Anti-Darwin speaker gagged at Vatican evolution conference

March 4, 2009

Pontifical Gregorian University in RomeThe start of a high-powered Vatican-sponsored acadmeic conference on evolution was anything but fossilized.The third STOQ International Conference, called Biological Evolution, Facts and Theories, began on Tuesday at the Pontifical Gregorian University (picture right) under the patronage of the Vatican’s Pontifical Council for Culture.The conference, which has been organised together with the University of Notre Dame to mark the 200th anniversary of the birth of Charles Darwin, had barely gotten underway when charges of censorship and undemocratic and unacademic behaviour began flying.At the end of the first session Oktar Babuna, a Turkish doctor and collaborator of prominent Turkish anti-Darwin campaigner Harun Yahya,asked for the floor to put forward a question. Babuna, a proponent of the Islamic creationist campaign against evolution, spoke about his view that there were insufficient transitional forms from species to species to support the theory of evolution.After he began speaking two professors on the dias, Francisco J. Ayala of the University of California at Irvine and Douglas Futuyma of the State University of New York were visibly irritated. Someone in the hall can be heard saying “turn the microphone off” and seconds later two organisers approached Babuna. One of them abruptly took the microphone away from Babuna and another ordered him to go back to his seat. Watch it all here“After I walked back to my seat someone said “only evolutionists can ask questions,” Babuna told Reuters afterwards. “This is very anti-democratic and very unacademic. If this is a scientific meeting … if you have scientific questions to ask, they should be responded to scientifically, everybody accepts that … if you force people to shut up and don’t let them ask any question … then it is not a scientific theory but an ideology.” The spat was filmed by Babuna’s associate Dr Cihat Gundogdu, who put Atlas of Creationan edited version on the Harun Yahya website.Both men attended the conference with English and Italian versions of Harun Yahya’s super-slick mega-book Atlas of Creation (picture left) in hand. We have done numerous blogs on Islamic creationism, its proponents and its opponents. Some of the links are listed below. But what do you think about the debate and, more importantly, do you think officials at the Gregorian University were right or wrong to yank the microphone from Babuna at a scientific conference?http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2009/02/05/just-before-darwin-day-pew-reviews-faith-and-evolution-in-us/http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2008/12/24/a-one-stop-shop-for-the-latest-on-islamic-creationism/http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2008/11/25/harun-yahya-dangles-big-prizes-for-creationism-essays/http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2008/10/27/richard-dawkins-rips-into-harun-yahya-and-muslim-creationism/http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2008/06/19/harun-yahya-preaches-islam-slams-darwin-and-awaits-jesus/http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2008/04/07/harun-yahyas-islamic-creationist-book-pops-up-in-scotland/

196 comments

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/

Thanks to Mr.Babuna. This is the power of Muslim. real muslims must be like this. thanks…

Posted by Elly | Report as abusive

I find this behaviour disrespecful. It is most certainly unacceptable to take the microphone away from a science person, a doctor, to keep him from pointing out his own view and asking legitimate questions at the public conference which he is attending. This is undemocratic. Anyone should be able to express his/her own view.

Posted by Sarah Roosherd | Report as abusive

Evolutionist afraid from evolutionist. When Turkish speaker Mr.Babuna was talking Futuyma couldn’t say anything. he asked if there is a transitional form show us, nobody gave answer or showed anything. This means tehre is no evolution. This conference is just shameful for vatican.

Posted by Ahmad | Report as abusive

This is an undemocratic issue like Davos. In Davos our pri-minister was prevented, in Vatican our famous dr is prevented. They were only saying that Allah created everything. Why Vatican did not let him to talk?He is absolutely right.

Posted by cemil | Report as abusive

The officials at the Gregorian University are absolutely wrong!If this is a scientific conference everybody can ask any kind of question !This is a very unti-democratic conference, it is also very suprising that this conference is sponsored by Vatican.The creationists couldn’t talk at this conference, it is a shame !

Posted by ceyla | Report as abusive

Oktar Babuna you are my hero. Thanks to God that God created people like hero Dr Babuna

Posted by samed | Report as abusive

why do they thake the microphone away? ‘Cause they are affraid the truth will be known by everyone once more: that the evolution is a big lie! This behaviour proves once more the dishonisty of evolutionnists

Posted by Sarah | Report as abusive

1:0 I’m all for the creationist side. I don’t even understand what the Vatican is trying to do sponsoring an anti-Christ event posing Darwin as a holy man. Shame on you all!!!

Posted by karen | Report as abusive

I am a doctor in France.I see one truth here: Babuna won a victory!this is the victory of faith against evolution,thanks to Harun Yahya, bravo!!

Posted by mike | Report as abusive

This shows how fanatic and undemocratic the Darwinists are. They cannot even stand to hear a question against Darwinism. This also shows, they do not have anything to defend their theory. If they had even one evidence, they would stand there and defend it. Truth cannot be stopped, even by turning off the microphone. Dawkins also had rejected to have a debate with Adnan Oktar. They are aware that they have no evidence to defend their theory, that’s why they always run away! this is the real end of Darwinism. There is no one left on earth to defend it.

Posted by kaan | Report as abusive

If there are no transitional forms, what can darwinists say? Nothing!!! Bravo to Mr Oktar Babuna, he was the one who is telling the truths. The truths knock down the evolutionists there. Evolution is a lie and creation is the scientific truth. hahah how futuyma flees:)

Posted by gerald | Report as abusive

I congratulate Babuna and his teacher Yahya.The thing is it is quite suprising that Vatican can sponsor such a meeting where the faith is denied through the evolution lie! How dare can Vatican do such a thing?unbelievable!

Posted by col19 | Report as abusive

Throw the Atlas of Creation on their faces..Evolutionists know the truth but they can’t handle it. Taking the microphone away at a public conference..my my they must be really afraid of Adnan Oktar ha?

Posted by mikael | Report as abusive

I am shocked of such an unrespectful behavior.No matter who, you can not take a microphone away from a speaker. This is like the Davos case.I am sure the world will react to this, AND SHOULD!

Posted by samuel | Report as abusive

Bravo!!! Scientific MEN!!! SCIENCEPEOPLE!!?!? If you are right why do you intend to reply? Do not you have any reply for no-transitional forms? Donot you have any amoung 100 million fossils? Do not you have any one form amoung 1.5 million species living in the world now!!!????OOppps what do you say about your theory?Listen, science is not believing, but putting your absolute evidence for your theory, your ideas, your etc to use it in your scientific talks. If you do not have any evidence and only you talk with expectations, and thoughts, than someone will come and make you to walk away in front of all attendees. And than it is not possible for you to try to explain your wrong ideas. we have a idiom in Turkish “drawing your charisma” it is impossible to take it back.Please donot intend to change their creation believes of our Christian Brothers. When CHRIST comes, every conflict among them and between us will be solved by HIM. And we live peace and brotherhood all thogether in a wonderful world. You never stop this changes of world.

Posted by Ali Gurcay | Report as abusive

I believe this can only happen in dictatorships. That censorship of Vatican Darwinism conference proves that Darwinism is an ideology without any scientific evidences. Two Darwinists Ayala and Futuyma have proven that they can not respond to any scientific evidence and in fact they have also proven that Darwinism is their ideology and not science.I received a copy of Creation Atlas too. It is the best book I have ever seen. I congratulate Harunyahya and his team for eradicating Darwinism from the world.Congratulations Dr. Babuna and Dr. Gundogdu. Organizers of Vatican Evolution Conference organizers should be ashamed of themselves.

Posted by Roger Wilson | Report as abusive

it isn’t right to yank the microphone from the speaker Babuna. different and opposite ideas should be taken into consideration in such kind of conferences.

Posted by democratic | Report as abusive

Hahah this shows how evolutionists are afraid of truths. If you have something to say why dont you answer Oktar Babuna. You just want to stop him. Because you have nothing to say. Where are transitional forms you are waiting for 150 years? There is none. So that leave evolution away, think twice, everything is created.

Posted by barbara | Report as abusive

I think that this event shows clearly that the evolution is down. Even its most passionate defenders can’t give an answer to a simple question. I greet Dr. Babuna for his courage and efforts, because a creationist to be on this conference is like a fan of Manchester United to sit among the fans of Liverpool on the stadium.

Posted by Baran | Report as abusive

If you have no proof, no evidence the only thing you can do is to prevent people to talk. Because when some people start to tell about “THE TRUTH” make them face off their lies they SCARE!.. Evolutionst scared of the truth in the conference. And they prevent Mr. Babuna’s speech. If the rely on themselves, if there is an evolution, if there is an transitional forms why do they scare? Why don’t they let him talk? Because there is NO evolution, there is NO evidence. They have been fooling the world for a long time. But Harun Yahya revealed the truth and flung the Atlas of creation in their teeth. There is nothing to say more. Evolution is dead.

Posted by Naéla Chuwko | Report as abusive

vatican earn money from christian faithfull people. so why vatican do not let Dr. to talk? Vatican should believe in God and approve creationism.

Posted by steven | Report as abusive

Unfortunately Catholic church is getting away from “Faith”. Vatican’s sponsorship to this event can not be explained anyway. Even the organizers a week ago told that “intelligent design” and “creationism” are nothing to do with science, so only “Darwinizm” will be . This is a shame for Christian world. Cardinals do not let God’s creation to be verbalised. This proves how SATAN is at work at the heart of Vatican! Something must be done in the name of faith so a Muslim Dr from Turkey did so. Thank you and may God bless you!

Posted by dochard | Report as abusive

Shame on Vatican!Pope is supporting Evolution.Vatican is loosing his faith!Jesus!Yes only Jesus, wtih his second coming may change this fall.

Posted by stephen | Report as abusive

Why are they stopping Oktar Babuna, if you have answers let him talk and then give your answers. I think you dont have any answers

Posted by celtic | Report as abusive

The creationist couldn’t talk at this conference..this is undemocratic.Thanks Dr.Babuna

Posted by hande | Report as abusive

Dr Babuna destroyed known evoltionists. Darwinism is dead.

Posted by Roger wilson | Report as abusive

Its already a suprising info for me that there are still some people around who thinks there is evolution. I mean if there was sth like evolution there would be a proof. Even darwin was aware of this truth;If my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking most closely all of the species of the same group together must assuredly have existed… Consequently evidence of their former existence could be found only amongst fossil remains.(The origin of species page 179)In science people believe the facts. They believe the proofs. Just take a look at the evolution idea. Neither proof nor transitional forms have existed.Also when I read the article I made a research about Harun Yahya. I saw that he told that he is going to pay 10 million dollars for the first person who bring him an transitional form…And it has been months since he said this.So Where are you my friends? Are you so rich that you cannot accept 10 million dollars or there is no transitional form to prove evolution? Hmm.. Yeah second one, I know.

Posted by Pascal | Report as abusive

I’m a Christian but admire brother Oktar. Christians and Muslims must be as one against these atheist Darwinists. They have no proof for evolution, but we have millions of thousands proofs for creation. One of them is fossils as Dr Babuna said.God created as, is it so hard to accept?

Posted by Daniel | Report as abusive

I watched the full video of the incident. they not only take the microphone away but they also literallt try to push the gentlemen out of the conference room, just because he asked a question about transitional forms that they could not answer since they didnt have a response. I totally support the Turkish doctor.I think this is a free democratic world and everyone is entitled to ask opposing questions. If scientist are so sure of themselves and their findings they simple should have no trouble answering any question asked.

Posted by mike | Report as abusive

What does “Vatican-sponsored” mean? do creation evolution have any intersetion points? how can the leader of the Christians support such nonsense? And why everybody claps hands when the microphone is taken? Such things can only happen in an atheist conference. I dont believe that the people there, they really dont believe in God, I am, as a deep believer in God, very very dissapointed.

Posted by Golden Age | Report as abusive

Real believers , Muslims are only afraid of God.They don’t care about what the people think.Congragulations Mr. Babuna. Everybody knows that evolution is a big lie!Mr. Futuyma knows too! That’s why he left the conference. He is afraid of the truth. The truth is thateverything has beencreated by Allah.It is very unti-democratic to prevent people from expressing their thoughts.

Posted by anne | Report as abusive

what does the vatican is trying to do anyhow?! I thought these guys believed in God. Evolutions are like the anti-Christ, they dont respect anything they believe in. I find the vatican very controversial.

Posted by michele | Report as abusive

Congragulations to Mr.Babuna. Just within 5 or ten sentences he hah showed the fallacy of evolution. And the evolutionists had showed the anti-democratic behaviours. They are closed to realities, proofs and even science. Because it is a paleontologic fact that there are no transitional forms fossils. If there is one why they didnt reply to “Atlas of Creation” which has hundreds of living fossils that all proove Creation. Are you sure that this is a democratic platform. I think not. Because a man comes and takes the microphone and then there men come like mafia and take Mr.Babuna out. This is a proof that evolutionists came to the end, and also this shows that there is pressure on Vatikan.

Posted by dinckok | Report as abusive

??I cannot watch the video. Is it just me?Vatican is in a sad state, and should immediately invite creationists too to compensate this big failure.

Posted by Fuller | Report as abusive

Without God, the only way to really resolve this is to let the alpha males duke it out. Whoever is left standing and able to reproduce is the winner…

Posted by Khalid | Report as abusive

The dialogue between science and religion is far from over, and you would think that the Vatican would concur. As co-editor of:Seckbach, J. & Gordon, R. (eds.) (2008). Divine Action and Natural Selection: Science, Faith and Evolution, Singapore: World Scientific. [published in hardback, paperback and eBook formats: http://www.worldscibooks.com/lifesci/699 8.html ]I encouraged critical dialogue after each chapter, including the three (out of 45) written by our Turkish creationist colleagues. Let them stand or fall or be moderated in their views via such dialogue, not by censoring them.

Posted by Dr. Richard Gordon | Report as abusive

thats rude… are there any creationist in vatican!!!

Posted by alistair | Report as abusive

Woooow, well they did what a scientist would do… Right????

Posted by The Conqueror | Report as abusive

What is so surprising about these darwinists?They cant easily dismiss a brain surgeon as an imbecile as they usually do against those question the invalidity of evolution,so they have to resort to physical means to evict him.In any case,this theory is in the last thores of its life,only people like Futyama cling to this due to nostalgic reasons.

Posted by Pinch | Report as abusive

Shame on Vatican?I don’t believe that Vatican had sponsored the censorship. But I believe that the Vatican had sponsored such conference to illuminate us regarding the theories of Creationism and Evolution. Ever since, the Church believes that all organisms were created by God. It’s in the Bible. If the evolution speakers in said conference gagged Dr. Oktar Babuna, it is erroneous to accuse that such act was blessed by the Vatican. Let me bring to your attention that there were also 60 Scientists in Sapienza University of Rome (which was founded by Pope Boniface VIII in 1303)protested against Pope Benedict XVI accusing him for being anti-science. This is a clear example that some Professors in the academe even in a Catholic University are not really that open minded such that they criticize even the Pope!That is why I appeal to everyone to please do not attribute to the Church any negative acts by the evolutionists because its not only Dr. Babuda who had been victimize by such atrocity but also the Pope.

Posted by Daniel Rosaupan | Report as abusive

It is true. I was there and the evolutionists were really irritated. Futuyama attempted to leave the conference. Now this incident is the new evidence of creation because evolutionist don’t have any answers for the lie of intermediate forms and they are not going to ever.

Posted by Samuel Jones | Report as abusive

I am student of MBA and i am reading books of Dr. Harun Yahya since 2005 and I found that they not only call the humanity to right path but also to the true religion of God.I am also surprise on this event that happen with Dr. Babuna. It extremely undemocratic and un behavioral action made by evolutionist. If evolutionist are fooling the whole world by there theory then why not they listen the real truth. I challenge these evolutionist that there effort one day will be deny and destroy by whole world. This event show that evolutionist don’t have ability to listen the truth. And that day is far when these evolutionists will announce themselves to fail to prove this theory.This event shows that Dr. Babuna won a victory. I congratulate Dr. Babuna and specially Harun Yahya who is an International Hero who are working for inviting the world the real truth. I indeed love such Muslims.

Posted by Saad Rafique | Report as abusive

it’s just unbelievable how those “scientists” cannot tolerate any critique or even discussion of the theory of evolution. it was supposed to be a scientific conference, wasn’t it? but apparently it was not so. it is wrong, rude, undemocratic and unacademic not to let a man express his view. and the way it was done at the gregorian university is just shameful.

Posted by cecile | Report as abusive

I’m a Turkish molecular biologist who do not believe in Evolution. I can show you countless evidence with me. But I want to draw your attention to another subject now. As you know 99% of Turkey do not believe in Evolution. But how about the 1%? In Turkey I have never seen such a rude behavior to any evolutionist. Although they are minority, they are the first class citizens for all of us. Because we have opportunity to COMMUNICATE as HUMAN in Turkey, because we afraid of Allah. People are free to speak and free to think. You can never force anyone to do something. It is written in Quran. I feel really very sorry about Vatican because, I feel like they are behaving like taking orders from people. It is already nonsense to make an Evolution Conference on a worshiping land. Because it is like handing over the keys of belief. However,I know that it is a compassion from Allah to all Christians and all believers that if we don’t behave like brothers, like a union of Allah, evil can even infiltrate to our strongholds. We should wake up before it is too late.

Posted by rauf genc | Report as abusive

of course this is not right to yank the microphone from Mr Babuna. Turning the microphone off is really undemocratic. Evolutionist can only do this. They have no answers about the transactional forms. Because there is no transactional forms. This is the evidence of creation. Congragulations Mr Oktar Babuna. We are proud of you.

Posted by Georgina | Report as abusive

Congrats Reuters for the objective news. From here we clearly see the fear of evolutionists. If you can give an answer and defent your faith-evolution why you prefer to brutally silenced Dr Babuna? This is what darwinists do all those years – silence every scientist who dare to oppose their imaginary evolution.But this is the end. We won’t remain silent any more.

Posted by Dilan | Report as abusive

Fossil records are the biggest struggle for the evolunists and this is proved by this conference.Congragulations to Mr.Babuna and shame on Vatican. All the atheist theory is based on Darwinism and the Vatican is promoting the idea.I really enjoyed when I saw the Futuyma trying to leave the conference room. The question was very clear and simple. “Where is the transitional forms?”I also find the behaviour very impolite against Mr. Babuna. As far as I understood from the video, Mr. Babuna is a brain surgeon and he has the right to ask a question.

Posted by Sasha | Report as abusive

Although I do not believe in evolution, in my science classes I have to write/speak the way my professors expect me to do. If I want to graduate, I am obliged to act as an evolutionist. I want to explore science but I constantly feel the pressure to pretend as if I believe in Darwin’s theory. I do not feel that I have the liberty to think and write freely, I cannot follow whatever the evidence leads me.Somebody has to help us… Please..

Posted by Farook Malik | Report as abusive

[...] Anti-Darwin speaker gagged at Vatican Evolution Conference! FaithWorld Blog Archive Anti-Darwin speaker gagged at Vatican Evolution Conference | Blogs | The start of a high-powered Vatican-sponsored acadmeic conference on evolution was anything but [...]

I have to fake in my science classes in order to pass the exams. I have to talk&write as if I believe in evolution theory. So I as a student feel the pressure too and cannot think/write about whereever the evidence leads me to. I see the evidence of God and keep them to myself. Somebody help me and many others in my position…

Posted by Farook Malik | Report as abusive

This is not a scientific conference. This is a gathering of evolutionists who use undemocratic and inhumane methods to rule out ideas they do not like.Vatican should not have been the place for such an organization that does not include God and Creation within itself.Dr. Oktar Babuna has all the right to represent the fact of creation for the billions of people of faith. But it is a shame on Vatican that he was forced to stop talking through censorship.

Posted by George S. | Report as abusive

no evolution but creation.thanks to doctor .vatican should shame because of their behaviour.

Posted by salin | Report as abusive

Vatican is collaborating with Darwinists. However Darwinism denies the existence of God and regards chance as a God. But thanks God Darwinis is going down with all the scientific evidences. These darwinists censoring Babuna proves us that Darwinism is a dogma not science. Vatican should be stopped to host these antidemocratic and unscientific Darwinists.

Posted by Roger | Report as abusive

I cant believe Vatican is involved with that kind Darwinist ideology. I am not surprised that Darwinists stopped Dr. Babuna talking and questions. Darwinism is an outdated dogma and can not be questioned. It is the ideological foundation aof Atheism. That is the reason that foremost evolutionist and militant atheist Richard Dawkins said:“Before Darwin, it was difficult to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist and Darwin made it easy to become an intellectual atheist”Richard Dawkins on Evolution and Religion, from an interview by Ben WattenbergAired on November 8, 1996, PBS Show Think Tank.Vatican shoul not involve with atheists to impose chance as a God. No God created us and the entire universe. That is the scientific fact. Futuyma and Ayala know this fact and that is the reason why they try to stop and censor Dr. babuna. But Darwinism is dead. Vatican should apologize from us the Christians.

Posted by Richard | Report as abusive

I think we as Christians should gather against Darwinist dictatorship. Vatican should lead us. Of course God created all of the livig beings as can be seen not just from fossil evidence but from molecular biology, microbiology, genetics to physics and astronomy, all branches of sciences prove an exalted creation by God. Even the primary school children can understand this obvious fact. I think this very unpolite and undemocratic.

Posted by Roger | Report as abusive

No, the behavior was not democratic. But neither is science. Fact is not up for a vote, and not all scientific opinions are equal.His question is a valid one, but not appropriate for this particular setting.

Posted by Drewbie | Report as abusive

all the 55 who comments so far are fool. If you have no proof, if no evidence of Creation then don’t comments it.

Posted by comptuer | Report as abusive

Thanks to Vatican. The true colors of Darwinists had been exposed. Vatican had been accused for several centuries to be anti science. Now, people will realize that Vatican is not anti science and we now understand why Darwinism has long been condemned by the Vatican.For those who mocked the Vatican and do not know its official position against evolution (in a transformation sense), shame on you too.. Muslims got their belief about Creation from Judaism and Christianity. This is not a belief which came from Islam!

Posted by Daniel Rosaupan | Report as abusive

[...] the Reuters report (Anti-Darwin speaker gagged at Vatican evolution conference, a particularly loaded title if you ask me): At the end of the first session Oktar Babuna, a [...]

[...] by a mad heckler. That’s not how Baboon saw things, needless to say. According to Reuters, he described the incident as “very anti-democratic and very un-academic”, further [...]

This is absolutely nothing more than a Catholic and scientific Inquisition. Shame on the university. Shame on Europe, Shame on Catholic church.I sincerely congratulate Mr. Babuna for expressing the truth in just few seconds. He is the hero of this age.

Posted by Julia Joy | Report as abusive

Papa is the puppet of Darwinists and I do not believe he is religious. How can a papa defend an ideology rejecting the existence of Allah? As to come to Babuna’s case, he is surely, absolutely right in this ideas! It is obvious that they fear really very much; if they didn’t, they would reply his question, this is the very proof of their fear of the name: HARUN YAHYA! Their undemocratic attitude also proves us that they are single minded, not open to questions and debates. As far as I know; these men claim themselves as “SCIENTISTS”! Is it scientific to create a dogma and even not reply a question about it? Science answers the adressed questions, but as Darwinism has nothing to do with science and as it is not scientific but ideologic, they could not answer only to one question and try to opress the self trustful attitude of Mr. Oktar Babuna. But the winner is Mr. Babuna! Congrats and Thanks Oktar Babuna!

All arguments used at the Gregorian conference were based upon the belief that rocks take immense periods of time to form. This belief has now been repudiated by peer-reviewed laboratory experiments and application in the field. The latter show that rocks generally form rapidly and depend upon current velocity: not time. The sedimentological units in the geological time-scale represent stratified sediments that deposited quickly. The fossilised organisms in them were buried by the same process. Being separated by short periods of time no time was allowed for evolution (www.sedimentology.fr).

Posted by Peter Wilders | Report as abusive

When will evolutionist understand we are not crazy unscientific people, I teach Chemistry and Physics and I do not believe the evidence for Evolution is sufficient, it is not even close. There is evidence all around for creation should one care to look. Evolutionist have been trying to convince me since I was a child, but God forbid I discuss the flaws in their dogma, even if calm and ordered, get the gestapo and round us all up. A hundred years ago science knew little it will be the same in another 100 when they look back. The hearts of men remain the same, arrogant. The truth is still the truth all else will fail, let’s help each other to the truth as true brothers. +JMJ+

Posted by Jim Reilly | Report as abusive

A scientific theory must not only be internally coherent, it must also be consistent with reality. Darwinism fails that test in so many ways, but most conspicuously at its very starting point.Theism posits an Uncaused Cause. It does this as a matter of metaphysical reasoning rather than natural philosophy (aka science). Although it claims that every feature of life is inherited from an ancestor, Darwinism, on the other hand, ulimately posits an Ancestor without an Ancestor – the “Grand Amoeba” if you will.Yet Darwinism would still not concede that the Grand Amoeba could have been an object of special creation any more than the species of the “Cambrian explosion”. So Darwinism ultimately rejects the idea of God as the human invention of a “magic man”, even though Darwinism itself is predicated on theorising that the existence of the universe is a result of magic (e.g. a “random quantum fluctuation of abracadabra”) – without the man. It happened, “just like that”.Reflecting on reality as we know it – the same reality that forms the basis of every single natural philosophical inquiry into cause and effect – which is the more logical theory: the one that requires the “magician” or the one that says the rabbit just emerged from the hat by itself?

Posted by Kevin | Report as abusive

Shame on The Vatican for propagating this nonsense. How scanadalous that it takes Muslims to remind The Catholic Church of The Creation by Almighty God according to Genesis and not Charles Darwin whose hypothesis is more or less discredited except by those who are doing their utmost to abolish God.

Posted by LeonG | Report as abusive

The questioner was totally ignorant of the many intermediate forms, living and fossil, and the huge body of DNA evidence supporting descent with modification, Darwin’s term for the great tree of life. The comments in support of the questioner, from those who wait to pounce on such nonsense, are equally ignorant. To deny evolution is to deny astronomy. The silencing of the questioner was unfortunate, however, because anyone worth there salt as a biologist could easily refute his silly comments. Let him speak, display his total lack of understanding, and then respond. The questioner was simply, utterly, totally wrong.

Posted by Owen | Report as abusive

I am a science teacher in London. This conference absolutely shows that Darwinism is a dogma and can not be questioned at all. You may be satisfied yourself by kicking out Mr. Babuna from the conference. You don’t have any answer fort his meaningful question, do you?It is simply a bigotry fanaticism, but not a scientific conference.

Posted by Maria Angel | Report as abusive

Catholic Inquisition?No, no, no. But it is modernism, liberal, scientific and politically correct intolerance.

Posted by Bo Molin | Report as abusive

Creationists formulate their hypotheses based upon the Bible. They should not, therefore, be part of a scientific debate. However to confuse them with scientists opposing evolution on scientific grounds has allowed evolutionists to escape the criticism they justly deserve. An example is Octar Babuna who is biased by his Coranic beliefs and is, therefore, a creationist. This is a pity because his question is pivotal. It relates to the fossil register which has been invalidated as a chronology marker for evolution by recent experiments in stratigraphy. (www.sedimentology.fr)

Posted by Peter Wilders | Report as abusive

Some transitional forms:From fish to tetrapod amphibians: Acanthostega, Ichthyostega,Tulerpeton. Notice the placement of eyes, evolution of wrists, and more structural and prominent limbs.From land mammals to whales/dolphins: Pakicetus, Ambulocetus, Indocetus, Dorudon, Basilosaurus. Note the evolution of the ear bones (to hear underwater) that occur at the same time as the more prominent features.From dinosaurs to birds: Sinosauropteryx prima, Ornithomimosaurs, therizinosaurs, oviraptorosaurs, troodontids, dromaeosaurs, Sinornithosaurus, Protarchaeopteryx, alvarezsaurids, Yixianosaurus, Avimimus, Archaeopteryx, Rahonavis, Yandangornis, Jixiangornis, Sapeornis, Omnivoropteryx, Confuciusornis, Changchengornis, Enantiornithines, Patagopteryx, Apsaravis, and yanornithids, Hesperornis, Ichthyornis, Gansus, Limenavis, Modern birds. Not the evolution of feathers as well as the evolution of wings.From ape to human: Ardipithecus ramidus, Australopithecus afarensis, Australopithecus africanus, Australopithecus anamensis, Australopithecus garhi, Australopithecus aethiopicus, Australopithecus boisei, Australopithecus robustus, Homo habilis, Homo rudolfensis, Homo ergaster, Homo erectus, Homo neanderthalensis, Homo sapiens———This information could be found in 5 minutes by a third grader with access to the internet (reading about the evidence, however, which is quite extensive, will take you quite a bit longer). The man in this video did not deserve the attention of the people in that room. His questions have been answered hundreds if not thousands of times before.

Posted by stewy.cvl | Report as abusive

To all Pro-Creation posters on this blog, I salute U, & thank-you for your courage & witness to the TRUTH !However, My Criticism is for all those who either by Ignorance, Mischief or Malice, erroneously believe that Pope Benedict XVI & the Vatican is “behind” this, or that they even “sponsored” the event !WRONG ! – The Pope & the Vatican is NOT “behind” this !This is being orchestrated by a Rebel organisation & radical elements within the Church, such as the Pontifical Academy of Sciences; The Vatican Observatory; & other dissident groups & malcontents who wish to white-ant the Church from within !This conference was also financed by the Templeton Foundation (who are basically Free-Masons !)For all those who wish to find out more about this Issue, & what the Church Really Teaches about Creation, & has taught continuously for at least 1900yrs (until corruption & error crept into the teaching of this issue, this past century): then please go here: (NB: all these sites argue Using mostly Science, not just Faith only !)http://www.kolbecenter.orgOr: http://www.noevolution.org/ & http://creation.com &http://www.answersingenesis.orgOwen, – These R for U pal ! ] :-)To all those who wish to know WHAT the Holy Catholic Church Really Teaches & WHY, then please go here:http://www.lumenverum.orgor: http://socrates58.blogspot.com/Remember, Our Lord JESUS CHRIST, himself had to deal with the traitor Judas Iscariot !Likewise, the Church also has had to deal with countless traitors & Judases, throughout the past 2,000yrs, & esp NOW ! – & will continue to do so, until GOD deems to bring the whole sorry mess to an end, & usher in his Divine Will on Earth !!So I say,Bring It ON ! ;-)All Men Fear What They Do Not Understand, & Hate What They Can Not Conquer !

Posted by Obsydian | Report as abusive

It seems it is simply not possible to have an intelligent conversation between science and theology at the current stage of human evolution

Posted by Gay Geary | Report as abusive

Dear Sirs,I think this article misrepresents what can be seen on the video. Mr. Babuna was not asking a question, but was trying to hold himself a speech. He was several times politely invited to ask his question, but every time continued with his speech. It was therefore OK to stop this. He was probably trying to provoke an incident.RR

Posted by RR | Report as abusive

Talk about silencing people with opposing views… I tried to post a list of dozens of transitional fossils, and a short explanation explaining each major transition for those commentors who have been asking to see examples, and strangely enough the message was never posted.I will try again. This time without my conclusion which may have been considered “libelous” as per the House Rules (it definitely was not, though.)Some transitional forms: (just google them or check out the ones that may be available at a nearby natural history museum):From fish to tetrapod amphibians: Acanthostega, Ichthyostega,Tulerpeton. Notice the placement of eyes, evolution of wrists, and more structural and prominent limbs.From land mammals to whales/dolphins: Pakicetus, Ambulocetus, Indocetus, Dorudon, Basilosaurus. Note the evolution of the tiny ear bones (to hear underwater) that occur at the same time as the more prominent features.From dinosaurs to birds: Sinosauropteryx, Ornithomimosaurs, therizinosaurs, oviraptorosaurs, troodontids, dromaeosaurs, Sinornithosaurus, Protarchaeopteryx, alvarezsaurids, Yixianosaurus, Avimimus, Archaeopteryx, Rahonavis, Yandangornis, Jixiangornis, Sapeornis, Omnivoropteryx, Confuciusornis, Changchengornis, Enantiornithines, Patagopteryx, Apsaravis, and yanornithids, Hesperornis, Ichthyornis, Gansus, Limenavis, Modern birds. Note the evolution of feathers as well as the evolution of wings.From ape to human: Ardipithecus ramidus, Australopithecus afarensis, Australopithecus africanus, Australopithecus anamensis, Australopithecus garhi, Australopithecus aethiopicus, Australopithecus boisei, Australopithecus robustus, Homo habilis, Homo rudolfensis, Homo ergaster, Homo erectus, Homo neanderthalensis, Homo sapiensIn several of these cases, the predicted species were found right where they were predicted to be found (in regards to both geologic time, and geographic location). These predictions were based on skeletal features, nearby wildlife of the place and time periods in question, and other fossil information.

Posted by Stewy.cvl | Report as abusive

Check the program yourself. It says “DISCUSSION” not “question&answer session”. How else the discussion can be? I did not here one-sided discussion before. Obviously the lecturers sitting felt that they wouldn’t be able to answer the questions of Dr. Babuna and tried to make an excuse to flee from this hard position.http://www.evolution-rome2009.n et/index.php?option=com_content&view=art icle&id=51&Itemid=57&lang=enI am sorry for you but we are not deceived by their lies any more.

Posted by Fuller | Report as abusive

Darwinism was destroyed in Rome. It became very obvious with Dr Babuna’a most fundamental question to give an example of a transitional for. Futuyma fled after this question and Ayala stopped Dr. Babuna and his microphone was taken away by Vatican people. No transitional form no evolution. Dr. Babuna proved evolution is not science but a dogma which can not be questioned. But what makes it worse is that Vatican supported this pagan religion called darwinism. That we can not understand a Christians. It is so obvious that there God created alal of us and the universe. We dond have to believe this chance nonsense of darwinism. We believe Vatican should organize a new scientific meeting and invite sepeakers like Dr. Babuna and clean this up. We want to hear Dr. Babuna.

Posted by Gary | Report as abusive

I understand that Catholic teaching now states that both humans and primates have a common ancestor. Does this mean that the common ancestor is Adam and that the primates are descended from man rather than the other way about? This, knowing the filthy habits of some humans, I could be inclined to believe.

I don’t believe how shamelessly anti-democratic and rude they were. It was very brave of Mr. Babuna to stand up to the oppression of anti-democratic lies. The evolution theory is dead now, the evolutionists and the people who try to cling it so hard just to be able to deny God’s existence must give up already! It is not working and hasnt worked so far. The science has refuted them so so badly. Congratulations Mr. Babuna and I hope he wont be discouraged.

Posted by Joey | Report as abusive

Why were the only speakers present at the conference those supporting evolution? There are many scientists providing proof of the impossibility of evolution, but none were invited. It is a rule in debates that both evidence for and against the subject is given. The Gregorian did not follow this rule.

Posted by Peter Wilders | Report as abusive

I have two observations on some of the comments above:1. Who says that a conference about any given topic must include opinions that the organisers have already heard and consider outside the focus of their discussion? Does framing a conference within certain bounds always amount to an act of censorship or can it be simply one of organisation? Can’t people who have considered and rejected creationism get together to discuss evolution and theology without being interrupted by others who do not agree with that view? This conference was held at a private institution, not a public speaker’s corner somewhere. Regardless of the way the organisers dealt with Mr. Babuna, don’t they have the right to decide what is and what is not relevant to the discussion they want to have? The criticisms expressed in many comments do not seem to address this issue.2. Several comments also seem to misunderstand the Roman Catholic Church’s view of creation. Catholic teaching does not support a strictly literal reading of Genesis and the creationist views that some conservative Protestant denominations derive from it. Such ignorance leads readers such as Obsydian (in a comment above) to concoct the preposterous idea that this conference was “orchestrated by a Rebel organisation & radical elements within the Church, such as the Pontifical Academy of Sciences; The Vatican Observatory; & other dissident groups & malcontents who wish to white-ant the Church from within!” If there are any “rebel and radical elements” in the Vatican, they would have to keep their heads pretty low to stay there and would hardly be the ones to organise a well-publicised conference at a pontifical universtity that turns out to be so open that even Harun Yahya representatives can attend and attempt to ask questions. It’s surprising that a conspiracy theorist thinks the supposed conspirators are so naive.

Posted by Tom Heneghan | Report as abusive

“Fuller” and “Obsidian” = same answer to Babuna’s good scientific question …but they did’nt give any weblink to allow a critical analisis of their impressive listing !So their “transitional forms” look more like a darwinist litany to sing on gregorian mood than as serious scientific facts ! That’s pitiful !If someone seeks good scientific informations on the subject just go on ” www. noevolution.org” , andhttp://www.le-cep.org ..unfortunately only in french!And don’t forget that darwinism can’t fit with constant catholic dogma on Creation and Original Sin !

Posted by trivers | Report as abusive

The transitional fossils listed by “Stewy.cvl” would be good evidence if the rocks they were found in were formed slowly over millions of years. Recent experiments, however, show the rocks formed as quickly as the speed of the current which transported the sediments of which they are composed. The fossilised organisms in the rocks must have lived almost contemporaneously. The data was presented in Rome at the Sapienza University last November. So there is really no excuse for it being ignored at the Gregorian.

Posted by Peter Wilders | Report as abusive

In answer to PW’s question that several requests were made to the organizers of the Gregorian conference to include qualified scientists who wanted to submit empirical evidence against evolution. It was pointed out that they should be admitted both in terms of common justice and to balance the debate. The offer was not favored with a reply.The conference “A Scientific Critique of Evolution” at Sapienza University in November thoroughly debunked the evolutionary hypothesis. Abstracts of the papers presented at Sapienza University can be found at http://sites.google.com/site/scientificc ritiqueofevolution/

Posted by H. M. Owen | Report as abusive

if an evolutionist came into a church and espoused evolution during a conference on the old testament what would happen to them? it’s amazing how polarized people are unable to put themselves in the position of other people.

Posted by victor | Report as abusive

Darwinism is a pagan religion which regards chance as a creator. 100 million fossils falsify all the claims of Darwinism. As babuna stated no transitional forms not even one. How could possibly Vatican support a pagan religion called darwinism

Posted by Roger | Report as abusive

There is no transitional fossils? Just look the post of Stewy.cvl (March 8th, 2009). Let me ask. What are the evidences of god and his creation? Let me answer. No one.

Dare I suggest Paulo K. looks at my post of March 10 for the explanation why the fossils cited by Stewy cvl could not be transitional.

Peter, Since you give no source for your claim that experiments have shown that rocks form “quickly” in running water, I cannot address it, except to say I suspect that you misunderstood the results, or the researchers misstated them, deliberately or not.Fossils don’t form in rocks, they form in sediment – usually – which then hardens and gradually develops into rock. And it is a fairly short process for the sediment to harden, which is a good thing because if it didn’t we’d have far fewer fossils that we do.Since fossils are found in layers that take thousands of years to accumulate it is clear that the original animals could not possibly have lived at the same time.Therefore, nothing you said in any way refutes Stewy.cvl’s list of transitional fossils.

Posted by GalapagosPete | Report as abusive

Thank you GalapagosPete for you interest. The source of my claim that strata form quickly in running water was in my post of March 7 (www.sedimentology.fr). As you will see it explains that the vector of strata formation is the time needed for sediments to be transported and deposited. In oceans this is relatively rapid: the velocity of current. Hence neither the strata nor the fossils buried in them take thousands of years to deposit. This is demonstrated by the peer-reviewed laboratory experiments and the paleohydraulic analyses

When someone claims that they have discovered a basic scientific principle that invalidates the work of thousands of scientists over more than two centuries, my baloney detector starts buzzing, as should yours no matter what you want to believe is true.According to geologists, Guy Berthault’s work is based on badly out-of-date science. A good explanation of why he’s wrong can be found here: http://www.theotokos.org.uk/pages/creati on/berthaul/henke.html, and there are others. Search the ‘Net.

Posted by GalapagosPete | Report as abusive

Tom Heneghan, both your points are conjecture, which demonstrates the faithful mind of the evolutionist, and what his faith rests on … conjecture.

Posted by JLS | Report as abusive

When someone says that it is not possible to have a discussion between science and theology, their error is to exclude something by falsely defining it. Any reasonable claim is required to define its terms, and such a claim juxtaposing science and theology needs first to define these two terms. Interesting that creationists willingly define both terms, but evolutionists have not been up to the task.

Posted by JLS | Report as abusive

GalapagosPete, a “good explanation” is not good enough to defeat an argument. It has to be a perfect explanation to close the argument.

Posted by JLS | Report as abusive

GalapagosPete writes: “According to geologists, Guy Berthault’s work is based on badly out of-date science”. This statement tacitly accuses two National Academies of Science and their professional reviewers of unprofessionalism in publishing the work. To sustain his accusation all the critic has to do is to propose an experiment validating the principles of stratigraphy and in particular that of superposition. In science words are not sufficient. Berthault’s refutation is based upon laboratory experiment and field analyses approved by peer review. Advancing the frontiers of science is, of course, often thanks to individuals despite resistance by their inevitable critics.

Considering their historical track record, there is every reason in the world to doubt what Darwinians scientists say. See here:http://www.inbredscience.co.cc/euvo lution/euvolution.html

The URL posted by ECO is very important. It reveals the materialist thinking of some leading evolutionists. The great names such as Theodosius Dobzhansky, Peter Medawar, Ernst Mayer, Richard Lewontin ‘et al’ were all instrumental in promoting eugenics.

There can not be a scientific theory without any evidence. There are 100 million fossils which falsifies the claims of Darwinism an proves Creation by GOD. Taking the microphone away from Babuna because of asking the most fundamental question to show one transitional form and fleeing showes us that Darwinism is a pagan religion which regards chance as a creator.Darwinism is dead. What surprises me how did Vatican get involved to defend this pagan religion? What a shame for Vatican.

Posted by Roger wilson | Report as abusive

To deny that God created the world is to claim that the world has always existed, which is to claim that the world is “god”. And, well, so much for evolutionist rationality.

Posted by JLS | Report as abusive

“GalapagosPete, a “good explanation” is not good enough to defeat an argument. It has to be a perfect explanation to close the argument.” A good explanation (evolution, which is actually a very, very good explanation, completely supported by all the evidence) is more then sufficient to defeat a bad argument (ID or creationism, which explain nothing at all).

Posted by GalapagosPete | Report as abusive

“This statement tacitly accuses two National Academies of Science and their professional reviewers of unprofessionalism in publishing the work.” And when you defend Guy Berthault’s work you are tacitly accusing many thousands of geologists of incompetence or dishonesty, so what’s your point? Mine is simply that Berthault’s results are not accepted, and are easily explained by other geologists, none of whom are impressed. It’s up to him to make his case, and if it isn’t good enough, he’s out of luck.

Posted by GalapagosPete | Report as abusive

“The URL posted by ECO is very important. It reveals the materialist thinking of some leading evolutionists.” Which has what exactly to do with whether the theory of evolution is correct? That was a rhetorical question: it has nothing to do with it. A scientific theory is either correct or not based on evidence, not what others think about it, do with it, or distort it.

Posted by GalapagosPete | Report as abusive

“There can not be a scientific theory without any evidence.” I agree, and so does science, which is why it’s good there’s so much evidence for evolution. “There are 100 million fossils which falsifies the claims of Darwinism an proves Creation by GOD.” I’m afraid that I’ll have to take the word of tens of thousands of scientists working for the last 150 years who seem to be under the impression that fossils support evolution. But if you can explain how fossils support creationism, I’d really like to hear it.

Posted by GalapagosPete | Report as abusive

“To deny that God created the world is to claim that the world has always existed, which is to claim that the world is “god”.” Since there is no scientific theory that states that the world has always existed your point is irrelevant. And if there are people who believe that the world has always existed, that is still different from believing in an eternal supernatural being with unlimited powers. Worlds are material objects that we can see; there is no evidence to support assertions of the existence of gods.

Posted by GalapagosPete | Report as abusive

Gallapagos Pete, your say so does not do justice to the dream you put forward.

Posted by JLS | Report as abusive

Gallapagos Pete, your error is in confusing facts with your ideas. Of course there are many objects, but making sense out of them is not a fact, but this is what you are claiming.

Posted by JLS | Report as abusive

It is asserted that species evolved into one another by successive minute variations, and that this happened over billions of years, then evolutionist have to show us these slow minute changes in the fossilized examples of those species. They must show us half-fish half-reptile half bird fossils. These imaginary species are called transitional forms. There can be no doubt that if there is no such fossil proof concerning changes among the fossil of stable species, then there is nothing left to discuss as regards the theory of evolution…But the number of the so called transitional forms transitional species must be much higher than that of the stable species we observe today.If we check 100 million fossils that we have today we see that fossils show that each species appeared abruptly, complete and perfectly formed.That of course falsifies the claims of Darwinism and proves the fact of Creation by God. Briefly the theory of evolution is not science, but a dogma kept alive despite science.

Posted by Roger Wilson | Report as abusive

GalapagosPete says “when you defend Guy Berthault’s work you are tacitly accusing many thousands of geologists of incompetence or dishonesty, so what’s your point? Mine is simply that Berthault’s results are not accepted, and are easily explained by other geologists,”I think this is a bit strong. Any new fundamental advance in science means that the majority of scientists have been left behind. The widely held view that the atom was the smallest particle of matter when shown to be wrong wasn’t accusing the majority of being incompetent, just that they didn’t get there first. Getting new knowledge to be accepted is always hard. Objectively speaking the Russian Academy of Sciences publication of Berthault’s experiments is a pretty good indication of their viability.Of course, we know that evolutionist leaders will never admit, even with absolute scientific proof, the impossibility of evolution because it would take away the rationale of their atheism. Any doubts on this score can be assuaged by the earlier note on this forum that promoters of the theory are hardened materialists whose agenda includes eugenics, and bio-un-ethics.Moreover, the supposed proof of tevolution by he fossil record is completely removed in the knowledge that rock strata form quickly and the principle of superposition is invalidated by the experiments in stratification. There would just be insufficient time for evolution to take place. All this is explained in peer reviewed papers in http://www.sedimentology.frAll sceptics have to do is to produce one simple experiment showing formation of strata by superposition of sedimentary particles in water moved by a current. The opposite has been fully documented.Peter Wilders

Posted by Peter Wilders | Report as abusive

Here is the confusion in the debate with Gallapagos Pete: He is a relativist who does not think with any recognition of the sense of an absolute. Those who incorporate the understanding that there exists absolute truth also understand what it requires to prove an hypothesis. The relativist sees the concept of “prove” to mean something like what the majority decides, or how a court of law decides, or how a democracy decides. As every argument has to have a common understanding of terms, so any argument involving relativism and absolutism need to come to some mutual understanding of these concepts. In realizing this, I realized why G.Pete launched an emotional flurry at my insistance that he needs to prove his ideas in order to win an argument … and prove them absolutely, not by common consensus. So, let us see how this mutual recognition of terms can be incorporated into the debate … whether in this debate or in any debate anywhere.

Posted by JLS | Report as abusive

How can you say he is gagged when instead of asking his question he continues to make bold statements about a theory and claiming it’s not scientific? Do people have to listen to that in such a conference – is that the place to teach the ABC of biology to a Turkish islamic-creationist very well known for his ignorant campaign? Imagine a physics conference where an astrologist takes the microphone and start explaining to the physicists why physics is wrong and why the facts support astrology! You really cant be serious.

Posted by Baris | Report as abusive

Rauf says:”As you know 99% of Turkey do not believe in Evolution. But how about the 1%? In Turkey I have never seen such a rude behavior to any evolutionist. Although they are minority, they are the first class citizens for all of us. Because we have opportunity to COMMUNICATE as HUMAN in Turkey”What are you talking about? They just censored a bunch of articles about evolution which where about to be published in a science magazine? Or Biology teachers being mobbed because they try to teach propper biology in public schools. The gang we just say at vatican has been the main figure when it comes to censoring websites in Turkey, like richarddawkins.net, wordpress.com (no kidding!) and many many more. Even youtube is banned in this “oh so free” Turkey. Dont try too fool people with nonsense… And you said molecular biology? yeah, suddenly you are all biologist.One last word; Science will never change the way it works just to fit your dogmatic worldviews. Get used to it… and please dont lie in the process…gosshh!

Posted by Baris | Report as abusive

“…species evolved into one another by successive minute variations…”Yep”…and that this happened over billions of years…”Yep yep”…then evolutionist [sic] have to show us these slow minute changes in the fossilized examples of those species.”They’re called transitional fossils.”They must show us half-fish half-reptile half bird fossils.”You know that’s 3 halves, right?”There can be no doubt that if there is no such fossil proof concerning changes among the fossil of stable species, then there is nothing left to discuss as regards the theory of evolution…”Good thing we have transitionals, then.http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/ CC/CC200.html“But the number of the so called transitional forms transitional species must be much higher than that of the stable species we observe today.”Absolutely, if all dead animals fossilized, we’d be up to our armpits in fossils.”If we check [the greater than] 100 million fossils that we have today we see that fossils show that each species appeared abruptly, complete and perfectly formed.”Actually, no, not really. See the link above.”That of course falsifies the claims of Darwinism and proves the fact of Creation by God.”Even if Darwinian evolution were falsified, it would in no way “prove” anything else.

Posted by GalapagosPete | Report as abusive

The ongoing difficulty with the problems of the fossil record will inevitably continue, unless the rapid deposition of sediments is understood as leaving insufficient time for macro-speciation. This means that the empirical evidence published by the French and Russian Academies of Science on the Berthault experiments must be recognised as replacing the speculative interpretations of geologists and paleontologists. In science, fact always trumps theory except, it seems, in the case of Darwinian evolution.Not only does this experimental research resolve the fossil record anomalies, it puts back into perspective orthodox teaching. It is only because Catholic theologians were led to believe that geology had positive proof that the rocks formed slowly over millions of years (and therefore the fossilised remains of previously living organisms buried in them must have lived millions of years ago) that they were prepared to change magisterial teaching to allow for it. This meant rejecting the traditional teaching of the Church Fathers on such matters as Adam the first perfect man and the creation of Eve from his side, Original Sin, and the doctrines associated with it (Redemption, the Immaculate Conception, the Eucharist etc, etc.), the Deluge, inerrancy of the Bible, and the ‘de fide’ definition of Creation by the 4th Lateran Council confirmed by all subsequent Theological Doctors of the Church. Of course no such positive proof has been forthcoming, on the contrary, proof is available showing that the principles undergirding the geological time-scale are invalid.Isn’t it about time that the tubes giving oxygen to the soul-destroying Darwinian theory be unplugged?Peter

Posted by Peter Wilders | Report as abusive

The proof needs to be absolute. Why or how Catholic theologians went with scientific conjecture and mistook it for truth is odd. And how science has often failed to recognize even the possibility of absolute truth is odd. The answer of course is easier said than done: As in any experiement, all the conditions need to be known. Now the scientist experiences a continuing unfolding of conditions; yet why not the question as to the limit of these conditions? What, that is, is the absolute limit? Now why would a scientist avoid this necessity? Don’t tell me that the explanation has to do with the need to fulfill research contracts? No, don’t tell me that the limit question has to do with money and putting bread on the table? And for this bread how many scientists give up the absolute? How many trade God for bacon?

Posted by JLS | Report as abusive

JLS: “The proof needs to be absolute.”Provide absolute proof that proof must be absolute.

Posted by GalapagosPete | Report as abusive

“This means that the empirical evidence published by the French and Russian Academies of Science on the Berthault experiments must be recognised as replacing the speculative interpretations of geologists and paleontologists.”You consider decades of work by thousands of geologists speculative, but two or three appearances in journals is definitive? Have you considered that your perspective just may be a little skewed?By the way, Answers in Genesis says that these articles were published versions of papers presented to the French Academy of Sciences. Were these peer-reviewed by the Academy? It sounds to me like they were just publishing in their journal the minutes of what said in their meetings as a part of the record. Perhaps you can clarify that point.Also, in the 20+ years since the first publication, why has he been unable to publish in British, American, Spanish, Canadian, etc. academies or geological publications? Has even the French Academy had him back recently? Is anyone important taking him seriously?”In science, fact always trumps theory except, it seems, in the case of Darwinian evolution.”Actually, in science, theories are things that explain facts, so neither “trumps” the other.”Not only does this experimental research resolve the fossil record anomalies, it puts back into perspective orthodox teaching.”Science is not about people’s feelings about what is orthodox and what is not.

Posted by GalapagosPete | Report as abusive

Galapagos Pete: Finally you’ve risen to the occasion. You tell me that I have to prove that proof needs to be absolute. Exactly the issue … exactly; now you are there, Pete. You’re there, right where your science is, which is faith. You have to believe that proof needs to be absolute; there is no way to prove such a thing. And there is no escape from this absolute reality of faith, not even in Darwinian science. It is a faith, Pete, a religion. You as much as say so yourself. Thankyou for admitting your belief.

Posted by JLS | Report as abusive

JLS: In science, faith and absolutism are useless, in fact, they would impede science. You can’t have “faith” in your theory or believe it to be absolute; new evidence can and has caused even the most cherished theories to be changed or even abandoned. Evidence trumps belief every time. (Yes, sometimes not as quickly as one might like; scientists are human, and can be slow to give up an idea they have adopted. But ultimately, when presented with evidence that requires it, they do. If that ever happens with evolution or geology, those theories will be overturned as well. Doesn’t look too likely to happen, though.)Now, I’m sure that it’s true that there are people who simply accept what scientists say, even though they don’t understand at all what is being said. It seems that it might, on the face of it, be fair to say that these people have “faith” in science. Two points should be made, however:1) Since science has given us a great many things to make our lives easier, longer and more comfortable – medicine, electricity, communication, transportation, computers – people can actually see, every day in their daily lives, verifiable evidence that science works, that it works well and that it produces real things you can use; you really can’t call it faith since the evidence is in front of you at all times;2) How people feel about – whether they have “faith” in – a particular scientific theory – such as evolution, or the age of the Earth – has nothing to do with whether that theory is true. Theories stand or fall based on the evidence, not whether people, even scientists, believe in – or deny – them.So it is clear that absolutism has no place in science (except for math!) and faith has no place at all.

Posted by GalapagosPete | Report as abusive

GP writes :“Theories stand or fall based on the evidence, not whether people, even scientists, believe in – or deny – them.”This being the case why do evolutionist scientists not drop their theory in favour of the evidence against it?Without mentioning the evidence from genetics, entropy, radio-isotope dating, etc.: sedimentology has produced empirical laboratory proof showing the principles of stratigraphy are invalid (see http://www.sedimentology.fr)? The consequences for the stratigraphic time-scale upon which evolution theory is based should be clearBerthault’s experiments were peer reviewed. Such a review is the first requirement of scientific journals such as the French and Russian Academies of Sciences, and the French Geological Society. Casting doubt upon the scientific integrity of his work cannot be obtained by dismissing recognised members of the scientific community that have published them.You don’t have to go back 20 years or more, the most recent article published by one of his team by the Russian Academy of Sciences in 2007. Another is under review for publication.In all fairness, as a critic of work of such importance shouldn’t you at least refer to the literature posted on his website?Peter

G. Pete, in a state of the art vacuum chamber, is there a temperature of absolute zero? If so, can it be measured? If so, but it cannot be measured, how could you prove it? If it is obvious that absolute zero exists in a vacuum chamber, but is unproveable, then would you call that a theory, a belief, or a fact? Would you call your answer, whatever it might be, a belief or a theory? If a theory, then what would your evidence be? Or should you just scratch your head and walk away from the problem?

Posted by JLS | Report as abusive

Galapagos Pete, it just occurred to me that the word “science” here may have several different meanings. When you use this word, “science”, do you mean applied science or some other kind of science? Certainly Darwinian evolution type science has many applications, and so would have standing as an applied science. But what about ramping it up to some kind of science that exists beyond utility? What exactly is science to you?

Posted by JLS | Report as abusive

Peter asks, “This being the case why do evolutionist scientists not drop their theory in favour of the evidence against it?”Genetics shows all life on Earth is related, which supports evolution; radio-isotope dating supports an Earth old enough for evolution to have occurred; entropy has no bearing on evolution. So I guess I’d have to say that there seems to be no evidence against it, except in some people’s minds.”Berthault’s experiments were peer reviewed.”I’m happy to take your word that they were peer reviewed by the French and Russians, but it doesn’t seem to have helped him get published except in France and Russia. I think that casts more doubt on the validity of his work than anything I might say.As for referring to the work on his website, there is no point; even if all of it were available in English, which I understand it isn’t, I am not competent to review it, being neither a geologist or hydrologist. I have no opinion about his hypothesis except that, since it is not only not accepted by the scientific community but is basically 180 degrees from what is accepted, and science tends to be more right than wrong about things it’s studied for hundreds of years, and scientists in the field say he’s wrong and nobody is teaching it anywhere outside of, maybe, Liberty University – eh, he’s probably wrong.On the other hand, even if under certain conditions layers of rock CAN build up and harden quickly (they harden quickly, too, right? I mean, they’d have to, wouldn’t they?) doesn’t mean that all, most or even a significant percentage of layers were built up that way. So for now, evolution, to whatever extent it depends of the stratigraphic time scale, is safe. Whew!But again, convincing me or everyone who reads this blog isn’t the point. He has to convince the scientists, and that doesn’t seem to be happening. So your statement that he has evidence that current stratigraphic theory is invalid is premature, to put it mildly.

Posted by GalapagosPete | Report as abusive

Gal. Pete: Your entire post is nothing more than, “Since everybody says it’s so, then it’s so”. Within that structure, you implicate the quick sediment thing as not proving a thing … but you didn’t prove it. Nor have you cited any proof of vast time span sediment set up. Review what I pointed out to you that you are indeed engaged in religion and not science. Pete Wilders on the other hand is actually holding forth a scientific postulation.

Posted by JLS | Report as abusive

JLS, Science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge based on the scientific method, and to the organized body of knowledge gained through such research. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses. Read more in Wikipedia.In science, a fact is an observation: if you release an object it falls to the ground. A law is a collection of observations where the results are always the same: All released objects fall to the ground. A hypothesis is a first crack at explaining the observations: either something is attracting the objects to the ground or something is pushing them from above. A theory is an explanation that has been repeatedly tested by multiple researchers and experiments and is the best explanation: the objects are attracted to the ground. A good theory can be applied to other observations: gravity is why the moon doesn’t fly away from the Earth, or the Earth from the Sun.So, to answer your questions: it would be an observation/fact, and a scientist would have designed the chamber in the first place so that the temperature could be measured, if that was what he was trying to find out. A scientist would not state what the temperature was unless it could be measured, although he would probably predict what he would expect it to be, based on previous observations in similar or identical situations.

Posted by GalapagosPete | Report as abusive

JLS: No, my position is, “Because thousands of scientists – not “everyone”, scientists – working and researching – not “saying so” – in a field for decades, all building on and checking each others’ work, have come to a series of conclusions about how the world works, and these conclusions hang together rather than contradicting each other, then if someone else comes along with findings that do contradict everyone else’s findings, that person is likely either wrong in their findings – screwed up – or is wrong in how they apply to the real world – all layers weren’t formed according to their ideas, but perhaps some were.”I don’t need to prove anything, once a theory is accepted it stays until it is falsified. And even if it’s falsified that doesn’t automatically mean someone else’s idea is correct. A new idea will still have to prove itself. This is a concept that ID-ers just don’t get. If evolution was falsified tomorrow, ID is not the automatic default position, ID-ers would still have to provide evidence to support their assertions.

Posted by GalapagosPete | Report as abusive

GP says “In science a fact is an observation.”From “interpretations” of his observations of strata in the 17th century Nicolas Steno formulated his principles of stratigraphy. These principles have been accepted as facts ever since (over three hundred years). They have now been invalidated by Berthault’s (peer-reviewed) experiments. This is an empirical example showing that in science observations are subjective: they are not objective facts.GP also says “once a theory is accepted it stays until it is falsified”. Agreed, this is supported by the above example. However, he continues “And even if it’s falsified that doesn’t automatically mean someone else’s idea is correct.” This is incorrect because in this instance Steno’s principles were falsified by scientific experiments, i.e. facts, not ideas.His argument that the majority view is the means of deciding the validity of experimental results, is, of course unscientific. If not, the overwhelming belief that the atom was the smallest particle would have prevented Walton and Cockroft from advancing the frontiers of physics.To contest experimental proof that the principles of stratigraphy are invalid, all that has to be done is to produce an experiment validating them. No one has been able to do this. All revolves around the fundamental principle, that of superposition, which subtends the geological column and hence evolution theory. It is quite natural that the largely atheist scientific community are diffident about revealing the results of Berthault’s experiments, knowing they have no experimental evidence to the contrary. Remove superposition and the evolution card castle collapses.Peter

The point is, Gal. Pete, that you believe the theory. Belief is not knowledge. Science is knowledge. Belief is religion. You are trying to offload your error onto those who believe in a competing theory … you are saying that you are allowed to believe, but they are not allowed to believe.

Posted by JLS | Report as abusive

“GP says “In science a fact is an observation.” From “interpretations” of his observations of strata in the 17th century Nicolas Steno formulated his principles of stratigraphy. These principles have been accepted as facts ever since (over three hundred years).”Actually, they’ve been modified over the centuries by geologists as they’ve learned more. For example, Steno believed that all layers were originally laid down horizontally; it is now known that this is not the case.”They have now been invalidated by Berthault’s (peer-reviewed) experiments.”All Berthault has demonstrated is that he can make layers in a flume; how does this support his assertion that this must be how all or most or any geological layers on Earth ever formed?”This is an empirical example showing that in science observations are subjective: they are not objective facts.”Competent observations are merely descriptions, therefore they are objective. Interpretation of observations and the conclusions drawn may very well be subjective, which is why having as many people as possible – scientists who understand the science behind the claim, not just a large number of laypeople, or even scientists from other disciplines – reviewing and investigating these observations and conclusions is important.”GP also says “once a theory is accepted it stays until it is falsified”. Agreed, this is supported by the above example. However, he continues “And even if it’s falsified that doesn’t automatically mean someone else’s idea is correct.” This is incorrect because in this instance Steno’s principles were falsified by scientific experiments, i.e. facts, not ideas.”My statement is correct as a general principle, which is obviously how it was intended. I did not say “never means someone else’s idea is correct”, I said, “…does not automatically mean someone else’s idea is correct…” Your choice of phrase, “in this instance” shows that you understood this. Sometimes someone just falsifies an existing theory without having a theory to replace it.And since the best case for Berthault is that maybe somewhere some layers may have been laid down quickly, even if he’s correct that would in no way falsify the current theory that most layers were laid down over millions of years, so “in this instance” there is only a so-far failed attempt to undermine modern geological thought.”His argument that the majority view is the means of deciding the validity of experimental results, is, of course unscientific.”Theories are not powerful explanations because a lot of scientists accept them; scientists accept theories because they are a powerful explanation of the observed phenomenon. And having a lot of people work on a theory is a good thing; that means it’s constantly being tested, and so the more likely it is to be falsified if it’s wrong.The mere fact that there might be a general consensus about how a phenomenon works is certainly a barrier that must be overcome by someone with a radically new idea, but that’s the way it must be. If you can get past that, then you really have something. If your idea is a good explanation, it will survive. If it isn’t, it won’t.”To contest experimental proof that the principles of stratigraphy are invalid, all that has to be done is to produce an experiment validating them. No one has been able to do this.”There’s no need. Berthault has only demonstrated that he can create layers in a flume of slowly-moving water. Good for him, I’m sure that’s exactly what he did. What he hasn’t done, and is apparently unable to do, is show that his flume experiment applies in the real world, or that if it applies it is a significant force at all, much less that it is responsible for all – or even most – or even any – geologic layers on Earth.

Posted by GalapagosPete | Report as abusive

“And having a lot of people work on a theory is a good thing; that means it’s constantly being tested, and so the more likely it is to be falsified if it’s wrong”: Wrong, Gal. Pete. Statistically this makes no sense … since the number of tests nor the tests have proven anything. You can flip a coin plenty of times and always come up with the same side … Inductive reason such as this does not prove, but only suggest; hence the thing remains a theory. These theories are no less theories today than yesterday.

Posted by JLS | Report as abusive

JLS: It is true that, in science, no matter how much evidence is accumulated in support of a theory, it is ever considered to be “proved”, “proved” meaning that there is simply no chance that the explanation is even slightly wrong. That said, statistically speaking, it is far more likely to discover a weakness or error in a theory if more rather than less scientists study the theory.And when theories such as evolution and stratification have survived as long as they have, it is simply perverse to deny that they are true, no matter what your preference in the matter may be.If science were based solely on inductive reasoning you would be correct. But while it is true a hypothesis may be formed inductively, that is only the start of the process. A hypothesis is tested repeatedly before it is granted the status of a theory; and even when it is considered a valid theory, it is still tested.And, no, a theory never becomes a fact. A theory is the highest thing in science, so to say that a theory yesterday is a theory today is a compliment to the process, because it means it’s a good, strong theory.

Posted by GalapagosPete | Report as abusive

Gal. Pete: When you state, “And when theories such as evolution and stratification have survived as long as they have, it is simply perverse to deny that they are true, no matter what your preference in the matter may be”, what you are arguing is that long held beliefs should not be challenged because to do so is perverse. Don’t you see that you are blowing your own argument out of the water? You are in effect saying that science is only challenged by perverts, that majority rule is the truth and that minorities are perverse. One theory to explain your argument is called the “Follow the lemmings over the cliff” way of life.

Posted by JLS | Report as abusive

JLS, If you go back, you’ll see that in the sentence preceding the one you quote, I point out that theories are always being tested.Therefore, a theory that has been around a long time has survived repeated testing. It is not strong because it has been around a long time, it has been around a long time because it’s strong.That some people are uncomfortable with the implications of some scientific theories is unfortunate, but it has no bearing on the theories’ accuracy.

Posted by GalapagosPete | Report as abusive

Gal. Pete: Yet, the best theories are guesswork, as educated as they may be. Also, you are neglecting the important element of the length of time. People have been guessing about the age of creation for a long time, and have many theories which change continually. The great span of time you’re dealing with in the theory of evolution has been guessed at for a few centuries because that is the age of science. It took almost the entire history of science to realize that they do not know where the center of creation is located, nor how it got there. So, the best guess is that God exists, existed prior to the universe, and put a center to it all. This one has been around the longest with the greatest minds in history. So, by your own reasoning, then you do indeed believe in God.

Posted by JLS | Report as abusive

This wasn’t a question put to a serious conference, but merely a rant and the organizers were quite right to silence someone who was wasting everyone’s time. The guy was not a ‘speaker at the conference’ but simply a heckler. It was difficult to hear everything but it sounded to be on the level of the drunk shouting to passers by at the station, simply inane rubbish. It’s pointless to counter these lies, evidence of transitional forms is easily available to anyone, but the creationists carry on lying.

Posted by Geoff Lake | Report as abusive

G. Lake: Name one.

Posted by JLS | Report as abusive

“Yet, the best theories are guesswork, as educated as they may be.”No, an educated guess would be a hypothesis, the beginning of the explanatory process, based on what has been observed and the scientist’s knowledge. To proceed beyond that point to where it becomes a theory requires a great deal of work on the part of the scientist, and then review by other scientists in the field. It is published, and many, many more scientists have the opportunity to tear it to shreds. A hypothesis must be revised or abandoned altogether if it does not pass these tests. This is the strength of the scientific process.If it does pass, eventually it becomes a theory.Obviously, an idea that goes through all this is much more than an “educated guess.”“People have been guessing about the age of creation for a long time, and have many theories which change continually. The great span of time you’re dealing with in the theory of evolution has been guessed at for a few centuries because that is the age of science.”Yes, until fairly recently we did not have the tools or knowledge to accurately measure the age of the Earth, and this was indeed the subject of some not very accurate guesswork. In the twentieth century radiometric dating was developed, and according to that process, Earth is around 4.5 billion years old.It is, therefore, no longer true that guesswork is significantly involved, nor is it true that there are “many theories” about the age of the Earth, or the age of the universe.Life, as near as we can place it, first showed up about 3.5 billion years ago. According to biologists this is sufficient time for life as we know it today to have evolved to where it is today.“It took almost the entire history of science to realize that they do not know where the center of creation is located, nor how it got there.”It is certainly true that, in science, the more we learn the more we find out what we don’t know. Ideas once held as true – often, though by no means exclusively, as a result of religious belief – are discovered to be false as we discover more, and mere belief is replaced by actual knowledge. This is the primary difference between religion and science: religion believes it has already arrived, that it already has complete truth; science knows that the journey is a long one, and likely will never be completed. To a scientist, “I don’t know” is a phrase that opens a door to the opportunity for new knowledge.You can’t find real answers if you believe you already have them all.

Posted by GalapagosPete | Report as abusive

A theory is still guesswork: As you say, theories have many scientists trying to destroy them … only because they are not proven facts. Facts cannot be destroyed, but theories sometimes fall. Odd you don’t see the difference, even as you describe it, yet you label it otherwise. Example: Airplanes fly is a fact; Air exists is a fact; Of course there are belief systems that dispute such claims. Is religion a fact or a theory? We know it exists, but not all people agree that its substance exists. Evolution is like this: Its substance is not fact, but theory and not only theory but several theories some of which conflict. One important fact involved in the dispute over evolution is motive: What is the motive to suppress rival theories to evolution? You can’t say “truth”, because then that brings in the logical extention which is the notion of the “prime mover”, which evolution can’t accept. So, what is the motive to suppress creationism?

Posted by JLS | Report as abusive

Galapagos Pete: You say, “You can’t find real answers if you believe you already have them all.” Obviously; so we agree on something. Great! Science requires the human capacity to look from as many different perspectives as possible … which can be an art in itself. Why would evolutionists deny others the human capacity to look at evidence from perspectives that don’t give credence to what evolutionists insist are the correct ones? Doesn’t that fly in the face of your claim that science involves tearing at theories? What science supports this suppression?

Posted by JLS | Report as abusive

Gal. Pete: You define religion in an erroneous way. The way you define it provides a rationale for dismissing it, and your definition would indeed conflict with science. However, what you define as religion applies to some but not all religions. It does not apply to Christianity. Why? Because to believe “that it already has complete truth” (from your post), would make such a religion a superficial one wherein the content were subject to the imagination. This in fact is what evolution does, not true religion. When, for example, Catholicism claims that it has “complete truth”, it does not claim this to meant that any member has full knowledge of truth, but only that truth is God and God is with and in His Church. There are many analogies explaining this further; but the main thing here is that we are advised to ask questions, seek the truth, and knock on doors to further insight … Does this sound like a workable plan? Isn’t that what the scientific method does? So, again, as there are authorities in any organization, whether it be in a religion or a science, those members in authority cannot claim to know and be in total awareness of everything. Christianity does not make such a claim, although some members of it might. I believe and I reason that the Catholic Church entertains evolution scientists for the purpose of seeking this level of exploration, where the errant claims can be laid aside so that everyone can take an unhindered look at the evidence and let the nature of the human mind explore it.

Posted by JLS | Report as abusive

JLS: R. balochistanensis wouldn’t be a bad place to start, then look at the other species of the genus Rodhocetus and go on from there. Trying to review all the transitional forms discovered to date will keep you busy for a long time.

Posted by Geoff Lake | Report as abusive

OK, I checked these two creatures out. The fit a niche of their time. To say they are transitional, in the sense that they are evolutionary links from one type of creature to another is like saying that since worms are composed of material, and man is composed of material, then we’re linked by evolution.The problem with the hypothesis of transitional forms is that it presupposes that such forms are transitional. There are similarities in both form and function among all sorts of creatures; it boils down to belief as to whether they should be considered created without being transitional or not.Have you considered linking the idea of “purpose” to each? What is the purpose of evolution? What is the purpose of creation? If this is not enough, then how did “purpose” evolve? Or is “purpose” created?You see, if there is evolution of material things, then this supposes some sort of an immaterial thing intrinsic to evolution. Thus, the question has to be asked as to whether such immaterial things evolve or not.Finally this takes us to the question of the “big bang” of immaterial things: God. Does God evolve? A serious and honest evolutionist has no option but to tackle this question.

Posted by JLS | Report as abusive

Geoff Lake, looking more closely at an artist’s presentation of Rhodhocetus , it becomes obvious that early cavemen would have trained them to fetch the ducks (ptera-duck-tyls) they shot with their bows and which fell into the water. One can easily see how these primitive beasts evolved into our modern day water dogs what with the webbed toes, otter-like tails and strong swimming conformations.

Posted by JLS | Report as abusive

JLS, you asked me to name one example, so I gave you one and not two. I chose it because it fits neatly into a complex pattern of extinct creatures well represented in the fossil record, which is why I suggested you look at other species of the same genus. Yes, it would have been suited to it’s time, which is a central part of evolutionary theory. Your comparison between worms and men is facile.Your second missive to be humorous, perhaps written late at night. This creature lived almost two hundred times further in history than the earliest human. Some people don’t realize that ‘The Flintstones’ wasn’t meant to be a documentary.Neither purpose nor god is part of evolutionary theory, so ‘evolutionists’ have no more need to tackle either than does anyone else.

Posted by Geoff Lake | Report as abusive

Geoff Lake, when you claim that neither purpose nor God is part of evolutionary theory, then where did they come from? Also and more to the point, the only thing validating the these artifacts as evolutionary links is the imagination. Imagination is good of course, yet conclusions that are valid only due to peer pressure or political force are not scientific conclusions. Your conjecture that these creatures lived millions of years ago and not while man was living has no validity other than imagination, and is being forced politically or by peer pressure. But thanks for recognizing my humor … it was indeed late at night; and, this leads to the further wonder of how the late at night imagination evolved. The theory of evolution is simply a way that many minds operate, and is subjective, which itself is a fact of evolution I guess you’d have to say. Or could the way minds operate be the way they always operated, and not a product of evolution? It seems to me that this blog wants to stick to material evolution, and that is fine; however, how does one justify the isolation between material evolution and immaterial evolution? And did the two evolve at the same rate?

Posted by JLS | Report as abusive

JLS writes :“It seems to me that this blog wants to stick to material evolution”How right! The only interest of any forum or blog on this subject is to determine the facts from which evolution can either be affirmed or rejected.This has been amply done by the Berthault’s experiments on stratification whose results invalidate the geological time-scale. The last time this was raised it was dismissed by GPete with the following words“What he hasn’t done, and is apparently unable to do, is show that his flume experiment applies in the real world”This despite the fact that his website gives examples where research by sedimentologists in the real world have shown conclusively that the laboratory result are confirmed by paleohydraulic analyses in the field. Shouldn’t one take the time to look at the data before criticising it?These experiments, by demonstrating the rapid formation of rocks (0.01% of the time in the time scale) show that inferences drawn from the fossil record are groundless. Many of the fossilised creatures must have lived around the same time.This is why Geoff Lake‘s statement regarding a proposed transitional:“This creature lived almost two hundred times further in history than the earliest human”has been held for a long time, but in the light of the new experimental empirical evidence can no longer be promoted.So in order to avoid bloggers continuing to use the argument, it can’t be true because no body accepts it, I recommend they visit the website http://www.sedimentology.fr where they will see that the work has been published by the French and Russian Academies of Sciences. Of course the scientific community is not falling head over heels to embrace such an advance in science, but who would if their entire world view based upon evolution is put in question? Has any previous breakthrough in science threatened belief in the existence of cave-men? Moreover, ongoing experiments continue with current velocities of 20 metres per second and more.

Posted by Peter Wilders | Report as abusive

I read an explanation of Bertault’s work, and it seems reasonable. I will go to the recommended website and see if I can deal with any of the specialized technical material.” … if their entire world view based upon evolution is put in question?” For me, this phrase by Peter Wilders provides a look at a science that is most intriguing: What are the foundations and motives for one’s world view, and what would persuade one to question these things?

Posted by JLS | Report as abusive

What I’m getting from reading the link to Guy Berthault’s site is that the concept of time matters a great deal to the theories and dating techniques. When one says “time is measured”, that refers to the construct we call time. I differentiate this construct from another use of time, which is the change from one state to another, where time is irrelevant; but what is relevant is the relationships among the various changes. The only reason I can see for applying the concept of time to these changes is to package the whole thing, which then gives us some sort of intellectual control over it.When I first encountered phyics in high school, we were told that there were two theories for light. One was that it was continuous with a solid substance, and the other that it consisted of packets. Isn’t the same thinking what we find in the evolution / creation controversy? Evolution describes a continuous morphing of material, whereas creation posits discrete new things connected by no material continuity.One enigma I learned of when observing an experiment a few decades ago, was that electrons jumped from one orbit to the next with no evident path of travel (no time measureable either by instrument or theory). My point here is that no one has yet proven the existence of time, except within a “box” we call science. But this is also to say that time has limits.Thus, we can see the arguments have never changed since the earliest known written accounts. It has always been a struggle of the intellect to discern the link between one thing and another. That ancient whale looking beast that was also like a crocodile. Was it a morphological stage or an independent material event?I’m not sure where I got the next idea but how do we know if space is a uniform size? That is, how are we so sure that some supernova is a hundred million light years away? Maybe space shrinks as the distances increase, or seem to increase. What would the arguments be based on? And how stable would these bases be? Is the space a substance or is it nothing with substances in it?Finally is there a morphology between man and that which is immaterial? Some cowboy character on the silver screen once said, “A man’s got to know his limits”. Well, we have to be honest and admit the limits. What are the limits of evolution? Of creation?These issues are way off track, but they illustrate that arguments will not be won by the assumption of immaterial links, without defining the limits of such suspected immaterial links. What is the immaterial link connecting an ancient whale / crocodile like beast to some other type of beast with similar features? Is it not reasonable that in science the occasions when immaterial connections are part of the mix then they have to be defined?Morphing from one creature through a missing link, ie an immaterial connection, to another should require the gap to be defined and its limits agreed figured out. So it is not quite a level playing field nor even the same playing field for evolution which does not define these limits, and creationism which does.

Posted by JLS | Report as abusive

Amongst JLS’ reflections after visiting Guy Berthault’s website on the notion of time were:1. “Evolution describes a continuous morphing of material, whereas creation posits discrete new things connected by no material continuity”To describe a phenomenon such as a continuous morphing requires an account based upon observation. Evolution claims the object of observation is the paleontological record. But the experiments in stratification show that record is dependent upon the geological time-scale which the same experiments have invalidated. This is not a time problem but a false teaching resulting from an untested observation. The test determines the accuracy of the interpretation stemming from the observation. In the case of rock strata the principles of geology were formulated from Nicholas Stenon’s interpretation in the seventeenth century of the strata he saw. Not having a hydraulics laboratory to put his observations to the test, his principles went unchallenged. Now that equipment is available to test his interpretations it has become clear that one of the vectors he didn’t take into account was that of the velocity of the water current. Having eventually included it in the formula the result demonstrated that strata form much faster than shown by application of the flawed principles. What is involved is not a philosophical idea of time but scientific facts.2. “Morphing from one creature through a missing link, ie an immaterial connection, to another should require the gap to be defined and its limits agreed figured out.”His reference to missing links strongly indicates an acceptance of the fossil record together with its gaps, and its use as a time scale for observing evolution. This seems to be contrary to his theme that the concept of time can in some way be dissociated with the theory; and suggests a difficulty to conceive that the fossil record is not a measure of geological time.In any case, from someone who wrote earlier:“It seems to me that this blog wants to stick to material evolution”his latest post appears somewhat disloyal to this affirmation, with which I totally agree.Peter

Posted by Peter Wilders | Report as abusive

Thanks, Peter, for taking the time and trouble to critique my last post. I tried to say too much in too few words. I intended to expand on my previous post, the one you agree with, but confused my point.I could have left out the deal about “time”.My premise is that there is no tangible evidence for presupposing that one form led to another, but only philosophical speculation.What I have been trying to do is encourage a completely versed evolutionist to explain what the immaterial force is that makes the evolutionary morphing happen. So far no such explanations. Therefore, I wonder why they disdain discrete creation so much, when there is no evidence that does not support it.Also, as I reflect on this thread, I am more and more realizing the importance of Berthault’s experiments that show rapid stratification. Now, I am wondering if a “layman” such as myself can see the proof of rapid stratification, rather than depend on professionals to vouch for it. It makes sense to me, but what would it take for ardent evolutionists to go over it thoroughly enough to see for themselves?JLS

Posted by JLS | Report as abusive

“…how the late at night imagination evolved.”Pizza and beer.

Posted by GalapagosPete | Report as abusive

Peter writes,”This despite the fact that his [Guy Berthault's] website gives examples where research by sedimentologists in the real world have shown conclusively that the laboratory result are confirmed by paleohydraulic analyses in the field.”If his experimental results have been independently, conclusively confirmed by other sedimentologists, why have his ideas not been accepted? Or at least being seriously discussed? The French and Russians published his results; are even they discussing it? If not, why not?Does anyone – even Berthault – claim in a peer-reviewed paper that this IS what happened, or just that, under certain circumstances, it MAY have happened? And did it occur everywhere, or just in some cases? And if so, how can he prove it, or, rather, how can he disprove that it happened as sedimentologists now say it did?”Of course the scientific community is not falling head over heels to embrace such an advance in science, but who would if their entire world view based upon evolution is put in question? Has any previous breakthrough in science threatened belief in the existence of cave-men?”Since geologists, paleontologists, astronomers, etc., have all reached their own conclusions (independent of the conclusions of evolutionary biology, or indeed, even whether evolutionary biology is even true) about the ages of the Earth and the universe, you seem to be saying that scientists in those and other disciplines are all lying about the results of their research in order to support evolution. Or that they’re deluded.Also, you started by saying, “The only interest of any forum or blog on this subject is to determine the facts from which evolution can either be affirmed or rejected.”My inference from that statement is that you believe that Berthault’s experiments undermine evolution, i.e., the Earth isn’t old enough for evolution to have occurred. Now you seem to be saying that scientists in other disciplines cling to evolution because it supports their theories. Certainly evolution and the age of the Earth dovetail nicely, but each is independent of the other. Generally speaking, geologists aren’t interested in supporting evolution, per se. If life on Earth was 6,000 years old, that would have no impact on the age of the Earth. On the other hand, a young Earth would invalidate evolution.There seems to be a contradiction here. Or perhaps I’ve misunderstood your point.

Posted by GalapagosPete | Report as abusive

And just to be clear, it isn’t enough to come up with an alternate hypothesis.Berthault must demonstrate to the scientific establishment that his hypothesis is a BETTER explanation and is MORE LIKELY TO HAVE HAPPENED than the existing theory. Obviously, he has not done this.

Posted by GalapagosPete | Report as abusive

JLS writes, “My premise is that there is no tangible evidence for presupposing that one form led to another, but only philosophical speculation.”Try your premise on evolutionary biologists instead of a religious blog. Tell them that they operate from philosophical speculation, and not from evidence.”What I have been trying to do is encourage a completely versed evolutionist to explain what the immaterial force is that makes the evolutionary morphing happen.”Again, go talk to an evolutionary biologist. Of course, the first thing they’ll ask you to do is explain what you mean by “immaterial force” and why you believe that it “makes morphing happen”.”Now, I am wondering if a “layman” such as myself can see the proof of rapid stratification, rather than depend on professionals to vouch for it.”Yet again, you need to talk to some professionals and see why they reject rapid stratification? Or if they support it, for that matter.If you are convinced of your positions you should be comfortable discussing them with scientists who have been working on their fields for a long time and who disagree with you to find out why they disagree. Don’t you think there must be a reason?And if you assert that it’s because they are dedicated to an atheistic explanation, then aren’t you saying implicitly that your position is based, not on evidence, but on your religious faith? If so, why is your religious faith a better explanation than scientific inquiry based on evidence from thousands of researchers working for decades?As I said above, a theory can only be replaced by another theory if the new theory is a BETTER explanation, not merely different. Why is yours better?

Posted by GalapagosPete | Report as abusive

GPete writes: “Does anyone – even Berthault – claim in a peer-reviewed paper that this IS what happened, or just that, under certain circumstances, it MAY have happened? And did it occur everywhere, or just in some cases? And if so, how can he prove it… »The proof is found on Berthault’s website in his 2002 peer-reviewed paper:ANALYSIS OF THE MAIN PRINCIPLES OF STRATIGRAPHY ON THEBASIS OF EXPERIMENTAL DATAHere is the abstract:Abstract – Stratigraphy, the basis of geological dating, was founded in the 17th centuryon the three well-known principles assumed by Nicolas Stenon: superposition, continuity,original horizontality. Successive observations and experiments show that Stenon\’sstratigraphic model was not in line with experimental data, because it had \”overlooked\” themajor variable factor of sedimentology: the current and its chronological effects.Experiments were performed simulating the formation of layers of sediment. The layers were generated at variable current velocities from different sized particles. On the basis of the experiments Stenon\’s stratigraphy was shown only to apply in the particular case of deposition at a nil current velocity.It should be recalled that geology is still based upon Stenon’s principle of superposition. Moreover, as geologists know, it is sufficient for a principle to be invalidated on one occasion for it to be no longer considered as a principle. Berthault’s experiments showed it was inapplicable in all the parameters testedThe field observations confirming the laboratory results are reported in the 2006 peer reviewed paper by sedimentologist A. Lalomov:\”Reconstruction of Paleohydrodynamic Conditions during the Formation of Upper Jurassic Conglomerates of the Crimean Peninsula\”So far there have been no scientific refutations of these experiments or their application on the terrain. Nonetheless, Berthault has been the subject of virulent ‘ad hominem’ attacks.As I pointed out before:\”Of course the scientific community is not falling head over heels to embrace such an advance in science, but who would if their entire world view based upon evolution is put in question? Has any previous breakthrough in science threatened belief in the existence of cave-men? Moreover, ongoing experiments continue with current velocities of 20 metres per second and more.”Credit must be given to JSL for having gone to Berthault’s website.Peter

Posted by Peter Wilders | Report as abusive

Galapagos Pete, how can you make fun of imagination when that is the only thing that supports evolution theory? I tend to drink about a bottle of beer and late at night is not an issue. You have to remember that the scientist who discovered DNA or maybe it was RNA did so late at night while staring into a fire. Both ends of the candle are required. And no way are you really denying that evolutionary biologists lack imagination, right? Without it, you can’t even come up with a hypothesis. Now you claim that the only thing that connects the artifacts is the latest theories, not simply if they’ve been proven, but if their proof has been accepted. And you’re telling me that belief has no place in science? Let us see you make a statement that does not rely on belief.

Posted by JLS | Report as abusive

G.Pete, I don’t know if you’ve ever been in experimental science labs. If you have, then you ought to know how so much of it is driven by money.As for your idea that determining the validity of an experiment depends upon further experiments or discussion of the experiment is missing a link or two. I’ll let you figure it out.BTW, are there any reasonable theoretical missing links that you can come up with? Cartoonists do it all the time; but they never come up with any reasonable ones. Have the serious scientists?No doubt they’ve been trying; no doubt there are artistic renderings of such evolutional “movements”. So, what is the best one you are informed of?

Posted by JLS | Report as abusive

We know that species are going extinct all the time. But we also know that no new ones have come into existence … we have good records for at least thousands of years, and no indications of any new species, or what could be called “transitional” forms have been identified. Thousands of years of human record keeping and nothing evolutionary at all! All that exists are artifacts, which are “brought to life” by the imagination.What if Lucy’s bones were morphed a bit in a computer? What do they come up with? But no one has found any such morphings among the artifacts. Every type of artifact is radically different, with no smooth gradation among any of them.

Posted by JLS | Report as abusive

Dr Babuna is absolutely right..It is asserted that species evolved into one another by successive minute variations, and that this happened over billions of years, then evolutionist have to show us these slow minute changes in the fossilized examples of those species. They must show us half-fish half-reptile half bird fossils. These imaginary species are called transitional forms. There can be no doubt that if there is no such fossil proof concerning changes among the fossil of stable species, then there is nothing left to discuss as regards the theory of evolution…But the number of the so called transitional forms transitional species must be much higher than that of the stable species we observe today.But the fact is fossils show that each species appeared abruptly, complete and perfectly formed.And this definitely means that living beings are Created by God.

Materialism absolutely rejects the existence of anything beyond matter. Science itself is not obliged to accept such a dogma. Science means exploring nature and deriving conclusions from one’s findings. if these findings lead to the conclusion that nature is created science has to accept it. That is the duty of a true scientist; not defending impossible scenarios by clinging to the outdated materialist dogmas of the 19th century.

Life is only generated from life. Each living cell is formed by the replication of another cell.In this respect the first life on earth must have originated from other life. This is a reflection of Allah’s epithet of Hayy (the owner of life) Life can only start continue and end by his will. As for evolution not only unable to explain how life began it is also unable to explain now the materials essential for life have formed and come together.

“The proof is found on Berthault’s website in his 2002 peer-reviewed paper…”Strangely, even though his papers have been published in French, Russian and Chinese geological/scientific journals, none of those countries have adopted his assertions in place of modern geological theories. Their geology is still based upon [the modern synthesis of] Stenon’s principle of superposition. Probably because they don’t want to becoming the laughingstocks of the scientific world. They shouldn’t worry. If they adopted Berthaultism, no one would laugh; I think horror would be the actual reaction.Berthault makes a point on his website that, after presenting his paper at the 4th National Conference of Lithology at the Institute of Geology in Moscow, “The presentation was warmly applauded by the audience and the principle members of the Institute. It should be emphasised that no criticisms or objections were voiced or recorded.” No one criticized it, but did anyone there agree with his own assessment that he’d made a fundamental breakthrough in geological science that invalidated everything geologists thought they knew?If so, he forgot to mention it.But the best refutation I’ve seen of Berthault, and in plain English, is atwww.evolutionpages.com/berthault_criti que.htmThe author explains why Berthault’s work is, at best, only trivially significant. He points out that Berthault’s leap from “this could have happened this way” to “absolutely it happened this way” is utterly unjustified. “One cannot simply extrapolate the findings of size-sorting from a sedimentation experiment in a flume, carrying at most a few feet depth of water, to conclude that the whole post-Cambrian geological column, more than a mile thick in some places, was laid down rapidly in a single event.”

Posted by GalapagosPete | Report as abusive

“Galapagos Pete, how can you make fun of imagination when that is the only thing that supports evolution theory?”No, imagination is a starting point for science, but after you imagine a possible explanation – called an hypothesis – for a phenomenon, you then have to find evidence to back it up or you must abandon your hypothesis.

Posted by GalapagosPete | Report as abusive

“Materialism absolutely rejects the existence of anything beyond matter. Science itself is not obliged to accept such a dogma.”And science doesn’t. If there was valid evidence that pointed to non-material origins for natural phenomena, science would absolutely accept it. So far that hasn’t happened, in spite of assertions to the contrary.

Posted by GalapagosPete | Report as abusive

GPete’s view that the test of the validity of scientific proof depends upon the subjective response of the scientific community (he uses such words as “laughing stock” and “horror”) is unfortunately indicative of the evolutionary mindset. When presented with the means of determining whether Berthault’s empirical proof is an absolute refutation of a geological principle, he refers to a non-scientific mainly ad hominem critique (rebutted point by point with the refusal of the critic to post the rebuttal on his web site). For the umpteenth time, all one has to do is to show (experimentally) the validity of the principle of superposition in forming successive strata in water driven by a current. None of Berthault’s innumerable critics have been able to do this. On the contrary, and without ambiguity, he has shown the impossibility of them forming in this way. Remember over 75% of the earths crust is involved.Please, let’s stick to science and forget polemics.Peter

Posted by Peter Wilders | Report as abusive

G.Pete: You say, “you then have to find evidence to back it up or you must abandon your hypothesis.”: Do you see the irony here? You imply a time limit as to when to shut down a hypothesis for lack of evidence. What theory decides such a time limit?

Posted by JLS | Report as abusive

G.Pete: ““Materialism absolutely rejects the existence of anything beyond matter. Science itself is not obliged to accept such a dogma.”And science doesn’t. “, you say.Yet evolutionary theory relies on the dogma that an immaterial force causes one distinct form to morph into another distinct form, when there are no artifacts demonstrating a transition.

Posted by JLS | Report as abusive

G.Pete, Let us examine the title of your link for it\’s objective merit:The Curious Case of the One-Man BandThe work of Guy Berthault: Revolutionary Geology or Extravagant Hubris?Alec MacAndrewA. This title shows that the evolutionists have no respect for any other ideas by calling such things \”extravagant hubris\”.B. Ditto in that Berthault is called a \”one man band\”.Why read such a biased article? The title gives away the author\’s ad hominem motive, and says nothing about science.

Posted by JLS | Report as abusive

G. Pete’s referenced critique of Berthault includes a reference to the geological column having, with some enigmas, all artifacts arranged according to evolution theory. This author claims that this arrangement contradicts Berthault’s hypothesis. He also claims that there is no explanation that argues this reasonably.The author cites only a couple sources he claims deal with “young earth”, and dismisses them with ad hominem insults. So much for objectivity and the capacity to argue science.

Posted by JLS | Report as abusive

Peter, Do the Russians, Chinese or French teach Berthault’s ideas in their schools as a replacement for, and a rejection of, current theory?

Posted by GalapagosPete | Report as abusive

Peter, you should post the link to Berthault’s point-by-point response to Alec MacAndrew’s critique.

Posted by GalapagosPete | Report as abusive

“Yet evolutionary theory relies on the dogma that an immaterial force causes one distinct form to morph into another distinct form…”What immaterial force is that? Science makes no claims about immaterial forces driving evolution.

Posted by GalapagosPete | Report as abusive

“G. Pete’s referenced critique of Berthault includes a reference to the geological column having, with some enigmas, all artifacts arranged according to evolution theory.”What “enigmas” are those? Please list them. The author said nothing of the kind.”This author claims that this arrangement contradicts Berthault’s hypothesis.”No, this author – Alec MacAndrew – is not arguing this all by himself. He is explaining the position being taken by virtually all geologists in the world. It isn’t just MacAndrew, as you apparently believe–it’s basically everyone who thinks Berthault is wrong.”The author cites only a couple sources he claims deal with “young earth”, and dismisses them with ad hominem insults.”The author cites 34 sources.”So much for objectivity and the capacity to argue science.”So much for your ability to understand a scientific argument when it’s presented in plain English.And “ad hominem” doesn’t mean what you seem to think it does. It isn’t merely insulting someone or their argument; it’s basing your refutation on irrelevant insults. For example, saying “Berthault is French, so his science must be wrong” would be ad hominem. However, saying “Berthault is an incompetent hack because he confuses the principle of superposition with the principle of original horizontality” would be strong language, but it wouldn’t be ad hominem.

Posted by GalapagosPete | Report as abusive

“GPete’s view that the test of the validity of scientific proof depends upon the subjective response of the scientific community (he uses such words as “laughing stock” and “horror”) is unfortunately indicative of the evolutionary mindset.”Where did I say, or even imply, that scientific proof is dependent on subjective responses? That is a seriously twisted interpretation of my post. And why do you keep calling geologists “evolutionists”? That doesn’t make any sense either. But I guess that’s indicative of the YEC mindset: it can’t possibly be true so all the scientists – except a brave few – must be part of a vast conspiracy to deny God. Sad.”…he refers to a non-scientific mainly ad hominem critique…”Read my response to JLS explaining what ad hominem means. Simply saying that Berthault is wrong, even colorfully, isn’t ad hominem. And while the title of the article is colorful, the article itself isn’t even insulting, much less ad hominem–except that it tells the truth and explains why Berthault is wrong. Berthault–and you may find that infuriating, but it isn’t insulting.”…rebutted point by point with the refusal of the critic to post the rebuttal on his web site.”When we see the link to the rebuttal, we can judge it. Until then we have only your word it even exists, much less that it’s effective.”For the umpteenth time, all one has to do is to show (experimentally) the validity of the principle of superposition in forming successive strata in water driven by a current. None of Berthault’s innumerable critics have been able to do this.”Do you mean demonstrate that it doesn’t happen, i.e.e, refute him experimentally? For the umpteenth-and-first time, no one is arguing that it doesn’t happen, only Berthault’s unwarranted assertion that it did happen that way on a large scale. It’s known and accepted that it happens from time to time, but not in a significant way, geologically speaking.”On the contrary, and without ambiguity, he has shown the impossibility of them forming in this way.”How has he shown this? The whole point is that he has proven nothing (well, nothing new, anyway), and disproved nothing. Unless he has hidden pages on his website. Specify just how he’s shown current theory is even questionable, much less impossible. If you understand it, you explain it, and in layman’s terms.

Posted by GalapagosPete | Report as abusive

GPete believes his views are not subjective, that is to say based upon opinion, belief or personal conviction. If they were objective he would produce some scientific proof to the contrary of the scientific evidence he believes is incorrect. One should point out that asking questions is not proof to the contrary. For instance, asking whether anyone agrees with Berthault’s assessment doesn’t equate to a valid criticism of his work.GPete believes a good refutation of Berthault’s experimental research is given in a web critique posted several years ago by Alec MacAndrew. As Berthault pointed out in his rebuttal no scientific explanation is given of why his critic believes the experiments are inadequate.Here is Berthault’s response.Dear Mr. MacAndrew,In view of the language problem, I am replying to your critique on behalf of Guy Berthault. Please let me know if you can manage French, if so you can respond to him in his mother tongue. If not I will act as translator.Berthault’s initial observations are as follows:1. The references you give are not recent and your name is not among them.2. He asks if you have written any peer reviewed paper on sedimentology, and if so to please let him have references?3. You refer to Stenon’s work “Prodromus” defining the three principles of stratigraphy. However, you do not mention the main one upon which Berthault’s experimental work focuses, “Canis Calchariae” stating that layers of sub-soil are ‘strata’ of ancient successive ‘sediments’; it is from this affirmation that all the principles of stratigraphy proceed.4. In your second paragraph you write: “The assertion that his work has fundamental implications for geology was made later, in informal presentations”. This is incorrect. The conclusion of the 1993 paper Experiments in Stratification of Heterogeneous Sand Mixtures (Julian, Lan , Berthault published by the Geological Society of France (with three sedimentologist referees) states: Rather than successive sedimentary layers, these experiments demonstrate that stratification under a continuous supply of heterogeneous sandy mixtures results from segregation for lamination, non-uniform flow for graded beds and desiccation for joints. Superposed strata are not, therefore, necessarily identical to successive sedimentary layers. These experimental results provide empirical evidence directly challenging Stenon’s interpretations in “Canis Calchariae” which he based upon his observation only.5. The geological principles challenged by Berthault and explained in his official publications result from experiments show that under the effect of a turbulent current of fluctuating velocity, stratification develops vertically and laterally upstream and downstream at the same time. As explained to Dr. Henke, unless he or anyone else can provide experimental evidence that such is not the case, they should refrain from criticising.6. The principles of stratigraphy challenged are featured in his first Russian publication. Stenon recognised that: strata owe their existence to sediments in a fluid, but without the facilities offered by modern hydraulics laboratories he was unable to determine that the time needed for sediments to deposit is a function of the velocity of current. Moreover, that the “hiatuses” (surface erosion, stratification slope change) are found experimentally in all deposits resulting from variable current velocity.7. Great numbers of varves can form given a sufficient supply of sediment and multiple changes in current. Bijou Creek flash flood is an example.8. You write: ” Berthault has criticised radiometric dating technology, but has consistently failed to explain why the dates produced by radiometric dating are consistent with the consensus view of geology”. Two examples demonstrate his reasons for explaining why radiometric dates cannot be used to confirm classical geology. The assumption in radiometric dating is that when rocks form they have the same abundance of the daughter element.(i) In 1996, a sample of dacite from the 1980 Mt. St. Helens eruption was reduced to its component parts of feldspar, amphibole and pyroxene. The whole rock and the component minerals were dated by Geochron Laboratories. The results were as follows:Mineral Age (yrs) Argon ppmDacite 350,000 0.0018Feldspar 340,000 0.0024Amphibole 900,000 0.0027Pyroxene 1,700,000 0.0015 to 0.0025The quantity of radioactive Argon which comes from the magma is not, therefore, homogeneous according to the constituent parts; varying from 0.0015 to 0.0027. This fact is contrary to the principal assumption of the radiometric dating method.(ii) Dalrymple and Hamblin’s report (Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 95 (1998) states:”We measured K-Ar on all three flows that form the Prospect Dam. The 1.86 Ma result from one sample of the oldest flow is clearly anomalous when compared with the results of the other two samples of this flow, and we suspect that the anomalous sample may have contained an undetected xenolith. If we exclude the one anomalous result the weighted mean age of the three Prospect flows is 0.679 +/-0.047 Ma. If the anomalous result is included the weighted mean age is 0.684 +/- 0.019 Ma.”Flow 1 Age (Ma) Argon %1,190 +/- 0.480 2.71.410 +/- 0.890 1.70.469 +/- 0.324 1.60.992 +/- 0.082 12.3In this example the content of argon varies from 1.6 to 12.3; the basic assumption is again shown to be incorrect.9. You write “The suggestion that fossil organisms are sorted, not chronologically, but ecologically and hydraulically, is not credible”. Guy replies, at least at the sequence level according to Walther’s law on correlation of facies and biotopes the current can drag ecologically sorted fossils into superposed biozones.10. Romanovsky (1988) demonstrates the time of deposition can be 0.01% of the ascribed geological time. Such independent sources confirm the results of our research leaving unanswered the question; how in such a short time can evolution take place?Although Berthault is prepared to debate any objective authority in sedimentology/geology, he considers the tenor of your remarks and their lack of scientific substance hostile to such an exchange. Your obvious attempt to introduce a religious element is foreign to his professional work and suggests a wish to denigrate his research by whatever means.Your disparaging comments regarding an Academy of Sciences publication being inferior to “main stream scientific journals” is inexcusable and should be beneath the standards of an informed critic. Your attempt to inform the public that Russian professional sedimentologists are inferior to their American counterparts should turn any knowledgeable scientist from your ill-informed assertions.Trying to make a case that experimental research done 20 years ago has no longer any value, apart from exposing your lack of information on research taking place at the present time, is a sad reflection upon the scientific knowledge of the author of the “refutation”. Your lack of awareness of recently published paleohydraulic analyses by professional sedimentologists showing rapid formation of upper Jurassic conglomerates is a further reason why your critique cannot be taken seriously.Sincerely – Peter Wilders (for Guy Berthault)

Posted by Peter Wilders | Report as abusive

GPete, when you say “Science makes no claims about immaterial forces driving evolution”, you are dealing with the question of how one form evolves into another discrete form. “Discrete” means that there is an abrupt variation. All artifacts display an abrupt difference, and do not necessitate any evolutionary change of the Darwinian type, ie a gradual genetic change.When D. evolution theory presupposes a particular explanation for what it sees as a geological record, this is no more than an idea imposed on a collection of artifacts. Are you not aware of other constructs that explain the facts?

Posted by JLS | Report as abusive

“The whole rock and the component minerals were dated by Geochron Laboratories…”A lab that said at the time that their equipment was not capable of reliably making the measurements being requested. In fact, probably due to this event, they no longer do K-Ar work.”The results were as follows: [350,000 to 1.7M years]“And yet, strangely, none of them registered 6,000-10,000 years old, so while there may be anomalies due to impurities, testing error or due to the use of an inappropriate dating technique it still in no way supports YEC religious beliefs.”Romanovsky (1988) demonstrates the time of deposition can be 0.01% of the ascribed geological time. Such independent sources…”Actually that’s one – creationist – source, not “sources.”"…how in such a short time can evolution take place?”You still haven’t demonstrated that this happened on a large enough scale to matter. Geologists have known for years that it DOES happen, but physical evidence shows it is relatively – or maybe very – rare.”Trying to make a case that experimental research done 20 years ago has no longer any value, apart from exposing your lack of information on research taking place at the present time, is a sad reflection upon the scientific knowledge of the author…”You mean, something like saying, “The references you give are not recent…”, Berthault’s first comment; THAT sort of sad reflection? Anyway, no one is saying that work done 20 years ago no longer has any value; that would be ridiculous. A great deal of work that is much older – such as Darwin’s work – is fantastically valuable, even world-changing. What is being said is that Berthault’s work is trivial, no matter how old it is, and here’s why:1) It wasn’t new; others had already, at the very least, suggested that layers could be laid down by moving water. Geologists accept this as a fact, and even know what characteristics to look for.

Posted by GalapagosPete | Report as abusive

2) Berthault still hasn’t demonstrated or even explained why his idea is a better – or even as good – explanation than then the currently accepted one.Why is is better? What conditions existed that make his idea more likely? Or make the accepted theory “impossible”, as claimed earlier?And don’t say, “Go look over there.” Quit ducking the question. Why is his idea better? Be specific. You claim to understand it, so you explain it.

Posted by GalapagosPete | Report as abusive

“All artifacts display an abrupt difference, and do not necessitate any evolutionary change of the Darwinian type, ie a gradual genetic change.”Either, gradualism or punctuated equilibrium, is evolution, a natural process not involving unsupported supernatural beings.”When D. evolution theory presupposes a particular explanation for what it sees as a geological record, this is no more than an idea imposed on a collection of artifacts.”The geologic record comes from geologists. Evolution theory exists independently of the geologic record, though it WOULD have been awkward had geology demonstrated an Earth too young for evolution to have occurred. Good thing it doesn’t.”Are you not aware of other constructs that explain the facts?”I am aware of people who invoke mythical supreme beings that can do anything to “explain” the facts, but I am aware of no other scientific explanations.

Posted by GalapagosPete | Report as abusive

“GPete believes his views are not subjective…”It doesn’t matter what I believe. It doesn’t matter what YOU believe, or Berthault, or JLS, or Richard Dawkins, or Charles Darwin.The difference is that Dawkins, Darwin and I know that belief isn’t reality. You think it is. You “believe” in a god, therefore that god exists, therefore everything that support the belief is true and everything that does not is false. For you, belief = reality.But there’s no evidence supporting your view, as much as you wish there were or believe there is.So let’s stick to science, not beliefs.

Posted by GalapagosPete | Report as abusive

G.Pete, here is one of your latest desparate claims: “The difference is that Dawkins, Darwin and I know that belief isn’t reality.” So, then, what is belief? According to you, it does not exist.

Posted by JLS | Report as abusive

Now, G.Pete, why do you incessantly switch from reality to faux reality? Here you go trying to bait a trap by insisting that the academic goal is to determine which idea is better, rather than address the claim that Berthault’s idea is valid. It is not a matter of “better” but of validity. How could you miss this? Tricky rhetoric is irrelevant to science, and here I thought you were purporting to be operating in the realm of science and not politics. So explain to me how you do science by employing political rhetoric.

Posted by JLS | Report as abusive

“So, then, what is belief? According to you, it does not exist.”JLS, re-read the post. If you still don’t understand the context, you shouldn’t be participating in discussions with grown-ups.

Posted by GalapagosPete | Report as abusive

JLS,Why do you think Berthault’s idea fits the evidence better than current theory?And if it isn’t a better explanation, why should it replace current theory?

Posted by GalapagosPete | Report as abusive

GPete, sorry to hear that you have reached that stage of grown up-ness where your thinking has become ossified … now don’t tell me it’s from staring at all those old bones.But onward to the second point you’re making: How is it that science consists of the best fit and not all fits?

Posted by JLS | Report as abusive

Reading through GPete’s posts it becomes clear that instead of responding to answers such as those of Berthault to his critic, he resorts to polemic.A classic example is his statement:“It doesn’t matter what I believe. It doesn’t matter what YOU believe, or Berthault, or JLS, or Richard Dawkins, or Charles Darwin. The difference is that Dawkins, Darwin and I know that belief isn’t reality. You think it is. You “believe” in a god, therefore that god exists, therefore everything that support the belief is true and everything”Please note, however, nobody apart from GPete was speaking about a god or the oxymoron of belief being a reality.He says:“The geologic record comes from geologists. Evolution theory exists independently of the geologic record, though it WOULD have been awkward had geology demonstrated an Earth too young for evolution to have occurred. Good thing it doesn’t.”Confronted with the empirical proof that the fossil record allows insufficient time for evolution to have occurred, GPete simply states (his “belief”, and that of a others) that it does. He follows up with my previous plea “let’s stick to science, not beliefs”, as if his subjective position was scientific: whilst being the opposite.No doubt, without providing proof to the contrary he will again turn to polemics to defend his disagreement unsupported by science. But for the benefit of other readers, the laboratory and field proof (not evidence), already given several times in this blog, is that the fossil bearing sediments deposit too rapidly for fossils in the rocks to show any species change. The fossils provide evidence of organisms living together at the same relative time.The logic of this conclusion lays in the fact that sediments deposit as a function of current velocity.Incidentally, GPete says:“Romanovsky (1988) demonstrates the time of deposition can be 0.01% of the ascribed geological time. Such independent sources…”He comments: “…actually that’s one – creationist – source, not “sources.””If GPete had looked more carefully at Berthault’s website he would have seen that paleohydraulic analyses by professional sedimentologists (not creationists) in subsequent years show other geological formations dated at a maximum of 0.01 of the stratigraphic time-table.Peter

Posted by Peter Wilders | Report as abusive

And yet, strangely, Berthault still isn’t taken seriously by anyone who matters. Probably because he keeps insisting that he’s right but provides nothing to back it up.Everyone already knows that some layers are deposited by moving water. What’s his evidence that moving water is a significant source of all layers on Earth?

Posted by GalapagosPete | Report as abusive

Gpete continues his polemic. His points have been addressed in numerous previous posts. Berthault’s website http://www.sedimentology.fr provides all the proof one could wish. His experiments have been proved empirically both in the laboratory and the field. No proof to the contrary has been forthcoming in over 20 years. No evolutionary scientist wants to know the truth that these experiments produce. They refute the evolutionary paradigm they cling to and its associated theological and philosophical implications. A non-evolutionary world is the last place in which a non-believer can dwell.Peter

Posted by peter wilders | Report as abusive

I’ll say this yet again, since it doesn’t seem to be getting through to you.No one is disputing what he did in his flume.No one is disputing that layers do sometimes get laid down in the real world by moving water.OK? Those things are not in dispute, and those things are all he can show evidence for.However, his conclusion that most of not all of the layers in the world were laid down by moving water in a few thousand years so the world obviously isn’t as old as some – OK, most – OK, the staggeringly overwhelming vast majority of – scientists think it is?Nah.He still hasn’t convinced anyone who matters. Like geologists, for example.And “polemic” STILL doesn’t mean what you apparently think it does.

Posted by GalapagosPete | Report as abusive

And just to be clear, when you say that my points have been “addressed” in previous posts, “addressed” doesn’t mean answered. I can “address” the topic of fairies in the garden. Doesn’t mean they’re there.You’re provided nothing of substance to support Berthault’s conclusion. Neither has he.

Posted by GalapagosPete | Report as abusive

“Polemics is the practice of disputing or controverting significant, broad reaching topics of magnitude such as scientific matters” This definition based on one from Wikipedia seems to fit. In GPete’s case the words “A controversy unsupported by empirical proof” should be added.Berthault’s scientific experimental results having passed the peer review process makes them part of the official scientific data. The fact that they are given a low profile by most scientists does not change the fact they represent current sedimentological/geological knowledge and a refutation of basic geological principles. Principles are defined as general law with no exceptions. They cannot be taken as valid in a limited context and not in others. The fact that his work is ignored by most scientist illustrates the latter’s unwillingness to recognise the experiment’s far reaching implications for evolution theory and the fossil record.Seen in this light GPete’s latest post is a continuing polemic.Peter

Posted by peter wilders | Report as abusive

So, you agree that mainstream geology doesn’t accept his conclusions that all or most layers were laid down by moving water. That being the case, obviously it is you that is practicing polemics, since what I say represents the mainstream view.No one is denying that some strata were laid down by moving water; however, virtually no professional geologists accept that this was a significant factor in the laying down of strata.www.evolutionpages.com/berthault_ critique.htm

Posted by GalapagosPete | Report as abusive

I suspect, some people have planned to stop Mr. Babuna to speak before. This might be considered as a ‘countermeasure’ for what Harun Yahya did to them. This ‘evil action’ is purely inability to respond what next ‘bomb’ that would Mr. Babuna deliver to them… This is the stereotype of a liar!

Gpete writes:”So, you agree that mainstream geology doesn’t accept his conclusions that all or most layers were laid down by moving water. That being the case, obviously it is you that is practicing polemics, since what I say represents the mainstream view.”Laboratory experiments backed by field analyses demonstrate strata form by sorting of sedimentary particles in moving water. The only exceptions are those formed in currentless water: a very rare phenomenon. So the mechanism for the vast majority of strata is sediemts sorted by turbulant water. If mainstreal geology disagrees all it has to do is to produce a single experiment that proves the contrary. This it has not done. Arguments to the contrary are therefore pure polemic by those who see this new knowledge brings an end to evolution theory.Please provide the experiments and drop the polemic.Peter

Posted by Peter Wilders | Report as abusive

the vatican was very wrong to yank the microphone.they should have just had the security guards shoot him dead on the spot!imagine the temerity of asking questions about the gospel of nihilism according to charles darwin!

“If mainstreal [sic] geology disagrees all it has to do is to produce a single experiment that proves the contrary…Please provide the experiments and drop the polemic.”Hey, I don’t need to do anything. I’m not trying to disprove anything, you and your friend Berthault are. And so far you’re failing miserably.Until Berthault submits his research for legitimate peer review in a major publication – not some conferences or publications in Russia, China and France – he’ll continue to be ignored.

Posted by GalapagosPete | Report as abusive

Darwinism is a pagan religion which regards chance as a creator. Darwinism is dead.

Roger, Darwinian evolutionary theory neither depends upon chance or regards it as a creator, and is not only *not* dead, but is becoming stronger every day. On the other hand, you have demonstrated that you don’t understand evolutionary theory, paganism, or religion.

Posted by GalapagosPete | Report as abusive

I feel that few of your contributors can have attended a genuine scientific conference.
The delegates here were serious scientists, who came to hear presentations given by advertised speakers. They gave up considerable time and money to be there.
There was time for discussion at the end of the presentations, where delegates could pose questions to the speakers. This is usual at such conferences and Babuna tried to hijack this process, which was rude and unprofessional of him.
After a short time, Babuna was clearly and politely asked to pose his question and he simply continued with his ridiculous rant. The organizers were completely correct to remove him and I’m sure that the serious delegates were relieved when he went.

Posted by cnocspeireag | Report as abusive

Oktar Babuna is a member of the leading creationist cult in Turkey led by the infamous Adnan Oktar. Google them to see what kinds of people we are talking about here. Babuna is also the perpetrator of a huge fraudulent scam where approx. 150,000 samples of blood DNA were collected from the Turkish population under fraudulent excuses. When the scam was uncovered and the Turkish government banned their export to the US 120,000 samples magically “disappeared”. As far as his participation in this meeting it is akin to a conference of world geologists where a heckler takes the microphone to declare that the world is actually flat. He should never have been allowed in to the meeting in the first place. These people had the Richard Dawkins web site banned in Turkey for several years under the charge of defamation against the infamous Adnan Oktar. And now they claim that they were censored during this conference. In short, a very well funded cult of creationists who would otherwise be dismissed from any circle of intelligent human beings under any circumstances.

Posted by blackbrow | Report as abusive