Dna Tests On Eucharistic Miracles

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='sixpence' timestamp='1336675766' post='2429500']
i dunno the tests on Lanciano are already rather convincing, I feel like if people aren't already convinced DNA is not going to help. People could still argue that someone had placed had simply placed heart muscle in there.
[/quote]
The Lanciano tests were not convincing at all, in my opinion. It debunks some of the claims about the miracle (which is glossed over), and reports some uncritical, suspect analyses that actually have plausible natural explanations. Apologetics sites tend to blow that data way out of proportion. I think the case against the Lanciano tests is quite strong. DNA testing and comparison of alleged miracles would be far more valuable. Especially if it was done in a transparent, open source kind of way. And the research should be seriously reviewed, independently corroborated, etc. We can do much better than that faux scientific research of forty years ago.

And even if it were true that the '70s tests are convincing, I don't agree that more research would be a waste of time. It is easy to dismiss one anomalous study, initiated by the Vatican many decades ago. The conclusions become more valid after a scientific community has worked on it a while and it has survived criticism. A modern study, with contemporary forensics technologies, would only make the case stronger and it would be more difficult to dismiss.
You can find an obscure "study" here and there supporting all kinds of bizarre paranormal bovine excrement. If the Lanciano tests stand alone as convincing evidence, there are many silly things that one could rightly believe based on similar standards of evidence. I don't think it's fair to insinuate that those who are aware of Lanciano but unconvinced are simply dogmatic unbelievers.

Edited May 10, 2012 by Laudate_Dominum

[Papist]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' timestamp='1336675170' post='2429496']
I can't speak for dairy, but one of the reasons why I think such testing is important is that being duped is croutons and I'd rather not adore an artifact of medieval hucksterism. Truth is something to value. If we can test the validity of something, let it be so. Then, if there are legitimate artifacts of supernatural origin, what more fascinating objects of study are there? If the evidence is actually legit then I think it would help convert unbelievers. This is also a good thing. Doubter: "There is no good evidence for God, etc." Teh Church: "Actually there is. Behold these miraculous artifacts and teh compelling body of research." Doubter: "Fascinating. Maybe I'll give teh Church a chance..."
[/quote]

The Church conducts investigations, which may involve scientific tests as she sees fit, as in the case of Lanciano. I don't see it necessary to interfere with the Church on this.

[Groo the Wanderer]

you were given the proof from tests already conducted. without looking into them or the methodologies you refuse to accept their validity.

go look for yourself. they are all still around. just travel a bit.

or are you just another reyb who clamors for proof then refuses to accept any that is given?

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1336674852' post='2429493']
I would provide some scientific validity to the claim. If you can prove that the exact same genetic sequence is being extracted from blood samples that you can show have been kept separate then you have a pretty powerful claim.
[/quote]

the tests were valid. it is now YOUR burden to prove otherwise.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1336677242' post='2429508']
The Church conducts investigations, which may involve scientific tests as she sees fit, as in the case of Lanciano. I don't see it necessary to interfere with the Church on this.
[/quote]
I don't understand. In particular, what do you mean by interfering with teh Church?

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Groo the Wanderer' timestamp='1336678593' post='2429515']
you were given the proof from tests already conducted. without looking into them or the methodologies you refuse to accept their validity.[/quote]
I don't consider the Linoli paper to be "proof" of anything, and certainly not of the miraculous. I have to employ the same standard of evidence with this as I would with any other claims of the supernatural/paranormal. Confirmation bias is the devil.

[dairygirl4u2c]

i second what hasan and Laud have said, especially all of Laud's studious remarks. if we got one set that had the same DNA sequence as another set, when those sets were very probably or surely separate at all times, then that is almost irrefutable. plus as a lesser proof, that it'd be a jewish man from those days can be verified, and maybe some funky "goings on" with the "fathers v. mother" stuff given Jesus didn't have an earthly biological father.
AB etc tests do not necessarily prove much, it only proves the blood is human, and maybe some matches of AB with the miracles, but that doesn't mean it's definitive match as a DNA test would be.
and yes, as Laud said, the tests that have been done seem suspect, cause they were so long ago etc.

i dont think the burden is on nonbelievers to prove anything, at least if they are not allowed to test it themselves. which i highly doubt they are, or even reputable people like folks at the Vatican, on behalf of those skeptics (who you claim have that burden). (of course, if the Pope said "let us" then that might change things) which casts a lot of doubt on claims already made. of course, this is just my guess, but when it's so easy to do a DNA test, you have to wonder why it's not been done already etc....
if all you got is AB blood types etc, then perhaps the nonbeliever can accept there's human blood there etc, and maybe even that some devil's advocates were at the testing, but it's still not necessarily exhaustive proof.
like, that it becomes hard then soft later and bleeds... is this really just someone getting fresh material, or some chemical that allows this, and inserting it into the testing? i dont think the documentation really says enough about this sort of thing.
it's easy to say "experts have verified it... it must be true" and rest on that, when anything is further from the truth.

Edited May 10, 2012 by dairygirl4u2c

[Ice_nine]

L_D y u so skeptial?

[Papist]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' timestamp='1336678942' post='2429520']
I don't understand. In particular, what do you mean by interfering with teh Church?
[/quote]

When dealing with the Blessed Sacrament, the Church needs to be in total charge.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Ice_nine' timestamp='1336684748' post='2429556']
L_D y u so skeptial?
[/quote]
I don't consider myself to be inordinately skeptical about this. To me it is not logical (in the Vulcan sense) to give extraordinary claims a pass just because they are in some sense Catholic. My standards of evidence are basically the same when it comes to the miraculous claims of other religions, paranormal phenomena, alien visitors, and so on. I think some of the purportedly miraculous Catholic artifacts actually have a chance of standing up to scrutiny, which is exciting. To the proverbial objective observer I probably appear biased toward credulity.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1336687490' post='2429567']
When dealing with the Blessed Sacrament, the Church needs to be in total charge.
[/quote]
Oh, I see what you mean. Yeah, I'm sure there are a host of practical complications that would make such a project quite difficult. One does not simply cowbell their way to the laboratory with a Eucharistic miracle. Yousa point is well said.

Peace.

Edited May 10, 2012 by Laudate_Dominum

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' timestamp='1336674696' post='2429491']
It would enable definitive testing of the validity of the Eucharistic miracles. Assuming they are legit, it would be fascinating to learn about Jesus' genetics. If we could learn about the genome of a God-man, why wouldn't we want to!? Beats the pantaloons off the NT genealogies. Was Jesus genetically susceptible to specific diseases? How closely related are we to Jesus? What is his paternity like, given the non-human Father? And a million other fascinating questions. "Good news people: The supernatural is demonstrably real and Jesus is probably as advertised. Oh, and He's left us His holy genome to reverently explore. Amen." How would this not be teh amesome? lol.
[/quote]
Yer prolly right Captain but I have this feeling that nothing definitive will come of it on the hypothesis that God wants man to find him in his heart not his head.

[quote name='Ice_nine' timestamp='1336684748' post='2429556']
L_D y u so skeptial?
[/quote]
To me he appears sceptical about scientific proof. Faith would be another matter. If that's what he's saying then I agree because the minute you definitively prove God you have removed free choice.

Edited May 10, 2012 by Mark of the Cross

[Papist]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' timestamp='1336687728' post='2429569']
Oh, I see what you mean. Yeah, I'm sure there are a host of practical complications that would make such a project quite difficult. One does not simply cowbell their way to the laboratory with a Eucharistic miracle. Yousa point is well said.

Peace.
[/quote]

Thanks. But don't get me wrong, I do appreciate your points.

[dairygirl4u2c]

''Yer prolly right Captain but I have this feeling that nothing definitive will come of it on the hypothesis that God wants man to find him in his heart not his head.''

something has to come of it, right?
either it has the DNA evidence, or it don't. if it's human blood for the purposes of AB tests, it should be for DNA tests too.... which means something must come of it.

[i mean, the world might end before we did it.... as it'd take away all the mystery, sure. (that's the former catholic in me talking, and the current christian who gives much respect to catholics on this issue, in an almost Orthodox kind of way)]

Edited May 11, 2012 by dairygirl4u2c

[Mark of the Cross]

The last doco I saw on the shroud of Turin the debunk was debunked, and it is back where it started neither proven or disproven. Apparently the bit they carbon dated was found to be a later repair job and therefore wasn't as old as the shroud. And the keepers the Vatican I think won't allow any more sampling. If there's an update let know. Back on topic they might find DNA but so what? DNA can prove that it was human and nothing more. If the DNA is found to match from different sites and different times then as LD says that would be exciting, but these things have a habit of going nowhere. Unfortunately in the past people were so keen to prove God to bring people to faith that numerous forgeries, some very clever, were made by well meaning people. Modern science has revealed a plethora of these, so the effect has been to muddy the waters and hence do the opposite to their intention.

[Ice_nine]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' timestamp='1336687526' post='2429568']
I don't consider myself to be inordinately skeptical about this. To me it is not logical (in the Vulcan sense) to give extraordinary claims a pass just because they are in some sense Catholic. My standards of evidence are basically the same when it comes to the miraculous claims of other religions, paranormal phenomena, alien visitors, and so on. I think some of the purportedly miraculous Catholic artifacts actually have a chance of standing up to scrutiny, which is exciting. To the proverbial objective observer I probably appear biased toward credulity.
[/quote]

I was just teasin' broski. Hence the winky face.