Independently repeatable evidence that God interacts with our world

[Hans Blaster]

But Endless criminals are convicted even on death row by forensic reports never published in such journals . The labs have a far higher standard of process than wacky professors generally do.

XYZ. Your bias is showing.

 

[Strathos]

There's a reason why these things don't have widespread support, because they don't have convincing evidence, and I don't need to research it for myself to realize that if such evidence actually did exist, then it wouldn't be a fringe position in the first place.

The majority of the world's population believe in God. So this argument doesn't really work.

 

[Hans Blaster]

The majority of the world's population believe in God. So this argument doesn't really work.

The comment wasn't about generalized beliefs in gods, wide spread though it is, it was about very localized "miracles", specters, apparitions, and relics. Mike's particular obsessions are very Catholic "miracles" and relics. Support for them among Protestants isn't particularly high and I suspect even many Catholics dismiss them.

 

[Strathos]

The comment wasn't about generalized beliefs in gods, wide spread though it is, it was about very localized "miracles", specters, apparitions, and relics. Mike's particular obsessions are very Catholic "miracles" and relics. Support for them among Protestants isn't particularly high and I suspect even many Catholics dismiss them.

Well then what about the miracles in the Bible? All Christians believe in at least some of them, and even Muslims and Jews believe in many of them.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Well then what about the miracles in the Bible? All Christians believe in at least some of them, and even Muslims and Jews believe in many of them.

Again, that's not the thing he was talking about. These are claims of modern appearances of the Virgin Mary, statues weeping, mass apparitions, and communion wafers that turn to meat all in modern times.

 

[Strathos]

Again, that's not the thing he was talking about. These are claims of modern appearances of the Virgin Mary, statues weeping, mass apparitions, and communion wafers that turn to meat all in modern times.

Well, I'm saying that if you go by the 'many people believe it so it's not a fringe belief' metric, then the miracles in the Bible are credible.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Well, I'm saying that if you go by the 'many people believe it so it's not a fringe belief' metric, then the miracles in the Bible are credible.

The miracles in the Bible are poorly documented and must be taken on faith. They are what they are. I don't find them credible, but that's not what the claims are here. Instead what we have are Mike's "modern miracles", you know, the kind with lots of "verified reports" and such. These are the ones that are not particularly accepted. For each appearance of Mary, or healing by a dead pope or other holy person, or other miracle I think we can honestly say that: 1) most people don't accept that specific miracle, 2) most Christians don't accept that particular miracle, and I suspect even 3) most Catholics don't accept that particular miracle (especially if it hasn't been approved by the Vatican). I used to be a Catholic who thought these "(Catholic) modern miracles" were just as bunk as the faith healings of Peter Popov or the statues of Ganesh that drank milk. [I don't know if I was conscious of this or not, but my thinking was something of the order "if it's a real miracle, why isn't it in the Bible?" I wasn't particularly well informed about the compilation of that book back then.]

 

[Mountainmike]

Criminal Forensic labs.
Since when did they cease to be credible in your world?

You're right, it's a prejudice, but at least in my case it's a prejudice born out of previous examinations of the available evidence. And, I don't need to examine every case in detail in order to determine its credibility, because the credibility of the person making the claim is the first thing to be considered.

Unfortunately in your case, past experience tells me that over-enthusiastic claims of the miraculous tend to be just that, and are therefore are no longer worthy of the time and effort needed to debunk them.

This is a case wherein the fervency of the messenger does more harm than good. In other words, you are your own worst enemy.

 

[Mountainmike]

All irrelevant.

It doesn’t matter who accepts them or not. It doesn’t alter truth.

It doesn’t matter if some phenomena are pious frauds.There have been many forgeries of famous artworks. No amount of forgeries alter the fact the original is genuine. It just makes it harder to find.

It only matters whether specific evidence supports or fails to support specific cases.


What disappoints me is
Firstly - that those who consider themselves scientifically aware seem to prefer prejudice & straw men to studying evidence.

Secondly - academia loses all impartiality when dealing with such phenomena.

Reality - The evidence stacks up or not. There is a common misconception that the church actually encourages such things. It doesn’t, it creates a headache. The church is always sceptical.

These cases impossible to explain or fake.

People arguing chain of custody for example is a smokescreen that misses the point. First there was chain of custody, second the sample analysis itself defies science without any reference to the history of it.

Eg leucocytes in vitro, all human tissue tests pass but no nuclear DNA sequence - but some tested have mitichondrial Blood determined to be pushing out of bread not in. ( tixtla) If it was a party trick how was it done?
in multiple locations, multiple countries , multiple labs.

If they were all cadaver flesh, why no cadavers, why no DNA, why still leucocytes in vitro?
One of these is a thousand years old. Long before scalpels, how was it even cut? What preserves them? Why are they still identifiable as blood and flesh 1000 years on when no preservatives were found? Why are they all the same part of the heart that only a skilled surgeon would know? They transform progressively, not instantaneously. How is that possible to fake?

The miracles in the Bible are poorly documented and must be taken on faith. They are what they are. I don't find them credible, but that's not what the claims are here. Instead what we have are Mike's "modern miracles", you know, the kind with lots of "verified reports" and such. These are the ones that are not particularly accepted. For each appearance of Mary, or healing by a dead pope or other holy person, or others miracle I think we can honestly say that: 1) most people don't accept that specific miracle, 2) most Christians don't accept that particular miracle, and I suspect even 3) most Catholics don't accept that particular miracle (especially if it hasn't been approved by the Vatican). I used to be a Catholic who thought these "(Catholic) modern miracles" were just as bunk as the faith healings of Peter Popov or the statues of Ganesh that drank milk. [I don't know if I was conscious of this or not, but my thinking was something of the order "if it's a real miracle, why isn't it in the Bible?" I wasn't particularly well informed about the compilation of that book back then.]

 

[Mountainmike]

XYZ. Your bias is showing.

No bias.
Academia publishes to a standard that demands plausibility argument for truth. The paper is a plausibility argument. That is how it should be in breaking new ground.

Forensic labs deal in “ beyond reasonable doubt” a far higher standard.

Let’s explain where that rubber hits the road in science.

My other half was science director over a big biotech lab.

She used to hate it when yet another professor claimed a miracle scientific cure, and published the evidence in a journal somewhere.

In the end these products would hit her desk. Big pharma has to work to far higher standards to get through regulation.

In almost all cases proper scientific testing confirmed 1/ the cell lines were not properly controlled 2/ the drug substance was not characterised properly- it was not what was claimed - it contained stuff that the professors were not aware of 3/ it was full of impurities and byproducts .4/ the stats done on test results were inadequate and generally demonstrated bad understanding of stats.

by the time the cell lines were stabilised, the drug product characterised, the impurities minimised and proper stats done, the so called miracle drug had no efficacy whatsoever even in vitro. Net result most drugs fail even early regulatory steps.

Its the difference between “ ideas people” and true professionals who need prove beyond reasonable doubt, without which you don’t get an FDA licence. The successful products generally came from far more patient testing and retesting, not profs with eureka moments. For sure - university biotech labs are getting better and wiser about proper process: covid vaccines were a good joint venture.
But it’s big pharma that has to clean up the mess. Regulatory process works to far higher standards.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Not so.
Academia uses peer reviewed journals to add to the model of science. It is only one route.

But Endless criminals are convicted even on death row by forensic reports never published in such journals . The labs have a far higher standard of process than wacky professors generally do.

The test results are there to see and inexplicable in the opinion of leading pathologists. You won’t even look.
The précis is out there, the detail available.
Are you worried about what you might find?

I have pointed out that the peer review system demonstrably hinders ideas that counter establishment narrative. The paper that destroyed the useless unscientific process of the shroud carbon dating didn’t get accepted by peer review for the main journal RC dating. Why? Because the peers were the very labs whose credibility was wrecked by the paper. They were determined to stop it.

Nature magazine broke the rules to accept the work in the first place which was hopelessly shoddy because it “liked “ the answer it gave.

Ultimately truth will out, and such as Rogers final book , Adlers presentations, meachams and Marino’s books , later Fanti, bury the dating once and for all.
The shroud really is that of a crucified man and ancient. The daters tested a mediaeval addition ignoring all the protocols.
The truth came out in the end, but not in nature magazine or peer reviewed journals. It came out in books.

Rogers stated he had a serious problem with many normally credible scientists, determined to declare the shroud fake, with no interest in evidence that totally disproves them. They became pseudoscientists dealing with the shroud.

But here’s what happens when establishment science does get involved.
Take Sokolka.

Tested by two pathology professors with massive resumes, impeccable credentials at byalystok university who did all the tests to prove human blood AB, human cardiac tissue. Leucocytes etc. No nuclear dna profile. impossible to explain or fake. They produced a report. The slides are out there on the web.

The two were threatened, and silenced, put on trumped up disciplinary, a dean of the university who had never even seen the samples declared the ludicrous idea it was “red bread mould” . He’d never even looked! The university shut it down. It didn’t like scientific conclusion.

Universities who do discover the origin of such samples before testing refuse to test it why?
It would be easy to prove as fraud were it true.
Academia doesn’t want the truth. It is scared of what it might find.

like the shroud , the truth will come out in books so the likes of Dawkins don’t get to hide it. The forensics say it all without him.

lit shouldn’t surprise you.
It is so bad now you can lose your job as an academic for saying only women have periods or a vagina! It says it all.

Like China or Russia , Conclusions have to be “ acceptable “ to be given air time.

academia **sucks**

Another 'Gish gallop'...

I understand why you feel the need to believe these stories and claims of miracles are true (and, presumably, those of different religions must therefore be false?); they appear to provide some physical validation for a belief system that otherwise has none whatsoever.

Science and academia are great when they can't falsify a claim or can provide potential support, but they 'suck' when they don't provide support or do falsify the claim. So it goes...

But for a belief system that makes faith its central pillar, there does seem to be a contradiction between the powerful need to believe these stories and the simple requirement of faith.

 

[Mountainmike]

Yet again you are examining me not the evidence.

Do you doubt such as Eduardo Sanchez lazo ? A surgeon , forensic scientist normally employed to provide state evidence ? he performed both chainof custody and was one of the forensic analysts for tixtla. He’s done a number of interviews on it ( in Spanish)

What I said was true:
1/ forensic standard of proof is high
2/ academia is lower , it is looking for plausibility ( just as criminal vs civil standard of proof differ)
3/ pharma has to work to higher standards for regulatory than biopharm university departments
It’s very slow. Very expensive. No way could academia do it for every idea or conclusion.

I said academics “suck “ only because of the shocking way some behave whenever they get near phenomena with theistic overtones. Don’t take my word for it, look at the history of such as eg Sokolka and comments by such as Rogers of los alamos regarding the shroud.
Demonstration of similar attitude here : you are attacking the messenger not studying the message.

I don’t have any “ need” to believe the stories . I just back credible evidence from credible sources when I see it.

I take the scientific view not the a priori sceptic or a priori believer view. If someone proves how it was faked , I am happy to believe that too.

einstein was right about common sense being prejudice alive and well in the scientific establishment

Another 'Gish gallop'...

I understand why you feel the need to believe these stories and claims of miracles are true (and, presumably, those of different religions must therefore be false?); they appear to provide some physical validation for a belief system that otherwise has none whatsoever.

Science and academia are great when they can't falsify a claim or can provide potential support, but they 'suck' when they don't provide support or do falsify the claim. So it goes...

But for a belief system that makes faith its central pillar, there does seem to be a contradiction between the powerful need to believe these stories and the simple requirement of faith.

 

[Zoii]

A claim of abiogenesis isn’t evidence or proof, or even a valid hypothesis in proper scientific definition. Abiogenesis is pure conjecture, a massive wall with only ideas for a couple of prospective bricks. Most of the wall missing completely.


And I was using the lack of evidence for that as a benchmark, to say the so called “Eucharistic miracle “ evidence for life not only exists but is strong. It actually exists unlike any evidence for end to end abiogenesis, either happening or how.

Well it's great you believe in Miracles - I'm not dissuading you - merely pointing out that your view requires faith, and the scientific process would require much more.

But that's fine - your belief in miracles is accepted by all Christians and hence you have good support within that community - you have to accept though, that faith isn't a currency used by those seeking scientific proof of a theorem.

 

[Mountainmike]

I’m the only one here using scientific process.

All science can do is confirm the samples are unexplained , inexplicable, break scientific laws, are impossible to fake, and occur in a theistic context.

It cant confirm miracle because of the inadequacy of science not the evidence.
Science Is just an abstract subset of analysis of observation and modelling of it of things that repeat or can be repeated or are a product of other parts of the model. It cannot confirm God only because it is not in the model. If magnetism were not in the model it couldn’t conclude magnetism either. Science is limited.

-the real presence gives a précis of evidence for tixtla

- castarnons book includes all the forensic reports

Eduardo lazo is one of the forensic scientists involved whose day job is criminology.

He has given full interviews on tixtla and the inexplicable findings that defy scientific explanation.


In Spanish here..

An English dub over interview here,

longer interview here

Anyway. I wanted a discussion on the science.

All the replies have been pure prejudice, so pointless discussing with a priori sceptics who won’t even look.

I’ll come back if any of you want to discuss evidence not prejudice.

Well it's great you believe in Miracles - I'm not dissuading you - merely pointing out that your view requires faith, and the scientific process would require much more.

But that's fine - your belief in miracles is accepted by all Christians and hence you have good support within that community - you have to accept though, that faith isn't a currency used by those seeking scientific proof of a theorem.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Yet again you are examining me not the evidence.

I said I understand your powerful need to believe in these stories, but I also wonder why simple faith is not sufficient.

Do you doubt such as Eduardo Sanchez lazo ? A surgeon , forensic scientist normally employed to provide state evidence ? he performed both chainof custody and was one of the forensic analysts for tixtla. He’s done a number of interviews on it ( in Spanish)

I know nothing about him beyond what you've posted and links mentioning him in connection with testing tissue claimed to be of miraculous origin.

Demonstration of similar attitude here : you are attacking the messenger not studying the message.

The fact that you view what I've said as an 'attack' on you (seriously?) just makes my point.

I don’t have any “ need” to believe the stories . I just back credible evidence from credible sources when I see it.

I take the scientific view not the a priori sceptic or a priori believer view. If someone proves how it was faked , I am happy to believe that too.

That's not how it comes across in your posts - when the quality & reliability of the evidence was questioned, rather than address the questions raised (especially provenance), you repeat, ever more emphatically, the aspects that you find convincing, and then bring in a different disputed miracle claim as if that somehow helps your case.

Nobody can 'prove' to a believer that it was faked, and that's not how science works. Cases like this can only really be assessed on the balance of probabilities, and if you believe in miracles, which - by definition - are not constrained by natural law, the balance of probabilities is effectively meaningless.

Incidentally, last I heard, even the Catholic church takes no official position on the authenticity of the Turin Shroud. It's been quite a while since I spent any time on it, but I haven't noticed the major red flags changing recently. Most are dismissed by saying, "it's a miraculous image", which really is having your cake and eating it...

 

[Mountainmike]

I can only comment - You havent examined the provenance or evidence. Therefore you have no right to question either it or the reliability of it. Ive given you enough to show that credible scientists believe it is inexplicable.
The rest is up to you.

You still seem to want to cast doubt without actually studying it.
In my scientific world. Study first, comment second.

The english translation of that video tells you what you will find if you did. eg Electron micrographs show a channel, almost a vein structure in the bread which is the source of the blood (coming out!) How was that faked in 1/10 mm? It has leucocytes which as the forensic scientist says are demonstration of life , and impossible in that sample. It was human heart tissue that would not profile. He took the sample!. You do not need to trace the origin to see the sample itself defies science.

It doesnt matter who I am or what I believe. A believer who says 2+2=4 is right. An accuser can only challenge the answer, not dismiss it on the basis of who said it. It is one of the old falasies.

I am sceptical of all of these till I study them, and some pass the threshold. I dont need them to be true. I would much prefer the pious fraud ceased, it would make the job of tracing interesting phenomena easier. But some of them clearly seem to be.

But if you really want to see science perverted, Look no furhter than than the shroud dating team. Read all the messages of Harry Gove (warning , its a 600 page book) ( and others like Halls ) to others on analysis of the dating of the shroud in Merinos book. It lays bare the prejudice of the scientific establishment to all such phenomena, and how that created a disaster..

eg They wanted physicist John Jackson off the team because he wore a cross. Someone asked whether they had any reason to believe the science he produced on STURP/ the shroud was other than objective, they admitted they could not find fault with it. ie he was objective.

It was pointed out that their apriori atheist view that it was a fake, was stronger than any of the views that considered it real and whether by their own thinking they should be disqualified too? If you cannot use believers or non believers who do you choose? They were clearly partisan, as doctoring of the evidence ( by creative ommission) on error bars later proved! (I wont bore you, but the choice of numbers to report was "massaged" not warts and all)

Indeed they wanted- and got - the whole of STURP off the team, (the ony scientists who knew anything about it) because they were inclined to consider the shroud was indeed real because of the science. (why did it matter? most who were not christians at all... Jesus was real, and no reason to believe he wasnt crucified in the manner committed to text!)

Net result they ditched so many staff to keep the team " Pure disbelievers" - that they ditched all those who knew the textile aspects ,and all those knew the problems with parts of the shroud from spectroscopy.

So when it came to sampling, they had no idea even what the blood mark was on the side of the shroud!!! They researched the hell out of that.

The protocol called for multiple samples. They ignored it completely and took only one from the selvedge and divided it several ways. They didnt even do that in front of a camera, and there is a question on discrepancy of weights of the whole to samples distributed. So in the end one test repeated three times. They did none of the chemical analysis that Meecham had urged to determine consistency with rest of the shroud (the only one with fabric dating expience in that group , who said dating was a problem on ancient textile)

So As rogers later proved. The sample they took was dyed, part cotton, part linen of different structure from the rest of the shroud. And even that the testers could not date right...their error bars shoud have rung alarm bells even with them. Yet the only paper to hit nature was theirs!

The rest is history, they set shroud science back a decade which is what happens when atheist prejudice hits scientific testing.

I said I understand your powerful need to believe in these stories, but I also wonder why simple faith is not sufficient.

I know nothing about him beyond what you've posted and links mentioning him in connection with testing tissue claimed to be of miraculous origin.

The fact that you view what I've said as an 'attack' on you (seriously?) just makes my point.

That's not how it comes across in your posts - when the quality & reliability of the evidence was questioned, rather than address the questions raised (especially provenance), you repeat, ever more emphatically, the aspects that you find convincing, and then bring in a different disputed miracle claim as if that somehow helps your case.

Nobody can 'prove' to a believer that it was faked, and that's not how science works. Cases like this can only really be assessed on the balance of probabilities, and if you believe in miracles, which - by definition - are not constrained by natural law, the balance of probabilities is effectively meaningless.

Incidentally, last I heard, even the Catholic church takes no official position on the authenticity of the Turin Shroud. It's been quite a while since I spent any time on it, but I haven't noticed the major red flags changing recently. Most are dismissed by saying, "it's a miraculous image", which really is having your cake and eating it...

 

[Mountainmike]

Anyway...when somebody wants to start talking evidence on tixtla, Im happy to discuss.

Till then this is pointless.

BTW I discovered castarnons book is on ScribD. Believe you can get it free for a month. The forensic scientists of course have more to say than is in that book. So its worth listenting to the interviews too.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I can only comment - You havent examined the provenance or evidence. Therefore you have no right to question either it or the reliability of it.

I've examined the evidence you provided and some of what is publically available - a variety of different versions of the story.

Ive given you enough to show that credible scientists believe it is inexplicable.
The rest is up to you.

You've made unsupported claims that credible scientists think what they were presented with is inexplicable.

You still seem to want to cast doubt without actually studying it.
In my scientific world. Study first, comment second.

Easy - provide verifiable evidence in the public domain. As I said more than once, it doesn't matter what was tested unless there is verifiable evidence of its origin - and there isn't.

Once again, shroud 'whataboutism' doesn't help, other than to reiterate the view that science is great when it supports your beliefs and rubbish when it doesn't.

 

[Mountainmike]

So pronouncing before studying it then.
meanwhile forensic scientists say
- human blood coming out of passage in bread
- human heart myocardium
- leucocytes proving recent life impossible in vitro
- no nuclear DNA
- In tixtla case the pathologist took the sample so did chain of custody

Repeated in many locations worldwide

His reports are expert witness in serious criminal trials . Not good enough here seemingly

Those who won’t read the evidence will never know.

My observations on academia attitude to such phenomena is not whataboutery they are the barrier to progress on most similar phenomena

I said I think casternons book is free on scribd?

Tell me - why are you on a thread about evidence of theistic origin when you seem to have little interest ?

I've examined the evidence you provided and some of what is publically available - a variety of different versions of the story.

You've made unsupported claims that credible scientists think what they were presented with is inexplicable.

Easy - provide verifiable evidence in the public domain. As I said more than once, it doesn't matter what was tested unless there is verifiable evidence of its origin - and there isn't.

Once again, shroud 'whataboutism' doesn't help, other than to reiterate the view that science is great when it supports your beliefs and rubbish when it doesn't.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

So pronouncing before studying it then.

Given the information I have seen, I remain sceptical.

Tell me - why are you on a thread about evidence of theistic origin when you seem to have little interest ?

Does my spending so much time on the topic really give you the impression I have little interest in it?

In earlier times, I spent a considerable amount of time looking into paranormal and supernatural reports & claims. The more I learned the more sceptical I became. Bad science, pseudoscience; poor evidence, no evidence; poorly controlled or analysed experiments; exaggerated, embellished, or invented stories; vested interests in the claims; wishful thinking; credulous believers; honest people fooling themselves & others; dishonest people fooling others; attention seekers, money seekers, influence seekers, fraudsters, and so-on.

The eucharist & shroud stories have some characteristic believer themes, such as the 'missing the forest for the trees' theme of focusing on unexplained details and generally ignoring larger problematic contextual issues (also found with conspiracy theorists).

I'm interested to see if someone comes up with something new, but it's mostly rehashes or refinements of earlier scams.

Apparently, people simply want to believe in weird and fantastical claims ¯\_(ツ)_/¯