9th April 2009. Please read these two posts first:
a) Evolution – a look at the mutation waddle (February 7, 2008)
https://lwtc247.wordpress.com/2008/02/07/evolution-a-look-at-the-mutation-twaddle/
b) Why I can’t accept the evolutionists (8th June 2008)
https://lwtc247.wordpress.com/2008/06/08/why-i-cant-accept-the-evolutionists/
thank you.
{13-Mar 09: The original publication date of this post was 3-March 2009. I am changing the date of this post to 12 march so that it comes second after my latest post: “Listen, oh ye Christians to thy learned and righteous scholars” which, in my opinion, addresses the fundamental force behind evolutionary thinking, the ‘movement’ and associated propaganda.
False religions such as neoDarwinism need to be exposed for the pile of spin and dreamt-up fantasies, devoid of science, yet projected as science, for lies that they are (lets debte that if you disagree) and they WILL be exposed. In the mean time, one should not let evolution, or Illuminati, Common Purpose, Black Pope, Freemasosny, Truth Vibrations, Druidism etc. distract us from the ULTIMATE, all embracing conspiracy and that is to pull you away from God. That dear readers, the deviations from the ONE way of life, which guarantees success in this life and the next, are the ROOT cause of ALL conflict that has ever been and ever will be.
That is why this post, is of today, being placed number two on my blog. I welcome and still want to hear in particular, people who support what has become publically known as Darwins theory of evolution to try and convince me otherwise.}
I beleive passionately about debating “things Evolution” such as:
1) The origin of the first life form on earth.
2) Consciousness, morality (amongst orgnaic molecules) and metaphysics.
3) The complete lack of fossils showing mankind came from apes and absence of missing link for ALL other spcies.
4) Why, with hundreds of thousands of species, do we not recognise instances of speciation today, and why in amongst a sea of mutations, can nobody declare regressive mutations?.
5) The mechanism and mathematics of speciation.
6) Exonuclear DNA and the emergence of viral form of life.
7) Enzymic replication mechanisms whose synthesis dependens entirely fully functional cells designed (in part) for that purpose.
6) The origin, dynamics and mechanics of warm and cold blooded fauna (i.e. the split between warm and cold blooded animals)
7) The microscale development of symbiotic relationships. (e.g. wasps that lay their eggs in one creature only)
8) The divisions between the plant and animal kindgom including slime moulds and fungi.
9) The chemical synthesis and assembly of cells – the only structure known to be support life
10) The physics of the big bang.
11) The age and elemental composition of the Earth in comparison to the known atomic physics of nuclear stability, synthesis and abundance. (e.g. where did the elemets after iron come from? – was there time for a pre-solar system supernovae – inc star formation etc.)
12) The inevitability of death.
13) The scientific components within Monotheism (see leter).
14) Why the branches of ‘Evolutionists’ spend little time, if any!, attacking Satanism but spend large amounts of time attacking Monotheism {I originally had that in reverse! Sorry}.
15) Lets examine the amount of time spent scruitinising religion as apposed to the theories NeoDarwinism.
16) The actual ‘religious’ beliefs (inc Kabalism etc) of those who play a strong role in ‘leading’ our society.
17) What Darwin actually theorised inc. caveats issued, all minus the spin
Yeah, bring on the discussions. But why do I get the feeling there will be little or no discussion on these matters. I suspect it as usuall the focus will be on trying to disprove God and NOT on the scientific claims/validity of neoDarwinism
Vatican hosts Darwin conference – BBC
Page last updated at 02:27 GMT, Tuesday, 3 March 2009
This has been sent to me over the years…
Findings of Dr. Tariq Al Swaidan
might grasp your attention:
Dr.Tarig Al Swaidan discovered some verses in the
Holy Qur’an
That mention one thing is equal to another,
i.e. men are equal to women.
Although this makes sense grammatically,
the astonishing fact is that the number of
times the word man appears in
the Holy Qur’an
is 24 and number of times the word
woman appears is also 24,
therefore not only is this phrase correct in
the grammatical sense but also true mathematically,
i.e. 24 = 24.
Upon further analysis of various verses,
he discovered that this is consistent throughout the wholeHoly Qur’an
where it says one thing is like another.
See below for astonishing result of
the words mentioned number of times in Arabic
Holy Qur’an
Dunia (one name for life) 115 .
Aakhirat (one name for the life after this world) 115
Malaika (Angels) 88 . Shayteen (Satan) 88
Life 145 Death 145
Benefit 50 Corrupt 50
People 50 Messengers 50
Eblees (king of devils) 11 . Seek refuge from Eblees 11
Museebah (calamity) 75 . Thanks ! 75
Spending (Sadaqah) 73 . Satisfaction 73
People who are mislead 17 Dead people 17
Muslimeen 41 J Jihad 41
Gold 8 Easy life 8
Magic 60 Fitnah (dissuasion, misleading) ! 60
Zakat (Taxes Muslims pay to the poor) 32
Barakah (Increasing or blessings of wealth) 32
Mind 49 Noor 49
Tongue 25 Sermon 25
Desite 8 Fear 8
Speaking publicly 18 Publicising 18
Hardship 114 …. Patience 114
Muhammed 4 Sharee’ah (Muhammed’s teachings) 4
Man 24 . Woman 24
And amazingly enough have a look how many times
the following words appear:
Salat 5, Month 12 , Day 365, (N.b. Gregorian callendar = 1582)
Sea 32, Land 13
Sea + land = 32 + 13 = 45
Sea = 32/45*100q.=71.11111111%
Land = 13/45*100 = 28.88888889%
Sea + land 100.00%
Modern science has only recently proven that the water covers
71.111% of the
earth, while the land covers 28.889%.Is this all a coincidence? Question is that
Who taught Prophet Muhammed(PBUH) all this?
Reply automatically comes in mind
ALMIGHTY ALLAH
taught him.This as the
Holy Qur’an
also tells us this.
please pass this on to all your friends
Ayat 87 of Suraa (Chapter)
Al-Anbia !para 17 :
LA ILAHA ILA ANTA
SUBHANAKA INI KUNTU MINA ZALIMEEN.
–
–
–
–
–
Living with the Conspiracy 24-7 
No one claims that we came from apes. That is a straw man you set up to knock down because you can’t argue about the real theories.
You’re right there will be little discussion on the matters because you’re not intelligent enough to raise yourself to a level of serious debate.
Shalom and thanks for taking the time to post a comment.
“No one claims that we came from apes.” – That is certainly the public face of neoDarwinism, as witnessed from the endless use of the multi figure ‘morphing diagram’ of an ape rising into a man e.g. http://massthink.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/evolution.jpg and it is one held by a number of people who call themselves scientists. So if nobody says that, why don’t the various branches of NeoDarwinists spend time saying it is wrong? I wonder.
But even if you say man and ape came from a common ancestor which was neither ape nor man, there is still no evidence whatsoever for that – unless you can educate me otherwise. I’m willing to accept such a thing, but I need evidence.
Sorry you felt it was a straw man. there was no intention on my part for it to be so. I can easily bin that so we can discuss something you don’t think is straw man. Choose a point.
Cheers.
Salam…
I really love the facts on how many times the words appeared in the Quran. Mind if i copy it and post it in my blog?
I think by the time u read this comment, i posted it adi.
If u’re not ok with it, i’m more than ok to take it out again.
;-)
Waalaikumassalam AkMaR.
Feel free to use whatever you like. I haven’t checked the numbers either, so I’m taking a bit of a risk in publishing it, but I’ve never heard it challenged by knowledgeable friends. On that basis I give it the benefit of any doubt. But I know it would seem likely the Giver of Signs would do such a thing.
As I am “not intelligent enough” then perhaps lekowitz may consider your perspective on the matter. So what’s your opinion that of what lekowitz says: “No one claims that we came from apes”??
Muslims dispute “man was an ape” on a number of grounds, one being because man, not ape, not pre-man, but MAN is described as being created in the Qur’an from clay. An intelligent man.
Mankind can change (From one man and woman came the Chinese, the Indians, the Africans, The (war loving) whites, Australian aborigines etc.. Allah(swt) also says “We have the power to shape you and change you”, it implies that Allah exercised that power. Allah(swt) also says: “We made you into nations so that you may get to know one another” {I’m paraphrasing} which makes me think we were changed, so that by getting to know others who group (perhaps understandably) according to race, then ALL of us have an opportunity to learn tolerance, harmony and an deeper appreciation of the creation of Allah(swt) – pssst.. pity we let other things interfere with that simple yet desirable picture.
But that is moving from the focus of the claims of neoDarwinism which has forced it’s identity onto “western science”. Have you come across aspects of Darwinism that you think are unfounded?
Cheers.
Inshallah koiseen. (Excuse my spelling. Like the Prophet I’m illiterate in Arabic)
“Evolution” does not qualify as a scientific theory, it generates no testable hypotheses. Since the days of Darwin observation has presented no sign of speciation. Rather, we have seen the extinction of several species.
My converstations with people who’ve graduated in the biological sciences in the past 20yrs have left me with the impression they have little grasp on the principles of methodology.
If they’d stuck with the approach of the monk Mendel and not gone desperately down the route of “the central dogma of modern biology” we might have increased the sum of human knowledge.
By the by, the obsession with genetics is sales driven.
In a number of ways you are right. NeoDarwinism* is a pseudoscience. One or two quite abstract aspects of biological life, such as mutation – the ‘gold standard’ of neoDarwinism, (which is empirical and therefore palatable in terms of physical science) gets stretched to obscurity and science-fantasy.
Yet another thing Dawkinites miss out, is why if mutation is beneficial (development of thorns, toxins, hard keratin shells, echo location etc) then why does the cell have numerous mechanisms to erase/correct mutations. Are the Dawkinites saying the repair mechanisms have a consciousness, about which mutation WILL or WON’T be bad (crystal ball included!). That a thorn, or say the camouflage abilities of a cuttle fish or squid, develops from a random mutation is laughable not least because it cannot answer why a symbiotic creature mutates in exactly the right way, in step, to counteract the specialisation of the initial mutated creature. If a connected species can mutate in response to the initial mutation, then there is no guarntee that other predators won’t mutate in kind, once again leaving the initially mutated creature no better off.
Also, mutations are ONLY ever talked about in a binary sense – on of off, i.e. They SUDDENLY appear. This is of course nonsense. By neoDarwinists own claims, mutations take place over incredibly long periods. Meaning that over hundreds of thousands of years a defence mechanism offered questionable protection at best or as it was somehow developing it was useless at worst. And if you examine the first cell genetic mutation, to think that the mutation alone is all that’s needed to produce a defence toxin for example, is simply nonsense.
“the extinction of several species.” – yes. This is my understanding of the fossil record too. Species ‘suddenly’ appear and ‘suddenly’ disappear. Another thing the neoDarwinists conveniently forget.
“little grasp on the principles of methodology.” – I would empathise with that view. What they do have a firm grasp on, is repeating the pseudo-science told to them in their books. I can’t imagine many students getting a gpa of 4.00 if they somehow managed to argue against evolution within the narrow confines of an exam paper – if of course an exam paper wasn’t just seeking to have the students carry on the same old spiel contained within their textbooks.
Religion haters and ‘passive dislikers of religion’, only have evolution as a means to attack God. We all know Physical science cannot disprove that which may have created it (which by definition means the Creator must exist outside physical science) so all they can do is look for contradictions in religious texts (in the Qur’an there are none) such as the origin of man.
They have failed and they will ALWAYS fail, but they will not stop.
*NeoDarwinism = spun darwinism. From the extracts I’ve seen of Darwins work, he poses a number of problems/asks a number of questions about what we come to know today as speciation. To my knowledge, he was proposing a theory, which I guess is fair enough. I suspect dark powers saw this an opportunity to pull people away from God and so inflated Darwins ego and egged him on to abandon any notion of trying to answer his own questions and instead propose it as a fact. And it seems to me, those who shout loudest in favour of Darwin proceeded his death.
Just to clarify. NeoDarwinists say in one breath that mutation develoment takes place over vey long periods of time, but when they discuss physical specalisation like giraffes long neck or the aye-aye’s boney finger then, in the other breath they talk of that physical aspect as if it was SUDDEN.
E.g. The aye-aye’s finger developed like that because the grubs it feeds on were deep inside the tree.
“By the by, the obsession with genetics is sales driven.” – Nice :)
Regarding a common ancestor (or ancestors, I certainlyy don’t subscribe to the “theory” that we’re all descended from a single male/female pair), I offer autralopithecus afarensis, or Lucy, as fairly reasonable supporting evidence for evolution: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/07/1/l_071_01.html
Hi.
Thanks for commenting. I wrote about Lucy a number of years back, sadly I’ve forgotton most of it.
Could you explain what it is about Lucy that proves she is our ancestor?
Bis mi’lie
In the need for brevity, just a few additions to your points.
Science is a tool not a belief system. It’s a powerful tool but limited by the necessity of controlling variables.
One of the features of religion is to help us cope with uncontrollable variables.
You mentioned fossils. The fossil records are but the edges of burned photograph snapshots through time.
We use the Linnaean taxonomy but should not be bound by it. Are you acquainted with Henry Gee’s “Deep Time” ?? (Disregard his association with Nature magazine.)
That Vatican conference you link to is a hiding to nothing. The Intelligent Designers and Fundies are as vulnerable to trashing as the Evolutionists.
Your whole topic is one where it is difficult not to start in the middle but you mention events leading up to a beginning, and the end.
For us there are two great mysteries in life. Sex and death.
As Jean Luc Goddard said “All I need to make a movie are a girl and a gun.”
Hum dilly lie.
hi sam
“Science is a tool not a belief system.” – Unfortunately sam, I feel it IS presented as a belief system by some, and accepted as such by others. It is also a system which hoisted-up to try and destroy other peoples religious belief.
With you on the variables thing. Steven Hawking the other day changed his mind about the loss of information associated with going past the ‘event horizon’. So two weeks ago if you argued against Hawkins previous theory, you were wrong and open to ‘quackery’. Now if you disagree with Hawkins’s new theory, you are wrong and again open to ‘quackery’.
Personally, and with no reference to you sam, I believe religion is more than just a ‘filler’ to help us cope with lack of knowledge. To think that man’s knowledge is significant or will ever be significant in a lifespan of 100 years is close to the height of human arrogance.
Proof of God, to me, has been achieved via the Quran. Today, I was speaking to a Muslim Physicist who has a passion for cosmology. Arabic is his native tongue and he knows his Qur’an very well. He sees huge correlation between much of physical science and the Qur’an. He treated me to some verses as well as to some tafsir from the scientific perspective. Even from our short conversation, I marvelled at the insight the Qur’an gave. I was in awe.
Fear not good Christians and Jews for you too have accepted the most important principle: acknowledgement of the one God. Agnostics? – I hope for you as you have left the door open, Atheists, well you believe all the utter nonsense of the neoDarwinism listed above and dare not debate it because you can’t lost face when it becomes visible that you were clinging to such idiotic mantras, devoid of logic and scientific or even plausible thought, simply in order to justify in your own mind the fact you reject God. That’s your right, but try and reject the defence mechanisms of the human psyche and just admit it openly. Even then there is still hope. I should know :)
Fossils. Yes. Fossils that so far indicate modern man suddenly sprang forth. Still can’t let science get in the way of a good lie, by people connecting various unrelated species together, each totally absent of a species transition.
Aaah Linnaeus, wonderer of nature and man of faith: http://www.linnaeus.uu.se/online/history/bibeltro.html
I’ve no conscious knowledge of Henry Gee and wasn’t aware he writes in nature. I don’t read much ‘popular science’ these days, for reason I’m sure you can guess, but a wee synopsis of his perspectives wouldn’t be unwelcomed.
Statements apparently authorised and originating from the Vatican, give the impression they are embracing Darwinism. Exactly in what aspects of it I can’t say, but it seems to me like the humans in the Catholic Church establishment are setting it up for sabotage. Protestantism/Anglicanism being more established examples.
We can start anywhere, beginning, middle or end. I just think we should focus on the evolutionists party tricks relevant to the selected period for a change.
If I knew as much about the field, I would try to give a detailed reply. I know there are missing parts in the theory, which is why it is precisely that; a theory, until contradictory evidence turns up, at which point there will be a rethink, and a new or revised theory will emerge.
Where I have to take issue with you is with your dismissal of all atheists (such as I am) as neoDarwisists, “clinging to such idiotic mantras, devoid of logic and scientific or even plausible thought”. Easy dismissal of over a billion buddhists, there, plus those who have their own reasons for not seeing any reason to believe in a god.
I don’t know many atheists here, we tend to keep our heads down in Malaysia, but the ones I do know, here and abroad, don’t generally have idiotic mantras, and we tend to arrive at our position(s) after long periods of contemplation, study and thought. We’re not all slaves to Dawkins, and he doesn’t speak for all of us.
Anyway, LWTC, feel free to contact me via email to continue this.
Dave. Thanks for the follow-up. It is interesting that you admit you are not an expert in the field. i suspect you are doing yourself a disservice as today, knowledge is so easily available that one can attain very high levels of knowledge without holding formal qualifications, but many people don’t gain this knowledge yet fasten themselves to something falsely proclaimed as scientific, i.e. neoDarwinism. In the process they con themselves into thinking that somehow they are more ‘liberated’, and sometimes better than others who have traditional values.
You have an inverted perception of the philosophy of science, and it’s common. Other than
emperialempirical evidence (which is missing for evolution theory) a theory is only accepted once evidence is found in support of it. You are taking it as true until evidence contradicts it! Welcome to the opening chapter of evolutionary fraud. This inversion [is] even visible among some scientists who one would expect to know better, but like the ant in the box, the box is their universe.Also when you say ‘other theories’ will emerge, how about the old theory that says God did it. Where is the proof against that?
Notice how already the focus has already shifted away from the scientific (de)merits of evolution and onto religious grounds. I’ve never seen an instance where this doesn’t happen. I want to debate the ‘scientific’ evidence for the claims of evolution, why is so hard,
nyonnigh on impossible to have this?Atheism is a faith because it is a belief that God doesn’t exist. This is not just a casual choice of words but the actual definition according to the 6th edition (1990) of the little Oxford dictionary (1st edition = 1930). Atheists belief requires no proof and is a faith. It is fine to have a faith, anyone is perfectly entitled to, but it is very hypocritical for atheists to dismiss faith when it involves religion. People can make the error of not believing God if they wish, it is the Divine gift of free will and of abstract thought, but when rejection is based on those miserable fantasies I mentioned earlier, then the basis of their rejection deserves unending criticism.
I stand by my claim that neoDarwinists cling to “idiotic mantras, devoid of logic and scientific or even plausible thought.” until they have the courage (or the nerve) to try and prove their fanciful claims. I’m confident they don’t do this for obvious reasons.
I’m not dismissing Buddhists… as far as I know spun Darwinism isn’t a central tenant of Buddhism, but from my reading of a book by an Islamic Scholar who discussed Buddhism and compares it and Islam, I can’t actually say Buddhists don’t believe in a figure one can compare to God. (P.S. I’ve not finished reading that book yet), And there is nothing homogenious about Buddhism. Buddhists in Sri Lanka (Sinhalese) have openly declared their support for the military aggression against the Tamils. YouTube: Al Jazeera – People & Power – Monks of War.
I would like to hear the deliberations of atheists contemplations as to their belief, but they don’t seem to well publicised.
Dave, I’d rather not discuss it via e-mail. The point of the post is an open and frank debate about the claims of evolution. Using e-mail will negate my objective.
Thanks again for your input. I debate in a frank manner. I don’t mean to offend.
Salam.
I’m a student, admitting that i hv vry little knowledge on Neo-Darwinism. As for that, i didnt hv the courage to this discuss anything yet here.
But lately i’m learning the foundation of biochemistry i.e how cells work in our system and how they have special cooperation in cells of different organs.
the point here is, as i studied more, i became more amazed with the complexity of the system not to forget, the specificity of each substance.
they must be a creator, a designer for all these systems to work, which if i were asked, i’ll find it hard to accept that these systems actually were not there millions years ago, and came to existence only after evolution.
as a muslim myself, i believe very much in Allah The Sole Creator. Anyone who studied biochemistry will surely ask themselves (be it conciously or unciously) , how can these systems know what they are supposed to do. how does it work? who made it work? who programmed it? who set the limit of it? who decide when the system will suddenly “shut down” or what happen if suddenly something goes wrong? who decide what can goes wrong? and thousands more questions to be asked.
based on my shallow knowledge, darwin theory of evolution “can get away” from arguments because “the evolution” took millions of years. hence, nobody can give strong evidence of observing the evolution.
wassalam…
Salam AkMaR
“i became more amazed with the complexity of the system” It is amazing isn’t it. And actually our knowledge, not just about biology, is still quite infantile.
“how can these systems know what they are supposed to do.” – That is a great question! :) That all these constituent parts of a cell randomly met and then just happened to functioned in such a way that requires them all to be dependent on each other, and also be be able to accumulate ‘food’, reorganise the ‘food’ into copies of each other is just mind staggering impossible.
A neoDarwinist is likely to say “but cells didn’t start off that way” However he has TOTALLY and ABSOLUTELY no proof WHATSOEVER to establish that claim, however for as long back as we can tell, the constituent parts of a cell have always been symbiotic.
We have evidence of the near constant aspects of ‘life’ (cells) and this even extends to the fossil records. Species come into being and they go out of existence. There are NO links. Despite residual stories about fake fossils and other fossils that are HIGHLY disputable.
This even extends to the Earth. Where did the Uranium come from. In physics 56Fe is the point at which fusion and fission bcomes the most thermodynamically feasible nucleosynthetic routes. The most accurate age of the universe is about 13.7 +/- 0.4 billion years (via WMAP satellite) The solar system is calculated at 4 or 5 billion years. Evidence that a star (or stars) in this vicinity to synthesise the uranium is totally absent.
One big problem with people in their ability to accept God comes from scriptures (man manipulated or not?) that say things like the earth is 8000 years old or the earth was made in six days. They are subjecting God to the laws of physics which if God exists is a totally nutty thing to do as it was God who created the post big bang physics in the first place so therefore obviously isn’t governed by it. There is no reason at all why God could NOT have put fully formed and specific species on the earth. There is no reason why God could not have ‘aged’ radioactive elements to a certain time – actually perhaps it’s pretty lucky for us that he may have.
And peoples ignorance of religion also forms a barrier against acceptance. A respectable, knowledgeable and intelligent Muslim told me that God tells us a thousands years to us is like a day to him. Can we contemplate the period of a thousand years? Then can we came that thousand years extrapolate to a thousand ‘God’ years? I don’t think so. We eve find it hard to contemplate time when were having fin and notice it’s a lot later than we thought it was.
Either way, neoDarwinism is dead, its lame arguments can ALWAYS be defeated. This is why AS SOON AS THEY CAN, they rush to turn the spotlight onto God. They rely on the fact that for a human to ‘explain’ God or to know everything is impossible. They expose the gaps in peoples knowledge as proof that God doesn’t exist. By putting focus on God, their ignorance (in the evolution fairy tale) doesn’t get a mention.
There exposed for the fraudsters that they are. Their self arrogance detaches them from God because they can’t read Gods mind or with their brain the size of a small sugar melon, they can’y understand God.
Ha ha! Games Up!
And you mention death also. That is another great argument to defeat these tricksters. If evolution was an answer to anything, then why did we not evolve to stay alive forever? By having kids, we have simply added to the ‘burden’ on the planet. If we stayed alive for ever there would be no need for kids and the planet would likely to suffer less. We would be much wiser too. So why do we only live for a short time? Why do we only have two sets of teeth? Evolution THEORY would suggest at least three pairs would be better. Why is out food intake tube so close to out lungs – increases the risk of choking. How did an eyeball form? Nasal receptors? Not only that, biochemically, one second before the moment of death, aren’t we the same as one second after death?? what about milliseconds? before and after death. What drives apoptosis?
The evolutionists are utter cowards and magicians who operate by slight of hand. They ‘believe’ in rubbish. It’s just a pity many of them haven’t taken the time to think about the belief they rashly adopted (often for reasons of social acceptance).
They do like to hide in the ‘million years’ capsule, but the walls of it are paper thin like the rest of evolution/neoDarwinism hocus pocus.
Check out this v. short post by Lex Fear… Who wrote about Octopi recenlty – apparently NOT actually changing over 95 million of years…
Like I said… paper thin! (or was I too generous in describing the layer as something too thick?)