Evidence of miracles.

[AV1611VET]

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.

Mike, does that book describe life from a "punctuated equilibrium" standpoint?

 

[Mountainmike]

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.

With respect. you assume creation was a one time event. If it happened at all, why do you constrain it?. Why should it not continue from time to time? So the so called "bland definition" is just as applicable to day, but easier to test. So Perhaps that is why it happened in the present age!

 

[AV1611VET]

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.

Life started when THE LIFE imparted life to His creation by way of commands, and His creation obeyed those commands.

Plant life was restarted the same way after the Flood.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Life started when THE LIFE imparted life to His creation by way of commands, and His creation obeyed those commands.

Plant life was restarted the say way after the Flood.

Neither scientific, nor biblical.

 

[AV1611VET]

Neither scientific, nor biblical.

Definitely not scientific.

Definitely Biblical.

 

[SelfSim]

Please do find a flaw in it.

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.

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.

1) Not all cells contain nuclear DNA. Human red blood cells destroy their nucleus once it is no longer needed, as part of the maturation process.

 

[Mountainmike]

Mike, does that book describe life from a "punctuated equilibrium" standpoint?

It does not even tackle such subjects. It simply observes forensic evidence of miracles testable in the last few decades with modern science, the creation of human tissue today. Of course...if creation is happening today, it causes a problem with the narrative of there must have been a complete evolutionary pathway here. It renders it unnecessary.

I can point out that one problem with the punctuated equilibrium theory is it makes the maths even more far fetched. One poster here was a medic researching the maths of adaptation of a bacteria to chemical stimulus. He calculated that the process of even simple adaptation to progress across a species takes so many generations, that the kind of change assumed to happen in macro evolution are simply not possible in the most optimistic view of the number of generations avalailable. If you further assume in punctuated equilibrium that for most of the time genetic change is not happening at all, it makes the impossible even more impossible. Sadly that poster got sanctioned for questioning evolution here! The maths of adaptation is not someting I have studied. Perhaps I should.

 

[Mountainmike]

1) Not all cells contain nuclear DNA. Human red blood cells destroy their nucleus once it is no longer needed, as part of the maturation process.

Which is true but irrelevant. What was tested were white cells. (and other epithelial cells). Indeed an italian lab can now do both nuclear and mitochondrial profiling from a single white cell. That was done on several of these.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Definitely not scientific.

Definitely Biblical.

Where does it say that plant life was re-created by God in Genesis after the flood?

 

[AV1611VET]

Where does it say that plant life was re-created by God in Genesis after the flood?

Right after the Flood ends, Noah sends out a dove, which returns with nothing.

One week later, Noah sends it out again, and it returns with an olive leaf.

Given that it takes years for olive trees to grow ...

 

[Hans Blaster]

Right after the Flood ends, Noah sends out a dove, which returns with nothing.

One week later, Noah sends it out again, and it returns with an olive leaf.

Given that it takes years for olive trees to grow ...

Either that or the dove just didn't find one, went the wrong direction, etc.

 

[AV1611VET]

Either that or the dove just didn't find one, went the wrong direction, etc.

That could be -- but how did the tree get there, if it takes years to grow?

 

[Hans Blaster]

That could be -- but how did the tree get there, if it takes years to grow?

Bad storytelling. Genesis is full of plot holes.

 

[partinobodycular]

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.

Just so that we understand each other better. The number of books that I've purchased in my lifetime is exactly zero. And the number of books that I've read isn't much higher than that. Oddly enough, one of them is the bible.

On the other hand I've been on the internet pretty much from its inception, so if you can't point me to an online source that corroborates your claims then more than likely I'm going to disregard them.

Yes, I'm interested in exactly what Dr. Zugibe and others actually said. I don't want you to paraphrase it for me, or embellish it, or quote it out of context. That means that even if I had Mr. Tesoriero's book I would no doubt take it with a grain of salt. The closer that you can get to unembellished facts the happier I'll be. But I consider your claims to be little more than that...just claims.

And sorry, but I'm not gonna buy the book.

 

[AV1611VET]

Bad storytelling. Genesis is full of plot holes.

Have a nice day, Hans.

 

[Opdrey]

Please do find a flaw in it.
The forensic pathologists could not.

First off, were they able to extract any DNA from the blood? I've heard conflicting reports and if they couldn't then is it really "blood"? But it sounds like the claims by Willasee's description are kind of difficult to interpret.

Do we know for absolute certain that the statue that was CT-scanned was the actual Bolivian statue? Do we know for absolute certain that the CT scan would perfectly find any evidence of tampering (it was a hollow ceramic statue, so filling it shouldn't be a significant problem, how porous is it?)

But more importantly I can't really find any significant documentation other than some YouTube postings of a documentary about it. I would really feel more comfortable completely upending everything we know about the world if I had something, well, more tangible and less potentially biased.

It really sounds like there was no DNA in the blood. A quote from Angelo Fiori cited HERE says:

“The new analysis performed on the blood stains allowed only to confirm that the material examined is blood and that it has human origin. However and surprisingly, the new DNA analyses were again completely negative, that is, no PCR amplification was obtained although the specimen is quite abundant. I have no explanation for this unusual phenomenon.”

So we have "blood" that isn't really blood as we know it. We have a very long history of weeping statue miracles that have been soundly debunked and we are expected to believe that THIS ONE is the one that is true?

What I dislike most of all, is lazy comment.

And invoking "miracles" for something that is not likely isn't lazy?

In fact, as a scientist, it is far better to put this in the category of "Unknown". There are so many potential flaws but we simply don't know for sure.

By all means research it

That is very hard to do because the vast majority of hits on any given search are dominated by credulous religious folks who are seeking reason to believe and will do literally anything to find it.

That's all well and good, but it isn't quite as robust as something that dispassionate reviewers would put forth.

, 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 didn't state it was a fraud. I do not know that. That is why I am a scientist. I attempt to not make universal negative claims without having very good evidence.

Here's how it works:

I start with the "null hypothesis" that this is NOT a miracle. I then look at what I am presented with and attempt to test against this null. So far, given that history is REPLETE with debunked weeping statues, and I KNOW that we can be fooled or make mistakes I am currently unable to reject the null hypothesis. This does not mean that I am saying it is NOT a miracle, just that I fail to reject the claim that it is not a miracle.

You call this lazy, I call it "disciplined".

 

[Mountainmike]

That is a surprise.

Did you not have to buy at least a minimum set for undergraduate? Life would have been tough without them. I am guessing i HAD to buy probably 20 during the course of just the BSc course.

At the age of 9/10 I already had several book on electronics from which I learned complex numbers for modelling phase in circuits. I was well impressed that it allowed me to replace a bust and irreperable christmas tree light with a capacitor! I later built an oscilloscope from books! Chemistry books, all sorts. I read my first book on black holes at probably age 16? I could not survive a world without books. I also played chess (another 10 books, all of robert fischers of course) , a couple on bridge. Then I took up golf. Kerching...another 10 books. Loved the ones by hogan!

Just so that we understand each other better. The number of books that I've purchased in my lifetime is exactly zero. And the number of books that I've read isn't much higher than that. Oddly enough, one of them is the bible.

On the other hand I've been on the internet pretty much from its inception, so if you can't point me to an online source that corroborates your claims then more than likely I'm going to disregard them.

Yes, I'm interested in exactly what Dr. Zugibe and others actually said. I don't want you to paraphrase it for me, or embellish it, or quote it out of context. That means that even if I had Mr. Tesoriero's book I would no doubt take it with a grain of salt. The closer that you can get to unembellished facts the happier I'll be. But I consider your claims to be little more than that...just claims.

And sorry, but I'm not gonna buy the book.

 

[SelfSim]

Which is true but irrelevant.
What was tested were white cells. (and other epithelial cells). Indeed an italian lab can now do both nuclear and mitochondrial profiling from a single white cell. That was done on several of these.

Ok .. we're making progress. Your language for pages now is sooo unclear and truncated, its hard to know what you're actually citing as evidence.
Q1) How were the samples extracted? What isolation control procedures were implemented to prevent contamination?

 

[Mountainmike]

I am not minded to provide the detail you could get easily by buying a book.

But since Robert Lawrence himself took his own samples, is pictured with it, and there are pictures in the CT scanner. It is hard to argue! It was scanned twice.

DNA is the paradox. All of the sources, eucharistic and cochambamba yielded LOTS of human DNA. It also passes all the standard forensic tests for human blood. It just would not sequence. That is a unique property of these phenomena. How were they faked? It makes faking (or substitution) impossible too.
They also yield HUMAN mitochondrial DNA. So that means they are certainly Human. The normal reason why nuclear DNA will not sequence well is age, but given there are white cells, that were therefore recently live- the normal reason does not apply.

Then ask the question...who is the only person, not alleged to have had a father, without which there could be no nuclear sequence? The pattern fits.

First off, were they able to extract any DNA from the blood? I've heard conflicting reports and if they couldn't then is it really "blood"? But it sounds like the claims by Willasee's description are kind of difficult to interpret.

Do we know for absolute certain that the statue that was CT-scanned was the actual Bolivian statue? Do we know for absolute certain that the CT scan would perfectly find any evidence of tampering (it was a hollow ceramic statue, so filling it shouldn't be a significant problem, how porous is it?)

But more importantly I can't really find any significant documentation other than some YouTube postings of a documentary about it. I would really feel more comfortable completely upending everything we know about the world if I had something, well, more tangible and less potentially biased.

It really sounds like there was no DNA in the blood. A quote from Angelo Fiori cited HERE says:

“The new analysis performed on the blood stains allowed only to confirm that the material examined is blood and that it has human origin. However and surprisingly, the new DNA analyses were again completely negative, that is, no PCR amplification was obtained although the specimen is quite abundant. I have no explanation for this unusual phenomenon.”

So we have "blood" that isn't really blood as we know it. We have a very long history of weeping statue miracles that have been soundly debunked and we are expected to believe that THIS ONE is the one that is true?



And invoking "miracles" for something that is not likely isn't lazy?

In fact, as a scientist, it is far better to put this in the category of "Unknown". There are so many potential flaws but we simply don't know for sure.



That is very hard to do because the vast majority of hits on any given search are dominated by credulous religious folks who are seeking reason to believe and will do literally anything to find it.

That's all well and good, but it isn't quite as robust as something that dispassionate reviewers would put forth.



I didn't state it was a fraud. I do not know that. That is why I am a scientist. I attempt to not make universal negative claims without having very good evidence.

Here's how it works:

I start with the "null hypothesis" that this is NOT a miracle. I then look at what I am presented with and attempt to test against this null. So far, given that history is REPLETE with debunked weeping statues, and I KNOW that we can be fooled or make mistakes I am currently unable to reject the null hypothesis. This does not mean that I am saying it is NOT a miracle, just that I fail to reject the claim that it is not a miracle.

You call this lazy, I call it "disciplined".

 

[Opdrey]

I am not minded to provide the detail you could get easily by buying a book.

Fair enough. I'm unlikely to in the immediate future because my backlog of reading materials is getting to be too large. Just thought there might be some good science on line.

But since Robert Lawrence himself took his own samples, is pictured with it, and there are pictures in the CT scanner. It is hard to argue! It was scanned twice.

I spent most of my adult life working with lab equipment. There's ALWAYS potential error. Even if you scan it 3 times.

DNA is the paradox. All of the sources, eucharistic and cochambamba yielded LOTS of human DNA.

So the quote from Fiori was in error? There was DNA?

Who should I believe now?

It also passes all the standard forensic tests for human blood. It just would not sequence.

What exactly does that mean? "Would not sequence"? If it had DNA then it should be sequence-able. That is like saying "It is a dog but it lacks a snout, legs, fur, a body, teeth, eyes and a tail."

It literally makes no sense.

That is a unique property of these phenomena.

That they are things they are not?

How were they faked? It makes faking (or substitution) impossible too.

The word "impossible" isn't really applicable.

They also yield HUMAN mitochondrial DNA. So that means they are certainly Human.

How on earth would anyone know that if they couldn't sequence it?

The normal reason why nuclear DNA will not sequence well is age, but given there are white cells, that were therefore recently live- the normal reason does not apply.

More special pleading.

Then ask the question...who is the only person, not alleged to have had a father, without which there could be no nuclear sequence? The pattern fits.

If Jesus had DNA it has a sequence by definition. There is no way DNA could exist without a SEQUENCE.

Again, this is like saying 2+2 = Litterbox. It makes no sense.