Cleansing Fire

Defending Truth and Tradition in the Roman Catholic Church

Nelson Mandela and Catholic Schizophrenia?

December 10th, 2013, Promulgated by Diane Harris

Pope Francis’ Condolences (source Zenit)

th To His Excellency Mr. Jacob Zuma

President of the Republic of South Africa


It was with sadness that I learned of the death of former President Nelson Mandela, and I send prayerful condolences to all the Mandela family, to the members of the government and to all the people of South Africa. In commending the soul of the deceased to the infinite mercy of Almighty God, I ask the Lord to console and strengthen all who mourn his loss. Paying tribute to the steadfast commitment shown by Nelson Mandela in promoting the human dignity of all the nation’s citizens and in forging a new South Africa, built on the firm foundations of non-violence, reconciliation and truth, I pray that the late President’s example will inspire generations of South Africans to put justice and the common good at the forefront of their political aspirations. With these sentiments, I invoke upon all the people of South Africa divine gifts of peace and prosperity.


From Cardinal Dolan’s Blog

DolanStatement of Cardinal Dolan on the Passing of Nelson Mandela

December 5, 2013

Nelson Mandela was a hero to the world. His bravery in defending human rights against the great evil of apartheid made him a symbol of courage and dignity, as well as an inspiration to people everywhere. As Blessed Pope John Paul II noted during his visit to South Africa in 1995, Nelson Mandela was for many years, “a silent and suffering ‘witness’ of your people’s yearning for true liberation,” who, as President of South Africa, had to then “shoulder the burden of inspiring and challenging everyone to succeed in the task of national reconciliation and reconstruction.” In succeeding in these crucial and difficult tasks, Nelson Mandela truly made the world a better place.

May he rest in peace.


U.S. Catholic bishop calls Mandela’s support of abortion ‘shameful’, black leaders concur

by John-Henry Westen in LifeSiteNews article (excerpted)

Bishop_Tobin-240x191While much of the world, including many religious leaders, are praising the late Nelson Mandela without reserve, at least one U.S. bishop has tempered his praise by calling to mind the former South African leader’s record on abortion.

“There is part of President Mandela’s legacy, however, that is not at all praiseworthy, namely his shameful promotion of abortion in South Africa,” said Providence, RI Bishop Thomas Tobin ….

Tobin observes that “there is much to admire in Mandela’s long life and public service, particularly his personal courage and his stalwart defense of human rights.” However, the Rhode Island bishop notes that, “In 1996 Mandela promoted and signed into law the ‘Choice on Termination of Pregnancy Bill’ that, according to the New York Times, ‘replaced one of the world’s toughest abortion laws with one of the most liberal.’”

“While we pray for the peaceful repose of President Mandela’s immortal soul and the forgiveness of his sins, we can only regret that his noble defense of human dignity did not include the youngest members of our human family, unborn children,” said Tobin.

Tobin’s remarks come in the wake of statements offering unqualified praise for Mandela in statements from Pope Francis and New York Cardinal Timothy Dolan…. pro-life leaders urged Christian leaders to take caution in issuing blanket praise for the South African President due to his promotion of abortion, same-sex ‘marriage’ and communism.

Dr. Day Gardner, President of the National Black Pro-Life Union concurred with Bishop Tobin’s sentiments.  “It is really very sad,” Gardner told, “that Nelson Mandela was blind to the suffering of the smallest of his own people.”  She added, “He had such a triumphant life fighting for civil rights, yet he failed to see unborn children as significant.”  Gardner and other leaders at the National Black Pro-life Union have worked tirelessly to have black civil rights leaders recognize the plight of unborn black children who are targeted by the abortion industry far more than children of other races.

According to official statistics, nearly a million unborn children have been killed in South Africa since President Mandela signed legislation in 1996 permitting abortion on demand two years after taking office. Same-sex ‘marriage’ was legalized in 2006, with Mandela having supported it long before its passage.  Another African-American pro-life leader Ryan Bomberger told that he has seen time and again “how people move from being oppressed to becoming the oppressor.”  He asked, “How can you condemn the evil of apartheid and turn around and deem another group to be less than human?”….


Tags: , ,


24 Responses to “Nelson Mandela and Catholic Schizophrenia?”

  1. snowshoes says:

    Thank you Diane, and thanks to the courageous Bishop Tobin. While formal condolences from the Pope to a head of state might not be the place to mention these sad and disastrous failures by Mr. Mandela, it is certainly appropriate that our Holy Father, as did Bishop Tobin, point out the erroneous decisions promoted by Mandela which have resulted in the murder of millions of the unborn children created by God. The Pope is the Universal Pastor, so he feels personally the murder of each of his innocent lambs. I trust he will address this issue in an appropriate document. St. Isaiah pray for us.

  2. gaudium says:

    This could fall into the De mortuis nil nisi bonum category. Perhaps from the head of state perspective, the Pope could make such a statement since he does speak out on other occasions against abortion. Mandala’s significance as a force for reconciliation, however, is undisputed. Consider this: Had he, at his first public appearance after being released from prison, cried out to the crowd, “Kill them all,” the people would have done exactly that. Instead, he insisted on reconciliation rather than a blood bath. South Africa is still a troubled nation but the alternative to its halting steps towards reconciliation are too grim to consider.

  3. Richard Thomas says:

    It seems like these “clerics” rush into and embrace the culture, hoping the culture will reform, which it won’t. In doing this, they compromise Catholic doctrine and discourage and confuse the faithful

  4. christian says:

    Have you heard the Amazing Speech given by Dr. Benjamin Carson at the National Prayer Breakfast? I have given the link beow.
    He is a Christian with a conservative platform aligned with Christian views. There is currently a movement to have him run in the 2016 Presidential Election.

  5. christian says:

    Dr. Benjamin Carson is against abortion. There are numerous articles on what he terms “a war on the unborn.”

    He also is against gay marriage and states marriage is defined by a relationship/bond between a man and a woman.

    He is against the politically correct “Happy Holidays” and is for wishing people “Merry Christmas.”

    Dr. Benjamin Carson received the Presidental Medal for Freedom Award from President George W. Bush in 2008.

  6. christian says:

    Dr. Benjamin Carson M.D., who was head of Pediatric Neurology until recently, was pressured to cancel as Speaker at the Commencement Exercises at John Hopkins University for 2013 after student protests over his comments against Gay Marriage. Recently, he resigned as head of Pediatric Neurology, despite having an illustrious career. It is thought that he was pressured to resign after public statements, especially at the National Prayer Breakfast while President Barack Obama was present. He criticized President Obama’s policies in his speech.

  7. y2kscotty says:

    Yes – and, as a creationist, he believes that all life on earth began 6000 years ago. And he belongs to a heretical sect. I think he would be doing God’s work more as a neurosurgeon, not as a President.

  8. Diane Harris says:

    Now that this post has been hijacked, we might as well go all the way…. Evolution vs Creation!

    Here’s a link about Dr. Carson and here’s a link about other creationist scientists: including Wernher von Braun, pioneer of rocketry and space exploration, Gerald Aardsma, physicist in radiocarbon dating (which work is used extensively by evolutionists), and Donald DeYoung, physicist, specializing in solid-state, nuclear science and astronomy. Better known older names include Louis Pasteur, Francis Bacon, Robert Boyle, Blaise Pascal, Lord Rayleigh, Michael Faraday, James Joule, Johann Kepler, Joseph Lister, Gregor Mendel, Isaac Newton, Lord Kelvin, Samuel Morse and Leonardo da Vinci. Dr. Carson is in good company!

    Now the easy argument about the older names is that some of the “discoveries” upon which modern evolution theory rest hadn’t been discovered in their lifetimes. But these men were hardly stupid. They contemplated some of the deepest and most complex issues of science. Every child asks the basic question “Where did I come from?” The most natural thing for a scientist to wonder about is where the subject of their work came from, the laws of physics and chemistry, e.g. Actually, it is much easier for someone who knows nothing of science to become an evolutionist, that for a competent scientist to become an evolutionist. They know and understand too much.

    But that doesn’t mean creationist scientists can be easily identified. Evolutionism is a ‘thing’ of the 20th century, a litmus test for the ‘in crowd,’ with all the sophistication of cigarette smoking in the 1920’s, or anti-semitism in Nazi Germany, or McCarthyism in the 1950’s or — maybe global warming in a new millennium. Only time will tell the endurance of evolutionism as a pseudo-religious belief which makes being an atheist easier by “relying” on what is touted to be “scientific”. It isn’t easy to get a good handle on which scientists are creationists because they know they will be discriminated against by evolutionist scientists’ large atheistic membership. At heart it isn’t science vs. non-science, but rather like theism vs atheism. Ref: “The Long War Against God” by Dr. Henry Morris.

    The problem with evolutionism is that it isn’t based on a coherent theory, and it isn’t subject to testing and verification. There is no “control sample” or ability to repeat results, all fundamental to solidifying scientific theory. There are actually very few data points at all, stretched to breaking over trying to fit a model, any model except creationism. A “new” data point simply causes revision of the never provable theory. Data points are severely lacking for several reasons.

    1. Those who date the earth by radioactive carbon and similar techniques differ in their results by millions of years. And there are too few points from which to project and then verify. Plus the points are too close together to do meaningful extrapolations.

    2. Evolutionism depends on transitional species, ‘evolving over millions of years.’ Isn’t it strange that the petrified remains of not a singled transitional subject has ever been found? What is the chance of that result? Where are the remains of these posited intermediary creatures?

    3. Even a rudimentary understanding of the principle of entropy leads to the understanding that everything tends toward disorder and chaos; the components cannot be the organizing force of their own organization, and random events lead to more randomness, not less. (Cafeteria Catholicism leading to thousands of denominations is actually a good example of entropy.) Most of the evolutionist theories require disproving entropy, which hasn’t (dare say “can’t”) be done.

    In addition to the above arguments, we can argue from the bible (after all, we haven’t put that limit on ourselves to ignore what has been accepted for thousands of years.)

    1. An “old” earth theory, even if it could be proven, would not negate the possibility of God’s creating an “old earth:” i.e. one with all the characteristics of testing “old” to us. (After all, He created Adam as an adult, not as a baby. He can have created anything at any age.) And having a Creator who is “outside” of time, i.e. creating time itself, boggles the mind to understand what that means for its effects within created time. Ouch!

    2. The Church, in Her Wisdom, doesn’t forbid seeing the Biblical Creation account as able to have happened over “days” of extraordinary length, nor God’s using the slime of the earth from a created animal source to create the first man and woman. But she does hold forth the truth of one couple, one original sin affecting all people. For those who want to be “practical” about this event, random evolution of both a male and a female in close proximity on the earth (and no duplication of these events) is a pretty tortured model. Evolution will naturally tend toward arguing the simultaneous advent of humans in different places. Yet DNA testing has shown the commonality of a shared ancestor.

    There are, of course, many additional arguments against evolutionism and in favor of creationism. And there are many stumbling blocks put in the way of man’s intellect to recognize and accept the power of God. As a scientist myself, even without the bible, I wouldn’t believe in evolution because it has too many holes, is illogical and uses flawed science. Besides, with the bible, and the evidence of God’s continuing work in the world, I have no desire to poise on the slippery slope of my own theories or intellect. Just call me a “Creationist.” I can proudly share that title with Dr. Carson and many others.

  9. snowshoes says:

    Hurrah, Diane! You said it beautifully. On this great Feast of Our Lady of Guadalupe, the Evangelist of the New World, we Catholics are so blessed to have both wings with which to rise to God: Faith and Reason, the Bible and Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium. They’ll never have you on “The View” to discuss where we came from, because the Catholic position is ultimately reasonable. The poor non-Catholic Christians who attempt to use the “Bible alone” to understand and explain the origins of creation are handicapped, well-intentioned though they be. So we pray for the conversion of all people to the Catholic Church through the intercession of Our Lady of Guadalupe.

  10. Dominick Anthony Zarcone says:

    Thank you, Diane, for your December 12 comment posted at 12:27 AM.

    The Timothy J. Williams CRISIS magazine article on Mandela and the ANC opens one’s eyes.

    Still, we can pray: Eternal Rest Grant Mandela, O Lord, let perpetual light shine upon him, may his soul by the mercy of God, rest in peace.

  11. annonymouse says:

    Hopefully, Scotty, you don’t doubt that our universe was created! That is the very first belief of ours as Catholics – that there is a God who created us! Who created us humans in His image and likeness and who loves us!

    And before you place too much faith in evolutionism, in this notion that we are all just random products of what emerged from the primordial soup, pause for a few minutes or an hour and ponder a caterpillar and a butterfly and ask yourself if you really believe that little miracle in which a crawling bug transforms into a magnificent flying animal is just a product of random evolution. Or ponder the music of Mozart – did that genius really come about from random evolution? Or the completely selfless life of Mother Teresa of Calcutta – just random evolution? Or simply ponder the wonderful order of the universe, of the laws of physics and mathematics and ask yourself from whence it all came to be.

    If you’re incapable of seeing the hidden hand of our loving creator everywhere you look, and in everything you hear, you’re hopeless.

  12. christian says:

    y2kscotty – I am not advocating for Dr. Ben Carson’s denomination. (Did you raise objections to Mitt Romney being a Mormon?) But if Ben Carson ran for President on the Republican ticket, at least voters would have a SINCERE anti-bortion, anti-gaymarriage, anti-evolution, and for Jesus and “Christmas” candidate choice. (he has suffered persecution for his strong Christian stand). If someone was running on the Democratic ticket against Ben Carson that advocated abortion, gay marriage, evolution, secularization, and other ant-Christian stands, who would you vote for? The fact that Ben Carson is a 7th Day Adventist would not stand in the way for me to cast my ballot against an abortion, gay marriage, evolution, secularization, and ultimate government control advocate.

    I do believe that God created heaven and earth, but personally, I am not going to speculate how long ago it was.
    Thank you Diane, snowshoes, annonymouse, and Dominick for your posts.

    Happy Feast of Our Lady of Guadalupe! And may God have mercy on the soul of Nelson Mandela and may he rest in peace.

  13. y2kscotty says:

    Anonymouse – I believe that we are not “random” products… but that God Himself ordered His Created Universe in such a way that “evolution” could be the mechanism for the changes in the world. Let us suppose that we do have a scientifically proven (or scientifically indicated) common ancestor. There is some scientific evidence – although that common ancestor might not be a “homo sapiens”, but rather, perhaps a “homo erectus”. God could very well have created the world so that this assumed ancestor (and its, his ) ancestor was engineeered to develop the way our species has to the present day. I’m not so sure I accept the “randomness” that some scientists would posit. But, perhaps, nothing is truly random. Even the random-number generators produce something called “random numbers”, even though they aren’t random. They are “random” only because they exhibit “random” properties that have been defined by scientists (statistics experts). Perhaps God set into motion a “Random-Life-Generator”, which follows His Plan for the development of species (itself a scientific definition, subject to the rules of science, tweaking it and changing it, as new evidence unfolds).
    With the Psalmist, I marvel at the stars and galaxies (even though he didn’t know what those are) that we see in the sky.
    But, to me it’s plain silliness that anyone would believe that life on earth goes back only 6000 years or that the Book of Genesis is an historical scientific document. Even the saint-to-be John Paul II found no problem with evolution as he understood it.

    Christian, I would have a problem with Romney’s religion if it impacted his policy decisions. I don’t know enough about Mormonism to know how their belief system would influence policy decisions. (Given that Romney, Reid and Huntsman are all Mormons with views ranging from conservative to “liberal”, Mormonism itself may have no impact on decision-making). Ben Carson is a very distinguished neuro-surgeon – and I happen to believe he should continue that work. I would trust him with his wisdom in that area, but not in his political wisdom.
    Catholic Answers website regards Seventh Day Adventism to be anti-Catholic. Carson should be asked if he believes that Catholicism is the “Whore of Babylon” and that the Pope is the Anti-Christ. See:

    And, Christian, I too wish you and all here “Happy Feast of Our Lady of Guadalupe and may God have mercy on the soul of Nelson Mandela and may he rest in peace.”

  14. BigE says:

    It’s called “theistic evolution” and as you stated acknowledges evolution while still maintaining God as creator.

  15. Hopefull says:

    This is the most recent (2009)article I can find in Zenit on evolution (key word search “Darwin”). It also illustrates how far reaching was Pope Benedict’s search for truth:

    Scholars Aim to Disprove Darwin
    As Theory Turns 150, Scientists Say It’s Impossible

    ROME, OCT. 26, 2009: “As the theory of evolution turns 150 years old, one group of scholars is calling it a scientific impossibility. After a year of conferences celebrating the 150th anniversary of Darwin’s 1859 book, “On the Origin of Species,” a Nov. 9 conference is planned to provide empirical proof to debunk evolution.

    Rome’s Pope Pius V University will host the daylong conference that will present a scientific refutation of evolution theory. Peter Wilders and H. M. Owen, organizers of the event, told ZENIT that the conference is aimed to “stimulate debate among scientists” and that it is particularly geared to university students.

    “Being young, they have less built-in resistance to new data that conflicts with establishment dogma,” a statement from the organizers explained.

    “Darwinian evolution has become the accepted paradigm of the scientific community,” they noted. “New research data that challenges that paradigm is automatically rejected for philosophical rather than scientific reasons. Results of recent empirical research published by scientific academies refutes the basic principles of the geological time-scale. It reduces the age of rocks and therefore the fossils in them. The theory of evolution is undergirded by both the time-scale and the age of fossils.

    “This evidence from sedimentology harmonizes with the latest findings in genetics, paleontology, physics, and other scientific disciplines. The implications of this research are fatal for Darwinism. According to Russian sedimentologist Alexander Lalamov, “Everything contained in Darwin’s ‘Origin of Species’ depends upon rocks forming slowly over enormous periods of time. The November conference demonstrates with empirical data that such geological time is not available for evolution.”

    Recently returned from a geological conference in Kazan, sedimentologist Guy Berthault will present the findings of several sedimentological studies conducted and published in Russia. In one of these, the age of the rock formation surveyed was found to be 0.01% of the age attributed to it by the geological time-scale — instead of an age of 10,000,000 years, the actual age was no more than 10,000 years.

    “Contrary to conventional wisdom,” Lalamov observed, “these rocks formed quickly, and the fossils they contain must be relatively young. This finding contradicts the evolutionary interpretation of the fossil record.”

    According to U.S. biophysicist Dean Kenyon, “Biological macroevolution collapses without the twin pillars of the geological time-scale and the fossil record as currently interpreted. Few scientists would contest this statement. This is why the upcoming conference concentrates on geology and paleontology. Recent research in these two disciplines adds powerful support to the already formidable case against teaching Darwinian macroevolution as if it were proven fact.”

    “The Scientific Impossibility of Evolution” conference is being held in direct response to Benedict XVI’s request that both sides of the evolution controversy be heard.

    Thomas Seiler, a participant in the conference, said: “In the light of astounding new scientific breakthroughs, particularly in geology, we hope the worldwide scientific community will acknowledge the overwhelming evidence against the theory of evolution.”

    — — —

    Abstracts of the presentations:

  16. BigE says:


    The article you have cited falls into the category of “we really shouldn’t believe everything we see on the internet.” Guy Berthault is part of the very fringe “International Creation Ministries” organization that I doubt is taken at all seriously by the rest of the scientific world.

    But if you do like their stuff, you can also find out how they have connected the theory of evolution to alien abductions, UFO’s, crop circles and Roswell!!! 🙂

    NOTE FROM AUTHOR OF POST: Please scroll down. This commenter later retracted the content in this comment.

  17. Hopefull says:

    OK, Big E, help me out here please. First for the clarification of other readers, your comments were not about my second post about the Catholic Law School Professor seeking personhood for chimpanzees, but rather was about one participant, the lead speaker, in the 2009 conference in Rome presenting a paper on sedimentary rocks. I will reproduce his abstract below, but as you can see it is all about rocks, not space aliens, crop circles, UFO’s or Roswell. So I’m kind of getting a disconnect here between your accusations and the reality of Guy Berthault. Especially for a conference called by Pope Benedict for the sake of both sides being heard. It seems unlikely that the German theologian-professor would have less than credible presenters.

    Then I followed your link to a site with a bit different title than you said: Creation Ministries International–close enough. However, I searched for Guy Berthault on the site which link you provided, and I didn’t find him, including in “About Us.” So I went to Amazon to see what he’d written about aliens, etc. I found four items there which mention his name. Only one was a book written by Guy de Berthault: “Les cahiers du ceshe : Prehistory according to Fernand Crombette” … January 1, 1998 by Guy de. Berthault. It is out of print and apparently in French, so I can’t say if it mentions aliens or not, but it seems an unlikely title for sensationalistic writing. The second item is a mention of Berthault in a book titled “Faith vs. Science” by Jerome Goddard (a recognized scientist), in which he wrote the following about Berthault: “In the late 1980’s, a French geologist, Guy Berthault, convincingly demostrated that the geological column could have been laid down quickly, not over millions of years. Critics are quick to point out that Berthault is a conservative Catholic who believes in a young earth, but his ideas are not totally incredible. He apparently received a letter of encouragement for his work from Jean Piveteau, President of the French Academy of Sciences and a distinguished paleontologist, saying: ‘This is original work which calls into question some fundamental principles of stratiography. We live on old concepts in this domain, and the author’s examination of them by means of the experimental method gives great strength to his assertions.’”

    The third book is a book on the Scientific Legacy of Maurice Allais, by Hector Munera, in which Berthault has the honor of writing a 4 page chapter, an essay on “How I became involved in Allais Eclipse Effect.” It ia again a scientific treatise, apparently devoid of space aliens etc. Finally, the fourth entrant is “Creationnismes” by Grimault Cedric. It is also entirely in French, but skimming through it seems to be recounting the evolutionist/creationist interface and documenting, I would say, the history of the debate. It appears to me to be more of a philosophical treatise. Berthault is cited in two places as a reference, again Roswell etc. is not found.

    At this point, other than presenting the aforementioned abstract from the Vatican seminar (shown below), I am not spending any more time as the credentials presented seem to have no bearing on your accusations. Moreover, that he was a headliner at a seminar which Pope Benedict especially wanted held for the sake of discussion also seems to be an endorsement of the man.

    So, Big E, you have made the accusations. Please back them up with specific citations, based in fact and not on some other author’s desire to bash a Catholic Creationist, or be recognized by attacking those at the top of their game. To attack the work of a scientist requires science, not just words. But words against him besmirches a scientist’s reputation, so I truly expect you have additional back-up material. As you know, what is written anywhere on the Internet will inevitably come up in searches, and you have made some pretty serious claims that need to be defended.
    Here is the abstract from Berthault’s paper at the 2009 Vatican-sponsored seminar:

    Experiments in Stratification Do Not Support the Theory of Evolution
    Guy Berthault, Meulan, France

    The theory of evolution formulated by Darwin claims the fossil record shows that organisms have transformed into different species over the long periods of time expressed in the geological time-scale. This scale, however, is based upon the interpretations of stratified sedimentary rock formations by naturalist Nicolas Stenon published in his book in 1667. He wrote “superposed strata are ancient sedimentary layers” which statement defines of the principle of superposition. It was only relatively recently that the sedimentation process could be observed and Stenon’s interpretations tested. As they had not been tested before, I decided to do so.

    Science being founded upon facts, I first examined the reports of deep-sea drilling projects and Hjulström’s research on fluviatile sediments. This was followed by my fundamental experiments laboratory experiments in stratification. The latter showed that laminae or thin strata result from segregation of particles in dry conditions, a vacuum or still water. Two reports were published in 1986 and 1988 by the French Academy of Sciences.

    In 1991, I supervised experiments to obtain larger strata under the direction of Pierre Julien, Professor of hydrology and sedimentology at the University of Colorado (USA). These demonstrated that a turbulent current creates strata prograding together laterally and vertically as a result of variations in current velocity. A report was published in 1993 by the Geological Society of France. The experiments showed that neither the lamination nor the stratification produced could be explained by the principle of superposition. The experimental data revealed by this research has yet to be incorporated into present-day geology and sedimentology. A similar situation arose in sequence stratigraphy developed by Golovkinsky in 1868 and Walther in 1894 providing data that was not taken into account in geology until eventually adopted by the Exxon Group in 1977. It showed that systems tracts consisting of superposed strata are isochronous, i.e. the strata formed simultaneously as is demonstrated by our experiments in Colorado.

    Nicolas Stenon and his successors having overlooked the current as an agent of sedimentation, it was necessary to conduct experiments in the laboratory and paleohydraulic analyses on the terrain of existing stratified sedimentary rocks to demonstrate the omission. The latter analyses were performed to relate sedimentary particles according to their size with current velocity at the successive stages of erosion, transport and deposition. The relationship applies to the lithology of sequences from conglomerates to small particles. Their application was developed in my 2002 publication Analysis of the Main Principles of Stratigraphy on the Basis of Experimental Data in the journal of the Russian Academy of Sciences.

    A team of Russian sedimentologists directed by Alexander Lalomov (Russian Academy of Sciences’ Institute of Ore Deposits) applied paleohydraulic analyses to geological formations in Russia (examples are the Crimean Peninsular and the North-West Russian Platform). In the case of the Platform it is shown that the time taken for the sediments to deposit would have been no more that 0.01% of that ascribed to them by the geological time-scale. This demonstrated the lesson taught by geology historian Gabriel Gohau that “time is measured by the time taken for sediments to deposit, a fact upon which everybody is more or less agreed, and not by orogenesis of biological revolutions.” Evolution cannot, therefore, occur in such a short time.

    Mr. Guy Berthault is a graduate of the Ecole Polytechnique, France, a member of the French Geological Society and the Association of Sedimentologists. His experiments have been published by the French Academy of Sciences, the Journal of the Geological Society of France, and the Russian Academy of Sciences journal “Lithology and Mineral Resources.”

  18. BigE says:

    Oops, yes….you are right. My apologies.
    It does not appear he is an official member of the organization. He is just highly touted by them and when I googled his name, it kept showing up on their websites.

  19. Hopefull says:

    Thank you, Big E. I believe that the reason Berthault keep showing up on fringe websites is that his work is some of the best and best recognized as debunking a key assumption of the evolutionary argument. No wonder even the fringe would want to keep mentioning him.

  20. BigE says:

    I agree Berthault was not part of the fringe Creation Ministries International.
    I also agree he is a legitimate scientist.
    I do not agree (and neither does the vast majority of the scientific community) that he has debunked any key element of the evolutionary argument.

  21. Hopefull says:

    Fair enough, Big E. We are each entitled to our own opinions.

  22. BigE says:

    Amen to that Hopefull…….

Leave a Reply

Log in | Register

You must be logged in to post a comment.

-Return to main page-