FaithWorld

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.

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.

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

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.

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).

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?

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

“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.

“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.