Archive for the 'NeoDarwinism' Category

Science of the gaps – Richard Dawkins debating John Lennox

a) Personal prologue
b) Main post

 

Personal prologue

I believe in God. I never used to. Being raised in ‘a kind of’ Christian environment, there was usually a latent background of God, e.g. walking home I’d pass a few churches or the Christmas TV programs etc. Somhow, probably because of the story of Adam, who in my mind, was a declaration that a ‘modern man’ was the first man – very much like we are today, hence, if man came from ape-like ancestors, then that would disqualify the notion of God.

Looking back, all things considered, I’m ashamed that I came to such an ultimate conclusion so hastily, on something which has the most enormous implications for us as a species, and deserves deep study in many fields. Really, I was armed with only a minuscule level of knowledge, and sadly I was far too accepting of the information that was coming my way; I didn’t scrutinise it, I didn’t look for alternative explanations. Because of that I must have been a simple level “darwinian atheist” from the ages of about 14 to 21.

Perhaps my personal shame is a bit harsh given my youthful years, but I was “convinced” it was true and naturally I would promote such a stance when in discussion/debate about it.

Since then, I came across the Qur’an, which tells of how Isa (Jesus) a.s. was raised up from the eyes of man. The utter confidence of that statement {please read it for yourself in the Qur’an – or if you can’t read Arabic, even an English translation retains much of its power} rocked me and it just seemed that what I was reading was the truth,
so how could I deny it?

Atheists may say I was simply swapping my simple level “Darwinian atheist” mindset for a similarly simple level “God exists” mindset instead, and other atheists may also say my personally amazing experience and feelings on reading the Qur’an are   laughable. I would appeal to those who may be rofl right now to try and recall something from their own lives that fundamentally changed their perspectives. I’m sure many could recall such a thing and hence I’m sure you will better appreciate my experience on
reading the Qur’an.

I have since invested much time in gaining a much greater understanding of the God question and
try to familiarise myself on the near endless debate about whether God exists or not. Yes, I have a bias
towards God, but atheists has a bias against God, so I guess that’s fair and square.

All this means I have come across the works of Richard Dawkins.

Main post

I’m referring to this: Lennox Vs. Dawkins Debate – Has Science Buried God

21:03 – 31:29

[P.S. Dawkins made an error in the debate saying no to ‘things going from simple to complex’, it’s obvious he wanted to to say no to things starting from complex (i.e. God)]
In my pursuit of the Gods existence debate, I was watching Lennox Vs. Dawkins Debate – Has Science Buried God.

I’m quite familiar with Dawkins’s arguments now. Dawkins puts scorn on religious people who, Dawkins says(!), say ‘we don’t know what that phenomenon is’ therefore God did it, i.e. God fills the gaps of our ignorance. Like much of what Dawkins says, it’s very sweeping and unfair in that it doesn’t acknowledge the great number of God believing scientists who do undertake the challenge at revealing aspects of what we don’t understand. Such as the Mathematician Lennox. I am what they would call a ‘scientist’ so I know this – I see it. But Lennox did a very interesting thing. He took Dawkins up on this issue (and Lennox knows perfectly well that Dawkins is very experienced in discussing) but he turned it around.
Dawkins was saying things have to go from simple to complex and that simplicity, in his eyes, negates the need for a complex God. Dawkins protests a complex God needs explanation, and an explanation as to where that God came from.

Typical Dawkins. He attaches onto God the very thing that would nullify God. A good definition of God is ‘that which has not been created’. It’s probably his greatest trick and is self-negating. The trouble is the closer you get to the ‘instant’ of the bog bang, which I think it’s fair to say almost everyone is (currently) at ease with about being how the physical Universe came into being, then it actually gets more and more complex.

Dawkins’ second trick is to simply call it simple. Well I’m sorry, I don’t buy that. I think Dawkins is actually saying the SIMPLIFIED COMPUTER MODELS used to try and simulate the EXPANSION OF THE UNIVERSE at some time when the universal physical constants stabilised may be regarded as simple, but even then, they surely cannot be simple in physical actuality due to anti matter and dark matter, the latter of which is said by many scientists that Dawkins would be happy to stand along side himself to account for most of the mass and therefore energy of the universe, and these are very poorly understood indeed, hence any simple model is surely wholly inaccurate, causing another major stumbling block to Dawkins on this issue.

Anyway, He says natural, blind unthinking natural selection caused the biological complexity we have today, so things went from simple (Dawkins’s ‘simple’ remember!) to complex, hence God doesn’t need explaining. But Lennox correctly drew reference to two utterly complex issues, the “pre-Dawkinist simple” beginning of the universe [my words not Lennox’s] and the origin of biological life.

It is at this point when Dawkins impales himself completely on his own sword. He says We don’t know these things yet, but we know there will be a Darwinian explanation to it. What Dawkins has done is to use a ‘Science of the gaps’ approach to it. He has blind faith that there will be a simple [it HAS to be simple – that’s a main theme for Dawkins] explanation. But any fair minded person will surely agree, from primordial soup to life today or from a ‘rugby ball’ sized ‘thing’ (from which the Universe too shape) is of course utterly complicated.

Sadly Lennox doesn’t quite navigate as well to expose this as I have tried to do above, but of course, a face to face debate is completely different from a prose based composition like this.

I also liked Lennox’s previous point about consciousness, which Dawkins took up to talk about avoiding a rock or not jumping off a cliff. Lennox is saying reductionism cannot explain consciousness (at least as far as best we know today). there is no rational way in which the reduced set of atoms and molecules can have consciousness. There has to be a way in which the structure of those atoms and molecules can store information and be able to interpret that information.
This is what separates the living (in a bio-physological sense) from the non-living*. That requires a consciousness which surely cannot be explained by step-wise selection or even by the instantaneous crossing of a hugely significant feature (which would in any case require quite a lot of genetic information to encode and endow inheritance).
Lennox called this a ‘language‘ which indicates the pre-existence of a ‘mind‘. Dawkins quickly went away from this point.

It is interesting that when Lennox rather traps himself and puts himself on the back-foot having to explain the mind of God. Dawkins rightly gets a stronger line of argument, but this is an unfair advantage to Dawkins because if there was a God, it’ is inescapably impossible to explain the word of God. Even on a human level success at explaining the means and motives of other humans often fails. How can we with a lifespan of about 80 years, a mind the size of a honeydew melon and primarily only input/output/process information one ‘channel’ at any one instance ultimately explain anything?

* non-living – actually Islam mentions rocks, which are considered non-living, as talking in some future event. This I would say, should encourage you to think there is a very different kind of ‘living’which the ‘non-living’ have access. If that’s a struggle for you, just remember djinn and Angels. Of course, the realm of God is beyond us. Dawkins protests he would/could not do science if this ‘magic’ as he pejoratively calls it interfered with science, as if God is likely to say intermittently hide then re-reveal a chromosome for example – He’s trying to cast God in a dark light. And if Dawkins was to ‘give up’ what happened to his accusations of ‘cop out’ and ‘mental lazyness’ etc

The mind consciousness/meaning part resurfaces at 49:57

At the end, I find it interesting, perhaps telling, that Lennox thanks Dawkins; “Thanks Richard” says Lennox, yet all Dawkins does is acknowledge it with a ‘mouth open and close to smile’ kind of thing. Interesting having just heard what the human moral behavioural aspect of the debate.

I believe I’m so familiar with Dawkins’s stuff that I see many many holes in it.

It’s interesting that I can’t find Dawkins debating an intelligent Muslim scholar experienced/familiar with the ‘Western’ style of this debate.
Next up (additions to this post outstanding) is this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yx0CXmagQu0 (which I notive Atkins also attributes a derogatory term of lazyness to the ‘design’ issue)

 

Advertisements

Just another coincIdence

I knew nothing about the movie 2012, other than the fact it was going to have something to do with the end of the world based upon the Myan calender.

Lets remind ourselves a litle bit about ‘Myan 2012’…

Regards to the movie 2012, as far as meaningless crap goes, it provided ok escapism. And maybe I shouldn’t engage in escapism, but I do, occasionally, even though I know it wastes life-force.

The graphics were some of the best I’ve seen – possibly the least fake so far and not so much “here’s some cgi… in your face”. Anyway, when watching it, I tried to spot any possible ‘hidden’ signs such as pyramids missing their capstone, set square and dividers, women in red dresses as well as distracting falsehoods etc. You know the score.

There were a few instances which some respected writers of symbolism could probably mention in a few articles or so, but my feeling was in regard to 2012 that these things were written in deliberately into the movie just to create talking points. And I feel that most modern movies deliberately do this just to create a hoo-haa purely for publicity.

These symbols are getting more  frequent in movies these days, and due to the internet information revolution, I ‘m pretty sure those who are concerned about such matters, generally, your ‘thinking kind of person’, has therefore come across exposee’s of Illuminati, freemasons, Jesuits, Roman Church conspiracies, pyramids, even aliens, UFO’s, HAARP blah blah blah.

As for the youth, who is the target audience of a lot of this stuff, It seems to me they get some kind of awe from all this, just like they used to with cold war propaganda, or Top Gun, Cowboys and Indians, and today mad Islamic/Arab terrorists kind of propaganda. So they pick up on it, it gets stuck in their brain, but they don’t really understand it and that is certainly isn’t anything about this ‘awe’ which is virtuous.

Please don’t be so sensitive with me to complain that the Illuminate have been placed alongside UFO’s. I’m not trying to smear those people who are Illuminati watchers, I’m simply listing previously esoteric subjects of research.

But there comes a point where sticking pyramids missing their capstone and all that, has little or no commercially exploitative use. Take for example the UK drivers licence. It features a hard to see pyramid with it’s capstone cut off thanks to a steering-wheel. The US banknotes for years have featured many symbols whose meaning are quite worrisome. Why put them all over the place where it serves no commercial purpose?

What then of the BBC who feature this advert even before their main banner?:

It’s for the Nokia E72.

Perhaps wasting even more life-force, I captured that image, specifically the frame which appears early on in the animated sequence. The message “How we respond is who we are” flashes in front of you pretty quickly which is why I decided to replay the advert and capture it. I guess there is some psychology at work there – e.g. in that you only manage to read the ‘respond’ bit and persue the advert, but of course the main thing about this is the one eye.

Is it just coincidence that the eye begins at half way across the image? At a simple level, it seems to me to by putting the focus on the eye the phone itself seems near incidental! Just how deeply the advertisers thought about these issues, the extent to which such things are planned and exaclty whether there are secret messages at work here, are open to speculation. But the fact is they are there, and they are almost everywhere!, and further still, they were there before this kind of knowledge became known by people concerned there’s something at play here..

Vigilant Citizen ( http://vigilantcitizen.com/ )  has done quite a lot of analysis on such things involving so called ‘pop stars’ such as Beyonce, Rihanna, Lady Gaga, Madonna (an open Kaballist), The Black Eyed Peas etc, and I must say I get the feeling this symbolism is put there intentionally (of course!) but doesn’t serve the purpose of simply trying to getnerate publicity. I get the feeling they are to project and implant a meaning or an agenda – whatever that may be. Personally I think it’s to pull you away from the things that matter, which to me ultimately mean it’s to rip you away (or keep you away) from realising the actual meaning of life. As a religious man I believe that it’s to pull you from the path of God.

These ‘performing artists’ (people doing other peoples art – I’d guess in the main, they’d just do what the director/script writer has decided)  and what they do, obviously has a massive commercial streak, but I really don’t think the target audience will understand exactly what they are watching and why they are watching it.

Why are we allowing the incredibly sedictive pictures that are are absolutely an artifical modernism, massively removed from real life, to become more and more widespread? Pornography is becoming a norm.

A few years ago at a public access computer cluster, a most gentile female colleague sat down beside me to use the computer. She obviously clicked on internet explorer and up popped some naked lady spead eagled with her most private bodily parts exposed in all their undifnifying glory. Of course it grabbed my attention. My elderly colleague sat frozen in her chair for what must have been about 5 seconds not moving a muscle. I think at first the image didnt register with her. I don’t think her brain was able to reconcile it’s sence of expectation with what was actually displayed in front of her eyes. Soon afterwards however I think she ‘saw’ it was stunned.

I came to her rescue and closed the window.

That was terrible. I am quite sure this dear woman had never seen a display of pornography like that in her entire life – and I’d guess she’s never has such sexual stuff put before her in public – and while others were present too! The modern world disgracefully tarnished this lady’s life. But porn and pseudo/gateway porn is everyhere. Sex sells. Thank you Edward Bernays and those who followed on from you.

Dungeons and Dragons. I LOVED this game and even after accepting the existance of God (the described as given by Islam) I keep feeling a desire to take it up again.

Drugs, Second Life and other online games, soap operas, neoDarwinism, AGW, financial credit… what are we doing here folks? TV Adverts on screens in busses, youthful skinned 14 year old girls on the cover of womens magazines telling you what the ‘norm’ is, so that you buy the products contained within in a hopeless quest to look that said 14 year old.

I will end this point which has gone off on a much needed ramble by mentioning the BBC post-Climategate. Although the Copenhagen summit is near, I think the BBC is doing CRP on AGW.

They include this graphic on this page:

Amazing that IPCC graphic. There isn’t any CO2 from most industrial/commercial processes, e.g. Aluminium, ammonia, iron manufacture, unless that is included (but not mentioned so blatently of course) in ‘fossil fuels’.

AGW is another distraction it clouds the eyes from Big Industry and makes you believe CO2 (one of the least harmful substances in the earth)  is a danger to us and must be stopped. While yet more industrial processes e.g. ones involving nuclear pollution that is poisoning the planet (50% of Americans are said to experience cancer according to the 3 hour documentary The Corporation ) don’t get a look in. It also forms a ‘life style’ whereby ‘(deluded)environmentalism‘ has become another modern day religion.

Committment in marraige is waining, kids are an inconvenience to be abourted because you don’t want to look fat in your bikini on holiday in Mallorca.

Every aspect of your life is under attack to stop you thinking about the real issues in life, cut you off and isolate you from society, making you a zombie, and worse still, a satan/occult enbraced zombie.

Just one more thing, getting distracted writing this, I browsed http://therealnews.com/ where I saw this:

 

~~~~~~~~~~

Aside: In The video, Obama said on Tuesday, 1st Dec 2009 said to Westpoint Military trainees

“Our Over arching goal remains the same. To disrupt, dismantle and defeat Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and to prevent it’s capacity to threaten America and our allies in the future.”

But sadly, Peter Jay the News presenter, didn’t pick up on Obama mentioning Pakistan WITH Afghanistan. Surely Obama is signalling Pakistan is now on the list – gadually desentising USans. Dear people of Pakistan: beware the US lead action agaist you is going to escalate. Expect the US troops in your country. Chris Bollyn lists some further examples of  Obama referencing Afghanistan and Pakistan, although he too doesn’t pick up the significance of lumping of Pakistan together with Afghanistan noe the frequency at which it was done.

~~~~~~~~~~

Anyway, the cadets in the army reminded me of this…

–and

But while searching for that Hitlery clinton video, up popped this on my screen…

I erased some of the more vulgar words.

You may remember about 6 months ago a Kids YouTube channel was flooded with hard core porn videos.

All the above are of course just coincidence and a figment of my silly imagination. Don’t worry. It will be alright.

Everything is OK…


series here (thanks to http://atheonews.blogspot.com/ )

Evolution – as seen on TV and from the mouths of fraudsters.

NB: error at end corrected

Evolution – from ape man to neanderthal – BBC science
youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndwzAw8fchU&NR=1

2:12 to 3:51 is UTTER ‘Hollywood’ RUBBISH! Now it seems, a special effects / make-up dept is all the science proof you need. (Well it is the BBC!)

The accompanying ‘info’ on youtube for this flight of fancy says:

“This amazing video clip shows the evolution of our species from ape man to neanderthal.” – {empahsis added} HAHAHAHAHAHA! It SHOWS it huh… Dear oh dear oh dear!

 

Anyway, here’s a comment I wrote to a very smart ‘Medic student in preparation’ on evolution:

Salam.

Species obviously do change (From Adam we have Africans, Europeans, Chinese, Amazons, Aborigines, Inuit…). This has been common knowledge for thousands upon thousands of years. How dare people put accolades upon Darwin for noticing this. Darwin observed variations in a species, the beaks of Great Finch (a bird) and giant tortoises. So what? He was well over 4000 years late.

The crucial thing he did then was to expanded upon that idea of species variation to PROPOSE a link between DIFFERENT species. He wasn’t a religious man, and had no religious signpost to guide his thoughts. Fair enough then to propose that species link.

Thing is, Darwin’s culture was of the Christian West which had persecuted people like Galileo in the past who observed the physical universe was different from the flawed teaching/understandings of the Christian church at the time. The WEST then began to develop a strained relationship with Science.

But with Islam it was different. Muslims in Cordoba/Andalucía the Maghreb embraced science – quite naturally. If man hadn’t yet corrupted Divine Revelation then how could science contradict religion? It couldn’t because there would be no contradiction. It was the Muslims who translated the Greek works which eventually seeded the European Renaissance which the West tried to hijack/portray as being independent of the Muslims. Europe was in the dark ages while Islam was embraced and lifted the people from Jahilliah whereupon science blossomed into success from what’s now known as Spain to parts of China. 

So Islam NEVER had a problem with Science. But the Europeans, already tense with science, then hijacked science (as they had done about their emergence from the dark ages via Thomas Aquinas and so on, and then later with the renaissance)  as it’s own and in effect ‘exported’ this tension to Islam. Arrogant Europeans talked about science as if it was something that rested solely in their hands and they still do today!

Eventually, Europeans used science for horrific means: ways to kill and injure people which in the modern day is seen in biological weapons, poison gas and nuclear weapons with an eye to plundering the resources from other countries (like Malaysian tin) without thought for the environment or without much thought for the indigenous people. The Muslims had already largely reached a good level of development that was satisfactory and more in tune with the earth, but as mentioned, scientific doors opened for Europeans which was more than intertwined with the consequence of empire.  Relative to that, it would appear the content Muslims might have stalled in science.

Getting back to Darwin, from my understanding, it was others who latched onto Darwins proposal of interconnecting species and promoted it as fact (Neo-Darwinism I call it). But there is no evidence supporting that theory. I believe Darwin himself said evidence must be found before the theory could advance.
Wikipedia says of Darwin that he provided “compelling evidence that all species of life have evolved over time from common ancestors” But there is NO evidence at all. The quote cites two references each relating to fossils. But there is no fossil evidence showing species changing from one form into the other (other than fakes, e.g. Archaeoraptor – they like to stay quiet about that one). But before its fake nature was exposed, it was believed without question and backed up with the old scam of ‘proof by artists impression’ See it at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1248079.stm

 man from ape
Classic proof by artists impression. Complete with gradient colour fills and more!

Their latest ‘proof’ which it seems to me is deliberately not subject to an honest analysis as to its authenticity, is Archaeopteryx, and there are many questions about this. It comes from China. China is notorious for what are called “fake fossils” {http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1888548,00.html}, indeed Archaeoraptor was one such Chinese fake. It is remarkable that it is the ONLY type of fossil (connecting birds to reptiles) that supposedly shows speciation and even more strangely is exactly what Huxley proposed when he preached his neo-Darwinism. Isn’t that strange? What a truely amazing coincidence. And even more strange was that Archaeoraptor – the fake before Archaeopteryx, was also exactly what Huxley mentioned. How utterly amazing is that. Totally astounding! 

“Scientists” – yeah right!

Fossil records are reported to show species ‘suddenly’ dying out, and new species ‘suddenly’ appearing. If you don’t count the very very suspicious Archaeopteryx, then there are NO interspecies links for anyother species. Imagine if Huxley had said “fish come from spiders’ – what’s the chance that the only fossil ever found supposed to fill in the missing link would by pure coincidence happen to ‘show’ a spider/fish intermediate. Ho ho!

“compelling evidence that all species of life have evolved over time from common ancestors” – Hahahah!

But Allah(SWT) in the Qur’an mentions all things were made from the sea. It could be taken to mean creature evoltuion did happen, in which case I would see no shame in accepting evolution IF there was scientific evidence to support that interpretation. But what do we actually find…?

It is reported that Dirk Fuchs of the Freie University Berlin said about the (non-)evolution {my modification and emphasis} of the Octopus: “These are sensational fossils, extraordinarily well preserved,” But what surprised the scientists most was how similar the specimens are to modern octopus: “these things are 95 million years old, yet one of the fossils is almost indistinguishable from living species.” similar stories can be said of Horse-shoe crabs, Woodlice, Crocodiles, Sharks, Coelacanth.

How come evolution was suspended in these creatures? How come, with their long fossil record, NO speciation is found in them? Why does the ‘continual genetic mutation’ not lead to these species evolving? I think I know why… ‘cos there probably isn’t any evolution by speciation!

Ask a biology teacher who believes in evolution to use evolution logic to explain why (backed by actual evidence of course – this isn’t an exercise in story telling remember!) these species are immune from mutating. Then, ask them how did animals turn from cold blooded to warm blooded? How did random genetic mutation lead to eyeballs forming – the cistrans retinol transformation and the associted protiens/enzymes the neural pathway to the brain the nerves, nerve gaps and the interpretation by the brain which must have developed together or any individual part of it would be utterly useless. Similarly, how did ears form, immune systems, DNA replication mechanisms, protein synthesis, citric acid, ADP/ATP cycles. How could feathers grow and the rest of the body (bone structure, muscle strength etc) change in synchronicity.

 How can one can disprove a soul. How can they discount the internal moral conscience (which admittedly we sometimes switch off) How did the first cell form which contained all the necessary functionality to replicate and absorb ‘food’ – where did that food origianlly come from? How come the ONLY cells we know of display the overwhelming tendency to die if just one part of it isn’t working properly. How could an animal turn into a cold/warm blooded species when all the other animals around it would have been warm/cold blooded respectively?

Allah hu Allam.

To me life is all about your relationship with God. There are many things to pull you away from God, many things to try and trick you, We are flawed people, trapped in this physical time, in a body, with the mind only the size of about a large Fuji apple, with only 5 limited senses, who will only be able to learn maybe 80 years of knowledge. There are many things to trick you into leaving your faith, to cut off your heart and to ignore the miracle of the Qur’an and the most amazing example of the Prophet (saw).

Sex, Drugs, False paper money, Darwinism, Entertainment, devil worship, false religions (e.g. Ahmadiah Muslims, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad the British puppet) etc etc.

Biologists say what their biology books tell them. Lets do what God teaches us, even though, God forbid, we sometimes stumble.

And as you [Med student to be] cleverly indicate, ALL explanations of biology rest entirely upon what is already there. What created all this in the first place is said by biologists “Oh, that’s Physics” yet Physics can’t even trace 96% of the matter it needs to support some Physics version(s) of Archaeoraptor. Where did all the transgenic Uranium come from in a Universe only 13 bln years old? And how can you even measure 13 billion years when as time goes on, time itself is supposed to change. Even Einstein’s special relativity is very limited, and as for quantum processes…. well, just wait and see how if quantum theory is indeed ‘true’ how it will NOT in the slightest bit contradictory of the Qur’an.

Hope this gets your mind buzzing.

Allah (SWT) tells us to seek knowledge. What a brave and superb directive. To me, one tafsir of that is crystal clear; nothing of true knowledge, (as best as we can get true physical knowledge via our observations {all models are flawed – as we aren’t The Creator!}), repeat, true knowledge will never contradict the existance of God. True knowledge will however support, via signs, the existence of God. Allah surrounds everything with knowledge.

Salam.

 

PROOF BY TV:

The Simpsons – Homer Evolution
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=faRlFsYmkeY

OH, IT MUST BE TRUE!

Evolution & Theology – Great news?

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 whole

Holy 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 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. 

 


Viva Palestina – break the siege:

Viva Palestina - break the siege

This blog supports victims of western aggression

This blog supports victims of western aggression

BooK: The Hand of Iblis. Dr Omar Zaid M.D.

Book: The Hand of Iblis
An Anatomy of Evil
The Hidden Hand of the New World Order
Summary Observations and History

Data on Fukushima Plant – (NHK news)

Fukushima Radiation Data

J7 truth campaign:

July 7th Truth Campaign - RELEASE THE EVIDENCE!

Recommended book: 3rd edition of Terror on the Tube – Behind the Veil of 7-7, An Investigation by Nick Kollerstrom:

J7 (truth) Inquest blog

July 7th Truth Campaign - INQUEST BLOG
Top rate analysis of the Inquest/Hoax

Arrest Blair (the filthy killer)

This human filth needs to be put on trial and hung!

JUST:

JUST - International Movement for a Just World

ICH:

Information Clearing House - Actual News and global analysis

John Pilger:

John Pilger, Journalist and author

Media Lens

My perception of Media Lens: Watching the corrupt corporate media, documenting and analysing how it bends our minds. Their book, 'Newspeak' is a gem.

Abandon the paper $cam:

Honest and inflation proof currency @ The Gold Dinar
August 2019
M T W T F S S
« Jul    
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031  
Advertisements