Evidence of miracles.

[Astrid]

.

 

[Hans Blaster]

You will need to break a rule of life and part with money to see the detail of the controversy that ensued. Basically the dean of the faculty tried to debunk it , having never even seen it. They also tried to sack and gag the pair for speaking out, and even for getting involved.

I don't recall saying anything like that, but I could have. The details of these events aren't particularly interesting to me, so I am unlike to invest much in the way of resources on any of them.

 

[Mountainmike]

I don't recall saying anything like that, but I could have. The details of these events aren't particularly interesting to me, so I am unlike to invest much in the way of resources on any of them.

Perhaps you did not. But every time I suggest "buy the book" I am ridiculed by many posters for it!
I cannot think of a subject on which I am well informed, that I did not have to buy many books along the way. But then I am a bookworm. I have an insatiable curiosity.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Perhaps you did not. But every time I suggest "buy the book" I am ridiculed by many posters for it!

Do you understand why we have no real interest in spending money on this?

This is not some sort of general topic of discussion (like evolution, or creationism, or ID creationism, or bible history, or theology). These texts seem mostly to be about one or a few obscure specific events that are largely of interest to those who already believe they are true.

 

[Mountainmike]

For those interested in creation, this is evidence of creation.
For those who believe in evolution, this evidence disproves Darwins theorem with the test Darwin himself set out.
For believers this is evidence of miracles.

I cannot think of a more important subject.

For sure, I currenty have books on the go , all the way from another take on quantum theory, to macro economics and the destruction of money, to the Rwandan genocide.

But in terms of impact Tesorieros latest book "My Human Heart" is far more significant than any of them.

Tell me. Why do you write so much on a thread that does not appear to interest you?

Do you understand why we have no real interest in spending money on this?

This is not some sort of general topic of discussion (like evolution, or creationism, or ID creationism, or bible history, or theology). These texts seem mostly to be about one or a few obscure specific events that are largely of interest to those who already believe they are true.

 

[Astrid]

Do you understand why we have no real interest in spending money on this?

This is not some sort of general topic of discussion (like evolution, or creationism, or ID creationism, or bible history, or theology). These texts seem mostly to be about one or a few obscure specific events that are largely of interest to those who already believe they are true.

Non events

 

[Astrid]

For those interested in creation, this is evidence of creation.
For those who believe in evolution, this evidence disproves Darwins theorem with the test Darwin himself set out.
For believers this is evidence of miracles.

I cannot think of a more important subject.

For sure, I currenty have books on the go , all the way from another take on quantum theory, to macro economics and the destruction of money, to the Rwandan genocide.

But in terms of impact Tesorieros latest book "My Human Heart" is far more significant than any of them.

Tell me. Why do you write so much on a thread that does not appear to interest you?

You have disproof of evolution?
Terrif.
Put in for the Nobel, rock the world.
Totally irresponsible not to.

 

[Hans Blaster]

For those interested in creation, this is evidence of creation.

It's not. "Creation" is generally considered about the creation of all living things at once at the beginning. This is at best some other sort of miracle.

For those who believe in evolution, this evidence disproves Darwins theorem with the test Darwin himself set out.

Most definitely not. Nothing about these Eucharistic miracles impacts Darwin or any other evolutionary theory.

For believers this is evidence of miracles.

And that's the point now isn't it. For believers it means something. For the rest of us it means nothing. If it were good proof perhaps others would find it compelling.

I cannot think of a more important subject.

I could think of hundreds.

For sure, I currenty have books on the go , all the way from another take on quantum theory, to macro economics and the destruction of money, to the Rwandan genocide.

All sound worthy of study and discussion.

But in terms of impact Tesorieros latest book "My Human Heart" is far more significant than any of them.

So significant it has zero reviews on Amazon.

Tell me. Why do you write so much on a thread that does not appear to interest you?

I have mostly engaged with the "side topics" very little with your favorite "miracles".

 

[TLK Valentine]

That was a simplified description of life on Earth, not a definition of life.

True -- it helps to define "life as we know it," but still leaves a lot of margin for error.

 

[Opdrey]

Abiogenesis is circular.

Re: CHNO, it is organic because it has the potential to kick-start life, and it kick-started life because it is organic.

To be fair the designation of "organic" and its association with "life" is a bit outdated. We know of a large amount of organic chemistry now that has no association with life. It is like the word "planet". The MAP IS NOT THE TERRITORY.

 

[Mountainmike]

I am not going to tackle it blow for blow.
Any instance of creation validates a conjecture of all life from creation, particularly when the alternative is so ill defined. So these are very important.

But I suggest you read up on what Darwin said would falsify his theory. These do.

It's not. "Creation" is generally considered about the creation of all living things at once at the beginning. This is at best some other sort of miracle.



Most definitely not. Nothing about these Eucharistic miracles impacts Darwin or any other evolutionary theory.



And that's the point now isn't it. For believers it means something. For the rest of us it means nothing. If it were good proof perhaps others would find it compelling.



I could think of hundreds.



All sound worthy of study and discussion.



So significant it has zero reviews on Amazon.



I have mostly engaged with the "side topics" very little with your favorite "miracles".

 

[Opdrey]

For those interested in creation, this is evidence of creation.

There is no "evidence" for Creation. One cannot simply look at the output and decree that their particular version of a supernatural being outside of time and space "made" this. One can "conjecture" that.

Again, if the demand of abiogenesis is to show it happened by making it happen again then the demand for "Creation" is to witness it happening.

We never have, though. We have never seen a supernatural being come to earth and create a living thing from scratch.

For those who believe in evolution, this evidence disproves Darwins theorem with the test Darwin himself set out.

Evolution has little if anything to do with abiogenesis.

For believers this is evidence of miracles.

Which is why it is important to always remember that other faiths also have miracles which the believers believe totally.

Which God is the "right" God?

 

[Mountainmike]

There is no "evidence" for Creation.

Life appearing where there was none, and without the small steps supposed by evolution is certainly evidence of creation. It may not be proof, it is certainly evidence.

Evolution has little if anything to do with abiogenesis.

That is a hobby horse of mine. Whatever the evidence of the evolution of life, it has little to say about how it started. I tend to get shouted down when I say so!

Which is why it is important to always remember that other faiths also have miracles which the believers believe totally.

Do they have forensic evidence too? I doubt it... If you see any, tell me!

 

[Hans Blaster]

I am not going to tackle it blow for blow.
Any instance of creation validates a conjecture of all life from creation, particularly when the alternative is so ill defined. So these are very important.

But I suggest you read up on what Darwin said would falsify his theory. These do.

The types of miracles you promote are not creation. Period.

Assuming they are real and not fraudulent or mistakes, here are some alternative possibilities:

* some sort of advanced tissue replication technology more advanced than 3D printing currently, but less so than "Star Trek replicators", by advanced or supernatural beings

* magic

* a proper divine miracle from some entity in the Christian pantheon (Yahweh, Jesus, Holy Spirt, an Archangel, Mary, some other saint)

Even if El himself both created the Earth and all of its life *and* caused the Eucharistic miracles. ONE IS NOT PROOF OF THE OTHER. Each must be demonstrated separately.

 

[Opdrey]

Life appearing where there was none, and without the small steps supposed by evolution is certainly evidence of creation. It may not be proof, it is certainly evidence.

Where have we seen life occurring without any organic chemicals and precursors around?

That is a hobby horse of mine. Whatever the evidence of the evolution of life, it has little to say about how it started. I tend to get shouted down when I say so!

Unfortunately this is what the science is. Evolution is how life changes over time. It doesn't have anything to say about how life began.

It would be like complaining that astronomy doesn't tell you how to drive your car.

Do they have forensic evidence too? I doubt it... If you see any, tell me!

There are those who claim actual evidence for non-Christian miracles.

I bet you could easily critique that evidence, but then people are critiquing the evidence for the miracles in your faith.

Either way miracles are important to the faithful.

 

[Mountainmike]

Let us start with a dictionary definition.
Creation is "the action or process of bringing something into existence"

At cochambamba a local (atheist) report first filmed a statue weeping, live on camera, later bleeding.
Other TV crews saw exactly the same with rolling time in the TV image.
CT scans showed that the statue had no hidden passage ways , even of the size of a human hair.
The blood formed scabs showing it was live at the time , and that was confirmed forensically by white cells analyzed showing trauma. (also thorn cells, but thats another story)
That blood was "brought into existence" (by person or process unknown) . It did not come from anywhere else or anyone present as DNA tests confirmed. It appeared. It came into existence.
Forensic opinion is it could not have been deposited blood, which would not have created scab tissue.

So by the definition you have it was indeed created by agency unknown. Although the likeness of the statue might just give you a clue.

What it did show was a complex "organism" structure from other than small steps. So therefore defeats Darwins theorem by his own test. The heart myocardium is of course more significant as an organism.

The act of creation being a miracle simply defines the agency as God.
It is does not define it as other than created. All creation biblical is assumed also to be a miracle. Bringing into existence.

The types of miracles you promote are not creation. Period.

Assuming they are real and not fraudulent or mistakes, here are some alternative possibilities:

* some sort of advanced tissue replication technology more advanced than 3D printing currently, but less so than "Star Trek replicators", by advanced or supernatural beings

* magic

* a proper divine miracle from some entity in the Christian pantheon (Yahweh, Jesus, Holy Spirt, an Archangel, Mary, some other saint)

Even if El himself both created the Earth and all of its life *and* caused the Eucharistic miracles. ONE IS NOT PROOF OF THE OTHER. Each must be demonstrated separately.

 

[Opdrey]

I am not going to tackle it blow for blow.
Any instance of creation validates a conjecture of all life from creation, particularly when the alternative is so ill defined. So these are very important.

And yet we have no evidence of Creation.

Simply pointing to the existence of life and saying you don't believe it could possibly be related to the chemistry we see every day is NOT evidence of Creation.

But I suggest you read up on what Darwin said would falsify his theory. These do.

Not sure if you realize but the field of evolutionary biology has advanced greatly since 1882.

 

[Opdrey]

Let us start with a dictionary definition.
Creation is "the action or process of bringing something into existence"

At cochambamba a local (atheist) report first filmed a statue weeping, live on camera, later bleeding.
Other TV crews saw exactly the same with rolling time in the TV image.
CT scans showed that the statue had no hidden passage ways , even of the size of a human hair.
The blood formed scabs showing it was live at the time , and that was confirmed by white cells analyzed showing trauma.
That blood was "brought into existence" (by person or process unknown) . It did not come from anywhere else or anyone present as DNA tests confirmed.

So by the definition you have it was indeed created by agency unknown. Although the likeness of the statue might just give you a clue.

What it did show was a complex "organism" structure from other than small steps. So therefore defeats Darwins theorem by his own test. The heart myocardium is of course more significant as an organism.

The act of creation being a miracle simply defines the agency as God.
It is does not define it as other than created. All creation biblical is assumed also to be a miracle. Bringing into existence.

I love watching magicians perform. It helps me realize that no matter how aware we are of potential flaws in our perception, we can ALWAYS be incorrect on it. I'm not saying the weeping/bleeding statue in Bolivia is ipso facto "fake", but rather that it is highly improbable given that people have been fooled by things SO OFTEN that a more common explanation may be that it ISN'T a miracle.

We've even seen miracles debunked!

Miracles are extremely important for you and your faith. They act as a cornerstone for you, a touchstone if you will. And that's cool. That's your faith.

When I'm presented with something in the lab that shouldn't have happened but did I am afraid I am not allowed to invoke miracles. I try to use that in my daily life. If I were a man of immense faith I would hope my faith didn't require that I need miracles to bolster it. If God is, indeed, the creator of all things His work should stand on its own.

The idea of the "God of the Gaps" is disavowed by many theologians because it risks making God smaller and smaller with each advance in science. And indeed we've seen that happen over the course of human history.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Let us start with a dictionary definition.
Creation is "the action or process of bringing something into existence"

Let's stop there. In the notion "miracles prove creation" or vice versa, the "creation" is clearly all of that bit in the first two pages of the Bible that we didn't get all wound up about back when I was a Catholic like the evangelicals do.

To stretch to some broad, bland dictionary definition makes the whole comparison completely meaningless. That kind of "creation" applies to all sorts of things no one would classify as miraculous or divine.

 

[Mountainmike]

Please do find a flaw in it.
The forensic pathologists could not.
That is what makes these extraordinary.
The blood was not deposited by a third party. It would not have formed scabs, and it would have the DNA sequence of the fraudster. Neither are true. It did not come from internal pathways. There are none. It simply appeared live on camera.

It had epithelial cells smashed up, showing beating. And thorn cells. Any surprise? Some 10 scientists involved in total, a few more quite recently in Italy in single white cell mitochondrial DNA sequencing.

What I dislike most of all, is lazy comment. By all means research it, decide where the flaws in the science are. But stating the mere fact of some frauds has not bearing on this at all. It stands and falls on its own science.

I love watching magicians perform. It helps me realize that no matter how aware we are of potential flaws in our perception, we can ALWAYS be incorrect on it. I'm not saying the weeping/bleeding statue in Bolivia is ipso facto "fake", but rather that it is highly improbable given that people have been fooled by things SO OFTEN that a more common explanation may be that it ISN'T a miracle.

We've even seen miracles debunked!

Miracles are extremely important for you and your faith. They act as a cornerstone for you, a touchstone if you will. And that's cool. That's your faith.

When I'm presented with something in the lab that shouldn't have happened but did I am afraid I am not allowed to invoke miracles. I try to use that in my daily life. If I were a man of immense faith I would hope my faith didn't require that I need miracles to bolster it. If God is, indeed, the creator of all things His work should stand on its own.

The idea of the "God of the Gaps" is disavowed by many theologians because it risks making God smaller and smaller with each advance in science. And indeed we've seen that happen over the course of human history.