Just a little question

It would be rather wishful of you to expect an actual answer to this dilemma.

So very sadly true...

[SIZE="3"]THE MYTH COLLAPSES: THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION[/SIZE]

Part I

In the West, the theory of evolution continues to be promoted as if it were a proven fact or a secure, testable and tested law - something that no-one in their right minds questions any more. This presentation implies that there is no room, let alone any need, for discussion. The most common media cliche is that the evolutionary chain has been confirmed yet again by yet another discovery of the missing link proving human ancestry from apes. Faced with this kind of promotion and presentation, and the sheer pervasiveness of it, it is no surprise if non-specialists come to accept that the theory must be true, and that it must be accepted by all the specialists, the whole scientific community, with no serious doubters. However, that perception is far from the reality. In the first place, the theory lacks completeness on two major counts and there is no likelihood of these deficiencies ever being made up. In the second, there are major voices of dissent from within the scientific community, alongside alternative theoretical explanations which demonstrate a far superior conformity with observed or experimentally obtained data.

Part II

[SIZE="3"]The origin of life[/SIZE]Another evolutionist scientist has offered a different analogy with the same conclusion. The probability of a chance formation of only one of the proteins required for life (Cytochrome-C) may be likened to the probability of a monkey writing out the history of humanity by randomly pushing the keys of a typewriter.

What evolution theory defends is exactly this nonsensical assertion. Yet, the examples above are only the probability calculations for the chance formation of a single protein. However, millions of similar impossible coincidences should have been realized consecutively in order for the evolution of life to be effected.

The probability of chance formation of a Cytochrome-C sequence is as low as zero. If life requires that certain sequence, it is likely to be realized only once in the whole life-time and space of the universe. Now it could be proposed that some metaphysical power(s) beyond our definition consciously enabled its formation. But to entertain such a proposition is, apparently, not appropriate for the modern enterprise of science. Therefore we have to fall back on the first hypothesis as the best we have at present.

If, as it appears, the theory of evolution is not justified by the information we have, how does it survive? Has questioning it become, among the specialists, a taboo which they violate at the risk of their reputation and their careers? If so, why? We will return to this question.

Part III

[SIZE="3"]The Problem of Transitional Forms[/SIZE]

Part IIII

[SIZE="3"]The Ideological Background to the Theory[/SIZE][SIZE="3"]Conclusion[/SIZE]The scientists defending it remark that it is very evident that life has been created by a conscious designer.

Wilson(Atheist): But why should a person consider the existence of the material world as evidence of the existence of the creator of matter? Is it not probable that matter existed without a creator? Suppose someone views that matter or energy is infinitely old, and that it never was preceded by non-existence. Would you be able to disprove his views?

Chirri(Muslim): It is very hard to accept the idea that matter is infinitely old.

When one says that matter or energy is infinitely old, one assumes that the material out of which the billions of stars were built, existed simultaneously. When we are aware that each star contains billions of tons of materials, and that the balance of the raw material is much more than the material which is contained in the stars and planets, we realize the improbability of such an idea. We cannot conceive that all these quantities of materials existed at once and that nothing of it was preceded by non-existence.

To say that only a portion of the material is infinitely old, and that the other portions came to existence at a later stage, is to admit the need of a creator, because the inanimate material does not increase by self-reproduction. Only living beings are capable of multiplying by self-reproduction. To allow any gradual increase in the material quantity is to admit the need of a creator.

Wilson: I may agree with you that matter and energy must have been preceded by non-existence. But this is not very obvious to every human being. Does the teaching of Islam suggest the consideration of anything in the nature that was undoubtedly preceded by non-existence?

Chirri: Yes, there is something which we all know, and it was born after the existence of the earth, namely: life. Our scientists state that earth was too hot (and some of them say it was too cold) for any kind of life to exist on it. It took the earth millions of years to become a suitable place for life. Life, therefore, is, undoubtedly, a newborn.

Science, however, tells us that life does not originate from non-living being. Pasteur's experiment, which took place in the 19th century, is still standing. Through his sterilized soup, he proved beyond any doubt that life does not originate from inanimate material. The scientists of today are still unable to disprove his conclusion.

The earth, along with its atmosphere, at the time of its formation was sterile and unproductive. Transforming the inanimate materials, such as carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, calcium, and iron into a living being could not, therefore, be done through a natural process. It must have been done miraculously. This means that the existence of life on this planet is a shining evidence on the existence of an Intelligent, Supernatural Designer.

[SIZE="3"]Evolution Exposed[/SIZE]

"When we descend to details, we can prove that no species has changed (i.e. we cannot prove that a single species has changed); nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory."--Charles Robert Darwin

"Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic change; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against any theory [of evolution]."--Charles Robert Darwin

"To suppose that the eye, with all of its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree."--Charles Robert Darwin

[SIZE="3"]The Collapse of Atheism[/SIZE]

In this film you will see how the most basic assumptions of atheism collapsed with scientific, political and sociological developments in the past decades. From the theories of Charles Darwin or Sigmund Freud, to the fall of communism or the hippie dream, see how the atheist dogma falls at the dawn of the 21st century.

Watch this 40 minutes film here (click here >>) The Collapse of Atheism

[SIZE="3"]I’ve found God, says man who cracked the genome[/SIZE]

The Sunday Times
June 11, 2006
By: Steven Swinford
I’ve found God, says man who cracked the genome - Times Online

THE scientist who led the team that cracked the human genome is to publish a book explaining why he now believes in the existence of God and is convinced that miracles are real.

Francis Collins, the director of the US National Human Genome Research Institute, claims there is a rational basis for a creator and that scientific discoveries bring man “closer to God”.

For Collins, unravelling the human genome did not create a conflict in his mind. Instead, it allowed him to “glimpse at the workings of God”.

“When you make a breakthrough it is a moment of scientific exhilaration because you have been on this search and seem to have found it,” he said. “But it is also a moment where I at least feel closeness to the creator in the sense of having now perceived something that no human knew before but God knew all along.

“When you have for the first time in front of you this 3.1 billion-letter instruction book that conveys all kinds of information and all kinds of mystery about humankind, you can’t survey that going through page after page without a sense of awe. I can’t help but look at those pages and have a vague sense that this is giving me a glimpse of God’s mind.”

Collins joins a line of scientists whose research deepened their belief in God. Isaac Newton, whose discovery of the laws of gravity reshaped our understanding of the universe, said: “This most beautiful system could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent and powerful being."

Quote mining. Is there so little integrity in your position that you must distort and twist the truth?

Atheism is not synonymous with communism.

Is this all what you can say to defend your exposed shaking atheism faith !!?

Rest assured i have much to say, but I needn't say it all. Simply exposing the dishonesty in your misinformation is enough.

You as well as I know that Darwin never said a bad word about his own theory, why would he, he maintained his theory as true 'til his grave, and to take a quote of his and to make it appear as if he really didn't believe in it is downright dishonest and maybe even sinister.

I see alot of words and nothing there!

figures :no:

Then why don't you supply us with the rest of those quotes? Give us what is said before and after those specific little snippets.

What? That makes your claim collapse? I thought so.

Still waiting for you to show direct evidence for your deity without the use of any religious text (cannot attribute to what you cannot show exists).