[aldo_14]

British Archeology 1998 - http://www.britarch.ac.uk/ba/ba38/ba38lets.html
According to the Oxford radiocarbon dating lab, the carbon date of organic material can indeed be affected by
later contamination, such as by bacteria and fungi. However, to make a supposedly 2,000-year-old piece of linen appear to be
13th century, huge quantities of modern carbon contamination would be needed - enough to double the weight of the shroud.
This seems improbable.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/1998/dom/980420/cover4.html

Garza-Valdes and Mattingly kept up their research for several years and then
                parted ways. "Dr. Garza's science was fine," says Mattingly, "but then he
                started talking about the Holy Grail, among other things." Garza-Valdes has
                speculated that some of the bacteria isolated from the shroud could be
                remnants from the vinegar Jesus was force-fed while on the Cross. "That's
                absurd," says Mattingly, who nonetheless continues to back the doctor's
                contention that the bioplastic coating exists on the shroud.

Not an unbiased scientific observer, then...

"The only people who have ever seen these bacteria are Drs. Mattingly and Garza-Valdes," says Arizona's Timothy Jull. "In my opinion, our sample of the shroud was very clean, and there was no evidence of any coating." Even if the hypothetical varnish existed, Jull adds, the amount necessary to throw off the dating by 1,300 years would have been visible to the naked eye. Snipes U.C. Riverside's Taylor: "At the present time, the 'bioplastic theory' has many of the characteristics of cold fusion," the here-one-day-ridiculed-the-next physics fiasco of 1989.

.
.
.
Of the tests, Tryon says, "All I can tell you is that DNA contamination is present and that the DNA belonged either to a human or another higher primate. I have no idea who or where the DNA signal came from, nor how long it's been there." It is, he says, not necessarily the remains of blood. "Everyone who has ever touched the shroud or cried over the shroud has left  a potential DNA signal there." Tryon quit the project soon after his tests. "I saw it as a multidisciplinary project involving archaeology, physiology and other fields. But I came to believe there was another agenda present too. It was my first encounter with zealotry in science."

http://www.uiowa.edu/~anthro/webcourse/lost/shroud/c-14.htm

The most rational explanation, though still not entirely believable, is Leoncio Garza-Valdes' and Stephen Mattingly's theory that
microbes on the fibers threw off the dates. This idea was first proposed in 1995, when infrared and mass spectroscopy tests indicated
that the swatches from the Shroud were not pure cellulose, which is the main ingredient of linen (www.direct.ca/trinity/shroud1.html).
Microbes on the sample included those found to grow in natrol, a bleaching agent which may or may not have been used on the Shroud
(Travis 1995:346). This theory sounds so plausible, that many non-skeptics have accepted it as the reason for such a late date on their
religious relic (see www.treasure.com/shroud.html;www.iea.com/~bradh/shroud/ and www.uthscsa.edu/mission/spring96/shroud.htm).
Rational scientists are not quite as accepting--Garza-Valdes and Mattingly did not submit their results for peer review
(home.fireplug.net/~rshand/reflections/messiah/shroud.html). Furthermore, the control samples, at all three labs, tested reasonably close
to their known dates--were they unaffected by these microbes? This is a compelling question, raised by Joe Nickell (Nickell 1995:5).


Garza-Valdes' and Mattingly's theory falls apart here--it is just too coincidental that the Shroud of Turin was the only historical piece of
linen affected by the mysterious biogenic varnish.

control samples - the key to all science.  the test results on these are very important.  Also, no-none else has ever proven Garza-Veldes claims -  or even seen their techniques and experiments.

[Rampage]

Christianity is not a religion; it's a relationship.

Now here's my reasons:

Christianity changed my life completely.  Back when I was 13, I almost got expelled from school because of some stupid joke I played on the vice principle.  Then God came into my life and I accepted Him as my Lord and personal Savior, since I had nowhere to go.  My life had taken a new path from that very moment.  I established healthy relationships with my collegues and my parents. (God Bless them for all the times they have been there to comfort me.)  I'm a family man and I bring God into my family at every single moment.

I'm not pressuring you guys to accept Jesus, although I would love to see that.  (All the angels and saints in Heaven party after the salvation of one sinner.)  We're all human: flawed, imperfect, flesh.  But God can include His spirit in your life.

To find Him is your job.  Shoveling Jesus down another person's throat is not a good thing, as experience taught me before.  God loves you no matter what.  He wishes that none shall perish, but since He gave you free will, He cannot stop that from happening.

[Rampage]

Originally posted by "Multiple People"
DNA of God

You can't put God in a test tube.

Of course there are some lady out there who's trying to find the corpse of Jesus.  Jesus is risen.  So she is doomed to search for the rest of her life and never find it.

There is another case where they made a Eucharist host radioactive and traced the Body of Christ after being taken by a man.  It drives me nuts when people do that kind of thing to God.

Please Note:  God created science.  You cannot use a creation to test a creator.

EDIT: Edited quote.

[Top Gun]

Originally posted by Rampage
Christianity is not a religion; it's a relationship.

Now here's my reasons:

Christianity changed my life completely.  Back when I was 13, I almost got expelled from school because of some stupid joke I played on the vice principle.  Then God came into my life and I accepted Him as my Lord and personal Savior, since I had nowhere to go.

If you've changed your life by conforming to the instructions of the Bible then that's not proof of "God"'s existence. Even though the changes were positive. Although I agree with you that religion should be down to the individual and never forced upon someone. The Bible does contain some very positive codes of ethics which would benefit the world if everyone respected them (Love thy Neighbour etc.) although it has been used to justify sexual repression and barbarity as well.

[Kellan]

Originally posted by Rampage

Please Note:  God created science.  You cannot use a creation to test a creator.

So there's no way to test if he exists, or the origins of the universe, religious relics, and so on. But you can test other earthly things (referring to the relics).

You've made it impossible to disprove your assertion. However, I do find it a little hard to take entirely on, ah, faith.

[Kazan]

anything that exists in a system affects that system and is therefore discernable.

The universe is a system, if he existed he would affect that system, and we would be able to discern him.

In simplier english - if he existed we'd have empirical evidence

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Kazan


anything that exists in a system affects that system and is therefore discernable.

The universe is a system, if he existed he would affect that system, and we would be able to discern him.

In simplier english - if he existed we'd have empirical evidence

Well.....  there's some fundamental flaws there though - firstly, that God may not exist in a form we can understand - he may even be entire universe.  

Also, we can't be certain we have the methods to gain emprical evidence - or even recognising it for what it is.

There is noever going to be a solution to this debate, though - it's based entirely on beliefs.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

Originally posted by Rampage
Please Note:  God created science.  You cannot use a creation to test a creator.

or to put it in other words: You cannot use creation to test for invisible purple dragons...

At least you agree on the basic principle of Freedom of Religion: everyone should choose his/her own religion and not force it upon others... For which you have my respect.

DISCLAIMER: religious fanatics trying to pervert science AND religion are not included in this statement. Such people and their efforts should be resisted. Fanaticism/Fundamentalism does not produce positive results.

[Darkage]

Topic to long.......must be closed......seen to many of this.....stuff.

[Blitz_Lightning]

Take this story I once heard...

A college student attended a philosophy class which held a discussion about God's existence. The professor presented the following logic: "Has anyone in this class ever heard God?" No one spoke. "Has anyone in this class ever touched God?" Again, no one spoke. "Has anyone in this class ever seen God?" When no one spoke for the third time, he said, "Then there is no God."

One student thought for a second and then asked for permission to reply. Curious to hear this bold student's response, the professor agreed. The student stood up and asked the following: "Has anyone in this class ever heard our professor's brain?" Silence. "Has anyone in this class ever touched our professor's brain?" Absolute silence. "Has anyone in this class ever seen our professor's brain?" When no one in the class dared to speak, the student concluded, "Then, according to our professor's logic, it must be true that our professor has no brain!"

The student received an 'A' in the class.

[NotDefault]

Originally posted by darkage
Topic to long.......must be closed......seen to many of this.....stuff.

Let's let it live until it hits 1000 posts, at least.

Originally posted by Blitz_Lightning
Take this story I once heard...

A college student attended a philosophy class which held a discussion about God's existence. The professor presented the following logic: "Has anyone in this class ever heard God?" No one spoke. "Has anyone in this class ever touched God?" Again, no one spoke. "Has anyone in this class ever seen God?" When no one spoke for the third time, he said, "Then there is no God."

One student thought for a second and then asked for permission to reply. Curious to hear this bold student's response, the professor agreed. The student stood up and asked the following: "Has anyone in this class ever heard our professor's brain?" Silence. "Has anyone in this class ever touched our professor's brain?" Absolute silence. "Has anyone in this class ever seen our professor's brain?" When no one in the class dared to speak, the student concluded, "Then, according to our professor's logic, it must be true that our professor has no brain!"

The student received an 'A' in the class.

Cute.  It doesn't really mean anything, though.

[Blitz_Lightning]

The Probability of a Protein Being Formed by Chance is Zero  
There are 3 basic conditions for the formation of a useful protein:
First condition: that all the amino acids in the protein chain are of the right type and in the right sequence

Second condition: that all the amino acids in the chain are left-handed

Third condition: that all of these amino acids are united between them by forming a chemical bond called "peptide bond".

In order for a protein to be formed by chance, all three basic conditions must exist simultaneously. The probability of the formation of a protein by chance is equal to the multiplication of the probabilities of the realisation of each of these conditions.

For instance, for an average molecule comprising of 500 amino acids:

1. The probability of the amino acids being in the right sequence:

There are 20 types of amino acids used in the composition of proteins. According to this:  
 -The probability of each amino acid being chosen correctly among these 20 types = 1/20
-The probability of all of those 500 amino acids being chosen correctly = 1/20^500= 1/10^650
  = 1 chance 10^650


2. The probability of the amino acids being left-handed:

 
 -The probability of only one amino acid being left-handed = 1/2
-The probability of all of those 500 amino acids being left-handed at the same time = 1/2^500  =  1/10^150
  = 1 chance 10^150


3. The probability of the amino acids being combined with a "peptide bond":
Amino acids can combine with each other with different kinds of chemical bonds. In order for a useful protein to be formed, all the amino acids in the chain must have been combined with a special chemical bond called a "peptide bond". It is calculated that the probability of the amino acids being combined not with another chemical bond but by a peptide bond is 50%. In relation to this:
 

 -The probability of two amino acids being combined with a "peptide bond" = 1/2
-The probability of 500 amino acids all combining with peptide bonds = 1/2^499  = 1/10^150
  =  = 1 chance 10^150
 


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  TOTAL PROBABILITY = 1/10650 X 1/10150 X 1/10150 = 10950
 = 1 chance 10^950

[Blitz_Lightning]

from this site

What Were the Odds For Evolution?
Borel's law of probability states that if the odds of an event happening are worse than 1 in 1*10^50, then that event will NEVER HAPPEN.
Dr. Harold Morowitz, former professor of biophysics at Yale University, estimated that the probability of the chance formation of the smallest, simplest form of living organism known is 1 out of 10^340,000,000. One out of ten to the 340 millionth power is unimaginable odds. This large figure is a "1" followed by 340,000,000 zeroes. As you can see, Morowitz' odds against even the simplest life evolving were infinitely more than 1*10^50, making them impossible.

The very popular evolutionist, Dr. Carl Sagan of Cornell University, figured even steeper odds against the simplest life beginning naturally on a planet such as earth. According to Sagan, the probability would be about 1 out of 10^2,000,000,000. Try to imagine ten to the 2 billionth power. Pretty astounding odds. Interestingly, these impossible odds against evolution came from one of the most prominent evolutionists of our time.

According to evolutionists, we just got lucky. However, the odds against this luck have been shown above. Borel's law of probability should have been enough to refute evolution completely, but I know that the evolutionary "intellectuals" need more convincing data.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How Many Events Have Ever Occurred?
Here is a good mental workout: Let us attempt to figure the total amount of things that have taken place in the universe. Even evolutionists will agree that only a certain amount of events have taken place in this universe. If this total number of possible events is even barely close to the number of chances needed for the first step in evolution to take place, then we will agree that life did evolve from non-life. Here we go.
 


How Big Is the Universe?
We are attempting to determine how many events have ever taken place in the universe. To do so, we must first determine the size of the universe so that we can pack it with event-accomplishing particles.
So how big is the universe? Scientists have estimated it to be about 5,000,000,000 light years across. To give the evolutionists a little help, let's assume that it is a million times wider, taller, and deeper. The new diameter would be 5*10^15, or 5 quatrillion light years. This will make our experimental universe 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 bigger than the real universe. Many events can occur in such a big place.


5,000,000,000,000,000 light years = 30 octillion miles, or 3*10^28 miles in diameter.
 


How Small Is a Proton?
Now that we have thought big, lets think small. The effective diameter of a proton is about 2.4*10^-15 meters, or 2.4 femtometers. To help understand this tiny size, one inch is equal to about 10 trillion protons lined side to side.
Remember, we are trying to figure how many events could ever happen. We need to know how many particles exist so they could do stuff through the ages. That's what we're calculating.

We should use particles a good bit smaller than protons, so that the evolutionists will have enough particles to do lots and lots of events. By volume, the real universe contains billions and billions of times more space than particles. Since we are attempting to determine how many events have ever occurred in the universe, let us give the evolutionists the benefit of the doubt by completely filling our experimental universe with particles. This will give them billions of times more events to produce life.

Protons are way too big. We are figuring the total amount of events that have ever taken place, and more particles can do more events. We should give the evolutionists lots and lots of particles so that life has a better chance of evolving. Therefore, we will be using particles having a diameter 1 trillion times smaller than protons. This will allow us to pack our experimental universe with (1 trillion)^3, or 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, more particles than would be possible with "large" protons.

 


How Many Particles Could Fit In Our Universe?
First, let us determine how many of our extra-small particles could be lined across the diameter of our extra-large universe.

3*10^28 miles = 5*10^31 meters = 1.2*10^47 proton diameters = 1.2*10^59 extra-small particle diameters.
Therefore, 1.2*10^59 of the "smaller than possible" particles lined side to side would stretch across the "larger than possible" universe. This should provide plenty of particles to interact and make life from non-life.

 


So, How Many Particles?
Evolutionists believe that the Big Bang blew everything from a central point in the beginning. Therefore, this universe should be spherical. We will now figure the volume of our universe and pack it with particles.

Universe Diameter = 3*10^28 miles = 1.2*10^59 "small-particle" diameters
Universe Volume = (4/3)*(PI)*[(Diameter)^3]*(1/8)
Universe Volume = (4/3)*(PI)*[(1.2*10^59 "small-particle diameters)^3]*(1/8)
Universe Volume = 8*10^177 particles.
As mentioned before, our real universe is full of empty space, but this theoretical universe is packed full of "smaller than possible" particles. This increase in the number of particles has helped the terrible odds against evolution. The total amount of particles possible is 8*10^177. Remember that we generously allowed for a universe 1 million times wider than reality, and we used particles 1 trillion times smaller than protons.
 


How Quickly Could Each Particle Make Life?
Okay, now we have the number of particles available for life-making. How much can each particle do in a second? Since we don't know, let's be generous to our evolutionary friends. Let's assume that each of the 8*10^177 particles can participate in one trillion trillion trillion events at one time. This factor would be 1*10^36 events per second.

Activity of each particle = 1*10^36 events per second.
 


How Much Time To Produce Life?
Now that we know the amount of particles and the work-rate of each, let's determine the amount of time that they have to perform their life-producing tasks. I think that the current estimated life expectancy of the universe is about 30 billion years. This could be a little small or large; I'm not sure (I believe that the universe is only a couple of thousand years old). Anyhow, to give the evolutionists a little more time than they really have, let's multiply their time by 1 billion. This would give the universe 30 quatrillion years to produce life.
How many seconds are contained in 30 quatrillion years?


3*10^19 years = 1.1*10^22 days = 2.6*10^23 hours = 1*10^27 seconds
 


Finally, How Many Events Could Ever Occur?
The universe, crammed with 8*10^177 particles working at 1*10^36 events per second for 1*10^27 seconds, could only make:

(8*10^177)*(1*10^36)*(1*10^27) = 8*10^240 events.
 


Only 8*10^240 events could ever happen!
 

Dr. Morowitz postulated that life could evolve from non-life every 1 out of 1*10^340,000,000 events. The great Dr. Sagan calculated 1 out of every 1*10^2,000,000,000 events. However, only 8*10^240 events could ever be possible, in the entire universe, with all of the time possible.

According to Morowitz, we would need 1*10^340,000,000 events to produce life. Unfortunately, we would need 10^339,999,759 TIMES AS MANY EVENTS to have 1*10^340,000,000 events. Compared to Sagan's predictions, we would need 10^1,999,999,759 TIMES AS MANY events to achieve the odds necessary for life.

The total number of events ever possible was only 8*10^240. This was only 10% of 8*10^241, or 1% of 8*10^242, or 0.1% of 8*10^243. You can see that 8*10^240 was not enough events by any means to reach the number of events needed for the evolution of life. And we're talking about the most primitive, simple kind of life forming. These odds are impossible.

It is hard to argue with basic probability. Simple mathematics has helped us to realize that life could never evolve from non-life.

[Bobboau]

you seem to like this aproch
but I'm just gona edit this post as I find more

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/tt/1990/may09/23124.html

http://www.positiveatheism.org/crt/ghadiri.htm

http://nai.arc.nasa.gov/news_stories/news_detail.cfm?article=rna.cfm

http://www.nobel.se/chemistry/laureates/1989/illpres/index.html

http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od171/rnaworld171.htm (note this is actualy a Critique of the theory, this is how science works, we think of something find what's wrong then try to find a way that we can make it right)

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/1378/molrec.html

http://www-space.arc.nasa.gov/displaypage.cfm?page=Weber&branch=ssx

http://www.sp.uconn.edu/~gogarten/progenote/progenote.htm

im tired of reading through all this, here's about 9,620 more sites on the subject, you should look through as you will find a few of you're anti evolution sites that give more psudo-science "evedence" againced this

[Kazan]

Blitz you are posting crap, individual sources of pure musings with no back up.



First condition: that all the amino acids in the protein chain are of the right type and in the right sequence

there is no such thing as "right type" and "right sequence" life will build itself upon what it has, which is what ever type and sequence is there

Second condition: that all the amino acids in the chain are left-handed

once again wrong - looking at current state and saying because it's this way now, it must always be this way and that way must be a requirement - WRONG.. they just happened to be left-handed and that from then on their formed that way.  If they had origionally be right-handed they would be all right handed now

Third condition: that all of these amino acids are united between them by forming a chemical bond called "peptide bond".

easy chemistry




btw - odds are never zero.  Have you ever heard of the [confirmed many times] expiriement where they produced a chamber of atmosphere like the earth's early atmosphere and then sent 2 million volt bolts of man-made lightning through it [2 million volts is much less than real lightning] - AMINO ACIDS FORMED, in fact USEABLE AMINO ACIDS FORMED


in this planets early atmosphere the odds were IN FAVOR of it happening - every time they performed this expiriement amino acids formed, consistantly and without failure

[Bobboau]

"btw - odds are never zero"

what are the odds that he'll stick to the earliest starting of life now that he's getting backed into a corner and he has to actualy understand what he's talking about and not just copy and paste whole pages that he finds with google

[Kazan]

simple probability

the only thing that is completely impossible is complete impossibility itself

[mikhael]

Fools. Life does not exist, the universe is empty, and the babelfish proves there is no God. To whit:

[list=1]

• Area: Infinite
  The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy offers this definition of the word "Infinite": Infinite: Bigger than the biggest thing ever and then some. Much bigger than that in fact, really amazingly immense, a totally stunning size, real 'wow, that's big' time. Infinity is just so big that by comparison, bigness itself looks really titchy. Gigantic multiplied by colossal multiplied by staggeringly huge is the sort of concept we're trying to get across here.
  
• Imports: None
  It is impossible to import things into an infinite area, there being no outside to import things from.
  
• Exports: None.
  See Imports.
  
• Population: None.
  It is known that there are an infinite number of worlds, simply because there is an infinite amount of space for them to be in. However, not every one of them is inhabited. Therefore, there must be a finite number of inhabited worlds. Any finite number divided by infinity is as near to nothing as makes no odds, so the average population of the Universe can be said to be zero. From this it follows that the people you meet from time to time are merely the product of a deranged imagination.
  

Screw this 'odds of life forming' crap. The math is already against life from the jump.

And all this from a man who was known to go by 'D.N.A.'.

[Bobboau]

damn you, I wanted the 777th post!!!

[NotDefault]

Originally posted by Blitz_Lightning
Borel's law of probability states that if the odds of an event happening are worse than 1 in 1*10^50, then that event will NEVER HAPPEN.

I was just skimming your posts, and frankly any article that accepts this obviously has no grasp on reality.