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
There is only one possible combination of amino
acids that gives life. One in The chance of 100 amino acids aligning in
exactly the right order is one chance in one followed by 158 zeroes or
something similar. Edward Conklin, a biologist, has said that: "The probability
of life originating from accident [or chance] is comparable to the probability
of the unabridged dictionary resulting from an explosion in a print shop."
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.
An animal that lies dead in the desert will after
a very short while loose all its skin and meat. After a while even the
bones are gone. The longer the animal lies in the elements, the less there
is to fossilize. Yet the so called scientists tell the world that it takes
millions of years for the required amount of dust, mud or debris to cover
the animal. Yet fossils have been found nearly intact, down to the skin
and wrinkles (fossilized worms, for instance).
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.
The first identifiable life is found as fossil
evidence in the Cambrian layer of rock, supposedly 500,000,000 (five hundred
million) years old. That are no known fossil evidences in the two layers
underneath. There have been billions of fossils found in this one layer
alone and all have been of a highly complex nature. No one has found any
fossil evidence of a development of life from a single cell, just as the
creationists theorized.
A hilariously untrue statement, as the dawagandists at Ummah.net try to
deny Precambrian rock fossils out of existence.
The reason the rocks are old is because the fossils
in them are old. The reason the fossils are old is because the rocks they
are contained in are old. This is called circular reasoning.
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.
It is not at all unusual for strata, (layers
of rocks), to be found completely out of the approved order, with 'old'
strata resting comfortably on top of 'young' strata."
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.
Transition forms between birds, fish and land
animals quite simply impossible. The Fish on land would be suffocated within
1-2 minutes by too much oxygen. The fish does not have any drinking reflex
which is necessary for land animals to dispose of waste products. The land
animals have mechanisms for keeping liquid equilibrium always at the same
level. The lungs function completely differently from gills. Sea and land
dwelling organisms are totally different from other organisms on land regarding
lenses of the eye, circulation and excretion system.
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.
The Birds have a body temperature over at least
42 degrees and make use of food and oxygen extremely efficient. The skeleton
weighs less than all the feathers. The lungs are highly efficient which
is absolutely necessary for flight. The head weighs less than 1% of the
body. Some have a magnetic compass built into their brains in order to
navigate thousands of kilometers. Halfway built wings cannot be used to
fly with. A birds beak can crush a nut with 68.5 kilos force. A human heart
strikes around 78 times in a minute. A fly birds 615 times in a minute
etc. etc. A transition form would quite simply not survive.
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.
Read a whole book about Creation vs Evolution
that is published free on the Internet and learn also about how FreeMasons
including Charles Darwin has poisoned the minds of humanity all these years.
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.
It is now known that complex plants existed in
the Cambrian Period, which, on the evolutionary time scale, 200 million
years or so before even simple land plants are supposed to have evolved
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.
One of the most startling discrepancies in the
fossil record came to light when a tuatara lizard was found alive on some
islands off of New Zealand 135 million years after the animal was supposedly
extinct.
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.
One scientist became troubled when he was checking
fossil remains in the Grand Canyon. He found a layer of rock containing
a certain fossil. Above that layer was a thick barren layer, indicating
that the fossil had become extinct. But the layer directly above the barren
layer was a layer containing the fossil evidences again. "The evolutionary
theory allows no backtracking, no renewal of a species, once it has become
extinct."
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?
More than half of the geologists in the world
work directly for oil companies, and the support for many geologists in
academic [pursuits] and [in] government comes from Petroleum.
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.
Evolutionists claim that mutations are the changes
that account for the changes in species, yet scientists know that about
ninety-nine out of one hundred mutations produce inferior creatures, such
as the two headed snake, that "wouldn't last in the wild." If this is true,
then the fossilized remains of these ninety-nine unsuccessful mutations
should be found among fossils, as well as the successful ones found so
abundantly. The fossil record reveals no fossil remains of known mutations.
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.
A limestone layer, supposedly 120 million years
old, contained a rather startling discovery. The stone contained human
footprints! Since it is theorized that man appeared on Earth about 1 million
years ago, approximately 119 million years of time had disappeared, at
least if the rock was supposedly 120 million years old. But there was even
something more startling in the stone. The human footprints were side by
side dinosaur footprints! The theory is that the dinosaur died out about
60 million years ago. That means, according to the evolutionary theory,
that it is impossible for man and the dinosaur to have been on the Earth
at the same time.
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
The bee and the flower both had to appear at
precisely the same time or the earlier would not be able to survive.
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.
The hunted animal and its predator, the hunter,
had to "evolve" at precisely the same time, or either the world would be
over- populated by the hunted animal, if it "evolved" first, or with large
quantities of fossils of the hunter if it "evolved" before its food supply
"evolved."
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.
All of the real evidence indicates that man was
true man right from the start. No Neanderthal, No missing links etc.
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.
One scientist: "Since the Earth's magnetic field
is decaying, extrapolation back into the past more than 10,000 years predicts
a current flow so vast that the earth's structure could not survive the
heat produced. Thus the Earth cannot be much older than 10,000 years."
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:
While there is no complete model to the geodynamo (certain
key properties of the core are unknown), there are reasonable starts and
there are no good reasons for rejecting such an entity out of hand. If
it is possible for energy to be added to the field, then the extrapolation
is useless.
There is overwhelming evidence that the magnetic field
has reversed itself, rendering any unidirectional extrapolation on field
strength useless. Even some young-Earthers admit to that these days --
e.g., Humphreys (1988).
Much of the energy in the field is probably locked in
toroidal fields that are not even visible external to the core. This means
that the extrapolation rests on the assumption that fluctuations in the
observable portion of the field accurately represent fluctuations in its
total energy.
Barnes' extrapolation completely ignores the nondipole
component of the field. Even if we grant that it is permissible to ignore
portions of the field that are internal to the core, Barnes' extrapolation
also ignores portions of the field which are visible and instead rests
on extrapolation of a theoretical entity.
For more, consider talkorigin.org's Age
of Earth FAQ.
Oil Seepage: It is estimated that the amount
of oil that seeps into the oceans is 5 million tons per year. It is also
estimated that the total amount of offshore oil is 100 billion tons, which
means that the total amount of oil would have been lost to the oceans 2500
times, if oil is estimated to be 50 million years old, or that it would
only take about 20,000 years to deplete the entire quantity of offshore
oil.
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.
Helium Decay: As plant and animal life dies and
then decays, a certain amount of helium is released into the atmosphere.
Estimating by the rate of addition of helium to the atmosphere from radioactive
decay, the age of the Earth appears to be about, 10,000 years old, even
allowing for moderate helium escape to the space above the atmosphere.
What these arguments intentionally ignore is the fact that helium nuclei
can in fact escape our atmosphere.
An initial population of only two people, increasing
at 2% a year, would become 3.5 billion in only 1,075 years... An average
population growth of only 1/2 of one percent would generate the present
world population in only 4,000 - 4,500 years.
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).
Decay of the Sun: In 1980, two scientists discovered
the sun has been contracting 0.1 % per century . . . . " They believed
that this shrinkage was continuous and has occurred at the same rate as
in the past. If this is correct, only 100,000 years ago the sun would be
twice as big as it is today; 20 million years ago, the surface of the sun
would touch the Earth and the Earth would have been a cinder
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.
Symbiosis: Nile crocodile allows a small bird,
called the Egyptian Plover, to enter its mouth to clean its teeth of harmful
bacteria. If the plover does not remove these intruders, the crocodile
can be seriously harmed. The parasites are the Plover bird's sole source
of nutrition. Frequently the plant and kingdoms join in a symbiotic relationship,
mutually beneficial to both parties. Such is the case of the yucca moth
and the yucca plant. The moth collects a ball of pollen, stuffs it into
a seed chamber of the yucca plant, and then lays a few eggs inside the
seed. Since the larvae that hatch can feed only on developing yucca seeds,
their growth is provided for and since some seeds are left and this yucca
cannot otherwise pollinate itself, the plant also benefits. Neither the
plant nor the animal would have been able to survive if both didn't occur
at precisely the same time.
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.
Male and female genes work in tandem. Not enough
that only that one person, animal or plant mutates.
This doesn't make the least bit of sense. Clearly they copied and pasted
their stolen quote out of context.
Both sexes are absolutely essential to the continued
Propagation of the animal species, and it is absolutely imperative that
both evolved at precisely the same time. God has created the earth. God
has created humans and all animals in pairs.
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.
Piltdown and Nebraska men were frauds. The Piltdown
in 1912 man had an orangutan jaw fitted to a human skull. The Nebraska
man was a tooth belonging to an extinct pig. Australopitechus were apes.
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 were killed and
the skulls sold to museums after chemical reactions would make them look
old.
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.
Evolutionists draw impossible conclusions from
single pieces of bones, sometimes from a single tooth. Like the amount
of hair, shape of the nose, ears and lips. Evolutionists are emphasizing
these characteristics when they can draw a whole family deducted from one
single piece of a bone.
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.
Extremely Unreliable methods of measuring age
of fossils.
Actually, these methods work quite fine, and there is copious amounts of
information on this.
Socialism want us to believe in evolution. Karl
Marx dedicated his book "Das Kapital" to the Freemason Charles Darwin.
Theodore Roosevelt, president of USA, violated all agreements with red
Indians during his period and the so called legitimate basis was provided
by the "primitive species" fallacy of Darwin. Congress pushed aside all
agreements made with red Indians 1871 and decided to drive them away to
the dead lands where they should wait for death. Similar theories existed
about the black race and in Fascism, (Nietsche, Hitler, Mussolini). Compare
the Quran Al-Hujraat 49:13
Argumentum ad hominem. Is this all the Islamic creationists have?
I guess we should just point and laugh.
Rockefeller Foundation and Carnegie Institution
have given very large sums of financial support for evolution.
Ah yes, another conspiracy!
News, books, magazines continue through Freemasons
and through people with lack of knowledge to spread this disinformation.
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