidence, or it did, but the evidence was removed or cleaned up for legitimate reasons, will display their versions of the backfire effect, usually in the form of blasphemy, then go elsewhere and ask or demand evidence for the same event or series of evens from someone else.

It is almost like they don't believe you to be an authoritative source.

 

[AV1611VET]

It is almost like they don't believe you to be an authoritative source.

Are they even looking for one? and if so, will they recognize one if they found him/her?

 

[Belk]

Are they even looking for one? and if so, will they recognize one if they found him/her?

I can not speak for them but for myself I do not find it likely to find an authoritative source among mortals. Seems like it would require something of a divine nature to impart divine knowledge.

As to your second question, it is hard to say. Certainly we see those who are religious all believe themselves to be correct while contradicting each other. I'm going to guess "No" for the entire human race,

 

[AV1611VET]

I can not speak for them but for myself I do not find it likely to find an authoritative source among mortals. Seems like it would require something of a divine nature to impart divine knowledge.

Kinda like God inspiring someone to write something?

 

[Belk]

Kinda like God inspiring someone to write something?

Remind me how many holy books have been written by mankind? No, nothing like that.

 

[AV1611VET]

Remind me how many holy books have been written by mankind? No, nothing like that.

I'll go ahead and take your Post 568 with a grain of salt then.

 

[Belk]

I'll go ahead and take your Post 568 with a grain of salt then.

No, you will ignore it. The same as you do with any view that you can not refute. It is not like this is a surprise to anyone who has seen your posts these many years.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, you will ignore it. The same as you do with any view that you can not refute. It is not like this is a surprise to anyone who has seen your posts these many years.

Speak of ignoring, the term you seem to be ignoring is called verbal plenary inspiration.

People ignore it when they say the word of God is a product of mans' own undertaking.

The end result then, is thinking any other sacred writing has as much authority as the Bible.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Speak of ignoring, the term you seem to be ignoring is called verbal plenary inspiration.

People ignore it when they say the word of God is a product of mans' own undertaking.

The end result then, is thinking any other sacred writing has as much authority as the Bible.

They ignore it because there is not good evidence to believe in it.

 

[AV1611VET]

They ignore it because there is not good evidence to believe in it.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

I never said it was not true. I said there is not good evidence to believe it is true.

 

[AV1611VET]

I never said it was not true. I said there is not good evidence to believe it is true.

What would good evidence of verbal plenary inspiration look like?

 

[Belk]

Speak of ignoring, the term you seem to be ignoring is called verbal plenary inspiration.

People ignore it when they say the word of God is a product of mans' own undertaking.

The end result then, is thinking any other sacred writing has as much authority as the Bible.

That some men came up with an impressive term in order to claim to speak for an all powerful being is not ignored, it is subject to the exact same issues all such claims have. You claim your holy writing has authority and other religions claim that theirs do. Empirical evidence show you both to be mistaken in your understanding.

 

[Belk]

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Absence of evidence is not PROOF of absence. It most certainly is evidence.

 

[partinobodycular]

What would good evidence of verbal plenary inspiration look like?

Containing information that can't easily be explained via natural processes.