Scholars Aim to Disprove Darwin (As Theory Turns 150, Scientists Say It's Impossible)

zna ^ | October 26, 2009

[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/

[ROLF of the HILL COUNTRY]

“That means the 6000-year-old origin of the earth is false.”

I'm not in this fight, but I have to ask you a question:

How is it you think Christianity teaches that the Earth is only 6,000 years old? It doesn't. In fact, both Judaism and Christianity are both silent on the subject. It is not an article of faith.

Implying that it's doctrine because some renaissance monk concocted a timeline with that figure, is like saying the phrase “separation of church and state” is a cornerstone of the First Amendment.

[pgyanke]

Y’know, I don’t hang my hat on a specified date or age. I see the creation story as a story told by the infinite to the finite in a way we can understand it... much like a bedtime story to a child. I don’t see it as a science manual for carbon-dating the world.

That said, I also don’t put much faith in these scientific “proofs” that continue to swing the estimate of the age of the earth by billions of years... that’s a huge margin of error. I do find it fascinating, though, that the current swing “proof” swings so strongly in the direction of the faithful...

[D Rider]

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.

All of creationist theory? Your logic is just silly. As anyone with a science background will attest to. That is as long as you take "creation" out of the argument.

If you don't take "creation" out of the argument, then all I can say is that you have a valid point.

[pgyanke]

He’s saying that the correct figure is 10,000 years. He’s not calling it an estimate.

Really? Read it again, genius. He is calling it an estimate. Quote from the article: "... the actual age was no more than 10,000 years."

This figure disproves all of creationist theory by his own logic.

Then, by your logic, you have disproved your own argument by your obfuscation. Good day.

[Oztrich Boy]

Pope Pius V University

Google gives 14 hits, ALL related to this confab

Calling

[bezelbub]

Google for Libera Università degli Studi "San Pio V" - or have a look here. I think they just rented out their rooms, unfortunately for them to a group of lunatics.

[Varda]

I did the same search and came up with the same load of nothing. It’s also not listed in directories of universities in Rome. Thanks bezelbub for finding the place.

“they just rented out their rooms, unfortunately for them to a group of lunatics.”

Not lunatics, fundamentalists. They really can’t back off from evolution or the age of the earth, Sola Scriptura/plain sense of scripture/biblical literalism depends on it.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

You are incorrect.

You're referencing a press release for a YEC conference. Dr. Berthault repeatedly refers to his claim that the Tonto formation dating is 10,000 years old.

Here's one of his papers on the subject from 2004.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

How is it you think Christianity teaches that the Earth is only 6,000 years old?

I don't. That has been the traditional young earth creationist claim for over a century.

You're new to these threads and will just have to catch up. ;)

[<1/1,000,000th%]

That said, I also don’t put much faith in these scientific “proofs” that continue to swing the estimate of the age of the earth by billions of years... that’s a huge margin of error.

This has never been the case. Talk about obfuscation.

[campaignPete R-CT]

i spent years studying astrophysics, only to find out now that everything I needed to know about the topic ... I learned in kindergarten.

I’m too old for a young earth theory.

[campaignPete R-CT]

what I am called if I am anti-youngEarth & anti-EVOS? Am I like the line in the middle of the road? Can I get ZOTTED fromt his site for talking about mitochondrial RNA or the Hubble constant?

You guys bore me, so either go to grad school or join a campaign. That is your choice in life. You cannot stay on freeRepublic forever, avoiding responsibility.