The true context of science. It is just a model, get over it.

[dad]

No they aren't. Nobody is making such a claim, let alone one that is backed with any actual science. Your comments on a forum are a total irrelevance. Show us where this challenge is in the scientific literature, otherwise it is only a figment of your imagination.

Yes, science does use the present as the key to the past, such as in geology. If you look at tree rings, they count them as if they all grew in this nature. Corals, etc. Sun cycles? Continental drift? These all use the present nature and extrapolate backwards. Sorry if this was news to you.

 

[dad]

The bible is primitive, bronze age scribblings. Nothing to do with science.

Jesus disagrees.

 

[ianw16]

Jesus disagrees.

And I very much doubt that he is anything more than a myth.

 

[ianw16]

Yes, science does use the present as the key to the past, such as in geology. If you look at tree rings, they count them as if they all grew in this nature. Corals, etc. Sun cycles? Continental drift? These all use the present nature and extrapolate backwards. Sorry if this was news to you.

Obfuscate or what? Nobody is claiming that time runs differently elsewhere. Except you. And you don't count.

 

[dad]

Obfuscate or what? Nobody is claiming that time runs differently elsewhere. Except you. And you don't count.

The issue is that science models as if space and time were the same in all the universe. Proof? Since it is only a matter of belief, don't preach to us.

 

[Mountainmike]

So link to the scientific evidence for this woo.

I missed this post.

My answer is study the eucharistic miracles of these
Tixtla, Buenos Aires, Sokolka, Legnica, and the oldest lanciano.

Take specific note that.
1/ The cell pathology was identified as heart myocardium - showing signs of trauma and MI.
2/ It was intimately intermingled with bread at the edges, and
3/ Blood appeared to have forced its way out of the bread, (not into it)
(so making fraud almost impossible to conjecture)
4/ The presence of white cells (leucocytes) noting their role in identifying live or recently live tissue - which does not happen in vitro for long periods. It did in this case.
So there was life, where was none.
5/ The tests were indeed done by credible forensic labs.
6/ That the flesh and blood are still recognisable after 800 years in the case of Lanciano. Why have they survived?

There is no easy "link". Although such as "realpresence.org" has a precis of some.
You will need to go to source documents.
eg Castarnons Book on Tixtla has an entire back section of appended forensic lab reports.
There are books on all of these phenomena.

But then your attitude previous suggests you wont make the effort.
Preferring your faith statement "there is no evidence" or the usual pseudoscience and straw man arguments that atheist sceptics use to protect their apriori belief.

Up to you. I just find it fascinating how atheist sceptics pretend science supports them when 1/ most fail to understand the philosophical context of the scientific model, which shows it is a useless crutch for a philosophy of existence. 2/ they then use statements such as yours "there is no evidence" or "woo" that show they care nothing for evidence or science, preferring their apriori beliefs. Which 3/ Is an accusation they point at religious, when it is far more true of themseleves!

I can only reassert what I said. There is far more forensic evidence for life from eucharistic miracles, (as shown by leucocytes) than there is for life achieved by abiogenesis (random chance chemistry) for which there is precisely none. But most atheists believe in that, and mistakenly thinki it is theory or hypothesis!

 

[ianw16]

5/ The tests were indeed done by credible forensic labs.

So just link me to the publications.

Buenos Aires;
https://www.quora.com/How-do-atheis...YC-and-declared-to-be-a-piece-of-heart-muscle

Lanciano;
https://www.quora.com/Atheists-scientists-how-do-you-explain-the-eucharistic-miracle-of-lanciano

 

[Mountainmike]

So just link me to the publications.

Here a precis of tixtla
http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/english_pdf/Tixtla2.pdf

But you will need to go back to ricardo castarnons book on tixtla for the forensic reports and accreditations. Some of the reports are english. But these happended in the the spanish speaking world.

Much of the literature is spanish - as indeed this conference.

There are books in english about buenos airies, and you may find you tube videos on it. There is a book in english about lanciano.

As you see there is evidence.

 

[ianw16]

Here a precis of tixtla
http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/english_pdf/Tixtla2.pdf

But you will need to go back to ricardo castarnons book on tixtla for the forensic reports and accreditations. Some of the reports are english. But these happended in the the spanish speaking world.

Much of the literature is spanish - as indeed this conference.

There are books in english about buenos airies, and you may find you tube videos on it. There is a book in english about lanciano.

As you see there is evidence.

No, I'm talking about real scientific, peer reviewed descriptions, including the chain of evidence back to the original magic trick. They all look like easy to pull off hoaxes to me.

 

[Mountainmike]

No, I'm talking about real scientific, peer reviewed descriptions, including the chain of evidence back to the original magic trick. They all look like easy to pull off hoaxes to me.

A thank you would be nice.

You will never know till you look. It proves that - like most of your ilk - you are not interested in evidence or science whoever produces it. The forensic labs who did these tests you would trust with criminology. Beyond reasonable doubt.

You will never know how "easy it was to pull off" unless you see what it was that was "pulled off" : and you would find the conjecture of fraud far fetched if you did. As indeed the fact that it has happened several times with several different labs involved each time.

The only reason you will not even look at it, is your atheist faith that says it cant happen, that for you trumps science or evience, and you will hide behind any straw man that allows you to keep your apriori faith intact. It is a strange God you worship!

Sad. But since that is the case, please dont show up on science or evidence threads. Keep to the "apriori faith threads" that suit your belief.

I repeat. There is far more forensic theistic evidence than there is for abiogenesis, either evidence or process of life from random chemistry. I have no doubt you believe in that. If you do it is simply belief (defined as confidence without sufficient evidence)

 

[ianw16]

I repeat. There is far more forensic theistic evidence than there is for abiogenesis

No there isn't. These are just hoaxes. On a par with the monks of Glastonbury finding the burial of King Arthur. They needed the money from visitors. It is all very transparent.

 

[DogmaHunter]

The issue is that science models as if space and time were the same in all the universe. Proof? Since it is only a matter of belief, don't preach to us.

We don't observe anythig in our telescopes that would require suggesting that "space and time" are different elsewhere in the universe.

 

[tas8831]

Which demonstrates only that you have not researched it.
Which proves my point about atheist faith
And consequent refusal to study evidence or science.
You are blinded by your own dogma.

The projection is strong in this one.

I prefer evidence, particularly that from credible forensic labs whose day job is "Beyond reasonable doubt" for criminal investigation.

These 'forensic labs' - where are their original reports?

And no, the job of forensics labs is NOT "Beyond reasonable doubt" for criminal investigation", it is to process crime scenes and crime scene evidence.

Were crime lab technicians brought to the 'scene of the crime' to carefully gather the evidence? Did forensic techs catalog the evidence in situ, and then generate a chain of custody for the evidence? From the web sites hawking these "miracles", the answer is no.
Hoaxes hawked by true believers are not evidence.

I doubt you can even name the phenomena relevant to my post, let alone the nature of evidence. So you are dismissing it only because it violates your apriori beliefs.

The phenomena? You mean mass delusion?

'This heart muscle experienced pain.' Nuff' said.

 

[tas8831]

I repeat. There is far more forensic theistic evidence than there is for abiogenesis, either evidence or process of life from random chemistry.

Why repeat a pathetic lie? Why not address real evidence?

I forget now who originally posted these on this forum, but I keep it in my archives because it offers a nice 'linear' progression of testing a methodology and then applying it - I have posted this more than a dozen times for creationists who claim that there is no evidence for evolution:

The tested methodology:

Science 25 October 1991:
Vol. 254. no. 5031, pp. 554 - 558

Gene trees and the origins of inbred strains of mice

WR Atchley and WM Fitch

Extensive data on genetic divergence among 24 inbred strains of mice provide an opportunity to examine the concordance of gene trees and species trees, especially whether structured subsamples of loci give congruent estimates of phylogenetic relationships. Phylogenetic analyses of 144 separate loci reproduce almost exactly the known genealogical relationships among these 24 strains. Partitioning these loci into structured subsets representing loci coding for proteins, the immune system and endogenous viruses give incongruent phylogenetic results. The gene tree based on protein loci provides an accurate picture of the genealogical relationships among strains; however, gene trees based upon immune and viral data show significant deviations from known genealogical affinities.

======================

Science, Vol 255, Issue 5044, 589-592

Experimental phylogenetics: generation of a known phylogeny

DM Hillis, JJ Bull, ME White, MR Badgett, and IJ Molineux
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

Although methods of phylogenetic estimation are used routinely in comparative biology, direct tests of these methods are hampered by the lack of known phylogenies. Here a system based on serial propagation of bacteriophage T7 in the presence of a mutagen was used to create the first completely known phylogeny. Restriction-site maps of the terminal lineages were used to infer the evolutionary history of the experimental lines for comparison to the known history and actual ancestors. The five methods used to reconstruct branching pattern all predicted the correct topology but varied in their predictions of branch lengths; one method also predicts ancestral restriction maps and was found to be greater than 98 percent accurate.

==================================

Science, Vol 264, Issue 5159, 671-677

Application and accuracy of molecular phylogenies

DM Hillis, JP Huelsenbeck, and CW Cunningham
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

Molecular investigations of evolutionary history are being used to study subjects as diverse as the epidemiology of acquired immune deficiency syndrome and the origin of life. These studies depend on accurate estimates of phylogeny. The performance of methods of phylogenetic analysis can be assessed by numerical simulation studies and by the experimental evolution of organisms in controlled laboratory situations. Both kinds of assessment indicate that existing methods are effective at estimating phylogenies over a wide range of evolutionary conditions, especially if information about substitution bias is used to provide differential weightings for character transformations.



We can ASSUME that the results of an application of those methods have merit.


Application of the tested methodology:

Implications of natural selection in shaping 99.4% nonsynonymous DNA identity between humans and chimpanzees: Enlarging genus Homo

"Here we compare ≈90 kb of coding DNA nucleotide sequence from 97 human genes to their sequenced chimpanzee counterparts and to available sequenced gorilla, orangutan, and Old World monkey counterparts, and, on a more limited basis, to mouse. The nonsynonymous changes (functionally important), like synonymous changes (functionally much less important), show chimpanzees and humans to be most closely related, sharing 99.4% identity at nonsynonymous sites and 98.4% at synonymous sites. "



Mitochondrial Insertions into Primate Nuclear Genomes Suggest the Use of numts as a Tool for Phylogeny

"Moreover, numts identified in gorilla Supercontigs were used to test the human–chimp–gorilla trichotomy, yielding a high level of support for the sister relationship of human and chimpanzee."



A Molecular Phylogeny of Living Primates

"Once contentiously debated, the closest human relative of chimpanzee (Pan) within subfamily Homininae (Gorilla, Pan, Homo) is now generally undisputed. The branch forming the Homo andPanlineage apart from Gorilla is relatively short (node 73, 27 steps MP, 0 indels) compared with that of thePan genus (node 72, 91 steps MP, 2 indels) and suggests rapid speciation into the 3 genera occurred early in Homininae evolution. Based on 54 gene regions, Homo-Pan genetic distance range from 6.92 to 7.90×10−3 substitutions/site (P. paniscus and P. troglodytes, respectively), which is less than previous estimates based on large scale sequencing of specific regions such as chromosome 7[50]. "




Catarrhine phylogeny: noncoding DNA evidence for a diphyletic origin of the mangabeys and for a human-chimpanzee clade.

"The Superfamily Hominoidea for apes and humans is reduced to family Hominidae within Superfamily Cercopithecoidea, with all living hominids placed in subfamily Homininae; and (4) chimpanzees and humans are members of a single genus, Homo, with common and bonobo chimpanzees placed in subgenus H. (Pan) and humans placed in subgenus H. (Homo). It may be noted that humans and chimpanzees are more than 98.3% identical in their typical nuclear noncoding DNA and probably more than 99.5% identical in the active coding nucleotide sequences of their functional nuclear genes (Goodman et al., 1989, 1990). In mammals such high genetic correspondence is commonly found between sibling species below the generic level but not between species in different genera."​

Now show us the tested mechanisms for turning bread into cardiac muscle, and you may be on equal footing. And them maybe explain WHY such a thing is supposed to be evidence for Jehovah.

 

[dad]

We don't observe anythig in our telescopes that would require suggesting that "space and time" are different elsewhere in the universe.

Or not.

 

[ianw16]

Or not.

There is no scientific reason, nor even a viable hypothesis, for how or why it would. And, to the best of my knowledge, nobody with any scientific credentials is proposing such a thing. It is nonsense. A band-aid for the gaping wounds that science has left in your belief system, and that of all fundies and creationists.

 

[dad]

There is no scientific reason, nor even a viable hypothesis, for how or why it would. And, to the best of my knowledge, nobody with any scientific credentials is proposing such a thing. It is nonsense. A band-aid for the gaping wounds that science has left in your belief system, and that of all fundies and creationists.

To expect religious believers/fundamentalists of so called science to look at things here in our space and time and not assume that this is how the whole universe, golly gee, just must be also, is foolish.

I look not at how high and lofty and smug they might be in their beliefs, but what basis they sit upon, and how they align with the known truth of God.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Or not.

No.

When you have no reason to assume special things, don't.

 

[DogmaHunter]

To expect religious believers/fundamentalists of so called science to look at things here in our space and time and not assume that this is how the whole universe, golly gee, just must be also, is foolish.

I look not at how high and lofty and smug they might be in their beliefs, but what basis they sit upon, and how they align with the known truth of God.

The only "known" truth about gods, is that humans tend to invent them.

 

[ianw16]

and how they align with the known truth of God.

That is pure invention. Faith-based stuff, that has no scientific basis.