1. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #209143 by ertu on July 11, 2008 at 4:14 pm

Darwinism and Terrorism

Darwinism is at the root of various ideologies of violence that spelled disaster to mankind in the 20thcentury. However, as well as these ideologies, Darwinism also defines an 'ethical understanding' and 'method' that could influence various world views. The fundamental concept behind this understanding and method is 'fighting those who are not one of us'.
We can explain this in the following way: There are different beliefs, worldviews and philosophies in the world. These can look at each other in one of two ways:
1) They can respect the existence of those who are not one of them and try to establish dialogue with them, employing a humane method.
2) They can choose to fight others, and to try to secure an advantage by damaging them, in other words, behave like a wild animal.
The horror we call terrorism is nothing other than a statement of the second view.

The faith in the legitimacy of terror comes from materialist ideologies, not Theistic faiths.
When we consider the difference between these two approaches, we can see that the idea of "man as a fighting animal" which Darwinism has subconsciously imposed on people is particularly influential. Individuals and groups who choose the way of conflict may never have heard of Darwinism and the principles of that ideology. But in the final analysis, they agree with a view whose philosophical basis rests on Darwinism. What leads them to believe in the rightness of violence is such Darwinism-based slogans as;
'In this world, only the strong survive',
'Big fish swallow the little ones',
'War is a virtue',
and 'Man advances by waging war'.
Take Darwinism away, and these are nothing but empty slogans.
Actually, when Darwinism is taken away, no philosophy of 'conflict' remains. The three monotheistic religions that most people in the world believe in, Islam, Christianity and Judaism, all oppose violence. All three religions wish to bring peace and harmony to the world, and oppose innocent people being killed and suffering cruelty and torture. Conflict and violence violate the morality that God has set out for man, and are abnormal and undesired concepts. However, Darwinism sees and portrays conflict and violence as natural, justified and correct concepts that have to exist.
For this reason, if some people commit terrorism using the concepts and symbols of Islam, Christianity and Judaism in the name of those religions, you can be sure that those people are not Muslims, Christians or Jews. They are in fact Social Darwinists. They hide under a cloak of religion, but they are not genuine believers. Even if they claim to be serving religion, they are actually enemies of religion and believers. That is because they are ruthlessly committing a crime that religion forbids, and in such a way as to blacken religion in peoples' eyes.
For this reason, the root of the terrorism that plagues our world is not in any of the monotheistic religions, but is in atheism, and the expression of atheism in our times: 'Darwinism' and 'materialism'.

2. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #209141 by ertu on July 11, 2008 at 4:12 pm

READ THIS AND FIND OUT WHAT COMMUNISM IS!!

THE BLOODY ALLIANCE: DARWINISM AND COMMUNISM


The dialectical materialism of Marx defined violence as a constructive force that helped human progress.
While fascists are found on the right wing of Social Darwinism, the left wing is occupied by communists. Communists have always been among the fiercest defenders of Darwin's theory.
This relationship between Darwinism and communism goes right back to the founders of both these 'isms.' Marx and Engels, the founders of communism, read Darwin's The Origin of Species as soon as it came out, and were amazed at is 'dialectical materialist' attitude. The correspondence between Marx and Engels showed that they saw Darwin's theory as 'containing the basis in natural history for communism'. In his book The Dialectics of Nature, which he wrote under the influence of Darwin, Engels was full of praise for Darwin, and tried to make his own contribution to the theory in the chapter 'The Part Played by Labor in the Transition from Ape to Man.'
Russian communists who followed in the footsteps of Marx and Engels, such as Plekhanov, Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin, all agreed with Darwin's theory of evolution. Plekhanov, who is considered as the founder of Russian communism, regarded marxism as 'Darwinism in its application to social science'. [9]
Trotsky said, 'Darwin's discovery is the highest triumph of the dialectic in the whole field of organic matter.' [10]
'Darwinist education' had a major role in the formation of communist cadres. For instance, historians note the fact that Stalin was religious in his youth, but became an atheist because of Darwin's books. [11]
Mao, who established communist rule in China and killed millions of people, openly stated that 'Chinese socialism is founded upon Darwin and the theory of evolution.' [12]
The Harvard University historian James Reeve Pusey goes into great detail regarding Darwinism's effect on Mao and Chinese communism in his research book China and Charles Darwin. [13]
In short, there is an unbreakable link between the theory of evolution and communism. The theory claims that living things are the product of blind chance, and provides a so-called scientific support for atheism. Communism, an atheist ideology, is for that reason firmly tied to Darwinism. Moreover, the theory of evolution proposes that development in nature is possible thanks to conflict (in other words 'the struggle for survival') and supports the concept of 'dialectics' which is fundamental to communism.
If we think of the communist concept of 'dialectical conflict', which killed some 120 million people throughout the 20thcentury, as a 'killing machine' then we can better understand the dimension of the disaster that Darwinism visited on our planet.

3. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #207320 by ertu on July 9, 2008 at 1:58 pm

Behave yourself darwinist atheists
It is very painful for you. But stop cursing and insulting. Dont you have anthing better to say except cursing?
Ddn't your parents teach you anything?
I guess not!
Stop crying like babies which nursing bottle taken away and try to handle it.
DARWÄ°NÄ°SM COLLAPSED

4. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #207309 by ertu on July 9, 2008 at 1:35 pm

Guys sorry but if Richard can not name a positive mutation on an interview, you defending darwinism nonsense on his website doesn't make any sense:)
Don't you get it? No positive mutation no evolution. Who says that: Richard D. Your leader. He knows very well that there is no evolution. But why does he still defend Darwinism nonsense then?
Allah explains their situation in the Quran as thus:
"When Our Signs came to them in all their clarity, they said, 'This is downright magic,'
and they repudiated them wrongly and haughtily, in spite of their own certainty about them. See the final fate of the corrupters."(Surat An-Naml, 13-14)

5. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #207217 by ertu on July 9, 2008 at 10:41 am

EVOLUTION REQUIRES QUADRILLIONS X QUADRILLIONS OF THE "SO CALLED" POSITIVE MUTATIONS FOR MILLIONS OF SPECIES TO EMERGE BY CHANCE!! HOW EVER THERE IS NONE OF COURSE. BECAUSE RANDOM MUTATIONS CAN NOT BE BENEFICIAL AND ALL LIVING BEINGS WERE CREATED BY GOD..
IN FACT RICHARD COULD NOT GIVE A SINGLE EXAMPLE OF A POSITIVE MUTATION OR AN EVOLUTIONARY PROCESS WHICH SEEMS TO INCREASE THE INFORMATION IN THE GENOME IN AN INTERVIEW. BUT HE IS RIGHT OF COURSE. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF EVOLUTION..NONE..
IF YOU DONT BELIEVE
GO TO THE YOU TUBE AND WATCH.

6. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #207213 by ertu on July 9, 2008 at 10:35 am

Ian
www.harunyahya.com
Read these books and you will get rid of this Darwinism nonsense very soon. That is how you treat this disease of this time.

7. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #207204 by ertu on July 9, 2008 at 10:20 am

EVOLUTION REQUIRES QUADRILLIONS X QUADRILLIONS OF THE "SO CALLED" POSITIVE MUTATIONS FOR MILLIONS OF SPECIES TO EMERGE BY CHANCE!! HOW EVER THERE IS NONE OF COURSE. BECAUSE RANDOM MUTATIONS CAN NOT BE BENEFICIAL AND ALL LIVING BEINGS WERE CREATED BY GOD..
IN FACT RICHARD COULD NOT GIVE A SINGLE EXAMPLE OF A POSITIVE MUTATION OR AN EVOLUTIONARY PROCESS WHICH SEEMS TO INCREASE THE INFORMATION IN THE GENOME IN AN INTERVIEW. BUT HE IS RIGHT OF COURSE. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF EVOLUTION..NONE..
IF YOU DONT BELIEVE
GO TO THE YOU TUBE AND WATCH.

8. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #207199 by ertu on July 9, 2008 at 10:07 am

DARWÄ°NÄ°STS I THINK YOU MIGHT HAVE FORGOTTEN THAT DARWÄ°NÄ°SM IS A LIE: BUT DARWIN LIED TO YOU..NOW TO REFRESH YOUR MEMORIES READ THIS:
The Fossil Record:
No Sign of Intermediate Forms
The clearest evidence that the scenario suggested by the theory of evolution did not take place is the fossil record.
According to this theory, every living species has sprung from a predecessor. A previously existing species turned into something else over time and all species have come into being in this way. In other words, this transformation proceeds gradually over millions of years.
Had this been the case, numerous intermediary species should have existed and lived within this long transformation period.
For instance, some half-fish/half-reptiles should have lived in the past which had acquired some reptilian traits in addition to the fish traits they already had. Or there should have existed some reptile-birds, which acquired some bird traits in addition to the reptilian traits they already had. Since these would be in a transitional phase, they should be disabled, defective, crippled living beings. Evolutionists refer to these imaginary creatures, which they believe to have lived in the past, as "transitional forms."
If such animals ever really existed, there should be millions and even billions of them in number and variety. More importantly, the remains of these strange creatures should be present in the fossil record. In The Origin of Species, Darwin explained:
"If my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking most closely all of the species of the same group together must assuredly have existed... Consequently, evidence of their former existence could be found only amongst fossil remains."

tHÄ°S Ä°S EXACTLY WHAT WAS PROVEN IN CREATION ATLAS BY HARUN YAHYA. TELL THIS ALSO TO RICHARD!!

9. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #206722 by ertu on July 8, 2008 at 5:34 pm

A CALL TO DARWÄ°NÄ°STS AND ATHEÄ°STS:

Your response is ideological and furious. In the name of defending your ideology you cross out of the borders of logic and science. By having lack of any scientific evidence to support Darwinism, you are also breaching etiquette.

Please calm down although you see your false deity (Darwinism) is being refuted.
Harun yahya has torn it into pieces.
You should thank for this instead of cursing, crying, having seizures..

10. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #206717 by ertu on July 8, 2008 at 5:21 pm

Brian you do not see the designer to know that there is a designer.
If somebody sees a book he or she knows automatically there is an author, if he sees a painting he knows there is a painter etc without seing them. Nobody thinks they existed by chance with natural conditions.
Because there are infomation and design in these. There is inconceivable amount of information and design in the universe and living beings. So that means there is omnipotent intelligence behind that. That is Allah the Creator of everything..

11. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #206708 by ertu on July 8, 2008 at 5:10 pm

I THINK BRIAN HAS DIFFICULTY OF COMPREHENSION. THAT IS OK NOT EVERYBODY CAN UNDERSTAND EVERYTHING. THAT IS VERY HUMAN. BUT IF HE IS DOING THIS ON PURPOSE THAT IS VERY BAD.

BRIAN READ THIS ALSO ALTHOUGH YOU MAY NOT UNDERSTAND!!
CHANCE IS NOT A DEITY: IT IS GOD WHO IS THE CREATOR OF ALL THAT EXISTS


CHANCE IS NOT A DEITY: IT IS GOD WHO IS THE CREATOR OF ALL THAT EXISTS


The theory of evolution, as proposed by Charles Darwin in the 19th century, is one of the most unbelievable and irrational claims in history. Despite this, over its 150-year history it's been accepted by many scientists, professors, doctors and researchers, and many others who have expended great effort to defend evolution to the point of accepting its scientific contradictions.
This theory puts forth the irrational claim that all plants, animals and human beings are the result of blind, unconscious, accidental events. Evolutionists believe that millions of years ago, in the primal soup of the oceans or in pools of water, mindless atoms with no knowledge, powers of reason came together in certain proportions and later, by chance, formed the proteins and cells that even today's scientists with the most advanced laboratory technology have not been able to duplicate. They go so far as to say that these cells, in their turnâ€"and again by sheer chanceâ€"formed starfish, fish, sparrows, hawks, seagulls, penguins, cats, lambs, lions, and even human beings who possess the faculty of reason.
To demonstrate just how incredible the claims of evolutionists are, let anyone who believes in the creative power of chance events take a large barrel. Let them put into it however much material they believe is required to form a living thing. For example, let them include all the needed elementsâ€"carbon, phosphorus, calciumâ€"as well as organic compounds like amino acids, proteins, lipids, and carotene. Then let them add to this mixture whatever outside influence they choose. For example, heat or chill the barrel. Let it be struck by lightning or apply electric current. Let them stir the mixture with whatever advanced devices they may have. In addition, let them stand guard on this barrel transferring this responsibility from father to son for millions, even billions, of years. And so as to increase the chances of success, let them control the mixing at every moment. Let them consult with others;meet with the world's foremost biologists, geneticists, physicists and experts on evolution. Leave them free to produce whatever conditions they deem necessary to originate life.
Yet despite all this serious, conscious effort, they'll never be able to produce anything like a living being in that barrel. No matter what they do, they'll never be able to produce the living things pictured in this book.
Let those atoms in that barrel perform any reactions they want; never will they begin an "evolution" capable of producing brilliant scientists like Einstein and Newton able to solve complex problems; artists like Michelangelo and Picasso able to create masterpieces; musicians like Beethoven and Mozart able to compose melodies to delight the human spirit; discoverers;scientists able to examine under electron microscopes the molecules and atoms out of which they themselves are composed; talented actors like Humphrey Bogart and Charlton Heston; celebrities like Steve Martin, Bon Jovi and Sting. Or consider the many artists; those who take pleasure in symmetry, esthetics and harmonious colors; those able to design automobiles and write books; thinkers with faculties of logic and judgment;human beings able to retain in memory what they have learned, share longings, feel excitement and pleasure;who are possessed with a sense of love, mercy and compassion; who enjoy the taste of food and whose appetite is stimulated by a cake baking in the oven; who laugh at something funny and enjoy being with their friends; who can defend an idea and carry on a discussion.
Bring unconscious atoms together in whatever way you prefer. Never will they be able to bring about a single one of these living things, or even one of their cells.
If soâ€"if no living thing can ever be produced by human effort and the whole pool of human knowledgeâ€"how can life be brought into being with the aid of unconscious atoms and chance events? Any intelligent human being of conscience can certainly understand that heâ€"and other living thingsâ€"cannot be the result of chance events. Every intelligent, unprejudiced person with a conscience knows that God has created all these living things with His incomparable power.
Regrettably, a segment of the population has accepted this irrational scenario throughout the 20th century. Professors, scientists and teachers may ridicule the "primitive" beliefs of pagan societies, while themselves accepting the nonsense of evolution. In this, they're equally as benighted as those human beings who expect a wooden idol can help them. God's Messenger, he Prophet Mohammed, peace be upon him, also reminded anyone afflicted with such blindness that the greatest sin is associating His creatures with God:
The most severe sin is to associate partners with God, while He has created you.1
In the Qur'an (29:17), God warns those who worship idols and invent lies about them that their power is strong enough to do anything.
Instead of God, you worship only idols. You are inventing a lie. Those you worship besides God have no power to provide for you. So seek your provision from God and worship Him and give thanks to Him. It is to Him you will be returned.

12. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #206688 by ertu on July 8, 2008 at 4:49 pm

BRIAN READ THIS

IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO SAY, ''IT HAPPENED BY CHANCE''


Just think about the things you see from the moment you wake up in the morning: the pillow under your head, the blanket over you, the alarm clock that woke you up, the slippers you search for as soon as you get out of bed, the window you open to get some fresh air, the clothes hanging in your closet, the mirror you look into every morning, the knife and fork you use for breakfast, the umbrella you take with you when you leave the house, the elevator you get into, the key that opens your car door, the traffic lights along the way, the billboards, the pen, paper and other things on your desk at work...
Spend some time to consider, and it will no doubt occur to you that each of these things was designed for a special purpose. No one would say that it was a matter of chance that everything was where it should be when you arose up in the morning. For example, who would claim that merely by chance, your house key was cut exactly to fit the door? Or that it ended up in your pocket by chance, in the first place? No one would claim that the billboards along the road were put there by chance, or that the meanings they intend came about by randomly painted symbols.
By the same token, no one would deny that a stapleâ€"nothing other than a specially shaped piece of wire on your deskâ€"was bent and placed in its dispenser in order to hold papers together. Each staple's metal alloy, size, shape, and intended function show the evidence of deliberate design. It was planned specifically to accommodate your needs; and there's a particular reason why staples are so often found in any office setting.
What about the people you see walking along the street? Or the trees you pass by, the dog that runs out in front of you, the pigeons that build their nests in the eaves of your house, the flowers on your table, the sky above you? Could their existence be by chance, do you think?
It would be nonsense to even consider this possibility! Everything surrounding you, animate and inanimate alike, is too wonderful and complex to be compared with man-made items or ever to be ascribed to the operations of chance. Each is an example of a conscious creation, requiring consummate intelligence and skill. Everyone who finds it illogical to think that even a single staple came about by the proper bending of a wire by chance, will see that it is even more impossible that human beings, cats, birds, trees and the entire universe emerged by chance.
But today, there are people who cannot see this clear reality. Or rather they see it, but pretend not to. They claim that trees, birds, clouds, houses, cars, you yourself, others around youâ€"in short, everything in the universe, animate and inanimate, is all the work of blind chance.
These people, known as Materialist-Darwinists, maintain the contradictory idea that chance occurrences can display supreme intelligence; and that the sum total of millions of chance events, occurring in sequence, can show creative power. According to Materialist-Darwinists, chance events have greater intelligence than every person in the worldâ€"no matter how many people have come and gone. They claim that a genius called "chance" has shaped everyone's brain, cognitive ability, judgment, memory, and countless other human characteristics for hundreds of thousands of years.
According to Materialist-Darwinists, time is the only thing that this brilliant genius needs to bring about such extraordinary events. Their warped logic claims that, if given time, chance can transform a mass of inert, unconscious atoms into, for example, a fig, olive, strawberry, orange, peach, tomato, pomegranate, melon, banana, violet, tulip, orchid, or rose; into ants, butterflies, peacocks, horses, giraffes, and human beings, or any of a million other things you may not think of. Moreover, it claims that chance can bring into existence every star, the sun, and all planets in their orbits. According to Darwinism, all students, doctors, architects, businessmen, engineers, and scientists came into being over the course of time by chance, working patiently with the help of a few minerals, a bit of water, and sunlight. Interestingly, the deity of chance at the basis of this false idea is, at the same time, used by Materialist-Darwinists in their books, conferences and heated discussions to explain their own chance existence. This is the essence of the theory of evolution and the materialist philosophy, which some evolutionist-materialist scientists describe by using Latin words in a difficult, deliberately obscurantist style.
In this book, we'll examine the irrationality of those who have entered the blind alley of chance, ignoring the wondrous design that surrounds them as well as the proofs of creation, and denying the evident existence of God Who created them and the universe they live in.
Before starting our discussion, though, it's useful to point out that Materialist-Darwinists' self-contradictory position arises from a conceptual deficiency that has been common throughout history. In the past, pagans and godless societies carved totems and statues of gods with their own hands, ignorantly believing that images of stone and clay had creative power. God speaks of these people in the Qur'an (25: 2-3):
He to Whom the kingdom of the heavens and the earth belongs. He does not have a son and He has no partner in the Kingdom. He created everything and determined it most exactly. But they have adopted gods apart from Him which do not create anything but are themselves created. They have no power to harm or help themselves. They have no power over death or life or resurrection.

13. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #206683 by ertu on July 8, 2008 at 4:41 pm

BRIAN IT IS NOT COMPLICATED. ıT IS SO SIMPLE EVECN THE PRIMARY SCHOOL CHILDREN CAN UNDERSTAND:

The universe (The matter time and space did not exist a moment before Big Bang. 14 billion yrs ago the entire universe came into being from nothingness. As you might understand nothing can come into being by chance from nothingness. IT MUST BE CREATED.It is a very powerful evidence of creation by GOD.
Now lets see what very prominent defenders of materialism say about the Big bang and creation from nothingness:

GEORGE POLITZER:(A well known materialist philosopher)

"The universe was not a created object, if it were, then it would have to be created instantaneously by God and brought into existence from nothing. To admit creation, one has to admit, in the first place, the existence of a moment when the universe did not exist, and that something came out of nothingness. This is something to which science can not accede."

George Politzer, Principes Fondamentaux de Philosophie, Editions Sociales, Paris 1954 ,p. 84
Big Bang is a scientifically proven theory(Expansion of universe,Cosmic background radiation and hydrogen helium ratio in the universe)and it is accepted by all scientists.
So that exactly proves the opposite what politzer all other materialists claimed. The universe had a beginning thus created by GOD.
Now I think you are convinced now and dont believe in this Darwinism nonsense. Or else you defend impossible scenarios to deny existence of your Creator. The choice is yours.

14. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #206674 by ertu on July 8, 2008 at 4:25 pm

There are quadrillions of evidences of creation by GOD around us. From the creation of the entire universe with bigbang from nothingness, to complexity of living things such as a cell, to amount of information in DNA, to the brain, to bat sonar systems, to the atom, to navigation systems in animals etc etc all prove an exalted creation by an omnipotent intelligence.
When there is design we now logically there is a designer. That is how human mind is constructed. The complexity and perfectness of living beings and the harmony and organisation in the universe are product of an omnipotent almighty GOD. That is Allah. The Lord of the heavens and earth and everthing in between.

15. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #206666 by ertu on July 8, 2008 at 4:11 pm

IF THE COINCIDENTAL FORMATION OF A SINGLE PROTEIN (THERE ARE BILLIONS OF DIFFERENT PROTEINS IN MILLIONS OF SPECIES)IS PROVEN IMPOSSIBLE THAT DEMOLISHES WHOLE THEORY OF EVOLUTION.

16. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #206659 by ertu on July 8, 2008 at 4:05 pm

Is There a Trial and Error Mechanism in Nature?

Finally, we may conclude with a very important point in relation to the basic logic of probability calculations, of which we have already seen some examples. We indicated that the probability calculations made above reach astronomical levels, and that these astronomical odds have no chance of actually happening. However, there is a much more important and damaging fact facing evolutionists here. This is that under natural conditions, no period of trial and error can even start, despite the astronomical odds, because there is no trial-and-error mechanism in nature from which proteins could emerge.
The calculations we give on page across to demonstrate the probability of the formation of a protein molecule with 500 amino acids are valid only for an ideal trial-and-error environment, which does not actually exist in real life. That is, the probability of obtaining a useful protein is "1" in 10950 only if we suppose that there exists an imaginary mechanism in which an invisible hand joins 500 amino acids at random and then, seeing that this is not the right combination, disentangles them one by one, and arranges them again in a different order, and so on. In each trial, the amino acids would have to be separated one by one, and be arranged in a new order. The synthesis should be stopped after the 500th amino acid has been added, and it must be ensured that not even one extra amino acid is involved. The trial should then be stopped to see whether or not a functional protein has yet been formed, and, in the event of failure, everything should be split up again and then tested for another sequence. Additionally, in each trial, not even one extraneous substance should be allowed to become involved. It is also imperative that the chain formed during the trial should not be separated and destroyed before reaching the 499th link. These conditions mean that the probabilities we have mentioned above can only operate in a controlled environment where there is a conscious mechanism directing the beginning, the end, and each intermediate stage of the process, and where only "the correct selection of the amino acids" is left uncontrolled. It is clearly impossible for such an environment to exist under natural conditions. Therefore the formation of a protein in the natural environment is logically and technically impossible. In fact, to talk of the probabilities of such an event is quite unscientific.
Since some people are unable to take a broad view of these matters, but approach them from a superficial viewpoint and assume protein formation to be a simple chemical reaction, they may make unrealistic deductions such as "amino acids combine by way of reaction and then form proteins". However, accidental chemical reactions taking place in an inanimate structure can only lead to simple and primitive changes. The number of these is predetermined and limited. For a somewhat more complex chemical material, huge factories, chemical plants, and laboratories have to be involved. Medicines and many other chemical materials that we use in our daily life are made in just this way. Proteins have much more complex structures than these chemicals produced by industry. Therefore, it is impossible for proteins, each of which is a wonder of creation, in which every part takes its place in a fixed order, to originate as a result of haphazard chemical reactions.
Let us for a minute put aside all the impossibilities we have described so far, and suppose that a useful protein molecule still evolved spontaneously "by accident". Even so, evolution again has no answers, because in order for this protein to survive, it would need to be isolated from its natural habitat and be protected under very special conditions. Otherwise, it would either disintegrate from exposure to natural conditions on earth, or else join with other acids, amino acids, or chemical compounds, thereby losing its particular properties and turning into a totally different and useless substance.

17. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #206658 by ertu on July 8, 2008 at 4:01 pm

Zero Probability

As can be seen below, the probability of formation of a protein molecule made up of 500 amino acids is "1" over a number formed by placing 950 zeros next to 1, which is a number incomprehensible for the human mind. This is a probability only on paper. Practically speaking, there is zero chance of its actually happening. As we saw earlier, in mathematics, a probability smaller than 1 in 1050 is statistically considered to have a "0" probability of occurring.
A probability of "1 over 10950" is far beyond the limits of this definition.
While the improbability of the formation of a protein molecule made up of 500 amino acids reaches such an extent, we can further proceed to push the limits of the mind with higher levels of improbability. In the "haemoglobin" molecule, which is a vital protein, there are 574 amino acids, which is more than the amino acids making up the protein mentioned above. Now consider this: in only one out of the billions of red blood cells in your body, there are "280,000,000" (280 million) haemoglobin molecules.
The supposed age of the earth is not sufficient to allow the formation of even a single protein by a "trial and error" method, let alone that of a red blood cell. Even if we suppose that amino acids have combined and decomposed by a "trial and error" method without losing any time since the formation of the earth, in order to form a single protein molecule, the time that would be required for something with a probability of 10950 to happen would still hugely exceed the estimated age of the earth.
The conclusion to be drawn from all this is that evolution falls into a terrible abyss of improbability even when it comes to the formation of a single protein.

18. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #206654 by ertu on July 8, 2008 at 3:57 pm

Calilasseia who doesnt know anythinf about statistics and matemathics.

THÄ°S Ä°S HOW CALCULATION OF ODDS OF COÄ°NCÄ°DENTAL EMERGENCE OF 500 AMINOACID PROTEÄ°N IS DONE
There are 3 basic conditions for the formation of a useful protein:

1- That all the amino acids in the protein chain are of the right type and in the right sequence

2- That all the amino acids in the chain are left-handed

3- That all of these amino acids are united between them by forming a chemical bond called "peptide bond".
1-) The probability of the amino acids being in the right sequence:

There are 20 types of amino acids used in the composition of proteins.
a-) The probability of each amino acid being chosen correctly among these 20 types = 1/20
b-) The probability of all of those 500 amino acids being chosen correctly = 1/ 20500 = 1/ 10650
= 1 chance in 10650
2-) The probability of the amino acids being left-handed:

a-) The probability of only one amino acid being left-handed = 1/2
b-) The probability of all of those 500 amino acids being left-handed at the same time = 1/ 2500 = 1/ 10150
= 1 chance in 10150
3-) The probability of the amino acids being combined with a "peptide bond":
a-) -The probability of two amino acids being combined with a "peptide bond" = 1/2
b-) -The probability of 500 amino acids all combining with peptide bonds = 1/2499 = 1/ 10150
= 1 chance in 10150
TOTAL PROBABILITY


= 1/ 10650
X 1/ 10150
X 1/ 10150
=1/ 10950

19. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #206643 by ertu on July 8, 2008 at 3:47 pm

The Biggest Obstacle to Evolution: Soul

There are many species in the world that resemble one another. For instance, there may be many living beings resembling a horse or a cat and many insects may look like one another. These similarities do not surprise anyone.
The superficial similarities between man and ape somehow attract too much attention. This interest sometimes goes so far as to make some people believe the false thesis of evolution. As a matter of fact, the superficial similarities between men and apes do signify nothing. The rhinoceros beetle and the rhinoceros also share certain superficial resemblances but it would be ludicrous to seek to establish some kind of an evolutionary link between these two creatures, one being an insect and the other a mammal, on the grounds of that resemblance.
Other than superficial similarity, apes cannot be said to be closer to man than to other animals. Actually, if level of intelligence is considered, then the honeybee producing the geometrically miraculous structure of the honeycomb or the spider building up the engineering miracle of the spider web can be said to be closer to man. They are even superior in some aspects.
There is a very big difference between man and ape regardless of a mere outward resemblance. An ape is an animal and is no different from a horse or a dog considering its level of consciousness. Yet man is a conscious, strong-willed being that can think, talk, understand, decide, and judge. All of these features are the functions of the soul that man possesses. The soul is the most important difference that interposes a huge gap between man and other creatures. No physical similarity can close this gap between man and any other living being. In nature, the only living thing that has a soul is man.

God Creates According to His Will
Would it matter if the scenario proposed by evolutionists really had taken place? Not a bit. The reason is that each stage advanced by evolutionary theory and based on coincidence could only have occurred as a result of a miracle. Even if life did come about gradually through such a succession of stages, each progressive stage could only have been brought about by a conscious will. It is not just implausible that those stages could have occurred by chance, it is impossible.
If is said that a protein molecule had been formed under the primordial atmospheric conditions, it has to be remembered that it has been already demonstrated by the laws of probability, biology, and chemistry that this could not have been by chance. But if it must be posited that it was produced, then there is no alternative but to admit that it owed its existence to the will of a Creator. The same logic applies to the entire hypothesis put forward by evolutionists. For instance, there is neither paleontological evidence nor a physical, chemical, biological, or logical justification proving that fish passed from water to land and formed the land animals. But if one must have it that fish clambered onto the land and turned into reptiles, the maker of that claim should also accept the existence of a Creator capable of making whatever He wills come into being with the mere word "be". Any other explanation for such a miracle is inherently self-contradictory and a violation of the principles of reason.
The reality is clear and evident. All life is the product of a perfect design and a superior creation. This in turn provides concrete evidence for the existence of a Creator, the Possessor of infinite power, knowledge, and intelligence.
That Creator is God, the Lord of the heavens and of the earth, and of all that is between them.

20. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #206337 by ertu on July 8, 2008 at 9:35 am

DONT U UNDERSTAND THAT MATTER CAN NOT ORGANIZE ITSELF. ıT IS SUCH A NONSCIENTIFIC SILLY ALLEGATION: READ THIS ALAWANDI BOY:
The Myth of the "Self Organization of Matter"
Quite aware that the second law of thermodynamics renders evolution impossible, some evolutionist scientists have made speculative attempts to square the circle between the two, in order to be able to claim that evolution is possible. As usual, even those endeavours show that the theory of evolution faces an inescapable impasse.
One person distinguished by his efforts to marry thermodynamics and evolution is the Belgian scientist Ilya Prigogine. Starting out from chaos theory, Prigogine proposed a number of hypotheses in which order develops from chaos (disorder). He argued that some open systems can portray a decrease in entropy due to an influx of outer energy and the outcoming "ordering" is a proof that "matter can organise itself." Since then, the concept of the "self-organization of matter" has been quite popular among evolutionists and materialists. They act like they have found a materialistic origin for the complexity of life and a materialistic solution for the problem of life's origin.
But a closer look reveals that this argument is totally abstract and in fact just wishful thinking. Moreover, it includes a very naive deception. The deception lies in the deliberate confusing of two distinct concepts, "ordered" and "organised."
We can make this clear with an example. Imagine a completely flat beach on the seashore. When a strong wave hits the beach, mounds of sand, large and small, form bumps on the surface of the sand.
This is a process of "ordering": The seashore is an open system and the energy flow (the wave) that enters it can form simple patterns in the sand, which look completely regular. From the thermodynamic point of view, it can set up order here where before there was none. But we must make it clear that those same waves cannot build a castle on the beach. If we see a castle there, we are in no doubt that someone has constructed it, because the castle is an "organised" system. In other words, it possesses a clear design and information. Every part of it has been made by a conscious entity in a planned manner.
The difference between the sand and the castle is that the former is an organised complexity, whereas the latter possesses only order, brought about by simple repetitions. The order formed from repetitions is as if an object (in other words the flow of energy entering the system) had fallen on the letter "a" on a typewriter keyboard, writing "aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa" hundreds of times. But the string of "a"s in an order repeated in this manner contains no information, and no complexity. In order to write a complex chain of letters actually containing information (in other words a meaningful sequence, paragraph or book), the presence of intelligence is essential.
The same thing applies when wind blows into a dusty room. When the wind blows in, the dust which had been lying in an even layer may gather in one corner of the room. This is also a more ordered situation than that which existed before, in the thermodynamic sense, but the individual specks of dust cannot form a portrait of someone on the floor in an organised manner.
This means that complex, organised systems can never come about as the result of natural processes. Although simple examples of order can happen from time to time, these cannot go beyond limits.
But evolutionists point to this self-ordering which emerges through natural processes as a most important proof of evolution, portray such cases as examples of "self-organization". As a result of this confusion of concepts, they propose that living systems could develop their own accord from occurrences in nature and chemical reactions. The methods and studies employed by Prigogine and his followers, which we considered above, are based on this deceptive logic.
The American scientists Charles B. Thaxton, Walter L. Bradley and Roger L. Olsen, in their book titled The Mystery of Life's Origin, explain this fact as follows:
...In each case random movements of molecules in a fluid are spontaneously replaced by a highly ordered behavior. Prigogine, Eigen, and others have suggested that a similar sort of self-organization may be intrinsic in organic chemistry and can potentially account for the highly complex macromolecules essential for living systems. But such analogies have scant relevance to the origin-of-life question. A major reason is that they fail to distinguish between order and complexity... Regularity or order cannot serve to store the large amount of information required by living systems. A highly irregular, but specified, structure is required rather than an ordered structure. This is a serious flaw in the analogy offered. There is no apparent connection between the kind of spontaneous ordering that occurs from energy flow through such systems and the work required to build aperiodic information-intensive macromolecules like DNA and protein.
In fact even Prigogine himself has accepted that the theories he has produced for the molecular level do not apply to living systems-for instance, a living cell:
The problem of biological order involves the transition from the molecular activity to the supermolecular order of the cell. This problem is far from being solved.
So why do evolutionists continue to believe in scenarios such as the "self organization of matter", which have no scientific foundation? Why are they so determined to reject the intelligence and planning that so clearly can be seen in living systems? The answer is that they have a dogmatic faith in materialism and they believe that matter has some mysterious power to create life. A professor of chemistry from New York University and DNA expert, Robert Shapiro, explains this belief of evolutionists about the "self-organization of matter" and the materialist dogma lying at its heart as follows:
Another evolutionary principle is therefore needed to take us across the gap from mixtures of simple natural chemicals to the first effective replicator. This principle has not yet been described in detail or demonstrated, but it is anticipated, and given names such as chemical evolution and self-organization of matter. The existence of the principle is taken for granted in the philosophy of dialectical materialism, as applied to the origin of life by Alexander Oparin.
All this situation clearly demonstrates that evolution is a dogma that is against emprical science and the origin of living beings can only be explained by the intervention of a supernatural power. That supernatural power is the creation of God, who created the entire universe from nothing. Science has proven that evolution is still impossible as far as thermodynamics is concerned and the existence of life has no explanation but Creation.

21. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #206332 by ertu on July 8, 2008 at 9:31 am

THE MATTER THAT YOU WORSHIP DOES NOT EXÄ°ST IN REALITY.
DARWINISM AND MATERIALISM ARE WORSE THAT SOME AFRICAN TRIBES WORSHIPPING TOTEMS.
READ THIS:

The Real Absolute Being
We are brought face to face with a very significant question: If the world we confront is comprised of our soul's perceptions, then what is the source of these perceptions?
For an answer, consider that we perceive matter only in our imaginations, but can never directly experience of its counterparts outside. Since matter is actually a perception to us, it is something "constructed." That is, it must have been caused by another powerâ€"which means that in fact, it must have been created. Moreover, this creation must be continuous. If not, then these perceptions would quickly disappear and be lost. Similarly, a television picture is displayed only as long as the signal continues to be broadcast.
So, who makes our soul that continuously watches the stars, the earth, the plants, the people, our body and everything else that we see?
Very evidently, there exists a supreme Creator Who has created the entire material universe, and Who ceaselessly continues His creation. Since this Creator displays such a magnificent creation, surely He has eternal power and might.
This Creator describes Himself, the universe and the reason of our existence for us through the book He has sent down.
This Creator is God, and His book is the Qur'an.
The fact is, the heavens and the Earthâ€"that is, the universeâ€"are not stable. Their presence is made possible only by God's creation, and that they will disappear when He ends this creation. This is revealed in a verse as follows:

God keeps a firm hold on the heavens and Earth, preventing them from vanishing away. And if they vanished no one could then keep hold of them. Certainly He is Most Forbearing, Ever-Forgiving. (Surah Fatir: 41)

This verse is describing how the material universe is maintained under the might of God. God created the universe, the Earth, mountains, and all living and non-living things, and maintains all these under His power at every moment. God manifests His name al-Khaliq in this material universe. God is al-Khaliq, in other words, the Creator of all things, the Creator from nothing. This shows that there is a material universe, outside our brains, consisting of entities created by God. However, as a miracle and manifestation of the superior nature of His creation and His omniscience, God shows us this material universe in the form of an "illusion," "shadow," or "image." As a consequence of the perfection in His creation, human beings can never reach the world outside their brains. Only God knows this real material universe.
Another interpretation of the above verse is that God constantly maintains the images of the material universe that people see. (God knows best.) If God did not wish to show the image of the world to our minds, the entire universe would cease to exist for us, and we could never reach it.
That we can never directly contact the material universe also answers the question of "Where is God?" that preoccupies a great many people.
As mentioned at the start, many cannot comprehend God's power and so, imagine Him as present somewhere in the heavens and not really intervening in worldly affairs. (God is certainly beyond that.) This logic is based on the assumptions that the universe is an assembly of matter and God is "outside" this material world.
However, just as we can never reach the material universe, neither can we have full knowledge of its true essence. All we know is the existence of the Creator Who brought all these things into beingâ€"in other words, God. To express that truth, great Islamic scholars like Imam Rabbani have said that the only absolute being is God; and that all the rest, except Him, are shadow entities.
That is because the world we see is entirely in our minds, and to directly experience its counterpart in the external world is totally impossible.
That being so, it would be wrong to imagine that God is "outside" of a material universe that we can never attain.
God is surely "everywhere" and encompasses all. This reality is explained in the Qur'an as follows:

... His Footstool encompasses the heavens and the earth and their preservation does not tire Him. He is the Most High, the Magnificent. (Surat al-Baqara: 255)

What! Are they in doubt about the meeting with their Lord? What! Does He not encompass all things? (Surah Fussilat: 54)

The fact that God is not bound with space and that He encompasses everything roundabout is stated in another verse as follows:

Both East and West belong to God, so wherever you turn, the Face of God is there. God is All-Encompassing, All-Knowing. (Surat al-Baqara: 115)

Material beings cannot see God; but God sees the matter He created in all its forms. In the Qur'an, this fact is stated thus: "No vision can grasp Him, but His grasp is over all vision." (Surat al-An'am: 103)That is, we cannot perceive God's existence with our eyes, but God has thoroughly encompassed our inside and outside, our vision and thoughts. We cannot utter any word except with His knowledge, nor can we even draw breath.
In the course of our lives, while we watch perceptions we assume to be the "external world," the closest being to us is God Himself. The secret of the following verse in the Qur'an is concealed in this reality: "It was We Who created man, and We know what dark suggestions his soul makes to him: for We are nearer to him than (his) jugular vein." (Surah Qaf: 16) When a person thinks that his body is made up of "matter," he cannot comprehend this important fact. If he takes his brain to be himself, then what he accepts as the "outside world" will begin at about 20 to 30 centimetres away. But when he conceives that everything he thinks of as matter is only perceptions in his mind, any notions such as outside or inside, far or near lose all their meaning. God has encompassed him and He is infinitely close to him.
God informs men that He is "infinitely close" to them with the verse "If My servants ask you about Me, I am near…" (Surat al-Baqara: 186). Another verse relates the same fact: "Surely your Lord encompasses the people." (Surat al-Isra: 60)
Man is misled if he thinks that the being closest to him is himself. God, in truth, is even closer to us than ourselves. He has called our attention to this point in the verse "Why is it not then that when it (soul) comes up to the throat, and you at that time look on, We are nearer to him than you, but you see not." (Surat al-Waqi'a: 83-85) People, however, remain unaware of this phenomenal fact because they cannot see it with their eyes, as revealed in the verse.
On the other hand, it is impossible for manâ€"who is nothing but a shadow being, as Imam Rabbani put it,â€" to have any power independent of God. The verse "But God has created you and your handwork!" (Surat as-Saffat: 96) shows that everything we experience takes place under God's control. In the Qur'an, this reality is stated in the verse "When you threw, it was not your act, but God's." (Surat al-Anfal: 17) whereby it is emphasised that no act is independent of God. Since we humans are shadow beings, we ourselves cannot be the ones who perform any act. However, God gives us shadow beings the feeling that we act by ourselves. In reality, it is God Who performs all acts.
A person may not want to concede this reality and may keep thinking of himself as independent of God; but this changes nothing.

22. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #206324 by ertu on July 8, 2008 at 9:23 am

The Artificially Constituted "External World"
The only world we know is the one that is designed, recorded, and made vivid thereâ€"in short, the one created and existing within our minds. Perceptions we observe in our brain may sometimes be coming from an artificial source.
We can illustrate this with an example:
First, imagine that by artificial means, your brain can survive apart from your body. And suppose a computer able to produce all kinds of electrical signals. Let us artificially produce electrical signals of the data relating to a given environmentâ€"including its sights, sounds and aromas. Finally, let's have electrical cables connect this computer to your brain's sensory centres and transmit the recorded signals. Perceiving these signals, your brain (in other words, "you") will see and experience the environment they represent.
This computer can also send to your brain electrical signals related to your own image. For example, if we send the electrical correlates of all senses such as hearing, sight and touch that you experience while sitting at a desk, you will assume that you're a businessman in his office. This imaginary world will endure as long as the computer keeps sending stimuli. Never will it become possible for you to understand that you consist of nothing but your brain. This is because all that's needed to form a world within your brain is the availability of stimulations to the relevant centres. It is perfectly possible for these stimulations (and hence, perceptions) to originate from some artificial source.
Along these lines, the distinguished philosopher Bertrand Russell wrote:
As to the sense of touch when we press the table with our fingers, that is an electric disturbance on the electrons and protons of our fingertips, produced, according to modern physics, by the proximity of the electrons and protons in the table. If the same disturbance in our finger-tips arose in any other way, we should have the sensations, in spite of there being no table.
It's very easy indeed to be deceived into deeming perceptions without any material correlates as real. Often we experience this illusion in dreams, wherein we experience events and see people, objects and settings that seem completely genuine. But they're all merely perceptions. There's no basic difference between these dreams and the "real world"; both sets of perceptions are experienced in the brain.

Who Is the Perceiver?
The "external world" that we think we inhabit is no doubt created inside our brain. Here, however, arises a question of primary importance: If all the physical objects we know of are intrinsically perceptions, what about our brain itself? Since our brain is a part of the material world just like our arms, our legs, or any other object, it too should be a perception.
An example will help illustrate this point. Assume that we perceive a dream in our brain. In our dream, we have an imaginary body, imaginary arms and eyes, and an imaginary brain. If, during our dream, we were asked "Where do you see?" we'd answer, "I see in my brain." Yet, actually there is no real brain to talk about, only an imaginary body, along with an imaginary head and an imaginary brain. The seer of the dream's various images is not the imaginary dreaming brain, but a being who is far beyond it.
Since there is no physical distinction between the setting of a dream and the setting we call real life, when in "real life" we are asked the same question of "Where do you see?" it would be equally meaningless to answer, "In my brain." Under either condition, the entity that sees and perceives is not the brain, which is after all only a hunk of nerve tissue.
So far, we have kept referring to how we watch a copy of the external world in our brains. An important result is that we can never know the external world as it actually is.
A second, no less important fact is that the "self" in our brains who observes this world cannot be the brain itself, which is like an integrated computer system: It processes data reaching it, translates it into images, and projects them on a screen. Yet a computer cannot watch itself; nor is it aware of its own existence.
When the brain is dissected to search for this awareness, nothing is found in it but lipid and protein molecules, which exist in other organs of the body as well. This means that within the tissue we call "our brain," there is nothing to observe and interpret the images, constitute consciousness, or to create the being we call "ourselves."
In relation to the perception of images in the brain, perceptual scientist R.L. Gregory refers to a mistake people make:
There is a temptation, which must be avoided, to say that the eyes produce pictures in the brain. A picture in the brain suggests the need of some kind of internal eye to see itâ€"but this would need a further eye to see its picture… and so on in an endless regress of eyes and pictures. This is absurd.206
This problem puts materialists, who hold that nothing is real except matter, in a quandary: Who is behind the eye that sees? What perceives what it sees, and then reacts?
Renowned cognitive neuroscientist Karl Pribram focused on this important question, relevant to the worlds of both science and philosophy, about who the perceiver is:
Philosophers since the Greeks have speculated about the "ghost" in the machine, the "little man inside the little man" and so on. Where is the Iâ€"the entity that uses the brain? Who does the actual knowing? Or, as Saint Francis of Assisi once put it, "What we are looking for is what is looking."
This book in your hand, the room you are inâ€"in brief, all the images before youâ€"are perceived inside your brain. Is it the blind, deaf, unconscious component atoms that view these images? Why did some atoms acquire this quality, whereas most did not? Do our acts of thinking, comprehending, remembering, being delighted, being unhappy, and everything else consist of chemical reactions among these atoms' molecules?
There is no sense in looking for will in atoms. Clearly, the being who sees, hears, and feels is a supra-material being, "alive," who is neither matter nor an image. This being interacts with the perceptions before it by using the image of our body.
This being is the soul.
The intelligent being reading these lines is not an assortment of atoms and molecules and the chemical reactions between them, but a soul.

23. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #206322 by ertu on July 8, 2008 at 9:20 am

Stop crying Darwinists. If you cant respond scientifically (you cant of course because evolution never happened) instead of crying just admit that darwinism was the most stupid ideology.
Read Harun Yahya's books. he has 265 books about eny topic you can think about. 40 of the are about scientific refutation of darwinism and disasters brought by darwinism to humanity.
He is the smartest, most intelligent, most sophisticated person in the world.
He is the one who destroyed these false religion of Darwinism and materialism..
You have to face the truth

24. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #206316 by ertu on July 8, 2008 at 9:11 am

All of you live in your barain. You can never get out. You can not move in reality.

The "External World" Inside Our Brain
As a result of these physical facts, we come to the following indisputable conclusion: Everything we see, touch, hear, and perceive as "matter," "the world" or "the universe" is in fact electrical signals interpreted in our brain. We can never reach the original of the matter outside our brain. We merely taste, hear and see an image of the external world formed in our brain. In fact, someone eating an apple confronts not the actual fruit, but its perceptions in the brain. What that person considers to be an apple actually consists of his brain's perception of the electrical information concerning the fruit's shape, taste, smell, and texture. If the optic nerve to the brain were suddenly severed, the image of the fruit would instantly disappear. Any disconnection in the olfactory nerve travelling from receptors in the nose to the brain would interrupt the sense of smell completely. Simply put, that apple is nothing but the interpretation of electrical signals by the brain.
Also consider the sense of distance. The empty space between you and this page is only a sense of emptiness formed in your brain. Objects that appear distant in your view also exist in the brain. For instance, someone watching the stars at night assumes that they are millions of light-years away, yet the stars are within himself, in his vision centre. While you read these lines, actually you are not inside the room you assume you're in; on the contrary, the room is inside you. Perceiving your body makes you think that you're inside it. However, your body, too, is a set of images formed inside your brain.
The same applies to all other perceptions. When you believe you're hearing the sound of the television in the next room, for instance, actually you are experiencing those sounds inside your brain. The noises you think are coming from meters away and the conversation of the person right beside youâ€"both are perceived in the auditory centre in your brain, only a few cubic centimetres in size. Apart from this centre of perception, no concepts such as right, left, front or behind exist. That is, sound does not come to you from the right, from the left, or from above; there is no direction from which sound "really" comes.
Similarly, none of the smells you perceive reach you from any distance away. You suppose that the scents perceived in your centre of smell are those of outside objects. However, just as the image of a rose exists in your visual centre, so its scent is located in your olfactory centre. You can never have direct contact with the original sight or smell of that rose that exists outside.
To us, the "external world" is merely a collection of the electrical signals reaching our brains simultaneously. Our brains process these signals, and we live without recognizing our mistaken assumption that these are the actual, original versions of matter existing in the "external world." We are misled, because by means of our senses, we can never reach the matter itself.
Again, our brain interprets and attributes meanings to the signals that we assume to be "external." Consider the sense of hearing, for example. In fact, our brain interprets and transforms sound waves reaching our ear into symphonies. Music, too, is a perception formed byâ€"and withinâ€"our brain. In the same manner, when we see colours, different wavelengths of light are all that reaches our eyes, and our brain transforms these wavelengths into colours. There are no colours in the "external world." Neither is the apple red, nor is the sky blue, nor the trees green. They are as they are only because we perceive them to be so.
Even the slightest defect in the eye's retina can cause colour blindness. Some people perceive blue as green, others red as blue, and still others see all colours as different tones of grey. At this point, it no longer matters whether the outside object is coloured or not.
The prominent Irish thinker George Berkeley also addressed this point:
First, . . . it was thought that colour, figure, motion, and the rest of the sensible qualities or accidents, did really exist without the mind; . . . But, it having been shewn that none even of these can possibly exist otherwise than in a Spirit or Mind which perceives them it follows that we have no longer any reason to suppose the being of Matter. . .
In conclusion, we see colours not because objects are coloured or because they have a material existence outside ourselves, but because all the qualities we ascribe to objects are inside us, not in the "external world."
In that case, how can we claim to have complete knowledge of "the external world?"

25. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #206314 by ertu on July 8, 2008 at 9:10 am

The matter does not exist in reality. Ä°t only exists at the level of perceptin and that is a scientific fact:

The World of Electrical Signals
All the information we have about the world is conveyed to us by our five senses. Thus, the world we know consists of what our eyes see, our hands feel, our nose smells, our tongue tastes, and our ears hear. We never believe that the external world can be other than what our senses present to us, since we've depended on those senses since the day we were born.
Yet modern research in many different fields of science points to a very different understanding, creating serious doubt about the "outside" world that we perceive with our senses.
For this new understanding, the starting point is that everything we perceive as external is only a response formed by electrical signals in our brain. The red of an apple, the hardness of woodâ€"moreover, one's mother, father, family, and everything that one owns, one's house, job, and even the pages of this bookâ€"all are comprised of electrical signals only.
On this subject, the late German biochemist Frederic Vester explained the viewpoint that science has reached:
Statements of some scientists, positing that man is an image, that everything experienced is temporary and deceptive, and that this universe is only a shadow, all seem to be proven by current science.
To clarify, let's consider the five senses which provide us with all our information about the external world.

How Do We See, Hear, and Taste?
The act of seeing occurs in a progressive fashion. Light (photons) traveling from the object passes through the lens in front of the eye, where the image is refracted and falls, upside down, onto the retina at the back of the eye. Here, visual stimuli are turned into electrical signals, in turn transmitted by neurons to a tiny spot in the rear of the brain known as the vision centre. After a series of processes, these electrical signals in this brain center are perceived as an image. The act of seeing actually takes place at the posterior of the brain, in this tiny spot which is pitch dark, completely insulated from light.
Even though this process is largely understood, when we claim, "We see," in fact we are perceiving the effects of impulses reaching our eye, transformed into electrical signals, and induced in our brain. And so, when we say, "We see," actually we are observing electrical signals in our mind.
All the images we view in our lives are formed in our centre of vision, which takes up only a few cubic centimetres in the brain's volume. The book you are now reading, as well as the boundless landscape you see when you gaze at the horizon, both occur in this tiny space. And keep in mind that, as noted before, the brain is insulated from light. Inside the skull is absolutely dark; and the brain itself has no contact with light.
An example can illustrate this interesting paradox. Suppose we place a burning candle in front of you. You can sit across from it and watch this candle at length. During this time, however, your brain never has any direct contact with the candle's original light. Even while you perceive the candle's light, the inside of your brain is lightless. We all watch a bright, colourful world inside our pitch-dark brain.
R. L. Gregory explains the miraculous aspect of seeing, which we take so very much for granted:
We are so familiar with seeing, that it takes a leap of imagination to realize that there are problems to be solved. But consider it. We are given tiny distorted upside-down images in the eyes, and we see separate solid objects in surrounding space. From the patterns of simulation on the retinas we perceive the world of objects, and this is nothing short of a miracle.
The same applies to all our other senses. Sound, touch, taste and smell are all transmitted as electrical signals to the brain, where they are perceived in the relevant centres.
The sense of hearing proceeds in the same manner. The auricle in the outer ear picks up available sounds and directs them to the middle ear; the middle ear transmits the sound vibrations to the inner ear by intensifying them; the inner ear translates these vibrations into electrical signals and sends them to the brain. Just as with the eye, the act of hearing takes place in the brain's hearing centre. The brain is insulated from sound just as it is from light. Therefore, no matter how noisy it may be outside, it is completely silent inside the brain.
Nevertheless, the brain perceives sounds most precisely, so that a healthy person's ear hears everything without any atmospheric noise or interference. Your brain is insulated from sound, yet you listen to the symphonies of an orchestra, hear all the noises in a crowded auditorium, and perceive all sounds within a wide frequency, from the rustling of leaves to the roar of a jet plane. However, were a sensitive device to measure the sound level in your brain, it would show complete silence prevailing there.
Our perception of odour forms in a similar way. Volatile molecules, emitted by vanilla extract or a rose, reach receptors in the delicate hairs in the olfactory epithelium and become involved in an interaction that is transmitted to the brain as electrical signals and perceived as smell. Everything that you smell, be it pleasant or repugnant, is only your brain's perception of the interactions of volatile molecules transformed into electrical signals. The scent of a perfume, a flower, any delicious food, the sea, or other odours you like or dislike, you perceive entirely in your brain. The molecules themselves never reach there. Just as with sound and vision, what reaches your sensory centres is simply an assortment of electrical signals. In other words, all the sensations that, since you were born, you've assumed to belong to external objects are just electrical signals interpreted through your sense organs.
Similarly, at the front of your tongue, there are four different types of chemical receptors that create the tastes of salty, sweet, sour, and bitter. After a series of chemical processes, your taste receptors transform these perceptions into electrical signals and transmit them to the brain, which perceives these signals as flavours. The taste you get when you eat chocolate or a fruit that you like is your brain's interpretation of electrical signals. You can never reach the object outside; you can never see, smell or taste the chocolate itself. For instance, if the nerves between your tongue and your brain are cut, no further signals will reach your brain, and you will lose your sense of taste completely.
Here, we come across another fact: You can never be sure that how a food tastes to you is the same as how it tastes to anyone else; or that your perception of a voice is the same as what another's when he hears that same voice. Along the same lines, science writer Lincoln Barnett wrote that "no one can ever know whether his sensation of red or of Middle C is the same as another man's."
Our sense of touch is no different. When we handle an object, all the information that helps us recognise it is transmitted to the brain by sensitive nerves on the skin. The feeling of touch is formed in our brain. Contrary to conventional wisdom, we perceive sensations of touch not at our fingertips or on our skin, but in our brain's tactile centre. As a result of the brain's assessment of electrical stimulations coming to it from the skin, we feel different sensations pertaining to objects, such as hardness or softness, heat or cold. From these stimulations, we derive all details that help us recognise an object. Concerning this important fact, consider the thoughts of B. Russell and L. J. J. Wittgenstein, two famous philosophers:
For instance, whether a lemon truly exists or not and how it came to exist cannot be questioned and investigated. A lemon consists merely of a taste sensed by the tongue, an odor sensed by the nose, a color and shape sensed by the eye; and only these features of it can be subject to examination and assessment. Science can never know the physical world.
It is impossible for us to reach the physical world outside our brain. All objects we're in contact with are actually collection of perceptions such as sight, hearing, and touch. Throughout our lives, by processing the data in the sensory centres, our brain confronts not the "originals" of the matter existing outside us, but rather copies formed inside our brain. At this point, we are misled to assume that these copies are instances of real matter outside us.

26. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #206305 by ertu on July 8, 2008 at 8:52 am

God Creates According to His Will

Would it matter if the scenario proposed by evolutionists really had taken place? Not a bit. The reason is that each stage advanced by evolutionary theory and based on coincidence could only have occurred as a result of a miracle. Even if life did come about gradually through such a succession of stages, each progressive stage could only have been brought about by a conscious will. It is not just implausible that those stages could have occurred by chance, it is impossible.
If is said that a protein molecule had been formed under the primordial atmospheric conditions, it has to be remembered that it has been already demonstrated by the laws of probability, biology, and chemistry that this could not have been by chance. But if it must be posited that it was produced, then there is no alternative but to admit that it owed its existence to the will of a Creator. The same logic applies to the entire hypothesis put forward by evolutionists. For instance, there is neither paleontological evidence nor a physical, chemical, biological, or logical justification proving that fish passed from water to land and formed the land animals. But if one must have it that fish clambered onto the land and turned into reptiles, the maker of that claim should also accept the existence of a Creator capable of making whatever He wills come into being with the mere word "be". Any other explanation for such a miracle is inherently self-contradictory and a violation of the principles of reason.
The reality is clear and evident. All life is the product of a perfect design and a superior creation. This in turn provides concrete evidence for the existence of a Creator, the Possessor of infinite power, knowledge, and intelligence.
That Creator is God, the Lord of the heavens and of the earth, and of all that is between them.

27. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #206304 by ertu on July 8, 2008 at 8:50 am

The Theory of Evolution has Collapsed

The theory of evolution is a theory that fails at the very first step. The reason is that evolutionists are unable to explain even the formation of a single protein. Neither the laws of probability nor the laws of physics and chemistry offer any chance for the fortuitous formation of life.
Does it sound logical or reasonable when not even a single chance-formed protein can exist, that millions of such proteins combined in an order to produce the cell of a living thing; and that billions of cells managed to form and then came together by chance to produce living things; and that from them generated fish; and that those that passed to land turned into reptiles, birds, and that this is how all the millions of different species on earth were formed?
Even if it does not seem logical to you, evolutionists do believe this fable.
However, it is merely a belief-or rather a false faith-because they do not have even a single piece of evidence to verify their story. They have never found a single transitional form such as a half-fish/half-reptile or half-reptile/half-bird. Nor have they been able to prove that a protein, or even a single amino acid molecule composing a protein, could have formed under what they call primordial earth conditions; not even in their elaborately-equipped laboratories have they succeeded in doing that. On the contrary, with their every effort, evolutionists themselves have demonstrated that no evolutionary process has ever occurred nor could ever have occurred at any time on earth.

Evolution Can Not Be Verified in the Future Either
Seeing this, evolutionists can only console themselves by dreaming that science will somehow resolve all these dilemmas in time. However, that science should ever verify such an entirely groundless and illogical claim is out of the question no matter how many years may pass by. On the contrary, as science progresses it only makes the nonsense of evolutionists' claims clearer and plainer.
That is how it has been so far. As more details on the structure and functions of the living cell were discovered, it became abundantly clear that the cell is not a simple, randomly-formed composition, as was thought to be the case according to the primitive biological understanding of Darwin's time.
With the situation being so self-evident, denying the fact of creation and basing the origins of life on extremely unlikely coincidences, and then defending these claims with insistence, may later become a source of great humiliation. As the real face of the evolution theory comes more and more into view and as public opinion comes to see the truth, it may not be long before the purblind fanatic advocates of evolution will not be able to show their faces.

The Biggest Obstacle to Evolution: Soul
There are many species in the world that resemble one another. For instance, there may be many living beings resembling a horse or a cat and many insects may look like one another. These similarities do not surprise anyone.
The superficial similarities between man and ape somehow attract too much attention. This interest sometimes goes so far as to make some people believe the false thesis of evolution. As a matter of fact, the superficial similarities between men and apes do signify nothing. The rhinoceros beetle and the rhinoceros also share certain superficial resemblances but it would be ludicrous to seek to establish some kind of an evolutionary link between these two creatures, one being an insect and the other a mammal, on the grounds of that resemblance.
Other than superficial similarity, apes cannot be said to be closer to man than to other animals. Actually, if level of intelligence is considered, then the honeybee producing the geometrically miraculous structure of the honeycomb or the spider building up the engineering miracle of the spider web can be said to be closer to man. They are even superior in some aspects.
There is a very big difference between man and ape regardless of a mere outward resemblance. An ape is an animal and is no different from a horse or a dog considering its level of consciousness. Yet man is a conscious, strong-willed being that can think, talk, understand, decide, and judge. All of these features are the functions of the soul that man possesses. The soul is the most important difference that interposes a huge gap between man and other creatures. No physical similarity can close this gap between man and any other living being. In nature, the only living thing that has a soul is man.

28. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #206278 by ertu on July 8, 2008 at 8:08 am

I have given you very powerful evidences and destroyed Darwinism. Instead of trying to respond scientifically (yıu can't of course). you cry, scerami curse and insult.
That is very poor quality.
You are not scientists. that is ok.
But your situation is worst. I dont feel sorry about you because of your style.
If one protein can not emerge coincidentally, how could millions of species, tte universe. Etc. It is so silly to defend darwinism nonsense. Dont you get it?
Dont u understand what kid of situation you are?

29. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #206270 by ertu on July 8, 2008 at 8:01 am

Is There a Trial and Error Mechanism in Nature?

Finally, we may conclude with a very important point in relation to the basic logic of probability calculations, of which we have already seen some examples. We indicated that the probability calculations made above reach astronomical levels, and that these astronomical odds have no chance of actually happening. However, there is a much more important and damaging fact facing evolutionists here. This is that under natural conditions, no period of trial and error can even start, despite the astronomical odds, because there is no trial-and-error mechanism in nature from which proteins could emerge.
The calculations we give on page across to demonstrate the probability of the formation of a protein molecule with 500 amino acids are valid only for an ideal trial-and-error environment, which does not actually exist in real life. That is, the probability of obtaining a useful protein is "1" in 10950 only if we suppose that there exists an imaginary mechanism in which an invisible hand joins 500 amino acids at random and then, seeing that this is not the right combination, disentangles them one by one, and arranges them again in a different order, and so on. In each trial, the amino acids would have to be separated one by one, and be arranged in a new order. The synthesis should be stopped after the 500th amino acid has been added, and it must be ensured that not even one extra amino acid is involved. The trial should then be stopped to see whether or not a functional protein has yet been formed, and, in the event of failure, everything should be split up again and then tested for another sequence. Additionally, in each trial, not even one extraneous substance should be allowed to become involved. It is also imperative that the chain formed during the trial should not be separated and destroyed before reaching the 499th link. These conditions mean that the probabilities we have mentioned above can only operate in a controlled environment where there is a conscious mechanism directing the beginning, the end, and each intermediate stage of the process, and where only "the correct selection of the amino acids" is left uncontrolled. It is clearly impossible for such an environment to exist under natural conditions. Therefore the formation of a protein in the natural environment is logically and technically impossible. In fact, to talk of the probabilities of such an event is quite unscientific.
Since some people are unable to take a broad view of these matters, but approach them from a superficial viewpoint and assume protein formation to be a simple chemical reaction, they may make unrealistic deductions such as "amino acids combine by way of reaction and then form proteins". However, accidental chemical reactions taking place in an inanimate structure can only lead to simple and primitive changes. The number of these is predetermined and limited. For a somewhat more complex chemical material, huge factories, chemical plants, and laboratories have to be involved. Medicines and many other chemical materials that we use in our daily life are made in just this way. Proteins have much more complex structures than these chemicals produced by industry. Therefore, it is impossible for proteins, each of which is a wonder of creation, in which every part takes its place in a fixed order, to originate as a result of haphazard chemical reactions.
Let us for a minute put aside all the impossibilities we have described so far, and suppose that a useful protein molecule still evolved spontaneously "by accident". Even so, evolution again has no answers, because in order for this protein to survive, it would need to be isolated from its natural habitat and be protected under very special conditions. Otherwise, it would either disintegrate from exposure to natural conditions on earth, or else join with other acids, amino acids, or chemical compounds, thereby losing its particular properties and turning into a totally different and useless substance.

30. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #206264 by ertu on July 8, 2008 at 7:55 am

Left-handed Proteins
Let us now examine in detail why the evolutionist scenario regarding the formation of proteins is impossible.
Even the correct sequence of the right amino acids is still not enough for the formation of a functional protein molecule. In addition to these requirements, each of the 20 different types of amino acids present in the composition of proteins must be left-handed. There are two different types of amino acids-as of all organic molecules-called "left-handed" and "right-handed". The difference between them is the mirror-symmetry between their three dimensional structures, which is similar to that of a person's right and left hands.
Amino acids of either of these two types can easily bond with one another. But one astonishing fact that has been revealed by research is that all the proteins in plants and animals on this planet, from the simplest organism to the most complex, are made up of left-handed amino acids. If even a single right-handed amino acid gets attached to the structure of a protein, the protein is rendered useless. In a series of experiments, surprisingly, bacteria that were exposed to right-handed amino acids immediately destroyed them. In some cases, they produced usable left-handed amino acids from the fractured components.
Let us for an instant suppose that life came about by chance as evolutionists claim it did. In this case, the right- and left-handed amino acids that were generated by chance should be present in roughly equal proportions in nature. Therefore, all living things should have both right- and left-handed amino acids in their constitution, because chemically it is possible for amino acids of both types to combine with each other. However, as we know, in the real world the proteins existing in all living organisms are made up only of left-handed amino acids.
The question of how proteins can pick out only the left-handed ones from among all amino acids, and how not even a single right-handed amino acid gets involved in the life process, is a problem that still baffles evolutionists. Such a specific and conscious selection constitutes one of the greatest impasses facing the theory of evolution.
Moreover, this characteristic of proteins makes the problem facing evolutionists with respect to "coincidence" even worse. In order for a "meaningful" protein to be generated, it is not enough for the amino acids to be present in a particular number and sequence, and to be combined together in the right three-dimensional design. Additionally, all these amino acids have to be left-handed: not even one of them can be right-handed. Yet there is no natural selection mechanism which can identify that a right-handed amino acid has been added to the sequence and recognise that it must therefore be removed from the chain. This situation once more eliminates for good the possibility of coincidence and chance.
The Brittanica Science Encyclopaedia, which is an outspoken defender of evolution, states that the amino acids of all the living organisms on earth, and the building blocks of complex polymers such as proteins, have the same left-handed asymmetry. It adds that this is tantamount to tossing a coin a million times and always getting heads. The same encyclopaedia states that it is impossible to understand why molecules become left-handed or right-handed, and that this choice is fascinatingly related to the origin of life on earth.
If a coin always turns up heads when tossed a million times, is it more logical to attribute that to chance, or else to accept that there is conscious intervention going on? The answer should be obvious. However, obvious though it may be, evolutionists still take refuge in coincidence, simply because they do not want to accept the existence of "conscious intervention".
A situation similar to the left-handedness of amino acids also exists with respect to nucleotides, the smallest units of the nucleic acids, DNA and RNA. In contrast to proteins, in which only left-handed amino acids are chosen, in the case of the nucleic acids, the preferred forms of their nucleotide components are always right-handed. This is another fact that can never be explained by coincidence.
In conclusion, it is proven beyond a shadow of doubt by the probabilities we have examined that the origin of life cannot be explained by chance. If we attempt to calculate the probability of an average-sized protein consisting of 400 amino acids being selected only from left-handed amino acids, we come up with a probability of 1 in 2400, or 10120. Just for a comparison, let us remember that the number of electrons in the universe is estimated at 1079, which although vast, is a much smaller number. The probability of these amino acids forming the required sequence and functional form would generate much larger numbers. If we add these probabilities to each other, and if we go on to work out the probabilities of even higher numbers and types of proteins, the calculations become inconceivable.

31. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #206262 by ertu on July 8, 2008 at 7:54 am

Left-handed Proteins
Let us now examine in detail why the evolutionist scenario regarding the formation of proteins is impossible.
Even the correct sequence of the right amino acids is still not enough for the formation of a functional protein molecule. In addition to these requirements, each of the 20 different types of amino acids present in the composition of proteins must be left-handed. There are two different types of amino acids-as of all organic molecules-called "left-handed" and "right-handed". The difference between them is the mirror-symmetry between their three dimensional structures, which is similar to that of a person's right and left hands.
Amino acids of either of these two types can easily bond with one another. But one astonishing fact that has been revealed by research is that all the proteins in plants and animals on this planet, from the simplest organism to the most complex, are made up of left-handed amino acids. If even a single right-handed amino acid gets attached to the structure of a protein, the protein is rendered useless. In a series of experiments, surprisingly, bacteria that were exposed to right-handed amino acids immediately destroyed them. In some cases, they produced usable left-handed amino acids from the fractured components.
Let us for an instant suppose that life came about by chance as evolutionists claim it did. In this case, the right- and left-handed amino acids that were generated by chance should be present in roughly equal proportions in nature. Therefore, all living things should have both right- and left-handed amino acids in their constitution, because chemically it is possible for amino acids of both types to combine with each other. However, as we know, in the real world the proteins existing in all living organisms are made up only of left-handed amino acids.
The question of how proteins can pick out only the left-handed ones from among all amino acids, and how not even a single right-handed amino acid gets involved in the life process, is a problem that still baffles evolutionists. Such a specific and conscious selection constitutes one of the greatest impasses facing the theory of evolution.
Moreover, this characteristic of proteins makes the problem facing evolutionists with respect to "coincidence" even worse. In order for a "meaningful" protein to be generated, it is not enough for the amino acids to be present in a particular number and sequence, and to be combined together in the right three-dimensional design. Additionally, all these amino acids have to be left-handed: not even one of them can be right-handed. Yet there is no natural selection mechanism which can identify that a right-handed amino acid has been added to the sequence and recognise that it must therefore be removed from the chain. This situation once more eliminates for good the possibility of coincidence and chance.
The Brittanica Science Encyclopaedia, which is an outspoken defender of evolution, states that the amino acids of all the living organisms on earth, and the building blocks of complex polymers such as proteins, have the same left-handed asymmetry. It adds that this is tantamount to tossing a coin a million times and always getting heads. The same encyclopaedia states that it is impossible to understand why molecules become left-handed or right-handed, and that this choice is fascinatingly related to the origin of life on earth.
If a coin always turns up heads when tossed a million times, is it more logical to attribute that to chance, or else to accept that there is conscious intervention going on? The answer should be obvious. However, obvious though it may be, evolutionists still take refuge in coincidence, simply because they do not want to accept the existence of "conscious intervention".
A situation similar to the left-handedness of amino acids also exists with respect to nucleotides, the smallest units of the nucleic acids, DNA and RNA. In contrast to proteins, in which only left-handed amino acids are chosen, in the case of the nucleic acids, the preferred forms of their nucleotide components are always right-handed. This is another fact that can never be explained by coincidence.
In conclusion, it is proven beyond a shadow of doubt by the probabilities we have examined that the origin of life cannot be explained by chance. If we attempt to calculate the probability of an average-sized protein consisting of 400 amino acids being selected only from left-handed amino acids, we come up with a probability of 1 in 2400, or 10120. Just for a comparison, let us remember that the number of electrons in the universe is estimated at 1079, which although vast, is a much smaller number. The probability of these amino acids forming the required sequence and functional form would generate much larger numbers. If we add these probabilities to each other, and if we go on to work out the probabilities of even higher numbers and types of proteins, the calculations become inconceivable.

32. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #206237 by ertu on July 8, 2008 at 7:32 am

There are billions of different protein molecules in milions of species. Even a single protein to come into being by coincidences is impossible mathetatically and statistically. That diprove the Evolution at the very basic level Now I will prove you this scienti