0
   

Prize For Evolution Compettition Increased To 100,000 YTL!

 
 
Reply Tue 25 Nov, 2008 07:07 am
[SIZE="3"][CENTER]
In the second stage of the competition, the winning contestant will receive a prize of 100,000 YTL, the runner-up 50,000 YTL and the third prize-winning contestant 25,000 YTL.SOME DILEMMAS FACING THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION

(1) Life cannot emerge by chance...(5) Organs with irreducible complexity...
Irreducible complexity is a feature that invalidates the claim of gradual development lying at the heart of the theory of evolution. For example, eyes and wings possess irreducible complexity. It is impossible for the structures such as the tear gland, retina and iris, that together comprise the eye, to come into being individually in stages. That is because sight will only take place when all the components making up the eye are present and fully formed. The same thing applies to the wing.

(6) All the variety of life on Earth appeared suddenly 530 million years ago...
Nearly all the phyla (Mollusca, Chordata and similar categories) emerged in the Cambrian Period, 530 million years ago. Only one or two phyla existed in the Pre-Cambrian, whereas more than 50 emerged suddenly in the Cambrian in various regions of the world. Pre-Cambrian life forms had only very simple bodily forms, while those from the Cambrian were incomparably complex. For example, there is no difference between the eye of the trilobite, a life form that emerged in the Cambrian, and the eyes of present-day life forms.

(7) Reptiles are not the ancestors of birds...
Evolutionists are no longer able to point to Archaeopteryx as an intermediate form between reptiles and birds. Investigations of fossils have shown that the creature is not a transitional form, but rather an extinct species of bird with slightly different characteristics to those of present-day birds. The presence of a breastbone (sternum) proving it had powerful flight muscles and an asymmetrical feather structure identical to that in present-day birds show that this animal was able to fly perfectly well.

(8) Fish did not move onto the land...(9) Mutations cannot form new species...
Mutations are breakages and dislocations, caused by radiation or chemical effects, in the DNA molecule located in the nucleus of the living cell and that carries genetic information. DNA has a highly complex structure. For that reason, any random change arising in this molecule can only damage it. Mutations usually lead to irreparable damage, deformity and even death. People subjected to the tragedies of Hiroshima, Nagasaki or Chernobyl are living indications of this. The claim that mutations are an evolutionary mechanism is proof of the dilemma facing the theory of evolution.

Natural selection means the survival of strong individuals best fitted to environmental conditions. But this does not give rise to new species. For example, in a herd of zebra threatened by predators, it is the fastest-running zebra that will survive, and the herd will gradually turn into a herd of fast-running zebra. But this process is a limited one and it will never turn the zebra into any other species. That is because their skeletal and muscular structure and physiology is recorded in their DNA, and the struggle against predators cannot change that information nor bestow any new genetic information on zebra.

(11) Human beings did not evolve, but were created as human beings...(12) All the fossil skulls proposed for the supposed evolution of man are false...
All of the fossils proposed for the myth of evolution belong either to apes or to human beings. None of them have any intermediate form characteristics. Darwinist categorization of fossils is based on their speculation on either extinct ape or human fossils. In fact, all the living things classified as Australopithecus and Homo habilis are actually extinct apes, and those classified as Homo erectus and Homo neandertalensis are extinct forms of human being.

(13) The history of evolution is full of fraud... (14) Darwinists have sought a solution in hiding the fossil record, which did not reveal a single intermediate fossil...
Darwinists conceal fossils. The reason for this is that among all the millions of fossils, NOT A SINGLE ONE supports evolution. Cambrian fossils that declare that the whole variety of life emerged suddenly some 530 million years ago with no evolutionary ancestors behind it, were concealed by an evolutionist scientist for 70 years. The oldest known fossil parrot, dating back 65 million years, which is identical to present-day parrots and thus refutes evolution, was hidden away for 40 years. There are still 100 million fossils unearthed from below the ground and that show that living things were created with all their perfect, complex appearances and have never changed since, that are being concealed by Darwinists.


Darwinists are unable to account for the cell, which is a miracle with a complex and perfect structure that Darwin could never dream of in his own day. Many structures in the cell, such as energy production plants, protein manufacturing factories, freight systems carrying raw materials, decoders that translate DNA and communications systems are all in a constant state of flawlessly organized activity, and only a small part of these components are fully understood. The impossibility of even a single protein from among the hundreds of proteins that constitute the cell emerging by chance makes it very clear what a deception the Darwinist claim of the first fictitious cell really is.

(16) The Darwinist claim of vestigial organs is a deception... (17) The fact that we only have experience of an image of matter totally demolishes Darwinist philosophy...
One reality scientifically proven in our century is that we never have direct experience of the external original of matter. Electric signals reach us by way of our senses, and the image that forms for us in our brains consists solely of these signals. But we see highly colored, vivid, active, three-dimensional and perfectly sharp images, hear perfectly clear sounds and perceive a flawless outside world. But all these are merely perceptions. It is the soul bestowed on human beings by Allah (God) that perceives, sees and hears them, that understands, thinks, rejoices and yearns. This great reality has totally discredited the materialist and Darwinist mindset, which claims that everything consists of matter.

For information:
Harun Yahya - THE PRIZE OF THE SCIENTIFIC COMPETITION - Download Page
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 1,918 • Replies: 36
No top replies

 
Sabz5150
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Nov, 2008 07:12 am
@ahmetsecer,
That's hilarious that the "prize" is increased. Seems that it's impossible to claim Smile

I will still pay you double if you can show that Creation (i.e. Allah) is valid.
Fatal Freedoms
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Nov, 2008 10:14 am
@Sabz5150,
http://www.michaelpatrickharrington.com/images/blogpix/creationism08.gif
Fatal Freedoms
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Nov, 2008 10:17 am
@Fatal Freedoms,
http://unreasonablefaith.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/doonsbury-creationist.jpg
0 Replies
 
Musky Hunter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Nov, 2008 04:40 pm
@ahmetsecer,
:rollinglaugh:
0 Replies
 
Sabz5150
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Nov, 2008 09:08 pm
@ahmetsecer,
What I don't get, and follow me on this, is why would you need to offer a prize for invalidating a scientific theory? With all these "examples", it seems rather funny that the ones offering this prize didn't just write the invalidation themselves. Are their examples simply not holding their water (I am thinking so!) Secondly, why would you need more time? Shouldn't it be easy, given the aforementioned "examples", to write such a paper within the original constraints?

Seems to me like somebody's making things up Wink I mean... that much money and nobody's been able to claim it? I guess Oktar's gotta pay off his constituents and courts somehow...
Musky Hunter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Nov, 2008 12:45 am
@Sabz5150,
The reality is that it is almost impossible to prove something to someone who does not want it proven.
Sabz5150
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Nov, 2008 01:17 am
@Musky Hunter,
Musky Hunter;62640 wrote:
The reality is that it is almost impossible to prove something to someone who does not want it proven.


Even if I were to show you a remnant of evolution in your own blood?
Musky Hunter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Nov, 2008 01:54 am
@Sabz5150,
Sabz5150;62641 wrote:
Even if I were to show you a remnant of evolution in your own blood?


That would be a poor example since I am not particularly against the concept of evolution, although I am very sceptical that it is as proven or accurately developed as a legitimate scientific theory as many purport it to be.

A better example would be for you to try to prove to me that God was not behind the process of what you show me.
Sabz5150
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Nov, 2008 03:05 am
@Musky Hunter,
Musky Hunter;62645 wrote:
That would be a poor example since I am not particularly against the concept of evolution, although I am very sceptical that it is as proven or accurately developed as a legitimate scientific theory as many purport it to be.

A better example would be for you to try to prove to me that God was not behind the process of what you show me.


You are attempting to use a logical fallacy again. However I will bite.

Wisdom teeth: How could God, being all powerful and knowing, screw up that bad?

Now, show me that evolution is not behind the process I want to show you.

In the end, your logical fallacy is a shield you use to protect your faith, since there is no logical way to show something is NOT the cause of something (such a thing, regardless of what it is, cannot be shown by its very nature), you claim that this is proof FOR this something. However when pressed, you cannot show proof that this something IS behind said cause.
0 Replies
 
Fatal Freedoms
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Nov, 2008 06:40 am
@Musky Hunter,
Musky Hunter;62645 wrote:
That would be a poor example since I am not particularly against the concept of evolution, although I am very sceptical that it is as proven or accurately developed as a legitimate scientific theory as many purport it to be.

A better example would be for you to try to prove to me that God was not behind the process of what you show me.


Theistic evolution?
Musky Hunter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Nov, 2008 07:59 am
@Fatal Freedoms,
Fatal_Freedoms;62649 wrote:
Theistic evolution?

,
If that terminology is more palatable to you than ID then I will voluntarily acquiesce.:peace:
Sabz5150
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Nov, 2008 01:30 am
@Musky Hunter,
Musky Hunter;62652 wrote:
,
If that terminology is more palatable to you than ID then I will voluntarily acquiesce.:peace:


Well ID in itself is scientifically vacuous, theistic evolution only slightly less so.

I'll pose another question to you. Chromosome 2: Why would God do this? Why, in all the benevolent knowledge and power, would a deity need to make what is best described as a "hack", and a rather cobbled together one at that?
Fatal Freedoms
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Nov, 2008 05:16 am
@Sabz5150,
Sabz5150;62657 wrote:
Well ID in itself is scientifically vacuous, theistic evolution only slightly less so.

I'll pose another question to you. Chromosome 2: Why would God do this? Why, in all the benevolent knowledge and power, would a deity need to make what is best described as a "hack", and a rather cobbled together one at that?


not so, theistic evolution works exactly in the same was as naturalistic evolution with one minor difference, that being a deity initiated evolution and then letting life go the same course of trial and error. theistic evolution would still allow for the same "biological mistakes".

I for one am just happy that musky accepts evolution at all.
Sabz5150
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Nov, 2008 05:29 am
@Fatal Freedoms,
Fatal_Freedoms;62658 wrote:
not so, theistic evolution works exactly in the same was as naturalistic evolution with one minor difference, that being a deity initiated evolution and then letting life go the same course of trial and error. theistic evolution would still allow for the same "biological mistakes".

I for one am just happy that musky accepts evolution at all.


Is the deity behind "theistic evolution" scientifically verifiable?
Fatal Freedoms
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Nov, 2008 08:37 am
@Sabz5150,
Sabz5150;62660 wrote:
Is the deity behind "theistic evolution" scientifically verifiable?


I think you know the answer to that.
Musky Hunter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Nov, 2008 12:53 pm
@Sabz5150,
Sabz5150;62657 wrote:
Well ID in itself is scientifically vacuous, theistic evolution only slightly less so.

I'll pose another question to you. Chromosome 2: Why would God do this? Why, in all the benevolent knowledge and power, would a deity need to make what is best described as a "hack", and a rather cobbled together one at that?


I don't know. I am not God.
Musky Hunter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Nov, 2008 12:56 pm
@Fatal Freedoms,
Fatal_Freedoms;62658 wrote:
not so, theistic evolution works exactly in the same was as naturalistic evolution with one minor difference, that being a deity initiated evolution and then letting life go the same course of trial and error. theistic evolution would still allow for the same "biological mistakes".

I for one am just happy that musky accepts evolution at all.


Well... As a whole, I agree, except that theistic evolution allows or even insinuates a certain amount of theistic meddling from time to time. Wink
Fatal Freedoms
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Nov, 2008 03:22 pm
@Musky Hunter,
Musky Hunter;62665 wrote:
Well... As a whole, I agree, except that theistic evolution allows or even insinuates a certain amount of theistic meddling from time to time. Wink


Unless of course that god was infallible and omniscient then there would be no need for meddling.
Musky Hunter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Nov, 2008 12:27 am
@Fatal Freedoms,
Fatal_Freedoms;62669 wrote:
Unless of course that god was infallible and omniscient then there be no need for meddling.


Unless the God who is also "all powerful" with the ability to be infallible and omniscient was so "all powerful" that the God could give up some of those abilities, in the short run, so as to allow free will to exist.

After all, one is not truly "all powerful" unless one can choose not to be something as well as to be it.

In essence, the age old question is answered: "Can God make a rock so large that God can not lift it?" and the answer is "Yes, and the name of the rock is 'free will'"
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Prize For Evolution Compettition Increased To 100,000 YTL!
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 05/17/2024 at 04:14:13