Lets take a good look at this one...Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano Italy, cir 8th century A.D.
www.therealpresence.org
Look for 'Eucharistic Miracles' on the website.
I read through the link you provided about the eucharistic miracle of Lanciano. Couple of things I noticed:
The scientific investigation into the material is described as being "with absolute and unquestionable scientific precision". Now, I am as confident in the efficiency of the scientific process as can be reasonably assumed, and the reason for that is the process of independent verification and peer review, a process by which a particular experiments' claimed findings are attempted to be reproduced and verified. Nearly every aspect of the experiment is questioned and scrutinized, and only after it has been through the peer review ringer will the data be accepted as fact. That being said, there is no scientific experiment that is "unquestionable" or "absolute". In science, everything is questioned.
I only mention the above objection because of the extreme amount of flaunting they have done to show that this "miracle" has been scientifically investigated and validates the religious claim (it actually doesn't, but I'll get to that in a second). I find this to be an element of some hypocrisy as it is common to condemn the scientific methods and investigation when results do not concur with religious teachings and belief. Even you yourself, Mikey, have time and time again made it known the limitations of science when attempting to investigate your religious beliefs. So, why then, is the scientific findings presented in this "miracle" of such value that it was felt to make sure all know how rigorous and accurate the "absolute and unquestionable scientific precision" was? There may be some bias going on here.
Now, here are the conclusions of the investigation as presented in the article:
* The Flesh is real Flesh. The Blood is real Blood.
* The Flesh and the Blood belong to the human species.
* The Flesh consists of the muscular tissue of the heart.
* In the Flesh we see present in section: the myocardium, the endocardium, the vagus nerve and also the left ventricle of the heart for the large thickness of the myocardium.
* The Flesh is a "HEART" complete in its essential structure.
* The Flesh and the Blood have the same blood-type: AB (Blood-type identical to that which Prof. Baima Bollone uncovered in the Holy Shroud of Turin).
* In the Blood there were found proteins in the same normal proportions (percentage-wise) as are found in the sero-proteic make-up of the fresh normal blood.
* In the Blood there were also found these minerals: chlorides, phosphorus, magnesium, potassium, sodium and calcium.
* The preservation of the Flesh and of the Blood, which were left in their natural state for twelve centuries and exposed to the action of atmospheric and biological agents, remains an extraordinary phenomenon.
The first thing I notice in reading through the conclusions of the study is this: there is no finding in this study that states "the flesh and blood were shown to have once existed as bread and wine". The very thing with which they were attempting to verify they did not conclude. All that was concluded was that they were in possession of flesh and blood. The only "evidence" to show that they were transformed from bread and wine is the claim made by the priest some 1300 years ago. No further evidence beyond that is shown to verify that the miracle actually occurred at all.
Working in the medical field, I can get a general idea about how most of the conclusions were made...blood typing and all is rudimentary to the point of being trivial, but I am unsure about how they went about dating the samples they were studying to determine their age in order to reach the conclusion that "he preservation of the Flesh and of the Blood, which were left in their natural state for twelve centuries and exposed to the action of atmospheric and biological agents, remains an extraordinary phenomenon.". How do they know it is 12 centuries old? What evidence shows it was "left in their natural state"? These are things that must be verified in order to demonstrate the claims. Yet again, the extraordinary parts of this miracle claim are the things not actually scientifically backed up.
I saw mention the typing of the blood was concluded to be the same as the type on the famed shroud of turin. To truly confirm the same source, a DNA test would be warranted. Hell, a DNA test on the eucharistic miracle blood alone would prove very interesting. Paternal DNA would be something extraordinary to see, wouldn't it, as it would be the DNA of god himself...or, if god has no DNA, would show something entirely different. You would at least have mitochondrial DNA, which comes exclusively from the mother...it sure would be something to be able to map the genome of the Virgin Mary. I saw nothing about any such experiments being done. Instead, what I see is that a study in the 70s was carried out on a piece of flesh and blood that verified it to be flesh and blood and that was it. Where is the rest of the studies? This goes back to my criticism of them describing the science as "with absolute and unquestionable scientific precision", because further testing, such as DNA mapping, should be done...I understand that these tests were not available during the initial study, but they are now. The problem with the science in this case is that they got the results they were wanting...ie, it's real flesh and blood...and then they stopped investigating. Science never reaches a conclusion, science only gathers more and more evidence. When you come to a conclusion, that is the point when you stop thinking. The investigation into this "miracle" requires much more investigation than what has been presented, and is certainly not satisfactory in validating the claim that bread and wine miraculously turned into flesh and blood.
