Please freepmail me if you want on/off this list
Posted on 10/27/2009 10:23:15 AM PDT by NYer
ROME, OCT. 26, 2009 (Zenit.org).- As the theory of evolution turns 150 years old, one group of scholars is calling it a scientific impossibility.
After a year of conferences celebrating the 150th anniversary of Darwin's 1859 book, "On the Origin of Species," a Nov. 9 conference is planned to provide empirical proof to debunk evolution.
Rome's Pope Pius V University will host the daylong conference that will present a scientific refutation of evolution theory.
Peter Wilders and H. M. Owen, organizers of the event, told ZENIT that the conference is aimed to "stimulate debate among scientists" and that it is particularly geared to university students.
"Being young, they have less built-in resistance to new data that conflicts with establishment dogma," a statement from the organizers explained.
"Darwinian evolution has become the accepted paradigm of the scientific community," they noted. "New research data that challenges that paradigm is automatically rejected for philosophical rather than scientific reasons.
"Results of recent empirical research published by scientific academies refutes the basic principles of the geological time-scale. It reduces the age of rocks and therefore the fossils in them. The theory of evolution is undergirded by both the time-scale and the age of fossils.
"This evidence from sedimentology harmonizes with the latest findings in genetics, paleontology, physics, and other scientific disciplines. The implications of this research are fatal for Darwinism."
Not available
According to Russian sedimentologist Alexander Lalamov, "Everything contained in Darwin’s 'Origin of Species' depends upon rocks forming slowly over enormous periods of time. The November conference demonstrates with empirical data that such geological time is not available for evolution."
Recently returned from a geological conference in Kazan, sedimentologist Guy Berthault will present the findings of several sedimentological studies conducted and published in Russia. In one of these, the age of the rock formation surveyed was found to be 0.01% of the age attributed to it by the geological time-scale -- instead of an age of 10,000,000 years, the actual age was no more than 10,000 years.
"Contrary to conventional wisdom," Lalamov observed, "these rocks formed quickly, and the fossils they contain must be relatively young. This finding contradicts the evolutionary interpretation of the fossil record."
According to U.S. biophysicist Dean Kenyon, "Biological macroevolution collapses without the twin pillars of the geological time-scale and the fossil record as currently interpreted. Few scientists would contest this statement. This is why the upcoming conference concentrates on geology and paleontology. Recent research in these two disciplines adds powerful support to the already formidable case against teaching Darwinian macroevolution as if it were proven fact."
"The Scientific Impossibility of Evolution" conference is being held in direct response to Benedict XVI's request that both sides of the evolution controversy be heard.
Thomas Seiler, a participant in the conference, said: "In the light of astounding new scientific breakthroughs, particularly in geology, we hope the worldwide scientific community will acknowledge the overwhelming evidence against the theory of evolution."
--- --- ---
Abstracts of the presentations: http://sites.google.com/site/scientificcritiqueofevolution/
LOL, those boys at the onion sure get around.
I’ve never heard of Pope Pius V University.
You know I was thinking the same thing.
Anyway 10,000 years is still too old for a 6,000-year-old earth.
You’re going to hang your hat on that?!
“”Darwinian evolution has become the accepted paradigm of the scientific community,” they noted. “New research data that challenges that paradigm is automatically rejected for philosophical rather than scientific reasons.”
True.
“In one of these, the age of the rock formation surveyed was found to be 0.01% of the age attributed to it by the geological time-scale — instead of an age of 10,000,000 years, the actual age was no more than 10,000 years.”
Off by one decimal place. 10 million to 10 thousand is a factor of 1,000. The inverse is .1%, not .01%.
for later reading
ping
Relatively the same order of magnitude. This can be expected to be refined over the years with the addition of other data points. The real issue is coming from 10M to 10K.
He’s saying that the correct figure is 10,000 years. He’s not calling it an estimate.
This figure disproves all of creationist theory by his own logic.
I suppose he could start looking for 10 million year-old human fossils. If he found a bunch of these he would have something.
Hang my hat on 350 years of observations by dedicated Christians?
You bet I am.
You missed my point. The “estimate” of the age of the Earth has gone from 5+ billion years to 10,000 and you want to quibble over the last 4,000? Or maybe you don’t...
I think you missed my point.
Dr. Berthault just “proved” that his formation is 10,000 years old.
That means the 6000-year-old origin of the earth is false.
Even if he were correct, he’s established that one formation that’s only 10 million years-old is now older than creationists claim the universe to be.
He hasn’t established anything about any other formation on this planet or any other.
Without demonstrating that the current estimate that scientists use for the earth’s age is wrong, he’s “proven” that creationists are wrong.
If creationists had any interest in facts, this should bother them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.