Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Evidence of miracles.
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Mountainmike" data-source="post: 76502467" data-attributes="member: 392252"><p>I am a sceptic. I question it all. That’s what it means.</p><p></p><p>However.</p><p></p><p>For a group of people who saw none of the samples, who have no pathology training to dismiss the opinion of many world class pathologists who in this case are cardiac specialists( and who amply qualify as court expert witnesses ) to state those pathologists got it wrong, simply because they don’t like the conclusion ,</p><p></p><p>That is imposing a priori belief.</p><p>It’s not scepticism.</p><p></p><p>Question the evidence by all means.</p><p>One test positive for human tissue but no nuclear DNA is interesting not conclusive.</p><p></p><p>But the same result for four phenomena in several places by double figures of independent laboratories is conclusive. Few forensic samples are subject to so many tests.</p><p></p><p>When combined with the three instances where mitichondrial human DNA tests were positive, with same ( Middle East) haplogroup but different heteroplasmy so prpof they are different samples. </p><p>That’s beyond reasonable doubt, it is human tissue, with no nuclear code.</p><p></p><p>When combined with four independent instances of in vitro leucocytes indicating recent life. That too is beyond reasonable doubt - it happened. It is traumatised cardiac tissue. The question is why not whether.</p><p></p><p>I’ve looked up papers on mitochondrial heteroplasmy after cardiac trauma.</p><p> Have the ones who dismissed it?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Mountainmike, post: 76502467, member: 392252"] I am a sceptic. I question it all. That’s what it means. However. For a group of people who saw none of the samples, who have no pathology training to dismiss the opinion of many world class pathologists who in this case are cardiac specialists( and who amply qualify as court expert witnesses ) to state those pathologists got it wrong, simply because they don’t like the conclusion , That is imposing a priori belief. It’s not scepticism. Question the evidence by all means. One test positive for human tissue but no nuclear DNA is interesting not conclusive. But the same result for four phenomena in several places by double figures of independent laboratories is conclusive. Few forensic samples are subject to so many tests. When combined with the three instances where mitichondrial human DNA tests were positive, with same ( Middle East) haplogroup but different heteroplasmy so prpof they are different samples. That’s beyond reasonable doubt, it is human tissue, with no nuclear code. When combined with four independent instances of in vitro leucocytes indicating recent life. That too is beyond reasonable doubt - it happened. It is traumatised cardiac tissue. The question is why not whether. I’ve looked up papers on mitochondrial heteroplasmy after cardiac trauma. Have the ones who dismissed it? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Evidence of miracles.
Top
Bottom