Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Okay, here you go Mike, pictures and everything.
https://www.keepingfaith.me/resources/common/pdfs/The Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano - Historical, Theological, Scientific and Photographic Documentation.pdf
Does this one meet with your approval?
Actually it was your link in post #514 that led me to that page, so kudos to you as well.You da man! thanks!
LITERALLY NO ONE IS ASKING YOU TO DO SO. We are simply asking you to tell us the details of the analyses and discuss it like a scientist would.
You are talking in generalities. That isn't the statistics of the individual tests. You have yet to provide a single number on anything from all your readings. So either the books you have don't include ANY statistical analysis of the data or you don't understand it enough to point it out to us.
Given your lack of experience with hear tissue morphology, what, exactly would you gain from seeing a picture of it?
And, again, how about all the books on "real hauntings"? And UFO's.
You would be able to tell us the actual likelihood of error if you cared enough about the actual science to read it. But again that isn't important to you because the science isn't the key part...the proof of the miracle is all you care about.
Next time you wish to talk to people who actually have significant experience in science look for the following:
F-test
t-test
p-value
Mean
Standard Deviation
Median
I'd be happy with an objective answer.
Again, no one is suggesting this be done. Why do you insist on bearing false witness against people you are debating with?
And yet you can't even be bothered to summarize technical details for us?
You are reasonably insulting as well. Calling me "lazy" and making up things about me that I never said.
I would suggest that you might wish to reacquaint yourself with Matthew 7:3
I mean no offense but I honestly have trouble believing this claim.
You have done a very good job of hiding it.
This isn't a court of law. I thought you understood this. You should be able to provide us with statistical data explicit in the studies you rely on.
I agree .. and sometimes guesses like that can also actually turn out as being agreed, as being entirely consistent with test results, which may be the case here. (This is with deference to the expertise of the forensic scientists - not having looked at their actual qualifications).To wit:
This investigation, performed between November 18th, 1970 and March 4th, 1971, had the following aims:
a) to check the histological structure of the ligneous - hard tissue, left as Flesh;
b) to define if the hardened stony - cretaceous substance left as Blood has the same characteristics of this;
c) to point out what biological species Flesh and Blood belong to;
d) to find out the Blood group in both tissues;
e) to investigate on the protein and mineral components of the Blood.
The investigation seems to presume from the outset that the sample is indeed flesh and blood. Such an assumption could lead to a less than rigorous methodology.
There's a heavy influence of Platonic Realism philosophy flowing throughout the entire approach/report. In typical scientific papers, this is either disclosed upfront, or has no bearing on the conclusions. In this case though, it most obviously does.partinobodycular said:And if the same methodology was followed in the investigation of subsequent Eucharistic "miracles", then the same outcome might not be so surprising.
Coincidence with the predominance of Catholocism in those countries, eh?partinobodycular said:This seems even more plausible when one considers the fact that numerous cases of supposed Eucharistic miracles have been documented in North America, and as far as I can ascertain, all have turned out to be fungus. Is there a difference in methodology between the investigations undertaken in North American as opposed to those undertaken elsewhere which could explain the discrepancy?
That is the verdict of science. The sheer number of tests done on these samples and cross checking, therefore peer review confirms the above.
None of your red herrings, straw men comparisons with big foot, personal attacks on me, or whatever time I have spent in labs (which is more than you think) , all that is irrelevnant, or indeed your belief these were not real based on your world view. Can change but a word of it. By alll means criticise, after not before you research them. This is not about you and me. This is about forensic testing.
It may surprise you to know, that most so called miracles or inexplicable things with theistic overtones do not have enough evidence to comment either way. I am not obliged to believe them. They are not the source of my belief. I do not need tthem to be true. Some plenty enough to discount them. But having searched much of my life, a small amount of them are truly inexplicable, but because I have spent a life time searching , the small percentage amounts to several tens, I believe are true.
You have faith that all can be explicable by a deterministic automaton view of the universe.
You believe consciousness is just a brain process (which incidentally, a lot of professional analysts like Greyson are beginning to doubt) But You cannot be sure so you have faith too. Just different from mine. There are anomalies. You reject them out of hand.
Where are the reports of these DNA tests?That will not provide nuclear DNA identity, but does provide mitochondrial DNA type from middle east.
So what? The samples may have undergone chemistry changes due to exposure. This has not been eliminated in the analysis. That door was never closed out by these dudes.Mountainmike said:Leucocytes that show trauma, also show very recent life which is inexplicable. Samples that should have decayed but have not. The pathologists declare it inexplicable.
Nope .. its not.Mountainmike said:That is the verdict of science.
Show me the peer reviews in reputable scientific journals.Mountainmike said:The sheer number of tests done on these samples and cross checking, therefore peer review of the tests confirms the above.
Back about 20 or so years ago I was hired onto my second postdoc.
etc etc
( by way of comparison of amount of data, You seem convinced of an absolute travesty of bad science that was the shroud dating that had only one sample essentially repeated, with a plethora of mistakes, and they even fiddled the data to pass a chi squared conformance. If they had not fiddled the data, they would have noticed, that for every 2cm up the cloth, the data changed in more or less linear fashion by 100 years. The point I make is you were far more convinced on far less data with only one sample, only because the date they arrived at matched your apriori belief...The EM on other hand have many, tests repeated many times by others. AKA peer checking.)
Thats why you can trust accredited labs better than the average university prof.
So Such "eureka" profs were the bane of the life of the scientists at the lab I helped start. They wasted a fortune in resource.
If it matters - I became a catholic in mid life, not because of evidence of miracles. But this is not about me.
@Mountainmike speaks more like a back-office person who was never in the primary 'firing lines' of research ..The real problem is you seem to want to talk about these things as if you are speaking from a position of science. Not so much. Yes you have your favorite data in hand (or at least what some author opted to give you) and you don't like it when anyone fails to be moved by that set of data. Meanwhile those of us who actually have worked in science know from personal experience that not all things are as they seem from a few experiments or analyses.
I will readily agree that labs operating with set SOP's and controls can be very good. But your antagonism toward "university labs" is not warranted.
What kind of lab was it that you started?
It is about you in no small way. You are fiercely defending miracles that confirm CATHOLIC doctrine. Does that not surprise you that you accidentally wound up in the ONLY TRUE FAITH? You are quite fortunate that you happened to, late in life, stumble upon the only faith that is true while the countless billions of people who are not of that faith are doomed to damnation.
The reason it is important is summarized thusly:
1. Your primary defense of the analyses has nothing to do with the actual statistics of the measurements but rather with the fact that there were different labs and you have an inherent trust of contract labs and trade books from the book store.
2. You refuse to consider the concept of "contamination" (even when the articles you favor explicitly discuss this topic) and call it any number of names.
3. You claim to have scientific experience, scientific "breakthroughs" from your research and even started a lab! But you don't speak in any way like an actual scientist. You mock any potential error in the findings as absurd when, in fact, a real scientist ALWAYS allows that error could be in there. The only people who dispense with any discussion of error are non-scientists. It's literally the most important thing we are taught as scientists.
Here's what it looks like to me:
You are a good Catholic. You believe and that is fantastic. You happened to find some books that sound to you like they found evidence of miracles. Maybe they did, maybe not. The fact that it confirms your faith is sufficient for you. That's fantastic. Seriously, it is great. I am happy for you.
The real problem is you seem to want to talk about these things as if you are speaking from a position of science. Not so much. Yes you have your favorite data in hand (or at least what some author opted to give you) and you don't like it when anyone fails to be moved by that set of data. Meanwhile those of us who actually have worked in science know from personal experience that not all things are as they seem from a few experiments or analyses.
I am not saying, nor have I EVER said these miracles are not real. I will repeat that so you will have to go out of your way to ignore it: I have not said that these miracles are not real. They may very well be real. I am not at a point where I will drop my skepticism. Your bar for rejecting the null hypothesis is much, much lower than mine.
1/ I wager you trust the results you get from your spectrophotometer and if you get the same output from four different machines , on four independent samples you would be convinced that the spike you see really is the element it purports to be. The chances of error in that case are incredibly low.
The likely correctness of Routine test results ( when process qualified) are a whole different ball game from - your example of error - whether a new process achieves a new effect, or whether that is mistaken. The latter is primarily the role of university labs, not accredited routine testing.
I’m not knocking them generally , but university processes are not as secure as is needed in the bio pharmaceutical regulation world, ( or forensic world) horses and courses. University labs can’t afford the straight jacket, but make mistakes without it.
I have not downplayed the question of comtamination at all.
Focus. How can contamination produce samples that are identifiable as heart myocardium?
You will never have a valid opinion either for or against these until you study what is known of them.
And unlike you I actually know how to express that in the data.
....
You claim to have started a lab but you clearly haven't.
...
Here ends our conversation. I spent years modelling stochastic processes. Quantum processes on occasion. I almost certainly know more stats than you ever will.
Are you incapable of discussion without ad hominems? Seemingy so.
You still have not explained how tissue recognised as heart myocardium can ever be a contamination? It was a typical lazy sceptic trope. Chuck some mud, however irrelevant. Hope a bit sticks. All the sceptics will "like" it, simply because it reinforces an apriori belief, regardless of what the scientists say!
That is not apparent from your posts. In fact I never saw you mention one single thing about statistics. I was the ONLY person to bring up statistics. And statistics are INTEGRAL to any analytical process. The fact that you couldn't speak even marginally about this tells me all I need to know about your claims of statistical knowledge.
As much as you are. I just got tired of you making stuff up about things I said (bearing false witness) and I thought I'd call you out.
I'm sorry but your act of being a scientist isn't flying. Especially to someone who has done that very thing.
Next time do some more research about what labs do, how error works in analytics, how to provide a literature citation and maybe don't knock down statistics so much and then claim to have vast knowledge of the topic.
I told you I modelled physical things in both observation, control, tracking communication worlds. All of that in the real world is stochastic, fighting against noise limits, amplified by unstable process. It uses stochastic observers, multistate filters , nonlinear optimization hill climbs, Random walks, martingales, markovians and so on. One of the fascinating questions is at what point do you stop modelling the process, and start to model noise. That is where maximum entropy comes in, also for super resolution of antennas in a generic sense. Synthetic apertures. Then there are classifiers for threat identification, part of military systems.
I just do not feel the compelling need to blow my own trumpet as you always seem to do. Empty vessels and all that...
This is one of the areas where I have a problem with the conclusions stated in the investigation. Is the finding of "traumatized heart myocardium" based solely on the expert's subjective opinion? I.E does the expert simply look at the slide and decide what type of tissue they're looking at? If so, then I can think of a number of historical instances in which an expert's biases influenced their conclusions, and that conclusion subsequently influenced the conclusions of the experts who came after them.In all of these cases the tests indicated , recently live , traumatized heart myocardium when analysing the red areas of wafers. The test and identification of samples Is the kind of thing pathologists do every day.
This is one of the areas where I have a problem with the conclusions stated in the investigation. Is the finding of "traumatized heart myocardium" based solely on the expert's subjective opinion? I.E does the expert simply look at the slide and decide what type of tissue they're looking at? If so, then I can think of a number of historical instances in which an expert's biases influenced their conclusions, and that conclusion subsequently influenced the conclusions of the experts who came after them.
I wonder about which conclusions drawn by the investigation are based on objective tests, and which are based on an expert's opinion.
Then why did you studiously avoid any discussion of noise in the data you prefer for the miracles? I'm genuinely curious because you seem good at listing all these things you did but when it comes to actual application of that knowledge to a specific topic it just went out the window.
You actually DID enjoy blowing your horn, yes you did! You have talked a great deal about your "post graduate" status (whatever you mean by that) and the lab you STARTED. You've tooted your own horn but given that you don't seem to see the beam in your own eye you are busy picking at the mote in mine.
(Although I noted that you dropped the whole "post graduate" thing when you met people on here who actually went all the way through grad school and got actual graduate degrees. Those people all know how to make a literature citation.)
I did not avoid the discussion of noise.
I kept the discussion to RELEVANT things.
When four of these phenomena show heart myocardium showing trauma and white cells, confirmed by a lot of others, no "contamination" hypothesis can help.
There is no statistical likelihood of people losing bits of their heart!
But even if you reject the DNA .... it is still heart myocardium, so you cannot suspect contamination or measurement error it does not make sense.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?