Recently was told by a Christian to look into eucharistic miracles.

These are when the bread and wine at mass literally turns into flesh and blood.

Apparently these were tested and found to come from a living heart with AB Blood. And all the sources I find list them as verified real.

I can’t find any contradicting resources.

So I’m wondering if anyone has one. Cause this just doesn’t smell right. The Bible is a self contradicting mess and prayer has already been shown not to work, but somehow God saved his real evidence for randomly trolling priests by turning wine into blood?

I don’t know about that one.

I will confess most of the resources I found covering them were Catholic in origin, which are hardly trustworthy (another reason why I’m not buying it)

Anyone here more adept at googling shit who can tell me how this is bogus?

Don’t get me wrong. I’d love for God to be real but the paranormal has an atrocious track record.

Edit: Apparently it was a bacterial fungus. Thanks for helping me figure it out.

  • root@lemmy.wtfEnglish
    11·
    23 days ago

    the common bacteria would be picked up during the scientific analysis

    • FuglyDuck@lemmy.worldEnglish
      2·
      23 days ago

      If I have a liquid, and I send it off for lab work; and the lab test that I order is only able to determine if its acidic, and it comes back negative then I do not know if its basic - I only know that It is not acidic.

      The lab isn’t going to run that test. They’re going to run the one I asked for and generally assume I know it doesn’t tell me if it’s basic, even if they could run extra tests (aka work for free.) or run a different test that determines both- because that’s not what I ordered.

      It’s the same with blood antigen testing.

      They run the test that you ask for. The test they asked for was older and incapable of distinguishing between bacterial and human antigens.

      Which means, in point of fact, that no, the scientific analysis that was done is incapable of determining that.

      And the Catholic Church knows this! It’s why they’re not waiving it and offering the sample up as proof.

        • FuglyDuck@lemmy.worldEnglish
          2·
          23 days ago

          You’re gonna have to give me more than “read this” and a pdf link to an org I don’t recognize.

          Edit, looking at the URL, you appear to be citing Frederick Zugibe…

          Which is a laughable source. first- he’s an idiot who thinks the Shroud of Turin- which has been known to be a fraud from very early in it’s history- is real.

          he even wrote a book on how it was real.

          This guy might have once held the chops to be authoritative, but he’s definitely in the realm of anti-science quackery.

          Secondly, based on the examination of the slide:

          • He claims he has no prior knowledge of the slide’s history.
          • He claims the slide shows heart tissue.
          • from the left ventricle of a human heart
          • that the tissues suffered trauma “like being beaten”
          • that that trauma happened to the 3 days prior to the slide being prepared.

          There’s sooo much wrong with these claims.

          He claims no prior knowledge of the slide. this claim is to assure the reader that a devout catholic apologist has absolutely no bias at all. Sure Jan. sure. Further there’s no chain of custody- at all. the sample sat in a jar of water for 3 years where contamination was not only possible but likely. Stored, it must be said, by people very interested in miraculous explanations being the explanation.

          Further, while it’s possible to identify heart tissue as human or animal heart tissue from microscopic analysis, it’s generally impossible to also identify the precise location the tissue was taken from. More to the point, while it’s possible to observe tissue damage (“trauma”) it’s impossible to determine the cause of that tissue damage (“being beaten”), or the precise timing that the damage occured (3 days prior to slide prep.) It’s also generally not possible to tell if a given tissue sample was alive when the slide was processed or not.

          I have no reason to accept Zugibe as anything even close to resembling a legitimate scientist. he’s a quack apologist.

            • SnoopSqueak@lemmy.todayEnglish
              1·
              10 days ago

              No, dummy.

              Ad hominem would be if they insulted Zugibe instead of providing an argument.

              What actually happened is they provided many reasons why we should not trust the “research” Zugine performed. We conclude he is a quack based on evidence.

              And you seriously wasted my time with this shit after someone else already corrected you.

              Use your brain.

              • root@lemmy.wtfEnglish
                11·
                10 days ago

                that is what ad hominem is

                “this guys a quack so we shouldnt listen to his research”

                • SnoopSqueak@lemmy.todayEnglish
                  1·
                  10 days ago

                  Can you read? You got it backwards.

                  There are reasons we cannot trust his “research”. Thus, he is a quack.

                  But of course you think backwards, you assert conclusions and then deny evidence to the contrary. Coward.