The Scientific Impossibility of Evolution

_{Mario Lopez

October 29, 2009

Creationism, Culture, Darwinism, Evolution, Science}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

November 9, 2009 9:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. St. Pius V University (Rome)

In Response to Pope Benedict XVI’s Call for Both Sides to be Heard

The 150th anniversary of Darwin’s “Origin of the Species” in November 2009 will be the occasion for a unique conference at Pope Pius V University in Rome presenting a scientific refutation of evolution theory. According to Russian sedimentologist Alexander Lalamov, “Everything contained in Darwin’s Origin of Species depends upon rocks forming slowly over enormous periods of time. The November conference demonstrates with empirical data that such geological time is not available for evolution.” Recently returned from a ground-breaking geological conference in Kazan, sedimentologist Guy Berthault will present the findings of several sedimentological studies conducted and published in Russia. In one of these, the age of the rock formation surveyed was found to be 0.01% of the age attributed to it by the geological time-scale—instead of an age of 10 million years, the actual age was no more than 10 thousand years. “Contrary to the conventional wisdom,” Lalamov observed, “these rocks formed quickly, and the fossils they contain must be relatively young. This finding contradicts the evolutionary interpretation of the fossil record.” www.sedimentology.fr

This should be interesting. Read more…

Comments

Yes, it should be interesting. I hope it might give Dembski pause to more accurately consider the claims of YEC! His interpretation of Genesis 1 is clearly incredible and clearly not what the text is saying. You cannot interpret Genesis literally and come up with the millions of years scenario that ID takes as fact. A recent YEC critique and rebuttal of his views of Genesis is a must read before you make up your mind on this issue. Mr. Dembski, I hope too will read it and interact with some of the criticisms it deals with. For your view to be credible, you will need to defend it against these types of critiques. Here it is:http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v2/n1/dembskis-theodicy-refutedtjm_{November 11, 2009
November
11
Nov
11
11
2009
07:35 PM
7
07
35
PM
PDT}

derwood, almost forgot, here is the video for that: Is Antibiotic Resistance Evidence For Evolution? - The Fitness Test http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BwWpRSYgOE Testing the Biological Fitness of Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria - 2008 http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v2/n1/darwin-at-drugstore List Of Degraded Molecular Abilities Of Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria: http://www.trueorigin.org/bacteria01.aspbornagain77_{November 5, 2009
November
11
Nov
5
05
2009
12:28 PM
12
12
28
PM
PDT}

derwood, I really don't care,,,hey how about evolving a bacteria into something other than a bacteria of the same type,,,Not much just evolve it into a different bacteria,,,doesn't sound hard does it derwood? so you just show me that proof and I will concede that you are not delusional! Deal?bornagain77_{November 5, 2009
November
11
Nov
5
05
2009
12:15 PM
12
12
15
PM
PDT}

nderwood: That and the notion of characterizing a given outcome as specified for the purposes of presenting the odds of its occurrance as being so low as to be impossible I understand what you mean. To attempt to determine the odds of the universe and life exactly as they are now, and calling that outcome "specified" would not be accurate. Supposing that these things came about without design, surely numerous other variations would have been possible. But if we follow that reasoning, it's just a variation on multiverses. Who knows how many universes there are? It was bound to happen. Or, who knows how many ways life could have evolved? It was only a matter of time. But in both cases we're grasping at straws, adding probability without a shred of evidence to somehow make the desired result seem reasonable. That's what I call "magic."ScottAndrews_{November 5, 2009
November
11
Nov
5
05
2009
12:01 PM
12
12
01
PM
PDT}

So, BA77 - is all of your 'evidence' going to consist of links to youtube videos by someone you are impressed by? Would a youtube video countering what is claimed in the video you link to be sufficient evidence to refute what you present?derwood_{November 5, 2009
November
11
Nov
5
05
2009
11:41 AM
11
11
41
AM
PDT}

Hi Scott, No problem - you just failed to see what I had actually been commenting on (Brent's comment re: Cabal's, who had, indeed, brought up card dealing). Now I understand. In this discussion regarding intelligent design and probabilities, you just happened to start musing about decks of cards. No, as I mentioned, I was commenting on a comment which was, in fact, about decks of cards. You just must not have seen the previouscoment. If I assumed that it was somehow connected to the context of the immediate discussion, that was my misunderstanding. Please forgive me for interrupting your thread on poker. Actually, the original comment mentioned bridge. At least now I know why your comment had little to offer on the odds for or against random evolution: you were talking about a different subject Yes, that is absolutely correct. That and the notion of characterizing a given outcome as specified for the purposes of presenting the odds of its occurrance as being so low as to be impossible (without the magic hand of the Designer, that is). However, were I to have commented on "random evolution", I would have mentioned that calling it "random evolution" is a caricature.derwood_{November 5, 2009
November
11
Nov
5
05
2009
11:39 AM
11
11
39
AM
PDT}

Well of course Nak, no deception of evolution is ever suspicious to you no matter how flagrant, and no evidence for design is ever compelling no matter how overwhelming: The point is Missing Links ARE MISSING!!! The Fossil Record - Does It Support Evolution Or Creation? - Dr. Arthur Jones http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dVQeeY-Val0bornagain77_{November 5, 2009
November
11
Nov
5
05
2009
11:01 AM
11
11
01
AM
PDT}

Mr PaulN, Indeed, like the myriads of failures suspiciously missing from the historical library-graveyard of sedimentary rock layers. I don't find it suspicious. You have to be a 'best seller' to have any chance at all of getting into this 'library'. Then if your book is on a 'shelf', for us to know about it the shelf has to be within our reach. But if you have a theory on the fossilization rates of rare species that predicts a different distribution of species than we have seen so far, please enlighten us.Nakashima_{November 5, 2009
November
11
Nov
5
05
2009
10:49 AM
10
10
49
AM
PDT}

derwood: Now I understand. In this discussion regarding intelligent design and probabilities, you just happened to start musing about decks of cards. If I assumed that it was somehow connected to the context of the immediate discussion, that was my misunderstanding. Please forgive me for interrupting your thread on poker. At least now I know why your comment had little to offer on the odds for or against random evolution: you were talking about a different subject.ScottAndrews_{November 5, 2009
November
11
Nov
5
05
2009
10:45 AM
10
10
45
AM
PDT}

ScottAndrews:
any sort of magic hand-waving that says an event can be both astronomically improbable and be the most plausible explanation shouldn’t fool anyone who stops and thinks about it for a half a second.
If you consider Bayes' Theorem, it's easy to conceive of situations in which the probability of an event P(E|H) is very low, but the plausibility of the explanation P(H|E) is high. That's why an event's improbability, or even "for all practical purposes" impossibility, does not necessarily imply that the explanation is implausible. Dembski made that point often, and his concept of specified complexity was an attempt to address it without requiring comparisons or pre-specifications.R0b_{November 5, 2009
November
11
Nov
5
05
2009
10:39 AM
10
10
39
AM
PDT}

Scott writes: On the other hand, a universe without any life whatsoever is an entirely possible outcome. Yes, and if we not alive, we would not be contemplating it. Wow, that just blew my mind. No one says you get five cards, or any cards. No one says cards even exist, or are arranged in decks of 52 unique cards. Actually, I did. Or at least this was implied. I was discussing basic probability, and here you are trying to show how my little offhand coment on hands of cards does not extend to the universe. Wow, you got me.... Do you understand that now, a straight flush becomes, not very unlikely, but for all practical purposes impossible? Oh my goodness, Yes YES! Thank you so much for setting me straight on the amazing use of probability argument by anti-naturalists. Oh, wait a minute - no, I was talking about card hands, you are talking about the universe. Sorry, the conflation is lost on me. Another way of looking at it: any sort of magic hand-waving that says an event can be both astronomically improbable and be the most plausible explanation shouldn’t fool anyone who stops and thinks about it for a half a second. So, I suppose it is a good thing that I thought about it for more than half a second and realized that nothing you wrote is even relevant to the issue of pre-specifying an event after the fact then declaring how improbable it was to have arrived at that specification 'by chance.' See, if you think about it for half a second, you shouldn't be fooled into thinking that specifying an event that was not claimed to have been specified in the first place and claiming how impossible it would have been is a substantive rebuttal. Unless, of course, we want to employ the magic hand-wave of Design, wherein the impossible - POOF - is commonplace!derwood_{November 5, 2009
November
11
Nov
5
05
2009
10:23 AM
10
10
23
AM
PDT}

derwood, This pops up from time to time. When a hand of cards is dealt, each individual combination of cards is unlikely, but getting five cards is inevitable. You're shooting fish in a barrel. On the other hand, a universe without any life whatsoever is an entirely possible outcome. No one says you get five cards, or any cards. No one says cards even exist, or are arranged in decks of 52 unique cards. Do you understand that now, a straight flush becomes, not very unlikely, but for all practical purposes impossible? Another way of looking at it: any sort of magic hand-waving that says an event can be both astronomically improbable and be the most plausible explanation shouldn't fool anyone who stops and thinks about it for a half a second.ScottAndrews_{November 5, 2009
November
11
Nov
5
05
2009
09:39 AM
9
09
39
AM
PDT}

Brent: "Unfortunately, you hit a snag very quickly. When no one outcome will do, but only a very specific one, then you’ve got a real problem on your hands. " Which is sort of Cabal's point - The probability of being dealt the hand you got very very low, yet there it is. If you pre-specify a hand, it is very easy to show the astronomial odds of getting it dealt to you. Can you show that any aspect of what evolution postulates was pre-specified, then left to 'chance' such that the astronomically small probabilities you folks like to toss about have any merit?derwood_{November 5, 2009
November
11
Nov
5
05
2009
09:00 AM
9
09
00
AM
PDT}

I just read through Guy Berthault's website and sadly this is just another example of misinformation that may fool some laymen but will certainly not convince any practising geologist. His (hardly novel) experiments are mildly interesting but in no way refute the overall principles of stratigraphy and sedimentology. Most of what I read there are strawmen, wild extrapolations and unwarranted conclusions. Reading his site as a professional geologist I can only shake my head. fGfaded_Glory_{November 3, 2009
November
11
Nov
3
03
2009
02:57 AM
2
02
57
AM
PDT}

But for that happy one, there are myriads more who the random odds bit right in the wallet.
Indeed, like the myriads of failures suspiciously missing from the historical library-graveyard of sedimentary rock layers.PaulN_{October 30, 2009
October
10
Oct
30
30
2009
01:30 PM
1
01
30
PM
PDT}

Wow, Cabal. It's funny watching you try to turn the tables. I've also often thought of how interesting odds are. Extreme improbability means nothing at all, really. I mean, as you were pointing out, there has to be some outcome, which itself was no more likely nor improbable than the next. Unfortunately, you hit a snag very quickly. When no one outcome will do, but only a very specific one, then you've got a real problem on your hands. Sure, someone will beat the odds and win the lotto and be very happy. But for that happy one, there are myriads more who the random odds bit right in the wallet.Brent_{October 30, 2009
October
10
Oct
30
30
2009
09:01 AM
9
09
01
AM
PDT}

Last year:
The experiments were conducted by one of the speakers at the conference, sedimentologist Guy Berthault, and published by the Russian Academy of Sciences. A paleohydraulic analysis in the field accompanying these experiments showed that major rock formations deposited not in millions of years but in 0.01% of the time attributed to them by the geological time-scale.
This year:
Recently returned from a ground-breaking geological conference in Kazan, sedimentologist Guy Berthault will present the findings of several sedimentological studies conducted and published in Russia. In one of these, the age of the rock formation surveyed was found to be 0.01% of the age attributed to it by the geological time-scale—instead of an age of 10 million years, the actual age was no more than 10 thousand years.
That's where the 0.1% come from. Maybe, they'll change it next year :-)DiEb_{October 30, 2009
October
10
Oct
30
30
2009
06:47 AM
6
06
47
AM
PDT}

I assume that we can save valuable time if we just look at last year's results: Perhaps someone can report the results of the conference of November 2008, held in Rome, featuring: 1. Josef Holzschuh: The Second Law of Thermodynamics and Evolution 2. Jean de Pontcharra: Are Radio-dating Methods Reliable? 3. Maciej Giertych: Impact of Race Formation and Mutations on the Theory of Evolution The titles and their abstracts seemingly didn't change, but perhaps, they use some new pages in their power-point-presentations?DiEb_{October 30, 2009
October
10
Oct
30
30
2009
06:30 AM
6
06
30
AM
PDT}

Mario - can we get the results of this conference?deric davidson_{October 30, 2009
October
10
Oct
30
30
2009
04:09 AM
4
04
09
AM
PDT}

The extreme improbability of RM + NS = CSI is what convinces me.
What fails to convince me are arguments like that. I want to know: is improbable, both naked or dressed up as extreme equal to impossible? Whenever cards for a game of bridge are dealt the distribution is very improbable; there are zillions of other distributions that might be dealt instead. Why then that particular one? Keep dealing, and marvel at the improbability against it for each deal. A mystery. WRT CSI, isn't it an unscientific, bogus term? Mutations and Natural Selection seems to be a fact. CSI may not be a product, but opportunities for evolution are. Without that, most if not all of life would soon disappear from the planet. If variations in DNA are so improbable, how come no two people out of 6 billion share 100% identical DNA? (Identical twins are a special case.)Cabal_{October 30, 2009
October
10
Oct
30
30
2009
03:35 AM
3
03
35
AM
PDT}

"This Universe (or even life on Earth) just doesn’t make sense over a short timespan [...]" Really?... And why not?...Sladjo_{October 30, 2009
October
10
Oct
30
30
2009
01:03 AM
1
01
03
AM
PDT}

Technically, it wasn’t a false statement. 0.01% of 10,000,000 is 1,000. But they said it was “no more than 10,000?. 1,000 is no more than 10,000. Perhaps 10,000 is the most conservative ceiling they feel is permitted based on the calculations/measurements.
That's far from the most conservative ceiling which today is exactly 6012 years and 7 days.osteonectin_{October 29, 2009
October
10
Oct
29
29
2009
09:22 PM
9
09
22
PM
PDT}

the age of the rock formation surveyed was found to be 0.01% of the age attributed to it by the geological time-scale—instead of an age of 10 million years, the actual age was no more than 10 thousand years
Do you beleave Dr. Dembski would agree to such conclusions? In his presentation of his newest book he stated here at UD:
As I note in THE END OF CHRISTIANITY, I would be a young-earth creationist in a heart-beat if I didn’t see the evidence for an old earth as so strong.
And what about Dr. Behe?osteonectin_{October 29, 2009
October
10
Oct
29
29
2009
09:19 PM
9
09
19
PM
PDT}

I have no problem with saying that Darwinism is unscientific. I don't need a young earth to say it, and in fact, I don't take a position on young earth. Nevertheless, if they have real evidence that the layers are very young, I'd like to hear what it is. (Of course, the popular science/Darwinist crowd will brush off the evidence as pseudo-science, no matter what it is, and they have the microphone of the press at the moment. I hope someone can give us a real review of what is said there.) Editors, feel free to remove the part below here, because I'm mainly aiming this at you. (As a new user, I understand that you're going to review this.) It feels too much like a commercial to include it in a post. The reason I can't buy Darwinism is because of my own research. You recently ran an article (under Informatics) called "How to become a convinced IDer in two weeks" or something very close to that. It was about genetic programming. Well, I've been investigating how genetic programming scales for seven years. That is, how does it behave as the problem becomes more and more complex? What I found is that you can place a lower bound on the number of generations it takes to evolve something (!), and that this bound makes it completely unreasonable that biological systems (which are enormously complex) could arise by evolution. You can find this research here. I'm headed toward publication of this, but I'd be very interested in your comments. You can send them to mikestimpson@yahoo.comrewt66_{October 29, 2009
October
10
Oct
29
29
2009
09:14 PM
9
09
14
PM
PDT}

7 - bachfiend
10,000 years as a percentage of 10 million years is 0.1% not 0.01%. Even simple arithmetic seems to be beyond the abilities of these scientific geniuses.
Technically, it wasn't a false statement. 0.01% of 10,000,000 is 1,000. But they said it was "no more than 10,000". 1,000 is no more than 10,000. Perhaps 10,000 is the most conservative ceiling they feel is permitted based on the calculations/measurements. I don't know if that is actually what they meant, but just pointing out that they were not necessarily wrong (with the arithmetic), although it certainly could be an error. As far as the conference, sure, I'll here what they have to say. But age of rocks and fossil records are far from the most convincing evidence against Darwinism. This Universe (or even life on Earth) just doesn't make sense over a short timespan, and it has nothing to do with giving life enough time to evolve. The extreme improbability of RM + NS = CSI is what convinces me.uoflcard_{October 29, 2009
October
10
Oct
29
29
2009
08:43 PM
8
08
43
PM
PDT}

Tyke @ 6 The age of the earth is not a position of ID. But do you think only some evidence agaisnt Darwinian evolution should be evaluated? Personally, I don't see what the big deal is... look at the evidence, rather than run from it because it has the hint of *gasp* a young earth. Avoidance of such challenges to consensus paradigms, in my opinion, seems a disingenuous act of any that claim to promote scientific inquiry.JGuy_{October 29, 2009
October
10
Oct
29
29
2009
04:20 PM
4
04
20
PM
PDT}

Bachfiend.
Even simple arithmetic seems to be beyond the abilities of these scientific geniuses.
Why do you attribute the math of the author, of the conference flier, to the scientists that he noted will be at the conference? Apparently, even simple reading comprehension seems to be beyond certain perfectionist critics.JGuy_{October 29, 2009
October
10
Oct
29
29
2009
03:53 PM
3
03
53
PM
PDT}

Bachfiend, Nevermind, that wouldn't work either. Also it says, .01% not .01. That is, one percent of one percent, not just "one percent."Collin_{October 29, 2009
October
10
Oct
29
29
2009
03:19 PM
3
03
19
PM
PDT}

Tyke, I think that this website just brings up a wide variety of stories that are usually related to evolution, intelligent design, theistic evolution, creationism and religion. It doesn't mean that ID is necessarily advocating creationism. Bachfiend, Maybe the mistake is the letter M instead of the letter B. as in Billion, not million.Collin_{October 29, 2009
October
10
Oct
29
29
2009
03:17 PM
3
03
17
PM
PDT}

Come on tyke. This is not YEC propaganda, this is simply a news worthy event. For the record, I am not a YEC, I am more of a WHATHEHECK! :)Mario A. Lopez_{October 29, 2009
October
10
Oct
29
29
2009
02:53 PM
2
02
53
PM
PDT}

1 2 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

In Response to Pope Benedict XVI’s Call for Both Sides to be Heard

Leave a Reply