Charles Robert Darwin. A name for which, a picture of an old man comes
to our mind. Not without another one! The famous picture of Human
evolution!!! But the question is, is it correct? Does 'Modern Science'
agree with him or some 'Modern Scientists'? What does Islam say about
it? What about the famous Scientists? This article is for that
purpose.
Charles Robert Darwin
Absence of Intermingling Fossils:
The best proof against Darwin's theory is the absence of fossil records of the Intermediatory species . As the all of the currently living species have come through gradual Transformation of the Predecessor species lived Millions of years ago. So the theory will be proved, if The fossil records can be found. Darwin also stated that,
“If my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking most closely all of the species of the same group together must assuredly have existed. Consequently evidence of their former existence could be found only amongst fossil remains.” ( On The Origin Of Species By means of Natural Selection page no. 162)
NO FOSSIL RECORD OF INTERMEDIATORY SPECIES
However, what about a living creature? Might a bird and the mechanics of its flying be designed as well? Before giving an answer, let us repeat the evaluation we did for the example of a car. The goal at hand, in this case, is to fly. For this purpose, hollowed bones, strong muscles that move these bones are utilized together with feathers capable of suspending in the air. Wings are formed aerodynamically, and metabolism is in tune with the bird’s need for high levels of energy. It is obvious that the bird is product of a certain design.
Birds know this mechanism without any teacher!!!!!!!!
However, this truth is rejected by the theory of evolution. According to the fundamental assertion of this theory all living things go through minute and coincidental changes. If these coincidental changes help the creature then it gains advantage over the others, which in turn is carried onto following generations. The evolutionists who followed him put forth the concept of “mutation” on this subject. But , the FACT that falsifies this THEORY is the Concept of “irreducible complexity” . The definition of "Irreducible complexity" is that most of the organs of the living creatures function as a result of various independent parts. If one part disables, the organ will be disabled simultaneously. Any organ could not have developed in segments because none of the segments could possibly function alone.
to our mind. Not without another one! The famous picture of Human
evolution!!! But the question is, is it correct? Does 'Modern Science'
agree with him or some 'Modern Scientists'? What does Islam say about
it? What about the famous Scientists? This article is for that
purpose.
Charles Robert Darwin
Absence of Intermingling Fossils:
The best proof against Darwin's theory is the absence of fossil records of the Intermediatory species . As the all of the currently living species have come through gradual Transformation of the Predecessor species lived Millions of years ago. So the theory will be proved, if The fossil records can be found. Darwin also stated that,
“If my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking most closely all of the species of the same group together must assuredly have existed. Consequently evidence of their former existence could be found only amongst fossil remains.” ( On The Origin Of Species By means of Natural Selection page no. 162)
NO FOSSIL RECORD OF INTERMEDIATORY SPECIES
“ …Why, if species have descended from other species by fine gradations, do we everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion, instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?… But, as by this theory innumerable transitional form must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust to the earth?… But in the intermediate region, having intermediate conditions of life, why do we not now find closely-linking intermediate varieties? This difficulty for a long time quite confounded me.” (On The Origin Of Species By means of Natural Selection page 168)
Believing in Darwin’s prophecy, evolutionists have been searching for fossils and digging for missing links since the middle of the 19th century CE, all over the world. Despite their best efforts, no transitional forms have yet been uncovered. All the fossils unearthed in excavations showed that contrary to the beliefs of evolutionists, life appeared on earth all of a sudden and fully-formed. In their enthusiastic efforts to prove their theory, evolutionists have instead unwittingly caused it to collapse.
A famous British paleontologist, Derek V. Ager, admits this fact even though he is an evolutionist:
“The point emerges that if we examine the fossil record in detail, whether at the level of orders or of species, we find – over and over again – not gradual evolution, but the sudden explosion of one group at the expense of another.”
Another evolutionist paleontologist Mark Czarnecki comments as follows:
“A major problem in providing the theory 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.”
Entropy vs. Evolution
The truth of the second law of thermodynamics, or the law of entropy, has been experimentally and theoretically established. All foremost scientists agree that the law of entropy will remain the principle paradigm for the foreseeable future. Albert Einstein, the greatest scientist of our age, described it as the “premier law of all of science.” Sir Arthur Eddington also referred to it as the “supreme metaphysical law of the entire universe:” (Jeremy Rifkin, Entropy: A View, Viking Press, New York , 1980, p. 6.)
Evolutionary theory ignores this fundamental law of physics. The mechanism offered by evolution totally contradicts the second law. The theory of evolution says that disordered, dispersed, and lifeless atoms and molecules spontaneously came together over time, in a particular order, to form extremely complex molecules such as proteins, DNA, and RNA, whereupon millions of different living species with even more complex structures gradually emerged. According to the theory of evolution, this supposed process—which yields a more planned, more ordered, more complex and more organized structure at each stage—was formed all by itself under natural conditions. The law of entropy makes it clear that this so-called natural process utterly contradicts the laws of physics.
Evolutionist scientists are also aware of this fact. J. H. Rush states:
In the complex course of its evolution, life exhibits a remarkable contrast to the tendency expressed in the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Where the Second Law expresses an irreversible progression toward increased entropy and disorder, life evolves continually higher levels of order ( J. H. Rush, The Dawn of Life, New York, Signet, 1962, p. 35.)
Design without Designer!!!:
“Design”, briefly, means a harmonious assembling of various parts into an orderly form towards a common goal. Going by this definition, one would have no difficulty in guessing that a car is designed. This is because there is a certain goal, which is to transport people and cargo. For the realization of this goal various parts such as the engine, tires and body are planned and assembled in the plant.
Do you think this wonderful Creature is Designed without Designer??!!!!
However, what about a living creature? Might a bird and the mechanics of its flying be designed as well? Before giving an answer, let us repeat the evaluation we did for the example of a car. The goal at hand, in this case, is to fly. For this purpose, hollowed bones, strong muscles that move these bones are utilized together with feathers capable of suspending in the air. Wings are formed aerodynamically, and metabolism is in tune with the bird’s need for high levels of energy. It is obvious that the bird is product of a certain design.
However, this truth is rejected by the theory of evolution. According to the fundamental assertion of this theory all living things go through minute and coincidental changes. If these coincidental changes help the creature then it gains advantage over the others, which in turn is carried onto following generations. The evolutionists who followed him put forth the concept of “mutation” on this subject. But , the FACT that falsifies this THEORY is the Concept of “irreducible complexity” . The definition of "Irreducible complexity" is that most of the organs of the living creatures function as a result of various independent parts. If one part disables, the organ will be disabled simultaneously. Any organ could not have developed in segments because none of the segments could possibly function alone.
Darwin himself said that, “If the impossibility of formation of a complex organ through a series of small changes was ever to be proven my theory would have certainly collapsed. However I could not find such an organ." page 169
Hence the concept of irreducible complexity demolishes the theory of evolution from its foundations.
Famous Scientists against Evolution:
“Evolution is unproved and improvable. We believe it because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable.” Sir Arthur Keith
“Evolution is a fairy tail for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless.” Professor Louis Bounoure
Luther Sunderland asked evolutionists what evidence they had for their theory. The British Museum of Natural History has the largest fossil collection in the world. When the senior paleontologist (Colin Paterson) was asked why he did not show the missing links in his book he said: “I fully agree with your comments on the lack of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. I will lay it on the line – there is not one such fossil.” (Dr. Colin Paterson, Senior Paleontologist, British Museum of Natural History in correspondence to Luther Sunderland quoted in Darwin’s Enigma 1988, p. 89).
"Why does man behave like a perfect idiot? This is the problem I wish to deal with." (The crazy Ape Albert Szent-Gyorgy)
"From the almost total absence of fossil evidence relative to the origin of the phyla, it follows that any explanation of the mechanism in the creative evolution of the fundamental structural plans is heavily burdened with hypothesis. This should appear as an epigraph to every book on evolution. The lack of direct evidence leads to the formulation of pure conjecture as to the genesis of the phyla; we do not even have a basis to determine the extent to which these opinions are correct."—(P.P. Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 31.)
ISLAM ON CREATIONISM:
“He is God - the Creator, the Maker, the Giver of Form. To Him belong the Most Beautiful Names. Everything in the heavens and earth glorifies Him. He is the Almighty, the All-Wise.” (Quran 59:24)
“O mankind, We have created you from a male and a female and have made you into nations and tribes for you to know one another. Truly, the noblest of you with God is the most pious....” (49:13)
I like to end my article with the Quotation of Glorious Quran "And say: "The Truth has arrived, and Falsehood has perished: for Falsehood is bound to be perished." ( 17:81)
good work Abdul Muhaimin Rahman!
ReplyDeletesubhanallah... :)
ReplyDeleteThnx sistr. Plz pray 4 me
ReplyDeleteThis is, of course, not in the least bit true.
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil
PROVE IT!!!!
ReplyDeleteAt mike. This is your ans.
ReplyDeleteProfessor of Mathematics Wolfgang Smith is one of those scientists who openly admits that transitional fossils do not exist:
On the fundamental level, it becomes a rigorously demonstrable fact that there are no transitional types, and the so-called missing links are indeed non-existent. 1
The evolutionist paleontologist Stephen Stanley makes this comment on the absence of transitional fossils:
The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphology transition, and hence offers no evidence that gradualistic model can be valid. 2
Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution.3
Darwinists have been unable to put forth a single genuine intermediate form. More than 250 million fossils have been discovered to date, but not one is a transitional fossil. They are all, whether still living or extinct, fully formed and perfect forms.
One such statement comes from the evolutionist paleontologist Colin Patterson:
I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book [Evolution], If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would have certainly have included them. . . . I will lay it on the line – there is not one single transitional form in the fossil record for which one could make a watertight argument. 4
Mark Ridley of the Oxford University Department of Zoology describes how all the fossil record does is show that Darwinism is a lie:
In any case, no real evolutionist, whether a gradualist or a punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation...7
1 Wolfgang Smith, Teilhardism and the New Religion, A Thorough Analysis of the Teachings of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, Rockford IL, Tan Books and Publishers, Inc. 1988, p. 8.
2 Stephen Stanley, Macroevolution: Pattern and Process, San Francisco CA, W. H. Freeman, 1979, p. 39.
3 Ronald R. West, “Paleoecology and Uniformitarianism,” Compass, vol. 45 (May 1968): p. 216. Ronald R. West is an assistant professor of paleobiology at Kansas State University.
6 Luther D. Sunderland, Darwin’s Enigma (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 1984), p. 89, quoting Colin Patterson. Dr. Patterson is a senior paleontologist at the British Museum of National History, London; owner and proprietor of the most complete fossil collection in the world.
7 Mark Ridley, “Who Doubts Evolution?” New Scientist, vol. 90 (June 25, 1981): p. 831. Ridley was in the department of zoology at Oxford University.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that in a closed system, the entropy tends to increase. In the case of evolution, the system includes essentially the entire universe.
ReplyDeleteThis means that the entropy reduction due to evolution is possible if there is a corresponding increase in entropy elsewhere (In much the same way one can put a jigsaw puzzle together, reducing its entropy, while increasing the entropy in the room due to heat loss, etc, from your body.
The chairman, i didn't write in details about the case of. i am now giving you the detailed one.
ReplyDeleteInshaAllah
The Misconception About Open Systems
ReplyDeleteSome proponents of evolution have recourse to an argument that the second law of thermodynamics holds true only for “closed systems,” and that “open systems” are beyond the scope of this law. This claim goes no further than being an attempt by some evolutionists to distort scientific facts that invalidate their theory. In fact, a large number of scientists openly state that this claim is invalid, and violates thermodynamics. One of these is the Harvard scientist John Ross, who also holds evolutionist views. He explains that these unrealistic claims contain an important scientific error in the following remarks in Chemical and Engineering News:
There are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems. There is somehow associated with the field of far-from-equilibrium phenomena the notion that the second law of thermodynamics fails for such systems. It is important to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself.(John Ross, Chemical and Engineering News, 27 July, 1980, p. 40.)
(continued)
As can be seen, a thermodynamic system without an energy conversion mechanism of some sort is not advantageous for evolution, be it open or closed. No one asserts that such complex and conscious mechanisms could have existed in nature under the conditions of the primeval earth. Indeed, the real problem confronting evolutionists is the question of how complex energy-converting mechanisms such as photosynthesis in plants, which cannot be duplicated even with modern technology, could have come into being on their own.
ReplyDeleteThe influx of solar energy into the world would be unable to bring about order on its own. Moreover, no matter how high the temperature may become, amino acids resist forming bonds in ordered sequences. Energy by itself is incapable of making amino acids form the much more complex molecules of proteins, or of making proteins form the much more complex and organized structures of cell organelles.
(continued)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe Myth of the “Self-Organization of Matter
ReplyDeleteQuite aware that the second law of thermodynamics renders evolution impossible, some evolutionist scientists have made speculative attempts to square the circle between the two, in order to be able to claim that evolution is possible.
The two most important theories that emerged as a result of that aim were the theory of “self-organization” and the related theory of “dissipative structures.” The first of these maintains that simple molecules can organize together to form complex living systems; the second claims that ordered, complex systems can emerge in unordered, high-entropy systems.
If we look carefully at all the evolutionist literature on this issue, we can see that they have fallen into a very important trap. In order to make evolution fit in with thermodynamics, evolutionists are constantly trying to prove that a given order can emerge from open systems.
Their problem lies in the — sometimes deliberate — confusing of two distinct concepts: “ordered” and “organized.”
We can make this clear with an example. Imagine a completely flat beach on the seashore. When a strong wave hits the beach, mounds of sand, large and small, form bumps on the surface of the sand.
(continued)
This is a process of “ordering.” The seashore is an open system, and the energy flow (the wave) that enters it can form simple patterns in the sand, which look completely regular. From the thermodynamic point of view, order can be set up where before there was none. But we must make it clear that those same waves cannot build a castle on the beach. If we see a castle there, we are in no doubt that someone has constructed it, because the castle is an “organized” system. In other words, it possesses a clear design and information. Every part of it has been made by a conscious entity in a planned manner.
ReplyDeleteThe difference between the sand and the castle is that the former is an organized complexity, whereas the latter possesses only order, brought about by simple repetitions. The order formed from repetitions is as if an object (in other words the flow of energy entering the system) had fallen on the letter “a” on a typewriter keyboard, writing “aaaaaaaa” hundreds of times. But the string of “a”s in an order repeated in this manner contains no information, and no complexity. In order to write a complex chain of letters actually containing information (in other words a meaningful sentence, paragraph or book), the presence of intelligence is essential.
(continued)
The same thing applies when a gust of wind blows into a dusty room. When the wind blows in, the dust which had been lying in an even layer may gather in one corner of the room. This is also a more ordered situation than that which existed before, in the thermodynamic sense, but the individual specks of dust cannot form a portrait of someone on the floor in an organized manner.
ReplyDeleteThis means that complex, organized systems can never come about as the result of natural processes. Although simple examples of order can happen from time to time, these cannot go beyond certain limits.
But evolutionists point to this self-ordering which emerges through natural processes as a most important proof of evolution, portray such cases as examples of “self-organization.” As a result of this confusion of concepts, they propose that living systems could develop of their own accord from occurrences in nature and chemical reactions. The methods and studies employed by Prigogine and his followers, which we considered above, are based on this deceptive logic.
(continued)
However, as we made clear at the outset, organized systems are completely different structures from ordered ones. While ordered systems contain structures formed of simple repetitions, organized systems contain highly complex structures and processes, one often embedded inside the other. In order for such structures to come into existence, there is a need for consciousness, knowledge, and planning. Jeffrey Wicken, an evolutionist scientist, describes the important difference between these two concepts in this way:
ReplyDelete‘Organized’ systems are to be carefully distinguished from ‘ordered’ systems. Neither kind of system is ‘random,’ but whereas ordered systems are generated according to simple algorithms and therefore lack complexity, organized systems must be assembled element by element according to an external ‘wiring diagram’ with a high information content . Organization, then, is functional complexity and carries information. (Jeffrey S. Wicken, “The Generation of Complexity in Evolution: A Thermodynamic and Information-Theoretical Discussion,” Journal of Theoretical Biology, vol. 77, April 1979, p. 349.)
Ilya Prigogine—maybe as a result of evolutionist wishful thinking— resorted to a confusion of these two concepts, and advertised examples of molecules which ordered themselves under the influence of energy inflows as “self-organization.”
(continued)
The American scientists Charles B. Thaxton, Walter L. Bradley and Roger L. Olsen, in their book titled The Mystery of Life’s Origin, explain this fact as follows:
ReplyDeleteIn each case random movements of molecules in a fluid are spontaneously replaced by a highly ordered behaviour. Prigogine, Eigen, and others have suggested that a similar sort of self-organization may be intrinsic in organic chemistry and can potentially account for the highly complex macromolecules essential for living systems. But such analogies have scant relevance to the origin-of-life question. A major reason is that they fail to distinguish between order and complexity... Regularity or order cannot serve to store the large amount of information required by living systems. A highly irregular, but specified, structure is required rather than an ordered structure. This is a serious flaw in the analogy offered. There is no apparent connection between the kind of spontaneous ordering that occurs from energy flow through such systems and the work required to build aperiodic information-intensive macromolecules like DNA and protein( Charles B. Thaxton, Walter L. Bradley & Roger L. Olsen, The Mystery of Life’s Origin: Reassessing Current Theories, 4th edition, Dallas, 1992, p. 151.)
About the Colin Patterson quote you use, see:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/patterson.html
I'm fairly sure most of the other quotes are quote-mines:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_quoting_out_of_context
@thedispersalofdarwin you ans is here http://www.harunyahya.com/books/darwinism/confessions_evolutionists/confessions14.php
ReplyDeletefor more fossils you can go to http://www.fossil-museum.com/fossils/?page=0&limit=30
also if you wanna be rich show a fossill as a prove of evolution to Adnan oktar. InshaAllah he will give you 4.4 trillion euro!!! http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/3102103/Creationist-Adnan-Oktar-offers-trillion-pound-prize-for-fossil-proof-of-evolution.html