Is science at odds with philosophy?

[partinobodycular]

But it turns out it actually it did. Serafini read it at the sanctuary and says don’t waste your time, it adds nothing : but it is linked from his book.

I assume that you have Serafini's book, so if it's not asking too much, could you please provide me with the link. Surely that wouldn't violate the copyright.

 

[Mountainmike]

I assume that you have Serafini's book, so if it's not asking too much, could you please provide me with the link. Surely that wouldn't violate the copyright.

Be fair to me, I did!!
I mentioned it / linked it several times!
I got shouted down because it’s a book!!

As a starting place for references ( and understanding the basic issues in biochemistry and pathology it’s not a bad start .

I don’t agree with all that he says, eg dismissing betania and maria Esperanza. There is a lot more substance than he implies He also doesn’t link tesorieros latest. But it’s good value. The first half documents phenomena.
The second half documents topics , like cardiac tissue issues, blood issues , dna issues. Eg he explaines the enzyme issues on lanciano.

I make you the offer I made to others. As the first here to Read it, if you read it all and say you learned nothing , I will send an Amazon voucher code by private message. So it’s a money back guarantee.

https://www.amazon.com/Cardiologist-Examines-Jesus-Stunning-Eucharistic/dp/1644134772/ref=sr_1_1?crid=3JDC29C4GCZDL&keywords=a+cardiologist+examines+jesus&qid=1646476638&sprefix=A+card,aps,158&sr=8-1

 

[partinobodycular]

Be fair to me, I did!!
I mentioned it / linked it several times!
I got shouted down because it’s a book!!

Perhaps I wasn't clear, I don't want a link to the book, I want the link to the WHO/UN report which you said was in the book.

(I noticed that you changed your post from "linked" to "referenced")

So I'm still left questioning whether this report ever actually existed. And I'm assuming that the quote which everyone references isn't actually from the report, but rather it's from Serafini's reference to the alleged report. To be honest, I don't think that the report ever actually existed, and you have given me no reason to change my mind.

It's exactly because of things like this that I can't trust what you say, nor would I trust any of the books which you recommend so adamantly.

So after hours of searching I'm asking you for one thing, some evidence that this alleged WHO/UN report ever actually existed.

 

[Mountainmike]

I did change it, i meant reference. (Books don’t have links) . I often correct hindsight errors of detail.

I too doubted the existence , since the only place I saw it was wiki, which is bad at the best of times, and useless round controversial subjects. I no longer use wiki for even high level research of a topic.

Then Serafini referred it, in his book, noting it was written between 1973 and 1976 by a committee under a professor Giuseppe Biondini.

Serafini notes the only place you can get it is at the sanctuary (which is where he read it) and he did not think it was useful, it added nothing, so it did not , in his opinion , warrant further discussion.

I confess to having no idea why it would even interest WHO. It is not their area of expertise or interest. But I dare say you could track down biondini.

So sad.

I thought someone here might actually start investigating.
I offered a money back guarantee.

Perhaps I wasn't clear, I don't want a link to the book, I want the link to the WHO/UN report which you said was in the book.

(I noticed that you changed your post from "linked" to "referenced")

So I'm still left questioning whether this report ever actually existed. And I'm assuming that the quote which everyone references isn't actually from the report, but rather it's from Serafini's reference to the alleged report. To be honest, I don't think that the report ever actually existed, and you have given me no reason to change my mind.

It's exactly because of things like this that I can't trust what you say, nor would I trust any of the books which you recommend so adamantly.

So after hours of searching I'm asking you for one thing, some evidence that this alleged WHO/UN report ever actually existed.

 

[partinobodycular]

But I dare say you could track down biondini.

I'll try...thanks.

 

[Mountainmike]

I'll try...thanks.

So if I send you an Amazon voucher to the value of the kindle serafini will you read it? You say you have never read a book, I found that surprising.

I suspect biondini is the same biondini in one or two shroud reports of that time.
No idea what his specialisation was, but serafini did not rate his report.

 

[partinobodycular]

So if I send you an Amazon voucher to the value of the kindle serafini will you read it? You say you have never read a book, I found surprising.

Just to clarify, I previously said that I had never bought a book, not that I had never read one. But you're close enough that your point is valid as far as I'm concerned. I'm not an avid reader, and no, I wouldn't read a book even if you gave me a voucher.

I"ll readily admit that I'm uneducated, unread, and relatively ignorant compared to many other posters here. But as my sister would say, "don't let him fool you, he's not stupid."

That being said however, I'm actually having problems coming up with much of anything concerning Prof. Giuseppe Biondini, other than a couple of Lanciano websites referencing him in regards to the WHO/UN report. But I'll keep trying. I have an internet connection and I know how to Google, so if he's out there I should be able to find him.

I think that you and I, although probably from the same generation have grown up in different worlds, you with your books and education, and me with my internet and little else. You're just gonna have to trust me, I'm doing the best that I can.

 

[Mountainmike]

Why bother with biondini? He didn’t do the pathology, and from serafinis opinion he made a hash of retelling it even

Why not read tixtla. Sokolka. Legnica. Buenos airies?

I notice - as a result of web limitations - you made up the idea that castarnon didn’t report. He wrote a book on Buenos airies and others. He wrote the book on tixtla. But it was tesoriero that organised the tests. So he is a good starting point.

The web is useless when it comes to controversial subjects.

Just to clarify, I previously said that I had never bought a book, not that I had never read one. But you're close enough that your point is valid as far as I'm concerned. I'm not an avid reader, and no, I wouldn't read a book even if you gave me a voucher.

I"ll readily admit that I'm uneducated, unread, and relatively ignorant compared to many other posters here. But as my sister would say, "don't let him fool you, he's not stupid."

That being said however, I'm actually having problems coming up with much of anything concerning Prof. Giuseppe Biondini, other than a couple of Lanciano websites referencing him in regards to the WHO/UN report. But I'll keep trying. I have an internet connection and I know how to Google, so if he's out there I should be able to find him.

I think that you and I, although probably from the same generation have grown up in different worlds, you with your books and education, and me with my internet and little else. You're just gonna have to trust me, I'm doing the best that I can.

 

[Opdrey]

You didn’t . I did. I pointed out that even junk costs money

Yes, yes it does.

Why do you expect free? I seriously don’t get it.

No one is asking for Free, we are asking for references we can check out. A LITERATURE CITATION is we could work from there.

The book cites are great, but clearly you don't care enough about the point to bother to even try to explain details when asked.

 

[Opdrey]

You do love your assumptions, that alone disqualifies you as a scientist. I did indeed defend a thesis.

Ummm, yeah. The p-value is not low enough yet to reject the null hypothesis on this one.

 

[Opdrey]

...

 

[partinobodycular]

Why bother with biondini? He didn’t do the pathology, and from serafinis opinion he made a hash of retelling it even

Why not read tixtla. Sokolka. Legnica. Buenos airies?

Because I'm trying to give these claims the due diligence that they require. Not jump around from one supposed miracle to another. I chose to begin at the beginning...Lanciano. I'm trying to ascertain whether the claims made are valid.

I notice - as a result of web limitations - you made up the idea that castarnon didn’t report.

The Eucharistic miracle of Buenos Aires, in fact, has only recently started to be known because the bishop of Buenos Aires at the time of the event was Jorge Bergoglio, who has become Pope a few years ago. The only one who disclosed the news was Dr. Castanon, who did it through interviews and conferences, but it seems he has not published any results yet.​

Recent Eucharistic miracle in Argentina, Buenos Aires | Thresholds - Le Soglie

As I, Opdrey, and many others would no doubt maintain, a book doesn't equate to a published report.

 

[Mountainmike]

Meanwhile in the land of pathology , the view of accredited pathologists, double checked by other pathologists who have actually studied the samples matters more than all your blather about me or apriori p values, born of the fact you don’t like where the evidence points not the substance of it.

You seem more interested in me than the evidence! Does your hubris ever allow new information in?

Ummm, yeah. The p-value is not low enough yet to reject the null hypothesis on this one.



You seem to lack basic skills in discussing science topics. What was your thesis in? It clearly wasn't science.

I'm not joking here, Mike. I'm not saying this to be rude and offensive but you have shown ZERO facility with discussing science. Your posts are a mixture of appeals to authority, lists of how much you've paid for books and hand-waving coupled with pseudo-scientific gobbledygook.

 

[Opdrey]

Because I'm trying to give these claims the due diligence that they require. Not jump around from one supposed miracle to another.

In Creationism vs Evolution debates this is called a "Gish Gallop".

As I, Opdrey, and many others would no doubt maintain, a book doesn't equate to a published report.

It could but it would be a lot more dull to read than most people are willing to put up with. Books sold on the market at bookstores are usually glosses of the details. It's all cut and dried. Like the UFO, Bigfoot and "true hauntings" genre.

I would be willing to buy a book if @Mountainmike gave any suggestion that they contain any amount of detail that would open it up for actual understanding.

 

[Opdrey]

apriori p values

So you don't know what a priori or p-values are then?

You seem more interested in me than the evidence! Does your hubris ever allow new information in?

I tend not to just slurp up whatever is dumped out in front of me. Sorry.

 

[Mountainmike]

So let’s follow your logic here.

The web ( not me) which is generally unreliable around controversial matters , refers to a report , that both of us questioned the existence, and the only one that either of us knows , that claims to have seen it, holds no store at all by it!

And the fact you can’t find a report that i don’t reference is somehow my fault? or you suggest it puts into question the reports I do rate when you have no idea what it contains! And that is logic to you?

I have never pointed at it as a source of authority, because for me when it comes to pathology the accredited pathologists views , who actually saw the samples are most important.

I will tell you clearly born of years of using it the web is not a reliable source. You proved it yourself when claiming castarnon hadn’t reported, when he wrote a book on it!

Meanwhile you refuse to look at the resources I refer. I suggest you read those before judge my opinion of them.

As for @Opdrey I give up.

As someone blessed ( or cursed ) with a high IQ I see through all his straw men and non sequiturs.
He cannot blame comtamination with no credible suggestion of what contaminated them consistent with it. He seems angry about the fact he can’t.

You also prefer the opinion on a completely random blog , to the facts as reported by both castarnon himself and tesoriero himself, that it was tesoriero who took the samples to zugibe and others. Neither of them dispute it. It is in both of their books. ( that contain forensic reports)
Yet that website disputes it! And that to you is authority? The opinion of someone not even involved, just because it is free.

streuth!

Indeed in the pictures with zugibe you actually see tesoriero and willeseee. All the reports are addressed to them. So your blog - like most of the web - on controversial subjects is a load of I’ll informed tosh.

I am not going to waste any more time explaining the detail to people who refuse to pay for books, preferring any old blog, or like opdrey thinks his opinion counts more than pathologists who actually tested the samples. In his case p value is spelled p-e-e ( load of) Have they widened the door of his lab so his head can get through? Sheer hubris.

Because I'm trying to give these claims the due diligence that they require. Not jump around from one supposed miracle to another. I chose to begin at the beginning...Lanciano. I'm trying to ascertain whether the claims made are valid.

The Eucharistic miracle of Buenos Aires, in fact, has only recently started to be known because the bishop of Buenos Aires at the time of the event was Jorge Bergoglio, who has become Pope a few years ago. The only one who disclosed the news was Dr. Castanon, who did it through interviews and conferences, but it seems he has not published any results yet.​

Recent Eucharistic miracle in Argentina, Buenos Aires | Thresholds - Le Soglie

As I, Opdrey, and many others would no doubt maintain, a book doesn't equate to a published report.

 

[SelfSim]

As someone blessed ( or cursed ) with a high IQ I see through all his straw men and non sequiturs.

.. and your self-claimed 'high IQ' is not a non sequitur there?

He cannot blame comtamination with no credible suggestion of what contaminated them consistent with it.

The tests themselves should have been designed for ruling out contamination (by controlling for those variables). They didn't. Therefore contamination remains possible (and plausible).

 

[Opdrey]

As for @Opdrey I give up.

As someone blessed ( or cursed ) with a high IQ I see through all his straw men and non sequiturs.

Wow. I'm impressed.

Indeed in the pictures with zugibe you actually see tesoriero and willeseee.

Is there a religious reason why you almost never capitalize these names? Not important to the discussion but it's an interesting thing I noted.

Maybe it's your extremely high IQ.

I am not going to waste any more time explaining the detail to people who refuse to pay for books,

You can only do what you can do. If you can't explain something that you read and answer questions about it (even with an extremely high IQ) no one should demand you to do so.

preferring any old blog, or like opdrey thinks his opinion counts more than pathologists!

Yet another false witness from Mountainmike. Rackin' 'em up like nobody's business.

In his case p value is spelled p-e-e ( load of)

Maybe you can google p-values some time. Learn some statistics!

Put that "high IQ" to work!

 

[Opdrey]

The tests themselves should have been designed for ruling out contamination (by controlling for those variables). They didn't. Therefore contamination remains possible (and plausible).

Contamination is always possible even with the best controls. Especially when dealing with something that has sat around in a Church for 1,200 years and venerated as a miracle for that time.

That's the thing here that @Mountainmike doesn't understand. In EVERY single scientific experiment and analysis there's ALWAYS a chance of contamination. As you note they take great pains to eliminate it but it can never be perfect.

Mike never got the point that I said explicitly that these things may very well be miracles. But if it is a miracle that's an astonishing claim. As such it requires an astonishing amount of evidence for it. Maybe that exists somewhere. Mike apparently can't find it in the books he's bought. But maybe someone will.

 

[Mountainmike]

.. and your self-claimed 'high IQ' is not a non sequitur there?
The tests themselves should have been designed for ruling out contamination (by controlling for those variables). They didn't. Therefore contamination remains possible (and plausible).

Do explain what opdrey cannot.
What “ contamination” found on a wafer can look like cardiac tissue to an accredited pathologist ? Then confirmed by others. Several different times and places. What “ stuff” in an ordinary environment passes human flesh tests, has intercalated discs, and striations, with correct nuclear location in cells - the determining signs of cardiac tissue?

People. Do . Not. Leave bits of heart around by accident to contaminate wafers.

Got it?

The idea is a complete non starter.

It is only plausible to those who won’t look at the detail, or those whose heads are too big to accept the pathologists views, because they prefer their own.