On this site you can find works by Harun Yahya that totally demolish Darwinism, as well as news reports and developments that demonstrate the global effect these works are having.
"Invite to the way of your Lord with wisdom and beautiful preaching and reason with them in the best manners possible" Holy Quran (Sura Al-Nahl 16, Ayah 125)
As someone without much of a science background I have struggled through your linked site, but it seems very dodgy to keep using moral arguments against a scientific model. It keeps saying that Darwinism is dangerous and harmful, but surely these statements have no place in a scientific argument?
rather than generate another 9 pages of response to the drivel in the OP, I would recommend you see the excellent responses to this nonsense in the culture forum, thread with the same title.
Originally posted by Greenjack: rather than generate another 9 pages of response to the drivel in the OP, I would recommend you see the excellent responses to this nonsense in the culture forum, thread with the same title.
Looked at some of the statements. flimsy to say the least, don't take into account parallel evolution. Like saying that a hedgehog is the same thing as a echidna, or a trilobite is the same thing as a woodlouse. No, totally bogus.
the flimsyness of scientifically difficult to explain (or unexplainable) fades into insignificance compared to the flimsiness of counter theories that it must have been a divine creator !!! laughable at best
Darwininan gradualism is not supported by the fossil record. Darwin recognised this and thought that fossils would be found to support his theory. This has not happened. This lead to some to hypothesise that 'evolution' occurred in jumps - punctuated evolution. The evidence for this is the lack of material evidence. This is bad science.
Originally posted by i flee tint: Darwininan gradualism is not supported by the fossil record. Darwin recognised this and thought that fossils would be found to support his theory. This has not happened. This lead to some to hypothesise that 'evolution' occurred in jumps - punctuated evolution. The evidence for this is the lack of material evidence. This is bad science.
do you think there are fossils of every stage or is it possible that there are periods where there just isn't any fossil evidence? perhaps the conditions for fossilisation just didn't always occur?
Originally posted by WaheedM: On this site you can find works by Harun Yahya that totally demolish Darwinism, as well as news reports and developments that demonstrate the global effect these works are having. http://www.invitation2truth.com/creation-museum/
I saw no evidence of anything that even raised doubts about evolution, nevertheless "demolishes "it. Why for instance does the author think that showing plants or insects unchanged for millions of years means evolution doesn't work? I assume he thinks that change is inevitable over time, so a species not evolving means evolution as a whole isn't working? Simple nonsense and an egregious example of a complete lack of even basic understanding of evolution. Second, why does he keep saying that the universe was created out of nothing...repeatedly...every page practically. The Big Bang theory does NOT SAY that the universes was created from nothing exploding to create a universe. It says a "singularity" or some other "something" exploded, so again, now he is just lying, over and over and over again.
here;s a truth. If your argument is so thin that you must lie to make a decent argument for your case, you have admitted your lack of having any leg to stand on. What;s more curious, is why you don't know that when you must create a lie to convince someone, then your surely backing the wrong side of the argument, Simple logic, but that seems to be the fundamentalists weak spot. Logic and reason.
Got to keep in mind that fossilization is a very rare event in nature. A plant or animal, hopefully dead, would have to be covered very quickly in some substance that would keep it from rotting (volcanic ash and silt from flooding are two examples) and then it would have to become hard enough not to wear away for millions of years, or buried deeper as time goes by. A fact is that in some fossil-rich areas the exposed remains are being worn away by water and wind erosion, so there is a kind of race to preserve them while it's possible.
Also keep in mind that the fossilization process is not kind to soft tissues, so mostly what we find is bones. This leaves out the longest period of evolution during which there were no organisms with bones.
And a particular organism is called successful if it goes through a particularly long period without evolving because it's design was so well-suited to changing environments that it didn't have to change. Witness the horseshoe crab (also called king crab in N. America). Hardly changed at all for 300 million years. It didn't need to change, so natural selection could have no effect on it.
Originally posted by elfuente: Got to keep in mind that fossilization is a very rare event in nature. A plant or animal, hopefully dead, would have to be covered very quickly in some substance that would keep it from rotting (volcanic ash and silt from flooding are two examples) and then it would have to become hard enough not to wear away for millions of years, or buried deeper as time goes by. A fact is that in some fossil-rich areas the exposed remains are being worn away by water and wind erosion, so there is a kind of race to preserve them while it's possible.
Also keep in mind that the fossilization process is not kind to soft tissues, so mostly what we find is bones. This leaves out the longest period of evolution during which there were no organisms with bones.
And a particular organism is called successful if it goes through a particularly long period without evolving because it's design was so well-suited to changing environments that it didn't have to change. Witness the horseshoe crab (also called king crab in N. America). Hardly changed at all for 300 million years. It didn't need to change, so natural selection could have no effect on it.
Thanks, GJ. I just wanted to add that there is one very rich deposit of soft bodied animals from the "Cambrian explosion", a huge flowering of diverse species over 500 million years ago. It is called the Burgess Shale, and it is way up on the side of a mountian in the Rockies of British Columbia, Canada. You can google it and see some amazing pictures. You can actually visit there, but it does involve some fairly serious mountaineering, so be warned before you buy the ticket.
There are probably some other such deposits yet undiscovered. As I said before, fossilization is a very rare thing.
Originally posted by WaheedM: On this site you can find works by Harun Yahya that totally demolish Darwinism, as well as news reports and developments that demonstrate the global effect these works are having.
Doesn't this just display the total dishonesty of the religious devotees. Not only are their claimed "facts" lies but the entire premise is false. So what if one could disprove ToE or the Big Bang or any other scientific theory which goes against some fictional "god" myth? Would that mean that the answer must therefore be accepted as "godditit". Nope, if the religious want anyone to accept their godditit idea as anything more than fantasy then they need to present the proof for it. Knowing they have 0% proof for their myth all they can do is lie and misrepresent the science they don't agree with.
Originally posted by elfuente: Thanks, GJ. I just wanted to add that there is one very rich deposit of soft bodied animals from the "Cambrian explosion", a huge flowering of diverse species over 500 million years ago. It is called the Burgess Shale, and it is way up on the side of a mountian in the Rockies of British Columbia, Canada. You can google it and see some amazing pictures. You can actually visit there, but it does involve some fairly serious mountaineering, so be warned before you buy the ticket.
There are probably some other such deposits yet undiscovered. As I said before, fossilization is a very rare thing.
Hey Wheelbarrow Queen , you may be interested in this! Burgess Shale
"living fossils" prove nothing against evolution. natural selection is the driving force behind evolution. if an organism is already adapted to its environment, and its environment doesnt change, then there is no "selection pressure" and a population will not evolve.
its a good rule to follow that the types of organism that have not evolved for the longest time are also the best adapted and the best built for survival.
