Results 1 to 18 of 67
- Jul 28th, 2001, 11:40 PM #1----
- Join Date
- Dec 31, 1969
The biological collapse of the theory of evolution and the ideological agenda of the theory
Many people think that Darwin's Theory of Evolution is a proven fact. Contrary to this conventional wisdom, recent developments in science completely disprove the theory. The only reason Darwinism is still foisted on people by means of a worldwide propaganda campaign lies in the ideological aspects of the theory. All secular ideologies and philosophies try to provide a basis for themselves by relying on the theory of evolution. This book clarifies the scientific collapse of the theory of evolution in a way that is detailed but easy to understand. It reveals the frauds and distortions committed by evolutionists to "prove" evolution. Finally it analyzes the powers and motives that strive to keep this theory alive and make people believe in it. Anyone who wants to learn about the origin of living things, including mankind, needs to read this book.
INTRODUCTION: WHY THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION?
Some of the people who have heard of "the theory of evolution" or "Darwinism", may think that these concepts only concern the field of biology and that they have no significance in their everyday lives. This is a big misconception because far more than a biological concept, the theory of evolution constitutes the underpinnings of a dishonest philosophy that has held sway over a great number of people.
That philosophy is "materialism", which holds a number of bogus views about why and how we came into being. Materialism maintains that there is nothing but the matter and that matter is the essence of everything, be it organic or inorganic. Starting out from this premise, it denies the existence of a divine Creator, that is, Allah. Reducing everything to the level of matter, this notion transforms man into a creature that heeds only matter and turns away from moral values of whatever kind. This is the beginning of big disasters that will befall a man’s life.
The detriments of materialism are not only limited to individuals. Materialism also seeks to abolish the basic values on which the state and society rest and generate a soulless and insensitive society that pays attention only to matter. Since the members of such a society can never possess idealistic notions such as patriotism, love for one’s people, justice, loyalty, honesty, sacrifice, honour, or good morals, the social order established by these individuals is doomed to be shattered in a short while. For these reasons, materialism is one of the severest menaces to the basic values of the political and social order of a nation.
Another great evil of materialism is its underpinning of anarchist and divisive ideologies that take aim at the perpetuity of the state and the people. Communism, the foremost of these ideologies, is the natural political outcome of the materialist philosophy. Seeking to abolish such sacred notions as state and family, it constitutes the fundamental ideology of every form of separatist actions directed against the unitary structure of the state.
The theory of evolution constitutes the so-called scientific foundation of materialism that the communist ideology depends on. By taking the theory of evolution as a reference, communism seeks to justify itself and to present its ideology as sound and correct. This is why the founder of communism, Karl Marx, wrote for Darwin’s book, The Origin of Species which laid the basis for the theory of evolution as "this is the book which contains the basis in natural history for our view".(1)
Karl Marx made it clear that Darwin’s theory provided a solid ground for materialism and thus also for communism. He also showed his sympathy to Darwin by dedicating Das Kapital, which is considered as his greatest work, to him. In the German edition of the book, he wrote: "From a devoted admirer to Charles Darwin". (left)
In point of fact, materialist notions of every kind, Marx’s ideas being foremost among them, have utterly collapsed for the reason that the theory of evolution, which is in fact a 19th century dogma on which materialism rests, has been absolutely invalidated by the findings of modern science. Science has disproved and continues to disprove the materialist hypothesis that recognises the existence of nothing but matter and it demonstrates that all beings are the products of creation by a superior being.
The purpose of this book is to reveal the scientific facts that refute the theory of evolution in all fields and to inform people about the ulterior, underlying, and real purpose of this so-called "science", which is in fact a fraud.
It should be pointed out that evolutionists have no answer to give to the book you are now reading. And they will not even attempt to answer it for they are aware that such an act will simply help everyone to a better understanding that evolution is simply a lie.
There's a lot more proving the evolutionary theory false scientifically at www.hyaha.org
- Jul 29th, 2001, 03:47 PM #2----
- Join Date
- Mar 26, 2001
Uh huh. And all that stuff you have cut & pasted above from Harun Yahya's site is a classic example of the reductio ad absurdum fallacy. Heard of it? The theory of evolution is no more the basis of these "isms" than the printing press is responsible for Hitler's Mein Kampf. Or whether Mein Kampf is responsible for what people did with Hitler's ideology. The atomic bomb, the hydrogen bomb and other similar weapons are very destructive. So what? Does that mean we should abandon the study of the atom? Nonsense. Granted, thise Marxist, communist, atheistic and even immoral evolutionists may exist. So what? There are probably just as many capitalist, theistic, agnostic and moral evolutionists. Granted, the theory itself may have been used to support Marxist, communist and atheistic ideologies. So what? It's been used (especially in America) to also lend credence to laissez-faire capitalism.
My point is that linking scintific theories to political ideologies is pretty stupid and it does not really refute the theory anyway. The use or abuse of a theory does not negate the validity of the theory itself. Even Marx once claimed that he was not a Marxist. And yes, Darwin would be turning in his grave if he knew how some people have used his theory to justify all manner of ideologies, from Marxism to capitalism to Fascism. You know, Hitler implemented a eugenics program. So what? Does that negate the theory of genetics? Just because some people feel "queasy" about the theory of evolution because it "threatens" their faith, does not hold any pertinence to the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution will not move a jot. Scientific theories are neutral; the use of such theories isn't. They are two mutually exclusive things. Go figure.
- Jul 29th, 2001, 09:31 PM #3----
- Join Date
- Feb 2, 2001
Yup! Go Darwin!
- Jul 29th, 2001, 11:28 PM #4----
- Join Date
- Dec 31, 1969
I agree with you that to connect scientific theories with political ideologies is pretty stupid, but if Harun Yahya and other Western scientists have rejected Darwin's theory scientifically, then why are you objecting to it?
- Jul 30th, 2001, 12:09 AM #5----
- Join Date
- Mar 26, 2001
Salman. Surprise me. Go and trot out those scientific rejections of evolution one by one. We'll see if I can offer any useful comments on them.
- Jul 30th, 2001, 12:43 AM #6----
- Join Date
- Dec 31, 1969
Ok here it is, Renaissance:
TO BE FREED FROM PREJUDICE
Most people accept everything they hear from scientists as strictly true. It does not even occur to them that scientists may also have various philosophical or ideological prejudices. The fact of the matter is that evolutionist scientists impose their own prejudices and philosophical views on the public under the guise of science. For instance, although they are aware that random events do not cause anything other than irregularity and confusion, they still claim that the marvellous order, plan, and design seen both in the universe and in living organisms arose by chance.
For instance, such a biologist easily grasps that there is an incomprehensible harmony in a protein molecule, the building block of life, and that there is no probability that this might have come about by chance. Nevertheless, he alleges that this protein came into existence under primitive earth conditions by chance billions of years ago. He does not stop there; he also claims, without hesitation, that not only one, but millions of proteins formed by chance and then incredibly came together to create the first living cell. Moreover, he defends his view with a blind stubbornness. This person is an "evolutionist" scientist.
If the same scientist were to find three bricks resting on top of one another while walking along a flat road, he would never suppose that these bricks had come together by chance and then climbed up on top of each other, again by chance. Indeed, anyone who did make such an assertion would be considered insane.
How then can it be possible that people who are able to assess ordinary events rationally can adopt such an irrational attitude when it comes to thinking about their own existence?
It is not possible to claim that this attitude is adopted in the name of science: science requires taking both alternatives into consideration wherever there are two alternatives equally possible concerning a certain case. And if the likelihood of one of the two alternatives is much lower, for example if it is only one percent, then the rational and scientific thing to do is to consider the other alternative, whose likelihood is 99 percent, to be the valid one.
Let us continue, keeping this scientific basis in mind. There are two views that can be set forth regarding how living beings came into being on earth. The first is that all living beings were created by Allah in their present complex structure. The second is that life was formed by unconscious, random coincidences. The latter is the claim of the theory of evolution.
When we look at the scientific data, that of molecular biology for instance, we can see that there is no chance whatsoever that a single living cell-or even one of the millions of proteins present in this cell-could have come into existence by chance as the evolutionists claim. As we will illustrate in the following chapters, probabilistic calculations also confirm this many times over. So the evolutionist view on the emergence of living beings has zero probability of being true.
This means that the first view has a "one hundred percent" probability of being true. That is, life has been consciously brought into being. To put it in another way, it was "created". All living beings have come into existence by the design of a Creator exalted in superior power, wisdom, and knowledge. This reality is not simply a matter of conviction; it is the normal conclusion that wisdom, logic and science take one to.
Under these circumstances, our "evolutionist" scientist ought to withdraw his claim and adhere to a fact that is both obvious and proven. To do otherwise is to demonstrate that he is actually someone who is sacrificing science on behalf of his philosophy, ideology, and dogma rather than being a true scientist.
The anger, stubbornness, and prejudices of our "scientist" increase more and more every time he confronts reality. His attitude can be explained with a single word: "faith". Yet it is a blind superstitious faith, since there can be no other explanation for one’s disregard of all the facts or for a lifelong devotion to the preposterous scenario that he has constructed in his imagination
The faith that we are talking about is the materialistic philosophy, which argues that matter has existed for all eternity and there is nothing other than matter. The theory of evolution is the so-called "scientific foundation" for this materialistic philosophy and that theory is blindly defended in order to uphold this philosophy. When science invalidates the claims of evolution-and that is the very point that has been reached here at the end of the 20th century-it then is sought to be distorted and brought into a position where it supports evolution for the sake of keeping materialism alive.
A few lines written by one of the prominent evolutionist biologists of Turkey is a good example that enables us to see the disordered judgement and discretion that this blind devotion leads to. This scientist discusses the probability of the coincidental formation of Cytochrome-C, which is one of the most essential enzymes for life, as follows:
The probability of the formation of a Cytochrome-C sequence is as likely as zero. That is, if life requires a certain sequence, it can be said that this has a probability likely to be realised once in the whole universe. Otherwise, some metaphysical powers beyond our definition should have acted in its formation. To accept the latter is not appropriate to the goals of science. We therefore have to look into the first hypothesis.(2)
This scientist finds it "more scientific" to accept a possibility "as likely as zero" rather than creation. However according to the rules of science, if there are two alternative explanations concerning an event and if one of them has "as likely as zero" a possibility of realisation, then the other one is the correct alternative. However the dogmatic materialistic approach forbids the admittance of a superior Creator. This prohibition drives this scientist-and many others who believe in the same materialist dogma-to accept claims that are completely contrary to reason.
People who believe and trust these scientists also become enthralled and blinded by the same materialistic spell and they adopt the same insensible psychology when reading their books and articles.
This dogmatic materialistic point of view is the reason why many prominent names in the scientific community are atheists. Those who free themselves from the thrall of this spell and think with an open mind do not hesitate to accept the existence of a Creator. American biochemist Dr Michael J. Behe, one of those prominent names who support the theory of "intelligent design" that has lately become very accepted, describes the scientists who resist believing in the "design" or "creation" of living organisms thus:
Over the past four decades, modern biochemistry has uncovered the secrets of the cell. It has required tens of thousands of people to dedicate the better parts of their lives to the tedious work of the laboratory. The result of these cumulative efforts to investigate the cell - to investigate life at the molecular level-is a loud, clear, piercing cry of "design!". The result is so unambiguous and so significant that it must be ranked as one of the greatest achievements in the history of science... Instead a curious, embarrassed silence surrounds the stark complexity of the cell. Why does the scientific community not greedily embrace its startling discovery? Why is the observation of design handled with intellectual gloves? The dilemma is that while one side of the elephant is labelled intelligent design, the other side must be labelled God.(3)
This is the predicament of the atheist evolutionist scientists you see in magazines and on television and whose books you may be reading. All the scientific research carried out by these people demonstrates to them the existence of a Creator. Yet they have become so insensitised and blinded by the dogmatic materialist education they have absorbed that they still persist in their denial.
People who steadily neglect the clear signs and evidences of the Creator become totally insensitive. Caught up in an ignorant self-confidence caused by their insensitivity, they may even end up supporting an absurdity as a virtue. A good case in point is the prominent evolutionist Richard Dawkins who calls upon Christians not to assume that they have witnessed a miracle even if they see the statue of the Virgin Mary wave to them. According to Dawkins, "Perhaps all the atoms of the statue’s arm just happened to move in the same direction at once-a low probability event to be sure, but possible." (4)
The psychology of the unbeliever has existed throughout history. In the Qur’an it is described thus:
Even if We did send unto them angels, and the dead did speak unto them, and We gathered together all things before their very eyes, they are not the ones to believe, unless it is in God’s plan. But most of them ignore (the truth). (Surat Al-Anaam : 111)
As this verse makes clear, the dogmatic thinking of the evolutionists is not an original way of thinking, nor is it even peculiar to them. In fact, what the evolutionist scientist maintains is not a modern scientific thought but an ignorance that has persevered since the most uncivilised pagan communities.
The same psychology is defined in another verse of the Qur’an:
Even if We opened out to them a gate from heaven and they were to continue (all day) ascending therein, they would only say: "Our eyes have been intoxicated: Nay, we have been bewitched by sorcery." (Surat Al-Hijr : 14-15)
Mass Evolutionist Indoctrination
As indicated in the verses cited above, one of the reasons why people cannot see the realities of their existence is a kind of "spell" impeding their reasoning. It is the same "spell" that underlies the world-wide acceptance of the theory of evolution. What we mean by spell is a conditioning acquired by indoctrination. People are exposed to such an intense indoctrination about the correctness of the theory of evolution that they often do not even realise the distortion that exists.
This indoctrination creates a negative effect on the brain and disables the faculty of judgement. Eventually, the brain, being under a continuous indoctrination, starts to perceive the realities not as they are but as they have been indoctrinated. This phenomenon can be observed in other examples. For instance, if someone is hypnotised and indoctrinated that the bed he is lying on is a car, he perceives the bed as a car after the hypnosis session. He thinks that this is very logical and rational because he really sees it that way and has no doubt that he is right. Such examples as the one above, which show the efficiency and the power of the mechanism of indoctrination, are scientific realities that have been verified by countless experiments that have been reported in the scientific literature and are the everyday fare of psychology and psychiatry textbooks.
The theory of evolution and the materialistic world view that relies on it are imposed on the masses by such indoctrination methods. People who continuously encounter the indoctrination of evolution in the media, academic sources, and "scientific" platforms, fail to realise that accepting this theory is in fact contrary to the most basic principles of reason. The same indoctrination captures scientists as well. Young names stepping up in their scientific careers adopt the materialist world view more and more as time passes. Enchanted by this spell, many evolutionist scientists go on searching for scientific confirmation of 19th century’s irrational and outdated evolutionist claims that have long since been refuted by scientific evidence.
There are also additional mechanisms that force scientists to be evolutionist and materialist. In Western countries, a scientist has to observe some standards in order to be promoted, to receive academic recognition, or to have his articles published in scientific journals. A straightforward acceptance of evolution is the number-one criterion. This system drives these scientists so far as to spend their whole lives and scientific careers for the sake of a dogmatic belief.
This is the reality that continues to lie behind the assertion "evolution is still accepted by the world of science". Evolution is kept alive not because it has a scientific worth but because it is an ideological obligation. Very few of the scientists who are aware of this fact can risk pointing out that the king isn’t wearing any clothes.
In the rest of this book, we will be reviewing the findings of modern science that have led to the collapse of the evolutionist belief and the display of the clear evidences of Allah’s existence. The reader will witness that evolution theory is in fact a deceit-a deceit that is belied by science at every step but is upheld to veil the fact of creation. What is to be hoped of the reader is that he will wake up from the spell that blinds people’s minds and disrupts their ability to judge and he will reflect seriously on what is related in this book.
If he rids himself of this spell and thinks clearly, freely, and without any prejudice, he will soon discover the crystal-clear truth. This inevitable truth, also demonstrated by modern science in all its aspects, is that living organisms came into existence not by chance but as a result of creation. Man can easily see the fact of creation when he considers how he himself exists, how he has come into being from a drop of water, or the perfection of every other living thing.
2 Ali Demirsoy, KalItIm ve Evrim (Inheritance and Evolution), Ankara: Meteksan Publishing Co., 1984, p. 61.
3 Michael J. Behe, Darwin's Black Box, New York: Free Press, 1996, pp. 232-233.
4 Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, London: W. W. Norton,1986, p. 159.
A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE THEORY
The roots of evolutionist thought go back as far as antiquity as a dogmatic belief attempting to deny the fact of creation. Most of the pagan philosophers in ancient Greece defended the idea of evolution. When we take a look at the history of philosophy we see that the idea of evolution constitutes the backbone of many pagan philosophies.
However, it is not this ancient pagan philosophy, but faith in Allah which has played a stimulating role in the birth and development of modern science. Most of the people who pioneered modern science believed in the existence of Allah; and while studying science, they sought to discover the universe Allah has created and to perceive His laws and the details in His creation. Astronomers such as Leonardo da Vinci, Copernicus, Keppler, and Galileo; the father of paleontology, Cuvier; the pioneer of botany and zoology, Linnaeus; and Isaac Newton, who is referred to as the "greatest scientist who ever lived", all studied science believing not only in the existence of Allah but also that the whole universe came into being as a result of His creation.(5)Albert Einstein, considered to be the greatest genius of our age, was another devout scientist who believed in Allah and stated thus; "I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame."(6)
One of the founders of modern physics, German physician Max Planck said that everyone, who studies science seriously, are to read the phrase on the door of the temple of science: "Have faith". Faith is an essential attribute of a scientist. (7)
The theory of evolution is the outcome of the materialist philosophy that surfaced with the reawakening of ancient materialistic philosophies and became widespread in the 19th century. As we have indicated before, materialism seeks to explain nature through purely material factors. Since it denies creation right from the start, it asserts that every thing, whether animate or inanimate, has appeared without an act of creation but rather as a result of a coincidence that then acquired a condition of order. The human mind however is so structured as to comprehend the existence of an organising will wherever it sees order. Materialistic philosophy, which is contrary to this very basic characteristic of the human mind, produced "the theory of evolution" in the middle of the 19th century.
The person who put forward the theory of evolution the way it is defended today, was an amateur English naturalist, Charles Robert Darwin.
Darwin had never undergone a formal education in biology. He took only an amateur interest in the subject of nature and living things. His interest spurred him to voluntarily join an expedition on board a ship named H.M.S. Beagle that set out from England in 1832 and travelled around different regions of the world for five years. Young Darwin was greatly impressed by various living species, especially by certain finches that he saw in the Galapagos Islands. He thought that the variations in their beaks were caused by their adaptation to their habitat. With this idea in mind, he supposed that the origin of life and species lay in the concept of "adaptation to the environment". According to Darwin, different living species were not created separately by Allah but rather came from a common ancestor and became differentiated from each other as a result of natural conditions.
Darwin’s hypothesis was not based on any scientific discovery or experiment; in time however he turned it into a pretentious theory with the support and encouragement he received from the famous materialist biologists of his time. The idea was that the individuals that adapted to the habitat in the best way transferred their qualities to subsequent generations; these advantageous qualities accumulated in time and transformed the individual into a species totally different from its ancestors. (The origin of these "advantageous qualities" was unknown at the time.) According to Darwin, man was the most developed outcome of this mechanism.
Darwin called this process "evolution by natural selection". He thought he had found the "origin of species": the origin of one species was another species. He published these views in his book titled The Origin of Species, By Means of Natural Selection in 1859.
Darwin was well aware that his theory faced lots of problems. He confessed these in his book in the chapter "Difficulties of the Theory". These difficulties primarily consisted of the fossil record, complex organs of living things that could not possibly be explained by coincidence (e.g. the eye), and the instincts of living beings. Darwin hoped that these difficulties would be overcome by new discoveries; yet this did not stop him from coming up with a number of very inadequate explanations for some. The American physicist Lipson made the following comment on the "difficulties" of Darwin:
On reading The Origin of Species, I found that Darwin was much less sure himself than he is often represented to be; the chapter entitled "Difficulties of the Theory" for example, shows considerable self-doubt. As a physicist, I was particularly intrigued by his comments on how the eye would have arisen.(8)
While developing his theory, Darwin was impressed by many evolutionist biologists preceding him, and primarily by the French biologist, Lamarck.(9) According to Lamarck, living creatures passed the traits they acquired during their lifetime from one generation to the next and thus evolved. For instance, giraffes evolved from antelope-like animals by extending their necks further and further from generation to generation as they tried to reach higher and higher branches for food. Darwin thus employed the thesis of "passing the acquired traits" proposed by Lamarck as the factor that made living beings evolve.
But both Darwin and Lamarck were mistaken because in their day, life could only be studied with very primitive technology and at a very inadequate level. Scientific fields such as genetics and biochemistry did not exist even in name. Their theories therefore had to depend entirely on their powers of imagination.
While the echoes of Darwin’s book reverberated, an Austrian botanist by the name of Gregor Mendel discovered the laws of inheritance in 1865. Not much heard of until the end of the century, Mendel’s discovery gained great importance in the early 1900s. This was the birth of the science of genetics. Somewhat later, the structure of the genes and the chromosomes was discovered. The discovery, in the 1950s, of the DNA molecule that incorporates genetic information threw the theory of evolution into a great crisis. The reason was the incredible complexity of life and the invalidity of the evolutionary mechanisms proposed by Darwin.
These developments ought to have resulted in Darwin’s theory being banished to the dustbin of history. However, it was not, because certain circles insisted on revising, renewing, and elevating the theory to a scientific platform. These efforts gain meaning only if we realise that behind the theory lay ideological intentions rather than scientific concerns.
A detailed study of the cell was only possible after the discovery of the electron microscope. In Darwin’s time, with the primitive microscopes seen here, it was only possible to view the outside surface of the cell.
THE PRIMITIVE LEVEL OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY IN DARWIN’S TIME
When Darwin put forward his assumptions, the disciplines of genetics, microbiology, and biochemistry did not yet exist. If they had been discovered before Darwin put forward his theory, Darwin might easily have recognised that his theory was totally unscientific and might not have attempted to advance such meaningless claims. The information determining the species already exists in the genes and it is impossible for natural selection to produce new species through alterations in the genes.
Similarly, the world of science in those days had a very shallow and crude understanding of the structure and functions of the cell. If Darwin had had the chance to view the cell with an electron microscope, he would have witnessed the great complexity and extraordinary structure in the organelles of the cell. He would have beheld with his own eyes that it would not be possible for such an intricate and complex system to occur through minor variations. If he had known about bio-mathematics, then he would have realised that not even a single protein molecule, let alone a whole cell, could not have come into existence by chance.
The Desperate Efforts of Neo-Darwinism
Darwin’s theory entered into a deep crisis because of the laws of genetics discovered in the first quarter of the 20th century. Nevertheless, a group of scientists who were determined to remain loyal to Darwin endeavoured to come up with solutions. They came together in a meeting organised by the Geological Society of America in 1941. Geneticists such as G. Ledyard Stebbins and Theodosius Dobzhansky, zoologists such as Ernst Mayr and Julian Huxley, paleontologists such as George Gaylord Simpson and Glenn L. Jepsen, and mathematical geneticists such as Ronald Fisher and Sewall Right, after long discussions, finally agreed on ways to "patch up" Darwinism.
This cadre focused on the question of the origin of the advantageous variations that supposedly caused living organisms to evolve-an issue that Darwin himself was unable to explain but simply tried to side-step by depending on Lamarck. The idea was now "random mutations". They named this new theory "The Modern Synthetic Evolution Theory", which was formulated by adding the concept of mutation to Darwin’s natural selection thesis. In a short time, this theory came to be known as "neo-Darwinism" and those who put forward the theory were called "neo-Darwinists".
The following decades were to become an era of desperate attempts to prove neo-Darwinism. It was already known that mutations-or "accidents"-that took place in the genes of living organisms were always harmful. Neo-Darwinists tried to establish a case for "advantageous mutation" by carrying out thousands of mutation experiments. All their attempts ended in complete failure.
They also tried to prove that the first living organisms could have originated by chance under primitive terrestrial conditions that the theory posited but the same failure attended these experiments too. Every experiment that sought to prove that life could be generated by chance failed. Probability calculations prove that not even a single protein, the building-blocks of life, could have originated by chance. And the cell-which supposedly emerged by chance under primitive and uncontrolled terrestrial conditions according to the evolutionists-could not be synthesised by even the most sophisticated laboratories of the 20th century.
Neo-Darwinist theory is also defeated by the fossil record. No "transitional forms", which were supposed to show the gradual evolution of living organisms from primitive to advanced species as the neo-Darwinist theory claimed, have ever been found anywhere in the world. At the same time, comparative anatomy revealed that species that were supposed to have evolved from one another had in fact very different anatomical features and that they could never have been ancestors or descendants of each other.
But neo-Darwinism was never a scientific theory anyway, but was an ideological dogma if not to say some sort of "religion". This is why the champions of the theory of evolution still go on defending it in spite of all the evidence to the contrary. One thing they cannot agree on however is which of the different models proposed for the realisation of evolution is the "right" one. One of the most important of these models is the fantastic scenario known as "punctuated equilibrium".
Trial and Error: Punctuated Equilibrium
Most of the scientists who believe in evolution accept the neo-Darwinist theory of slow, gradual evolution. In recent decades, however, a different model has been proposed. Called "punctuated equilibrium", this model rejects the Darwinist idea of a cumulative, step-by-step evolution and holds that evolution took place instead in big, discontinuous "jumps".
Today, tens of thousands of scientists around the world, particularly in the USA and Europe, defy the theory of evolution and have published many books on the invalidity of the theory.
The first vociferous defenders of this notion appeared at the beginning of the 1970s. Two American paleontologists, Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould, were well aware that the claims of the neo-Darwinist theory were absolutely refuted by the fossil record. Fossils proved that living organisms did not originate by gradual evolution, but appeared suddenly and fully-formed. Neo-Darwinists were living with the fond hope-they still do-that the lost transitional forms would one day be found. Realising that this hope was groundless, Eldredge and Gould were nevertheless unable to abandon their evolutionary dogma, so they put forward a new model: punctuated equilibrium. This is the claim that evolution did not take place as a result of minor variations but rather in sudden and great changes.
This model was nothing but a model for fantasies. For instance, European paleontologist O.H. Shindewolf, who led the way for Eldredge and Gould, claimed that the first bird came out of a reptile egg, as a "gross mutation", that is, as a result of a huge "accident" that took place in the genetic structure.(10) According to the same theory, some land-dwelling animals could have turned into giant whales having undergone a sudden and comprehensive transformation. These claims, totally contradicting all the rules of genetics, biophysics, and biochemistry are as scientific as the fairy tales about frogs turning into princes! Nevertheless, being distressed by the crisis that the neo-Darwinist assertion was in, some evolutionist paleontologists embraced this theory, which had the distinction of being even more bizarre than neo-Darwinism itself.
The only purpose of this model was to provide an explanation of the gaps in the fossil-record that the neo-Darwinist model could not explain. However, it is hardly rational to attempt to explain the fossil gap in the evolution of birds with a claim that "a bird popped all of a sudden out of a reptile egg", because by the evolutionists’ own admission, the evolution of a species to another species requires a great and advantageous change in genetic information. However, no mutation whatsoever improves the genetic information or adds new information to it. Mutations only derange genetic information. Thus the "gross mutations" imagined by the punctuated equilibrium model would only cause "gross", that is "great", reductions and impairments in the genetic information.
Moreover, the model of "punctuated equilibrium" collapses from the very first step by its inability to address the question of the origin of life, which is also the question that refutes the neo-Darwinist model from the outset. Since not even a single protein can have originated by chance, the debate over whether organisms made up of trillions of those proteins have undergone a "punctuated" or "gradual" evolution is senseless.
In spite of this, the model that comes to mind when "evolution" is at issue today is still neo-Darwinism. In the chapters that follow, we will first examine two imaginary mechanisms of the neo-Darwinist model and then look at the fossil record to test this model. After that, we will dwell upon the question of the origin of life, which invalidates both the neo-Darwinist model and all other evolutionist models such as "evolution by leaps".
Before doing so, it may be useful to remind the reader that the reality we will be confronting at every stage is that the evolutionary scenario is a fairy-tale, a great deceit that is totally at variance with the real world. It is a scenario that has been used to deceive the world for 140 years. Thanks to the latest scientific discoveries, its continued defence has at last become impossible.
5 Dan Graves, Science of Faith: Forty-Eight Biographies of HistoricScientists and Their Christian Faith, Grand Rapids, MI, Kregel Resources.
6 Science, Philosophy, And Religion: A Symposium, 1941, CH.13.
7 J.De Vries, Essential of Physical Science, Wm.B.Eerdmans Pub.Co.,Grand Rapids, SD 1958, p. 15. c
8 H. S. Lipson, "A Physicist's View of Darwin's Theory", Evolution Trends in Plants, Vol 2, No. 1, 1988, p. 6.
9 Although Darwin came up with the claim that his theory was totally independent from that of Lamarck's, he gradually started to rely on Lamarck's assertions. Especially the 6th and the last edition of The Origin ofSpecies is full of examples of Lamarck's "inheritance of acquired traits". See Benjamin Farrington, What Darwin Really Said, New York: Schocken Books, 1966, p. 64.
10 Steven M. Stanley, Macroevolution: Pattern and Process, San Francisco: W. H. Freeman and Co. 1979, p. 35, 159.
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 "civilised 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 in a more civilised 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.(2)
Darwin's nonsensical ideas were not only theorised, 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.
1 Benjamin Farrington, What Darwin Really Said. London, Sphere Books, 1971, p.54-56
2 Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man, 2nd ed., New York, A.L. Burt Co., 1874, p.178
IMAGINARY MECHANISMS OF EVOLUTION
The neo-Darwinist model, which we shall take as the "mainstream" theory of evolution today, argues that life has evolved through two naturalistic mechanisms: "natural selection" and "mutation". The basic assertion of the theory is as follows: Natural selection and mutation are two complementary mechanisms. The origin of evolutionary modifications is random mutations that take place in the genetic structure of living things. The traits brought about by the mutations are selected by the mechanism of natural selection and therefore the living things evolve.
When we further probe into this theory, we find that there is no such evolutionary mechanism at all, because neither natural selection nor mutations make any contribution to the claim that different species have evolved and transformed into one another.
As process of nature, natural selection was familiar to biologists before Darwin, who defined it as a "mechanism that keeps species unchanging without being corrupted". Darwin was the first person to put forward the assertion that this process had evolutionary power and he then erected his entire theory on the foundation of this assertion. The name he gave to his book indicates that natural selection was the basis of Darwin’s theory: The Origin of Species, by means of Natural Selection...
However since Darwin’s time, there has not been a single shred of evidence put forward to show that natural selection causes living beings to evolve. Colin Patterson, the senior paleontologist of the Museum of Natural History in England, who is also a prominent evolutionist by the way, stresses that natural selection has never been observed to have the power to cause things to evolve:
No one has ever produced a species by mechanisms of natural selection. No one has ever got near it and most of the current argument in neo-Darwinism is about this question.(11)
Natural selection holds that those living things that are more suited to the natural conditions of their habitats will prevail by having offspring that will survive, whereas those that are unfit will disappear. For example, in a deer herd under the threat of wild animals, naturally those that can run faster will survive. That is true. But no matter how long this process goes on, it will not transform those deer into another living species. The deer will always remain deer.
When we look at the few incidents the evolutionists have put forth as observed examples of natural selection, we see that these are nothing but a simple attempt to hoodwink.
Butterflies of the Industrial Revolution
In 1986 Douglas Futuyma published a book, The Biology of Evolution, which is accepted as one of the sources explaining the theory of evolution by natural selection in the most explicit way. The most famous of his examples on this subject is about the colour of the butterfly population, which appeared to darken during the Industrial Revolution in England.
According to the account, around the outset of the Industrial Revolution in England, the colour of the tree barks around Manchester was quite light. Because of this, dark-coloured butterflies resting on those trees could easily be noticed by the birds that fed on them and therefore they had very little chance of survival. Fifty years later, as a result of pollution, the barks of the trees had darkened, and this time the light-coloured butterflies became the most hunted. As a result, the number of light-coloured butterflies decreased whereas that of the dark-coloured ones increased since the latter were not easily noticed. Evolutionists use this as a great evidence to their theory. Evolutionists, on the other hand, take refuge and solace in window-dressing by showing how light-coloured butterflies "evolved" into dark-coloured ones.
The example of the butterflies of the Industrial Revolution is advanced as the greatest evidence for evolution by natural selection. However, evolution is out of the question in this example, as no new butterfly species is formed.
However, it should be quite clear that this situation can in no way be used as evidence for the theory of evolution, for natural selection did not give rise to a new form that had not existed before. Dark coloured butterflies existed in the butterfly population before the Industrial Revolution. Only the relative proportions of the existing butterfly species in the population changed. The butterflies had not acquired a new trait or an organ, which would cause a "change in species". In order to have a butterfly turn into another living species, a bird for example, new additions would have had to be made to the genes. That is, an entirely separate genetic program would have had to be loaded so as to include information about the physical traits of the bird.
Briefly, natural selection does not have the capability to add a new organ to a living organism, remove one, or change the organism into another species-quite contrary to the image that evolutionists conjure up. The "greatest" evidence put forward since Darwin has been able to go no further than butterflies in England.
Can Natural Selection Explain Complexity?
There is nothing that natural selection contributes to the theory of evolution, because this mechanism can never increase or improve the genetic information of a species. Neither can it transform one species into another: a starfish into a fish, a fish into a frog, a frog into a crocodile, or a crocodile into a bird. The biggest defender of punctuated equilibrium, Gould, refers to this deadlock of natural selection as follows;
The essence of Darwism lies in a single phrase: natural selection is the creative force of evolutionary change. No one denies that natural selection will play a negative role in eliminating the unfit. Darwinian theories require that it create the fit as well.(12)
Another of the misleading methods that evolutionists employ on the issue of natural selection is their effort to present this mechanism as a conscious designer. However, natural selection has no consciousness. It does not possess a will that can decide what is good and what is bad for living beings. As a result, natural selection cannot explain biological systems and organs that have the feature of "irreducible complexity". These systems and organs are composed of the co-operation of a great number of parts and they are of no use if even one of these parts is missing or defective. (For example, human eye does not function unless it exists with all its details). Therefore, the will that brings all these parts together should be able to figure the future in advance and aim directly for the benefit that is to be acquired at the last stage. Since natural mechanism has no consciousness or will, it can do no such thing. This fact which also demolishes the foundations of the theory of evolution, also worried Darwin: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."(13)
Natural selection only selects out the disfigured, weak, or unfit individuals of a species. It cannot produce new species, new genetic information, or new organs. That is, it cannot make anything evolve. Darwin accepted this reality by saying: "Natural selection can do nothing until favourable variations chance to occur".(14) This is why neo-Darwinism has had to elevate mutations next to natural selection as the "cause of beneficial changes". However as we shall see, mutations can only be "the cause for harmful changes".
Mutations are defined as breaks or replacements taking place in the DNA molecule, which is found in the nucleus of the cell of a living organism and which holds all the genetic information. These breaks or replacements are the result of external effects such as radiation or chemical action. Every mutation is an "accident" and either damages the nucleotides making up the DNA or changes their locations. Most of the time, they cause so much damage and modification that the cell cannot repair them.
Mutation, which evolutionists frequently hide behind, is not a magic wand that transforms living organisms into a more advanced and perfect form. The direct effect of mutations is harmful. The changes effected by mutations can only be like those experienced by the people in Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Chernobyl: that is, death, disability, and freaks of nature...
The reason for this is very simple: DNA has a very complex structure and random effects can only cause harm to this structure. B.G. Ranganathan states:
Mutations are small, random, and harmful. They rarely occur and the best possibility is that they will be ineffectual. These four characteristics of mutations imply that mutations cannot lead to an evolutionary development. A random change in a highly specialised organism is either ineffectual or harmful. A random change in a watch cannot improve the watch. It will most probably harm it or at best be ineffectual. An earthquake does not improve the city, it brings destruction.(15)
Not surprisingly, no useful mutation has been observed so far. All mutations have proved to be harmful. The evolutionist scientist Warren Weaver comments on the report prepared by the Committee on Genetic Effects of Atomic Radiation, which had been formed to investigate mutations that may have been caused by the nuclear weapons used in the Second World War:
Many will be puzzled about the statement that practically all known mutant genes are harmful. For mutations are a necessary part of the process of evolution. How can a good effect - evolution to higher forms of life - results from mutations practically all of which are harmful?(16)
Every effort put into "generating a useful mutation" has resulted in failure. For decades, evolutionists carried out many experiments to produce mutations in fruit flies as these insects reproduce very rapidly and so mutations would show up quickly. Generation upon generation of these flies were mutated, yet no useful mutation was ever observed. Evolutionist geneticist Gordon Taylor writes thus:
In all the thousands of fly-breeding experiments carried out all over the world for more than fifty years, a distinct new species has never been seen to emerge... or even a new enzyme.(17)
Another researcher, Michael Pitman, comments on the failure of the experiments carried out on fruit flies:
Morgan, Goldschmidt, Muller, and other geneticists have subjected generations of fruit flies to extreme conditions of heat, cold, light, dark, and treatment by chemicals and radiation. All sorts of mutations, practically all trivial or positively deleterious, have been produced. Man-made evolution? Not really: Few of the geneticists' monsters could have survived outside the bottles they were bred in. In practice mutants die, are sterile, or tend to revert to the wild type.(18)
The same holds true for man. All mutations that have been observed in human beings have deleterious results. On this issue, evolutionists throw up a smokescreen and try to show even examples of such deleterious mutation as "evidence for evolution". All mutations that take place in humans result in physical deformities, in infirmities such as mongolism, Down syndrome, albinism, or dwarfism. These mutations are presented in evolutionist textbooks as examples of "the evolutionary mechanism at work". Needless to say, a process that leaves people disabled or sick cannot be "an evolutionary mechanism"-evolution is supposed to produce better forms that are more fit to survive.
To summarise, there are three main reasons why mutations cannot be pressed into the service of supporting evolutionists’ assertions:
The direct effect of mutations is harmful: Since they occur randomly, they almost always damage the living organism that undergoes them. Reason tells us that unconscious intervention in a perfect and complex structure will not improve that structure but impair it. Indeed, no "useful mutation" has ever been observed.
Mutations add no new information to an organism’s DNA: The particles making up the genetic information are either torn from their places, destroyed, or carried off to different places. Mutations cannot make a living thing acquire a new organ or a new trait. They only cause abnormalities like a leg sticking out of the back, or an ear from the abdomen.
In order for a mutation to be transferred to the subsequent generation, it has to have taken place in the reproductive cells of the organism: A random change that occurs in a casual cell or organ of the body cannot be transferred to the next generation. For example, a human eye altered by the effects of radiation or by other causes will not be passed on to subsequent generations.
Briefly, it is impossible for living beings to have evolved, because there exists no mechanism in nature that can cause them to evolve. This agrees with the evidence of the fossil record, which demonstrates that this scenario is far removed from reality.
11 Colin Patterson, "Cladistics", Interview with Brian Leek, Peter Franz, March 4, 1982, BBC.
12 Stephen Jay Gould, "The Return of Hopeful Monsters", Natural History, vol 86, July-August 1977, p. 28.
13 Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species: A Facsimile of the First Edition, Harvard University Press, 1964, p. 189.
14 Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, p. 177.
15 B. G. Ranganathan, Origins?, Pennsylvania: The Banner Of Truth Trust, 1988.
16 Warren Weaver, "Genetic Effects of Atomic Radiation", Science, Vol 123, June 29, 1956, p. 1159.
17 Gordon R. Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, New York, Harper & Row, 1983, p. 48.
18 Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution, London: River Publishing, 1984, p. 70.
THE FOSSIL RECORD REFUTES EVOLUTION
The Ever-missing Links
According to the theory of evolution, every living species has sprung froma predecessor. A previously-existing species turned into something elsein time and all species have come into being in this way. According tothe theory, this transformation proceeds gradually over millions of years.
If this was the case, then numerous intermediary species should haveexisted and lived within this long transformation period.
For instance, some half-fish/half-reptiles should have lived in thepast which had acquired some reptilian traits in addition to the fish traitsthey already had. Or there should have existed some reptile-birds, whichacquired some bird traits in addition to the reptilian traits they alreadyhad. Evolutionists refer to these imaginary creatures, which they believeto have lived in the past, as "transitional forms".
If such animals had really existed, there should be millions and evenbillions of them in number and variety. More importantly, the remains ofthese strange creatures should be present in the fossil record. The numberof these transitional forms should have been even greater than the presentanimal species and their remains should be found all over the world. InThe Origin of Species, Darwin explained:
If my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linkingmost closely all of the species of the same group together must assuredlyhave existed... Consequently evidence of their former existence could befound only amongst fossil remains.(19)
Even Darwin himself was aware of the absence of such transitional forms.It was his hope that they would be found in the future. Despite hishopefulness, he realised that the biggest stumbling-block in his theorywas the missing transitional forms. Therefore in his book The Origin ofSpecies he wrote the following in the chapter "Difficulties of the Theory":
...Why, if species have descended from otherspecies by fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitionalforms? Why is not all nature in confusion, instead of the species being,as we see them, well defined?... But, as by this theory innumerable transitionalforms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countlessnumbers in the crust of the earth?... But in the intermediate region, havingintermediate conditions of life, why do we not now find closely-linkingintermediate varieties? This difficulty for a long time quite confoundedme.(20)
The single explanation Darwin could come up with to counter this objectionwas the argument that the fossil record uncovered so far was inadequate.He asserted that when the fossil record had been studied in detail, themissing links would be found.
Believing in Darwin’s prophecy, evolutionists have been searching forfossils and digging for missing links since the middle of the 19th centuryall over the world. Despite their best efforts, no transitional forms haveyet been uncovered. All the fossils unearthed in excavations showed thatcontrary to the beliefs of evolutionists, life appeared on earth all ofa sudden and fully-formed. Trying to prove their theory, the evolutionistshave instead unwittingly caused it to collapse.
A famous British paleontologist, Derek V. Ager, admits this facteven though he is an evolutionist:
The point emerges that if we examine the fossilrecord in detail, whether at the level of orders or of species, we find-overand over again-not gradual evolution, but the sudden explosion of one groupat the expense of another.(21)
Another evolutionist paleontologist Mark Czarnecki comments as follows:
A major problem in proving the theory hasbeen the fossil record; the imprints of vanished species preserved in theEarth's geological formations. This record has never revealed traces ofDarwin's hypothetical intermediate variants - instead species appear anddisappear abruptly, and this anomaly has fueled the creationist argumentthat each species was created by God.(22)
They have also had to deal with the futility of waiting for "missing"transitional forms to appear in the future, as explained by a professorof paleontology from Glasgow University, T.Neville George:
There is no need to apologise any longer for the povertyof the fossil record. In some ways, it has become almost unmanageably richand discovery is outpacing integration... The fossil record neverthelesscontinues to be composed mainly of gaps.(23)
- 3 -
National Geographic, vol 159 - 4 -
National Geographic, vol.159
Examples exist of fossils aged millions of years old that are no differentfrom their current "descendants". These remains are clear evidence forthe fact that they have come into being not as a result of evolution butby special creation: (1) Shark aged 400 million years, (2) Grasshopperaged 40 million years, (3) Ant aged 100 million years, (4) Cockroach aged320 million years.
- 1 -
New Scientist, 20 Jan.1984,
National Geographic, vol.152
Life Emergedon Earth Suddenly and in Complex Forms
When terrestrial strata and the fossil record are examined, it is to beseen that all living organisms appeared simultaneously. The oldest stratumof the earth in which fossils of living creatures have been found is thatof the Cambrian, which has an estimated age of 500-550 million years.
The living creatures found in the strata belonging to the Cambrian periodemerged all of a sudden in the fossil record-there are no pre-existingancestors. The fossils found in the Cambrian rocks belonged to snails,trilobites, sponges, earthworms, jellyfish, sea hedgehogs, and other complexinvertebrates. This wide mosaic of living organisms made up of such a greatnumber of complex creatures emerged so suddenly that this miraculous eventis referred to as the "Cambrian Explosion" in geological literature.
Most of the life forms found in this strata have complexsystems like eyes, gills, circulatory system, and advanced physiologicalstructures no different from their modern counterparts. For instance, thedouble-lensed, combed eye structure of trilobites is a wonder of design.David Raup, a professor of geology in Harvard, Rochester, and Chicago Universities,says: "the trilobites used an optimal design which would require a welltrained and imaginative optical engineer to develop today".(24)
These complex invertebrates emerged suddenly and completely withouthaving any link or any transitional form between them and the unicellularorganisms, which were the only life forms on earth prior to them.
Richard Monastersky, the editor of Earth Sciences, which is one of thepopular publications of evolutionist literature, states the following aboutthe "Cambrian Explosion" which came as a total surprise to evolutionists:
Researchers have since uncovered thousands of exquisitelypreserved fossils that offer a glimpse back to a pivotal event in the historyof life. This moment, right at the start of Earth’s Cambrian Period, some550 million years ago, marks the evolutionary explosion that filled theseas with the world’s first complex creatures. In a blink of geologicaltime a planet dominated by simple sponge-like animals gave way to one ruledby a vast variety of sophisticated beasts, animals whose relatives stillinhabit the world today.(25)
How the earth came to overflow with such a great number of animal speciesall of a sudden and how these distinct types of species with no commonancestors could have emerged is a question that remains unanswered by evolutionists.The Oxford zoologist Richard Dawkins, one of the foremost advocates ofevolutionist thought in the world, comments on this reality that invalidatesthe very roots of all the arguments he has been defending:
For example the Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 millionyears, are the oldest ones in which we find most of the major invertebrategroups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution,the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just plantedthere, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearanceof sudden planting has delighted creationists.(26)
As Dawkins is forced to acknowledge, the Cambrian Explosionis strong evidence for creation, because creation is the only way to explainthe fully-formed emergence of life on earth. Douglas Futuyma, a prominentevolutionist biologist admits this fact and states: "Organisms either appearedon the earth fully developed or they did not. If they did not, they musthave developed from preexisting species by some process of modification.If they did appear in a fully developed state, they must indeed have beencreated by some omnipotent intelligence."(27)Darwin himself recognised the possibility of this when he wrote: "If numerousspecies, belonging to the same genera or families, have really startedinto life all at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of descentwith slow modification through natural selection."(28)The Cambrian Period is nothing more or less than Darwin’s "fatal stroke".This is why the Swiss evolutionist paleoanthropologist Stefan Bengstonconfesses the lack of transitional links while he describes the CambrianPeriod and says "Baffling (and embarrasing) to Darwin, this event stilldazzles us".(29)
As may be seen, the fossil record indicates that living things did notevolve from primitive to the advanced forms, but instead emerged all ofa sudden and in a perfect state. In short, living beings did not come intoexistence by evolution, they were created.
A Creation MiracleThat Confounds Evolution
The trilobites that appeared in the Cambrian period all of a suddenhave an extremely complex eye structure. Consisting of millions of honeycomb-shapedtiny particles and a double-lens system, this eye "has an optimal designwhich would require a well-trained and imaginative optical engineer todevelop today" in the words of David Raup, a professor of geology.
This eye emerged 530 million years ago in a perfect state. No doubt,the sudden appearance of such a wondrous design cannot be explained byevolution and it proves the actuality of creation.
Moreover, the honeycomb eye structure of the trilobite has survivedto our own day without a single change. Some insects such as bees and dragonflies have the same eye structure as did the trilobite. This situationdisproves the evolutionary thesis that living things evolved progressivelyfrom the primitive to the complex.
(*) R. L. Gregory, Eye and Brain: The Psychology ofSeeing, Oxford University Press, 1995, p.31.
19 Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species: A Facsimileof the First Edition, Harvard University Press, 1964, p. 179.
20 Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, p. 172,280.
21 Derek V. Ager, "The Nature of the Fossil Record",Proceedings of the British Geological Association, vol 87, 1976, p. 133.
22 Mark Czarnecki, "The Revival of the CreationistCrusade", MacLean's, January 19, 1981, p. 56.
23 T. Neville George, "Fossils in Evolutionary Perspective",Science Progress, vol 48, January 1960, pp. 1, 3.
24 David Raup, "Conflicts Between Darwin andPaleontology", Bulletin, Field Museum of Natural History,
Vol 50, January 1979, p. 24.
25 Richard Monastersky, "Mysteries of the Orient",Discover, April 1993, p. 40.
26 Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, London:W. W. Norton 1986, p. 229.
27 Douglas J. Futuyma, Science on Trial, New Yorkhttp://www3.pak.org/gupshup/smilies/tongue.gifantheon Books, 1983. p. 197.
28 Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species: A Facsimileof the First Edition, Harvard University Press, 1964, p. 302.
29 Stefan Bengston, Nature, Vol. 345, 1990, p. 765.
I'll post some more if you like.
- Jul 30th, 2001, 05:16 PM #7----
- Join Date
- Mar 26, 2001
Dear moderator(s). I suggest that you add the following section to your Religion Forum Policy (assuming you have one).
About huge posts. Well, this is easy. To take the wind out of your opponent's sails, reply to the smallest query with pages and pages of text. Ideally, you should spend a couple of hours writing this yourself, but if you don't have the time, cut & paste relevant (or, if possible, irrelevant) information from other anti-reality websites or resources. Try to spend at least ten kilobytes explaining why they should pray more. And why they should fear Hell. And how the Messiah will return to punish them for their sins. And why prominent religious philosophers and scientists disagree with them. And how long-dead Muslims have already proven them wrong. And so on. And so on. Ask as many obscure questions as possible. If they are truly sincere (which, being on the side of mainstream science, is impossible) they will answer all of your points. If they fail to answer all of your points and questions, victory is yours. Make a note of this humiliating defeat and remember to bring it up often when dealing with this particular individual. (This is also pretty handy technique to use during a live debate with evolutionists. Take note.)
A variant on this theme is to post numerous verses from the holy book to support your argument. Why bother with a hundred words of explanation? A single verse will do it all for you. Simply post the verse that refutes the evolutionist/scientist, and then maybe two or three more referring to hellfire. Since the verses are known to be true in any context, little more need be said on the matter. If the scientist/intellectual/rebel/immoral geezer predictably comes back with a counter argument, post the same verses again but suggest that he actually read them this time.
And there you have it. The Idiots Guide to Fundy Thinking.
All you need to do now is decide how to finish off your devastating arguments. There is classic arrogant abuse:
- Such as "Ha ha ha what an idiot! God made it all! Get an education.";
- Or patronising the opponent - "I'll pray that God opens your closed mind and eyes";
- Maybe a selection of obscure verses;
- And finally, the ever popular subtle threats of hellfire - "Well, I've told you the Truth, I only hope you like it HOT after you die".
Don't forget what you've learned: return a week later and post exactly the same assertions that you started with.
- Jul 30th, 2001, 05:36 PM #8----
- Join Date
- Feb 2, 2001
I nominate this guy Salman for the award for the longest cut and paste post on this forum.
Mohammed Kauser, you should find a challenger here. Show us what u can do.
PS: People who cannot think on their own and/or are brainwashed by somebody's views resort to this maha cutu and paste posts . http://www3.pak.org/gupshup/smilies/hehe.gif
dude if you got to say something, give us a prcis of that junk.
It took me 19 strokes of Pagedown key to scroll through the entire post, in a 21 inch monitor, with 1152 x 864 pixels, normal IE font size, starting with the cursor on the first line.
Can anybody beat it? Open Chellenge!
[This message has been edited by kumarakn (edited July 30, 2001).]
- Jul 30th, 2001, 11:44 PM #9----
- Join Date
- Dec 31, 1969
I am sorry if it is too much for your small brain to read, but you asked for it and I gave it to you. I didn't have to, you could have just visited the site, www.hyahya.org, to find the information in a more organized, and I beg your pardon if I have hurt you in any way.
- Aug 2nd, 2001, 06:59 PM #10----
- Join Date
- Feb 2, 2001
- Aug 5th, 2001, 12:40 PM #11----
- Join Date
- Oct 27, 2000
Why not cut-and-paste you cut-and-paste scince into your brain with little thought!
If you have no time to read it than read a bit and debate about it!!
Is it not surprising that we have still not found "the missing link" even though we have found the strangest dinosaurs which died alot later!!
If you look at the structure of different races you will see a notice able differance in bone-stucture!! Blacks have bigger nostrils and a bigger bonestructure.
Just because we found a few deformed bones does not mean they are as they were!!!(weater, erosion ring a bell?)
Still to date many deformed humans are born some have dented skulls some have deformed jaws and what not!!
I die and get buried in the soil next door does it mean I'm the same age as the soil?
http://www3.pak.org/gupshup/smilies/rolleyes.gif there is a thing called "tail" has no brain of its own but still followes the animal!!
- Aug 5th, 2001, 02:04 PM #12----
- Join Date
- May 28, 2001
- South Africa
No need if you disagree with people to start posting derogatory remarks about them.
In fact, the only true conflict points between evolution and creation are:
1. The origen of matter
2. Living soul
3. Worshipping of a Supreme being
About where these three originated from, the Evolutionists have absolutely no idea and no facts, and it is absolutely timewasting discussing them with Evolutionists.
The only point one can discuss due to the differences of opinion is whether all species originated from a single cell organism. Unfortunately the Evolutionists, like Renaissance, will not accept that they have vast loopholes in their "theories".
- Aug 5th, 2001, 02:22 PM #13----
- Join Date
- May 17, 2001
I'm not taking any sides, but that paste has to be in contention for the 'world record' in length. It is one hell of a long paste.
Anyway, getting back to the thread. Darwins theory IS False and literally impossible!
Charles Darwin a clergyman, graduated from Christs College, Cambridge University and with no previuos background in medicine or biology, claimed that man was an animal who had evolved from unicellulor organisms and had descended from the apes. A lot of scientists jumped on this bandwagon, and soon the myth called evolution was going full speed. This view was taught for years in all educational institutions as if it were a fact of science.
Not only do Scientists such as Duane Gish, R.B Geldshmidt, Jeremy Rifkin, C.H. Waddington, Pierre Paul Grasse, Stephen Jay Gould and Professor Macbeth disagree with Darwin, but modern facts also crush the theory.
1 - Cellulor structure is identical and not primitive or evolved as evolutionists originally claimed.
2 - According to evolutionists, evolution cannot be observed today as it takes place gradually, in millions of years. However, in recent years a new island (Surtsey) was born near Iceland in submarine volcanic upheavals and hundreds of thousands of insects and plant species emerged there within ONE year.
3 - Evolutionists believe that evolution occurs through MUTATION. The fact is that MUTATION is never constructive; it is DESTRUCTIVE! Up to this day, noone has obtained a new organism from the Mutation of another.
4 - The skeletons that evolutionist claimed to link man and primates ( Piltdown Man) was proven to ba a FAKE. The brain of a primate weighs 130g and that of a human 1350g.
I can go on and on and on, but it will be a bit too deep for some people.
There can be no evolution in Physics as heavier elements cannot be formed by Hydrogen.
Mathematically Evolution is IMPOSSIBLE. For a worm to be formed from an amoeba, 39x10x20 squared alterations are needed in its genetic code. Which would take 10 trillion years at a rate of one change per second or to be more precise, 500 times the age of the universe!
For an ape to evolve from a man, it would take 3x10x520 squared alterations. This number of years would be so great that we cannot even approach the figure, even if we were to take a fourth of that figure.
Just for comparison, the total volume of the universe in terms of diameter of an electron does not exceed 10x124 squared. No you know why it is mathematically impossible.
Biologically Evolution is IMPOSSIBLE. To this day noone has been able to change ONE CISTRON using scientific methods.
The fact remains that there is NO such scientific creature as evolution like Darwin describes. It is an imaginary theory and philosophy. In other words they are UNTRUE.
- Aug 5th, 2001, 02:44 PM #14----
- Join Date
- May 28, 2001
- South Africa
[QUOTE]Originally posted by sholay:[B]
I'm not taking any sides, but that paste has to be in contention for the 'world record' in length.[B/]
Yeh, isn't there a medal of some sorts http://www3.pak.org/gupshup/smilies/smile.gif
There is "evolution" around us everyday eg:
manipulating plants (crops/flowers)
changes in earth
The problem with discussing evolution, is that Evolutionists that believe all species come from a single cell, tend to hide behind the scientific base of true sciences. They have too little figures and facts and therefor can't counter-argue all the criticism/problems raised with their "theories".
- Aug 6th, 2001, 01:05 PM #15----
Originally posted by The Old Man:
- Join Date
- Oct 27, 2000
No need if you disagree with people to start posting derogatory remarks about them.
- Aug 6th, 2001, 09:49 PM #16----
- Join Date
- Aug 4, 2000
Maybe evolution is false. Maybe it isn't. Scientists are willing to change their minds in the face of new data.
Given that evolution may be wrong, it's now your job to prove that creation is right.
Oops - your "scientists" don't do that, do they?
And of people, Gish doesn't count as a reputable scientist. If you've ever been to a lecture of his, you'll see what I mean.
- Aug 6th, 2001, 10:02 PM #17----
- Join Date
- May 17, 2001
Even if Gish is thrown out of the equation. (He was far more qualified than an Accountant by the way)!
The fact still remains, that Darwins theory of Evolution is still IMPOSSIBLE from a Biological point of view, from a Physics point of view and from a Mathematical point of view.
You have stated correctly, 'scientists do move the goalposts, as and when the need arises'.
At least we who work in harmony with Science actually do believe in Creation and not Darwinism, never move the goalposts!
We've already proved that Craetion exists
and 'your lot' came up with Darwin as an opponent. Now that Darwin has been defeated, you may come up with another.
Maybe Sods Law!
- Aug 9th, 2001, 11:53 PM #18----
Originally posted by astrosfan:
- Join Date
- Feb 2, 2001
Given that evolution may be wrong, it's now your job to prove that creation is right.
According to Bible, Adam and Eve came into being 4000 years ago.
[*]Radio carbon dating, The red-shift dating all have proved that earth is far older than that.
[*] Both Ramayana and Mahabaratha quote occurences of Astrological phenomenon that when interpolated, arrives at 6000 BC and 5000BC.
By the time Christian/Islamic gods were learning to create the world, some bunch of Hindu hooligans have started to document various astrological phenomenons! http://www3.pak.org/gupshup/smilies/hehe.gif (That was joke, no offence!)
[This message has been edited by kumarakn (edited August 09, 2001).]
visitors found this page by using these recent terms: has darwins theory been proven, darwin theory fake, olin Patterson Cladistics Interview by Brian Leek Peter Franz 4 March 1982 BBC, bbc darwins theory is a hoax, darwins theory proven false, in what ways has darwins theories been proven , has darwin&#39;s theory been proven, what is a theory that has never been proven false, darwin theory proven wrong, stupidest theories proven false, has darwin been proven wrong, darwins theory proven wrong, has darwin theory been proven wrong , has darwins theory of evolution been proven, darwin theory proven wrong by muslim, has darwinism been proven, darwins theory of evolution proved wrong, darwins theory evolution has been proven wrong, has Darwins theory been proven wrong, darwin theory proven wrong by science, darwin if it can be proven that