PDA

View Full Version : Great articles on the reality of darwinism, evolution, materialism



غزالی
11-14-2009, 06:23 PM
The given below are the most intresting and authentic articles on the reality of Darwin and other theories of evolution. if you want to see the truth search the links below


Books that demolish the theory of evolution

THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION: A UNIQUE DECEPTION IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD

THE CLAIM THAT "NATURAL SELECTION CAUSES EVOLUTION" IS A FRAUDULENT ONE

QUANTUM PHYSICS: THE DISCOVERY THAT SCIENTIFICALLY DEMOLISHED MATERIALISM

DAWKINS IS DESPERATELY TRYING TO DECEIVE YOUNG CHILDREN

RICHARD DAWKINS' AND DAILY HURRIYET'S IGNORANCE

TERRORISM, DARWINISM & MATERIALISM

A FOSSIL DISCOVERED IN GEORGIA HAS ONCE AGAIN OVERTURNED DARWINIST MYTHS


DARWINISTS' CLAIMS THAT DARWINISM'S SAYING 'WE COME FROM APES' IS AN OVERSIMPLIFICATION


DARWINISTS ARE STILL TRYING TO DEPICT DEFUNCT DARWINISM AS SCIENTIFIC

DARWINISTS ARE IN DISMAY!

DARWINISTS' EFFORTS TO COVER UP LIVING FOSSILS IS FRAUDULENT

DARWINISTS INSISTENTLY DO NOT LIKE THE IMAGINARY ANCESTOR OF HUMANS, WHICH THEY FABRICATED, TO BE CALLED “APE”

WHAT DARWINISTS SAID, WHAT HAPPENED THEN

DARWINISTS' CONFESSIONS ABOUT MUTATIONS AND THE WORDS OF SCIENTISTS

THE FOSSIL RECORD REFUTES EVOLUTION

ALL PHILOSOPHIES CONSTRUCTED ON THE BASIS OF MATTER IS COLLAPSED

DARWINISM IS THE MAIN SOURCE OF RACISM

FOSSILIZATION AND IRON CONTENT

FIFTEEN PROOFS THAT DISPROVE DARWIN ON THE 200th ANNIVERSARY OF HIS BIRTH

WHY DO DARWINISTS NOT GIVE UP?

THE INVALIDITY OF THE CLAIM THAT NEW SPECIES EVOLVE EVERY YEAR

THE INVALIDITY OF THE CLAIM THAT THE IDEA THAT WHALES EVOLVED FROM BEARS DID NOT ORIGINATE WITH DARWIN

THE ORIGINS OF SUPERSTITIOUS RELIGION OF DARWINISM

DARWINISM'S CONTRADICTION WITH RELIGION

DARWINISM’S UNSCIENTIFIC FORMULA

THE EVOLUTIONARY MYTH, FROM ANCIENT GREECE TO MODERN EUROPE

Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
Al-Indunisiy
11-14-2009, 09:55 PM
:sl:
Didn't the atheists around here already shown the invalidity of Harun Yahya's works in science?

:wa:
Reply

Al-Indunisiy
11-14-2009, 09:56 PM
Though that(my post above) doesn't necessarily mean I agree with the theory of evolution.
Reply

Supreme
11-14-2009, 11:51 PM
The Theory of evolution has scientific concrete proof for it. What is there going to be next, books denying the existence of gravity?
Reply

Welcome, Guest!
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
جوري
11-15-2009, 02:12 AM
Where gravity is demonstrable, evolution isn't.. by evolution of course we mean speciation not the course of adaptation which is observable..

perhaps the problem is, that folks should define for themselves the differences between micro vs marco-evolution, as well look to the means said to cause speciation and examine them to do that they allegedly do.. you'll find that they actually don't, all before jumping on the Illuminati band wagon..
btw in Islam there is nothing to negate evolution if that were the intended means of things, most folks who hold contentions do so on the basis of scientific soundness and integrity not religious convictions!

To suggest that many people today accept evolution as true merely because they have been taught to believe it does not tell the whole story, however. Intellectual pride enters into the picture as well. Who among us does not want to present at least the appearance of being smart and well educated? Over the last century, we have been led to believe that if we wish to be considered intelligent, then we should believe in evolution, because intelligent people all over the world believe in evolution. As Henry Morris well stated the issue: “[T]he main reason most educated people believe in evolution is simply because they have been told that most educated people believe in evolution!” (Morris, 1963, p. 26).

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/238
Reply

جوري
11-15-2009, 02:32 AM
Originally Posted by Al-Indunisiy
:sl:
Didn't the atheists around here already shown the invalidity of Harun Yahya's works in science?

:wa:
Harun Yehya though very pedantic in his approach, I find to be on the exact same level of most atheist literature on evolution which merely argue 'mutations, genetic drift, natural selection' or and I quote
Sedimentary rocks formed of sediments laid down by moving currents of water do not take millions of years to form and the fossils in them are not, therefore, millions of years old. It is the velocity of current that determines the time for strata to form.

The empirical proof that rocks can and do form rapidly is unassailable. The experiments can be observed and repeated in any university laboratory. They show that rock strata do not form one upon the other in succession but laterally and vertically at the same time. This fact in itself falsifies the basic principle of superposition upon which the entire geological time-scale was constructed. http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/56427

The means of evolution, are in fact based on empiricist philosophy and not demonstrable incontrovertible truths, lest we still want to be stuck at the stage that black man is the link between apes and the fully evolved noetic whites (amusing as it is) .. they're yet to establish how apes evolved into atheists and/or theists who want to jump on the 'smart bandwagon'!
Most of what I have seen spewed against harun yehya is venomous ad homs. from folks who like to point the finger at others while citing 'what venomous ad homs' -- the blind leading the blind type thing...

so to answer your queries, what atheists have done to Harun yehya was merely create a cloud of miasma to detract from his credibility, so even before anyone reads anything by him, they have all these pre-conceived notions even if he makes mistakes as all men do, ironically see fit to exempt themselves from their frequent ad hoc modification to any criticism that arises against 'Darwinian brand of evolution'

and Allah swt knows best

:wa:
Reply

JaffaCake
11-15-2009, 12:23 PM
Who's a good little google scholar :D
Guy Berthault is the bloke who 'proved' that the Grand Canyon was etched out in less than a year by run off from Noah's flood, despite the fact the Colorado river had barely made a scratch in hundreds of years.

His latest work would pretty much demolish all of geology as we know it, including radiometric dating which in turn would invalidate what we know about radioactive decay. This would invalidate hundreds of years of independently confirmed observations and the standard model of particle physics.

I don't want to sound unjustifiably optimistic, but I think he might have made a mistake somewhere.
Reply

Supreme
11-15-2009, 01:50 PM
Originally Posted by JaffaCake
Who's a good little google scholar :D
Guy Berthault is the bloke who 'proved' that the Grand Canyon was etched out in less than a year by run off from Noah's flood, despite the fact the Colorado river had barely made a scratch in hundreds of years.

His latest work would pretty much demolish all of geology as we know it, including radiometric dating which in turn would invalidate what we know about radioactive decay. This would invalidate hundreds of years of independently confirmed observations and the standard model of particle physics.

I don't want to sound unjustifiably optimistic, but I think he might have made a mistake somewhere.
I looked him up, and I have to say, his views are rather strange.
Reply

جوري
11-15-2009, 04:05 PM
Originally Posted by JaffaCake
Who's a good little google scholar :D

Guy Berthault is the bloke who 'proved' that the Grand Canyon was etched out in less than a year by run off from Noah's flood, despite the fact the Colorado river had barely made a scratch in hundreds of years.
Is your question in rhetoric? it is obviously still you, since you have jumped on the first google source -- if you'd bothered actually read the full source from which you got your claim, you'd have seen this:
"Guy Berthault claims to show how the Grand Canyon was formed from Noahs' Flood in one year. He claims he has done experiments to prove this." No such claims are made in his web site.
Edward Cotter's "opinion" refers to a "challenge". Berthault's site seeks discussion between experts, no challenge is made. (The challenge was made by Hugh Miller in an e-mail to Stephen Meyers) Here is my translation of Berthault's reaction to some of Edward Cotter's remarks:
"Consider the two paragraphs connected with the sentence: 'Sequences of stratigraphic layers do not accumulate all at one time'. The example chosen by Cotter is the superposition between tilted strata below and horizontal strata above. In fact, it corresponds exactly with our flume experiment where from below to above there are horizontal laminae, a delta of inclined lamination, horizontal laminae, depositing all at one time laterally and vertically, resulting from a variation of current velocity from 1m/s to 0.5m/s to 1m/s.
Our experiment, therefore, contradicts Cotter's assertion. This doesn't mean that he is not right in a case where he has factual "proof" demonstrating what he says. I would add that an erosion of the delta would have resulted if the final velocity of current had been accelerated. Sedimentation would have started again when the velocity slowed down.
Next he speaks about the Supai, Hermit Shale concluding: "To expect that the entire Grand Canyon sequence is one giant "turbidtite" bed stretches into an area beyond even science fiction." This is pure fabrication on his part. I have never said anything of the kind. I took the single example of the Tonto Group, for which Steve Austin indicated the paleohydraulic velocities referring to Rubin.
His conclusion was: "One does not have to attempt exaggerated conjecture using inapplicable 'thought'-experiments". My experiments are are not thought-experiments, they are simply experiments."
http:///otherviews/berthault.htm
His latest work would pretty much demolish all of geology as we know it, including radiometric dating which in turn would invalidate what we know about radioactive decay. This would invalidate hundreds of years of independently confirmed observations and the standard model of particle physics.
'hundreds of years' that is fresh from the guy who doesn't like to believe in millennium old tales, but substitutes them for lesser tales also because of they 'hundreds of years' old--Guy Berthault is a researcher in fundamental physics and sedimentology and a graduate of the L'Ecole Polytechnique de Paris. His research has been published in both the French and Russian Academy of Sciences. We are still to see your qualifications!


I don't want to sound unjustifiably optimistic, but I think he might have made a mistake somewhere.
You sound like a dolt as usual..

all the best
Reply

Woodrow
11-15-2009, 04:55 PM
There are numerous threads in this forum about Evolution, Darwinism etc. The debates have gone on Ad infintium, ad Naueum

There is no need for an additional thread.

:threadclo:
Reply

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-30-2013, 10:58 AM
  2. Replies: 58
    Last Post: 01-11-2012, 05:49 AM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-18-2008, 05:08 PM
  4. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 02-06-2007, 03:24 PM
  5. Replies: 26
    Last Post: 01-24-2007, 09:59 PM

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!