Religion?

[DrFfybes]

Meanwhile if you study the evidence..

1/ there is plenty of forensic evidence for miracles,
2/ Many to chose but I will pick eucharistic miracles, verified cardiac tissue from bread
3/ white cells show these were live at the point of sampling, so life from other than evolution small change
4/ Which is the very criterion Darwin says would falsify his theory. So Darwin is dead, long live darwin.

So the score on actual forensic evidence is Religion 5. Dawkins 0. Darwin 0
There is nothing for life from abiogenesis. No structure, observation or process.

Increasingly the shroud of turin is now accepted as the real deal. As are the other cloths. The RC date long discredited.
Which is a non contact mark, presumed formed by radiation. Does it mark the ressurection?

Interesting - can you point me towards some of this veryfied and provable evidence? Especially the Turin shroud, which I thought was about 500 years younger than Islam.

My personal take is with nearly 4000 accepted Faiths in the World, and each one believing theirs is The One and all others are wrong, then with my track record at stockpicking they're something I'll steer well clear off, alhough with 8.5 million Jehova's Witnesses vying for 144,000 spaces it does seem the believers like a gamble (though obviously not for money though).

On the plus side a lot of people do good things under the auspice of religion, which shouldn't be discouraged, however I do still have some mistrust over people who get their ideas of Right and Wrong from an imaginary friend, and then kill other people because they have a different one (or oddly in some cases the same one).

Imagine if there was no religion (no singing at the back) and someone invented it today. A completely new concept. They probably make a fortune from the gullible via youtube (oh how L Ron Hubbard missed out), and would be treated by most people in the same way as QAnon, Covid deniers, people who believe Elvis is alive or Paul McCartney is long dead, Trump's stolen election supporters, and Flat Earthers.

And nothing you can do or say will persuade them they're wrong either.

Erm, we'll ignore HYPers, Value Investors, Passive Investors, Active Investors, and Technical Analyst-ers

Paul

[G3lc]

“In the beginning was the word”

[CliffEdge]

The very point of my post was that analysis of scientific evidence points in the direction of faith.
There is almost nothing except speculation for life from abiogenesis.

A non religious forensic pathologist said of his analysis of one of the eucharistic miracles
"compelling evidence of creation of heart tissue"
So creation 5 abiogenesis 0 is the score on forensic evidence for start of life.

What young people are taught now is scientism not science.

Dawkins says he has no idea how life started. He is right.
But then he adds his atheist faith statement "but it must have been like this"

As I said, this is a waste of time. You have religious faith. Therefore you make religious declarations as if they are facts. It is frequently the case with people of faith with limited intellectual ability. There is no point in disagreeing with you about "explanations" offered by religions, but frankly their track record is pretty poor. In fact the list of past errors is pretty endless, an abysmal performance.

None of which proves that faith is wrong or that God does not exist. Or the opposite.

But your faith makes you blind and deaf to understanding but you will never realise that. Faith in itself is not the problem. Many people of faith are capable of understanding the role of science.

Science explains nothing: it 'just' describes the universe. But it describes accurately, no need for gods etc. in its descriptions. But its accepted descriptions are limited to that which it can model and test.

So it is utterly impossible for analysis of scientific evidence to point in the direction of faith - because it explains absolutely nothing. Apparently you do not understand science at all.

Science seems to offend people of faith because religions have mistakenly tried and failed woefully to 'describe' processes in the natural world but science has succeeded in offering accurate testable descriptions for those natural processes

Intelligent design, for example, is a stupid attempt by religion to describe the origin of species etc. If you had any knowledge of anatomy and physiology you would not give it a moments' consideration. There is much evidence for evolution as a reasonable description of the process resulting in multiple species.

However the explanation for pretty much everything that exists is unknowable and religion may well hold the truth . Or may not. Science won't help. Science doesn't do "Why?".

[ursaminortaur]

A non religious forensic pathologist said of his analysis of one of the eucharistic miracles
"compelling evidence of creation of heart tissue"
So creation 5 abiogenesis 0 is the score on forensic evidence for start of life.

What young people are taught now is scientism not science.

Oh dear, oh dear. There's none so scientifically blind as them that will not see. But welcome to the board, anyway, sir. Around these parts we do expect a bit more intellectual distance from our contributors than that. Flat statements of Christian faith, or flat dismissals of those who think otherwise, are not considered likely to advance the debate very much. Especially if you won't tell us who this anonymous (but clearly creationist) "non religious forensic pathologist" is?

Eucharistic miracles? Maybe it would be illuminating if you could explain exactly what you mean by that? And how precisely can you claim to know what young people are being taught? I doubt you are there in every school, but you do seem very sure that you know what's being said in the classrooms.

Questions, questions. In the meantime, folks, Google is your friend.

BJ

I think he is suggesting that a forensic pathologist examined a communion wafer and found it had been transformed into real heart tissue (presumably from the heart of Christ). Why a forensic pathologist would examine communion wafers I don't know though I suppose if he were the one taking communion and found it suddenly had a meaty taste he might have spat it out and then examined it more closely ( though that is unlikely if he was a non-religious forensic pathologist).

However such a miracle would probably not go down well with most Christians and Churches. It is one thing for communion wafer and wine to symbolically transform into the body and blood of Christ or to take on the aspects of Christ's spiritual body but consuming the real physical heart of Christ would be cannibalism - an accusation which the early church had to deal with from the Ancient Romans and which I doubt they would wish to see raise its head again in the modern world.

[DrFfybes]

Oh dear, oh dear. There's none so scientifically blind as them that will not see. But welcome to the board, anyway, sir. Around these parts we do expect a bit more intellectual distance from our contributors than that. Flat statements of Christian faith, or flat dismissals of those who think otherwise, are not considered likely to advance the debate very much. Especially if you won't tell us who this anonymous (but clearly creationist) "non religious forensic pathologist" is?

Eucharistic miracles? Maybe it would be illuminating if you could explain exactly what you mean by that? And how precisely can you claim to know what young people are being taught? I doubt you are there in every school, but you do seem very sure that you know what's being said in the classrooms.

Questions, questions. In the meantime, folks, Google is your friend.

BJ

I think he is suggesting that a forensic pathologist examined a communion wafer and found it had been transformed into real heart tissue (presumably from the heart of Christ). Why a forensic pathologist would examine communion wafers I don't know though I suppose if he were the one taking communion and found it suddenly had a meaty taste he might have spat it out and then examined it more closely ( though that is unlikely if he was a non-religious forensic pathologist).

One assumes this was a Catholic wafer, as a Protestant wafer would only transfer into something that represents a heart.

If a Forensic Scientist found human tissue in a communion wafer, shouldn't he inform the health inspector?

[mikewarr]

The very point of my post was that analysis of scientific evidence points in the direction of faith.
There is almost nothing except speculation for life from abiogenesis.

A non religious forensic pathologist said of his analysis of one of the eucharistic miracles
"compelling evidence of creation of heart tissue"
So creation 5 abiogenesis 0 is the score on forensic evidence for start of life.

What young people are taught now is scientism not science.

Dawkins says he has no idea how life started. He is right.
But then he adds his atheist faith statement "but it must have been like this"

As I said, this is a waste of time. You have religious faith. Therefore you make religious declarations as if they are facts. It is frequently the case with people of faith with limited intellectual ability. There is no point in disagreeing with you about "explanations" offered by religions, but frankly their track record is pretty poor. In fact the list of past errors is pretty endless, an abysmal performance.

None of which proves that faith is wrong or that God does not exist. Or the opposite.

But your faith makes you blind and deaf to understanding but you will never realise that. Faith in itself is not the problem. Many people of faith are capable of understanding the role of science.

Science explains nothing: it 'just' describes the universe. But it describes accurately, no need for gods etc. in its descriptions. But its accepted descriptions are limited to that which it can model and test.

So it is utterly impossible for analysis of scientific evidence to point in the direction of faith - because it explains absolutely nothing. Apparently you do not understand science at all.

Science seems to offend people of faith because religions have mistakenly tried and failed woefully to 'describe' processes in the natural world but science has succeeded in offering accurate testable descriptions for those natural processes

Intelligent design, for example, is a stupid attempt by religion to describe the origin of species etc. If you had any knowledge of anatomy and physiology you would not give it a moments' consideration. There is much evidence for evolution as a reasonable description of the process resulting in multiple species.

However the explanation for pretty much everything that exists is unknowable and religion may well hold the truth . Or may not. Science won't help. Science doesn't do "Why?".

I didn’t make a single religious comment.
I commented on the state of scientific knowledge. Which is little or nothing for abiogenesis , or the development of the cell from there to the minimum we know.

Meanwhile forensic pathology has validated so called Eucharistic miracles as recently live cardiac tissue so intimately bound into bread that no means of fraud is conceivable.

Your response was a faith statement of what you believe - or rather - what you refuse to consider.
I prefer evidence and science. But then I would, I’m an ( ex) scientist. Now retired.

[mikewarr]

I think he is suggesting that a forensic pathologist examined a communion wafer and found it had been transformed into real heart tissue (presumably from the heart of Christ). Why a forensic pathologist would examine communion wafers I don't know though I suppose if he were the one taking communion and found it suddenly had a meaty taste he might have spat it out and then examined it more closely ( though that is unlikely if he was a non-religious forensic pathologist).

One assumes this was a Catholic wafer, as a Protestant wafer would only transfer into something that represents a heart.

If a Forensic Scientist found human tissue in a communion wafer, shouldn't he inform the health inspector?

This was multiple events. Multiple continents. Many forensic scientists and cardiac specialists.
Buenos Airies. Tixtla . Legnica . Sokolka. Lanciano etc . Look them up.

If it interests you there are many books.
Serafini “ a cardiologist examines Jesus” is probably the best review.

He understands the mitochondrial DNA haplogroups better than such as castarnon or tesoriero.


And it’s true. It is only known in the catholic Eucharist.
In all cases the wafer was not consumed , so no need for food safety .

[ursaminortaur]

As I said, this is a waste of time. You have religious faith. Therefore you make religious declarations as if they are facts. It is frequently the case with people of faith with limited intellectual ability. There is no point in disagreeing with you about "explanations" offered by religions, but frankly their track record is pretty poor. In fact the list of past errors is pretty endless, an abysmal performance.

None of which proves that faith is wrong or that God does not exist. Or the opposite.

But your faith makes you blind and deaf to understanding but you will never realise that. Faith in itself is not the problem. Many people of faith are capable of understanding the role of science.

Science explains nothing: it 'just' describes the universe. But it describes accurately, no need for gods etc. in its descriptions. But its accepted descriptions are limited to that which it can model and test.

So it is utterly impossible for analysis of scientific evidence to point in the direction of faith - because it explains absolutely nothing. Apparently you do not understand science at all.

Science seems to offend people of faith because religions have mistakenly tried and failed woefully to 'describe' processes in the natural world but science has succeeded in offering accurate testable descriptions for those natural processes

Intelligent design, for example, is a stupid attempt by religion to describe the origin of species etc. If you had any knowledge of anatomy and physiology you would not give it a moments' consideration. There is much evidence for evolution as a reasonable description of the process resulting in multiple species.

However the explanation for pretty much everything that exists is unknowable and religion may well hold the truth . Or may not. Science won't help. Science doesn't do "Why?".

I didn’t make a single religious comment.
I commented on the state of scientific knowledge. Which is little or nothing for abiogenesis , or the development of the cell from there to the minimum we know.

Meanwhile forensic pathology has validated so called Eucharistic miracles as recently live cardiac tissue so intimately bound into bread that no means of fraud is conceivable.

Please provide a link to some article about this validation - preferably in a reputable scientific journal.

[bungeejumper]

I didn’t make a single religious comment.
I commented on the state of scientific knowledge. Which is little or nothing for abiogenesis , or the development of the cell from there to the minimum we know.

Meanwhile forensic pathology has validated so called Eucharistic miracles as recently live cardiac tissue so intimately bound into bread that no means of fraud is conceivable.

An inconvenient quibble, I'm sure, but if the alleged transubstantiation of bread into heart tissue is supposed to be proof that abiogenesis doesn't work, then maybe we should remind ourselves that hearts didn't exist at all for the first billion years of life on earth? Somehow or other, we seem to have got started without it.

But honestly, western Europe got over the transubstantiation issue half a millennium ago, by agreeing to differ, and thank goodness it did. Anybody is entitled to believe whatever they like. The trouble starts when they start insisting that everybody else is wrong, and that science that doesn't teach it in their particular way is leading young people down the road to damnation.

American creationists still believe that the world was created in 4004 BC, and that god only put the dinosaur bones into the ground so as to give us something to puzzle over. Many of them still insist that the US educational system is filling young people's heads with poisonous lies because science (and geology) tells it differently. The kindest way to deal with that sort of bigotry is to ignore it, and to be grateful that people aren't being burned at the stake for such matters any more. Long may such tolerance last.

BJ

[DrFfybes]

One assumes this was a Catholic wafer, as a Protestant wafer would only transfer into something that represents a heart.

If a Forensic Scientist found human tissue in a communion wafer, shouldn't he inform the health inspector?

This was multiple events. Multiple continents. Many forensic scientists and cardiac specialists.
Buenos Airies. Tixtla . Legnica . Sokolka. Lanciano etc . Look them up.

.

No. Because I can't be bothered, because in the same way you believe them to be true, I know them to be false. Because if they were true then rather than restricted to obscure websites run by devotees it would be in all the mainstream scientific media, the front page of Nature, and all over the tabloids.

If it interests you there are many books.
Serafini “ a cardiologist examines Jesus” is probably the best review.

He understands the mitochondrial DNA haplogroups better than such as castarnon or tesoriero

And it’s true. It is only known in the catholic Eucharist.
In all cases the wafer was not consumed , so no need for food safety .

It doesn't really interest me, but I did look the book up. What was striking for a purported medical publication was that I could not find any acceptance, peer review, verification, or commendation of his work outside of the Catholic support network.

And that's why this arguement is pointless, to you this is The Truth, but to me this is just another crackpot conspiracy theory tucked away on niche websites and Whatsapp groups. If you want to believe that then fine, it is your perogative. If you believe the earth was created by Aliens or a spaghetti monster then fine, it is is your perogative.

I don't doubt Jesus existed. In fact there is much evidence he did, and it is quite likely that after the robbers of the wealthy tomb in which he was interred were scared off by discovering him recovering from his traumatic day, he went off to live happily with Mary Magdelene in Exile.

Religion is largely down to charismatic individuals convincing the masses that they are the ones with the Truth, whether it is the ancient druids, Jesus, Abraham, Buddha, Muhammad, Hubbard, Rasputin, Trump, Icke, etc.

And just as you believe your version is correct, so too do their Billions of followers.

Which means at the very least that most are wrong.

Paul

[scrumpyjack]

One of the few things Marx got right was to describe religion as 'the opium of the people'

[mikewarr]

Oh dear, oh dear. There's none so scientifically blind as them that will not see.

But welcome to the board, anyway, sir. Around these parts we do expect a bit more intellectual distance from our contributors than that.

Flat statements of Christian faith, or flat dismissals of those who think otherwise, are not considered likely to advance the debate very much. Especially if you won't tell us who this anonymous (but clearly creationist) "non religious forensic pathologist" is?

Eucharistic miracles? Maybe it would be illuminating if you could explain exactly what you mean by that? And how precisely can you claim to know what young people are being taught? I doubt you are there in every school, but you do seem very sure that you know what's being said in the classrooms.


BJ

I guess this post above sums up why discussion like this is pointless.

Spare the insult. I presume you refer to yourself as blind : You admit don’t know what a Eucharistic miracle is , yet you want to cast judgement on those who actually studied the science first, so which of us is blind?

Not naming him is changed to the unsupportable logical proposition as “refusing to name him”
I rightly assumed that you do not know the names of any pathologists so it was pointless naming him, not least because of the large number of independent pathologists involved . He was one of many,

I noted he was not religious , therefore not Creationist at the time , ( so refuting your comment) to avoid the usual atheist Trope of bias.
But let’s explore that trope. Bias is the reverse of what atheists claim. They cannot be impartial when studying evidence of the miraculous because they will not accept both outcomes. A believer happily accepts evidence against or for. So bias is on the atheist foot.
Atheist bias ( and demonstrable dishonesty ) set shroud research back two decades. It still hasn’t recovered from the RC dating fraud.

But since you asked, In this instance I refer to Robert Lawrence medical examiner and forensic pathologist ( son of the Nobel laureate who invented fge cyclotron) and who studied both the Buenos airies miracle sample and the bleeding statue of Cochabamba.
He wrote the statement as endorsement for Ron Tesorieros ( one of the principal investigators) latest book.

I know what my granddaughters tell me they were taught, life from chemical soup, and evolution from there
and it is WAY beyond evidence .

Reality. There is no structure postulated for firstlife , it cannot be made to happen, and it does not occur naturally . For that reason abiogenesis does not even make it as a hypothesis , it cannot be tested by experiment so it is pure speculation. It is certainly not a “ theory” as children are taught, There is no pathway postulated from there to first cell, or even a genome postulated for it.. Nobody knows what the building blocks of the first cell are , till they know first cell structure. A complete blank filled by speculation. But it’s the only game in town for atheists so it is shouted from the rooftops.

I shall maintain intellectual distance from those who clearly know little about it,

[ReformedCharacter]

Atheist bias ( and demonstrable dishonesty ) set shroud research back two decades. It still hasn’t recovered from the RC dating fraud.

By coincidence I watched a documentary about the Turin Shroud, while doing my exercise routine, a few days ago. The gist of it was that the TS had been misdated due to the inclusion of later repairs in the samples taken. After reading your earlier post I looked the subject up on Wikipedia and found quite a lot of information, including a refutation of the misdating. I found no mention of 'fraud', as in a deliberate act to deceive, regarding the dating of the TS. Please could you provide a link that describes the fraud as it must have been quite a difficult thing to achieve and I would like to know how it was perpetrated. Thanks.

RC

[bungeejumper]

Spare the insult. I presume you refer to yourself as blind : You admit don’t know what a Eucharistic miracle is , yet you want to cast judgement on those who actually studied the science first, so which of us is blind?

Calm down, my friend. Ad hominem attacks will get you nowhere fast, and they are also against house rules.

Not naming him is changed to the unsupportable logical proposition as “refusing to name him” I rightly assumed that you do not know the names of any pathologists so it was pointless naming him, not least because of the large number of independent pathologists involved . He was one of many,

I noted he was not religious , therefore not Creationist at the time , ( so refuting your comment) to avoid the usual atheist Trope of bias.

I see. So you do straw man arguments too?

But let’s explore that trope. Bias is the reverse of what atheists claim. They cannot be impartial when studying evidence of the miraculous because they will not accept both outcomes. A believer happily accepts evidence against or for. So bias is on the atheist foot.

Is that really what they taught you? I don't think so. I have many good friends among the clergy, and I doubt that any of them would attempt that sort of a statement. Still, I rest my case.

I shall maintain intellectual distance from those who clearly know little about it,

I'll look forward to that, then.

BJ

[mikewarr]

This will be my last post on this section of the forum.

I had hoped some would actually look at the evidence before conclude. So we could have a discussion on evidence

But the futility of spending more time on it is demonstrated by this...
"i know them to be false" said one commenter without even looking.
Sadly the atheist belief is too strong to even look at evidence!


So in answer to the two last posts.

This was multiple events. Multiple continents. Many forensic scientists and cardiac specialists.
Buenos Airies. Tixtla . Legnica . Sokolka. Lanciano etc . Look them up.

.

No. Because I can't be bothered, because in the same way you believe them to be true, I know them to be false. Because if they were true then rather than restricted to obscure websites run by devotees it would be in all the mainstream scientific media, the front page of Nature, and all over the tabloids.

If it interests you there are many books.
Serafini “ a cardiologist examines Jesus” is probably the best review.

He understands the mitochondrial DNA haplogroups better than such as castarnon or tesoriero

And it’s true. It is only known in the catholic Eucharist.
In all cases the wafer was not consumed , so no need for food safety .

It doesn't really interest me, but I did look the book up. What was striking for a purported medical publication was that I could not find any acceptance, peer review, verification, or commendation of his work outside of the Catholic support network.

And that's why this arguement is pointless, to you this is The Truth, but to me this is just another crackpot conspiracy theory tucked away on niche websites and Whatsapp groups. If you want to believe that then fine, it is your perogative. If you believe the earth was created by Aliens or a spaghetti monster then fine, it is is your perogative.

I don't doubt Jesus existed. In fact there is much evidence he did, and it is quite likely that after the robbers of the wealthy tomb in which he was interred were scared off by discovering him recovering from his traumatic day, he went off to live happily with Mary Magdelene in Exile.

Religion is largely down to charismatic individuals convincing the masses that they are the ones with the Truth, whether it is the ancient druids, Jesus, Abraham, Buddha, Muhammad, Hubbard, Rasputin, Trump, Icke, etc.

And just as you believe your version is correct, so too do their Billions of followers.

Which means at the very least that most are wrong.

Paul

You "know them to be false" is an expression of your faith - and that illustrates the reason none of this gets traction.
You refuse to study what you do not believe a priori.
As a scientist I study it all. And consider it based on the evidence.

In comparison. You might like to know there is literally no evidence the first live cell formed from random chance chemistry. There is no structure proposed for it ( within the constraints of the definitions of life by NASA and harvard) , nor mechanism proposed for how it happened. There is no mechanism conjectured for how that developed to the simplest cells we know.
I dare say you believe that. So you are guided by belief not science.

So my comments on eucharistic miracles are based on the science.
Since it is all about detection and characterising of human blood and tissue the correct place for the analysis was criminal forensic labs who have far stricter procedures and lab practice than the typical academic lab. So that is where it was done. Analysed by forensic pathologists whose view I am sure you respect in the context of criminal convictions.

If you read a a book such as "Crónica De Un Milagro Eucarístico: Esplendor en Tixtla "... by castarnon, the back part of the book is entirely forensic reports. However to save both language problems ( some are in poland, so polish) and buying many books I suggested you bought serafini.
There is a brief precis on therealpresence.org If you do not read the evidence you have no basis to have a view.

Atheist bias ( and demonstrable dishonesty ) set shroud research back two decades. It still hasn’t recovered from the RC dating fraud.

By coincidence I watched a documentary about the Turin Shroud, while doing my exercise routine, a few days ago. The gist of it was that the TS had been misdated due to the inclusion of later repairs in the samples taken. After reading your earlier post I looked the subject up on Wikipedia and found quite a lot of information, including a refutation of the misdating. I found no mention of 'fraud', as in a deliberate act to deceive, regarding the dating of the TS. Please could you provide a link that describes the fraud as it must have been quite a difficult thing to achieve and I would like to know how it was perpetrated. Thanks.

RC

Alas one documentary is not enough.

There are hundreds of books and papers, of which I have many, it is impossible to cite a single reference. Only a few highlights to search
1/ STURP in 1978 determined the shroud is not an artwork or painting. It carries the pre and post mortem pathology of a crucified man with the specific tortures noted by christian documents, much of which is not visible in ordinary light. So the idea it is a medieaval fake when forensic pathology was unkonwn is for the birds. The mark is a dehydration/oxidation of cellulose on very think layer. Both intensity variation and Projection distortion indicate it is consistent with a body centric radiation, the closest you can come to is by electrostatic discharge, or heavy particle radiation, although UV laser matches.

2/ The forensic correspondence with the much older Sudarium by EDICES madrid and later others has demonstrated massive forensic correspondence so they covered the same body, and the shroud is way older than mediaeval.

So to the main point - .
3/ The RC test was incompetent, devious and fraudulent.
As raw data was finally obtained by legal process showed they literally fiddled the figures for publication!!!!
That should be a sacking offence. But they kept the lid on till they had all retired

To see the full depth of how badly behaved they were, you would need to read the correspondence between the daters in such as Jo Marinos book.
It is an eye opener to see scientists behaving as anything but.

Gove inventor of the then unproven AMS was not interested in dating the shroud
He was interested in promoting AMS to take over from market leaders like Harwell.
Like the last poster "he knew it was a fraud" with no study, he just wanted the shroud as publicity vehicle..

They did a test the year before, when AMS failed in dating old fabrics, it got one half age! Carefully swept under the carpet
The daters refused to have anyone experience from STURP , including the only archeologist Meacham on the team or anyone who considered it might be real.
So nobody who knew anything abotu the shroud was present at sample taking.
They knew nothing about it so sampled the worst possible area of it.
Worse they did the sample bottling in an ante room. Four cloths went into that room. Only three were bottled up! Their procedure was an insult to science.


Gove broke all the protocols agreed. Instead of taking three samples around the shroud, he took one and divided it into three pieces, presumably hoping for consistency.
The metrology company agreed in the protocol was never appointed. They conferred between them. No blind process was used. A dozen red flags ignored.

Then the fraud.
Yet panic of all panics, When the numbers came in from the labs to national history museum, far from being consistent they were not even statistically homogeneous.
(ie not statistically consistent enough to declare a valid test and no date could be declared)

SO THEY LITERALLY FIDDLED THE DATA!!! Enough to make it consistent!
But when the data was pubilshed in nature others began to smell a rat.
Van haelst shortly after the test noticed the data in nature there was something wrong, the nature statistics did not match the data published , so requisitioned raw data.
But For 20 years the labs refused to part with the data. Halls to the oxford data home to retirement. The refusal to release raw data, demonstrated bad faith.

Eventually a legal process for freedom of information got the raw data by casabianca which showed the data had been fiddled. Later analysis shows a big date gradient. Probaby because the mix of repair to old cloth was changing.
Rogers later proved that there was cotton that should not exist, and the structure of linen was different. The journals radiocarbon and archeometry are owned by the labs that screwed up, so for years their peer review prevented criticism.
If the real data had been released, the problem would have been analysed then.

It was a conspiracy to fraud. No other word for it.
The nature article It demonstrates what controlled tests have, that peer review is a chocolate fireguard. They even allowed the nonsense that is garlaschellis fake to appear in a journal, despite the fact the chemistry does not match at all. So do not trust peer review on any controversial topic. Not least because a scientific test of peer review, generally, showed peer review did not even find basic errors! Yes really!

4/ other physiochemical tests starting with fanti (there are several) show the fabric is first century. Mineral deposits on both shroud and sudarium in the nose area are consistent with jerusalem aragonite.

Reality is almost all data on the shroud hints at real not fake.
Only one test ever hinted at medieaval fake,the RC test was an incompetent fraud.
Later mitchondrial DNA tests are fascinating. On the tunic of argentuille, a Jewish only genetic anomaly is noticed.


Anyway, thats my last comment on it all. hopefully some will look at the science.
Sadly there is so much disinformation on the web, I suggest all read the books.
Shroud.com is your friend.

[servodude]

This will be my last post on this section of the forum

Damn. I was looking forward to some substantiation of transubstantiation - should be an easy experiment if my recollection of catechism is sound (it's not as if it's not performed regularly)
As it is though seems like it's just "by cookers for cookers" at the moment
If you could direct someone with an ounce of credibility to cover this miracle I'm pretty sure the Lord would help out? He was obliging for Thomas at all!?
So perhaps I can encourage you to expend your efforts in that direction? - it would be a useful thing to prove with the rest of what's going on in the planet.

[mikewarr]

This will be my last post on this section of the forum

Damn. I was looking forward to some substantiation of transubstantiation - should be an easy experiment if my recollection of catechism is sound (it's not as if it's not performed regularly)
As it is though seems like it's just "by cookers for cookers" at the moment
If you could direct someone with an ounce of credibility to cover this miracle I'm pretty sure the Lord would help out? He was obliging for Thomas at all!?
So perhaps I can encourage you to expend your efforts in that direction? - it would be a useful thing to prove with the rest of what's going on in the planet.

I gave the name of a book that is a professional cardiologist, reviewing the forensic pathology of five cases.
It is up to you if you read it.


Accept the fact that science does not tell you what something "is" only how it interacts with your senses.
So what it is and how it manifests, are two different things.
A red cylinder with blue ends can look like a red rectangle or a blue square, depending on your point of view.
What IS an electron? Who knows, it is a math model of behaviour of something. Actually several models which can disagree.
So how it manifests depends on the observer.
Or "form and substance" as philosophy would have it. Noumena and Phenomena as Kant would describe it.

[mikewarr]

Damn. I was looking forward to some substantiation of transubstantiation - should be an easy experiment if my recollection of catechism is sound (it's not as if it's not performed regularly)
As it is though seems like it's just "by cookers for cookers" at the moment
If you could direct someone with an ounce of credibility to cover this miracle I'm pretty sure the Lord would help out? He was obliging for Thomas at all!?
So perhaps I can encourage you to expend your efforts in that direction? - it would be a useful thing to prove with the rest of what's going on in the planet.

I gave the name of a book that is a professional cardiologist, reviewing the forensic pathology of five cases.
It is up to you if you read it.


Accept the fact that science does not tell you what something "is" only how it interacts with your senses.
So what it is and how it manifests, are two different things.
A red cylinder with blue ends can look like a red rectangle or a blue circle, depending on your point of view.
What IS an electron? Who knows, it is a math model of behaviour of something. Actually several models which can disagree.
So how it manifests depends on the observer.
Or "form and substance" as philosophy would have it. Noumena and Phenomena as Kant would describe it.

The "wigners friend" paradox in quantum theory has now been demonstrated with 12 photons.
So reality really is subjective as the "copenhagen interpretation" hinted at 100 years ago.
Observations manifests the reality.

And if all that bamboozles you, accept that modern science ,does not have the clean definitions people think of "what is"

[servodude]

Damn. I was looking forward to some substantiation of transubstantiation - should be an easy experiment if my recollection of catechism is sound (it's not as if it's not performed regularly)
As it is though seems like it's just "by cookers for cookers" at the moment
If you could direct someone with an ounce of credibility to cover this miracle I'm pretty sure the Lord would help out? He was obliging for Thomas at all!?
So perhaps I can encourage you to expend your efforts in that direction? - it would be a useful thing to prove with the rest of what's going on in the planet.

I gave the name of a book that is a professional cardiologist, reviewing the forensic pathology of five cases.
It is up to you if you read it.


Accept the fact that science does not tell you what something "is" only how it interacts with your senses.
So what it is and how it manifests, are two different things.
A red cylinder with blue ends can look like a red rectangle or a blue square, depending on your point of view.
What IS an electron? Who knows, it is a math model of behaviour of something. Actually several models which can disagree.
So how it manifests depends on the observer.
Or "form and substance" as philosophy would have it. Noumena and Phenomena as Kant would describe it.

Excuse me .. I did follow down that rabbit hole thank you very much, using what you have provided as terms to search the internet.

I do find this stuff fascinating - motivated reasoning is queer and interesting.
But as I said it looks "by cookers for cookers" pretty quickly when you dig into it - I'd be interested to know why you think a valid account was given?
What makes this credulous, to you?

[DrFfybes]

Excuse me .. I did follow down that rabbit hole thank you very much, using what you have provided as terms to search the internet.

I do find this stuff fascinating - motivated reasoning is queer and interesting.
But as I said it looks "by cookers for cookers" pretty quickly when you dig into it - I'd be interested to know why you think a valid account was given?
What makes this credulous, to you?

The same thing that still Makes Andrew Wakefield credulous to anti-vaxxers, personal opinions and bias. Everyone is guilty of it, it is one of the hardest things to overcome in Science, even Gregor Mendel probably did it. I've come across situations where a hypothesis wasn't supported by initial data so the experiments were repeated until there was a large enough sample size to be statistically significant and coincidentally showed more support for the hypothesis.

It is difficult for people to admit they were wrong even once they accept it. MIke is obviously a clever chap, and understands enough about the science to confirm his own biases. At least he isn't doing it for money.