Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 173376 comments on the Best of New Orleans story from Jan 6, 2011, titled Evolution vs. Creation. In it, Best of New Orleans reports that:

High school senior Zack Kopplin is leading the fight to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Best of New Orleans.

downhill246

Boca Raton, FL

#91028 May 28, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
You mean it's just ANOTHER Holy Piltdown Man? Who could have guessed? Not Defender, that's certain.
Dec 22, 2011

The Shroud of Turin, revered by some to be the burial cloth of Jesus Christ, was unlikely the work of medieval forgers but rather was instead caused by an unexplainable “flash of light,” according to a group of Italian scientists.

Researchers from Italy’s National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Economic Development spent five years attempting to replicate the shroud’s markings. They have concluded only something akin to ultraviolet lasers - far beyond the capability of medieval forgers - could have created the markings, Independent Online reported.

http://www.masslive.com/talk/index.ssf/2011/1...

Ouch!

“It is often that a ”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

person's mouth broke his nose.

#91029 May 28, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
Getting very tired. Downhill, the poll you linked did support your claim. Sorry again, I wrote "post" in my previous post.
I think I have had enough as well. Have a good one.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#91030 May 28, 2013
briky wrote:
<quoted text>
Uhm,,, Sure if you say so it has to be right. So what you are saying that we need to start studying kids so we will know the ones that don't fear monsters and dark are going to be common sense dumb?
I am not the one who said so, I am just repeating what science has discovered on the matter.
downhill246

Boca Raton, FL

#91031 May 28, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
downhill, I am too tired to deal with the shroud nonsense tonight. Check out the story on carbon dating of the shroud. It pretty much seals the deal that it was a fake.


Where have you been the last few years? Locked in your basement?

August 20, 2008
PRESS RELEASE: Los Alamos National Laboratory team of scientists prove carbon 14 dating of the Shroud of Turin wrong

COLUMBUS, Ohio, August 15 — In his presentation today at The Ohio State University’s Blackwell Center, Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) chemist, Robert Villarreal, disclosed startling new findings proving that the sample of material used in 1988 to Carbon-14 (C-14) date the Shroud of Turin, which categorized the cloth as a medieval fake, could not have been from the original linen cloth because it was cotton. According to Villarreal, who lead the LANL team working on the project, thread samples they examined from directly adjacent to the C-14 sampling area were “definitely not linen” and, instead, matched cotton. Villarreal pointed out that “the [1988] age-dating process failed to recognize one of the first rules of analytical chemistry that any sample taken for characterization of an area or population must necessarily be representative of the whole. The part must be representative of the whole. Our analyses of the three thread samples taken from the Raes and C-14 sampling corner showed that this was not the case.” Villarreal also revealed that, during testing, one of the threads came apart in the middle forming two separate pieces. A surface resin, that may have been holding the two pieces together, fell off and was analyzed. Surprisingly, the two ends of the thread had different chemical compositions, lending credence to the theory that the threads were spliced together during a repair.

LANL’s work confirms the research published in Thermochimica Acta (Jan. 2005) by the late Raymond Rogers, a chemist who had studied actual C-14 samples and concluded the sample was not part of the original cloth possibly due to the area having been repaired. This hypothesis was presented by M. Sue Benford and Joseph G. Marino in Orvieto, Italy in 2000. Benford and Marino proposed that a 16th Century patch of cotton/linen material was skillfully spliced into the 1st Century original Shroud cloth in the region ultimately used for dating. The intermixed threads combined to give the dates found by the labs ranging between 1260 and 1390 AD. Benford and Marino contend that this expert repair was necessary to disguise an unauthorized relic taken from the corner of the cloth. A paper presented today at the conference by Benford and Marino, and to be published in the July/August issue of the international journal Chemistry Today, provided additional corroborating evidence for the repair theory.

http://shroud.typepad.com/ohio_shroud_confere...

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#91032 May 28, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
I guess maybe I am tired or just can't think but I don't see what you mean by using more paper means more trees. I know they use wood for more than just paper. I logged a lot when I was a teen and it really rapes the earth, not only killing the trees that are cut but also killing any smaller ones that are in the way. Only good thing is I have seen in the last many years is that they are using still studs instead of 2x4 in lots of building.
Aah, you are behind the times. These days most paper pulp tends to come from tree farms where the trees are grown like a crop. No more going up into the mountains for trees, at least not for paper. Also since the trees are all planted at the same time they are all the same age. No waste of little trees, no big trees rotting away.

In my state they have preserved quite a bit of "old growth timber". Once you cut old growth it is pretty much gone forever since it takes several hundred years for the forest to stabilize to the point that it can be called old growth. You also have to have a forest that does not have forest fires. When I first moved out to Washington state there was still some old growth being harvested for the unique quality of the wood. It was inexpensive but still spendy at the time. Old growth timber has extremely straight tightly grained wood.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#91033 May 28, 2013
downhill246 wrote:
<quoted text>
Where have you been the last few years? Locked in your basement?
August 20, 2008
PRESS RELEASE: Los Alamos National Laboratory team of scientists prove carbon 14 dating of the Shroud of Turin wrong
COLUMBUS, Ohio, August 15 — In his presentation today at The Ohio State University’s Blackwell Center, Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) chemist, Robert Villarreal, disclosed startling new findings proving that the sample of material used in 1988 to Carbon-14 (C-14) date the Shroud of Turin, which categorized the cloth as a medieval fake, could not have been from the original linen cloth because it was cotton. According to Villarreal, who lead the LANL team working on the project, thread samples they examined from directly adjacent to the C-14 sampling area were “definitely not linen” and, instead, matched cotton. Villarreal pointed out that “the [1988] age-dating process failed to recognize one of the first rules of analytical chemistry that any sample taken for characterization of an area or population must necessarily be representative of the whole. The part must be representative of the whole. Our analyses of the three thread samples taken from the Raes and C-14 sampling corner showed that this was not the case.” Villarreal also revealed that, during testing, one of the threads came apart in the middle forming two separate pieces. A surface resin, that may have been holding the two pieces together, fell off and was analyzed. Surprisingly, the two ends of the thread had different chemical compositions, lending credence to the theory that the threads were spliced together during a repair.
LANL’s work confirms the research published in Thermochimica Acta (Jan. 2005) by the late Raymond Rogers, a chemist who had studied actual C-14 samples and concluded the sample was not part of the original cloth possibly due to the area having been repaired. This hypothesis was presented by M. Sue Benford and Joseph G. Marino in Orvieto, Italy in 2000. Benford and Marino proposed that a 16th Century patch of cotton/linen material was skillfully spliced into the 1st Century original Shroud cloth in the region ultimately used for dating. The intermixed threads combined to give the dates found by the labs ranging between 1260 and 1390 AD. Benford and Marino contend that this expert repair was necessary to disguise an unauthorized relic taken from the corner of the cloth. A paper presented today at the conference by Benford and Marino, and to be published in the July/August issue of the international journal Chemistry Today, provided additional corroborating evidence for the repair theory.
http://shroud.typepad.com/ohio_shroud_confere...
And you did not read the article in my link that debunked that claim.

That was a made up story.

http://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/show/cl...

“The Edge”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Of Tomorow

#91034 May 28, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
I have a brain thank you. I don't remember rattling your chain for your opinion.
Gosh trolly , who's head did you steal it out of? We know it isn't yours!

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#91035 May 28, 2013
imagine2011 wrote:
<quoted text>
When we don't believe what you preach is true....
and...
you don't believe what we preach is true...
then we need either both or none taught in schools.
Fair is fair.
It would give the children a chance to make up their own mind.
You're not allowed to teach religion in school.

ID and creationism are religion.

If you want to teach ID and creationism have a separate class

Science and religion are NOT compatible.

Science disproves religion.
downhill246

Boca Raton, FL

#91036 May 28, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
And you did not read the article in my link that debunked that claim.
That was a made up story.
http://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/show/cl...
Joe Nickell use to be a magician and a riverboat gambler.

"If after reviewing this update you conclude, as Barrie Schwortz does, that 'a number of Joe Nickell's claims are either grossly inaccurate or totally in error,' I hope you will alert your readers to these discrepancies in future publications. If, on the other hand, you continue to believe that the views presented by Nickell's are scientifically sound and fairly presented, then I hope you will at least let your readers know that there are other Shroud authorities, many of whom are professional scientists who have studied the Shroud in person, that take strong exception to Mr. Nickell's views and presentation of facts."

http://www.nhne.com/newsflashes/nfsidigestshr...

"Although Nickell's theory, like McCrone' s, is often used as prime evidence against the Shroud's authenticity, it is significant that neither of these theories have been supported by any respected scientific journal. And while the casual reader may be convinced by Nickel’s arguments, those abreast of sindonological research are appalled by the unscientific approach of Nickell, who misquotes or quotes out of context from various scientific and scholarly investigations."
http://72.14.207.104/search?q= cache:dNMGEm_ZIo8J:www.roca.or g/oa/65/65m.htm+Joe+Nickell+ro ca.org&hl=en&lr=&s trip=1

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#91037 May 28, 2013
Darn I keep doing that somehow

Sorry admin.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#91038 May 28, 2013
One more article on the shroud. The claims of contamination raising the date of the shroud has been totally debunked. To contaminate the shroud so it would date to 36 AD would more than double its weight:

http://mcri.org/home/section/63-64-293-351/am...
downhill246

Boca Raton, FL

#91039 May 28, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
And you did not read the article in my link that debunked that claim.
That was a made up story.
http://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/show/cl...


Joe Nickell is not a scientist.

Dear Editor:

Joe Nickell has attacked my scientific competence and honesty in his latest publication on the Shroud of Turin. Everything I have done investigating the shroud had the goal of testing some hypothesis [Schwalbe, L. A., Rogers, R. N., "Physics and Chemistry of the Shroud of Turin: Summary of the 1978 Investigation," Analytica Chimica Acta 135, 3 (1982); Rogers R. N., Arnoldi A., "The Shroud of Turin: an amino-carbonyl reaction (Maillard reaction) may explain the image formation," in Melanoidins vol. 4, Ames J.M. ed., Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg, 2003, pp. 106-113].

My latest paper [Rogers, R. N., "Studies on the radiocarbon sample from the Shroud of Turin," Thermochimica Acta 425/1-2, 189-194 (2005)] is no exception. I accepted the radiocarbon results, and I believed that the "invisible reweave" claim was highly improbable. I used my samples to test it. One of the greatest embarrassments a scientist can face is to have to agree with the lunatic fringe. So, Joe, should I suppress the information, as Walter McCrone did the results from Mark Anderson, his own MOLE expert?

Incidentally, I knew Walter since the 1950s and had compared explosives data with him. I was the one who "commissioned" him to look at the samples that I took in Turin, when nobody else would trust him. I designed the sampling system and box, and I was the person who signed the paper work in Turin so that I could hand-carry the samples back to the US. The officials in Turin and King Umberto would not allow Walter to touch the relic. Walter lied to me about how he would handle the samples, and he early ruined them for additional chemical tests. Incidentally, has anyone seen direct evidence that Walter found Madder on the cloth? I can refute almost every claim he made, and I debated the subject with his people at a Gordon Conference. I can present my evidence as photomicrographs of classical tests, spectra, and mass spectra.

Now Joe thinks I am a "Shroud of Turin devotee," a "pro-authenticity researcher," and incompetent at microanalysis. If he ever read any of my professional publications, he would know that I have international recognition as an expert on chemical kinetics. I have a medal for Exceptional Civilian Service from the US Air Force, and I have developed many microanalytical methods. I was elected to be a Fellow of a national laboratory. A cloud still hangs over Walter with regard to the Vinland map. Joe does not take his job as "Research Director" very seriously. If he thinks I am a "true believer," I will put him solidly on the "far-right" lunatic fringe.

Joe did not understand the method or importance of the results of the pyrolysis/mass spectrometry analyses, and I doubt that he understands the fundamental science behind either visible/ultraviolet spectrometry or fluorescence. He certainly does not understand chemical kinetics. If he wants to argue my results, I suggest that we stick to observations, natural laws, and facts. I am a skeptic by nature, but I believe all skeptics should be held to the same ethical and scientific standards we require of others.

Sincerely,
Raymond N. Rogers
Fellow (Retired)
University of California, Los Alamos National Laboratory
Los Alamos, NM, USA

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#91040 May 28, 2013
downhill246 wrote:
<quoted text>
Dec 22, 2011
The Shroud of Turin, revered by some to be the burial cloth of Jesus Christ, was unlikely the work of medieval forgers but rather was instead caused by an unexplainable “flash of light,” according to a group of Italian scientists.
Researchers from Italy’s National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Economic Development spent five years attempting to replicate the shroud’s markings. They have concluded only something akin to ultraviolet lasers - far beyond the capability of medieval forgers - could have created the markings, Independent Online reported.
http://www.masslive.com/talk/index.ssf/2011/1...
Ouch!
Ouch? Hardly.
Actually, the entire circumference of the fibers are discolored, but not the centers - which would not have occurred in the manner in which Dr. Di Lazzaro suggests - with a high frequency and high intensity light source. I find Dr. Di Lazzaro's remarks might indicate something more than a scientific interest in the shroud.
"When one talks about a flash of light being able to colour a piece of linen in the same way as the shroud, discussion inevitably touches on things like miracles and resurrection,"
and they "hope our results can open up a philosophical and theological debate".

It is not very objective to advance the premise "colour a piece of linen in the same way as the shroud" when it does NOT colour a piece of linen in the same way as the shroud.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#91041 May 28, 2013
downhill246 wrote:
<quoted text>
Joe Nickell use to be a magician and a riverboat gambler.
"If after reviewing this update you conclude, as Barrie Schwortz does, that 'a number of Joe Nickell's claims are either grossly inaccurate or totally in error,' I hope you will alert your readers to these discrepancies in future publications. If, on the other hand, you continue to believe that the views presented by Nickell's are scientifically sound and fairly presented, then I hope you will at least let your readers know that there are other Shroud authorities, many of whom are professional scientists who have studied the Shroud in person, that take strong exception to Mr. Nickell's views and presentation of facts."
http://www.nhne.com/newsflashes/nfsidigestshr...
"Although Nickell's theory, like McCrone' s, is often used as prime evidence against the Shroud's authenticity, it is significant that neither of these theories have been supported by any respected scientific journal. And while the casual reader may be convinced by Nickel’s arguments, those abreast of sindonological research are appalled by the unscientific approach of Nickell, who misquotes or quotes out of context from various scientific and scholarly investigations."
http://72.14.207.104/search?q= cache:dNMGEm_ZIo8J:www.roca.or g/oa/65/65m.htm+Joe+Nickell+ro ca.org&hl=en&lr=&s trip=1
Sorry, too late to check out your site thoroughly, but it looks extremely amateurish. I think I will go with the professionals. Sorry.

“Day is Day”

Level 3

Since: May 13

Night is Night

#91042 May 28, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> Gosh trolly , who's head did you steal it out of? We know it isn't yours!
Since you seem to jump in on my posts to someone else I thought I would return the favor.

Can you not read. That creatard left a bit ago. His last post was he had enough or something like that. Do you always whip dead horses while you ramble. lol

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#91044 May 28, 2013
Let's go over some debunked claims.

Shroud fans have said that no one knows how it could have been made. The fact is more than one way to reproduce the Shroud using 14th century technology exists.

The claim that the shroud was "contaminated" by fire. Debunked by people who calculated how much the shroud would have to have gained in mass to date at a 14th century date.

The next claim was that the cloth dated was a patch. That is extremely unlikely. They had to hit an invisibly repaired patch or hit an obvious patch, neither one seems very likely.

The more you add up the facts the more obvious that the Church was right in their first guess, the shroud is a fake.

“The Edge”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Of Tomorow

#91045 May 28, 2013
briky wrote:
<quoted text>
Since you seem to jump in on my posts to someone else I thought I would return the favor.
Can you not read. That creatard left a bit ago. His last post was he had enough or something like that. Do you always whip dead horses while you ramble. lol

After you're gone, I'll post one for you too!
RIP briky

“Day is Day”

Level 3

Since: May 13

Night is Night

#91048 May 28, 2013
None of you know what to think about me and that is what I like and how I live my life. I refuse to be figured out, analyzed or be made to pick a side. Now half of you will look at a glass of water and see it as half empty "The Pessimists" the other half will look at that same half glass of water and see it as half full. "The Optimists". That is what limits you and limits what you can accomplish.

Me? That is easy. While the Optimist and the Pessimist argued over whether the glass was half full or half empty, I drank it, quenched my thirst and said its empty now, problem solved. Yeppers I am an "Opportunist".

Life is what you make of it. Don’t waste time on BS. Have fun and live.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#91049 May 29, 2013
downhill246 wrote:
<quoted text>
Where have you been the last few years? Locked in your basement?
August 20, 2008
PRESS RELEASE: Los Alamos National Laboratory team of scientists prove carbon 14 dating of the Shroud of Turin wrong
COLUMBUS, Ohio, August 15 — In his presentation today at The Ohio State University’s Blackwell Center, Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) chemist, Robert Villarreal, disclosed startling new findings proving that the sample of material used in 1988 to Carbon-14 (C-14) date the Shroud of Turin, which categorized the cloth as a medieval fake, could not have been from the original linen cloth because it was cotton. According to Villarreal, who lead the LANL team working on the project, thread samples they examined from directly adjacent to the C-14 sampling area were “definitely not linen” and, instead, matched cotton. Villarreal pointed out that “the [1988] age-dating process failed to recognize one of the first rules of analytical chemistry that any sample taken for characterization of an area or population must necessarily be representative of the whole. The part must be representative of the whole. Our analyses of the three thread samples taken from the Raes and C-14 sampling corner showed that this was not the case.” Villarreal also revealed that, during testing, one of the threads came apart in the middle forming two separate pieces. A surface resin, that may have been holding the two pieces together, fell off and was analyzed. Surprisingly, the two ends of the thread had different chemical compositions, lending credence to the theory that the threads were spliced together during a repair.
LANL’s work confirms the research published in Thermochimica Acta (Jan. 2005) by the late Raymond Rogers, a chemist who had studied actual C-14 samples and concluded the sample was not part of the original cloth possibly due to the area having been repaired. This hypothesis was presented by M. Sue Benford and Joseph G. Marino in Orvieto, Italy in 2000. Benford and Marino proposed that a 16th Century patch of cotton/linen material was skillfully spliced into the 1st Century original Shroud cloth in the region ultimately used for dating. The intermixed threads combined to give the dates found by the labs ranging between 1260 and 1390 AD. Benford and Marino contend that this expert repair was necessary to disguise an unauthorized relic taken from the corner of the cloth. A paper presented today at the conference by Benford and Marino, and to be published in the July/August issue of the international journal Chemistry Today, provided additional corroborating evidence for the repair theory.
http://shroud.typepad.com/ohio_shroud_confere...
Considering the image was based on those painted in illustrations and not on what a person of the time and lineage of this Jesus would look like, it's pretty easy to tell it was a fake from the start, most believers don't even regard it as authentic for that very reason. Remember, your myths are about the Middle East people, in the Middle East, with Arabic bloodlines ... he'd look like Arabic, not European.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#91050 May 29, 2013
briky wrote:
None of you know what to think about me and that is what I like and how I live my life. I refuse to be figured out, analyzed or be made to pick a side. Now half of you will look at a glass of water and see it as half empty "The Pessimists" the other half will look at that same half glass of water and see it as half full. "The Optimists". That is what limits you and limits what you can accomplish.
Me? That is easy. While the Optimist and the Pessimist argued over whether the glass was half full or half empty, I drank it, quenched my thirst and said its empty now, problem solved. Yeppers I am an "Opportunist".
Life is what you make of it. Don’t waste time on BS. Have fun and live.
You are a religious nut, that is because you buy into made up stories and superstitions instead of facts, that is what makes you a religious nut.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Weird Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 4 min grace-fallen 169,214
Change-one-of-six-letters (Dec '12) 25 min SweLL GirL 5,879
Keep a Word.....Drop a Word Game (Sep '13) 32 min SweLL GirL 9,371
Change 1 letter game! (Nov '11) 34 min SweLL GirL 5,119
CHANGE One letter CHANCE (Sep '08) 36 min SweLL GirL 32,699
Denny Crain's Place (May '10) 1 hr TALLYHO 8541 18,637
News Man tries to dig up dead father to argue with h... 1 hr Mike 7
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 2 hr TALLYHO 8541 43,398
More from around the web