Biology at the University of Pakistan
FTMecca tries to continue the lie of evolution!

That's right folks, evolution has been disproven, and biology has been turned upside down on its head thanks to a combined effort of the brilliant Muslim scholars at the University of Pakistan and Haqqania madrasa. Well, at least that's what we assume, considering the way Darwinian evolution theory was destroyed at http://ummah.net.pk/dajjal/index3.html (see the part about "akida" under "religion"), a  site dedicated to exposing numerous conspiracies. Clearly their section dedicated to the Dajjal is enough to expose all the conspiracies being perpetuated by our one eyed master (alayhee shalom), and a bunch of unmotivated Mulhidun such as ourselves would never have the energy to refute them. Therefore, we have decided to only respond to their part on evolution, with the hopes that we can at least fool a few people into believing our lies as we await the final battle on judgement day.

Before we begin, we'd just like to invite others to visit the following URLs:
http://www.talkorigins.org/
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-mustread.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-evolution.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html

Yes, that's a cute statement, but the reality is that every living being has a different combination of amino acids, thus the above claim is false. Of course, the site never gave any references with regard to which scientists made these claims. The reality is, corpses that are buried rather rapidly, or those that are frozen in ice, will be preserved longer than those that are exposed to the sun and other animals. A hilariously untrue statement, as the dawagandists at Ummah.net try to deny Precambrian rock fossils out of existence. Actually, this is called misrepresenation.  The reason that the rocks are known to be old is because they are radiometrically dated.  The reason the fossils in them are old is because they were buried in those layers.  That the fossils are sorted into a consistent pattern which can then be used to predict the results of radiometric dating is a strength of modern evolutionary and geological theories. Right away we see the silliness of these arguments, and the level of ignorance being exhibited; but then again, our position is to just point and laugh, so let's continue. Ummmm, I guess this person never heard of "overthrusting," but what do you expect from a group who adheres to a holy book that claims continental plates are held together by mountains. Clearly they can't imagine land being pushed upwards, et cetera. Now of course, if we showed examples of fish that spend part of their time on land, this person would be refuted, but it might not make a difference, as the scholars at Ummah.net most likely just copied and pasted all this information from other creationist sites. Regardless, if they'd like an example of a transitional form between fish and land animals, consider the lung fish. Maybe these jokers should try and read up on mud skippers rather than trying to deny them out of existence. This is basically an argument from personal incredulity, not any sort of proof or refutation. Who said that birds were automatically excellent flyers? Early ancestors of modern birds may have just used their wings for gliding, similar to the today's flying squirrel. And of course, that book is one written by Harun Yahya, who also denies the Holocaust (something that can also be found on Ummah.net). If we're recommending books, I'd like to offer Michael Shermer's Why People Believe Weird Things. Of course, the only source they cite to back up this lie is another creationist site, and that particular site doesn't seem to agree with their claim. Maybe these guys would like to cite some scientific journals next time, but then again, that would be taking part in the conspiracy. As we all know, scientific journals put forth lies while the Qur'an and local Madrasa newspapers put forth nothing but truth. Now, assuming this is true, what is the point? What about Cockroaches that live today as well as millions of years ago. Some organisms do withstand time. Well, we see that they're not being very specific here, rather they offer an ambiguous story and a quote from another creationist source. How does this amount to an argument? Ahhhh, more signs of a conspiracy. We also know that certain Islamic rights groups, like muslimcivilrights.org, are indirectly connected with Infocom, Abu Marzook, Hamas, et cetera, but we don't assume this disproves the validity of Islam. It seems all the cyber-mullhas have to offer are ad hominems and red herrings. This whole business about inferior creations is absurd. I find it funny how this argument is continuously regurgitated by these types, yet they never discuss allopatric speciation, et cetera. Furthermore, not all living things become fossilized. If a certain mutation died out early, it seems its chances of becoming a fossil would be considerabley small. Furthermore, most mutations do not have any morphological effects, particularly if they do not occur in used gametes. Creationists love to play up apparent anomalies like the Paluxy River footprints, which is what is being discussed above. All of this nonsense has already been explained at http://members.aol.com/paluxy2/paluxy.htm This is an old argument. One first has to read up on concurrent evolution. Furthermore, Richard Dawkins already destroyed this argument in his book River out of Eden. Ah yes, more ignorance, this time with regard to the predation cycle. Over long periods of time, predator and prey balance each other out. For example, if there are many deer, and only a few wolves, the deer will consume all the vegetation, and some will begin to starve. The few wolves will capitalize on this by repeatedly killing those weakened deer. That's a rather bold lie considering the fact that hundreds of Neandertals that have been found in various places over the world. Maybe these geniuses should read up on homind fossils. Another tired argument that has already been refuted ad nauseum. The following is taken from Talkorigins.org's response to the magnetic field decay argument: For more, consider talkorigin.org's Age of Earth FAQ. One wonders if this estimate is including oil rigs. This is an absurd claim considering that scientists can't even agree to just how much oil there is in the world. What these arguments intentionally ignore is the fact that helium nuclei can in fact escape our atmosphere. The problem with this argument is that it assumes that there was a steady growth at that level without proving such. This argument assumes no catastrophic extinction events have ever occured. Also, it is said that the size of the territory limits the size of the population. This appears to be moderately true (especially if you don't count humans). This is assuming that the sun is actually shriking at that speed, but scientists generally agree that this claim, which is more than 100 years old, is incorrect. It has never been proven that this is a steady state system, and this theory was generally put to rest after scientists formed a better understanding of radioactivity. This is the same argument as the previous one with regard to the bee and the flower. This is dealt with in the topic of concurrent evolution, coevolution, et cetera. Richard Dawkins already destroyed these arguments, and showed how it amounts to nothing more than an argument from personal incredulity. This doesn't make the least bit of sense. Clearly they copied and pasted their stolen quote out of context. This is a non sequitor, but I'll go ahead anyway. Individuals don't evolve, groups do. For an example, one should consider the chihuahua, or the poodle, and how it evolved from the wolf via artificial selection. With this kind of argument, we see just how ignorant these people are. Notice that they misspelled Australopithecus and and failed to note that the plural form is Australopithecines. Furthermore, it is a fallacy to insinuate that because there was one hoax, all examples are hoaxes. This is just as bad as insinuating that all Muslims are terrorists. For more, read talkorigin.org's Piltdown Man FAQ. As for Australopithecines, please refer to the aforementioned hominid FAQ. Aborigines in Tanzania? Not Tazmania? Regardless, even if this is true (there have been similar sad examples in history), how does this related to evolution? This is again like saying "all Muslims are terrorists." If I cite one example of a Muslim that committed a terrorist act, does this justify my statement? No. Just the same, these arguments are fallacious. Argument from personal incredulity again, and their only source is Harun Yahya, a former Turkish mental patient with no real background in the study of bones. Actually, these methods work quite fine, and there is copious amounts of information on this. Argumentum ad hominem. Is this all the Islamic creationists have? I guess we should just point and laugh. Ah yes, another conspiracy! Busted again! Doh!


| Home | Sign Guestbook | View Guestbook |
Last Updated: Tuesday, October 31, 2000
[email protected]
If for FTMecca Eyes Only specify in the e-mail
Hosted by www.Geocities.ws

1