Is science at odds with philosophy?

[Mountainmike]

You don't really know how labs work, do you?

Other than having started one , with others , that employs 200 and has GMP certification for creating and testing biopharm products you mean? I know what university labs are in comparison. A mess. It’s why most of their “ eurekas” fail on bad science , sloppy process and wishful thinking. It’s cost a fortune.

Abiogenesis is a hypothesis that is still being tested. But there isn't really any other legitimate alternative.

I get it , that is your faith. You are welcome to it, but you have no evidence it happened. I repeat - I have no fundamental objection, but I need convincing not just conjecture.
The second statement Is not science. Don’t know is your other alternative.

There's all sorts of supernatural alternatives and they are all 100% religious faith.

Other than actual evidence you won’t look at!
So not faith then.

Is there any Catholic-based miracle you don't believe in?

I believe the ones with actual evidence , particularly when vouched by for by credible people , and where it is hard or impossible to conjecture fraud . That’s because I’m a scientist. You discount then because of your faith.

I don’t have the sceptics arrogance to discount the verdict Of well qualified scientists who actually study them.

As for books, I discount Dawkins because of bad science.
Darwin seems to be failing now by the test he himself set for disproof.

 

[Opdrey]

Other than having started one , with others , that employs 200 and has GMP certification for creating and testing biopharm products you mean?

You started a lab and run it? Interesting. May I ask in what discipline? (I am guessing not a chemistry lab)

I get it , that is your faith. You are welcome to it, but you have no evidence it happened.

I am curious how one starts and runs a science lab but doesn't understand what an "hypothesis" is.

I believe the ones with actual evidence , particularly when vouched by for by credible people

You started and run a science lab and you aren't even modestly concerned that you are simply accepting the decrees of books you found at the bookstore?

, and where it is hard or impossible to conjecture fraud . That’s because I’m a scientist.

A scientist? In what area specifically?

As for books, I discount Dawkins because of bad science.

Is evolutionary biology your area of expertise? I thought you were a "mathematical modeler" who focused on "hush-hush military stuff".

 

[Mountainmike]

Let’s get down to brass tacks.

Of the the labs that tested just tixtla samples , whose reports I can read in one of the books:

Which of them do you say got the pathology recognition wrong??
Patmed ? CML ? Gene-ex?
Or the ones that confirmed human origin and DNA profiles
I2QB , Beta Genetics? Trinity DNA?
Later tests were also done on single cell mitochondrial too.
Two cardiologists have commented positively too.
I have not even mentioned the lead investigator!

According to you ALL of THEM were incompetent or stupid, yet you have no idea even what they did. What is your qualification to contradict them?
Yours is a FAITH based opinion. I prefer their science. I am the one agreeing with the forensic scientists. You are not arguing with me, you have the hubris to argue with them, all! And you have not even seen a sample!
Yet it is they who appear as expert witnesses!

I also know from PROPER labs at least two are involved in both the tests and signing off on quality procedure, and a third person got involved in the lab work. The monkey doesn’t grind the organ,

that’s a lot of people. That’s probably 20 In the companies above, It’s because I know PROPER labs that I know a few are involved. Where the lecturer earning a few dollars , it will probably just be him organising , kicking it to an overworked technician who does not even know what GMP is. That’s why mistakes are made in universities.

As a physicist and modeller , involved in optimisation, I know Dawkins ideas of climbing mount improbable / blind watchmaker etc were utter junk, as was his comments on likelihood of chemical events occurring. That’s most of his books in the bin. He should stick to what he knows.

You may mock hush hush, (and even now there are things I can’t say under official secrets) But it was depressing how we were ahead of the universities on what we studied, way ahead in some areas , but we couldn’t even put our names in the literature. Of course it wasn’t across the board. We were specialised at what we did. It was just as much science as anything you do: more so because many times we had no beaten path to follow, we had to find our own.

You started a lab and run it? Interesting. May I ask in what discipline? (I am guessing not a chemistry lab)



I am curious how one starts and runs a science lab but doesn't understand what an "hypothesis" is.



You started and run a science lab and you aren't even modestly concerned that you are simply accepting the decrees of books you found at the bookstore?



A scientist? In what area specifically?



Is evolutionary biology your area of expertise? I thought you were a "mathematical modeler" who focused on "hush-hush military stuff".

 

[Opdrey]

Let’s get down to brass tacks.

Of the the labs that tested just tixtla samples , whose reports I can read in one of the books:

Which of them do you say got the pathology recognition wrong??
Patmed ? CML ? Gene-ex?
Or the ones that confirmed human origin and DNA profiles
I2QB , Beta Genetics? Trinity DNA?

I hope this time around you actually read what I write. Let's try this again:

I have no doubt whatever these things are you just rattled off are perfectly fine labs, I honestly don't know. But the key is do you have any information on the tests themselves? The conditions run, the replicates, the statistics on the results, possible errors, just anything?

Or do you simply have a list of laboratory company names and an assurance from the author of the book that "Yeah, everything here is great and the results say 'miracle!'"?

According to you ALL of THEM were incompetent or stupid,

WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! I NEVER SAID THAT!!!!

PLEASE read what I say rather than simply making up stuff.

I don't know anything about them. And I suspect the ONLY thing you know is that they were listed as testing labs in a book that confirms your faith.

That's it.

yet you have no idea even what they did

Do you? Again, I will ask:

What were the tests run, what conditions were they run in, what were the results, what are the potential errors, etc etc.

You may mock hush hush, (and even now there are things I can’t say under official secrets) But it was depressing how we were ahead of the universities on what we studied, way ahead in some areas , but we couldn’t even put our names in the literature.

To be quite honest, Mike, I don't know anything about you. I've got family that used to work for NSA and I accept that there are people out there who can't tell me what they did for a living. But I also realize this is the internet and you are as anonymous as anyone else. I have no reason to doubt your claims of super-secret government research but by the same token I have no reason to believe them either.

Do you see how that works? Your claims are insufficient for me to believe.

 

[Mountainmike]

I hope this time around you actually read what I write. Let's try this again:

I hope this time you read what I write.
Let’s try this again.

1/ I have the forensic reports from the labs, that make up half the book. So I know exactly what they did and what they concluded.

2/ You have no opinion , you will not look, yet still you conclude there is “no evidence.” So That is a faith based statement , you cannot possibly conclude that without looking.

3/ In stating repeatedly “there is no evidence”
knowing those scientists tested them, you de facto conclude they were stupid or incompetent.

4/ No scientist would conclude anything without studying evidence , or reading the reports of those who had, so you are not a scientist speaking when making statements like that either.

if you are curious…
I didn’t say super secret, as if we were unique. There are MANY in defence industries who model everything from tracking ,control, communications, modelling of radar, sonar, recognition , in my case optimisation of all the above. We were a department of geeks that tackled hard math because dynamics are noisy, time variant and non linear. Because its non linear , optimisation is done by hill climbing. That’s how I know Dawkins doesn’t know anything about climbing mount improbable!

None of those involved in defence can reveal what they know , without compromising knowledge of capability of systems which are in service for decades. That’s why it is still secret. For example: when a missile system targets incoming missiles approaching each other at staggering speed, with increasing agility, what are the limits of performance for an enemy to breach the envelope? How accurate and agile must a tracking radar , stabilisation platform, or incoming weapon need to be?. In some ways mundane, it is also vital. Back then we had another problem. How do you do solve complex math in real time? The system performance was also restricted by that.

 

[Opdrey]

I hope this time you read what I write.
Let’s try this again.

1/ I have the forensic reports from the labs, that make up half the book. So I know exactly what they did and what they concluded.

Excellent. Why not share with us just one example. I'd like to see the detail the books you prefer say.

How about a chemical analysis of the blood/tissue found in one of the hosts that transsubstantiated.

Show us the gory details of the analysis, the errors, the statistics. All of it. Just one example.

(And if you say I should just go buy the book, well, then I will be comfortable in simply ignoring your points)

2/ You have no opinion , you will not look, yet still you conclude there is “no evidence.” So That is a faith based statement , you cannot possibly conclude that without looking.

Please be fair to me and realize I've read plenty of books showing significant "evidence" for paranormal, fortean, miraculous stuff before. Just because I haven't read YOUR favorite books doesn't mean I've not looked.

 

[Opdrey]

I hope this time you read what I write.
Let’s try this again.

1/ I have the forensic reports from the labs, that make up half the book. So I know exactly what they did and what they concluded.

OK, let's roll back the tape to the Buenos Aires Eucharistic Miracle of 1996. It sounds like the "forensic experts" analyzed what was given to them. Here's something called "chain of custody":

1. Did the forensic experts see the host before the particle fell on the floor?
2. Did they see the particle fall on the floor and then be collected by the Church official put in the water to dissolve?
3. Did the forensic experts test out the chalice the host particle was put in before it was put in there to ensure there was no possible contamination by anything else?

OR

Did the church see something they thought miraculous and then LATER called in forensic experts?

This "miracle" is, effectively, saying that CATHOLICISM IS THE CORRECT RELIGION. That implies, therefore that all other religions, in fact all other versions of Christianity are ipso facto incorrect. That's a pretty astounding claim. If proven true beyond a reasonable doubt it would fundamentally alter literally every single thing we know across the globe and forever into the future.

This would be, in short, an ABSOLUTE GAME CHANGER for everyone on the planet earth forever.

Yet the Catholic Church doesn't even seem to be hammering this home. To be quite honest this is the first I've ever heard about it and my wife is from a Catholic family! So I think if it were able to prove that Catholicism is the ONE AND TRUE RELIGION it would be a weeeeeeeeeee bit more prominent, dontcha think?

The fact of the matter is that this isn't a scientific proof. It MAY VERY WELL BE a proof that somehow blood or human tissue somehow got into a chalice in a church somewhere at some time. But given that there probably isn't a robust chain of custody on this and no control analyses (ie the chalice before the miracle, or even seeing the host particle put in the chalice, no testing of the water or the water source, nothing) then no amount of post-game analysis is going to make it MORE true.

And before you go claiming that I'm calling the Church people who "found" the miracle to be liars or some such, nothing could be further from the truth. There's about a billion things that could have contaminated this. Imagine if there was a drop of blood or something that the church official didn't notice but was where the host particle landed? Or what if there was something that fell into the chalice?

I know you dearly believe these miracles because they affirm your pre-existing faith. Right down to the Catholic part. That's fantastic for you. Miracles are a joy for the faithful. They usually aren't real and the world is shown countless countless examples where the miracle wasn't real. And you found something that has a LOT of scientific holes in it but it feels good to you. That's fine. Enjoy it! BELIEVE IT! It supports your faith, and that's good enough.

But don't expect it to move the needle for those who don't have your religious faith. It isn't science.

 

[Mountainmike]

The problem is you want to dismiss it without study, but at least you are talking about evidence now . So bravo for that , but not for the guesses.

On questioning chain of custody you are way wide of the mark, not least because in three of the instances , those collecting the samples were also those testing them. No chain of custody involved.

But the real problem is the samples are inexplicable regardless of origin.

There's about a billion things that could have contaminated this.

No there aren’t. That’s the problem,
You are guessing - Wrongly - because you refuse to go in depth on the evidence.

The DNA profiles found cannot be a contamination.
It is human DNA that doesn’t give an identity profile. Contamination does.

The fact of traumatized white cells in vitro show the samples were recently alive. That doesn’t happen according to pathologists it’s part of why they consider them inexplicable.

It also shows they are recent : so the hypothesis that the nuclear DNA is degraded or old , does not fly.

Thr Mitochondrial DNS does sequence, again proving dna is human.. it Is Middle Eastern origin, unlike any of the people involved.

All of the miracles profile in similar fashion, same as the sudarium, same as statue of Cochabamba. If once was a mistake, the same mistake cannot be repeated 6 times by accident

Then the real problems for guessing / hypothesising contamination start!!

The flesh intimately intermingles with bread. That’s not fakeable. No surgeon can do that, The change in Buenos airies was progressive, over a couple of weeks, so not a substitution, and regardless of any of that :

the kicker….
Ordinary people don’t leave cardiac tissue as contamination!! Particularly that mingles at the edges with bread.
There are no “ contamination” explanations that fit the facts.

The teams are all independent , so even if a molecular biologist knew knew how to cheat one example, which they don’t, there is nobody to distribute the cheats!

and even if that was possible, lancianio was 1000 years ago. That too is cardiac tissue. How was it faked 1000 years ago, and why does it survive? The preservation is not natural.

In short your guess accounts for NONE of what was found.
The samples themselves are inexplicable regardless of origin.

The only thing you are right about is it blows current scientific explanations out of the water, which is what the pathologists said!

You treat them as half wits, they are not! Do you not think your guesses would have occurred to them??

All that is why Lawrence has said “ credible evidence of creation”

I know you dearly believe these miracles because they affirm your pre-existing faith. Right down to the Catholic part. .

No, I believe them because of the science.
You dismiss them because of faith!

I believe it Not because of one book.
I have followed this ever since the first paper about lanciano in the Italian journal. I have a lot of books, videos and the rest.

( I know you all prefer to comment without information, and despise people who read books, but alas I prefer the evidence!, it’s a weakness of mine because of being a trained scientist! )

The samples all follow an inexplicable pattern. But the investigators are independent.

 

[partinobodycular]

You are guessing - Wrongly - because you refuse to go in depth on the evidence.

You've probably noticed that many of us have simply given up on trying to have a discussion with you, because you keep excoriating us for not examining evidence which you have steadfastly refused to provide. Not even the smallest snippets.

As such your claims have grown ever more spurious as far as some of us are concerned. The only effort that you seem to want to put in, is to tell us to go find it ourselves.

So might I ask, do you really think that this strategy is working?

 

[Mountainmike]

True. I excoriate your for expressing an opinion on something you know nothing about.

Two options. Study it or stay silent.

You all take the third, attack it (and often me) with no evidence, then condemn it as superstitious nonsense.

Opdrey used the lazy trope of contamination , which does not fly even with evidence that is in public domain. Since when did people leave bits of heart tissue on things they contaminate. Yet a few cardiologists state that is true.

Your one contribution is to attack one of the people involved of many involved, who holds a chair in legal forensic medicine. You do not Challenge the science. Whilst admitting you have never even read a book.

You all use the falasy it should all be for free ( yet I must pay for papers from journals) , or I should copy copyrighted stuff. None of you spend even a tenner. You lack the basic curiosity that is needed to even be a scientist.

Ignorance is not bliss.

On the science game set and match to me.

None of the so far lazy objections, eg comtamination, including attacking the people ( 2+2=4 whoever says so) have mounted a proper challenge to a single instance.

have any of you even considered the possibility ( from the evidence it is as near certainty as you can get) that these are genuine? Opdrey let the mask slip. His basic refusal to contemplate that they are genuine, is because it would turn his world of science upside down!

Just in case anyone cares about evidence, here is another book, this time by a cardiologist. The scientists believe it, it is faith based sceptics that don’t!
https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/1644134772?psc=1&ref=ppx_pop_dt_b_product_details


As for strategy, I don’t have one. I also conclude that nothing will ever convince faith based sceptics. They close their eyes.

so I will leave you all with an anecdote.

A Turkish hacker group that has done some notorious things , including hacking the Russian ministry of defence, hacking the iron dome in Israel, so they only bother with serious threats, also hacked the small church website in Buenos airies that houses a couple of the miracles ( yes there were several, not just one) .

That shows you how seriously islam takes these as a threat to their world view!

You've probably noticed that many of us have simply given up on trying to have a discussion with you, because you keep excoriating us for not examining evidence which you have steadfastly refused to provide. Not even the smallest snippets.

As such your claims have grown ever more spurious as far as some of us are concerned. The only effort that you seem to want to put in, is to tell us to go find it ourselves.

So might I ask, do you really think that this strategy is working?

 

[Mountainmike]

Excellent. Why not share with us just one example. I'd like to see the detail the books you prefer say.

How about a chemical analysis of the blood/tissue found in one of the hosts that transsubstantiated.

Show us the gory details of the analysis, the errors, the statistics. All of it. Just one example.

(And if you say I should just go buy the book, well, then I will be comfortable in simply ignoring your points)



Please be fair to me and realize I've read plenty of books showing significant "evidence" for paranormal, fortean, miraculous stuff before. Just because I haven't read YOUR favorite books doesn't mean I've not looked.

Seems you read the wrong books. Although to be fair, most in this area are more recent.
I am not sharing tens of pages of copyrighted stuff.
You have the conclusions.

Here is a recent book. Less that ten dollars. A detailed list of the tests they did, the results and scientific issues at stake, by a cardiologist who has the reports.
https://www.amazon.com/Cardiologist-Examines-Jesus-Stunning-Eucharistic/dp/1644134772
Lists the stuff they did. For actual forensic reports get such as castarnons book on tixtla, or watch the two hour presentation of findings of the commission. Sadly In Spanish.

He points out that there are many EM. Four in a few years in just Buenos airies. Only two were analysed scientifically, only one thoroughly. That’s the one you are aware of.

Here is the deal. If you read it ALL , and you didn’t learn anything I might send you an Amazon voucher to cover it. Then at least your criticisms might match the subject.

That is my biggest frustration. You can see in public domain that cardiologists decided the samples were heart tissue. You can see the sections in public domain. So the idea it was contamination? That is just a lazy trope, because people do not spread heart tissue ever!!

 

[Opdrey]

The problem is you want to dismiss it without study, but at least you are talking about evidence now . So bravo for that , but not for the guesses.

I find it strange that someone with as much lab and science experience as you denigrates the "guesses". It's almost as if you have never set foot in a science lab at all. Guesses are EXACTLY what one undertakes in science.

On questioning chain of custody you are way wide of the mark, not least because in three of the instances , those collecting the samples were also those testing them. No chain of custody involved.

What were forensic pathologists doing giving Mass?

No there aren’t. That’s the problem,
You are guessing - Wrongly - because you refuse to go in depth on the evidence.

And by that you mean "buy the book".

The DNA profiles found cannot be a contamination.

This was the DNA that couldn't be sequenced?

It is human DNA that doesn’t give an identity profile.

And, again, that doesn't make any sense.

Then the real problems for guessing / hypothesising contamination start!!

Guessing/Hypothesizing is what scientists do. EVEN MORESO for possible alternative explanations.

Honestly, you don't talk like someone who has ever actually worked as a professional scientist.

The flesh intimately intermingles with bread. That’s not fakeable.

You keep making universal negative claims. Again, you seem to really lack basic science and inference skills.

The only thing you are right about is it blows current scientific explanations out of the water, which is what the pathologists said!

And yet again, here's another post with no technical details about the testing.

You treat them as half wits

THOU SHALT NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS. Stop it! Seriously. JUST STOP making up stuff. I never said anything of the sort.

You are so invested in this you can't even think critically about it. That's fine, it's your RELIGION. You are not engaged in scientific or critical thinking at this point. If you were you wouldn't have to make up stuff that other people said about your favorite points.

No, I believe them because of the science.

Other than your hand-waving and vague descriptions of tests, what science, specifically?

I believe it Not because of one book.
I have followed this ever since the first paper about lanciano in the Italian journal.

WHAT JOURNAL? Give us a citation.

WHAT JOURNAL?

( I know you all prefer to comment without information, and despise people who read books,

THOU SHALT NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS.

Friend, I've read more technical books in the sciences than you have. Stop this.

 

[Opdrey]

Seems you read the wrong books.

You mean ACTUAL SCIENCE BOOKS? Yeah, I do tend to like actual science books.

I am not sharing tens of pages of copyrighted stuff.

And since you don't understand the science you cannot summarize the technical details. Got it.

Here is the deal. If you read it ALL , and you didn’t learn anything I might send you an Amazon voucher to cover it. Then at least your criticisms might match the subject.

DUDE, I DON"T WANT YOUR BOOKS. I can easily afford my own. I'm just asking you to explain, in technical detail, just ONE set of evidence that you are most moved by.

That is my biggest frustration.

That you don't understand the science enough to describe it?

You can see in public domain that cardiologists decided the samples were heart tissue. You can see the sections in public domain. So the idea it was contamination? That is just a lazy trope, because people do not spread heart tissue ever!!

You don't seem like a scientist. Sorry. I'm just going to come out and say it. You don't know much science at all. The MINUTE you make some sweeping generalization that contamination couldn't possibly happen you show your hand.

Contamination can ALWAYS happen. And if you don't continually obsess on where it might be, you run the risk of doing bad science.

That's how science works.

 

[Opdrey]

Opdrey used the lazy trope of contamination , which does not fly even with evidence that is in public domain.

Mike, let us know when you get a chance to take a field trip to an actual laboratory where chemical or biological analyses take place.

have any of you even considered the possibility ( from the evidence it is as near certainty as you can get) that these are genuine? Opdrey let the mask slip. His basic refusal to contemplate that they are genuine, is because it would turn his world of science upside down!

Yeah. If someone came on here and claimed they could make a perpetual motion machine and they had PROOF, you better bet people would perk up because it challenges basic world concepts.

If you can't handle questions then you are not prepared to be a scientist.

 

[Mountainmike]

So a book by a cardiologist that discusses science , isn’t a science book? You have strange definitions.

And as for contamination , of course it happens.

But You do love your silly non sequiturs,
eg that contamination can account for presence of heart tissue , which is unscientific nonsense born of no research and wishful thinking. You may spread heart tissue, the rest of us do not! So it doesn’t account for heart tissue.

Contamination can for example give multiple identities of DNA.
These samples give no identity sequence, other than mitichondrial, So they are not explicable by contamination either.

Contamination cannot account for live leucocytes found in distilled water years after the event. It’s why the forensic pathologists are baffled.

So at least ,make your hypothesis line up with the facts.

So it’s not contamination that is a problem . It is bad critical thinking that makes it a conjectured cause, for a phenomenon it cannot cause, which is intellectually dishonest. Most sceptic rebuttals are.

You don’t even seem to know what science IS, opdrey.
It’s a search for truth. It is not a search constrained to truth you like. You cannot exclude what truth you don’t like. You cannot throw any old lazy trope that doesn’t fit the facts, and doesn’t account for the samples!


You are trapped in an intellectual cage of your own making,

You are a technician, not a scientist, trapped in a world you assume always mechanistic that follows man made rules.

You lost the enquiring open mind of a scientist. Great if it makes you feel philosophically happy , but the real world doesn’t always follow the rules. It’s the duty of science to go where the evidence leads.

As I keep telling you. You aren’t arguing with me.
You are arguing with a large group of scientists who have actually seen the samples, and you think they are all fools because they found things you don’t “like”. Spare your insults for them.

You mean ACTUAL SCIENCE BOOKS? Yeah, I do tend to like actual science books.



And since you don't understand the science you cannot summarize the technical details. Got it.



DUDE, I DON"T WANT YOUR BOOKS. I can easily afford my own. I'm just asking you to explain, in technical detail, just ONE set of evidence that you are most moved by.



That you don't understand the science enough to describe it?



You aren't a scientist. Sorry. I'm just going to come out and say it. You don't know much science at all. The MINUTE you make some sweeping generalization that contamination couldn't possibly happen you show your hand.

Contamination can ALWAYS happen.

That's how science works.

 

[Opdrey]

Contamination can for example give multiple identities of DNA.
These samples give no identity sequence, other than mitichondrial, So they are not explicable by contamination either.

So much special pleading. I haven't seen one ounce of critical thinking in all your posts. I see a huge amount of credulity.

You are a technician, not a scientist,

Well, at least I could actually get a graduate degree. PhD. So I don't have to dodge and weave with "post graduate" phrases like some people.

You lost the enquiring open mind of a scientist.

As I keep telling you. You aren’t arguing with me.

Correct. Because you haven't produced much in the way of technical details other than a lot of appeals to authority and decrees.

If you don't understand the science that so convinces you then by all means, enjoy the stories.

If you think you DO understand the science then perhaps you can give us a single example with technical details.

Or maybe you could provide the citation for the "Italian Journal" you mentioned briefly?

 

[Mountainmike]

Critical thinking is how I just dismissed nonsense about the relevance of contamination to accounting for the presence of heart tissue.
Cold hard reasoning to dismiss a lazy trope.

If you look up lanciano on the web you will find the journal. As are all the pathologists conclusions of all of these easily available if you know how to search. (And as I have listed many times)

It’s fascinating you argue with medical examiners comclusions who have done 10000 autopsies, and you dispute what cardiologists think. If you think credulity is a problem direct it at them, not me.
I prefer the opinion of those who tested the samples to your opinion!

So much special pleading. I haven't seen one ounce of critical thinking in all your posts. I see a huge amount of credulity.




Well, at least I could actually get a graduate degree. PhD. So I don't have to dodge and weave with "post graduate" phrases like some people.







Correct. Because you haven't produced much in the way of technical details other than a lot of appeals to authority and decrees.

If you don't understand the science that so convinces you then by all means, enjoy the stories.

If you think you DO understand the science then perhaps you can give us a single example with technical details.

Or maybe you could provide the citation for the "Italian Journal" you mentioned briefly?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Just in case anyone cares about evidence, here is another book, this time by a cardiologist. The scientists believe it, it is faith based sceptics that don’t!
https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/1644134772?psc=1&ref=ppx_pop_dt_b_product_details

Surprise, surprise - a book written by a Roman Catholic who admits he couldn't be impartial and make his case on the scientific facts alone...

"I am Roman Catholic. I initially thought I could manage writing something "aseptic" and impartial. I thought that the implied sublime and embarrassing truth would come across to the reader by simply reporting scientific facts, without needless comments by the narrator. I couldn't manage this..."​

But at least he admitted his bias.

But where are the scientific papers published by these scientists on these amazing discoveries?

​

 

[Mountainmike]

Surprise, surprise - a book written by a Roman Catholic who admits he couldn't be impartial and make his case on the scientific facts alone...

"I am Roman Catholic. I initially thought I could manage writing something "aseptic" and impartial. I thought that the implied sublime and embarrassing truth would come across to the reader by simply reporting scientific facts, without needless comments by the narrator. I couldn't manage this..."​

But at least he admitted his bias.

But where are the scientific papers published by these scientists on these amazing discoveries?

​

He (rightly) notes he is catholic, but the book is about the science. He notes the tests they ran, limitations of them, he explains the jargon, some of the limitations, and he explains the cardiology. The book itself has no bias, other than to report what he found.

Read it. Same deal. If you buy it. Read all of it. And you claim you did not learn anything from it, I will send you an amazon voucher to the price.

Just as you MUST declare your bias as a sceptic.
You are not objective. You quoted skepdic once! Is that "authority?"

Opdrey should admit he is incapable of looking at what is actually there.
It radiates in all that he says. What do you think of @Opdrey latest nonsense? That "contamination" accounts for traces of heart tissue!!! He will say anything to contest it. Do you think anyone else but him (apparentlY) leaves heart tissue on what they touch?

You need to get out of the mindset that academia is the only source of truth. It is not.

Indeed for reliable reports of forensic pathology criminal path labs are used, that have procedures to GMP. They do not publish findings in journals. They issue reports. Universities are OK for ideas. Ideas are their business, not generally forensic testing. University labs are rarely regulated or authorized test labs for expert witness for courts. University departments are generally far too sloppy for that. So the reports used on these are better than most universities can produce.

Since those who comment are registered to practice as pathologists in a number of countries and states, their testimony is viewed as expert in a court. Some are also cardiac specialists with numerous publications.

So your argument is against the pathologists, not the cardiologist who wrote that book.

 

[Opdrey]

Critical thinking is how I just dismissed nonsense about the relevance of contamination to accounting for the presence of heart tissue.
Cold hard reasoning to dismiss a lazy trope.

Would you be willing to provide us with the analysis details that found "heart tissue"? Or is that another thing we just accept because someone put it in a book you found at the bookstore?

If you look up lanciano on the web you will find the journal.

If you had actually gone through all the way to a graduate degree you would likely have written a scientific paper which means you would know how to give a citation.

Clearly you don't know how to do that.

It’s fascinating you argue with medical examiners comclusions

Ummm, I'm arguing with YOU. Not them. I don't know anything about the tests they ran and it sounds like maybe you don't either.

who have done 10000 autopsies,

Appeal to authority. Lazy.

and you dispute what cardiologists think. If you think credulity is a problem direct it at them, not me.
I prefer the opinion of those who tested the samples to your opinion!

If you don't understand the science you were told that's fine!