Eucharistic Miracles

[Mountainmike]

As someone who has studied eucharistic miracles and compiled a fairly extensive library on them, I am curious to know how much such as Buenos Airies, Sokolka, Legnica, Tixtla etc are known by the general catholic population?

There are nuances to these stories that few people know.
1 They were analysed by several different forensic labs whose day job is criminology
2 They are real human flesh and blood group AB (rare) but yield only mitochondrial (maternal) DNA. Normal DNA is not found. Impossible to fake.
3 The flesh is heart myocardium impossible to remove in a living body, and showing massive evidence of physical trauma.

4 The white cells are proof of life! at the time of sampling despite being in water for years in some cases.

5 The flesh is intimately woven into the bread in a way that would be impossible to fake.

And together they debunk darwins theory who said. "that if any example of life is found that is not from small steps from other life it disproves my theory" These are alive, and went in one step from inert bread to real flesh. Science has no answer.

How many are aware of the details? Im curious to know how much the catholic world knows of the details?

 

[Jonathan Walkerin]

There are nuances to these stories that few people know.
1 They were analysed by several different forensic labs whose day job is criminology
2 They are real human flesh and blood group AB (rare) but yield only mitochondrial (maternal) DNA. Normal DNA is not found. Impossible to fake.
3 The flesh is heart myocardium impossible to remove in a living body, and showing massive evidence of physical trauma.

4 The white cells are proof of life! at the time of sampling despite being in water for years in some cases.

5 The flesh is intimately woven into the bread in a way that would be impossible to fake.

Which labs are those ? Where are their published reports ?
Who has done some peer reviewed studies that actually prove existence of supernatural ? Why hasn’t anyone taken Nobel prize on this ?

The world obviously needs to know this.

 

[Mountainmike]

Which labs are those ? Where are their published reports ?
Who has done some peer reviewed studies that actually prove existence of supernatural ? Why hasn’t anyone taken Nobel prize on this ?

Peer reviewed "studies that prove existence of supernatural" seems to me to be a misunderstanding of what science is, and what it can prove. In simplistic terms Science cannot prove God, until someone builds God into the abstract model of science.

If you think it would get a Nobel prize, you do not understand the scientific establishment! It is bought in to life being a chemical accident and consciousness being a biochemical function.It will not accept anything else.

You do know do you, that most so called "valid science " is never peer reviewed. Because even if you can get funding for repeats (you cannot) no journal will publish work that is not original. Science hides behind peer review when it suits it.


Once the scientific establishment discovers what they are asked to test, they refuse to test it.

That said many samples HAVE been validated by well reputed forensic labs who were just given a sample and asked to state what it is. You will find the reports in books.

One such lab refused to test it, until told what it was and then said "we will not test it, because if you are right it undermines the ethos of our university which is built on darwinism". So much for universities following truth. They dont. If they had a shred of integrity they would test it , on the basis of belief it would fail their test, but it doesnt!.

In fact the whole of evolution science is built on a gaping void. Abiogenesis. THe smallest cell is bigger and more complex than even the worlds most complex chemical factories. A self evolving chemical factory is presumed sprung into existence from inert matter. There are no antecedents. No intermediates have ever been found or postulated. It cannot be repeated. It has never repeated. The pathway to the first cell is more complex than what followed.
Yet the presumptino of appearance of that cell out of nothing is "peer reviewed science!". The reality for those who study the cell, the problem of how it came to exist becomes harder not easier the more it is studied.

Abiogenesis is the atheist faith not science.

In real sceince abiogenesis does not even qualify as a hypothesis, let alone a theory. Do you understand why?

 

[Jonathan Walkerin]

Peer reviewed "studies that prove existence of supernatural" seems to me to be a misunderstanding of what science is, and what it can prove. In simplistic terms Science cannot prove God, until someone builds God into the abstract model of science.

If you think it would get a Nobel prize, you do not understand the scientific establishment! It is bought in to life being a chemical accident and consciousness being a biochemical function.It will not accept anything else.

You do know do you, that most so called "valid science " is never peer reviewed. Because even if you can get funding for repeats (you cannot) no journal will publish work that is not original. Science hides behind peer review when it suits it.


Once the scientific establishment discovers what they are asked to test, they refuse to test it.

That said many samples HAVE been validated by well reputed forensic labs who were just given a sample and asked to state what it is. You will find the reports in books.

One such lab refused to test it, until told what it was and then said "we will not test it, because if you are right it undermines the ethos of our university which is built on darwinism". So much for universities following truth. They dont. If they had a shred of integrity they would test it , on the basis of belief it would fail their test, but it doesnt!.

In fact the whole of evolution science is built on a gaping void. Abiogenesis. THe smallest cell is bigger and more complex than even the worlds most complex chemical factories. A self evolving chemical factory is presumed sprung into existence from inert matter. There are no antecedents. No intermediates have ever been found or postulated. It cannot be repeated. It has never repeated. The pathway to the first cell is more complex than what followed.
Yet the presumptino of appearance of that cell out of nothing is "peer reviewed science!". The reality for those who study the cell, the problem of how it came to exist becomes harder not easier the more it is studied.

Abiogenesis is the atheist faith not science.

In real sceince abiogenesis does not even qualify as a hypothesis, let alone a theory. Do you understand why?

So no lab names ? No links to studies ? Some excuses why that is. Some musing about abiogenesis that scientists agree they don’t have specifics of.

What exactly makes this any different from gazillion conspiracy theories ?

Can you provide anything or is it just a matter of faith ?

 

[Mountainmike]

So no lab names ? No links to studies ? Some excuses why that is. Some musing about abiogenesis that scientists agree they don’t have specifics of.

What exactly makes this any different from gazillion conspiracy theories ?

Can you provide anything or is it just a matter of faith ?

Forensic science makes it different.
the labs who give criminal evidence.

As for abiogenesis, they don’t have a hypothesis, let alone specifics.
There is no evidence whatsoever. Abiogenesis is not science.
There is plenty of evidence that Eucharistic miracles occurred with life frominert materials. On evidence the score is EM 4 , abiogenesis 0

You have answered my question however. You are not interested in evidence: only superimposing your opinions on events you haven’t researched.

Its not my job to provide you evidence, entire books have been written on that, I wondered how many knew what evidence is out there. In your case that’s a no.

If you really know nothing about them, start with therealpresence.org for a précis.
Eg this. For tixtla http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/english_pdf/Tixtla2.pdf
But go back to source documents for forensic reports , eg castarnons book on tixtla, teserorieros summary on buenosaires and sokolka. In unseen. The tissue sections for lanciano are out there on the web.

it is fascinating the reception of evidence. If I presented some of the ludicrous conclusions of quantum physics, most accept them as “ science”

But please, stop derailing the thread: my question was how much do people know or research about them. Preferably before giving a verdict.

 

[concretecamper]

As someone who has studied eucharistic miracles and compiled a fairly extensive library on them, I am curious to know how much such as Buenos Airies, Sokolka, Legnica, Tixtla etc are known by the general catholic population?

There are nuances to these stories that few people know.
1 They were analysed by several different forensic labs whose day job is criminology
2 They are real human flesh and blood group AB (rare) but yield only mitochondrial (maternal) DNA. Normal DNA is not found. Impossible to fake.
3 The flesh is heart myocardium impossible to remove in a living body, and showing massive evidence of physical trauma.

4 The white cells are proof of life! at the time of sampling despite being in water for years in some cases.

5 The flesh is intimately woven into the bread in a way that would be impossible to fake.

And together they debunk darwins theory who said. "that if any example of life is found that is not from small steps from other life it disproves my theory" These are alive, and went in one step from inert bread to real flesh. Science has no answer.

How many are aware of the details? Im curious to know how much the catholic world knows of the details?

What is sad is that growing up in the Church, I heard nothing of these miracles.

I think one of the more famous ones is Laciano Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano

I encourage any skeptics to do some research.

 

[Mountainmike]

What is sad is that growing up in the Church, I heard nothing of these miracles.

I think one of the more famous one is Laciano Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano

I encourage any skeptics to do some research.

Thanks.
Lanciano was the first to be forensic analysed. Still impossible to explain.

the interesting aspect of later ones eg tixtla and buenos airies is the existence of white cells. They prove the sample was alive. Which is inexplicable in vitro- white cells dissolve in a matter of hours in vitro.

 

[Jonathan Walkerin]

Great. I think that is very conclusive.

 

[Mountainmike]

Great. I think that is very conclusive.

I think we got off on the wrong foot Jonathan. Sorry on my part.

in castarnons book on tixtla are 40 pages of forensic reports, from the labs used.

As for super natural In general, forensics of such as Cochabamba statue are just as inexplicable.

but since Eucharistic miracles not only point at the essential dogma but also life from inert bread, challenging Darwin’s own statement on disproving his theory, they are very important.

 

[Mountainmike]

Posted on the tunic thread. It belongs here...


Eucharistic miracles are above all others.
Because they reinforce the essential dogma only of Catholicism ie transubstantiation.
More than that they demonstrate life occurring outside evolution.

They are impossible to fake because forensic analysis shows an intimate intermingling of bread and flesh which cannot be faked.
In addition such as tixtla , the blood was shown to have forced its way out of bread not into it.

for sure there are many others, like hospital verified inedia ( no drink or weight loss) , living on Eucharist alone, or such as the Cochabamba statue filmed bleeding with CT scans showing no internal passages for cheating. It wasn’t just skin that forensics found but also thorn tissue! . Then the writings of Katya Rivas. The impossible way four ladies house at Ephesus was found, so on.

but above all are Eucharistic, and the shroud showing evidence of passion AND ressurection, what else accounts for high energy body centred short wavelength radiation?

I am writing a book with just the essential questions and a reading list...

for example at Fatima, the miracle of the sun is amazing. What mattered more was the prophecy..it doesn’t matter if the miracle is justified by science , the prophecy of the unique event to time date and place ( and the light that heralded WWII ) defeat science. Prophecy is impossible.

 

[carloagal]

Peer reviewed "studies that prove existence of supernatural" seems to me to be a misunderstanding of what science is, and what it can prove. In simplistic terms Science cannot prove God, until someone builds God into the abstract model of science.

If you think it would get a Nobel prize, you do not understand the scientific establishment! It is bought in to life being a chemical accident and consciousness being a biochemical function.It will not accept anything else.

You do know do you, that most so called "valid science " is never peer reviewed. Because even if you can get funding for repeats (you cannot) no journal will publish work that is not original. Science hides behind peer review when it suits it.


Once the scientific establishment discovers what they are asked to test, they refuse to test it.

That said many samples HAVE been validated by well reputed forensic labs who were just given a sample and asked to state what it is. You will find the reports in books.

One such lab refused to test it, until told what it was and then said "we will not test it, because if you are right it undermines the ethos of our university which is built on darwinism". So much for universities following truth. They dont. If they had a shred of integrity they would test it , on the basis of belief it would fail their test, but it doesnt!.

In fact the whole of evolution science is built on a gaping void. Abiogenesis. THe smallest cell is bigger and more complex than even the worlds most complex chemical factories. A self evolving chemical factory is presumed sprung into existence from inert matter. There are no antecedents. No intermediates have ever been found or postulated. It cannot be repeated. It has never repeated. The pathway to the first cell is more complex than what followed.
Yet the presumptino of appearance of that cell out of nothing is "peer reviewed science!". The reality for those who study the cell, the problem of how it came to exist becomes harder not easier the more it is studied.

Abiogenesis is the atheist faith not science.

In real sceince abiogenesis does not even qualify as a hypothesis, let alone a theory. Do you understand why?

I think you are right but you said that is impossible that a complex cells form from inert matter but in the Eucharistic miracles of Buenos Aires we can see heart muscle tissue and white blood cells come into existence from a simple transformed host that is inert matter.