[Dr.Trax]

What a myth!

A report published by the news portal ntvmsnbc.com on Friday, 26 October, 2007, added yet another component to unscientific Darwinist propaganda. The report, headed “The origin of the hands and feet lies in fish fins,” was the result of evolutionary myths produced on the basis of a common gene between fish and terrestrial land forms. This propaganda, which is based on the tactic of depicting genes shared between life forms as the product of evolution, was used to support the myth that fish emerged from the water and gradually turned into terrestrial vertebrates and human beings (!). The following is our response to ntvmsnbc.com's unscientific claim.

The subject of the ntvmsnbc.com report was the result of a study published in the scientific Journal of Experimental Zoology. In that study a team led by Zerina Johanson studies the genes of a lunged fish known as Neoceradotus, focusing on the proteins involved in the development of the fish’s fins. (Proteins are the building blocks of the cell, produced according to the genetic plan encoded in DNA.)

Johanson, a palaeontologist at the Museum of Natural History in America, says in comments regarding the study that the proteins they investigated bear a resemblance to the proteins involved in the development of hands, feet and wings in terrestrial life forms, and suggests that this supports the idea that terrestrial vertebrates evolved from fish.
A moment’s reflection easily reveals the error in suggesting that shared structures are evidence of evolution. Technological structures produced in the light of a specific aim and including a blueprint such as computers are a particularly illuminating model here. As we know, the various makes of computer all contain various common components, such as hard disks, processors and screens. These components resemble one another in terms of both function and structure. For example, although the screens belonging to two different brands of computer may be slightly different in size and other features, they still work on basically the same principles, using similar technology and structures. This is perfectly natural, because engineers have designed them in the light of a common objective and manufactured them by combining similar structures required for that purpose.
Careful examination shows that the findings of the study in question bear a close similarity to this state of affairs. Both lunged fish fins and the hands, feet and wings of terrestrial vertebrate life forms are organs used for movement, and it is quite natural that similar proteins should be involved during the developmental process.:thumbs_up

Evolution is Propaganda!!!

 

[ranma1/2]

And thats exactlywhy you dont get a EEC memership card.
And despite rumors, the EEC and EAC are seperate organizations. (butyou can be a member of both).

May Dawkins bless you....

 

[wilberhum]

Source?

 

[Dr.Trax]

Source?

http://www.darwinism-watch.com/index.php?git=makale&makale_id=1495

 

[wilberhum]

http://www.darwinism-watch.com/index.php?git=makale&makale_id=1495

Darwinism Watch? :-\

That is like going to the Prophet of Doom to learn about Islam. :skeleton:

 

[Isambard]

Darwinism Watch? :-\

That is like going to the Prophet of Doom to learn about Islam. :skeleton:

For the websites love of big pretty words, they have incredibly unoriginal arguements. Reading their attack on the Multiverse, alot of it is just arguementation from ignorance.

 

[The_Prince]

For the websites love of big pretty words, they have incredibly unoriginal arguements. Reading their attack on the Multiverse, alot of it is just arguementation from ignorance.

lol funny you do what you accused me of doing yet i in actuality wasnt ranting earlier, you just didnt understand me.

but right now your ranting and providing no evidence that the website is wrong....and hey just to cut you off, i dont even know anything about this website, i havent ever opened it in my life, just saying this incase you think im defending it.

but thanks for exposing yourself as a hypocrite, you just ranted that this site is so ignorantttttttt but no evidence, you sure opened my eyes as you told me kay:

 

[Isambard]

lol funny you do what you accused me of doing yet i in actuality wasnt ranting earlier, you just didnt understand me.

but right now your ranting and providing no evidence that the website is wrong....and hey just to cut you off, i dont even know anything about this website, i havent ever opened it in my life, just saying this incase you think im defending it.

but thanks for exposing yourself as a hypocrite, you just ranted that this site is so ignorantttttttt but no evidence, you sure opened my eyes as you told me kay:

"...which is the latest argument in which materialist thinkers have sought refuge in the face of the finely tuned design in the universe."

"We first need to briefly set out why materialists developed such an argument: for thousands of years, the divine religions and philosophies that accept the existence of God have maintained that there is purpose and design in the universe, whereas materialists — those who claim that nothing exists apart from matter —have rejected the existence of purpose and design. A series of astronomical and physical discoveries in the 20th century, however, revealed that the design in the universe was so clear as to be undeniable. These discoveries revealed that at the moment the universe began, all variables, from the speed of the Big Bang to the strength of the four fundamental forces, from the structure of the elements to that of the Solar System in which we live, were exactly as required to support life. This tremendous discovery, which scientists in the 1970s announced and described as the Anthropic Principle, clearly invalidated the materialist argument for non-design."

(This being the second paragraph is esp. hilarious. Anyone vaguely familiar with physics will now why )

The rest of the "critizism", is the authors lack of understanding of M theory. As per his "proofs", well.....lol.

Now how exactly am I hypocrite? Or are you mad because you can never back up your frilly words with evidence?:shade:

 

[Science101]

Look at the forearms and legs of dimetrodon, one of the first fish to truly walk the land. Notice it has the same arms we have with thick bone in upper arm, two bones like our forearm, wrist bones, and hands.

I got it from the time machine link I posted for you in your other thread.

http://www.fossilmuseum.net/fossils/synapsida/dimetrodon/dimetrodon.htm

Picture yourself being that guy. Would think you were the most awesome beast around, and be right. In time have more brain cells and language and a computer and culture and other things called "human".

Evolutionary theory explains how a genome that cannot make a perfect copy of itself can sustain us, make us better with time.

There is no shame in picturing ourselves having taken a very long exciting journey through time via reincarnation, and are now here discussing it. The prophet Muhammad would never ever ignore that possibility. And if scientists are correct then Muhammad could have had a reason to be insulted by calling that just a big fish or ugly reptile. They are too much like us.

Other than not being what we're expecting to see in the mirror every morning, it has our basic bone structure and we have a tail like that shortened down to a stub but still there. Why can't we have been that, before there were humans?

 

[Dr.Trax]

The claim that fish are the ancestors of land-dwelling creatures is invalidated by anatomical and physiological observations as much as by the fossil record. When we examine the huge anatomical and physiological differences between water- and land-dwelling creatures, we can see that these differences could not have disappeared in an evolutionary process with gradual changes based on chance. We can list the most evident of these differences as follows

1- Weight-bearing: Sea-dwelling creatures have no problem in bearing their own weight in the sea, although the structures of their bodies are not made for such a task on land. However, most land-dwelling creatures consume 40 percent of their energy just in carrying their bodies around. Creatures making the transition from water to land would at the same time have had to develop new muscular and skeletal systems to meet this energy need, and this could not have come about by chance mutations.

The basic reason why evolutionists imagine the coelacanth and similar fish to be the ancestors of land-dwelling creatures is that their fins contain bones. It is assumed that over time these fins turned into load-bearing feet. However, there is a fundamental difference between these fish's bones and land-dwelling creatures' feet. It is impossible for the former to take on a load-bearing function, as they are not linked to the backbone. Land-dwelling creatures' bones, in contrast, are directly connected to the backbone. For this reason, the claim that these fins slowly developed into feet is unfounded.

THE KIDNEY PROBLEM

Fish remove harmful substances from their bodies directly into the water, but land animals need kidneys. For this reason, the scenario of transition from water to the land requires kidneys to havbe developed by chance.

However, kidneys possess an exceedingly complex structure and, what is more, the kidney needs to be 100 percent present and in complete working order in order to function. A kidney developed 50, or 70, or even 90 percent will serve no function. Since the theory of evolution depends on the assumption that "organs that are not used disappear," a 50 percent-developed kidney will disappear from the body in the first stage of evolution.

2- Heat retention: On land, the temperature can change quickly, and fluctuates over a wide range. Land-dwelling creatures possess a physical mechanism that can withstand such great temperature changes. However, in the sea, the temperature changes slowly, and within a narrower range. A living organism with a body system regulated according to the constant temperature of the sea would need to acquire a protective system to ensure minimum harm from the temperature changes on land. It is preposterous to claim that fish acquired such a system by random mutations as soon as they stepped onto land.
METAMORPHOSIS

Frogs are born in water, live there for a while, and finally emerge onto land in a process known as "metamorphosis." Some people think that metamorphosis is evidence of evolution, whereas the two actually have nothing to do with one another.

The sole innovative mechanism proposed by evolution is mutation. However, metamorphosis does not come about by coincidental effects like mutation does. On the contrary, this change is written in frogs' genetic code. In other words, it is already evident when a frog is first born that it will have a type of body that allows it to live on land. Research carried out in recent years has shown that metamorphosis is a complex process governed by different genes. For instance, just the loss of the tail during this process is governed, according to Science News magazine, by more than a dozen genes (Science News, July 17, 1999, page 43).

The evolutionists' claim of transition from water to land says that fish, with a genetic code completely designed to allow them to live in water, turned into land creatures as a result of chance mutations. However, for this reason metamorphosis actually tears evolution down, rather than shoring it up, because the slightest error in the process of metamorphosis means the creature will die or be deformed. It is essential that metamorphosis should happen perfectly. It is impossible for such a complex process, which allows no room for error, to have come about by chance mutations, as is claimed by evolution.


3- Water: Essential to metabolism, water needs to be used economically due to its relative scarcity on land. For instance, the skin has to be able to permit a certain amount of water loss, while also preventing excessive evaporation. That is why land-dwelling creatures experience thirst, something that sea-dwelling creatures do not do. For this reason, the skin of sea-dwelling animals is not suitable for a nonaquatic habitat.

4- Kidneys: Sea-dwelling organisms discharge waste materials, especially ammonia, by means of their aquatic environment: In freshwater fish, most of the nitrogenous wastes (including large amounts of ammonia, NH3) leave by diffusion out of the gills. The kidney is mostly a device for maintaining water balance in the animal, rather than an organ of excretion. Marine fish have two types. Sharks, skates, and rays may carry very high levels of urea in their blood. Shark's blood may contain 2.5% urea in contrast to the 0.01-0.03% in other vertebrates. The other type, i. e., marine bony fish, are much different. They lose water continuously but replace it by drinking seawater and then desalting it. They rely more on tubular secretion for eliminating excess or waste solutes.

Each of these different excretory systems is very different from those of terrestrial vertebrates. Therefore, in order for the passage from water to land to have occurred, living things without a kidney would have had to develop a kidney system all at once.

5- Respiratory system: Fish "breathe" by taking in oxygen dissolved in water that they pass through their gills. They cannot live more than a few minutes out of water. In order to survive on land, they would have to acquire a perfect lung system all of a sudden.

It is most certainly impossible that all these dramatic physiological changes could have happened in the same organism at the same time, and all by chance.

 

[Dr.Trax]

Look at the forearms and legs of dimetrodon, one of the first fish to truly walk the land. Notice it has the same arms we have with thick bone in upper arm, two bones like our forearm, wrist bones, and hands.

http://www.fossilmuseum.net/fossils/synapsida/dimetrodon/Dimetrodon.jpg

I got it from the time machine link I posted for you in your other thread.

http://www.fossilmuseum.net/fossils/synapsida/dimetrodon/dimetrodon.htm

Picture yourself being that guy. Would think you were the most awesome beast around, and be right. In time have more brain cells and language and a computer and culture and other things called "human".

Evolutionary theory explains how a genome that cannot make a perfect copy of itself can sustain us, make us better with time.

There is no shame in picturing ourselves having taken a very long exciting journey through time via reincarnation, and are now here discussing it. The prophet Muhammad would never ever ignore that possibility. And if scientists are correct then Muhammad could have had a reason to be insulted by calling that just a big fish or ugly reptile. They are too much like us.

Other than not being what we're expecting to see in the mirror every morning, it has our basic bone structure and we have a tail like that shortened down to a stub but still there. Why can't we have been that, before there were humans?

This is manmade fossil(reconstructed),to propagade the world!!!

 

[wilberhum]

This is manmade fossil(reconstructed),to propagade the world!!!

:giggling::giggling::giggling::giggling::giggling::giggling::giggling::giggling::-\

 

[Dr.Trax]

:giggling::giggling::giggling::giggling::giggling::giggling::giggling::giggling::-\

 

[Science101]

Dr.Trax I agree that evolutionary theory has nothing to say about the soul. It only explains change over time. Anyone claiming that they can explain the soul with fossils, is probably not a scientist, or is at least reading too much into what the fossil evidence can tell us.

If you could find scientific evidence of another mechanism (besides evolution) I would definitely take your side and would make sure scientists and teachers take it seriously. I would love to somehow return the favor of your being first to reply to my abiogenesis topic so kindly.

http://www.islamicboard.com/health-science/134264504-more-abiogenesis-clay-science.html

It was an important topic to me because above all things I want to help speak for Creationists like you. Your side does have something valuable to say, that I have been saying in different ways. For example I bold genesis in abiogenesis because I want all the "Darwinists" to see the religious words we're slipping in, really good. But if it's science that "stands on its own merit" we can do that all we want and it's just something even they can giggle at without worrying much about it. Having fun with science. And you should see the "Creator Hypothesis" now! Up to version 10. Maybe I should post it.

The biggest problem is that we can't see all the fossils in the world shown according to age, in 3D. We cannot with our own eyes see what the scientists can after many years of visiting museum basements and back rooms and journals. Until we have something like that, have to do a lot of reading to know what there is and how it does actually form this big tree. Have to at least see that, to be a fair judge of what it means.

I'm sure that most will understand that what you posted, did not describe the problem we are to figure out. You did not explain how anything works.

Why not start off by describing the fossil evidence from dimetrodon to us. From the way the tree takes form the dimetrodon is NOT a dinosaur. It's us, way back when. And there were not many species of other animals. Diversity tremendously increased over time, with periods of extinction starting off a whole different looking world.

Scientists explained to us how all of these fossils form a series and we can see the important ones on the web. I'm involved in paleontology, and you have no idea how strong an argument they make but you have to at least know dimetrodon. Why can't it be us, in another time, in the process of becoming human, from clay as in abiogenesis science shows possible?

http://www.thebigzoo.com/shopping/shopexd.asp?id=8407

I would love to have a good discussion with you. But the scary posters and opinion of others, doesn't explain why the Creator had to make us in present form to never change. And after that we need to know why our offspring are not all exactly alike because that means we can't stay unchanged forever. We need scientific evidence, answers, like scientists provide, showing us all of a sudden appearing out of nowhere with nothing already having been there to come from. Line up all of the fossils the scientists have from fish on up to us if you have to, so we can see what these "gaps" look like. Have to explain how your Creationism mechanism works, scientifically, not with opinion, to be taken seriously. Just trying to help you...

 

[Trumble]

A moment’s reflection easily reveals the error in suggesting that shared structures are evidence of evolution. Technological structures produced in the light of a specific aim and including a blueprint such as computers are a particularly illuminating model here. As we know, the various makes of computer all contain various common components, such as hard disks, processors and screens. These components resemble one another in terms of both function and structure. For example, although the screens belonging to two different brands of computer may be slightly different in size and other features, they still work on basically the same principles, using similar technology and structures. This is perfectly natural, because engineers have designed them in the light of a common objective and manufactured them by combining similar structures required for that purpose.
Careful examination shows that the findings of the study in question bear a close similarity to this state of affairs.

A "moment's reflection" on my part came up with the conclusion that you are presenting no more than the tired old argument for design with a new outfit. Science is not based on argument by analogy - particularly when the analogy cannot be justified as would seem to be the case here. In what relevant way sufficient to draw the conclusions you do do you consider the design and manufacture of IT equipment to be analogous to evolution by natural selection?

 

[root]

5- Respiratory system: Fish "breathe" by taking in oxygen dissolved in water that they pass through their gills. They cannot live more than a few minutes out of water. In order to survive on land, they would have to acquire a perfect lung system all of a sudden.

It is most certainly impossible that all these dramatic physiological changes could have happened in the same organism at the same time, and all by chance.

Dr Trax......

In 2004, for example, a team of researchers made a remarkable discovery. On an island in far northern Canada, they found a four-foot-long fossil with features intermediate between those of a fish and a four-legged animal. It had gills, scales, and fins, and it probably spent most of its life in the water. But it also had lungs, a flexible neck, and a sturdy fin skeleton that could support its body in very shallow water or on land.

http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11876&page=1

 

[Science101]

This is manmade fossil(reconstructed),to propagade the world!!!

They come out of the ground! I have trace-fossils in my own yard!!

http://members.aol.com/dinoprints/

If you don't believe they come out of the ground then go on a fossil dig and find your own. Making claims that suggest all scientists are dishonest people, without ever once seeing what they do, is wrong. Even though he had poor reading skills Muhammad was also a scientist, was he dishonest too?

The Muslim world gave us this scientific method now being used. Please learn how to use it too. You'll have fun.

 

[Omium]

There is quite some extensive evidence for Darwinism and evolution.

To simply state that it is a myth etc etc. Is quite ignorant.

 

[Dr.Trax]

THE CLAIM OF INTERMEDIATE-FORM FOSSILS IS A DECEPTION

The evolutionist Dr. David Raup, curator of geology at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, has this to say:

Darwin's theory of natural selection has always been closely linked to evidence from fossils, and probably most people assume that fossils provide a very important part of the general argument that is made in favor of darwinian interpretations of the history of life. Unfortunately, this is not strictly true. 4

Visitors to any natural history museum encountered intense evolutionist propaganda. They are shown imaginary reconstructions and false handmade bones that supposedly belong to our imaginary forebears. A single fossilized fragment of a once-living thing, which constitutes no evidence for evolution, is depicted as highly important "intermediate form evidence" of the fictitious transition from fish to amphibian. A rib bone—that obviously confirms the fact of Creation but which evolutionists misinterpret and portray as "proof of evolution"—is exhibited with enormous pride. Based on the detailed descriptions of supposed fossils and the Latin names given them, a great many of those who examine these things are convinced that they are dealing with an evolutionary fact. Yet the museums' true objective is to give the impression that something exists when in fact it does not, and to display propaganda regarding something that has no existence at all.

Evolutionists imagine that they can attain their objectives by these methods, because museum visitors are unaware that there is not one single intermediate-form fossil to support the theory of evolution—and that living fossils that have remained unchanged for millions of years, contrary to the claims of the theory of evolution, lie concealed in storage areas, often directly beneath the displays themselves.

Half-human, half-ape creatures never existed. The scientific evidence shows that human beings have always existed as human beings. Evolutionists are careful to conceal this fact, however, and they resort to various deceptions to claim the opposite.

In fact, the efforts made by evolutionists are all hollow. No intermediate-form fossils documenting evolution on Earth have ever been discovered. There remains not the slightest trace of these imaginary, peculiar and semi-developed creatures that should have existed over the course of millions of years. The evolutionary process is merely a belief—a hope that Darwinists wish would come true. Yet the fossil record has never permitted this dream to become a reality. Countless fossils have been unearthed from just about all over the world. Yet the intermediate-form fossils that were missing in Darwin's time are just as absent today. And it is impossible that they can ever be found, because evolution has never happened. By inventing fictitious theories, constructing their own imaginary intermediate forms out of plaster and bakelite, and producing "reconstructions" and "artist's conceptions" to illustrate the supposed lives of those intermediate forms, Darwinists seek to breathe life into a supposed evolution.

The fact is, however, that their efforts can never bear fruit. Conditions now are different from those in Darwin's time. Scientific facts are now emerging into the light, and new discoveries constantly reveal proofs of the fact of Creation. No Darwinist can any longer maintain that the fossil record is insufficient. Scientific data and the fossil record have revealed incontrovertible facts. The absence of any intermediate fossils is too obvious for evolutionists to cover up any longer.

In the journal Science, D.S. Woodroff of California University sets out this grave disappointment suffered by evolutionists:

But fossil species remain unchanged throughout most of their history and the record fails to contain a single example of a significant transition. 5

In the strata in which they conduct their hunt for intermediate-form fossils, Darwinists continually find fossils of living things that never underwent any changes over the course of millions of years and were never subjected to evolution. The proofs of the fact of creation number millions every day, but the intermediate-form fossils that evolutionists have been expecting with such anticipation are nowhere to be seen. They have therefore had to make do with portraying what are actually proofs of the fact of creation as being intermediate-form fossils. Using various propaganda techniques, they attempt to depict highly developed and complex life forms dating back millions of years as evidence for their own theory. By submitting their biased interpretations of fossils, they tried to describe a bird's highly developed, complex wings as merely "developing," and the fins of a fish as future legs of a creature preparing to emerge onto dry land. By such means, they sought to portray the coelacanth as an example of the transition from water to dry land, and Archaeopteryx as a reptile moving from the ground to the air.

Every fossil that Darwinists unearth, they seek to portray as supporting their theories. By making use of the public's lack of knowledge of scientific matters, they feel free to distort the facts. One method they resort to most frequently is to portray extinct life forms as evidence for their evolutionary scenario. The fossils exhibited in a great many museums are accompanied by evolutionist comments—which comments in fact have no scientific value.

Yet even these fossilized remains show that these creatures possessed exceedingly complex features, but no intermediate ones. Indeed, when a living coelacanth—one of the life forms that had been the subject of such evolutionist speculation—was caught in deep water in 1938, some 400 million years later than fossilized specimens, this shattered all evolutionist dreams.

Evolutionists are suffering a similar disappointment when it comes to Archaeopteryx, which scientific research has shown to be a full-fledged bird. Evolutionists were speechless when Archaeopteryx, depicted for many years as the crucial evidence for the imaginary transition from ground to the air, was discovered to have had flawless flight muscles, feathers ideally suited to flight, and a perfect wing structure.

The coelacanth, which has survived unchanged for 400 million years

Piltdown Man, portrayed for 43 years as highly significant evidence confirming evolution, turned out to be a hoax. In 1953, investigations into the skull revealed that Piltdown Man was no fossil, but a forgery produced by combining human and orangutan bones.
Above: Excavations at Piltdown, birthplace of the Piltdown Man scandal

The Protein!
Proteins are complex molecules that constitute the building blocks of living cells and which also undertakeimportant responsibilities inside them. The odds of the average protein molecule emerging by chance are 1 in10950. (Inpractical terms, this number represents zero probability.) Mathematicians,too, have thus dealt aserious blow to Darwinism.

If Darwinists' claims were true, then the fossil record should contain a large number of very strange life forms with several eye sockets, noses in different places, a jaw in the back as well as in the front, and abnormally developed skulls, as pictured here. Yet no such fossil has ever been found after 150 years of research. On the contrary, all the fossils unearthed to date show that all living things have been flawless and fully formed since the moment they first came into being, and never changed so long as they existed.

In his book The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong, the well-known biologist Francis Hitching says:

If we find fossils, and if Darwin's theory was right, we can predict what the rock should contain; finely graduated fossils leading from one group of creatures to another group of creatures at a higher level of complexity. The "minor improvements" in successive generations should be as readily preserved as the species themselves. But this is hardly ever the case. In fact, the opposite holds true, as Darwin himself complained; "innumerable transitional forms must have existed, but why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?" Darwin felt though that the "extreme imperfection" of the fossil record was simply a matter of digging up more fossils. But as more and more fossils were dug up, it was found that almost all of them, without exception, were very close to current living animals. 10

If living things had assumed their present structures and appearances through tens of thousands of minute changes, then countless fossil specimens should document this illusory development. Abnormal entities with two brains, three backbones, four eyes, two jaws, three noses, seven fingers and three legs should be in evidence. Yet all the fossils found to date show that human beings have always been human beings.

If Darwinists' claims were true, then chance and mutations should give rise to considerable lack of proportion, imbalance and peculiarity in the perfect and magnificent human body. They should produce many abnormalities such as a skull growing from the hip, more than one arm sprouting from the shoulder, and a large number of ribs or pelvic bones. Arm and leg bones should be lopsided, instead of being straight as we see them today. Yet not a single such fossil specimen has ever been discovered. The bodies of all the billions of human beings who have ever lived or who are living today have all possessed the same symmetry, balance and order. This demolishes Darwinist claims of "gradual development" as a result of chance and mutations.


Or lets start from begining and explain the theory from both sides!
and let us see how far we will go!

 

[Science101]

Well, I have to say that whoever put that together does not know developmental biology (google "embryology"). While forming a brain (or other organ) similar cells move to where they feel right in the colony and if there is more of them then they still form only one brain. The picture showing three brains and all that is funny though. And what is with making everything other than a modern human, look like a monkey? Wow!

Lets put it this way:

The Quraan has invited man to look into the matter of his own creation in order to find the Wisdom of Allah and to understand the purpose of the whole creation.

http://www.islamicboard.com/health-science/134264731-medicine.html#post917269

What you found is throwing stones at "the whole creation" as well as ruining the vesicle mystery of the black-stone. Everything only fits together when what scientists did in fact find and what is possible are studied. Only thing you are doing is helping to prove that.

All Muslims have been called to study enough science to know why what you found is impossible. So I am glad I did NOT write that!