The Scientific Impossibility of Evolution
| October 29, 2009 | Posted by Mario A. Lopez under Creationism, Culture, Darwinism, Evolution, Science |
November 9, 2009 9:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. St. Pius V University (Rome)
In Response to Pope Benedict XVI’s Call for Both Sides to be Heard
The 150th anniversary of Darwin’s “Origin of the Species” in November 2009 will be the occasion for a unique conference at Pope Pius V University in Rome presenting a scientific refutation of evolution theory. 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 ground-breaking 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 million years, the actual age was no more than 10 thousand years. “Contrary to the 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.” www.sedimentology.fr
This should be interesting. Read more…
37 Responses to The Scientific Impossibility of Evolution
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Well of course Nak, no deception of evolution is ever suspicious to you no matter how flagrant, and no evidence for design is ever compelling no matter how overwhelming:
The point is Missing Links ARE MISSING!!!
The Fossil Record – Does It Support Evolution Or Creation? – Dr. Arthur Jones
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dVQeeY-Val0
Hi Scott,
No problem – you just failed to see what I had actually been commenting on (Brent’s comment re: Cabal’s, who had, indeed, brought up card dealing).
Now I understand. In this discussion regarding intelligent design and probabilities, you just happened to start musing about decks of cards.
No, as I mentioned, I was commenting on a comment which was, in fact, about decks of cards. You just must not have seen the previouscoment.
If I assumed that it was somehow connected to the context of the immediate discussion, that was my misunderstanding. Please forgive me for interrupting your thread on poker.
Actually, the original comment mentioned bridge.
At least now I know why your comment had little to offer on the odds for or against random evolution: you were talking about a different subject
Yes, that is absolutely correct. That and the notion of characterizing a given outcome as specified for the purposes of presenting the odds of its occurrance as being so low as to be impossible (without the magic hand of the Designer, that is).
However, were I to have commented on “random evolution”, I would have mentioned that calling it “random evolution” is a caricature.
So, BA77 – is all of your ‘evidence’ going to consist of links to youtube videos by someone you are impressed by?
Would a youtube video countering what is claimed in the video you link to be sufficient evidence to refute what you present?
nderwood:
That and the notion of characterizing a given outcome as specified for the purposes of presenting the odds of its occurrance as being so low as to be impossible
I understand what you mean. To attempt to determine the odds of the universe and life exactly as they are now, and calling that outcome “specified” would not be accurate. Supposing that these things came about without design, surely numerous other variations would have been possible.
But if we follow that reasoning, it’s just a variation on multiverses. Who knows how many universes there are? It was bound to happen. Or, who knows how many ways life could have evolved? It was only a matter of time.
But in both cases we’re grasping at straws, adding probability without a shred of evidence to somehow make the desired result seem reasonable. That’s what I call “magic.”
derwood,
I really don’t care,,,hey how about evolving a bacteria into something other than a bacteria of the same type,,,Not much just evolve it into a different bacteria,,,doesn’t sound hard does it derwood? so you just show me that proof and I will concede that you are not delusional! Deal?
derwood, almost forgot, here is the video for that:
Is Antibiotic Resistance Evidence For Evolution? – The Fitness Test
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BwWpRSYgOE
Testing the Biological Fitness of Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria – 2008
http://www.answersingenesis.or.....-drugstore
List Of Degraded Molecular Abilities Of Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria:
http://www.trueorigin.org/bacteria01.asp
Yes, it should be interesting. I hope it might give Dembski pause to more accurately consider the claims of YEC! His interpretation of Genesis 1 is clearly incredible and clearly not what the text is saying. You cannot interpret Genesis literally and come up with the millions of years scenario that ID takes as fact. A recent YEC critique and rebuttal of his views of Genesis is a must read before you make up your mind on this issue.
Mr. Dembski, I hope too will read it and interact with some of the criticisms it deals with. For your view to be credible, you will need to defend it against these types of critiques.
Here it is:http://www.answersingenesis.or.....cy-refuted