evidence that quran is from God are:Please show that the author of the Quran is God
1. Quran contains scientific miracles wich modern science confirms, like Big bang, expanding universe, pulsars and many many other scientific stuff wich no man could know in 6th century without telescopes and microscopes.
examples:
God said this in quran.
Big bang
30- Do not these disbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were an integrated mass, which We then split, and from water We made all living things? Will they not believe even then? 21-The Prophets, 30
EXPANDING UNIVERSE
47- With power did We construct heaven. Verily, We are expanding it. 51-The Dispersing, 47
2. Quran is programmed mathematically that chapter numbers, verse numbers and text cooperate with eachother is so complex patterns that it is impossible to make such book today with our computers.
examples:
[youtube][/youtube]
[youtube][/youtube]
3. Quran speak about future and Muhammed told us about future stuff wich we know can see, and i saw yesterday something wich muhammed foretold 1400 years ago.
examples:
Signs of Judgment day,prophecies from Muhammed,with evidence
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 54&start=0
4. Quran is logical book, forbids what is harmful to humans even though they are anware that it is harmful to them, and allows them stuff wich are good to them even though they are not aware sometime that there is benefits in what God commands.
example: Pork is forbidden in quran
but why, science tells you why
[youtube][/youtube]
[youtube][/youtube]
5. No errors and mistakes in quran, nor contradictions. i can explain every single so called error in quran.
6. Miracles of Muhammed during his life time
like spliting of the moon in two parts, as evidence that he is prophet of God
The Documentary that convince Atheists to believe in God - The Signs HD - Full .First, show God exists, without the use of the logical fallacies as 'argument from personal belief', argument from personal incredulity, and argument from popularity.
[youtube][/youtube]
Intelligent Design, evidence of God's creation in Sperm and Bacteria
[youtube][/youtube]
The Real Reason For Atheism. The Disturbing Truth. .
[youtube][/youtube]
Scientists talk about God, Is there a God? Evidence from universe that God exists
[youtube][/youtube]
DNA as Evidence for Intelligent Design
[youtube][/youtube]
i personally dont even need bible nor quran to prove existence of God, i can use science to prove his existence
this is only little what i provide to you , there is a lot more stuff
Even we can see evidence of God existence in animals, they are equiped with capabilities for survival, HOW CAN; FISH, BUTTERFLY,caterpillars, SPIDERS HAVE BIG FALSE EYES ON THEIR BODIES, AND THEIR REAL SMALL ARE HIDDEN, BIG EYES ALWAYS ASSOCIATE WITH BIGGER ANIMALS SO THE PREDATORS WILL BE SCARED WHEN THEY SEE THEM. WHO DESIGNED THOSE ANIMALS, WHO EQUIPED THOSE SMALL ANIMALS WITH FALSE BIG EYES ON THEY BODIES SO THEY CAN SCARE PREDATORS AND SURVIVE. GOD OF COURSE
This fish have false eye close to the tail, while real small eye is covered with black string.
HOW CAN A SUCH SMALL FISH HAVE CAPABILITIES TO CREATE FALSE BIG EYE CLOSE TO THE TAIL, WHILE REAL SMAL EYES ARE HIDDEN. DOES THE FISH KNOW THAT FALSE BIG EYE resembles bigger animal so it can scare predators, and hide his own little eye with black string. No, the fish does not now that, it is God , who is the designer of this little fish, so he equips it with false big eye, and hide fish real eye.
Actually, what look like eyes are not eyes at all. They are skin patterns called;false eyes; - adapted by these caterpillars as a defense against predators. The actual eyes are located in the areas indicated by the green circles
do these animals know that they need big false eyes to scare predator, i dont think so, and even if they knew , how would they draw it on themselves. they cant, so it is God who provides protecting capabilities so they can avoid predators, or some of them.
no, i am not a bee, i am fly, God made me so to scare birds
Syrphidae
A yellow fly (Syrphida) on a yellow dandelion. The fly looks like a bee but it is not dangerous, it only scares birds.
people, just look this example of creation of God
A turtle who have false worm in his mouth, so it can attract animals to his mouth, easy food
[youtube][/youtube]
How God equips animals for their survival
FÃsh with fishing equipment
1 fishing rod
2 a fishing line
3 bait
4 hooks
Habitat: Deep Sea, Atlantic & Pacific
Status: Not listed
Most people have heard of the common Deep Sea Anglerfish or Fanfin Seadevil, because it looks like something out of a nightmare. But did you know that there's such a thing as a Wolftrap Anglerfish?
These creatures are pretty hideous - they're known as "complete anglerfish" because they contain all the necessary ingredients for one scary fish. Its lure apparatus consists of a fishing rod (the projecting basal bone or pteropterygium), a fishing line (the illicium, a modified dorsal fin ray), bait (the bioluminescent esca), and hooks (large dermal denticles).
It's also defined by its distinctive enormous upper jaw with premaxillaries that can be folded down to enclose the much shorter lower jaw.
That might sound confusing, but all you really need to understand is that it's extremely ugly and scary looking
God equpis insect with defending system
insects looking like leaf
Stick insects are among the best camouflaged of all creatures, with a body shape that mimics the branches of their home. A predator can easily see the walking stick, but the predator thinks its only a twig, and ignores it
The “dying� leaf-mimic katydid below is a fascinating creature
and if you say that it is Evolution, then lets have look into that also....
you mean this evolution
where do you see evolution here
fossil
GARFISH
Age: 54 to 37 million years old
Size: 39 centimeters (15.3 in) in length; matrix: 29 centimeters (11 in) by 40 centimeters (15 in)
Location: Lincoln County, Wyoming
Formation: Green River Formation
Period: Eocene
Hundreds of garfish fossils that have been collected give evidence that these still-living fish have remained unchanged for millions of years. The garfish pictured, between 54 and 37 million years old, is no different from those living in our seas today. This exact similarity is an inexplicable situation for Darwinists and once again proves the fact of creation.
HERRING
Age: 54 to 37 million years old
Size: 9.3 centimeters (3.7 in)
Location: Kemmerer, Wyoming
Formation: Green River Formation
Period: Eocene
"Living fossils" reveal that species have not evolved, but are created. Species have not attained their present body structure by chance, as evolutionists claim. They are all created flawlessly by Almighty God and have lived throughout their existence in the form they were created.
The herring fossil pictured also proves this. Herrings have remained the same for millions of years, preserving the form and structure with which they were initially created. Like all other fossils, this herring reveals that the theory of evolution is based on lies
JUVENILE RABBIT
Age: 30 million years old
Location: Lusk, Wyoming
Formation: White River Formation
Period: Oligocene
30-million-year-old fossils that are identical with creatures living today refute the theory of evolution. Fossil discoveries reveal that rabbits have always been rabbits.
CRANE FLY
Period: Cenozoic Era, Eocene epoch
Age: 48 to 37 million years old
Location: USA
As with all other species, stasis observed throughout the course of crane fly's existence is proof that evolutionary claims are false. The theory of evolution was proposed under the scientifically primitive conditions of the 19th century, adopted merely by ignorance, yet collapsed in the face of the 20th- and 21st-century science
SHRIMP
Age: 145 million years old
Location: Eichstâtt, Bayern, Germany
Size: matrix: 10.5 centimeters(4.1 in) by 15.2 centimeters (5.9 in)
Period: Jurassic, Malm Zeta
The shrimp is an arthropod belonging to the sub-phylum Crustaceae. Its body is covered in armor composed largely of calcium carbonate. Various species of shrimp live in both salt and fresh water. The earliest known shrimp fossil dates back some 200 million years.
The fossil shrimp pictured is around 145 million years old. Shrimps, which have maintained their structure for millions of years with no change, are proof that living things never underwent evolution.
DRAGONFLY LARVA
Age: 10 million years old
Size: 42 millimeters (1.6 in) by 35 millimeters (1.3 in)
Location: Vittoria d'Alba, Cuneo, Italy
Perio: Upper Miocene
SPIDER
Age: 156 to 150 million years old
Size: 1.5 centimeters (0.6 in) (leg to leg ), 0.7 centimeters (0.28 in) (body )
Location: Beipiao, Liaoning Province, China
Period: Upper Jurassic
The oldest known fossil spider is of a water spider, 425 million years old. The fossil pictured is 156 to 150 million years old. Such fossils show that spiders have been the same for hundreds of million years. Darwinists have no consistent and scientific answer for these findings
LEOPARD SKULL
Age: 73 million years old
Location: Qi Pan, Yun Nan, China
Period: Cretaceous
Darwinists’ ruses and the techniques they use to mislead people are now totally futile. Faced with atlases that make the fact of Creation crystal-clear—and countless fossils that demonstrate how living things have never changed in the slightest—Darwinists have seen that all life forms were created out of nothing. Their ruses have been exposed and effectively neutralized.
By itself, this 73-million-year-old leopard skull is sufficient evidence to show that all tales regarding the changes supposedly undergone by life forms are totally invalid. They show that leopards living 73 million years ago had exactly the same characteristics as leopards living today.
The jaw structure and teeth of this fossil can be seen in great detail
ZEBRA SKULL
Age: 45 million years old
Location: Xi An, China
Period: Eocene
God has created all living things with their different appearances and forms. In the same way that their lifestyles and needs differ, so there are profound differences in their body structures. This means it is not difficult to describe the fossils that are unearthed, making it possible to establish the anatomical features of a living thing whose fossil remains have been discovered. The 45-million-year-old zebra fossil illustrated makes this distinction. It’s evident that there is no difference between the fossil’s characteristics and those of a present-day zebra’s skull.
There is no doubt that this is one of God’s divine miracles. The scientific evidence to hand is too definitive for scientists to be able to deny, even if they are evolutionists. It’s a scientific fact that species have not changed, and they have undergone no evolutionary process.
CAMEL SKULL
Age: 3.9 million years old
Location: Gan Su, China
Period: Pliocene
According to evolutionist claims, the camel’s large skull, long neck and humps must be the result of a large sequence of mutations. As a result, there should have been innumerable mammals with semi-lengthened necks, odd-shaped heads and incipient humps. These imaginary life forms should be encountered frequently in the fossil record, and there should be no trace of fully-formed camels dating back millions of years, like the one shown here. But data from the fossil record show that such imaginary transitional forms never existed. Camels never passed through any intermediate stages, and have always existed as fully-formed camels.
ASIAN WILD HORSE SKULL
Age: 33 million years old
Location: Yun Nan, China
Period: Oligocene
The myth of the horse evolution is one of Darwinism’s best-known frauds. This scenario—which many contemporary evolutionists admit is untrue—is still defended by a number of fanatical Darwinists. However, this claim is full of extraordinary inconsistencies and lacks any scientific evidence, and has been totally refuted. Horses have remained unchanged over millions of years. The 33-million-year-old Asian wild horse skull illustrated shows that horses lived in exactly the same way then as they do now. This by itself is sufficient to demolish all Darwinist claims about the alleged horse evolution
DO YOU SEE ANY EVOLUTION HERE, NO. THEN THERE IS NO EVOLUTION
no evolution, just forgeries from atheistic scientist propaganda
5. “Lucy� is the name given to the fossil discovered by anthropologist Donald Johanson in 1974. Many evolutionists claimed that Lucy was the transitional form between the humans and their so-called hominid ancestors. However further analysis on this fossil revealed that Lucy is only the member of an extinct ape species, known as Australopithecus. The brain size of the Australopithecus is similar to chimpanzees. Many other characteristics—such as details in their skulls, the closeness of their eyes, their sharp molar teeth, their mandibular structure, their long arms and short legs—constitute evidence that these creatures were no different from today’s chimpanzees. Even the pelvis is similar to that of chimpanzees.5
Some races living today, like the Malaysian native to the side, have the large eyebrow projections and the foreheads that are inclined backwards—features peculiar to Homo erectus skulls
THE MYTH OF HUMAN EVOLUTION IS
FILLED WITH HOAXES
More than 6,000 species of ape have existed at one time or another. The great majority of them have since become extinct and vanished, leaving only some 120 species alive today. But the fossils belonging to these nearly 6,000 extinct species represent a rich source of hoaxes for evolutionists. Unable to point to any concrete evidence, evolutionists surround fossils of extinct apes with biased analyses and then present them as evidence for evolution.
For years now, evolutionists have been employing such methods in order to gather supporters and mislead the public. However, they now need to see that these methods are of no use. The false evidence used by evolutionists to make their tall tales of the alleged human evolution seem more credible—and the debunking of that evidence—are summarized below. However, there are many more evolutionist hoaxes than the few considered here. All the “ancestor of man� reports in the media, as well as the illustrations accompanying them are completely fictitious. Concrete scientific discoveries have now demolished the story that human beings became human by means of a gradual course of development.
Piltdown Man: A fossil skull was discovered in 1912 and described as belonging to a half-human, half-ape species. For the next 40 years or so, evolutionists used this fossil as one of their supposedly strongest pieces of evidence, making countless analyses and illustrations of it in a statement issued on 21 November 1953, however, Piltdown Man was finally declared to be a hoax. A dating test performed 40 years after its discovery revealed that the jawbone and the skull did not actually belong to each other.
More detailed examination revealed that the “Piltdown Man� skull had been assembled by adding an orangutan jaw to a human skull, which was then aged using potassium dichromate. The way that the skull had been displayed in London’s Natural History Museum for 40 years and that no permission had been given for detailed scientific studies to be carried out during that time has gone down as a major scientific scandal.
Fossils discovered on the islands of Java in 1891 and 1892 were given the name Java Man (Pithecanthropus erectus).
Fossils discovered near Pekin in 1923-1927 were given the name Pekin Man (Sinanthropus pekinensis). In 1939, however, two experts, Ralph von Koenigswald and Franz Weidenreich, revealed that both were actually normal
human beings.(1) And Ernst Mayr from Harvard University had classified both as human in 1944.(2)
ALL THE SKULL THOUGHT TO REPRESENT EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION HAVE BEEN DECLASSIFIED!
Nebraska Man: A single tooth, discovered in 1922 by Henry F. Osborn of the American Museum of Natural History, was depicted as belonging to an intermediate life form between apes and human beings. However, in an article published in Science magazine in 1927, Osborn’s colleague William Gregory stated that the tooth actually belonged to a wild boar—whereupon all evolutionist claims regarding the fossil were quietly laid aside. The illustration to the side, produced on the basis of a single tooth by evolutionists of the time, was published in the press.
This attempt by evolutionists to reconstruct a living thing on the basis of a single tooth is a striking instance of how biased and misleading they can be when it comes to defending and imposing their theories.
The illustration above shows the Homo sapiens neanderthalensis Amud 1 skull discovered in israel. Its owner has been estimated to be 1.80 meters. tall, and its brain volume is the greatest so far discovered: 1740 cubic centimeters
Neanderthal Man: After the first specimens were discovered in the Neander Valley in 1856, evolutionists suggested that Neanderthals were primitive ape-men. Subsequent archaeological discoveries, however, revealed that there was no scientific basis to that claim. Erik Trinkhaus, an expert on the subject of the Neanderthals and also an evolutionist, has admitted that, “Detailed comparisons of Neanderthal skeletal remains with those of modern humans have shown that there is nothing in Neanderthal anatomy that conclusively indicates locomotor, manipulative, intellectual, or linguistic abilities inferior to those of modern humans.�(4)
In addition, the size of the Neanderthal Man skull—200 cubic centimeters greater than that of present-day humans—reveals the invalidity of the claim that it was an intermediate form between humans and apes.
The Taung Child: A fossil skull discovered by Raymond Dart in South Africa in 1924 was initially depicted as a supposed ancestor of man. However, contemporary evolutionists can no longer maintain that it represents such an ancestor—because it subsequently transpired that the skull belonged to a young gorilla! The famous anatomist Bernard Wood stated that this fossil constitutes no evidence in favor of evolution in an article published in New Scientist magazine. (5)
Lucy: This fossil, discovered in Africa in 1974, was widely esteemed by evolutionists and was the subject of some of the most intensive speculation. Recently however, it has been revealed that Lucy (A. afarensis) had an anatomy ideally suited to climbing trees and was no different from other apes we are familiar with.(6) The French scientific journal Science et Vie covered the story in 1999 under the headline “Adieu, Lucy.� One study, performed in 2000, discovered a locking system in Lucy’s forearms enabling it to walk using the knuckles, in the same way as modern-day chimps.(7)
In the face of all these findings, many evolutionist experts declared that Lucy could not have been a forerunner of man..
The Deception of Evolution
Darwinism, in other words the theory of evolution, was put forward with the aim of denying the fact of Creation, but is in truth nothing but failed, unscientific nonsense. This theory, which claims that life emerged by chance from inanimate matter, was invalidated by the scientific evidence of miraculous order in the universe and in living things, as well as by the discovery of more than 300 million fossils revealing that evolution never happened. In this way, science confirmed the fact that Allah created the universe and the living things in it. The propaganda carried out today in order to keep the theory of evolution alive is based solely on the distortion of the scientific facts, biased interpretation, and lies and falsehoods disguised as science.
Yet this propaganda cannot conceal the truth. The fact that the theory of evolution is the greatest deception in the history of science has been expressed more and more in the scientific world over the last 20-30 years. Research carried out after the 1980s in particular has revealed that the claims of Darwinism are totally unfounded, something that has been stated by a large number of scientists. In the United States in particular, many scientists from such different fields as biology, biochemistry and paleontology recognize the invalidity of Darwinism and employ the fact of Creation to account for the origin of life.
We have examined the collapse of the theory of evolution and the proofs of Creation in great scientific detail in many of our works, and are still continuing to do so. Given the enormous importance of this subject, it will be of great benefit to summarize it here.
The Scientific Collapse of Darwinism
Charles Darwin
As a pagan doctrine going back as far as ancient Greece, the theory of evolution was advanced extensively in the nineteenth century. The most important development that made it the top topic of the world of science was Charles Darwin's The Origin of Species, published in 1859. In this book, he opposed, in his own eyes, the fact that Allah created different living species on earth separately, for he erroneously claimed that all living beings had a common ancestor and had diversified over time through small changes. Darwin's theory was not based on any concrete scientific finding; as he also accepted, it was just an "assumption." Moreover, as Darwin confessed in the long chapter of his book titled "Difficulties on Theory," the theory failed in the face of many critical questions.
Darwin invested all of his hopes in new scientific discoveries, which he expected to solve these difficulties. However, contrary to his expectations, scientific findings expanded the dimensions of these difficulties. The defeat of Darwinism in the face of science can be reviewed under three basic topics:
1) The theory cannot explain how life originated on Earth.
2) No scientific finding shows that the "evolutionary mechanisms" proposed by the theory have any evolutionary power at all.
3) The fossil record proves the exact opposite of what the theory suggests.
In this section, we will examine these three basic points in general outlines:
The First Insurmountable Step: The Origin of Life
The theory of evolution posits that all living species evolved from a single living cell that emerged on Earth 3.8 billion years ago, supposed to have happened as a result of coincidences. How a single cell could generate millions of complex living species and, if such an evolution really occurred, why traces of it cannot be observed in the fossil record are some of the questions that the theory cannot answer. However, first and foremost, we need to ask: How did this "first cell" originate?
Since the theory of evolution ignorantly denies Creation, it maintains that the "first cell" originated as a product of blind coincidences within the laws of nature, without any plan or arrangement. According to the theory, inanimate matter must have produced a living cell as a result of coincidences. Such a claim, however, is inconsistent with the most unassailable rules of biology.
"Life Comes From Life"
Through his experiments, Louis Pasteur invalidated the idea that “life can emerge from inanimate matter,� on which the theory of evolution is based.
In his book, Darwin never referred to the origin of life. The primitive understanding of science in his time rested on the assumption that living beings had a very simple structure. Since medieval times, spontaneous generation, which asserts that non-living materials came together to form living organisms, had been widely accepted. It was commonly believed that insects came into being from food leftovers, and mice from wheat. Interesting experiments were conducted to prove this theory. Some wheat was placed on a dirty piece of cloth, and it was believed that mice would originate from it after a while.
Similarly, maggots developing in rotting meat was assumed to be evidence of spontaneous generation. However, it was later understood that worms did not appear on meat spontaneously, but were carried there by flies in the form of larvae, invisible to the naked eye.
Even when Darwin wrote The Origin of Species, the belief that bacteria could come into existence from non-living matter was widely accepted in the world of science.
However, five years after the publication of Darwin's book, Louis Pasteur announced his results after long studies and experiments, that disproved spontaneous generation, a cornerstone of Darwin's theory. In his triumphal lecture at the Sorbonne in 1864, Pasteur said: "Never will the doctrine of spontaneous generation recover from the mortal blow struck by this simple experiment."1
For a long time, advocates of the theory of evolution resisted these findings. However, as the development of science unraveled the complex structure of the cell of a living being, the idea that life could come into being coincidentally faced an even greater impasse.
Inconclusive Efforts of the Twentieth Century
Russian biologist Alexander Oparin
The first evolutionist who took up the subject of the origin of life in the twentieth century was the renowned Russian biologist Alexander Oparin. With various theses he advanced in the 1930s, he tried to prove that a living cell could originate by coincidence. These studies, however, were doomed to failure, and Oparin had to make the following confession:
Unfortunately, however, the problem of the origin of the cell is perhaps the most obscure point in the whole study of the evolution of organisms.2
Evolutionist followers of Oparin tried to carry out experiments to solve this problem. The best known experiment was carried out by the American chemist Stanley Miller in 1953. Combining the gases he alleged to have existed in the primordial Earth's atmosphere in an experiment set-up, and adding energy to the mixture, Miller synthesized several organic molecules (amino acids) present in the structure of proteins.
Barely a few years had passed before it was revealed that this experiment, which was then presented as an important step in the name of evolution, was invalid, for the atmosphere used in the experiment was very different from the real Earth conditions.3
After a long silence, Miller confessed that the atmosphere medium he used was unrealistic.4
All the evolutionists' efforts throughout the twentieth century to explain the origin of life ended in failure. The geochemist Jeffrey Bada, from the San Diego Scripps Institute accepts this fact in an article published in Earth magazine in 1998:
Today as we leave the twentieth century, we still face the biggest unsolved problem that we had when we entered the twentieth century: How did life originate on Earth? 5
One example of evolutionists' attempts to account for the origin of life is the Miller experiment. It was gradually realized that this experiment, initially heralded as a major advance on behalf of the theory of evolution, was invalid, and Miller was even forced to admit that very fact himself.
The Complex Structure of Life
The primary reason why evolutionists ended up in such a great impasse regarding the origin of life is that even those living organisms Darwinists deemed to be the simplest have outstandingly complex features. The cell of a living thing is more complex than all of our man-made technological products. Today, even in the most developed laboratories of the world, no single protein of the cell, let alone a living cell itself, can be produced by bringing organic chemicals together.
The conditions required for the formation of a cell are too great in quantity to be explained away by coincidences. However, there is no need to explain the situation with these details. Evolutionists are at a dead-end even before reaching the stage of the cell. That is because the probability of just a single protein, an essential building block of the cell, coming into being by chance is mathematically "0."
One of the facts nullifying the theory of evolution is the incredibly complex structure of life. The DNA molecule located in the nucleus of cells of living beings is an example of this. The DNA is a sort of databank formed of the arrangement of four different molecules in different sequences. This databank contains the codes of all the physical traits of that living being. When the human DNA is put into writing, it is calculated that this would result in an encyclopedia made up of 900 volumes. Unquestionably, such extraordinary information definitively refutes the concept of coincidence.
The main reason for this is the need for other proteins to be present if one protein is to form, and this completely eradicates the possibility of chance formation. This fact by itself is sufficient to eliminate the evolutionist claim of chance right from the outset. To summarize,
1. Protein cannot be synthesized without enzymes, and enzymes are all proteins.
2. Around 100 proteins need to be present in order for a single protein to be synthesized. There therefore need to be proteins for proteins to exist.
3. DNA manufactures the protein-synthesizing enzymes. Protein cannot be synthesized without DNA. DNA is therefore also needed in order for proteins to form.
4. All the organelles in the cell have important tasks in protein synthesis. In other words, in order for proteins to form a perfect and fully functioning cell needs to exist together with all its organelles.
The DNA molecule, which is located in the nucleus of a cell and which stores genetic information, is a magnificent databank. If the information coded in DNA were written down, it would make a giant library consisting of an estimated 900 volumes of encyclopedias consisting of 500 pages each.
A very interesting dilemma emerges at this point: DNA can replicate itself only with the help of some specialized proteins (enzymes). However, the synthesis of these enzymes can be realized only by the information coded in DNA. As they both depend on each other, they have to exist at the same time for replication. This brings the scenario that life originated by itself to a deadlock. Prof. Leslie Orgel, an evolutionist of repute from the University of San Diego, California, confesses this fact in the September 1994 issue of the Scientific American magazine:
It is extremely improbable that proteins and nucleic acids, both of which are structurally complex, arose spontaneously in the same place at the same time. Yet it also seems impossible to have one without the other. And so, at first glance, one might have to conclude that life could never, in fact, have originated by chemical means.6
No doubt, if it is impossible for life to have originated spontaneously as a result of blind coincidences, then it has to be accepted that life was created. This fact explicitly invalidates the theory of evolution, whose main purpose is to deny Creation.
Imaginary Mechanism of Evolution
The second important point that negates Darwin's theory is that both concepts put forward by the theory as "evolutionary mechanisms" were understood to have, in reality, no evolutionary power.
Darwin based his evolution allegation entirely on the mechanism of "natural selection." The importance he placed on this mechanism was evident in the name of his book: The Origin of Species, By Means of Natural Selection…
Natural selection holds that those living things that are stronger and more suited to the natural conditions of their habitats will survive in the struggle for life. For example, in a deer herd under the threat of attack by wild animals, those that can run faster will survive. Therefore, the deer herd will be comprised of faster and stronger individuals. However, unquestionably, this mechanism will not cause deer to evolve and transform themselves into another living species, for instance, horses.
Natural selection only selects out the disfigured, weak, or unfit individuals of a species. It cannot produce new species, new genetic information, or new organs.
Therefore, the mechanism of natural selection has no evolutionary power. Darwin was also aware of this fact and had to state this in his book The Origin of Species:
Natural selection can do nothing until favourable individual differences or variations occur.7
Lamarck's Impact
So, how could these "favorable variations" occur? Darwin tried to answer this question from the standpoint of the primitive understanding of science at that time. According to the French biologist Chevalier de Lamarck (1744-1829), who lived before Darwin, living creatures passed on the traits they acquired during their lifetime to the next generation. He asserted that these traits, which accumulated from one generation to another, caused new species to be formed. For instance, he claimed that giraffes evolved from antelopes; as they struggled to eat the leaves of high trees, their necks were extended from generation to generation.
Darwin also gave similar examples. In his book The Origin of Species, for instance, he said that some bears going into water to find food transformed themselves into whales over time.8
However, the laws of inheritance discovered by Gregor Mendel (1822-84) and verified by the science of genetics, which flourished in the twentieth century, utterly demolished the legend that acquired traits were passed on to subsequent generations. Thus, natural selection fell out of favor as an evolutionary mechanism.
Neo-Darwinism and Mutations
In order to find a solution, Darwinists advanced the "Modern Synthetic Theory," or as it is more commonly known, Neo-Darwinism, at the end of the 1930s. Neo-Darwinism added mutations, which are distortions formed in the genes of living beings due to such external factors as radiation or replication errors, as the "cause of favorable variations" in addition to natural mutation.
Today, the model that Darwinists espouse, despite their own awareness of its scientific invalidity, is neo-Darwinism. The theory maintains that millions of living beings formed as a result of a process whereby numerous complex organs of these organisms (e.g., ears, eyes, lungs, and wings) underwent "mutations," that is, genetic disorders. Yet, there is an outright scientific fact that totally undermines this theory: Mutations do not cause living beings to develop; on the contrary, they are always harmful.
The reason for this is very simple: DNA has a very complex structure, and random effects can only harm it. The American geneticist B. G. Ranganathan explains this as follows:
Since the beginning of the twentieth century, evolutionary biologists have sought examples of beneficial mutations by creating mutant flies. But these efforts have always resulted in sick and deformed creatures. The top picture shows the head of a normal fruit fly, and the picture on the left shows the head of a fruit fly with legs coming out of it, the result of mutation.
First, genuine mutations are very rare in nature. Secondly, most mutations are harmful since they are random, rather than orderly changes in the structure of genes; any random change in a highly ordered system will be for the worse, not for the better. For example, if an earthquake were to shake a highly ordered structure such as a building, there would be a random change in the framework of the building which, in all probability, would not be an improvement.9
Not surprisingly, no mutation example, which is useful, that is, which is observed to develop the genetic code, has been observed so far. All mutations have proved to be harmful. It was understood that mutation, which is presented as an "evolutionary mechanism," is actually a genetic occurrence that harms living things, and leaves them disabled. (The most common effect of mutation on human beings is cancer.) Of course, a destructive mechanism cannot be an "evolutionary mechanism." Natural selection, on the other hand, "can do nothing by itself," as Darwin also accepted. This fact shows us that there is no "evolutionary mechanism" in nature. Since no evolutionary mechanism exists, no such imaginary process called "evolution" could have taken place.
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 the unscientific supposition of 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."
Living Fossils Refute Evolution
Fossils are proof that evolution never happened. As the fossil record reveals, living things suddenly appeared together with all the characteristics they possess, and they never undergo the slightest change so long as they remain in existence. Fish have always existed as fish, insects as insects, and reptiles as reptiles. There is no scientific validity to the claim that species emerged gradually.
Crane Fly
Period: Cenozoic Age, Eocene Period
Age: 48-37 million yearS
Age: 295 million years
Age: 490-443 million years
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.10
However, Darwin was well aware that no fossils of these intermediate forms had yet been found. He regarded this as a major difficulty for his theory. In one chapter of his book titled "Difficulties on Theory," he wrote:
Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?… But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?… Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links?11
Darwin's Hopes Shattered
However, although evolutionists have been making strenuous efforts to find fossils since the middle of the nineteenth century all over the world, no transitional forms have yet been uncovered. All of the fossils, contrary to the evolutionists' expectations, show that life appeared on Earth all of a sudden and fully-formed.
One famous British paleontologist, Derek V. Ager, admits this fact, even though he is an evolutionist.
A 410-million-year-old fossil coelacanth (above) and a present- day specimen (right)
The fossil record is a great barricade in front of the theory of evolution. The fossil record shows that living species emerged suddenly and fully-formed without any evolutionary transitional form between them. This fact is evidence that species are created separately.
The point emerges that if we examine the fossil record in detail, whether at the level of orders or of species, we find–over and over again–not gradual evolution, but the sudden explosion of one group at the expense of another.12
This means that in the fossil record, all living species suddenly emerge as fully formed, without any intermediate forms in between. This is just the opposite of Darwin's assumptions. Also, this is very strong evidence that all living things are created. The only explanation of a living species emerging suddenly and complete in every detail without any evolutionary ancestor is that it was created. This fact is admitted also by the widely known evolutionist biologist Douglas Futuyma:
Creation and evolution, between them, exhaust the possible explanations for the origin of living things. Organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed or they did not. If they did not, they must have developed from pre-existing species by some process of modification. If they did appear in a fully developed state, they must indeed have been created by some omnipotent intelligence.13
Fossils show that living beings emerged fully developed and in a perfect state on the Earth. That means that "the origin of species," contrary to Darwin's supposition, is not evolution, but Creation.
The Tale of Human Evolution
The subject most often brought up by advocates of the theory of evolution is the subject of the origin of man. The Darwinist claim holds that man evolved from so-called ape-like creatures. During this alleged evolutionary process, which is supposed to have started 4-5 million years ago, some "transitional forms" between man and his imaginary ancestors are supposed to have existed. According to this completely imaginary scenario, four basic "categories" are listed:
1. Australopithecus
2. Homo habilis
3. Homo erectus
4. Homo sapiens
Evolutionists call man's so-called first ape-like ancestors Australopithecus, which means "South African ape." These living beings are actually nothing but an old ape species that has become extinct. Extensive research done on various Australopithecus specimens by two world famous anatomists from England and the USA, namely, Lord Solly Zuckerman and Prof. Charles Oxnard, shows that these apes belonged to an ordinary ape species that became extinct and bore no resemblance to humans.14
Evolutionists classify the next stage of human evolution as "homo," that is "man." According to their claim, the living beings in the Homo series are more developed than Australopithecus. Evolutionists devise a fanciful evolution scheme by arranging different fossils of these creatures in a particular order. This scheme is imaginary because it has never been proved that there is an evolutionary relation between these different classes. Ernst Mayr, one of the twentieth century's most important evolutionists, contends in his book One Long Argument that "particularly historical [puzzles] such as the origin of life or of Homo sapiens, are extremely difficult and may even resist a final, satisfying explanation."15
By outlining the link chain as Australopithecus > Homo habilis > Homo erectus > Homo sapiens, evolutionists imply that each of these species is one another's ancestor. However, recent findings of paleoanthropologists have revealed that Australopithecus, Homo habilis, and Homo erectus lived at different parts of the world at the same time.16
Evolutionist newspapers and magazines often print pictures of primitive man. The only available source for these pictures is the imagination of the artist. Evolutionary theory has been so dented by scientific data that today we see less and less of it in the serious press.
Moreover, a certain segment of humans classified as Homo erectus have lived up until very modern times. Homo sapiens neandarthalensis and Homo sapiens sapiens (man) co-existed in the same region.17
This situation apparently indicates the invalidity of the claim that they are ancestors of one another. The late Stephen Jay Gould explained this deadlock of the theory of evolution although he was himself one of the leading advocates of evolution in the twentieth century:
What has become of our ladder if there are three coexisting lineages of hominids (A. africanus, the robust australopithecines, and H. habilis), none clearly derived from another? Moreover, none of the three display any evolutionary trends during their tenure on earth.18
Put briefly, the scenario of human evolution, which is "upheld" with the help of various drawings of some "half ape, half human" creatures appearing in the media and course books, that is, frankly, by means of propaganda, is nothing but a tale with no scientific foundation.
Lord Solly Zuckerman, one of the most famous and respected scientists in the U.K., who carried out research on this subject for years and studied Australopithecus fossils for 15 years, finally concluded, despite being an evolutionist himself, that there is, in fact, no such family tree branching out from ape-like creatures to man.
Zuckerman also made an interesting "spectrum of science" ranging from those he considered scientific to those he considered unscientific. According to Zuckerman's spectrum, the most "scientific"–that is, depending on concrete data–fields of science are chemistry and physics. After them come the biological sciences and then the social sciences. At the far end of the spectrum, which is the part considered to be most "unscientific," are "extra-sensory perception"–concepts such as telepathy and sixth sense–and finally "human evolution." Zuckerman explains his reasoning:
We then move right off the register of objective truth into those fields of presumed biological science, like extrasensory perception or the interpretation of man's fossil history, where to the faithful [evolutionist] anything is possible – and where the ardent believer [in evolution] is sometimes able to believe several contradictory things at the same time.19
The tale of human evolution boils down to nothing but the prejudiced interpretations of some fossils unearthed by certain people, who blindly adhere to their theory.
Darwinian Formula!
Besides all the technical evidence we have dealt with so far, let us now for once, examine what kind of a superstition the evolutionists have with an example so simple as to be understood even by children:
The theory of evolution asserts that life is formed by chance. According to this irrational claim, lifeless and unconscious atoms came together to form the cell and then they somehow formed other living things, including man. Let us think about that. When we bring together the elements that are the building-blocks of life such as carbon, phosphorus, nitrogen and potassium, only a heap is formed. No matter what treatments it undergoes, this atomic heap cannot form even a single living being. If you like, let us formulate an "experiment" on this subject and let us examine on the behalf of evolutionists what they really claim without pronouncing loudly under the name "Darwinian formula":
Let evolutionists put plenty of materials present in the composition of living things such as phosphorus, nitrogen, carbon, oxygen, iron, and magnesium into big barrels. Moreover, let them add in these barrels any material that does not exist under normal conditions, but they think as necessary. Let them add in this mixture as many amino acids and as many proteins as they like. Let them expose these mixtures to as much heat and moisture as they like. Let them stir these with whatever technologically developed device they like. Let them put the foremost scientists beside these barrels. Let these experts wait in turn beside these barrels for billions, and even trillions of years. Let them be free to use all kinds of conditions they believe to be necessary for a human's formation. No matter what they do, they cannot produce from these barrels a human, say a professor that examines his cell structure under the electron microscope. They cannot produce giraffes, lions, bees, canaries, horses, dolphins, roses, orchids, lilies, carnations, bananas, oranges, apples, dates, tomatoes, melons, watermelons, figs, olives, grapes, peaches, peafowls, pheasants, multicolored butterflies, or millions of other living beings such as these. Indeed, they could not obtain even a single cell of any one of them.
Briefly, unconscious atoms cannot form the cell by coming together. They cannot take a new decision and divide this cell into two, then take other decisions and create the professors who first invent the electron microscope and then examine their own cell structure under that microscope. Matter is an unconscious, lifeless heap, and it comes to life with Allah's superior Creation.
The theory of evolution, which claims the opposite, is a total fallacy completely contrary to reason. Thinking even a little bit on the claims of evolutionists discloses this reality, just as in the above example.
Technology in the Eye and the Ear
Another subject that remains unanswered by evolutionary theory is the excellent quality of perception in the eye and the ear.
Before passing on to the subject of the eye, let us briefly answer the question of how we see. Light rays coming from an object fall oppositely on the eye's retina. Here, these light rays are transmitted into electric signals by cells and reach a tiny spot at the back of the brain, the "center of vision." These electric signals are perceived in this center as an image after a series of processes. With this technical background, let us do some thinking.
All its components need to function together and perfectly if the eye is to see at all.
The brain is insulated from light. That means that its inside is completely dark, and that no light reaches the place where it is located. Thus, the "center of vision" is never touched by light and may even be the darkest place you have ever known. However, you observe a luminous, bright world in this pitch darkness.
The image formed in the eye is so sharp and distinct that even the technology of the twentieth century has not been able to attain it. For instance, look at the book you are reading, your hands with which you are holding it, and then lift your head and look around you. Have you ever seen such a sharp and distinct image as this one at any other place? Even the most developed television screen produced by the greatest television producer in the world cannot provide such a sharp image for you. This is a three-dimensional, colored, and extremely sharp image. For more than 100 years, thousands of engineers have been trying to achieve this sharpness. Factories, huge premises were established, much research has been done and plans have been made for this purpose. Again, look at a TV screen and the book you hold in your hands. You will see that there is a big difference in sharpness and distinction. Moreover, the TV screen shows you a two-dimensional image, whereas with your eyes, you watch a three-dimensional perspective with depth.
For many years, tens of thousands of engineers have tried to make a three-dimensional TV and achieve the vision quality of the eye. Yes, they have made a three-dimensional television system, but it is not possible to watch it without putting on special 3-D glasses; moreover, it is only an artificial three-dimension. The background is more blurred, the foreground appears like a paper setting. Never has it been possible to produce a sharp and distinct vision like that of the eye. In both the camera and the television, there is a loss of image quality.
Evolutionists claim that the mechanism producing this sharp and distinct image has been formed by chance. Now, if somebody told you that the television in your room was formed as a result of chance, that all of its atoms just happened to come together and make up this device that produces an image, what would you think? How can atoms do what thousands of people cannot?
If a device producing a more primitive image than the eye could not have been formed by chance, then it is very evident that the eye and the image seen by the eye could not have been formed by chance. The same situation applies to the ear. The outer ear picks up the available sounds by the auricle and directs them to the middle ear, the middle ear transmits the sound vibrations by intensifying them, and the inner ear sends these vibrations to the brain by translating them into electric signals. Just as with the eye, the act of hearing finalizes in the center of hearing in the brain.
The situation in the eye is also true for the ear. That is, the brain is insulated from sound just as it is from light. It does not let any sound in. Therefore, no matter how noisy is the outside, the inside of the brain is completely silent. Nevertheless, the sharpest sounds are perceived in the brain. In your completely silent brain, you listen to symphonies, and hear all of the noises in a crowded place. However, were the sound level in your brain measured by a precise device at that moment, complete silence would be found to be prevailing there.
As is the case with imagery, decades of effort have been spent in trying to generate and reproduce sound that is faithful to the original. The results of these efforts are sound recorders, high-fidelity systems, and systems for sensing sound. Despite all of this technology and the thousands of engineers and experts who have been working on this endeavor, no sound has yet been obtained that has the same sharpness and clarity as the sound perceived by the ear. Think of the highest-quality hi-fi systems produced by the largest company in the music industry. Even in these devices, when sound is recorded some of it is lost; or when you turn on a hi-fi you always hear a hissing sound before the music starts. However, the sounds that are the products of the human body's technology are extremely sharp and clear. A human ear never perceives a sound accompanied by a hissing sound or with atmospherics as does a hi-fi; rather, it perceives sound exactly as it is, sharp and clear. This is the way it has been since the Creation of man.
So far, no man-made visual or recording apparatus has been as sensitive and successful in perceiving sensory data as are the eye and the ear. However, as far as seeing and hearing are concerned, a far greater truth lies beyond all this.
To Whom Does the Consciousness that Sees and Hears within the Brain Belong?
Who watches an alluring world in the brain, listens to symphonies and the twittering of birds, and smells the rose?
The stimulations coming from a person's eyes, ears, and nose travel to the brain as electro-chemical nerve impulses. In biology, physiology, and biochemistry books, you can find many details about how this image forms in the brain. However, you will never come across the most important fact: Who perceives these electro-chemical nerve impulses as images, sounds, odors, and sensory events in the brain? There is a consciousness in the brain that perceives all this without feeling any need for an eye, an ear, and a nose. To whom does this consciousness belong? Of course it does not belong to the nerves, the fat layer, and neurons comprising the brain. This is why Darwinist-materialists, who believe that everything is comprised of matter, cannot answer these questions.
For this consciousness is the spirit created by Allah, which needs neither the eye to watch the images nor the ear to hear the sounds. Furthermore, it does not need the brain to think.
Everyone who reads this explicit and scientific fact should ponder on Almighty Allah, and fear and seek refuge in Him, for He squeezes the entire universe in a pitch-dark place of a few cubic centimeters in a three-dimensional, colored, shadowy, and luminous form.
A Materialist Faith
The information we have presented so far shows us that the theory of evolution is incompatible with scientific findings. The theory's claim regarding the origin of life is inconsistent with science, the evolutionary mechanisms it proposes have no evolutionary power, and fossils demonstrate that the required intermediate forms have never existed. So, it certainly follows that the theory of evolution should be pushed aside as an unscientific idea. This is how many ideas, such as the Earth-centered universe model, have been taken out of the agenda of science throughout history.
However, the theory of evolution is kept on the agenda of science. Some people even try to represent criticisms directed against it as an "attack on science." Why?
We live our whole life in our brains. People we see, flowers we smell, music we hear, fruit we taste, the moisture
without designer/creator/God
