Eucharistic Miracle in Poland [W:26] (1 Viewer)

[Goshin]

Moderator's Warning:

Gentlemen, this is the Religious Discussion Forum. Please vent your religiously-themed mockery and derision elsewhere. Those unable to contain themselves will be introduced to My Little Friend....

 

[RAMOSS]

In my experience, sin makes you pretty irrational. It's why I didn't accept the teaching on contraception for a while.



This to me is so amazing.

You shouldn't think it's so amazing. First of all, when blood gets old and degrades, it tests as being ab positive , no matter how it started to begin with.

Next, McCrone, found that the red spots on the shroud of turin was not blood, but red ochre, which is used in making paints.

The claims following saying it was 'genuine' range from the incompetent to the disingenuous.

 

[phattonez]

You shouldn't think it's so amazing. First of all, when blood gets old and degrades, it tests as being ab positive , no matter how it started to begin with.

King Tut had Type A blood, by the way. So I don't know where you're getting this idea that it all degrades to type AB.

 

[nota bene]

You shouldn't think it's so amazing. First of all, when blood gets old and degrades, it tests as being ab positive , no matter how it started to begin with.

Next, McCrone, found that the red spots on the shroud of turin was not blood, but red ochre, which is used in making paints.

The claims following saying it was 'genuine' range from the incompetent to the disingenuous.

That's what McCrone said he found. Others disagreed with his finding. Rather disingenuous of you not to note this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_McCrone

 

[RAMOSS]

That's what McCrone said he found. Others disagreed with his finding. Rather disingenuous of you not to note this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_McCrone

There is one big difference between the claims. McCrone was an expert in the field. THe ones disagreeing were often testing for things outside their field of expertise, and also where coming in with the bias the Shroud is the 'one true shroud'. McCrone taught the FBI labs a lot about micro analsysis , and his lab was the 'go to' lab to detect art forgeries.

As such, the critics are not qualified in the field, and he was. If you look at the body of work trying to prove the shroud of Turin 'true', you will see lots and lots of what can be considered 'psuedo science', .. because they come up with techniques and conclusions that are not recognized as being accurate or true, and they promote a lot of misinformation.

 

[nota bene]

It matters not to me whether the Shroud is real or a medieval fake, just FYI. But I found this while Googling [bolding mine]:

One must wonder how much of what McCrone says is for self-promotion versus objective science. McCrone always feels that his microanalysis is the only form of research that matters and discounts the value of anyone else's. However, for science to arrive at a credible hypothesis, it must be in harmony with evidence from other fields. McCrone seems to ignore the demands of epistemology.

To his credit, he has made superb use of the media to get maximum exposure for The McCrone Institute. It is curious, however, that none of his scientific articles on the Shroud were ever submitted to a peer reviewed journal but were self-published in his own magazine, The Microscopist. This appears to be yet another self-promoting tactic that insulates him and his research from peer criticism.

One researcher who prefers to remain anonymous stated his opinion that "McCrone has sacrificed empiricism on the altar of his own ego." Walter McCrone and the shroud. Why he was wrong.

 

[RAMOSS]

It matters not to me whether the Shroud is real or a medieval fake, just FYI. But I found this while Googling [bolding mine]:

One must wonder how much of what McCrone says is for self-promotion versus objective science. McCrone always feels that his microanalysis is the only form of research that matters and discounts the value of anyone else's. However, for science to arrive at a credible hypothesis, it must be in harmony with evidence from other fields. McCrone seems to ignore the demands of epistemology.

To his credit, he has made superb use of the media to get maximum exposure for The McCrone Institute. It is curious, however, that none of his scientific articles on the Shroud were ever submitted to a peer reviewed journal but were self-published in his own magazine, The Microscopist. This appears to be yet another self-promoting tactic that insulates him and his research from peer criticism.

One researcher who prefers to remain anonymous stated his opinion that "McCrone has sacrificed empiricism on the altar of his own ego." Walter McCrone and the shroud. Why he was wrong.

AH yes, one of the many 'true believer' web sites. There are plenty of 'the shroud is real', and if you actually looked at the information they are providing, it is inaccurate. Yes, they disagree. However, notice, they are using philosophical terms for , well science, .. and no, he is not ignoring 'other fields' at all. If you look at that web site, they make claims that are not true.. but they use scientific terms to try to make claims that have been proven false.. such the 'contamination of the fire through the carbon dating off', and 'the threads might have been takein from the repaired section (which the original report, and subsequent examination showed was a false claim'.

Shroud believe is a pretty good business, and if you notice, they are making money out of pushing their claims.

 

[phattonez]

AH yes, one of the many 'true believer' web sites. There are plenty of 'the shroud is real', and if you actually looked at the information they are providing, it is inaccurate. Yes, they disagree. However, notice, they are using philosophical terms for , well science, .. and no, he is not ignoring 'other fields' at all. If you look at that web site, they make claims that are not true.. but they use scientific terms to try to make claims that have been proven false.. such the 'contamination of the fire through the carbon dating off', and 'the threads might have been takein from the repaired section (which the original report, and subsequent examination showed was a false claim'.

Shroud believe is a pretty good business, and if you notice, they are making money out of pushing their claims.

So you have nothing in response to what she said?

 

[RAMOSS]

So you have nothing in response to what she said?

I did have a response.. and there are a number of 'true shroud' believing web sites that all belong to the same group... which all do very bad science, and sell things.. as well as try to explain away , poorly, the results the falsify the shroud being 2000 years old.

 

[nota bene]

I did have a response.. and there are a number of 'true shroud' believing web sites that all belong to the same group... which all do very bad science, and sell things.. as well as try to explain away , poorly, the results the falsify the shroud being 2000 years old.

As I said, I Googled. I bolded my point: "...for science to arrive at a credible hypothesis, it must be in harmony with evidence from other fields. McCrone seems to ignore the demands of epistemology."

As I also said, I don't really care whether the Shroud is legit; I just don't like someone/anyone being exalted or extolled as the definitive word when he's apparently not.

 

[Dibbler]

Roman Catholic Poland is on the front lines against Orthodox Catholic Russia. So, it is convenient that a miracle would happen here. The political skullduggery of European history is often bereft of the influences of these two organizations and the intentions.

 

[RAMOSS]

As I said, I Googled. I bolded my point: "...for science to arrive at a credible hypothesis, it must be in harmony with evidence from other fields. McCrone seems to ignore the demands of epistemology."

As I also said, I don't really care whether the Shroud is legit; I just don't like someone/anyone being exalted or extolled as the definitive word when he's apparently not.

Except, you do realize that he was in 'harmony' with other fields. It is a false accusation to say he wasn't. The people who came up with that came up with excuses that are not in their respective field.


If you want to give a specific claim where it is alleged McCrone did not do that, we can examine the claim, one by one, to see the educational background and qualifications of those who make the claim, what the claim actually is, and how it stacks up with what McCrone and other experts say, with a concentration of people that are expert in the exact field. I have seen a number of these accusations, and in each case, the folks from STURP that were making the claims were not experts in the field that they were making claims in.

Rather than distract from this thread, if you want to make another in the philosophy section, since this is not actually dealing with core beliefs of religion, I would be glad to go over the claims and the evidence with a fine tooth comb, with references.. There are tons and tons of claims though, and each one you could have an entire thread on. It also would be good in academia, since it is specifically looking at the research, and it's reliability. I don't want to derail this thread any further, but would be more than willing to examine in detail specific claim about the Shroud and it's dating you wish to pursue. It would be good practice in getting research together and examining both the claims , the data, and the process by which the data was collected.

 

[nota bene]

Again, I have little interest in whether the Shroud is legitimate or not.

Similarly, if the Vatican investigates and concludes that this "bleeding host" is miraculous, that's great, but if it doesn't, this is also fine with me. I hope for all things that strengthen faith, but blessed are those who believe without seeing.

 

[SDET]

Let me get this straight. With all the horrors in this world, God chooses to show himself in a cracker in Poland. Maybe he is really one of the Keebler elves.:lol:

Well, John Paul II was white and from Poland (yes, that's a joke). How did you get the idea that Papism is from God?

 

[Paleocon]

How did you get the idea that Papism is from God?

Its founder claimed to be God. Got crucified, but then rose from the dead. Maybe you've heard of him?

 

[SDET]

Its founder claimed to be God. Got crucified, but then rose from the dead. Maybe you've heard of him?

Roman Bishop Leo I (440-461) rose from the dead? That's the first I heard of that.

 

[SDET]

Speaking of tests, how do you know if it is really Satan's blood on that cracker and not Christs

It's ordinary grape juice and unleavened bread. Those are only symbols.

 

[Paleocon]

Roman Bishop Leo I (440-461) rose from the dead? That's the first I heard of that.

Jesus Christ, whom you apparently regard as a liar (since you think he was lying when he said "this is my body"),rose from the dead.

If you're arguing that the Catholic Church was founded at some later date, and that earlier Christianity was whatever denomination of Protestantiam you adhere to, then I'll have to just recommend that you take a remedial history course.