The point that they tested for the presence of flesh and blood and then assumed the process of transubstantiation rather then proving it has been made. Response was
However, there does remain the fact that there is some substance, left exposed to air, that's been tested, has been shown to be the appropriate age of the claim, has not been shown to contain preservative agents and has the appropriate chemical makeup of human flesh and human blood that has only solidified and not degraded as blood does under normal conditions after leaving the body and being exposed to air. So there we are.
I'm not entirely sure what your question is or what the question being debated is. That holy relics are holy? That holy relics are of earthly origin? That holy relics prove one particular religion true?
I'm a bit short on time at the moment but I do have this link which I think is the original paper for the transaminase article: link. I'll have to verify it university computers.
The initial response is valid: it's no more a proof of transsubstantiation than the existence of life is proof of a creator.
A Government founded upon justice, and recognizing the equal rights of all men; claiming higher authority for existence, or sanction for its laws, that nature, reason, and the regularly ascertained will of the people; steadily refusing to put its sword and purse in the service of any religious creed or family is a standing offense to most of the Governments of the world, and to some narrow and bigoted people among ourselves.
