Not for sure if I have posted this here, but gonna post it again or anyway. Anybody believe what they do insofar as forensic science is concerned? Is it a when they are looking for undeniable evidence to catch an evil person? Why can't you use the same science to determine the authenticity of a said object. Scientific proof that shows the transubstantiation that takes place. When the Catholic priest takes unleavened bread and wine, prays upon them and they become the body and blood of Christ You either believe the: scientific facts don't know deny (means nothing will suffix) Illogical responses will be dull and void....
I don't believe society's faith should come from (alleged) miracles like this. Maybe in very specific situations (like if you are the actual priest or investigator who discovered it), but this is not the sort of thing that should or is meant to prove the existence of God or supernatural miracles to everyone else. Obviously these sorts of physical manifestation miracles do not always happen, because if they did they could be reduced down and examined in very controlled and predictable scientific experiments.
None of these cases appear to show evidence of actual transformation, they only tested material after it had been purportedly changed. If you want to test a process, you need to observe the actual process (or at least take before and after measurements). If you're going to assess this claim scientifically, it would first need to be presented in much more detail and specificity. For example, I was under the impression that the doctrine is generally that while the bread and wine becomes the flesh and blood, it retain the appearance of bread and wine (something that can be clearly seen). This seems to contradict the idea of there being observable flesh and blood in these cases. Ultimately, you need a scientific hypothesis, not just a doctrinal statement. There is also the related question of repeatability. Since this is being proposed as a routine process that occurs at every Eucharist officiated by every priest in the world, it would be possible to carry out multiple random and controlled tests on the process. Why are we only talking about three unique incidents where something out of the ordinary apparently occurred? Of course, is there not an issue with questioning God? I certainly have no doubt that would be raised were someone presenting results that suggest transubstantiation didn't happen.
