Millions of people before us have asked the very same questions we now ask ourselves. Who am I?, where do I come from?, How did the world and the universe come into being?, what will happen to us when we die?. These questions of life, meaning and the purpose of life have forced people of knowledge and reason to think study and answer them. This resulted in different ideologies and theories. One of these theories is Atheism. Atheism or godless was originated in ancient Greek, Diagoras of Melos was the first person to be recorded as an atheist. He lived in the 5th century BC. Though it’s said scientists and philosophers are atheists, this does not mean every scientist or philosopher don’t believe in God (even though Peter Atkins call those believing scientists “half scientists”) Yet the early Atheists had very different thinking than the modern ideology of atheism which is based on Charles Darwin’s “origin of species “. The idea of denying God’s existence, and the claim of “everything can be explained by science” and of cause “the big bang” and “Evolution”, is now known as Atheism. Though the word atheism means godless this does not mean every atheist don’t believe in a god or a “supernatural force”, they are called weak atheism, if its strong atheism the belief in gods and supernatural entities are denied.
Though atheism denounces Christianity, Islam and all other religions and claim they do not follow a religion, Atheism itself has got those characteristics of a religion itself. Atheism has got its own God, prophets, book, disciples, evangelists calling to Atheism and yes the main factor in every religion the faith in things we have no proof on it or belief .(yes they do have it. I’ll come to that a bit later).
Whatever religion the followers would believe in their God or gods to be the creator and the maintainer of this great realm and through God they can explain everything in the universe. Like so Atheist believe that science is the answer to each and every question. Like all religions agree God sent prophets to guide mankind and convey Gods message, well Atheists do have it too, while Charles Darwin is the Moses of Atheism, Richard Dawkins seems to be the messiah, the savior of mankind and to deliver mankind from the darkness and blind following of religions to the “right path” of science. Well the book of Darwin “the origin of species” is the Old Testament of Atheism while the book by Dawkins “God delusion” is the New Testament thus completing the Atheist bible. In Dawkins “God delusion” he brings out the new “ten commandants” which should have been in the Old Testament. Then there are those faithful disciples who are so good in their faith they do not reason and ask if anyone has actually seen “evolution” or even reasonably proved it, they believe it’s perfect and can be proved and tries to prove it over and over again, while turning away from the fact that there are fossils disproving Evolution. What about the big bang? Rocky Kolb a leading scientist in Fermilab said while explaining particle collision “when they (particles) collide they produce the same conditions we believe would be present a millionth of a millionth of a second after the big bang” well Dawkins says “science has standards of testing things have to be verified it’s not enough to somebody to say, I believe, so and so “. So who should we follow?
Darwin’s “the origin of species”
Well we all know simply what the evolution theory is, so I would not waste any time trying to explain it. I’m going to point out the scientific faults and flaws of the theory know so far. The fifteen flaws of Darwin’s theory which I’m about to present to you are the conclusion of the research conducted by the famous writer Harun Yahya.
"1 The False Claim of Whales' Terrestrial Ancestor:
The subject of the fictitious forebear of whales is a terrible embarrassment for Darwinists. Contemporary Darwinists have long tried to eliminate that embarrassment by concealing the claim that "bears fishing on the sea shore gradually turned into whales." But their own suggestions were little different to that of Darwin's. Darwinists despairingly attempted to portray the ear and tooth structure of a living thing no bigger than a raccoon as evidence of this impossible and fictitious transition. The fact is that this is a classic Darwinist tactic. By pointing to anatomical similarities between different life forms, Darwinists attempted to establish a relationship between a totally unconnected land dweller and a marine mammal. But they were unable even to mention the evidence that would confirm this mythical transition, in other words the subject of transitional forms. They cannot do so because like all Darwinists' other claims, this is a lie, and THERE IS NOT A SINGLE TRANSITIONAL FORM TO SUBSTANTIATE IT.”
“2 The Transition from Water to Dry Land Deceit:
For years, Darwinists portrayed a well-known fossil fish as evidence of their myth of the transition from water to dry land. Described as the best known transitional fossil, the Coelacanth was depicted as a perfect example of that transition from water to land. According to the Darwinist myth, the creature had fins that turned into feet and was developing a lung. However, A LIVING COELACANTH was discovered in the sea in 1938. Darwinists could no longer lie about the Coelacanth. For example, the structures they had for years described as a primitive lung was nothing more than an OIL SAC. The structures they heralded as primitive legs were in fact PERFECT FINS. This life form, alleged to be on the brink of moving from the water to dry land, was in fact a BOTTOM-DWELLING FISH that inhabited depths of 180 meters and that immediately died when brought up into shallower waters. More than 300 other LIVING SPECIMENS have subsequently been caught.
The Darwinist speculation regarding the Tiktaalik was no different to that concerning the Coelacanth. The Tiktaalik, a creature with a mosaic character (containing perfect structures from different life forms), is an exceedingly complex life form with well preserved fossil remains. But its characteristics display no transitional features. Each one is a fully developed, perfect structure found in mosaic life forms (such as the platypus). The sole reason for the Darwinist conjecture around the animal is that they interpret the fossil remains of this extinct mosaic form in the light of their own preconceptions. Just as with the Coelacanth.
The absence of a single transitional form in the myth of the transition from water to dry land, not to mention such a transition being anatomically and physiologically impossible, is alone sufficient to repudiate the claims on the subject.”
“3 The Evolution of Feathers Deceit:
Darwinists ignore one very important fact as they espouse the myth of a transition from land to the air. The 100 million fossils they kept hidden away have now been brought out into the daylight, and these contain perfect flying birds that were contemporary with Archaeopteryx. People have personally examined the 125-million-year-oldLIAONINGORNIS fossil and the 120-million-year-old CONFUCIUSORNIS fossil. And that is why they now laugh at deceptions such as "Archaeopteryx is a transitional fossil" or "Epidexipteryx, discovered more recently, was the ancestor of birds."
All the claims regarding Archaeopteryx have long since been discredited. It has been realized that the animal was a bird capable of perfect flight, and that its teeth and claws are structures also found in contemporary birds.”
“4 The Evolution of Teeth Deceit:
The way that Nature magazine and Cumhuriyet Bilim Teknik are able to carry the claim that teeth evolved and to cite a study performed on the molar teeth of mice is quite amazing. All living things have their own unique characteristics. Their anatomical structures are therefore different to one another. It is perfectly natural for mice to have genetic sequences different to those of other rodents. This is evidence, not that they evolved, but that the life forms in question were specially created for their habitants and living conditions. All living things possess, by Allah's will, the most perfect equipment and structures. In order to portray this as evidence of evolution, Darwinists need to produce transitional fossils revealing the supposed development of these structures. But not a single intermediate form fossil exists. That means this claim is nothing more than Darwinist demagoguery.”
“5 The Evolution of the Vertebrate Skeleton Deceit:
The explanation in the report is literally this: "The neural crest, the existence of which is known only in embryos, explains why vertebrates have different skull and facial structures. But it is impossible to indicate the evolutionary history of the neural crest through fossil evidence because of the lack of embryonic data.
It is inexplicable how something for which there is no fossil evidence, as openly admitted in the article, can be depicted as evidence for supposed evolution. The neural crest in the human embryo is a magnificent structure. Cumhuriyet Bilim Teknik made do with describing the perfection of the structure in question and was also obliged to admit that there were no evolutionary races belonging to it in the fossil record. This is a blatant confession that evolution never happened and that living things are created with all their immaculate structures.”
“6 The Speciation Deceit:
Members of a species always reproduce with members of the same species in nature. And various characteristics in members of a species arising due to environmental factors or present in the genes, may come to predominate in subsequent generations. In the same way that tallness may predominate in the children of one tall and one short individual. But this change arising in subsequent generations cannot turn living things into another species. Darwin's finches developed longer or shorter beaks, but they never became other life forms. They did not turn into peacocks or bats. In the example in the article, sticklebacks did not give rise to a new species by reproducing one another. Sticklebacks anosticklebacks and have acquired no new features apart from those arising from their own genes. No matter how much Darwinists attempt to mislead people by the use of variations, this very definitely constitutes no evidence for evolution.”
“7 The Natural Elimination Is Evolution Deceit:
Ever since Darwin's day, natural elimination has been put forward as Darwinists' most favored supposed evolutionary mechanism. But it is actually a terrible lie. Existing information in a living thing's genes may give rise to various anatomical changes on account of environmental factors. But these changes never turn one life form into another. They never bestow any new organs or structures on it. The fact that lizards' tails shorten due to environmental factors is no evidence of evolution.”
“8 The Simultaneous Evolution Deceit:
Simultaneous evolution is another deceptive concept employed by Darwinists. The article in question contained a scenario regarding the supposed evolution of bacteria and parasites. The interesting thing is that bacteria that existed as far back as 3.6 billion years ago are still bacteria, and their parasites are still parasites. For some reason, no changes took place in the life forms in question during this supposed evolution, and no evolution ever happened. These single-cell organisms that should, according to Darwinists' claims, have developed and turned into fish, mammals and even human beings, are exactly the same now as they were 3.5 billion years ago. Because, like all other life forms, these creatures are entities created by Allah, out of nothing. And they were created with the same appearance 3.5 billion years ago as that they are created with today.”
“9 The Evolutionary Variation Deceit:
What Darwinists keep trying to depict as evidence for evolution, albeit under different names and with different examples, is always the same thing: variations. Darwinists attempt to distort variations within a species and portray them as instances of evolution. But this is a lie. The fact that the great tits considered in the article possess different structural features in different regions represents no advantage for the theory of evolution. In order to be evidence for evolution, the birds in question would have had to have developed new structures not belonging to them, such as arms or fins. But that is impossible. These life forms change within the bounds of the information contained in their genes, as happened in the instance cited in the paper. For that reason, certain genes becoming dominant within certain genetic structures in living things is simply variation and represents to evidence for evolution.”
“10 The Evolution of the Lepistes Surviving through Natural Elimination Deceit:
The way that the Lepistes fish in the article survived because of their different colors when subjected to natural elimination is no evidence of evolution. The fact a life form survives through natural elimination does not cause it to evolve. Therefore, the gradual elimination of lepistes of different colors did not bestow any new characteristics on them. Elimination of living things because of physical characteristics has no other outcome than an increase in the numbers of lepistes of some colors and a reduction in the numbers of the others. That will remain the case even over millions of years. The idea that natural elimination is an evolutionary mechanism is an entirely fictitious one.”
“11 The Depicting Proofs of Creation As Evidence of Evolution Deceit:
One technique employed by Darwinists is to describe the glorious characteristics of living things and then maintain that these are a miracle of so-called evolution. The magnificent hunting characteristics of the Moray eel are described in the same way in the article and the same method then employed. The animal's perfect anatomical structure, and its thin body ideally suited to its hunting technique are described in detail and then, inexplicably and with no supporting evidence of any kind, ascribed to so-called evolution. The fact is that this immaculate structure proves that the creatures were created of nothing, together with all its features. There are also fossil records that show that the eel was created together with all these superior features and has remained unchanged for all the millions of years since. 95-million-year-old eel fossils demolish all evolutionist claims. Darwinists' demagogic accounts devoid of any evidence at all merely humiliate them in the face of this obvious truth.”
“12 The Deceit of Depicting Variation in Finch Beaks as Proof of Evolution Ever Since Darwin's Time:
Finches may have different shaped beaks within the same species. That state of affairs may also apply to other life forms. But the important thing – as stated earlier – is that these changes within a species already exist within the genes. These animals have possessed that information since they were first created. The differences in their beaks did arise as a result of information added to their genes subsequently. Finches will undergo variation to the extent that differences exist in their genes. It is impossible for beaks to assume any shape not already in finches' genes or to turn into any other organ.
All the examples that Darwinists have cited of speciation are deceptions. No finches have ever turned into an eagle or a bat, a mammal. No finch beak has ever turned into a terrestrial mammal's nose. These animals have never undergone any evolutionary change at all. It is a lie to claim that changes in beaks are the result of information added to the genes. It is impossible for information to be added to living things' genes in random processes and for this to bestow any advantage on an organism or develop into any new organ, and such a thing has never happened.”
“13 Microevolution and Macroevolution Are Deceptions:
Evolutionists refer to variation within a species as "microevolution" and to the hypothesis of the formation of new species as "macroevolution," both of which are illusory processes. But the whole thing is a lie.
1) The process known as microevolution never happened. All the examples that Darwinists cite as evidence for microevolution are in fact variations arising within a species. But variations are not evolution. An insect developing resistance to pesticides, finch beaks assuming different shapes or cows living on different continents being more or less hairy are the result of the perfect systems created within their genes. These life forms never acquired any characteristic from nowhere, and never evolved.
2) Neither did the illusory process known as macroevolution ever take place. Darwinists are lying when they claim that fossils representing evidence for macroevolution have been discovered. They possess not a single transitional form fossil. According to Darwinists, there should be billions or even trillions of fossils to verify this claim. Yet 100 million fossils have so far been unearthed. They have all been closely examined, BUT NOT A SINGLE ONE IS A TRANSITIONAL FORM FOSSIL. Darwinists' claim that we can see evidence for macroevolution in the structure of genes is a second great lie. Indeed, because they have no evidence to support this idea, Darwinists attempt to explain it away with such demagogic and diplomatic expressions as "evolution may have had a great effect on genes."
Genes are extraordinarily complex and magnificent structures that have been operating perfectly since the moment they were first created. Even a single DNA, the smallest part of these structures, is a major challenge to Darwinists. Darwinism is a theory that has collapsed on both the molecular and paleontological levels.”
“14 The Resistance to Poisons Is Evidence of Evolution Deceit:
Living things are created with glorious characteristics. The structures in their bodies and what happens in them are breathtaking. Darwinists, however, generally take these structures and include them in evolutionary fairy tales. But in doing so THEY HAVE NOT A SINGLE MOLECULAR FINDING OR FOSSIL REMAIN to act as evidence for this fictitious evolution.
The clams cited in this section are miracles of creation with their resistance to the toxin known as saxitoxin. Darwinists are unable to explain how these organism came to possess this extraordinary system, and it is impossible for them ever to do so. Because as with all living things' structures, this is extraordinarily complex and totally refutes the theory of evolution. It is also a miracle how another member of the same species should lack this immunity because it lives in a toxin-free region. Almighty Allah has created these organisms in the most appropriate manner for their surroundings. In order for Darwinists to be able to depict this as evidence for Darwinism, they need to show how the illusory evolutionary processes concerned took place, and what their supporting evidence is.
The idea that "clams have different properties in different habitats, and this is the result of evolution" might once have deceived primary school children, but even they can no longer be taken in by it.”
“15 The Attempt to Suggest Evolution with Scenarios of Evolutionary Resistance Deceit:
Since evolution is a false theory, Darwinists have a constant need to develop tactics for their propaganda. They always ascribe molecular discoveries to the theory of evolution. But rather than admitting that evolution is a lie, they keep trying to adapt new findings to it. They always depict new fossil discoveries as evidence against evolution. Rather than giving up in the absence of any transitional fossils, Darwinists try to gloss over it. As we have seen, what Darwinists do is to keep developing new tactics in the face of discoveries that repudiate evolution, rather than coming up with any proof. Darwinism is founded, not on finding and submitting evidence, but on thinking up new tactics and demagoguery. And demagoguery is essential for Darwinists, BECAUSE THEIR THEORY IS DEVOID OF ANY EVIDENCE.
One tactic is developed in section 15 of the Cumhuriyet Bilim Teknik article, with an amazing attempt to portray fossils that refute evolution as evidence for it. There are millions of living fossils in the world. The crocodiles, deer, bears, birds, reptiles, fish, insects, and in short all living things in the fossil record have the same appearances and anatomies as they did when they were first created. Allah has miraculously preserved them with the same appearances they had millions of years in the past. So much so that Darwinists can never gloss over the reality of living fossils.
That is why Darwinists admit the existence of living fossils but try to interpret their emergence according to their own lights. The best known example of this is the idea that life forms can remain unaltered for millions of years but then undergo sudden changes (punctuated evolution). This huge deception, based on the logic of "how can we adapt the fossil record to evolution?" has been imposed on Darwinists by the way fossils repudiate evolution. Because living things really have remained unchanged for millions of years, although the Darwinist concept of sudden changes is a lie. There is not the slightest trace of such great changes in the fossil record. Such changes cannot be tested, observed or explained. There are no traces anywhere in the world or under the ground of such momentous changes. Allah created living things millions of years ago with the same appearances they have today. The idea of sudden change is, like the theory of evolution itself, a terrible lie.”
Who believe in Evolution now?
British daily The Guardian conducted a survey on Evolution, it emerged that only 25% of the Britons believed in Evolution. So goes the results throughout Europe.
“92% of people in a poll on the French scientific web site Science Actualités REJECT DARWINISM, 86% of people in a survey on the German daily Die Welt web site REJECT DARWINISM, 88% of people in a poll in the Danish daily Ekstra Bladet web site REJECT DARWINISM, 87% of people in a survey on the German daily Süddeutsche Zeitung web site and 85% of people in a poll on the Swiss paper Blick web site REJECT DARWINISM.”
This proves that Humans have knowledge of true science to reject the belief that they evolved from a simpler form to a more complex form.
Darwinism Father of racism
One of the most important yet least-known aspects of Darwin is his racism: Darwin regarded white Europeans as more “advanced" than other human races. While Darwin presumed that man evolved from ape-like creatures, he surmised that some races developed more than others and that the latter still bore simian features. In his book, The Descent of Man, which he published after The Origin of Species, he boldly commented on "the greater differences between men of distinct races".1 In his book, Darwin held blacks and Australian Aborigines to be equal to gorillas and then inferred that these would be "done away with" by the "civilized races" in time. He said: At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes... will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla. Darwin's nonsensical ideas were not only theorized, but also brought into a position where they provided the most important "scientific ground" for racism. Supposing that living beings evolved in the struggle for life, Darwinism was even adapted to the social sciences, and turned into a conception that came to be called "Social Darwinism". Social Darwinism contends that existing human races are located at different
Rungs of the "evolutionary ladder” that the European races were the most "advanced" of all, and that many other races still bear "simian" features
Each and every religion believes that humans hold a greater value but Darwin brought man down to the level of Animal, which gave born for many disturbing ideas and theories. The fist and the hardest to deny (scientifically) is the theory brought up by Darwin’s half cousin Francis Galton “eugenics” he was directly inspired by Darwin’s “the origin of species” It’s a very disturbing theory which was practiced by Hitler and Stalin. The interesting thing about Eugenics is that the atheists just don’t want to talk about it, just like the famous Documentary maker Rod little says “why not? What is the matter boys? Scientifically after all it is very difficult to argue against,” this idea which gave birth to communism and others secular ideas.
It’s obvious that Darwin’s theory is just an imagination thought up. People, who really reason, think and search for knowledge would know the abundance of proof against Evolution and the Atheist philosophy prove that these two ideologies are just myths and misguidance.
Reference:
“The Trouble with Atheism” documentary by Rod liddle
God delusion by Dawkins
Origin of species by Darwin
Harun Yahya’s work
the images used are drawings by siru www.siruart.blogspot.com
19 hours ago
47 comments:
oi!! this is wot i tell ya man, u write it nicely and its brill when u edit it u just make it so short it looks so divvy.
well nice read.
even after choppin off em details its too long, its hard to read when its too long man, check ya mail i've sent ya the full thing
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=7429720664222140083&postID=722925895363107802&page=1
its really nice and informative, its sad some people blindly follows science as if everything scientists say are true.
anarchist argue and try to be Europeans but the truth is Allah is there and Atheism is just another false religion.
for those who love dawkins, and defending Evolution
http://replytodawkins.com/
Well, your article does not prove that Allah is the God? All atheist are not Dawkinians. Only the fools follow him or anyone like a prophet. As far as I am concerned Dawkin's Athiesm is no better or worse than Jesus's Christianity or yes i know if I write this you will censor the comment. It's not any better than Mohamed's Islam. It has no answers, but a bunch of arrogant double meaning statements full of lies.
Rasheed
atheism is no more true and no more false than islam or any other religion. deal with it, without distorting scientific findings and facts. harun yahya has already been exposed for the fraud he is, so i dont think it will be in your or anyone's interests in trying to prove the 'truth' of islam or any other religion with yahya's distorted "facts."
not that this will benefit you lord hexter since u have already chosen to close up your mind, but for other people who still have their minds open and would like the truth about this harun fraud, here's the link:
http://richarddawkins.net/article,3239,UPDATED-Richard-Dawkins-on-Harun-Yahyas-Atlas-of-Creation,Richard-Dawkins-Council-of-Ex-Muslims-of-Britain
hashim: everything religion teaches is the truth? remember faith is blind. there's a reason why faith is 'blind' and i dont think it will be in anyone's interest to accept something that is 'blind' and therefore has no truth value.
just deal with the fact that there are no absolute answers. neither religion has any truth value nor scientists. but in the case of scientists they are onto SOMETHING while religion thrives basically on NOTHING, no established facts. i guess that's why it's blind
Rocky Kolb a leading scientist in Fermilab said while explaining particle collision “when they (particles) collide they produce the same conditions we believe would be present a millionth of a millionth of a second after the big bang” well Dawkins says “science has standards of testing things have to be verified it’s not enough to somebody to say, I believe, so and so “. So who should we follow?
well big bangs on faith too
Atheism is as much a religion as baldness is a hair colour.
This is exactly what Dawkins said of religion obsessed creationists.. "science doesn't prove a thing" you say, and wilfully ignore the overwhelming evidence in favor of evolution (redundant legs on snakes.. human babies born with tails..) by claiming religion to be outside the purview of science.
But the moment some half baked theory that seems to a law person like it 'might ' contradict evolution or support creation, you celebrate as if christmas and the carnival fell on your birthday.
And to think that this is put forward not by an agnostic but a creationist. if Beam can be 100 feet tall , why can't a bear become a whale? at least of the type that swallowed jonah?
correction: I meant to say "if adam can be 100 feet tall.."
damn autocomplete on mobile phones.
"The idea of denying God’s existence, and the claim of “everything can be explained by science” and of cause “the big bang” and “Evolution”, is now known as Atheism. "
This is simply very inaccurate. There are atheists who refute the claim from God based on so social, philosophical and historical grounds.
I know an atheist who refutes god based on the problem of evil, for instance. And this person is not even familiar with science or for that matter evolution.
What you have done here is you've written something after having only a cursory read of atheism and evolution. And to make it worse, you've actually succumbed to this ignoramus Yahya's words.
You should read more about evolution.
no matter how clear the facts are clear ppl wont believe, they believe what the want, its obvious that science is incapable to explain what happened before big bang. this is a great article
nash:
science can't but religion can? what EVIDENCE religion offers as an explanation for what happened before the big bang? nothing.
both religion and science fails when it comes to the big questions.
u r right. people will believe what they want to believe. people believe in religion without any evidence because they want to believe in it due to their insecurities even if it means BLINDLY following it.
just face it. humanity will be forever doomed because this science vs religion will never end because both is incapable of providing the absolute answers that can satisfy a human being's brain.
so its stupid that people keep claiming one thing is better than the other and vice versa.
Lord Hexter, you should divert your energy to more useful purposes, like things which can actually help people to solve problems and make their lives better and deal with daily problems they have to face every day. Perhaps a health, exercise or entertainment blog will be better than this blog which obviously you set up because your own weakness about not knowing the absolute answers for the deep questions makes you want to reassure and reassure and reassure yourself CONTINUOUSLY that your death is not the end of it, that yoo will once again get to meet your loved ones in an afterlife and that you will live in eternal bliss. come on be brave. face it. we die. thats it. better enjoy this short life without wasting time on this bullshit.
i'm a Muslim so i believe in Quran and it says:
045.021
What! Do those who seek after evil ways think that We shall hold them equal with those who believe and do righteous deeds,- that equal will be their life and their death? Ill is the judgment that they make.
045.022
Allah created the heavens and the earth for just ends, and in order that each soul may find the recompense of what it has earned, and none of them be wronged.
045.023
Then seest thou such a one as takes as his god his own vain desire? Allah has, knowing (him as such), left him astray, and sealed his hearing and his heart (and understanding), and put a cover on his sight. Who, then, will guide him after Allah (has withdrawn Guidance)? Will ye not then receive admonition?
045.024
And they say: "What is there but our life in this world? We shall die and we live, and nothing but time can destroy us." But of that they have no knowledge: they merely conjecture:
045.025
And when Our Clear Signs are rehearsed to them their argument is nothing but this: They say, "Bring (back) our forefathers, if what ye say is true!"
045.026
Say: "It is Allah Who gives you life, then gives you death; then He will gather you together for the Day of Judgment about which there is no doubt": But most men do not understand.
045.027
To Allah belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth, and the Day that the Hour of Judgment is established,- that Day will the dealers in Falsehood perish!
045.028
And thou wilt see every sect bowing the knee: Every sect will be called to its Record: "This Day shall ye be recompensed for all that ye did!
045.029
"This Our Record speaks about you with truth: For We were wont to put on Record all that ye did."
045.030
Then, as to those who believed and did righteous deeds, their Lord will admit them to His Mercy that will be the achievement for all to see.
045.031
But as to those who rejected Allah, (to them will be said): "Were not Our Signs rehearsed to you? But ye were arrogant, and were a people given to sin!
045.032
"And when it was said that the promise of Allah was true, and that the Hour- there was no doubt about its (coming), ye used to say, 'We know not what is the hour: we only think it is an idea, and we have no firm assurance.'"
045.033
Then will appear to them the evil (fruits) of what they did, and they will be completely encircled by that which they used to mock at!
045.034
It will also be said: "This Day We will forget you as ye forgot the meeting of this Day of yours! and your abode is the Fire, and no helpers have ye!
045.036
Then Praise be to Allah, Lord of the heavens and Lord of the earth,- Lord and Cherisher of all the Worlds!
045.037
To Him be glory throughout the heavens and the earth: and He is Exalted in Power, Full of Wisdom!
(thats what i believe and it gives a direct answer to those ppl like who who says " we die. thats it. better enjoy this short life "
Dear Lord Hexter:
I used to be a misguided fool who believed in Atheism and Richard Dawkins as my prefect. But after reading your article Abu Khuraira said to come and have dinner. And then I went said Aisha (RAN). And then he had sex with little children. Please note that Allah is the best, the perfect and the extreme and beyond.
Keep up the good work. With this approach you will not win anyone else except misguided fools like me. If you do not try to let others believe with you believe, it would be fine. You can believe in your shit load and keep it to yourself, unless you are a control freak do not kill others. PBUH
leeza
well its nice of you to write an article like this, it really explains what i've try to show in my drawing really.
nice drawing
@leeza
well from ur name i understand ur a lady, what a dirty tongue u'v got. being offensive is one thing, but arrogant is totally immoral. thats what Atheists lack in. after all science has no explanation for morality.
It would be wise to actually investigate Harun Yahya's claims on evolution and see what actual science has to say on the matter. HY's claims rely on readers being ignorant of scientific facts and unwilling to do the learning. Thus it is no surprise that 15 flaws listed in your post which you claim are the "conclusion of the research conducted" by HY is nothing more than his weak rebuttal to the "15 Evolutionary Gems" article published by the renowned science journal Nature http://www.nature.com/nature/newspdf/evolutiongems.pdf). It would be well worth reading that original Nature article and following through to the references it lists to learn a bit more about the actual scientific data and research that backs them up. One has to wonder what sort of "research" HY has conducted, given that he hasn't got any scientific training and has never conducted any scientific research or published any research for public scrutiny. Added to that, his writings reek of weak understanding of science and evolution in addition to outright deception.
Here's a quick review of some of the 15 "flaws" listed:
1. Whales' Terrestrial Ancestor: HY's claims here amounts to nothing more willful ignorance. Whale evolution is backed up by multiple fossils and multiple lines of evidence including paleontological, morphological, vestigial and molecular. What more, the genetic remnants from their limbed ancestors still occasionally cause some modern whales to develop mini limbs...
http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whale_evolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambulocetus
2.The Transition from Water to Dry Land: The whole story about Coelacanths may seem convincing but again skips on an important fact; the modern Coelacanths and the fossil versions are not the same species as has been proven by morphological and DNA analysis. The fossil record shows that Coelacanths used to have many species but none of which include the 2 modern species. This suggests that the modern species are descendants with a yet unknown intermediary.
http://www.dinofish.com/biol.htm
http://www.pnas.org/content/96/22/12616.abstract
The bit about Tiktaalik just goes to show how deep HY's lack of understanding of evolution and transitional fossils run. Anyone with a decent understanding of evolution will see that his statement "...its characteristics display no transitional features. Each one is a fully developed, perfect structure.." is just plain silly nonsense. Transitional features are fully developed, have "perfect structure" and present some benefit just as any other feature as far as any individual animal is concerned. Features may only be regarded as transitional when looking back at the big picture of the evolution we are afforded. Also, this HY invented concept of a "mosaic life form" is pure nonsense, with absolutely no biological definition. How exactly might an animal come to have "perfect structures from different life forms"? Oh, wait, evolution!
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19025464.600-first-fossil-of-fish-that-crawled-onto-land-discovered.html
3. Evolution of Feathers: There indeed was controversy Archaeopteryx when there was only one fossil specimen around. However, multiple fossils of Archaeopteryx has been found in different places since then and criticisms that related to the original discovery has all but died out. It is the earliest and most primitive bird known and there exists no evidence that it was capable of flight as HY claims and it certainly has not been discredited.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/info.html
4 Evolution of Teeth: This is an active topic in evolutionary research but the fact that we know little is certainly not evidence against evolution. There isn't a solid formulation of how teeth evolved but interestingly the evidence suggests that it had evolved independently atleast twice.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/10/071031-new-mammal.html
5 Evolution of the Vertebrate Skeleton: The current evidence relating to vertebrate development clearly shows how animals progressed gradually from developing cartilaginous fish, to armoured fish, to cartilage skeleton fish, to bony fish, just as evolution predicts though the exact mechanisms that lead to the vertebrate skeleton aren't clear. The problem is made very hard because the neura crest, which sets off the transformations that result in the skeleton, exists only in embryos and are not preserved in any fossilization process. To say that there are no evolutionary trances of it in the fossil record as HY has done is to tell only half the story. New techniques have allowed tracking individual cells through the development process and has lead to new methods that allow better tracking of the skeletal development in the fossil record.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v436/n7049/abs/nature03837.html
6 Speciation: The definition of species is an actively debated topic and reproductive compatibility is just one among the various definitions of species that has been put forward. Again, HY uses a combination of deception and ignorance to claim that speciation has not been observed. Truth is that it has been multiple times, even by the measure of reproductive compatibility.
http://ecoworldly.com/2008/10/07/scientists-discover-fish-in-act-of-evolution-in-africas-greatest-lake/
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
And as for that matter of who believes in evolution now, scientific truth is not a matter of popular belief. It does not matter whether everyone believed something was true or false if the evidence does not agree. The fact that everyone believed the Earth was flat doesn’t make it flat. What more, the understanding of evolution among the general public is lamentable. Polls have shown that acceptance of evolution increases with the level of education people have received and evolution is accepted by well over 95% of scientists.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/114544/Darwin-Birthday-Believe-Evolution.aspx
http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm#earth
Evolution is a scientific theory aimed at explaining the development and diversity of life on Earth and currently is the ONLY theory that has been proposed and that holds weight. It is backed up multiple independent lines of evidence. Like any other scientific theory, the acceptance of evolution is not based on blind belief or faith but a recognition and understanding of the evidence for it and its plausibility. Evolution does not demand nor require the denial of a God and does not suggest the non-existence of a God...
@Nash : Its obvious that you don't even know much about what you're rejecting. What happened 'before' the bang is not a valid question, scientifically.
The big bang wasn't your average fission 'explosion'.. it is the birth of dimensions of time and space itself. So there's no such thing as a time "before" big bang.
Its interesting to note how you find 'the big bang theory' implausible and so you immediately believe in God - an entity which is, scientifically speaking, infinitely more implausible?
If you can ask what happened before big bang, why the unfair hesitation to ask 'what happened before God?'
Who created the all knowing, all powerful god?
well, God created time and before time is non but him, so time does not apply to him. after time come all things so they have a life and a creator.
057.003
"He is the First and the Last, the Evident and the Immanent: and He has full knowledge of all things."
thats why we say Allah is eternal.
@yaamyn:
What happened before the big bang IS a valid scientific question, though it used to considered no so until relatively recently. Have a read on the Hartle-Hawking model and Loop Quantum Gravity :)
Lord Hexter:
If you believe in Islam and therefore is not open to other ideas, why launch this debate in the first place?
This is a blog to create Islamic awareness?
Well, there are many, and more useful websitses and blogs. So as I said before, why waste time? Why not operate a blog to explore your own creativity?
If you seek constant reassurance that you are a believer and are not going to hell for who you are, you can always visit the more professional Islamic sights and keep on repeatedly reading what's there.
Other commentators:
Ok, you guys want to imply that God has some privileged position. But don't delude yourself that an intelligent being still cannot create himself. So Islam or any other religion does not provide any answers. Rather the idea of God itself worsens the deep questions because how can such a superior being create himself?
Oh, well, you say he HAPPENS to exist? How now?
Stupid.
Well, then why can't you get in your thick heads that the Universe also HAPPENS to exist?!
Stop pursuing wasting time and trying to find answers to questions for which there are no answers. Just concentrate on living your short life with happiness. Treat life as a gift.
@DCJ
a gift by who?? u sound just like dawkins. lol one more thing i'd do what i want, u may not tell me what to do. just like any other faith atheists also cant tolerate anything against their belief, thats why you keep calling me to stop this and calling this stupid.
How ignorant could a person b. they don't understand when v say RELIGION. they think that religion means following a book and a prophet to worship a god. And they, the atheists say that they r anti religious.
In Islam religion means the way or method or culture that someone applies in his/her life. we can say in shot form that it is the fashion or lifestyle of a person.
u can understand this from the soorath AL-KAAFIROON.
So u atheists better think of way ur saying before u say it. and stop talking nonsense.
i wonder how on earth they r denying GOD, when they believe in their moms as MOMS n dads as DADS. Did they c their moms delivering them???
religions can be identified due to its characteristics - eg. worship, belief in the sacred, deity/deities, rituals. none of this can be attributed to atheism. lack of belief is not a belief, and lack of religion is not a religion.
evolution has been observed. look up "rapid evolution" on the internet, you might find an article about how the same species of lizard geographically seperated from their natural habitat developed different physical characteristics from the original one to adapt to their new surroundings over a time span of 10-20 years (give or take, i can't remember the exact time period right now). hence the term "rapid evolution".
http://www.dinosauria.com/jdp/evol/lizard.html
follow the link above for details.
_____________________________________
oho, it looks like yahya brings up lizards in his insanely biased and illogical observation.
"The sole reason for the Darwinist
conjecture around the animal is that they interpret the fossil remains of this extinct mosaic form in the light of their own preconceptions." - harun the closeted gay yahya
the scientist are viewing the fossil from their scientifically observed preconceptions, as opposed to your supernatural preconceptions. it's quite plain which is the logical party here, scientists are sane enough to inquire into mysteries without facing everything unexplained with the sentence "god did it".
"The fact that lizards' tails shorten due to environmental factors is no evidence of evolution.” harun the closeted gay yahya
nor is it evidence of creation!
it being evidence of evolution is not possible, nor is it probable, but it is plain!
i've had quite enoguh of yahya's idiotic comments on evolution. "HAY THERE'S NO FOSSIL LOL, IT'S PROOF OF INTELLIGENT DESIGN!".
i'm done reading that.
___________________________________
"The fist and the hardest to deny (scientifically) is the theory brought up by Darwin’s half cousin Francis Galton “eugenics” he was directly inspired by Darwin’s “the origin of species” It’s a very disturbing theory which was practiced by Hitler and Stalin. The interesting thing about Eugenics is that the atheists just don’t want to talk about it, just like the famous Documentary maker Rod little says “why not? What is the matter boys? Scientifically after all it is very difficult to argue against,” this idea which gave birth to communism and others secular ideas." - lord hexter
atheists are generally quite peaceful people who minds their own business while respecting others' rights.
as steven weinberg rightly says, "without religion, good people would do good things, and evil people would do evil things. but for good people to evil things, it takes religion".
practicing eugenics is evil, and evil men carried out such heinous acts, it has nothing to do with disbelief in god. religious apologist are desperate to blame "godlessness" for it, but it was not a consequence of atheism, rather a consequence of evil gaining power. the only consequence of "godlessness" would be a logical outlook on the universe, and the mind being finally at peace without supernatural delusions or a fear of impending doom YOU SCARE CHILDREN WITH.
in closing, let me quote robin williams in the movie 'man of the year": "this is not intelligent design, we've got recreation next to waste disposal!"
@ Lord heXter
"well, God created time and before time is non but him, so time does not apply to him. after time come all things so they have a life and a creator."
If God can just pop into existence, why can't the universe?
"@DCJ
a gift by who?? u sound just like dawkins. lol one more thing i'd do what i want, u may not tell me what to do. just like any other faith atheists also cant tolerate anything against their belief, thats why you keep calling me to stop this and calling this stupid."
I believe it's more of a, in the words of Sam Harris, conversational intolerance.
how come no atheist talk abt this
http://siruart.blogspot.com/2009/02/darwin-searching-for-missing-link.html
Science can't explain what happened before the big bang?
Let's say science did explain.
Would anyone of you understand?
i like the way u have tried to convince us that science it self is a religion ..by giving information about the prophets and the book ..lol it kinda made me smile. well, i wanted to know more and read more critisizm and arguemens rather than chunks of words taken from sources ..:P
i believe, the birth of science is due to Gods creations..The Almighty gave us this sort of a habitat to think about life before us and after us .. science is a proof to show that whats mentioned in Quran ages ago is true. even before the existance of some.. it was mentioned in our book.
Dear Lord:
Are you also a Load? Isn't it a shirk to use names like that?
"Man Created God"
its sad wen some ppl dont understand English, its an adjective if its used just that word than it would mean God but if its with another name it does not mean lord almighty
when all hope is lost, started picking on the author ey!!! lol pathetic ppl
Many people like the author think that science is absolute and finds ultimate truth. They look at science as an authority and not a process.
All I can say is, find out what science is first.
Evolution evidence. This month alone...
Missing dinosaur link found in Argentina
http://tinyurl.com/byyket
Giant seabird's fossilized skull found in Peru
http://tinyurl.com/dnmtqj
Early whales gave birth on land, fossil find reveals
http://tinyurl.com/d8e3ka
Origin of claws seen in 390-million-year-old fossil
http://tinyurl.com/ae4n2v
Interesting thread. The problem I see is that ppl are desperate to mix science and religion. Religion is about FAITH. Science is everything but faith. So how can you mix those two?
As for evolution, it is a scientific theory based on evidence. The evidence is there for all to see. You can chose to 'believe' it or not. It is like saying you 'believe' the earth is round. It has absolutely nothing to do with belief. What if the question is 'do you believe in theories of relativity?'. The question itself is meaningless. The relativity theories had stood the test of time, it predicts accurately the observed phenomena, hence it is a good theory. This is true whether you 'believe' the theory or not. If a better theory comes along, it will replace Einstein's one. Just like for evolution, if a better theory is there that explains the observations, the theory of evolution will be replaced. And life moves on.
Jaa is right. Y does everyone think that accepting evolution means denying god? I accept the theory of evolution, and yet I believe in God. Just like I accept relativity theory. Science is not about proving or disproving the existence of god. It never will. Because scientific theories doesn't require the concept of faith to hold true.
@meekau
well if u believe in god how can u say everything happened by chance? How can u say humans evolved when allah clearly says how humans are created and also how they are shaped in their moms womb. from the first creation till today its explained. and science does have a connection with faith, thats why Quran speaks of science,
Anony above:
The problem with you is that you BELIEVE that this certain prophet and certain book is right about everything when that certain book and certain prophet said all those things without any proof or evidence or without any divine revelation at all. Case in point: he married an under-aged girl. If he was indeed a Prophet from God, shouldn't God have prohibited him from marrying Aisha when God will know that later generations will discover that a man and woman becomes physically and mentally mature for sex with an adult only after around the age of 18?
@ DCJ
who said 18 is the best age or proper age, did u know maturity changes from location to location
cold countries maturity age is low compared to hot countries. did u know the age of aisha wen she married the prophet, do u have any idea who ur father is? how sure are u he is ur dad?
Lack of Identifiable Phylogeny
"It is, however, very difficult to establish the precise lines of descent, termed phylogenies, for most organisms." (Ayala, F. J. and Valentine J. W., Evolving: The Theory and Process of Organic Evolution, 1978, p. 230)
"Undeniably, the fossil record has provided disappointingly few gradual series. The origins of many groups are still not documented at all." (Futuyma, D., Science on Trial: The Case for Evolution, 1983, p. 190-191)
"There is still a tremendous problem with the sudden diversification of multi-cellular life. There is no question about that. That's a real phenomenon." (Niles Eldredge, quoted in Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems by Luther D. Sunderland, Master Book Publishers, Santee, California, 1988, p. 45)
"Whatever ideas authorities may have on the subject, the lungfishes, like every other major group of fishes that I know, have their origins firmly based in nothing." (Quoted in W. R. Bird, _The Origin of Species Revisited_ [Nashville: Regency, 1991; originally published by Philosophical Library, 1987], 1:62-63)
"The main problem with such phyletic gradualism is that the fossil record provides so little evidence for it. Very rarely can we trace the gradual transformation of one entire species into another through a finely graded sequence of intermediary forms." (Gould, S.J. Luria, S.E. & Singer, S., A View of Life, 1981, p. 641)
"It should come as no surprise that it would be extremely difficult to find a specific fossil species that is both intermediate in morphology between two other taxa and is also in the appropriate stratigraphic position." (Cracraft, J., "Systematics, Comparative Biology, and the Case Against Creationism," 1983, p. 180)
"Most families, orders, classes, and phyla appear rather suddenly in the fossil record, often without anatomically intermediate forms smoothly interlinking evolutionarily derived descendant taxa with their presumed ancestors." (Eldredge, N., 1989, Macro-Evolutionary Dynamics: Species, Niches, and Adaptive Peaks, McGraw-Hill Publishing Company, New York, p. 22)
"Species that were once thought to have turned into others have been found to overlap in time with these alleged descendants. In fact, the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another." (Stanley, S.M., The New Evolutionary Timetable: Fossils, Genes, and the Origin of Species, 1981, p. 95)
"Many fossils have been collected since 1859, tons of them, yet the impact they have had on our understanding of the relationships between living organisms is barely perceptible. ...In fact, I do not think it unfair to say that fossils, or at least the traditional interpretation of fossils, have clouded rather than clarified our attempts to reconstruct phylogeny." (Fortey, P. L., "Neontological Analysis Versus Palaeontological Stores," 1982, p. 120-121)
"Indeed, it is the chief frustration of the fossil record that we do not have empirical evidence for sustained trends in the evolution of most complex morphological adaptations." (Gould, Stephen J. and Eldredge, Niles, "Species Selection: Its Range and Power," 1988, p. 19)
"The paleontological data is consistent with the view that all of the currently recognized phyla had evolved by about 525 million years ago. Despite half a billion years of evolutionary exploration generated in Cambrian time, no new phylum level designs have appeared since then." ("Developmental Evolution of Metazoan Body plans: The Fossil Evidence," Valentine, Erwin, and Jablonski, Developmental Biology 173, Article No. 0033, 1996, p. 376)
"Many 'trends' singled out by evolutionary biologists are ex post facto rendering of phylogenetic history: biologists may simply pick out species at different points in geological time that seem to fit on some line of directional modification through time. Many trends, in other words, may exist more in the minds of the analysts than in phylogenetic history. This is particularly so in situations, especially common prior to about 1970, in which analysis of the phylogenetic relationships among species was incompletely or poorly done." (Eldredge, Niles, Macro-Evolutionary Dynamics: Species, Niches, and Adaptive Peaks, 1989, p. 134)
"The Eldredge-Gould concept of punctuated equilibria has gained wide acceptance among paleontologists. It attempts to account for the following paradox: Within continuously sampled lineages, one rarely finds the gradual morphological trends predicted by Darwinian evolution; rather, change occurs with the sudden appearance of new, well-differentiated species. Eldredge and Gould equate such appearances with speciation, although the details of these events are not preserved. ...The punctuated equilibrium model has been widely accepted, not because it has a compelling theoretical basis but because it appears to resolve a dilemma. Apart from the obvious sampling problems inherent to the observations that stimulated the model, and apart from its intrinsic circularity (one could argue that speciation can occur only when phyletic change is rapid, not vice versa), the model is more ad hoc explanation than theory, and it rests on shaky ground." (Ricklefs, Robert E., "Paleontologists Confronting Macroevolution," Science, vol. 199, 1978, p. 59)
"Few paleontologists have, I think ever supposed that fossils, by themselves, provide grounds for the conclusion that evolution has occurred. An examination of the work of those paleontologists who have been particularly concerned with the relationship between paleontology and evolutionary theory, for example that of G. G. Simpson and S. J. Gould, reveals a mindfulness of the fact that the record of evolution, like any other historical record, must be construed within a complex of particular and general preconceptions not the least of which is the hypothesis that evolution has occurred. ...The fossil record doesn't even provide any evidence in support of Darwinian theory except in the weak sense that the fossil record is compatible with it, just as it is compatible with other evolutionary theories, and revolutionary theories and special creationist theories and even historical theories." (Kitts, David B., "Search for the Holy Transformation," review of Evolution of Living Organisms, by Pierre-P. Grassé, Paleobiology, vol. 5, 1979, p. 353-354)
Stasis and Sudden Appearance
"Paleontologists have paid an enormous price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we profess to study. ...The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change I usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed.'" (Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182)
"Paleontologists are traditionally famous (or infamous) for reconstructing whole animals from the debris of death. Mostly they cheat. ...If any event in life's history resembles man's creation myths, it is this sudden diversification of marine life when multicellular organisms took over as the dominant actors in ecology and evolution. Baffling (and embarrassing) to Darwin, this event still dazzles us and stands as a major biological revolution on a par with the invention of self-replication and the origin of the eukaryotic cell. The animal phyla emerged out of the Precambrian mists with most of the attributes of their modern descendants." (Bengtson, Stefan, "The Solution to a Jigsaw Puzzle," Nature, vol. 345 (June 28, 1990), p. 765-766)
"Modern multicellular animals make their first uncontested appearance in the fossil record some 570 million years ago - and with a bang, not a protracted crescendo. This 'Cambrian explosion' marks the advent (at least into direct evidence) of virtually all major groups of modern animals - and all within the minuscule span, geologically speaking, of a few million years." (Gould, Stephen J., Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History, 1989, p. 23-24)
"The fossil record had caused Darwin more grief than joy. Nothing distressed him more than the Cambrian explosion, the coincident appearance of almost all complex organic designs..." (Gould, Stephen J., The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 238-239)
"The majority of major groups appear suddenly in the rocks, with virtually no evidence of transition from their ancestors." (Futuyma, D., Science on Trial: The Case for Evolution, 1983, p. 82)
"Most families, orders, classes, and phyla appear rather suddenly in the fossil record, often without anatomically intermediate forms smoothly interlinking evolutionarily derived descendant taxa with their presumed ancestors." (Eldredge, (Eldredge, Niles, Macro-Evolutionary Dynamics: Species, Niches, and Adaptive Peaks, 1989, p. 22)
"In spite of these examples, it remains true, as every paleontologist knows, that most new species, genera, and families, and that nearly all new categories above the level of families, appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences." (Simpson, George Gaylord, The Major Features of Evolution, 1953, p. 360)
"The gaps in the record are real, however. The absence of any record of any important branching is quite phenomenal. Species are usually static, or nearly so, for long periods, species seldom and genera never show evolution into new species or genera but replacement or one by another, and change is more or less abrupt." (Wesson, R., Beyond Natural Selection, 1991, p. 45)
"All through the fossil record, groups - both large and small - abruptly appear and disappear. ...The earliest phase of rapid change usually is undiscovered, and must be inferred by comparison with its probable relatives." (Newell, N. D., Creation and Evolution: Myth or Reality, 1984, p. 10)
"Paleontologists had long been aware of a seeming contradiction between Darwin's postulate of gradualism...and the actual findings of paleontology. Following phyletic lines through time seemed to reveal only minimal gradual changes but no clear evidence for any change of a species into a different genus or for the gradual origin of an evolutionary novelty. Anything truly novel always seemed to appear quite abruptly in the fossil record." (Mayr, E., Our Long Argument: Charles Darwin and the Genesis of Modern Evolutionary Thought, 1991, p. 138)
"The record certainly did not reveal gradual transformations of structure in the course of time. On the contrary, it showed that species generally remained constant throughout their history and were replaced quite suddenly by significantly different forms. New types or classes seemed to appear fully formed, with no sign of an evolutionary trend by which they could have emerged from an earlier type." (Bowler, Evolution: The History of an Idea, 1984, p. 187)
"Instead of finding the gradual unfolding of life, what geologists of Darwin's time, and geologists of the present day actually find is a highly uneven or jerky record; that is, species appear in the sequence very suddenly, show little or no change during their existence in the record, then abruptly go out of the record. and it is not always clear, in fact it's rarely clear, that the descendants were actually better adapted than their predecessors. In other words, biological improvement is hard to find." (Raup, David M., "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology," Bulletin, Field Museum of Natural History, vol. 50, 1979, p. 23)
"A major problem in proving the theory (of evolution) has been the fossil record; the imprints of vanished species preserved in the Earth's geological formations. This record has never revealed traces of Darwin's hypothetical intermediate variants instead species appear and disappear abruptly, and this anomaly has fueled the creationist argument that each species was created by God." (Czarnecki, Mark, "The Revival of the Creationist Crusade", MacLean's, January 19, 1981, p. 56)
"Eldredge and Gould, by contrast, decided to take the record at face value. On this view, there is little evidence of modification within species, or of forms intermediate between species because neither generally occurred. A species forms and evolves almost instantaneously (on the geological timescale) and then remains virtually unchanged until it disappears, yielding its habitat to a new species." (Smith, Peter J., "Evolution's Most Worrisome Questions," Review of Life Pulse by Niles Eldredge, New Scientist, 1987, p. 59)
"The principle problem is morphological stasis. A theory is only as good as its predictions, and conventional neo-Darwinism, which claims to be a comprehensive explanation of evolutionary process, has failed to predict the widespread long-term morphological stasis now recognized as one of the most striking aspects of the fossil record." (Williamson, Peter G., "Morphological Stasis and Developmental Constraint: Real Problems for Neo-Darwinism," Nature, Vol. 294, 19 November 1981, p. 214)
"It is a simple ineluctable truth that virtually all members of a biota remain basically stable, with minor fluctuations, throughout their duration..." (Eldredge, Niles, The Pattern of Evolution, 1998, p. 157)
"But fossil species remain unchanged throughout most of their history and the record fails to contain a single example of a significant transition." (Woodroff, D.S., Science, vol. 208, 1980, p. 716)
"We have long known about stasis and abrupt appearance, but have chosen to fob it off upon an imperfect fossil record." (Gould, Stephen J., "The Paradox of the First Tier: An Agenda for Paleobiology," Paleobiology, 1985, p. 7)
"Paleontologists ever since Darwin have been searching (largely in vain) for the sequences of insensibly graded series of fossils that would stand as examples of the sort of wholesale transformation of species that Darwin envisioned as the natural product of the evolutionary process. Few saw any reason to demur - though it is a startling fact that ...most species remain recognizably themselves, virtually unchanged throughout their occurrence in geological sediments of various ages." (Eldredge, Niles, "Progress in Evolution?" New Scientist, vol. 110, 1986, p. 55)
"In other words, when the assumed evolutionary processes did not match the pattern of fossils that they were supposed to have generated, the pattern was judged to be 'wrong.' A circular argument arises: interpret the fossil record in terms of a particular theory of evolution, inspect the interpretation, and note that it confirms the theory. Well, it would, wouldn't it? ...As is now well known, most fossil species appear instantaneously in the record, persist for some millions of years virtually unchanged, only to disappear abruptly - the 'punctuated equilibrium' pattern of Eldredge and Gould." (Kemp, Tom S., "A Fresh Look at the Fossil Record," New Scientist, vol. 108, 1985, p. 66-67)
"The old Darwinian view of evolution as a ladder of more and more efficient forms leading up to the present is not borne out by the evidence. Most changes are random rather than systematic modifications, until species drop out. There is no sign of directed order here. Trends do occur in many lines, but they are not the rule." (Newell, N. D., "Systematics and Evolution," 1984, p. 10)
"Well-represented species are usually stable throughout their temporal range, or alter so little and in such superficial ways (usually in size alone), that an extrapolation of observed change into longer periods of geological time could not possibly yield the extensive modifications that mark general pathways of evolution in larger groups. Most of the time, when the evidence is best, nothing much happens to most species." (Gould Stephen J., "Ten Thousand Acts of Kindness," Natural History, 1988, p. 14)
"Stasis, or nonchange, of most fossil species during their lengthy geological lifespans was tacitly acknowledged by all paleontologists, but almost never studied explicitly because prevailing theory treated stasis as uninteresting nonevidence for nonevolution. ...The overwhelming prevalence of stasis became an embarrassing feature of the fossil record, best left ignored as a manifestation of nothing (that is, nonevolution). (Gould, Stephen J., "Cordelia's Dilemma," Natural History, 1993, p. 15)
"Paleontologists just were not seeing the expected changes in their fossils as they pursued them up through the rock record. ...That individual kinds of fossils remain recognizably the same throughout the length of their occurrence in the fossil record had been known to paleontologists long before Darwin published his Origin. Darwin himself, ...prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search ...One hundred and twenty years of paleontological research later, it has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin's predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction is wrong. ...The observation that species are amazingly conservative and static entities throughout long periods of time has all the qualities of the emperor's new clothes: everyone knew it but preferred to ignore it. Paleontologists, faced with a recalcitrant record obstinately refusing to yield Darwin's predicted pattern, simply looked the other way." (Eldredge, N. and Tattersall, I., The Myths of Human Evolution, 1982, p. 45-46)
Large Gaps
"We have so many gaps in the evolutionary history of life, gaps in such key areas as the origin of the multi-cellular organisms, the origin of the vertebrates, not to mention the origins of most invertebrate groups." (McGowan, C., In the Beginning... A Scientist Shows Why the Creationists are Wrong, Prometheus Books, 1984, p. 95)
"There are all sorts of gaps: absence of gradationally intermediate 'transitional' forms between species, but also between larger groups - between, say, families of carnivores, or the orders of mammals. In fact, the higher up the Linnaean hierarchy you look, the fewer transitional forms there seem to be." (Eldredge, Niles, The Monkey Business: A Scientist Looks at Creationism, 1982, p. 65)
"It is as though they [fossils] were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists. ...Both schools of thought (Punctuationists and Gradualists) despise so-called scientific creationists equally, and both agree that the major gaps are real, that they are true imperfections in the fossil record. The only alternative explanation of the sudden appearance of so many complex animal types in the Cambrian era is divine creation and (we) both reject this alternative." (Dawkins, Richard, The Blind Watchmaker, W.W. Norton & Company, New York, 1996, p. 229-230)
"All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt. Gradualists usually extract themselves from this dilemma by invoking the extreme imperfection of the fossil record." (Gould, Stephen J., The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 189)
"One of the most surprising negative results of paleontological research in the last century is that such transitional forms seem to be inordinately scarce. In Darwin's time this could perhaps be ascribed with some justification to the incompleteness of the paleontological record and to lack of knowledge, but with the enormous number of fossil species which have been discovered since then, other causes must be found for the almost complete absence of transitional forms." (Brouwer, A., "General Paleontology," [1959], Transl. Kaye R.H., Oliver & Boyd: Edinburgh & London, 1967, p. 162-163)
"There is no need to apologize any longer for the poverty of the fossil record. In some ways it has become almost unmanageably rich, and discovery is out-pacing integration. The fossil record nevertheless continues to be composed mainly of gaps." (Neville, George, T., "Fossils in Evolutionary Perspective," Science Progress, vol. 48 January 1960, p. 1-3)
"The record jumps, and all the evidence shows that the record is real: the gaps we see reflect real events in life's history not the artifact of a poor fossil record...The fossil record flatly fails to substantiate this expectation of finely graded change." (Eldredge, N. and Tattersall, I., The Myths of Human Evolution Columbia University Press, 1982, p. 59, 163)
"Gaps between families and taxa of even higher rank could not be so easily explained as the mere artifacts of a poor fossil record." (Eldredge, Niles, Macro-Evolutionary Dynamics: Species, Niches, and Adaptive Peaks, 1989, p. 22)
"The fossil record is much less incomplete than is generally accepted." (Paul, C.R.C, "The Adequacy of the Fossil Record," 1982, p. 75)
"Links are missing just where we most fervently desire them, and it is all too probable that many 'links' will continue to be missing." (Jepsen, L. Glenn; Mayr, Ernst; Simpson George Gaylord. Genetics, Paleontology, and Evolution, New York, Athenaeum, 1963, p. 114)
"For over a hundred years paleontologists have recognized the large number of gaps in the fossil record. Creationists make it seem like gaps are a deep, dark secret of paleontology..." (Cracraft, in Awbrey & Thwaites, Evolutionists Confront Creationists", 1984)
"In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favour of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation." (Ridley, Mark, "Who doubts evolution?" "New Scientist", vol. 90, 25 June 1981, p. 831)
"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualist accounts of evolution." (Gould, Stephen J., 'Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?' Paleobiology, vol 6(1), January 1980, p. 127)
"The curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps; the fossils are missing in all the important places." (Hitching, Francis, The Neck of the Giraffe or Where Darwin Went Wrong, Penguin Books, 1982, p.19)
"If life had evolved into its wondrous profusion of creatures little by little, Dr. Eldredge argues, then one would expect to find fossils of transitional creatures which were a bit like what went before them and a bit like what came after. But no one has yet found any evidence of such transitional creatures. This oddity has been attributed to gaps in the fossil record which gradualists expected to fill when rock strata of the proper age had been found. In the last decade, however, geologists have found rock layers of all divisions of the last 500 million years and no transitional forms were contained in them." (The Guardian Weekly, 26 Nov 1978, vol 119, no 22, p. 1)
"Given that evolution, according to Darwin, was in a continual state of motion...it followed logically that the fossil record should be rife with examples of transitional forms leading from the less to more evolved. ...Instead of filling the gaps in the fossil record with so-called missing links, most paleontologists found themselves facing a situation in which there were only gaps in the fossil record, with no evidence of transformational intermediates between documented fossil species." (Schwartz, Jeffrey H., Sudden Origins, 1999, p. 89)
"Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of "seeing" evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists the most notorious of which is the presence of "gaps" in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them. The gaps must therefore be a contingent feature of the record." (Kitts, David B., "Paleontology and Evolutionary Theory," Evolution, vol. 28, 1974, p. 467)
"A persistent problem in evolutionary biology has been the absence of intermediate forms in the fossil record. Long term gradual transformations of single lineages are rare and generally involve simple size increase or trivial phenotypic effects. Typically, the record consists of successive ancestor-descendant lineages, morphologically invariant through time and unconnected by intermediates." (Williamson, P.G., Palaeontological Documentation of Speciation in Cenozoic Molluscs from Turkana Basin, 1982, p. 163)
Miscellaneous
"All of us who study the origin of life find that the more we look into it, the more we feel that it is too complex to have evolved anywhere. We believe as an article of faith that life evolved from dead matter on this planet. It is just that its complexity is so great, it is hard for us to imagine that it did." (Urey, Harold C., quoted in Christian Science Monitor, January 4, 1962, p. 4)
"If living matter is not, then, caused by the interplay of atoms, natural forces and radiation, how has it come into being? I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it." (H.J. Lipson, F.R.S. Professor of Physics, University of Manchester, UK, "A physicist looks at evolution" Physics Bulletin, 1980, vol 31, p. 138)
"To the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favor of special creation. Can you imagine how an orchid, a duck weed, and a palm have come from the same ancestry, and have we any evidence for this assumption? The evolutionist must be prepared with an answer, but I think that most would break down before an inquisition." (E.J.H. Corner "Evolution" in A.M. MacLeod and L.S. Cobley, eds., Evolution in Contemporary Botanical Thought, Chicago, IL: Quadrangle Books, 1961, at 95, 97 from Bird, I, p. 234)
"The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone; exactly the same sort of faith which it is necessary to have when one encounters the great mysteries of religion." (More, Louis T., "The Dogma of Evolution," Princeton University Press: Princeton NJ, 1925, Second Printing, p.160)
"At the present stage of geological research, we have to admit that there is nothing in the geological records that runs contrary to the view of conservative creationists, that God created each species separately, presumably from the dust of the earth." (Dr. Edmund J. Ambrose, The Nature and Origin of the Biological World, John Wiley & Sons, 1982, p. 164)
"One of its (evolutions) weak points is that it does not have any recognizable way in which conscious life could have emerged." (Sir John Eccles, "A Divine Design: Some Questions on Origins" in Margenau and Varghese (eds.), Cosmos, Bios, Theos, p. 203)
"I am convinced, moreover, that Darwinism, in whatever form, is not in fact a scientific theory, but a pseudo-metaphysical hypothesis decked out in scientific garb. In reality the theory derives its support not from empirical data or logical deductions of a scientific kind but from the circumstance that it happens to be the only doctrine of biological origins that can be conceived with the constricted worldview to which a majority of scientists no doubt subscribe." (Wolfgang, Smith, "The Universe is Ultimately to be Explained in Terms of a Metacosmic Reality" in Margenau and Varghese (eds.), Cosmos, Bios, Theos, p. 113)
"The origin of life is still a mystery. As long as it has not been demonstrated by experimental realization, I cannot conceive of any physical or chemical condition [allowing evolution]...I cannot be satisfied by the idea that fortuitous mutation...can explain the complex and rational organization of the brain, but also of lungs, heart, kidneys, and even joints and muscles. How is it possible to escape the idea of some intelligent and organizing force?" (d'Aubigne, Merle, "How Is It Possible to Escape the Idea of Some Intelligent and Organizing Force?" in Margenau and Varghese (eds.), Cosmos, Bios, Theos, p. 158)
"Life, even in bacteria, is too complex to have occurred by chance." (Rubin, Harry, "Life, Even in Bacteria, Is Too Complex to Have Occurred by Chance" in Margenau and Varghese (eds.), Cosmos, Bios, Theos, p. 203)
"The third assumption was the Viruses, Bacteria, Protozoa and the higher animals were all interrelated...We have as yet no definite evidence about the way in which the Viruses, Bacteria or Protozoa are interrelated." (Kerkut, G.A., Implications of Evolution, Pergammon Press, 1960, p. 151)
"Scientists have no proof that life was not the result of an act of creation, but they are driven by the nature of their profession to seek explanations for the origin of life that lie within the boundaries of natural law. They ask themselves, "How did life arise out of inanimate matter? And what is the probability of that happening?" And to their chagrin they have no clear-cut answer, because chemists have never succeeded in reproducing nature's experiments on the creation of life out of nonliving matter. Scientists do not know how that happened, and furthermore, they do not know the chance of its happening. Perhaps the chance is very small, and the appearance of life on a planet is an event of miraculously low probability. Perhaps life on the earth is unique in this Universe. No scientific evidence precludes that possibility." (Jastrow, Robert, The Enchanted Loom: Mind In the Universe, 1981, p. 19)
"...we have proffered a collective tacit acceptance of the story of gradual adaptive change, a story that strengthened and became even more entrenched as the synthesis took hold. We paleontologists have said that the history of life supports that interpretation, all the while really knowing that it does not." (Eldredge, Niles "Time Frames: The Rethinking of Darwinian Evolution and the Theory of Punctuated Equilibria," Simon & Schuster: New York NY, 1985, p. 44)
"With the benefit of hindsight, it is amazing that paleontologists could have accepted gradual evolution as a universal pattern on the basis of a handful of supposedly well-documented lineages (e.g. Gryphaea, Micraster, Zaphrentis) none of which actually withstands close scrutiny." (Paul, C. R. C., 1989, "Patterns of Evolution and Extinction in Invertebrates", Allen, K. C. and Briggs, D. E. G. (editors), Evolution and the Fossil Record, Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D. C., 1989, p. 105)
"The rapid development as far as we can judge of all the higher plants within recent geological times is an abominable mystery." (Darwin, Charles R., letter to J.D. Hooker, July 22nd 1879, in Darwin F. & Seward A.C., eds., "More Letters of Charles Darwin: A Record of His Work in a Series of Hitherto Unpublished Papers," John Murray: London, 1903, Vol. II, p. 20-21)
"An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that, in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle. So many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going. But this should not be taken to imply that there are good reasons to believe that it could not have started on the earth by a perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions. The plain fact is that the time available was too long, the many microenvironments on the earth's surface too diverse, the various chemical possibilities too numerous and our own knowledge and imagination too feeble to allow us to be able to unravel exactly how it might or might not have happened such a long time ago, especially as we have no experimental evidence from that era to check our ideas against." (Francis Crick, Life Itself, Its Origin and Nature, 1981, p. 88)
"The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed must be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory." (Darwin, Charles, Origin of Species, 6th edition, 1902 p. 341-342)
"Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." (Charles Darwin, The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, 1887, Vol. 2, p. 229)
"The geological record has provided no evidence as to the origin of the fishes." (Norman, J., A History of Fishes, 1963, p. 298)
"None of the known fishes is thought to be directly ancestral to the earliest land vertebrates." (Stahl, B., Vertebrate History: Problems in Evolution, Dover Publications, Inc., NY, 1985, p. 148)
"The pathetic thing is that we have scientists who are trying to prove evolution, which no scientist can ever prove." (Millikan, Robert A., Nashville Banner, August 7, 1925, quoted in Brewer's lecture)
anonymous@February 28, 2009 7:46 PM
Why stop at human evolution? We can go as far back as the beginning of the universe. It is the current understanding of science that if the fundamental physical constants (such as the fine structure constant for example) are not the values we observe, the universe itself would not have existed. Not just humans. The MECHANISM is there for the universe to come into existence. Likewise God might have put in the mechanism for the creation of man. Just like there is a mechanism for every thing that we believe are God's will, such as rain, plant growth, etc etc. That is my BELIEF. Science cannot provide evidence for or against that belief.
Science is about understanding these mechanisms through evidence and theories. It doesnt matter to be a believer or not. Science stands on its own.
it's about time for atheists to take a theological noncognitivist approach to tackle the creationist "argument".
but it is too deeply ingrained in our collective mindsets
how abt atheists take a walk in the forest and never comes back, i think that sounds great.
http://www.dharus.com/videoonlineplayer.php?filegenan=http://www.dharus.com/videodharusen/Khalid%20Yasin/Khalid%20Yasin%20-%20Purpose%20of%20Life%20Part%201.flv&videotitle=Khalid%20Yasin%20-%20Purpose%20of%20Life%20Part%201
http://www.dharus.com/documentaries/The%20Arrivals/index.php
interesting comments... atheist taking a walk into the forests is a great idea, they might return with a solution where Gas, Oil, food, etc is no longer required... they may evolve to a greater species... hehe... anyway the best would be learn classic Arabic, and start the research on what Quran says and its interpretations by the early scholars...
"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."
Albert Einstein
to DCJ above.
How can god prohibit that certain profit from marrying an under aged girl, when god himself oneday descended down and raped a Jews girl and got his only child, Jesus.
Post a Comment