1. Comment #205713 by ertu on July 7, 2008 at 5:46 pm

I read Atlas of Creation. It is just perfect. I dont believe in Darwinism any more. Chance can not do anything. God created everything. It is so obvious from the fossil evidence. There is no evolution guys. Just never happened. Harun Yahya did an incredible job.

Other Comments by ertu

2. Comment #205719 by ertu on July 7, 2008 at 6:00 pm

Fossils havent changed for millions of years. And they appear all of a sudden. That is admitted by Stephen Gould also:
The history of most fossil species include two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism:
1) Stasis - most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless;
2) Sudden appearance - in any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed'.

S.J. Gould, "Evolution's Erratic Pace", Natural History,
vol. 86, May 1977.
Well he is dnying evolution admitting Creation.

Other Comments by ertu

3. Comment #205720 by ertu on July 7, 2008 at 6:03 pm

Darwin himself was aware of the lack of so called transitional forms which would be evidence for evolution:
"Why, if species have descended from other species by fine gradations, do we not 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 forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?… Why do we not now find closely-linking intermediate varieties? This difficulty for a long time quite confounded me."
(Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, The Modern Library, New York, p. 124-125.)

Other Comments by ertu

4. Comment #205723 by ertu on July 7, 2008 at 6:09 pm

Richard knows Harun Yahya is right. Richarda admitted in his book that life was created because at cambrien period visible fossils (50 Phylum) appeared all of asudden thus created:

Richard Dawkins: "The Cambrian strata of rocks, are the oldest ones in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. 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 planted there, without any evolutionary history."

Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, London: W. W. Norton 1986, p. 229.

Other Comments by ertu

5. Comment #205724 by ertu on July 7, 2008 at 6:17 pm

Harun Yahya has written 265 books in many topics. 40 of his books are about scientific refutation of Darwinism and disasters darwinism brough to humanity. He is the best because his books are unmatched. Atlas of Creation is the best book I have ever seen. That book destroyed evolution worldwide..

Other Comments by ertu

6. Comment #205729 by ertu on July 7, 2008 at 6:26 pm

Fred Hoyle is a famous Briths mathematician and astronomer and evolutionist. Bu he denies evolution in nature magazine logically as thus:

Fred Hoyle: "The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable to the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.
"Hoyle on Evolution," Nature, vol. 294, November 12, 1981, p.105.

Fred Hoyle: "Indeed, such a theory (that life was assembled by an intelligence) is so obvious that one wonders why it is not widely accepted as being self-evident. The reasons are psycological rather than scientific."
Fred Hoyle, Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space, New York, Simon & Schuster, 1984, p. 148

Other Comments by ertu

7. Comment #205730 by ertu on July 7, 2008 at 6:31 pm

Darwin himself didn't believe in this chance nonsense of evolution. Darwin lied to you guys. He admitted creation as thus:
"Charles Darwin  This [conviction in the existence of God] follows from the extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his capacity of looking far backwards and far into futurity, as the result of blind chance or necessity."

Francis Darwin, Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Volume I, Chapter on "Religion."

Other Comments by ertu

8. Comment #205733 by ertu on July 7, 2008 at 6:35 pm

Anthony FlewÅŸs the leader of the atheists in the world ad he defended atheism and Darwinism for his entire life until recently. Now he doesn't believe in evolution and chance nonsense anymore:

"I have been persuaded that it is simply out of the question that the first living matter evolved out of dead matter and then developed into an extraordinarily complicated creature."
(The Sunday Times, 12 December 2004)

Other Comments by ertu

9. Comment #205738 by ertu on July 7, 2008 at 6:44 pm

George Politzer is as famous materialist philosopher.He said if the universe came into being from nothingness it must be created. This is exactly what happened. We knowscientifically that the universe (matter, time and space) was created from nothingness with Big Bang. And that is a well known scientific fact which prove the existence of an omnipotent Creator: GOD

GEORGE POLITZER: "The universe was not a created object, if it were, then it would have to be created instantaneously by God and brought into existence from nothing. To admit creation, one has to admit, in the first place, the existence of a moment when the universe did not exist, and that something came out of nothingness. This is something to which science can not accede."

George Politzer, Principes Fondamentaux de Philosophie,
Editions Sociales, Paris 1954 ,p. 84

Other Comments by ertu

10. Comment #205746 by ertu on July 7, 2008 at 6:52 pm

The assertion that life evolved from non-living things, in other words, "abiogenesis", is a tale only existing in the dreams of the evolutionists and completely at variance with the results of every experiment and observation.
In this respect, the first life on earth must also have originated from other life. This is a reflection of God's epithet of "Hayy" (The Owner of Life). Life can only start, continue, and end by His will. As for evolution, not only is it unable to explain how life began, it is also unable to explain how the materials essential for life have formed and come together.
That folllowig quote is from the foremost biology textbook of the world campbell-reece biology. And it is evolutionist:

BIOGENESÄ°S
"As far as we know, all life today arises only by the reproduction of preexisting life. This "life-from-life" principle is called biogenesis"
Biology, Campbell-Reece, Sixth Edition, 2002, P.516

Other Comments by ertu

11. Comment #205751 by ertu on July 7, 2008 at 6:57 pm

Evolution is not a theory arrived at through scientific investigation. On the contrary, the form and substance of this theory were dictated by the requirements of materialistic philosophy. It then turned into a belief or dogma in spite of concrete scientific facts. Again, we can clearly see from evolutionist literature that all of this effort has a "purpose"-and that purpose precludes any belief that all living things were not created no matter what the price.
Evolutionists define this purpose as "scientific". However, what they refer to is not science but materialist philosophy. Materialism absolutely rejects the existence of anything "beyond" matter (or of anything supernatural). Science itself is not obliged to accept such a dogma. Science means exploring nature and deriving conclusions from one's findings. If these findings lead to the conclusion that nature is created, science has to accept it. That is the duty of a true scientist; not defending impossible scenarios by clinging to the outdated materialist dogmas of the 19th century.

Other Comments by ertu

12. Comment #205756 by ertu on July 7, 2008 at 7:02 pm

Darwinists be polite not insulting and face the truth:
the Theory of Evolution, which proposes that life was not created, is a fallacy completely contrary to scientific facts. We saw that modern science has revealed a very explicit fact through certain branches of science such as paleontology, biochemistry, and anatomy. This fact is that God creates all living beings.
In fact, to notice this fact one does not necessarily need to appeal to the complicated results obtained in biochemistry laboratories or geological excavations. The signs of an extraordinary wisdom are discernible in whatever living being one observes. There is a great technology and design in the body of an insect or a tiny fish in the depths of the sea never attained by human beings. Some living beings which even do not have a brain perfectly perform so complicated tasks as not to be accomplished even by human beings.
This great wisdom, design and plan that prevails overall in nature, provides solid evidence for the existence of a supreme Creator dominating over the whole of nature, and this Creator is God. God has furnished all living beings with extraordinary features and showed men the evident signs of His existence and might.

Other Comments by ertu

13. Comment #205770 by ertu on July 7, 2008 at 7:18 pm

If any of you exists and says I am, since this person could not have created himself, he is created. That Creator is GOD. Anything created can not be the creator. The Creator is eternal, omnipotent and almighty.

Other Comments by ertu

14. Comment #205776 by ertu on July 7, 2008 at 7:22 pm

That the universe had a beginning means that the cosmos was brought into being out of nothing, that is, that it was created. If a created thing exists (which did not exist beforehand), then it certainly should have a Creator. Being from non-being is something inconceivable by the human mind. (Man cannot practically conceive it since he has no chance of experiencing it.) Therefore, being from non-being is very different from bringing objects together to form a new object (such as works of art or technological inventions). It is a sign of Allah's creation alone that everything formed perfectly all at once and in a single moment, when the created things had no previous examples and not even time and space existed in which to create them.
The coming of the universe into being from non-being is the greatest proof possible that it has been created. Consideration of this fact will change a lot of things. It helps people understand the meaning of life and review their attitudes and purposes. This is why many scientific communities have tried to disregard the fact of creation which they could not fully comprehend, even though its evidence was clear to them. The fact that all scientific evidence points to the existence of a Creator has compelled them to invent alternatives to create confusion in the minds of people. Nevertheless, the evidence of science itself puts a definite end to these theories.

Other Comments by ertu

15. Comment #205777 by ertu on July 7, 2008 at 7:23 pm

Would it matter if the scenario proposed by evolutionists really had taken place? Not a bit. The reason is that each stage advanced by evolutionary theory and based on coincidence could only have occurred as a result of a miracle. Even if life did come about gradually through such a succession of stages, each progressive stage could only have been brought about by a conscious will. It is not just implausible that those stages could have occurred by chance, it is impossible.
If is said that a protein molecule had been formed under the primordial atmospheric conditions, it has to be remembered that it has been already demonstrated by the laws of probability, biology, and chemistry that this could not have been by chance. But if it must be posited that it was produced, then there is no alternative but to admit that it owed its existence to the will of a Creator. The same logic applies to the entire hypothesis put forward by evolutionists. For instance, there is neither paleontological evidence nor a physical, chemical, biological, or logical justification proving that fish passed from water to land and formed the land animals. But if one must have it that fish clambered onto the land and turned into reptiles, the maker of that claim should also accept the existence of a Creator capable of making whatever He wills come into being with the mere word "be". Any other explanation for such a miracle is inherently self-contradictory and a violation of the principles of reason.
The reality is clear and evident. All life is the product of a perfect design and a superior creation. This in turn provides concrete evidence for the existence of a Creator, the Possessor of infinite power, knowledge, and intelligence.
That Creator is God, the Lord of the heavens and of the earth, and of all that is between them.

Other Comments by ertu

16. Comment #205782 by ertu on July 7, 2008 at 7:25 pm

Life Emerged on Earth Suddenly and in Complex Forms
When terrestrial strata and the fossil record are examined, it is to be seen that all living organisms appeared simultaneously. The oldest stratum of the earth in which fossils of living creatures have been found is that of the Cambrian, which has an estimated age of 500-550 million years.
The living creatures found in the strata belonging to the Cambrian period emerged all of a sudden in the fossil record-there are no pre-existing ancestors. The fossils found in Cambrian rocks belonged to snails, trilobites, sponges, earthworms, jellyfish, sea hedgehogs, and other complex invertebrates. This wide mosaic of living organisms made up of such a great number of complex creatures emerged so suddenly that this miraculous event is referred to as the "Cambrian Explosion" in geological literature.
Most of the creatures in this layer have complex systems have complex systems and advanced structures, such as eyes, gills, and circulatory systems, exactly the same as those in modern specimens. For instance, the double-lensed, combed eye structure of trilobites is a wonder of creation. David Raup, a professor of geology in Harvard, Rochester, and Chicago Universities, says: "the trilobites 450 million years ago used an optimal design which would require a well trained and imaginative optical engineer to develop today".
These complex invertebrates emerged suddenly and completely without having any link or any transitional form between them and the unicellular organisms, which were the only life forms on earth prior to them.
Richard Monastersky, a science journalist at Science News, one of the popular publications of evolutionist literature, states the following about the "Cambrian Explosion", which is a deathtrap for evolutionary theory:
A half-billion years ago, the remarkably complex forms of animals we see today suddenly appeared. This moment, right at the start of Earth's Cambrian Period, some 550 million years ago, marks the evolutionary explosion that filled the seas with the earth's first complex creatures. ...the large animal phyla of today were present already in the early Cambrian ...and they were as distinct from each other as they are today.
Deeper investigation into the Cambrian Explosion shows what a great dilemma it creates for the theory of evolution. Recent findings indicate that almost all phyla, the most basic animal divisions, emerged abruptly in the Cambrian period. An article published in Science magazine in 2001 says: "The beginning of the Cambrian period, some 545 million years ago, saw the sudden appearance in the fossil record of almost all the main types of animals (phyla) that still dominate the biota today".30 The same article notes that for such complex and distinct living groups to be explained according to the theory of evolution, very rich fossil beds showing a gradual developmental process should have been found, but this has not yet proved possible:
This differential evolution and dispersal, too, must have required a previous history of the group for which there is no fossil record.
How the earth came to overflow with such a great number of animal species all of a sudden, and how these distinct types of species with no common ancestors could have emerged, is a question that remains unanswered by evolutionists. The Oxford University zoologist Richard Dawkins, one of the foremost advocates of evolutionist thought in the world, comments on this reality that undermines the very foundation of all the arguments he has been defending:
For example the Cambrian strata of rocks... are the oldest ones in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. 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 planted there, without any evolutionary history.
As Dawkins is forced to acknowledge, the Cambrian Explosion is strong evidence for creation, because creation is the only way to explain the fully-formed emergence of life on earth. Douglas Futuyma, a prominent evolutionist biologist admits this fact: "Organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed or they did not. If they did not, they must have developed from pre-existing species by some process of modification. If they did appear in a fully developed state, they must indeed have been created by some omnipotent intelligence." Darwin himself recognised the possibility of this when he wrote: "If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life all at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of descent with slow modification through natural selection." The Cambrian Period is nothing more or less than Darwin's "fatal stroke". This is why the Swiss evolutionist paleoanthropologist Stefan Bengtson, who confesses the lack of transitional links while describing the Cambrian Age, makes the following comment: "Baffling (and embarrasing) to Darwin, this event still dazzles us".
Obviously, the fossil record indicates that living things did not evolve from primitive to the advanced forms, but instead emerged all of a sudden and in a perfect state. In short, living beings did not come into existence by evolution, they were created.

Other Comments by ertu

17. Comment #205787 by ertu on July 7, 2008 at 7:28 pm

All atheist philosophies that deny creation, directly or indirectly embrace and defend the idea of evolution. The same condition today applies to all the ideologies and systems that are antagonistic to religion.
The evolutionary notion has been cloaked in a scientific disguise for the last century and a half in order to justify itself. Though put forward as a supposedly scientific theory during the mid-19th century, the theory, despite all the best efforts of its advocates, has not so far been verified by any scientific finding or experiment. Indeed, the "very science" on which the theory depends so greatly has demonstrated and continues to demonstrate repeatedly that the theory has no merit in reality.
Laboratory experiments and probabilistic calculations have definitely made it clear that the amino acids from which life arises cannot have been formed by chance. The cell, which supposedly emerged by chance under primitive and uncontrolled terrestrial conditions according to evolutionists, still cannot be synthesised even in the most sophisticated, high-tech laboratories of the 20th century. Not a single "transitional form", creatures which are supposed to show the gradual evolution of advanced organisms from more primitive ones as neo-Darwinist theory claims, has ever been found anywhere in the world despite the most diligent and prolonged search in the fossil record.
In their attempts to gather evidence for evolution, evolutionists have unwittingly proven by their own efforts that evolution cannot have happened at all!
The person who originally put forward the theory of evolution, essentially in the form that it is defended today, was an amateur English biologist by the name of Charles Robert Darwin. Darwin first published his ideas in a book entitled The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection in 1859. Darwin claimed in his book that all living beings had a common ancestor and that they evolved from one another by means of natural selection. Those that best adapted to the habitat transferred their traits to subsequent generations, and by accumulating over great epochs, these advantageous qualities transformed individuals into totally different species from their ancestors. The human being was thus the most developed product of the mechanism of natural selection. In short, the origin of one species was another species.
Darwin's fanciful ideas were seized upon and promoted by certain ideological and political circles and the theory became very popular. The main reason was that the level of knowledge of those days was not yet sufficient to reveal that Darwin's imaginary scenarios were false. When Darwin put forward his assumptions, the disciplines of genetics, microbiology, and biochemistry did not yet exist. If they had, Darwin might easily have recognised that his theory was totally unscientific and thus would not have attempted to advance such meaningless claims: the information determining species already exists in the genes and it is impossible for natural selection to produce new species by altering genes.
While the echoes of Darwin's book reverberated, an Austrian botanist by the name of Gregor Mendel discovered the laws of inheritance in 1865. Although little known before the end of the century, Mendel's discovery gained great importance in the early 1900s with the birth of the science of genetics. Some time later, the structures of genes and chromosomes were discovered. The discovery, in the 1950s, of the DNA molecule, which incorporates genetic information, threw the theory of evolution into a great crisis, because the origin of the immense amount of information in DNA could not possibly be explained by coincidental happenings.
Besides all these scientific developments, no transitional forms, which were supposed to show the gradual evolution of living organisms from primitive to advanced species, have ever been found despite years of search.
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 lie ideological intentions rather than scientific concerns.
Nevertheless, some circles that believed in the necessity of upholding a theory that had reached an impasse soon set up a new model. The name of this new model was neo-Darwinism. According to this theory, species evolved as a result of mutations, minor changes in their genes, and the fittest ones survived through the mechanism of natural selection. When, however, it was proved that the mechanisms proposed by neo-Darwinism were invalid and minor changes were not sufficient for the formation of living beings, evolutionists went on to look for new models. They came up with a new claim called "punctuated equilibrium" that rests on no rational or scientific grounds. This model held that living beings suddenly evolved into another species without any transitional forms. In other words, species with no evolutionary "ancestors" suddenly appeared. This was a way of describing creation, though evolutionists would be loath to admit this. They tried to cover it up with incomprehensible scenarios. For instance, they said that the first bird in history could all of a sudden inexplicably have popped out of a reptile egg. The same theory also held that carnivorous 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 fairy-tales of frogs turning into princes! Nevertheless, being distressed by the crisis that the neo-Darwinist assertion was in, some evolutionist paleontologists embraced this theory, which has the distinction of being even more bizarre than neo-Darwinism itself.
The sole purpose of this model was to provide an explanation for the gaps in the fossil record that the neo-Darwinist model could not explain. However, it is hardly rational to attempt to explain the gap in the fossil record of 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.
The theory of punctuated equilibrium was obviously merely a product of the imagination. Despite this evident truth, the advocates of evolution did not hesitate to honour this theory. The fact that the model of evolution proposed by Darwin could not be proved by the fossil record forced them to do so. Darwin claimed that species underwent a gradual change, which necessitated the existence of half-bird/half-reptile or half-fish/half-reptile freaks. However, not even one of these "transitional forms" was found despite the extensive studies of evolutionists and the hundreds of thousands of fossils that were unearthed.

Other Comments by ertu

18. Comment #205789 by ertu on July 7, 2008 at 7:30 pm

Life Emerged on Earth
Suddenly and in Complex Forms
When terrestrial strata and the fossil record are examined, it is seen that living organisms appeared simultaneously. The oldest stratum of the earth in which fossils of living creatures have been found is that of the "Cambrian", which has an estimated age of 530-520 million years.
Living creatures that are found in the strata belonging to the Cambrian period emerged in the fossil record all of a sudden without any pre-existing ancestors. The vast mosaic of living organisms, made up of such great numbers of complex creatures, emerged so suddenly that this miraculous event is referred to as the "Cambrian Explosion" in scientific literature.
Most of the organisms found in this stratum have highly advanced organs like eyes, or systems seen in organisms with a highly advanced organisation such as gills, circulatory systems, and so on. There is no sign in the fossil record to indicate that these organisms had any ancestors. Richard Monestarsky, the editor of Earth Sciences magazine, states about the sudden emergence of living species:
A half-billion years ago the remarkably complex forms of animals that we see today suddenly appeared. This moment, right at the start of Earth's Cambrian Period, some 550 million years ago, marks the evolutionary explosion that filled the seas with the world's first complex creatures. The large animal phyla of today were present already in the early Cambrian and they were as distinct from each other then as they are today.4
Not being able to find answers to the question of how earth came to overflow with thousands of different animal species, evolutionists posit an imaginary period of 20 million years before the Cambrian Period to explain how life originated and "the unknown happened". This period is called the "evolutionary gap". No evidence for it has ever been found and the concept is still conveniently nebulous and undefined even today.
In 1984, numerous complex invertebrates were unearthed in Chengjiang, set in the central Yunnan plateau in the high country of southwest China. Among them were trilobites, now extinct, but no less complex in structure than any modern invertebrate.
The Swedish evolutionist paleontologist, Stefan Bengston, explains the situation as follows:
If any event in life's history resembles man's creation myths, it is this sudden diversification of marine life when multicellular organisms took over as the dominant actors in ecology and evolution. Baffling (and embarrassing) to Darwin, this event still dazzles us.5
The sudden appearance of these complex living beings with no predecessors is no less baffling (and embarrassing) for evolutionists today than it was for Darwin 135 years ago. In nearly a century and a half, they have advanced not one step beyond the point that stymied Darwin.
As may be seen, the fossil record indicates that living things did not evolve from primitive to advanced forms, but instead emerged all of a sudden and in a perfect state. The absence of the transitional forms is not peculiar to the Cambrian period. Not a single transitional form verifying the alleged evolutionary "progression" of vertebrates â€" from fish to amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals â€" has ever been found. Every living species appears instantaneously and in its current form, perfect and complete, in the fossil record.
In other words, living beings did not come into existence through evolution. They were created.

Other Comments by ertu

19. Comment #205791 by ertu on July 7, 2008 at 7:31 pm

Natural Selection
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 things to evolve. Colin Patterson, the senior paleontologist of the British Museum of Natural History in London and a prominent evolutionist, stresses that natural selection has never been observed to have the ability 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.
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.

Other Comments by ertu

20. Comment #205796 by ertu on July 7, 2008 at 7:34 pm

Dear darwinists
I know it is painful for you seing your false religion Darwinism nonsense collapsing. Just try to calm down and be polite.

Other Comments by ertu

21. Comment #205800 by ertu on July 7, 2008 at 7:43 pm

Darwinists. Allah is known through reason. We cant see him or hear but we know his eternal existence based on the incredible design in the universe. The emount of information in 1 gm DNA molecule is equal to 200 trillion books. That is thousand of times more than the books written in the entire human history. Of course that is only one of the endless evidences of an omnipotent creation by Allah. Claiming this to be a product of coincidences as the Darwinism nonsense claims is worse than claiming the books written in the entire number of the books written in the entire human history are products of chance. BE RATÄ°ONAL!!

Other Comments by ertu

22. Comment #205803 by ertu on July 7, 2008 at 7:46 pm

Darwinism worhisps chance as creator.

The Theory of Evolution is the Most Potent Spell in the World
Throughout this book it has been explained that the theory of evolution lacks any scientific evidence and that on the contrary, scientific proofs from such branches of science such as paleontology, microbiology and anatomy reveal it to be a bankrupt theory. It has been stressed that evolution is incompatible with scientific discoveries, reason and logic.
It needs to be made clear that anyone free of prejudice and the influence of any particular ideology, who uses only his reason and logic, will clearly understand that belief in the theory of evolution, which brings to mind the superstitions of societies with no knowledge of science or civilization, is quite impossible.
As has been explained above, those who believe in the theory of evolution think that a few atoms and molecules thrown into a huge vat could produce thinking, reasoning professors, university students, scientists such as Einstein and Galileo, artists such as Humphrey Bogart, Frank Sinatra and Pavarotti, as well as antelopes, lemon trees and carnations. Moreover, the scientists and professors who believe in this nonsense are educated people. That is why it is quite justifiable to speak of the theory of evolution as "the most potent spell in history." Never before has any other belief or idea so taken away peoples' powers of reason, refused to allow them to think intelligently and logically and hidden the truth from them as if they had been blindfolded. This is an even worse and unbelievable blindness than the Egyptians worshipping the Sun God Ra, totem worship in some parts of Africa, the people of Saba worshipping the Sun, the tribe of the Prophet Abraham worshipping idols they had made with their own hands or the people of the Prophet Moses worshipping the Golden Calf.
In fact, this situation is a lack of reason God points out in the Qur'an. He reveals in many verses that some peoples' minds will be closed and that they will be powerless to see the truth. Some of these verses are as follows:

As for those who disbelieve, it makes no difference to them whether you warn them or do not warn them, they will not believe. God has sealed up their hearts and hearing and over their eyes is a blindfold. They will have a terrible punishment. (Surat al-Baqara: 6-7)

…They have hearts they do not understand with. They have eyes they do not see with. They have ears they do not hear with. Such people are like cattle. No, they are even further astray! They are the unaware. (Surat al-A'raf: 179)

Other Comments by ertu

23. Comment #205810 by ertu on July 7, 2008 at 7:52 pm

Now darwinists design in the universe from well known physicists: Roger Penrose famous British pysicist and matematician:
"This now tells how precise the Creator's aim must have been, namely to an accuracy of one part in 10 10 . This is an extraordinary figure. One could not possibly even write the number down in full in the ordinary denary notation: it would be 1 followed by 10 10 successive 0's. Even if we were to write a 0 on each separate proton and on each separate neutron in the entire universe- and we could throw in all the other particles for good measure- we should fall far short of writing down the figure needed."
(Roger Penrose, The Emperor's New Mind, 1989; Michael Denton, Nature's Destiny, The New York: The Free Press, 1998, s. 9 )

Other Comments by ertu

24. Comment #205814 by ertu on July 7, 2008 at 7:54 pm

Foremost atheist physicist Hawking about the Big bang and delicate balance:
"If the rate of expansion one second after the big bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, the universe would have recollapsed before it ever reached its present size."
Stephen Hawking, A Brief History Of Time, Bantam Press, London: 1988, p. 121-125

Other Comments by ertu

25. Comment #205818 by ertu on July 7, 2008 at 7:57 pm

Paul Davies is also one of the most famous physicists in the world. He is talking about harmony and delicate balance which is evidence of course for Creation..

"Careful measurements puts the rate of expansion very close to a critical value at which the universe will just escape its own gravity and expand forever. A little slower and the cosmos would collapse, a little faster and the cosmic material would have long ago completely dispersed. It is interesting to ask precisely how delicately the rate of expansion has been "fine tuned". The big bang was not evidently, any old bang, but an explosion of exquisitely arranged magnitude."
(Paul Davies, Superforce: The Search for a Grand Unified Theory of Nature, 1984, s. 184)

"This now tells how precise the Creator's aim must have been, namely to an accuracy of one part in 10 10 . This is an extraordinary figure. One could not possibly even write the number down in full in the ordinary denary notation: it would be 1 followed by 10 10 successive 0's. Even if we were to write a 0 on each separate proton and on each separate neutron in the entire universe- and we could throw in all the other particles for good measure- we should fall far short of writing down the figure needed."
(Roger Penrose, The Emperor's New Mind, 1989; Michael Denton, Nature's Destiny, The New York: The Free Press, 1998, s. 9 )

Other Comments by ertu

26. Comment #205828 by ertu on July 7, 2008 at 8:02 pm

And that is from your leader Anthony Flew:

"Notoriously, confession is good for the soul. I will therefore begin by confessing that an atheist has to be embarrassed by the contemporary cosmological consensus. For it seems that the cosmologists are providing a scientific proof, that the universe had a beginning."
(Henry Margenau, Roy Abraham Vargesse. Cosmos, Bios, Theos. La Salle IL: Open Court Publishing, 1992, s. 241 )

Other Comments by ertu

27. Comment #205832 by ertu on July 7, 2008 at 8:07 pm

Darwinists Darwin lied to you. Here he admits why evolution is "ABSURD IN THE HIGHEST DEGREE"

"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."
Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, 6th Edition, 1928, reprint, p.167

Other Comments by ertu

28. Comment #205839 by ertu on July 7, 2008 at 8:11 pm

Dear Darwinists
Stop crying. Dont worship this chance nonsense. I know ıt hurts you seeing that your ideology is being refuted. But chance can not create anything. Just face it!!
Read Harun Yahya's books. 265 books free of charge in his website www.harunyahya.com
I guarantee you in 3-5 years there will be no darwinism and people will laugh at it.
Regards

Other Comments by ertu

29. Comment #205850 by ertu on July 7, 2008 at 8:18 pm

'A Half-Developed Eye Cannot See'
What comes to your mind first when you hear the word 'eye'? Are you aware that one of the most crucial things in life for you is your ability to see? Even if you are, have you ever thought what other signs your eye bears?
The eye is one of the most manifest pieces of evidence that living creatures are created. All sight organs, including animal eyes and the human eye, are extremely striking examples of a perfect design. This exceptional organ is so overwhelmingly complex that it surpasses even the most sophisticated devices in the world.
In order for an eye to see, all of its parts have to co-exist and work in harmony. For instance, if an eye happened to have lost its eyelid, but still had all the other parts such as the cornea, conjunctiva, iris, pupil, eye lenses, retina, choroid, eye muscles, and tear glands, it would still be greatly damaged and soon lose its seeing function. In the same manner, even if all its organelles were present, if the tear production were stopped, the eye would soon dry out and become blind.
'The chain of coincidences' posited by evolutionists loses all its meaning against the complex structure of the eye. It is not possible to explain the existence of the eye other than as a matter of special creation. The eye has a multi-sectioned complex system and, as discussed above, all of these individual sections had to come into existence at the same time. It is impossible for a half-developed eye to function at 'half capacity'. In such a circumstance, the act of seeing can by no means take place. An evolutionist scientist admits to this truth:
The common trait of the eyes and the wings is that they can only function if they are fully developed. In other words, a halfway-developed eye cannot see; a bird with half-formed wings cannot fly.13
In this case, we again face that very important question: who created all of the components of the eye all at once?
The owner of the eyes is obviously not the one who makes the decision about their formation. For it is impossible for a being devoid of the knowledge of what seeing is like, to desire to have a seeing organ and have it attached to his body. So we have to accept the existence of a Possessor of superior Wisdom Who has created living beings with senses such as seeing, hearing, and so on. Another claim is that unconscious cellsgained consciousness-requiring functions such as seeing and hearing by their own desire and effort. It is very clear that this is impossible. In the Qur'an, it is stated that seeing has been bestowed upon living beings by Allah:


Say: He it is Who brought you into being and made for you the ears and the eyes and the hearts: little is it that you give thanks. (Surat al-Mulk, 23)

Other Comments by ertu

30. Comment #205852 by ertu on July 7, 2008 at 8:19 pm

Brian now some design evidence of creation
A System Planned in its Every Detail
Breathing, eating, walking, etc, are very natural human functions. But most people do not think how these basic actions take place. For example, when you eat a fruit, you do not think how it will be made useful to your body. The only thing on your mind is eating a healthy meal; at the same time, your body is involved in extremely detailed processes unimaginable to you in order to make this meal a health-giving thing.
The digestive system where these detailed processes take place starts to function as soon as a piece of food is taken into the mouth. Being involved in the system right at the outset, the saliva wets the food and helps it to be ground by the teeth and slide down the oesophagus.
The oesophagus helps the food be transported to the stomach where a perfect balance is at work. Here, the food is digested by the hydrochloric acid present in the stomach. This acid is so strong that it has the capacity to dissolve not only the food but also the stomach walls. Of course, such a flaw is not permitted in this perfect system. A secretion called mucus which is secreted during digestion covers all the walls of the stomach and provides a perfect protection against the destructive effect of the hydrochloric acid. Thus the stomach is prevented from destroying itself.
The rest of the digestive system is likewise planned. The useful food pieces broken down by the digestive system are absorbed by the small intestine walls and enter the blood stream. The inner surface of the small intestine is covered with tiny tendrils called 'villus'. On top of the cells over the villus are microscopic extensions called the microvillus. These extensions function as pumps to absorb the nutrition. This way the nutrition absorbed by these pumps is delivered all around the body by the circulatory system.
The point that deserves attention here is that evolution can by no means explain the system briefly summarised earlier. Evolution maintains that today's complex organisms have evolved from primitive beings by the gradual accumulation of small structural changes. However, as stated clearly, the system in the stomach could in no way have been formed step by step. The absence of even one factor would bring about the death of the organism.
When food is received into the stomach, the gastric juices acquire the ability to break down food as a result of a series of chemical changes. Now, imagine a living being in the so-called evolutionary process in whose body such a planned chemical transformation is not possible. This living being, unable to acquire this ability, would not be able to digest the food it ate and would starve to death with an undigested mass of food in its stomach.
In addition, during the secretion of this dissolving acid, the stomach walls simultaneously have to produce the secretion called mucus. Otherwise, the acid in the stomach would destroy the stomach. Therefore, in order for life to continue, the stomach must secrete both fluids (acid and mucus) at the same time. This shows that not a step-by-step coincidental evolution but a conscious creation with all its systems must, in effect, have been at work.
What all this shows is that the human body resembles a huge factory made up of many small machines that work together in perfect harmony. Just as all factories have a designer, an engineer and a planner, the human body has an Exalted Creator.

Other Comments by ertu

31. Comment #205853 by ertu on July 7, 2008 at 8:21 pm

More design in the creation

From Caterpillar to Butterfly
If you had 450-500 eggs and if you had to preserve them outside, what would you do? The wisest course for you would be to take precautions to prevent them from being scattered around, say, by the wind, or other environmental factors. Being one of the animals that lay the most eggs at one time (450-500), the silkworms use a very intelligent way to protect their eggs: they unite the eggs with a viscous substance (thread) they secrete to prevent them from being scattered around.
The caterpillars that pop out of their eggs firstly find a safe branch for themselves and then get tied to this branch with the same thread. Later, to promote their own development, they start to spin a cocoon for themselves with the thread they secrete. It takes 3-4 days for a caterpillar that has opened its eyes very recently to life to complete this process. During this period, the caterpillar makes thousands of turns and produces a thread an average of 900-1,500 metres long.14 At the end of this process, it starts a new task through which it undergoes a metamorphosis to become an elegant butterfly.
Neither the action taken by the mother silkworm to protect its eggs, nor the behaviour of a tiny caterpillar devoid of any awareness, education or knowledge can be explained by evolution. First of all, the ability of the mother to produce the thread it uses to secure its eggs is miraculous. The newly-born caterpillar's knowing the most suitable environment for itself, its spinning a cocoon in accordance with it, its undergoing a metamorphosis, and its coming through this metamorphosis without any problem are beyond human comprehension. Hence, we can simply say that each caterpillar is born into the world with a foreknowledge of what to do, which means that it was 'taught' all of these things before it was born.
Let us explain this with an example. What would you think if you saw a new-born baby standing up a few hours after his birth, getting together the things he needs to make his bed (like quilt, pillow, mattress), and later putting all these together neatly, making his bed and lying down on it? After you recover from the shock of the event, you would probably think that the baby must have been taught in an extraordinary way in his mother's womb to perform such a process. The case of the caterpillars is no different from the baby in this example.
This again leads us to the same conclusions: these living creatures come into life, behave and live in the way determined by Allah Who has created them. The Qur'anic verse stating that Allah has inspired the honeybee and commanded it to make honey (Surat an-Nahl, 68-69) provides an example of the great secret of the world of living beings. This secret is that all living beings have bowed to Allah's will and follow the fate determined by Him. This is why the honeybee makes honey and the silkworm produces silk.

Other Comments by ertu

32. Comment #205856 by ertu on July 7, 2008 at 8:23 pm

More Design evidence for creation:

The Animal with the Longest
Neck: The Giraffe
Giraffes have many amazing characteristics. One of these is that their neck stands on 7 vertebrae, just like that of all other mammals, even though it is so long. Another amazing fact about giraffes is that they do not have any problem pumping blood up to their brain on top of their long neck. A little thinking would make one notice how difficult it must be to have the blood pumped so high. But giraffes do not have any problem about this, because their hearts are equipped with features to pump blood as high as necessary. This enables them to carry on with their lives effortlessly.
Yet they still face another problem while they drink water. Essentially, giraffes should have died of high blood pressure every time they bent down to drink water. However, the perfect system in their necks completely eliminates this risk. When they bend down, the valves in their neck vessels are shut down and they prevent excess blood from flowing to the brain.
There is no doubt that the giraffes did not acquire these traits by planning them in accordance with their needs. It is even more implausible to say that all these vital features were shaped over time through a gradual evolutionary process. In order for a giraffe to stay alive, it is vital for it to have a pumping system to transmit blood to the brain and a valve system to prevent high blood pressure the minute it bends down. If any one of these characteristics did not exist or did not function properly, then it would be impossible for the giraffe to go on living.
The conclusion to be derived from all this is that the giraffe species was born into the world with all the characteristics vital for its living. It is impossible for a non-existent being to master its body and acquire essential traits consciously. So, giraffes unquestionably prove that they are created by a conscious creation, that is by Allah.

Other Comments by ertu

33. Comment #205862 by ertu on July 7, 2008 at 8:28 pm

To claim that bombardier beedle to be a product of chance is so irrational and nonscientific. ACTUALLY It is so SILLY:

Bombardier Beetle
The bombardier beetle is an insect on which an enormous amount of research has been done. The trait that renders this insect so popular is that it uses chemical methods to protect itself from its enemies.
In moments of danger, the insect squirts hydrogen peroxide and hydroquinone stored in its body towards the enemy to protect itself. Prior to battle, specialised structures called secretory lobes make a very concentrated mixture of these two chemicals. The mixture is stored in a separate compartment called the storage chamber. This compartment is connected to a second one called the explosion chamber. The two compartments are kept separate from one another by a sphincter muscle. The moment the insect senses danger, it squeezes the muscles surrounding the storage chamber while simultaneously relaxing the sphincter muscle, and the chemical in the storage chamber is transferred to the explosion chamber. A large quantity of heat is released and a vaporisation occurs. The released vapour and the oxygen gas exert pressure on the walls of the explosion chamber and this chemical is squirted at the enemy through a channel leading outward from the beetle's body.17
It is still a great mystery to researchers how an insect can harbour inside itself a powerful system potent enough to trigger a chemical reaction that could easily cause it harm while also isolating itself from the effects of that system. No doubt, the existence and working of this system is too complicated to be attributed to the insect itself. It is still a matter of discussion how the bombardier beetle makes such a system work within its tiny body measuring about 2 cm in length, when human experts can perform it only in laboratories.
The only apparent truth here is that this insect is a concrete example completely refuting the theory of evolution, because it is impossible for this complex chemical system to have been shaped by a series of coincidental variations and passed on to future generations. Even a minor deficiency or 'defect' in a single piece of the system would leave the animal defenceless, so that it would soon be killed or it would cause it to blow itself up. Therefore, the only explanation is that the chemical weapon in the insect's body had come into being with all its parts all at once and without any defect.

Other Comments by ertu

34. Comment #205875 by ertu on July 7, 2008 at 8:39 pm

Stop Crying Darwinists and atheists.
Read Harun Yahya's books. There is no evolution.
Stop worshipping chance. Allah says in Quran:

"Instead of Allah you worship only idols. You are inventing a lie. Those you worship besides Allah have no power to provide for you. So seek your provision from Allah and worship Him and give thanks to Him. It is to Him you will be returned.'" (29/17)

Other Comments by ertu

35. Comment #205883 by ertu on July 7, 2008 at 8:43 pm

Dear Darwinists
I can only warn you. You were created and you are responsible to your GOD. This life has a purpose. You will give an account at the end in the hereafter. Think about that!!
Regards

Other Comments by ertu

36. Comment #206073 by ertu on July 8, 2008 at 4:41 am

The neo-Darwinist model, which is the "mainstream" argument today, proposes that life evolved through two mechanisms: "NATURAL SELECTION" and "MUTATION". According to this suggestion, Natural selection and mutation are two complementary factors. First, random mutations in the genetic structure of living things help new traits to be developed, and then suitable ones are selected by natural selection. And living things therefore evolve.
To test such a hypothesis, let's see how these mechanisms work.
Darwin was the first person to claim that NATURAL SELECTION had an evolutionary force. He then erected his entire theory on it. The name he gave to his book "The Origin of Species, by means of Natural Selection" indicates that natural selection was the basis of Darwin's theory.
However, since Darwin's time there has not been a single piece of evidence to show that natural selection causes one species to evolve into another .
Natural selection holds that those living things that are more suited to the natural conditions of their habitats will succeed and have offspring, whereas those which are unfit will vanish. Take, for example, a herd of deer. If the deer are threatened by predators, naturally those that can run faster will survive. This is true. But no matter how long this process goes on, it will never transform deer into another living species. As far as their genetic material allows them to do so, there will be faster-running deer. But deer will always remain deer.
Natural selection has no power to improve genetic material. It can not change DNA by any means. It only eliminates the defective, weak or sick individuals in the population. 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". (Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species: A Facsimile of the First Edition, Harvard University Press, 1964, p. 177.)
This is why neo-Darwinism has had to add "mutations" alongside "natural selection" as the "cause of favourable variations". However as we shall see, mutations can only be "the cause of unfavourable changes".

Other Comments by ertu

37. Comment #206077 by ertu on July 8, 2008 at 4:44 am

Mutations
Mutations are defined as breaks or replacements that take place in the genetic material, or DNA. These breaks or replacements are the result of harmful external effects such as radiation or chemical action. Every mutation is an "accident". A mutation either damages the nucleotides making up the DNA or changes their locations. In general, it leads to cancer or various other disorders.
However evolutionists claim that mutations transform living organisms into more advanced and perfect forms. But scientific observations and experiments have shown that mutations are harmful. The effects of mutations have been experienced by people in Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Chernobyl: death, disability, and freaks of nature…
It is obvious that DNA has a very complex structure and that random effects can only harm that structure. B.G. Ranganathan states:
First, genuine mutations are very rare in nature. Secondly, most mutations are harmful since they are random, rather than orderly changes in the structure of genes; any random change in a highly ordered system will be for the worse, not for the better. For example, if an earthquake were to shake a highly ordered structure such as a building, there would be a random change in the framework of the building which, in all probability, would not be an improvement. (B. G. Ranganathan, Origins?, Pennsylvania: The Banner Of Truth Trust, 1988, p.7)

Besides, not surprisingly, no useful mutation has ever been observed. All mutations have proved to be harmful. All efforts put into "generating a useful mutation" have resulted in failure. For decades, evolutionists carried out many experiments on fruit flies, hoping to observe any single beneficial mutation. Generation upon generation of these flies were mutated, yet no useful mutation was ever observed. In all the thousands of fly-breeding experiments carried out for more than fifty years, a distinct new species has never been seen to emerge... nor even a new enzyme.
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.( Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution, London: River Publishing, 1984, p. 70.)

The same holds true for man. All mutations that take place in humans result in physical deformities, in infirmities such as mongolism, Down syndrome, albinism, dwarfism or cancer. 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"â€"evolution is alleged to produce better forms that are better fitted to survive.
To summarise, there are two main properties of mutations:
l ) The direct effect of mutations is harmful: Since they occur accidentally, they almost always damage the living organism.
2 ) Mutations add no new information to an organism's DNA: The genetic information is either destroyed, or its place in the sequence is changed. Thus, mutations do not lead to a new organ or a new trait leading to the emergance of a new species. They only cause abnormalities like a leg sticking out of the head, or an ear out of the abdomen.
Briefly, it is impossible for living beings to have evolved, because there exists no mechanism in nature that might cause them to do so. This agrees with the evidence of the fossil record, which demonstrates that this scenario is far removed from reality.

Other Comments by ertu

38. Comment #206085 by ertu on July 8, 2008 at 4:53 am

This is how life was created and not evolved from the fossil record:
Life Emerged on Earth Suddenly and in Complex Forms
When terrestrial strata and the fossil record are examined, it is to be seen that all living organisms appeared simultaneously. The oldest stratum of the earth in which fossils of living creatures have been found is that of the Cambrian, which has an estimated age of 500-550 million years.
The living creatures found in the strata belonging to the Cambrian period emerged all of a sudden in the fossil record-there are no pre-existing ancestors. The fossils found in Cambrian rocks belonged to snails, trilobites, sponges, earthworms, jellyfish, sea hedgehogs, and other complex invertebrates. This wide mosaic of living organisms made up of such a great number of complex creatures emerged so suddenly that this miraculous event is referred to as the "Cambrian Explosion" in geological literature.
Most of the creatures in this layer have complex systems have complex systems and advanced structures, such as eyes, gills, and circulatory systems, exactly the same as those in modern specimens. For instance, the double-lensed, combed eye structure of trilobites is a wonder of creation. David Raup, a professor of geology in Harvard, Rochester, and Chicago Universities, says: "the trilobites 450 million years ago used an optimal design which would require a well trained and imaginative optical engineer to develop today".
These complex invertebrates emerged suddenly and completely without having any link or any transitional form between them and the unicellular organisms, which were the only life forms on earth prior to them.
Richard Monastersky, a science journalist at Science News, one of the popular publications of evolutionist literature, states the following about the "Cambrian Explosion", which is a deathtrap for evolutionary theory:
A half-billion years ago, the remarkably complex forms of animals we see today suddenly appeared. This moment, right at the start of Earth's Cambrian Period, some 550 million years ago, marks the evolutionary explosion that filled the seas with the earth's first complex creatures. ...the large animal phyla of today were present already in the early Cambrian ...and they were as distinct from each other as they are today.
Deeper investigation into the Cambrian Explosion shows what a great dilemma it creates for the theory of evolution. Recent findings indicate that almost all phyla, the most basic animal divisions, emerged abruptly in the Cambrian period. An article published in Science magazine in 2001 says: "The beginning of the Cambrian period, some 545 million years ago, saw the sudden appearance in the fossil record of almost all the main types of animals (phyla) that still dominate the biota today".30 The same article notes that for such complex and distinct living groups to be explained according to the theory of evolution, very rich fossil beds showing a gradual developmental process should have been found, but this has not yet proved possible:
This differential evolution and dispersal, too, must have required a previous history of the group for which there is no fossil record.
How the earth came to overflow with such a great number of animal species all of a sudden, and how these distinct types of species with no common ancestors could have emerged, is a question that remains unanswered by evolutionists. The Oxford University zoologist Richard Dawkins, one of the foremost advocates of evolutionist thought in the world, comments on this reality that undermines the very foundation of all the arguments he has been defending:
For example the Cambrian strata of rocks... are the oldest ones in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. 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 planted there, without any evolutionary history.
As Dawkins is forced to acknowledge, the Cambrian Explosion is strong evidence for creation, because creation is the only way to explain the fully-formed emergence of life on earth. Douglas Futuyma, a prominent evolutionist biologist admits this fact: "Organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed or they did not. If they did not, they must have developed from pre-existing species by some process of modification. If they did appear in a fully developed state, they must indeed have been created by some omnipotent intelligence." Darwin himself recognised the possibility of this when he wrote: "If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life all at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of descent with slow modification through natural selection." The Cambrian Period is nothing more or less than Darwin's "fatal stroke". This is why the Swiss evolutionist paleoanthropologist Stefan Bengtson, who confesses the lack of transitional links while describing the Cambrian Age, makes the following comment: "Baffling (and embarrasing) to Darwin, this event still dazzles us".
Obviously, the fossil record indicates that living things did not evolve from primitive to the advanced forms, but instead emerged all of a sudden and in a perfect state. In short, living beings did not come into existence by evolution, they were created.

Other Comments by ertu

39. Comment #206201 by ertu on July 8, 2008 at 7:04 am

Darwin gave us a very concrete criteria to falsify his theory:

"If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life all at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of descent with slow modification through natural selection."
Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species: A Facsimile of the First Edition, Harvard University Press, 1964, p. 302

In fact with cambrian explosion 50 phylum appears allu a sudden without any ancestors. That means there is no evolution of course. They were created by GOD.
Richard is aware of this fact. He admitted that there is no evolution at cambrian period with these words:
Richard Dawkins:"The Cambrian strata of rocks, are the oldest ones in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. 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 planted there, without any evolutionary history."
Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, London: W. W. Norton 1986, p. 229.

So that means he knows better than any of you that evolution never happened. You may ask why does he still defends this Darwinism nonsense?
The answer is give n by Richard:
Richard Dawkins:

"Before Darwin, it was difficult to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist and Darwin made it easy to become an intellectual atheist"
Richard Dawkins on Evolution and Religion, from an interview by Ben Wattenberg
Aired on November 8, 1996, PBS Show Think Tank.
That is the reason to keep atheism alive.
So Darwinism is not science. Everybody especially richard knows this fact. But that is his ideology.
Darwinism is a superstitious religion. Thats it..

Other Comments by ertu

40. Comment #206220 by ertu on July 8, 2008 at 7:18 am

Darwinists
It is very painful for you that your false deity darwinism (chance) nonsense to be refuted. I understand that. It hurts. You feel the pain down in your belly. But try to stay calm. Be polite dont insult anybody.
Face the reality.
Read Harun Yahya's books. He destroyed darwinism atheism and matrialism worldwide.
That is all I can do to help you out, to rescue from your bad situation that you are in..
Regards

Other Comments by ertu

41. Comment #206237 by ertu on July 8, 2008 at 7:32 am

There are billions of different protein molecules in milions of species. Even a single protein to come into being by coincidences is impossible mathetatically and statistically. That diprove the Evolution at the very basic level Now I will prove you this scientifically:

Proteins Challenge Chance
So much for the cell, but the theory of evolution fails even to account for the building-blocks of a cell. The formation, under natural conditions, of just one single protein out of the thousands of complex protein molecules making up the cell is impossible.
Proteins are giant molecules consisting of smaller units called "amino acids" that are arranged in a particular sequence in certain quantities and structures. These units constitute the building blocks of a living protein. The simplest protein is composed of 50 amino acids, but there are some that contain thousands.
The crucial point is this. The absence, addition, or replacement of a single amino acid in the structure of a protein causes the protein to become a useless molecular heap. Every amino acid has to be in the right place and in the right order. The theory of evolution, which claims that life emerged as a result of chance, is quite helpless in the face of this order, since it is too wondrous to be explained by coincidence. (Furthermore the theory cannot even substantiate the claim of the accidental formation of proteins, as will be discussed later.)
The fact that it is quite impossible for the functional structure of proteins to come about by chance can easily be observed even by simple probability calculations that anybody can understand.
For instance, an average-sized protein molecule composed of 288 amino acids, and contains twelve different types of amino acids can be arranged in 10300 different ways. (This is an astronomically huge number, consisting of 1 followed by 300 zeros.) Of all these possible sequences, only one forms the desired protein molecule. The rest of them are amino-acid chains that are either totally useless or else potentially harmful to living things.
In other words, the probability of the formation of only one protein molecule is "1 in 10300". The probability of this "1" to occur is practically nil. (In practice, probabilities smaller than 1 over 1050 are thought of as "zero probability").

Other Comments by ertu

42. Comment #206262 by ertu on July 8, 2008 at 7:54 am

Left-handed Proteins
Let us now examine in detail why the evolutionist scenario regarding the formation of proteins is impossible.
Even the correct sequence of the right amino acids is still not enough for the formation of a functional protein molecule. In addition to these requirements, each of the 20 different types of amino acids present in the composition of proteins must be left-handed. There are two different types of amino acids-as of all organic molecules-called "left-handed" and "right-handed". The difference between them is the mirror-symmetry between their three dimensional structures, which is similar to that of a person's right and left hands.
Amino acids of either of these two types can easily bond with one another. But one astonishing fact that has been revealed by research is that all the proteins in plants and animals on this planet, from the simplest organism to the most complex, are made up of left-handed amino acids. If even a single right-handed amino acid gets attached to the structure of a protein, the protein is rendered useless. In a series of experiments, surprisingly, bacteria that were exposed to right-handed amino acids immediately destroyed them. In some cases, they produced usable left-handed amino acids from the fractured components.
Let us for an instant suppose that life came about by chance as evolutionists claim it did. In this case, the right- and left-handed amino acids that were generated by chance should be present in roughly equal proportions in nature. Therefore, all living things should have both right- and left-handed amino acids in their constitution, because chemically it is possible for amino acids of both types to combine with each other. However, as we know, in the real world the proteins existing in all living organisms are made up only of left-handed amino acids.
The question of how proteins can pick out only the left-handed ones from among all amino acids, and how not even a single right-handed amino acid gets involved in the life process, is a problem that still baffles evolutionists. Such a specific and conscious selection constitutes one of the greatest impasses facing the theory of evolution.
Moreover, this characteristic of proteins makes the problem facing evolutionists with respect to "coincidence" even worse. In order for a "meaningful" protein to be generated, it is not enough for the amino acids to be present in a particular number and sequence, and to be combined together in the right three-dimensional design. Additionally, all these amino acids have to be left-handed: not even one of them can be right-handed. Yet there is no natural selection mechanism which can identify that a right-handed amino acid has been added to the sequence and recognise that it must therefore be removed from the chain. This situation once more eliminates for good the possibility of coincidence and chance.
The Brittanica Science Encyclopaedia, which is an outspoken defender of evolution, states that the amino acids of all the living organisms on earth, and the building blocks of complex polymers such as proteins, have the same left-handed asymmetry. It adds that this is tantamount to tossing a coin a million times and always getting heads. The same encyclopaedia states that it is impossible to understand why molecules become left-handed or right-handed, and that this choice is fascinatingly related to the origin of life on earth.
If a coin always turns up heads when tossed a million times, is it more logical to attribute that to chance, or else to accept that there is conscious intervention going on? The answer should be obvious. However, obvious though it may be, evolutionists still take refuge in coincidence, simply because they do not want to accept the existence of "conscious intervention".
A situation similar to the left-handedness of amino acids also exists with respect to nucleotides, the smallest units of the nucleic acids, DNA and RNA. In contrast to proteins, in which only left-handed amino acids are chosen, in the case of the nucleic acids, the preferred forms of their nucleotide components are always right-handed. This is another fact that can never be explained by coincidence.
In conclusion, it is proven beyond a shadow of doubt by the probabilities we have examined that the origin of life cannot be explained by chance. If we attempt to calculate the probability of an average-sized protein consisting of 400 amino acids being selected only from left-handed amino acids, we come up with a probability of 1 in 2400, or 10120. Just for a comparison, let us remember that the number of electrons in the universe is estimated at 1079, which although vast, is a much smaller number. The probability of these amino acids forming the required sequence and functional form would generate much larger numbers. If we add these probabilities to each other, and if we go on to work out the probabilities of even higher numbers and types of proteins, the calculations become inconceivable.

Other Comments by ertu

43. Comment #206264 by ertu on July 8, 2008 at 7:55 am

Left-handed Proteins
Let us now examine in detail why the evolutionist scenario regarding the formation of proteins is impossible.
Even the correct sequence of the right amino acids is still not enough for the formation of a functional protein molecule. In addition to these requirements, each of the 20 different types of amino acids present in th