Is science at odds with philosophy?

[Mountainmike]

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.

You will never know what is in the books. You won’t read them. . You won’t let new information in.

 

[SelfSim]

What “ contamination” found on a wafer can look like cardiac tissue to an accredited pathologist ?

1) Where all physical explanations are possible before objective analysis, the interpretation of morphology is notoriously subjective, and its use alone has led to numerous errors of interpretation.
This is not a conclusion based solely on the field of Biology, but neither is the claim of evidence of 'miracles'.
'To a carpenter, many things appear as hammers'.
2) Where are the missing DNA analysis papers? These are relevant in the diagnosis of 'cardiac tissue' lacking in DNA and the issue of contamination.

 

[partinobodycular]

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.

You can't be serious. You're dismissing the supposed WHO/UN report because you prefer the opinion of those who actually saw the samples.

Well guess what, the alleged WHO/UN report supposedly was the result of 500 examinations.

That's right...500. Yet you want to dismiss it. Well that's fine because I think that we should dismiss it as well, because I don't think that it ever happened. I think that somebody simply lied.

I think that the only sources that you actually have are your books. That's why you never link to anything else. So tell me, do you have any other credible sources other than those books?

 

[Mountainmike]

You say supposedly , having never seen it.

You offer no evidence whatsoever , that assuming it was done as you say , that they came to any different conclusion from others, or indeed that there is additional evidence there!

You prefer hearsay and PROVABLY erroneous blogs to documented results. ( I pointed at a provable falasy in the last blog you quoted)

A cardiologist who read the report said it added nothing of value to linolis data, (which is all either of us have as first hand testimony about it) indeed his impression of it appears to be that it was supportive but not rigorous enough.

So your logic is to judge by the absence of a report , you have never seen, whose contents you have no idea, so you now assume an unevidenced negative outcome, and choose that completely unsubstantiated opinion over documented testing?

Streuth….if that’s logic, it *sucks*

The reality is that report is a wholly unnecessary distraction.

And at the end of it all, the single biggest objection here to lanciano is not the science of linoli, but that lanciano is so old, the actual event is vague. Yet the fact it survives recognisable as cardiac tissue, is the main important take away. Other than the blood group…AB more of that later…

Another report won’t change that. So that report cannot change the essential status.

I will tell you again. The web is NOT a reliable research resource around controversial topics.

Too much is distorted in copying. The views of those actually given the task of reporting who have testimony and documented tissue sections clearly take precedence to hearsay.

It is so sad @Opdrey has utterly misled you about the value of books, because he seemingly does not like their conclusions. It is also sad for a scientist that opdrey is not a well read man.

You can't be serious. You're dismissing the supposed WHO/UN report because you prefer the opinion of those who actually saw the samples.

Well guess what, the alleged WHO/UN report supposedly was the result of 500 examinations.

That's right...500. Yet you want to dismiss it. Well that's fine because I think that we should dismiss it as well, because I don't think that it ever happened. I think that somebody simply lied.

I think that the only sources that you actually have are your books. That's why you never link to anything else. So tell me, do you have any other credible sources other than those books?

 

[Mountainmike]

1) Where all physical explanations are possible before objective analysis, the interpretation of morphology is notoriously subjective, and its use alone has led to numerous errors of interpretation.
This is not a conclusion based solely on the field of Biology, but neither is the claim of evidence of 'miracles'.
'To a carpenter, many things appear as hammers'.
2) Where are the missing DNA analysis papers? These are relevant in the diagnosis of 'cardiac tissue' lacking in DNA and the issue of contamination.

You say “ subjective” but you offer no evidence that any other interpretation is possible. Intercalcated discs. Striation. Nuclear position and so on. What else does that? You can see all of that in the tissue sections!

The pathologists and cardiologists are all agreed. Sokolka. Legnica, Buenos airies, tixtla.That view would be accepted in a court of law.

You say contamination or misidentification, Contamination with what PRECISELY. Misidentified WHAT precisely? You offer no possible let alone credible alternative.

And I might remind you that only one of these needs to be verified to be inexplicable. Reality is all of them were!

Missing DNA papers.? You mean missing papers or missing DNA ? Neither is true. But then you won’t research it.

I have listed the four or five accredited testing organisations for just one of these. All came to the same conclusion. Plenty of human DNA , plenty of accredited lab test reports. All say it will not give identification type. But the mitichondrial does give Middle Eastern group. It is certainly human DNA!

Get your head round the idea that identification probes the number of repeat counts of segments of otherwise redundant DNA at various points along the genome. You do not need that DNA for a human to function. Indeed the blood group is consequence of several genes. So AB groip implies the existence of those genes. Mitochondrial shows some of it sequences.

So The lack of identity IS an identity. Just not an identity that has ever been seen before. It is like all zeroes in ten digit number. A custom car registration! Zero is a number. The victim is number all zero… how fitting!

But let’s consider probabilities since @Opdrey seems utterly obsessed by them… or seemingly obsessed by showboating that he thinks he can quote a probabilistic term. But then so can a schoolkid.

All three holy cloths …, the shroud, sudarium , linceul.

And the lanciano miracle all give blood group AB - and all are so old they existed before blood group was even known! None were ever in the same place according to the forgery hypothesis. How was that done by accident?

Add to that 3 of the modern events were blood group AB.
The baseline prevalence is 5% in the population - 1 in 20.
But that’s world prevalence. In Bolivia and Mexico where two of these occurred AB prevalence Is 1 in 1000!

So the likelihood a forger of all events got it right even on the world figure , is 1 in 20 to power 7 so it is 1 in 128000000. If you use the actual prevalence in countries the answer 1 in BILLIONS.
Do you still think it happened by accidental “ contamination” or fakery before the idea of blood group was even known?

Put that into context.
You are more likely to be struck by lightening and killed by a car in the same year…. Or more likely to guess your neighbours Mobile phone number, Than independent forgers or contamination got the blood groups accidentally right!

AB is also most prevalent in Palestine, which happens to be the mitochondrial haplogroup too. All as it should be.

So using occams razor instead, Assume they all came from the same victim…. Then the likelihood of the same blood group found, and the same DNA identity is indeed 100%.

There is a good section about blood group analysis in one of the books you won’t read, compares to ( for example) other human remains of early period Middle East. Really useful stuff is in books.

Not so the illinformed blather on here, with all the lazy assumptions.
Not one of you can be bothered to study any of it.

 

[Opdrey]

You will never know what is in the books. You won’t read them. . You won’t let new information in.

You and your universal negative declarations! You don't know me. I may very well pick those books up!

This may very much surprise you but when I travel in Europe my first destinations are always the Medieval Cathedrals. I love the stories of the saints and the relics. I honestly don't believe that St. Denis picked up his severed head and walked from Montmarte to north of Paris to establish his Church, but I love reading the stories and seeing the interesting artwork. Likewise I don't believe that St. Christina of Liege ("The Astonishing") actually came back to life at her funeral and flew up into the rafters of the church! But the story is fun. I have no doubt St. Catherine was tortured on the wheel, but I am doubtful of some special connection to God.

I've seen tons and tons of reliquaries. Chunks of flesh or bone of the Saints. Even one in Ireland that contained a stone because someone had broken into the church and stolen the heart of whatever saint it was.

You see, Mike, some of us are actually quite well read and conversant with these concepts. While I don't own the exact books you like, I have a reasonable library. A library that includes extensive stuff on the history of the Catholic Church, the history of the Christian Church in general, and...I also have a penchant for reading "true haunting" stories. I don't really believe they are actual hauntings but it's fun to read them and get a bit of a thrill. Many of these include actual "investigations"! They have DATA!

But, sadly, I also read quite a bit of history. I am fully aware of how the Medieval mindset in the Church could be taken advantage of and was taken advantage of with pieces of the "true cross" and locks of Jesus' hair or whatever. The world is full of things that are not what they appear to be. Sometimes it is because people mistake something for something else quite honestly, sometimes people take advantage of the credulity of others.

Right now, in my experience, it is about 99% of the time that something that "cannot be explained except through miracle!" is anything but. The other 1% are unknown. Sure, they might be miracles, they might be wonders of God that he has hidden like easter eggs. But the other 99% suggest otherwise to me.

 

[Opdrey]

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

But. People. Do. Find. That. Mummified. Tissue. Can. Be. Difficult. To. Identify. Making. The. Assessment. of. Specific. Tissue. A. Potential. Error.

Got it?

 

[Opdrey]

The reality is that report is a wholly unnecessary distraction.

Actually it is only a distraction for the truly faithful who need no evidence to believe the claims.

I will tell you again. The web is NOT a reliable research resource around controversial topics.

And a popular press book is?

It is so sad @Opdrey has utterly misled you about the value of books,
because he seemingly does not like their conclusions. It is also sad for a scientist that opdrey is not a well read man.

LOL. There's about a 90% chance that I am much more well read than you, Mike.

Do you ever crack a Bible once in a while? Might want to hit up Exodus 20:16

 

[partinobodycular]

The reality is that report is a wholly unnecessary distraction.

It's not just an unnecessary distraction, it's an outright fraud. How do I know that, because Dr. Serafini who's actually seen the documents tells us that it is.

The bit about the WHO/UN report begins at 7:55.

And yet innumerable Lanciano websites continue to perpetuate this lie.

 

[AV1611VET]

You see, Mike, some of us are actually quite well read and conversant with these concepts. While I don't own the exact books you like, I have a reasonable library.

Here's some of mine:

 

[Opdrey]

Here's some of mine:

I am so happy for you! Congratulations!

 

[enoob57]

my tendency is to listen to God alone in this... after all we will all stand before Him and give an account of ourselves to Him whether saved or unsaved...
2 Corinthians 5:10 (KJV)
[10] For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that everyone may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.
Revelation 20:12 (KJV)
[12] And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

thus God settles this view of yours by His Word
Romans 1:18 (KJV)
[18] For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
[19] Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
[20] For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

God is known with no excuse by what He has made (science)...

 

[AV1611VET]

I am so happy for you! Congratulations!

Thank you!

Luke 15:10 Likewise, I say unto you, there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner that repenteth.

 

[Mountainmike]

As I pointed out your logic is faulty.

Nobody is claiming that report as authority either for or against
So It is not being entered as evidence on behalf of lanciano.
So the confirmation or otherwise of fraud is therefore irrelevant to the case.

I doubted the existence of it at all, now serafini has seen such document exists, I accept it exists , but neither serafini, nor any of the pro Eucharistic miracle advocates , nor the custodians of lanciano are using it as evidence
so it is an irrelevant oddity.

The linoli , first and second sets of tests are the evidence that IS claimed on which it stands and falls.
But The more recent events : tixtla sokolka Buenos airies and legnica are more compelling because the origin is known.

You also miss the important issue that it is sufficient that any one of these is shown as inexplicable heart tissue. The more recent ones whose origin is known show white cells and recent life.

The so called WHO report is not comparable ( for example) with the both false (and fraudulent) shroud RC dating which was entered as evidence - which was almost the ONLY evidence against authenticity as used by sceptics , so when that evidence was thoroughly debunked it destroyed the sceptic case!

Shroud scientists now accept it as they always did , an ancient burial cloth of a crucified man, crucified with the biblically described process, whose origin was in the holy land, the mark is inexplicable by any known process, although not contact radiation matches most of the features. . Also it has group AB blood like the other forensically matching cloths. Now with a great deal more evidence to show that that authenticity is true.

It's not just an unnecessary distraction, it's an outright fraud. How do I know that, because Dr. Serafini who's actually seen the documents tells us that it is.

The bit about the WHO/UN report begins at 7:55.

And yet innumerable Lanciano websites continue to perpetuate this lie.

 

[Opdrey]

It is not comparable with the false (and fraudulent) shroud RC dating which was entered as evidence - and almost the ONLY evidence against authenticity as by sceptics , so when that evidence was thoroughly debunked destroyed the sceptic case!

Seems to me that the same kind of reasoning (multiple labs finding similar results independently) was sufficient to reduce the likelihood of error in the various Eucharistic miracles you prefer but for the Shroud the fact that the three labs came up with similar results means nothing.

It fascinates me how much you know about how to pick apart every jot and tittle of the Shroud dating (which failed to confirm the religious case) but you completely disregard any possibility of error of identifying tissue from the Eucharistic miracles (which confirmed the religious case).

 

[Mountainmike]

But. People. Do. Find. That. Mummified. Tissue. Can. Be. Difficult. To. Identify. Making. The. Assessment. of. Specific. Tissue. A. Potential. Error.

Got it?

You love your straw men.
There is no evidence of mummification of tixtla, sokolka, Buenos airies, or legnica, indeed white cells show they were recently live.
So mummification is an irrelevance.

So You still have no valid hypothesis for how contamination can look like heart myocardium, with striated tissue, intercalated disks and nuclear position as several visible factors that the multiple pathologists used to conclude as heart tissue on multiple cases.

You have no valid hypothesis for how people leave heart tissue behind as contamination.

As logical statement.
You must also must prove ALL of these samples are false recognition. Only One validated case is enough to prove the inexplicable. There are several of them. So a smokescreen thrown at lanciano is irrelevant.

Your other non sequitur. There are plenty of fake copies of paintings. The fact of fake paintings ( in your parlance 99%) does not invalidate the 1% or even act as evidence against it. It just makes the 1% harder to find, assuming they exist.

That’s why partino’s obsession with a Dubious WHO report is an irrelevance at lanciano.

I too love the churches of europe, I accept the pious fraud industry. But that obscures the truth it does not invalidate it. Real relics stand or fall on their own merits.

I’m Also a student of peoples behaviour I find it fascinating. Indeed I have studied persuasion in a lot of depth, the subconscious is fascinating. In your case look up the word mimophant before you choose to insult me again. It is a sign of insecurity.
Why do you do it? I get the impression of a war going on in your head, the rational side that wants to dismiss it, and the side that wants it to be true and is worried that in this case the evidence might even be true, which collapses your world view, and you are taking that dichotomy out on me.
Amateur psychoanalysis over. I lay no claim to other than observation!

 

[Opdrey]

Your other non sequitur. There are plenty of fake copies of paintings.

I think you are confusing items here. I didn't say anything about fake paintings. I just noted that we have paintings of various miracles that I have seen over many trips to many Medieval Cathedrals.

I’m Also a student of peoples behaviour I find it fascinating. Indeed I have studied persuasion in a lot of depth, the subconscious is fascinating. In your case look up the word mimophant before you choose to insult me again. It is a sign of insecurity.

You really don't see your own insults at me do you? Another one of the great things from the Bible is that you seem more able to find the mote in my eye than the beam in your own.

Why do you do it?

BECAUSE YOU REPEATEDLY INSULT ME AND MAKE UP LIES ABOUT WHAT I HAVE SAID.

Is that clear enough for you?

 

[SelfSim]

So You still have no valid hypothesis for how contamination can look like heart myocardium, with striated tissue, intercalated disks and nuclear position as several visible factors that the multiple pathologists used to conclude as heart tissue on multiple cases.

You have no valid hypothesis for how people leave heart tissue behind as contamination.

Recent tampering with the sample with recently sourced myocardium striated tissue(?)

 

[Mountainmike]

When somebody points out the holes in EM, I am all ears.

The problem is the evidence is far greater. There are multiple independent phenomena.
Multiple independent tests of them.

They did not make mistake #1 of the shroud daters, which was to ignore the sampling protocol, and take only one sample from one area. So the only samples came from a small anomalous region, and if they had either studied the previous spectroscopy, or done their own chemical profiling they would have known.

But that was mistake #2 they kicked everyone out who thought the shroud might be genuine, and in doing kicked all of the experienced shroud scientists out so they were blind, so they knew nothing about the shroud.

Mistake #3 - the daters were not archeologists with a long track record of textile dating. They were physics isotope counters in essence with a brand new toy. They ignored the only archeologist meacham who told them to use the sampling protocols, told them to characterise chemically first, and told them textile dating was unreliable. . They ignored him. That’s like the EM investigators not allowing a heart pathologist to comment!

The one I cannot forgive them for is #4 FIDDLING the outliers to pass a chi squared test. If they had kept their apriori opinions out , left all the outliers in , they would have found a date gradient with position. That the samples were not homogenous even over a small edge area. That alone would have screamed repair!
That’s why I called it a fraud. The paper in nature was a fraud.

Seems to me that the same kind of reasoning (multiple labs finding similar results independently) was sufficient to reduce the likelihood of error in the various Eucharistic miracles you prefer but for the Shroud the fact that the three labs came up with similar results means nothing.

It fascinates me how much you know about how to pick apart every jot and tittle of the Shroud dating (which failed to confirm the religious case) but you completely disregard any possibility of error of identifying tissue from the Eucharistic miracles (which confirmed the religious case).

 

[Mountainmike]

Sometimes you are utterly obtuse.
I used paintings as analogy to relics.
there are many forgeries, only one original, in that case.
But the fact of forgeries shows there is an original !

I give back what I get. Read your last sentence and see how it applies to you, first fix the beam in your own eye. Eg I have never claimed you were not a scientist, you say it in every post to me. You yourself expressed disdain for books. Do you now admit to reading non fiction?

As for not reading the books I read. …. When I want to discuss Eucharistic miracles I read the books on eucharistic miracles. You don’t!
That’s a problem with your ability to discuss them. I read up on stuff before talk about it. I recommend that order to you!

I think you are confusing items here. I didn't say anything about fake paintings. I just noted that we have paintings of various miracles that I have seen over many trips to many Medieval Cathedrals.



You really don't see your own insults at me do you? Another one of the great things from the Bible is that you seem more able to find the mote in my eye than the beam in your own.



BECAUSE YOU REPEATEDLY INSULT ME AND MAKE UP LIES ABOUT WHAT I HAVE SAID.

Is that clear enough for you?