Adel

More scientific fact from the Holy Quran... ==================== The formation of rain... ==================== The formation of rain takes place in three stages. First, the "raw material" of rain rises up into the air with the wind. Later, clouds are formed, and finally raindrops appear. Now read this verse that was revealed more than 1400 years ago [it is God Who sends the winds which stir up clouds which He spreads about the sky however He wills. He forms them into dark clumps and you see the rain come pouring out from the middle of them. When He makes it fall on those of His slaves He wills, they rejoice] (The Qur'an, 30:48) [Have you not seen how God drives along the clouds, then joins them together, then makes them into a stack, and then you see the rain come out of it? And He sends down from the sky mountain masses (of clouds) with cold hail in them, striking with it anyone He wills and averting it from anyone He wills. The brightness of His lightning almost blinds the sight.] (The Qur'an, 24:43)

That is true.. Actually that is the idea behind sending all that number of prophets all over the human history… The believers followed their prophet’s instructions during the course of the prophet’s life and for a short period of time after. Then lots of people would be born not seeing the prophet or hearing from him and not enthusiastically follow his instructions for a while. Lastly people will go back to their own enjoyment and change in the religion itself… A few hundreds years after the prophet, almost main elements of the message would have been modified and God would send another prophet who will confirm his ancestor prophet message and come with some new instructions that fit the development of life… That is also true… God sent his messengers with a message that anwers the main questions of life and some guides…. As everything based on justice, whatever anyone does will see the suitable reward….

Who on earth said that life began 6,000 years ago… Saying that all religious texts are very human and are susceptible to errors and mistakes is unaccepted exaggeration…. Holy Quran is clearly the same book word by word since prophet Mohammed died … Hundreds or millions of people memorized it word by word and during any prayer if the person leading the prayer makes a mistake even in one word or even in the grammar, everyone behind him – even kids of 10 years old – would correct him…

I completely agree… If I said believers obey God because they are afraid of Him only I am completely mistaken… If you know how much we love God and how much believer even cry at night when thinking about him and when contemplating about Him and His blessings on the whole universe, you would not have said that… They cannot wait to meet their beloved God….

Holy Quran – the holy books of Islam – is a holy book that kept memorized word by word and letter by letter… Prophet Mohammed’s sayings called ‘Sonnah’ are completely different and not considered a message from God. Holy Quran is the message revealed by God to the prophet verse by verse. It is well know that prophet Mohammed was illiterate and that is a miracle by itself to convey that miraculous holy book without even be able to read and write…. For ancient writings, even people from all over the world 1400 years ago did not know what I have mentioned here about scientific facts… In summary so far I have mentions verses that tell people that : 1- The heavens and the earth were joined together (as one unit of creation), before God clove them asunder [big bang] 2- God has made from water every living thing. 3- God created the night and the day, and the sun and the moon, each in an orbit floating (swimming) 4- Universe is expanding 5- God created Mountains as pegs [so clench different plates of the earth together do not move] 6- Mountains movement Well so far, what kind of scientific knowledge was available more than 1400 years ago that let an illiterate man tell people that? Here I am not talking about Jesus… I want some answers about those facts… Is it possible that any human being could know that at the time…?

Let me tell you that your attitude is the best…I really admire your way of thinking and your justice… You are completely free and has the absolute right to doubt and investigate everything until you reach truth Thanks again for this attitude But do you recognize, Adel, that reaching the truth might be in conflict with what you believe? I will absoultely accept fact whatsoever. Just when it is proved to be fact...

More scientific facts about mountains... ============================ With extensions that mountains extend out towards under the ground as well as over the ground, they clench different plates of the earth together like a peg. The Earth's crust consists of plates that are in constant motion. This clenching property of mountains prevents shocks to a great extent, by fixing the earth's crust, which has a very movable structure. It is well known that with extensions that mountains extend out towards under the ground as well as over the ground, they clench different plates of the earth together like a peg… Now read this verse that came more than 1400 years ago... [God placed firmly embedded mountains on the earth, so it would not move under them] (The Qur'an, 21:31) Mountains movement [that imply earth movement also] [You will see the mountains you reckoned to be solid going past like clouds] (The Qur'an, 27:88)

Let me tell you that your attitude is the best…I really admire your way of thinking and your justice… You are completely free and has the absolute right to doubt and investigate everything until you reach truth Thanks again for this attitude

I think this is jumping to conclusion without a real background Islamic text is just one holy book called Al Quran [meaning Reading]… it is only one, and it is in Arabic, but you may find it translated in other languages. But the original is just one… This is not the point. The point is to answer my questions…. They, who deny the existence of God, surely they consider prophet as liars… So all prophets came with many miracles that left people with no choice but believe… but the last message from God came when humans were closely reaching their mature stage. That is why prophet Mohammed’s main miracle was a book… full of verses inviting people to acquire knowledge and explore the whole universe… Another scientific fact.. =================== The function of mountains =================== [God placed firmly embedded mountains on the earth, so it would not move under them] (The Qur'an, 21:31) You can easily notice that the verse stated that mountains have the function of preventing shocks in the Earth. This fact was not known by anyone at the time the Qur'an was revealed. It was in fact brought to light only recently as a result of the findings of modern geology.

I have not received any answer… Nobody told me how Prophet Mohammed came up with those facts if he was not a prophet sent by the creator of this universe... How Prophet Mohammed did know - more than 1400 years ago-: 1- That the whole universe was one part and them separated… 2- Every living being was created from water One more... We now know that the universe is expanding... well, read the verse from the holy Quran [i created the heaven with great might, and I am expanding it...] [Chapter 51, verse 47]... Sure when you deny the creator, you consider this forum about politics, but when you faced with these striking verses, you start to say this is not religious forum... Simply because you have no answer... Please I want responsible answers...

In my previous post my friend Figleaf said that [Religion thrives on ignorance. Without ignorance religion would be a footnote, a fad that people sometimes indulge] and he challenged me to name even ONE fact supports religion… Well I will prove here that some people – called Prophets – delivered messages from the creator… Those holy books have evidences that science support them … Without waisting time I will quote some verses here from one of the holy books - The Holy Quran - and would love to hear you replies…. --------------------- Creation of the universe…the Big Bang… ------------------- Loot at these verse that illiterate man delivered more than 1400 years ago.. [Have not those who disbelieve known that the heavens and the earth were joined together as one united piece, then We parted them? And We have made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?] [Chapter 21 verse 30 ] [And He it is Who has created the night and the day, and the sun and the moon, each in an orbit floating (swimming)] [Chapter 21 verse 33] --------------------- Living being creation ------------------- [Allah has created every moving (living) creature from water. Of them there are some that creep on their bellies, some that walk on two legs, and some that walk on four. Allah creates what He wills. Verily! Allah is Able to do all things] [Chapter 24 – Verse 45] There are many more…

I am sorry again to hear this language… You know what I don’t like most: blindly following some opinion and accept it as a fact, while never pay attention to check references and loot at names of people and their scientific weighs who oppose it…. I respect you ideological choice and your strong defense, but, excuse me, just because you studied that as a fact, does not mean that other very respected scientist do not accept it… How many scientific theories have been taught for people for decades and many scientific papers and researches have been accepted them as facts.. and then science discovered that they were not accurate or correct? And again you don’t have to reply to my posts… but it is not your right to prevent people from expressing themselves….

It is not supported by science at all and it is arguable to say the best… Evolutionists have always failed to give any fossil that holds transitional forms. When talking about Humans, they mentioned some fossils that most scientists said they are either for Human races as we know now or Australopithecines. No transitional forms have ever been found. As I mentioned in another post they found a fossil Spain in 1995 that revealed the face of an 11-year-old boy who looked entirely like modern man. That boy died 800,000 years ago.. Unfortunately every time I tried to quote any fact that scientists stated, guys in this form did not like it as it was clearly undermining their thoughts… Now your just lieing, and being sensational, you are making claims that are not true and do not hold water. BTW Self interest is not inherrently a bad thing, maybe you and Karl Marx should stop hanging out. Well, I have supported all my points with quotes. And guess what, 99% of those quotes were from ardent evolutionists who had to confess when faced by facts… Please go back to the references I mentioned and pages I stated and tell me if they were just personal … It is you guys and your theory that helped Karl Marx so much… Marx and Engels embraced Darwin's The Origin of Species as soon as it came out. They were amazed at its “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 Labour in the Transition from Ape to Man".

It is not supported by science at all and it is arguable to say the best… Evolutionists have always failed to give any fossil that holds transitional forms. When talking about Humans, they mentioned some fossils that most scientists said they are either for Human races as we know now or Australopithecines. No transitional forms have ever been found. As I mentioned in another post they found a fossil Spain in 1995 that revealed the face of an 11-year-old boy who looked entirely like modern man. That boy died 800,000 years ago.. Unfortunately every time I tried to quote any fact that scientists stated, guys in this form did not like it as it was clearly undermining their thoughts…

First, what do you even mean by 'responsibilty towards our actions'? And why does it depend on where we come from? If you mean what are good ethics, then where we came from seems not quite the point. Whoa nelly. That's quite a package. How about we just stick to 'no creator'. Out of self-interest. In a good person that self-interest includes not having to see him or herself as a person who harms others. Now there is one of the biggest problems of talking with religious people. Y'all have this tendency to jump from one thing to another without connecting the dots. How would a creator necessarily ensure no-one escaped from their evil actions? To answer this question you will go off into a whole architecture of theology that describes the creator you imagine and his infrastructure of enforcement and punishment. Once examined, this infrastructure will prove absurd and probably morally insupportable. In any event, whether 'God' is socially useful or not is not really any help in deciding whether It really exists or what It wants. It is NO guarantee at all! Believers throughout history have had crime and violence in their communities. Evolution is just one of the lines of thought that served to undermine archaic superstitious religious beliefs; most of them had to do with proving the claims of religion were at odds with facts or logic or both. Generally speaking, this process did not involve anyone proposing that it's AOK for the strong to harm the weak. WRT evolution in particular, it describes survival of the fittest, but it doesn't make any moral case for it. So, you don't believe in the Bible? Self-interest is the very single thing that makes people hurt each other. Self-interest (containing selfness at the center of it) makes people cheat to achieve their goals, kidnap and rape to fulfill desires not possible otherwise, lie to hide their weaknesses, kill to hide their secrets, ….. Resources in life are not endless, and depending only on self-interest will inevitablely lead people take all means to achieve their goals regardless of its morality… It is religion that undermines completely all other silly thoughts and assumptions about the universe… It is religion that told people, thousands of years ago, the answers for the big questions of life while science – as we know now – had to wait thousands of years to say anything… It is religion that OREDRS people to learn and explore the universe… It is religion that considered ignorance a sin… All facts that science confirmed just support religion… other thoughts that contradict it are necessarily just theories or assumptions… When the creator tells anything about His universe, who will know best: He or very ignorant and limited creatures… It is pity that people when using their minds, do not stop and think for a second that their minds - as any other sense – are limited…. I am sure when you will know what God said in his holy books, you will be very surprised….

Pretty easy for me to see when you are copying, or perhaps plagiarising , versus writing in your own words. You make a lot of mistakes in your writing and none when you copy. Convincing answers for my questions...

from...http://www.web-books.com/Classics/Nonficti...win_ManC8P4.htm Did you report him to Greg? I will.... That is all you can do to answer my questions… Oh, that is good… Your questions have been answered on this Forum dozens of times and in literature thousands of times. Meanwhile, you tend to be pretty non-responsive yourself. Quite irrespective of whether we 'came from animals', what do you want to know about our responsibilities for our actions? Define 'fittest', define 'right', and define 'justice'. Then it might be possible to answer that question. And what exactly is the context for that here? Or they say God told them to do it. 1- Our responsibility towards our actions depends mainly on where we come from. If we came from animals (i.e. no creator, life is a chance, no meaning for life, no life after death…) then no clear moral frame for anything. Why should anyone control himself not to do any thing even it harms other people? Is it the law? Well there is so many ways to escape from law….. The main point here is that if anyone can get away with his actions, nothing wrong to do it. 2- But if the we are created by God that is completely different. Then where to escape from your evil actions? If you escape from knowledge-limited human beings, you cannot go away from the one who created you and knows everything in the whole universe. So if tow persons for example alone in a desert. If one of them wants to steal money or even kill the other, this will depend on our responsibility for our actions. If he does not believe in God and believes he just came from animals, then the only thing he will care about is whether he will be caught be laws or not. If he feels safe, he will kill no problem. But if the same persons know that his creator is watching him right now and everything gets recorded and will be responsible for his actions sooner or later, this is the biggest grantee he will not commit a crime. I am sure there are many bad believers, not most of them fear God… 3- The context I put is that Evolution theory gave enough - false- excuses for people to stop believing in God and act in this way: If you are strong, you are naturally allowed prevail. Then take whatever actions (all means are accepted) to prevail. Weak do not deserve living. That is the law of nature. The fittest lives… 4- God never told people to kill people. There is no special relation between God and any kind of person or persons. The only thing that makes someone closer to God is only obeying His orders. These orders and instructions - 90 % of them – define the framework within which people live together in a good society. Absolutely killing, lying, stealing,etc were explicitly rejected and severe consequences were been mentioned fro people committing it. If you know that God said that “He does not get benefit from our obeying, and He does not get harmed by our disobey” you will know that His instructions have been for our good. 5- It is people’s deception that leads them to commit crime by name of God. But religion text is clear and lots of people who understand religion always warn misguided persons that they are deceivers not reliogious…

from...http://www.web-books.com/Classics/Nonficti...win_ManC8P4.htm Did you report him to Greg? I will.... That is all you can do to answer my questions… Oh, that is good… No-one gave any answer to the big questions… If we came from animals, what is your point of view about our responsibilities for our actions? If the fittest has the absolute right to exterminate the less developed… is there any justice now in this world? Cannot we now put it into context what Hitler meant when he said “History would culminate in a new millennial empire of unparalleled splendour, based on a new racial hierarchy ordained by nature herself.” . Then he said later - in the 1933 Nuremberg party rally "a higher race subjects to itself a lower race… a right which we see in nature and which can be regarded as the sole conceivable right". Very heavy prices are being paid by humans because some people think there is no responsibility…They think that their savage behavior is very normal and that is natural...

from...http://www.web-books.com/Classics/Nonficti...win_ManC8P4.htm Day per day, I am more convinced that some people follow only their desires other than their minds… Instead of taking responsibly towards life and living beings, they just look for easy “guessing” to avoid the idea that they are responsible…. When they think “What? God? Judgment day? Humans? “, they quickly escape to the easy thing “No..No...No… We are animals – Man-!!!!!” So why should anyone do anything good? Everyone for himself… Why should not anyone do anything – bad or good – if it is for him/her? Law? They will tell you if you can even kill and do not get caught, go ahead…and remember “Life is a fight for survival”... Again according to the revolutionists, what is the problem of killing weak people if you are strong? What is problem if a strong country invades a less developed one and destroy all weak -not fittest – people? I hope someone can answer…

Base on previous debate about evolution, all supporters of evolution theory say that we were not created as human beings but just a step in a long process of evolution… So regarding ourselves as we came into being by chance as animals who developed by means of the fight for survival…. Beautiful human meanings and morals are just a myth. There is nothing as love, caring, justice, equality, freedom, and family….etc. All is a myth… Now do the evolutionists know the heavy price human beings are paying – and will pay – for this? I doubt… So - according to them – what is the problem of killing weak people if you are strong? What is problem if a strong country invades a less developed one and destroy all weak -not fittest – people? Nothing is wrong with that from their point of view… According to Darwin, at some point in the future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes… will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla. This may shed some light on all kind of savage invasions from strong countries against weak ones. There is no wonder why “fittest” people “here” are humans and worth living, but other people “there” are just numbers and are “not fittest” are not worth living… Again Now do the evolutionists know the heavy price human beings are paying – and will pay – for their theory?

I like this post, because this is one that you wrote, so congradulations... However it is still very inflamatory, your previous post was ripped from other threads not just what you put citations after but what didn't have citations. I am more than willing to debate people, my 1000 plus post count should indicate that I do debate people, and do so with my own words. You accuse me of wantign to talk but I made a post in my own words. You replied to that with a post that was so blatantly plagarised that it wasn't even funny. Now to Answer your questions 1. Humans did not descend from chimps I am not, nor is anyone else, claiming that Humans evolved from chimps. Human and Chimps share a common ancestor, this lack of insight into evolution is very charachteristic of someone who has not bothered to look into the subject all that much. 2. Is there any evidence of natural selection? Yes 3. Transitional fossils Yes... There is a very complete record in reguards to horses We can also view fossils like the Australapithicus, Homo Habilus, Homo Erectus, Homo sapien and thier continuance Rhizosolenia also shows a record of transition over the years This can also be seen in species of trilobytes There is a fiarly good record of transitional fossils between dinosaurs and birds We can see this Whales, fish etc.... Honestly if you say you have enver encountered evidence of a transitional fossil, I would question wether or not you have actually looked. 4. Do I have any evidence we came from chimps No, no one does BECAUSE WE DID NOT COME FROM CHIMPS 5. Why have other chimps not become human Because Humans and chimps diverged from a different ancestor 6. If you agreed we came from chimps I hope you don't that would be ignorant, because we did not come from chimps, you wouldn't be agreeing with me 7. HUH? The rest of your post is slightly incomprehensible, and I cannot reply because I do not know what you are saying. Giving people the impression that what evolutionists are saying are facts is not accurate… What you mentioned are variations of completely separate Ape and Human races… 1- A recent research done in 1994 on the inner ear showed that Australopithecus and Homo habilis were reclassified as apes, while Homo erectus was reclassified as a fully modern human… 2- If you had read the famous French scientific magazine, Science et Vie, you would have found that it accepted this truth under the headline "Goodbye, Lucy," in its February 1999 issue, and confirmed that Australopithecus cannot be considered an ancestor of man. Researchers - after 15 years of research – led by Lord Zuckerman reached the conclusion that Australopithecines were only an ordinary species of ape, and were definitely not bipedal. 3- When it comes to Homo sapien, a fossil found in Spain in 1995. The fossil revealed the face of an 11-year-old boy who looked entirely like modern man. Guess what? That boy died 800,000 years ago. That fact shook the excavation leader - Juan Luis Arsuaga Ferreras – who considered that as finding something like a tape recorder in Gran Dolina and “We don't expect cassettes and tape recorders in the Lower Pleistocene. Finding a modern face 800,000 years ago—it's the same thing. We were very surprised when we saw it.” There are so many evidences that humans have been always humans…

You are not quoting you are plagarising If you look at what I posted I have also shown you that you have text on your post that is not sourced but is still lifted from another place. the only word that is yours in that whole block of text is "more?" So this is your real problem…who said that and who did not… I am not doing a formal research or paper… I have not claimed the quotes were mine… You should have concentrated on the facts and questions… not who and what… When I say for example the distance between the sun and the earth is xxx in any discussion, I don’t have to mention the name of the first person who first calculated that…it is already known it is not me… So when I mention any scientific fact - even when I did not mention the reference name and page number - of course that you all know that I am not the one who did the experiments of recorded the fossil record… Same for you…All facts you are mentioning, they are absolutely not yours… You are completely free you doubt any fact or opinion and ask me from where I got it of-course…

I am not lying... I have not really known any thing about that website before…but it seems that the author of the books I am quoting from have their websites and publish their books materials there… The book I am quoting from named “Darwinism Refuted” Author Harun Yaha. You can Google it and see if you cam download a copy or buy it… I still do not understand to me a plagiarist while I mention the reference names and page numbers… So when anyone quotes from ‘The Origin of Species’, is he a plagiarist? So strange logic…. You guys should accept that other people have other opinions and accept the others…. Please answer my valid questions rather than reporting me to the administrators!!!!! Okay even though you are very good at playing the fool, stop. You are directly quoting...as an example...here is the first half of your post in response to me.... Now lets eliminate quotes ---------------As written by you-------------- Mutations are defined as breaks or replacements taking place in the DNA molecule, which is found in the nuclei of the cells of a living organism and which contains all its genetic information. ----------------------- -----------as written by DR.com------------ Mutations are defined as breaks or replacements taking place in the DNA molecule, which is found in the nuclei of the cells of a living organism and which contains all its genetic information. ------------------------- ------------As written by you-------- Mutation is not a magic wand that transforms living organisms into a more advanced and perfect form. The direct effect of mutations is harmful. -------------------------------------------- ---------------As written by DR.com Mutation, which evolutionists frequently hide behind, is not a magic wand that transforms living organisms into a more advanced and perfect form. The direct effect of mutations is harmful. ----------------------------- ---------------As written by you------- The reason for this is very simple: DNA has a very complex structure, and random effects can only damage it. Biologist B. G. Ranganathan states: “ 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, here would be a random change in the framework of the building, which, in all probability, would not be an improvement.” [b. G. Ranganathan, Origins?, Pennsylvania: The Banner Of Truth Trust. 1988.] ------------------------ ----------------As written by Dr.com------------ The reason for this is very simple: DNA has a very complex structure, and random effects can only damage it. Biologist B. G. Ranganathan states: 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 highy 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.19 --------------------------------- -----------As written by you----------------- The evolutionist scientist Warren Weaver comments on the report prepared by the committee on Genetic Effects of Atomic Radiation, which had been formed to investigate mutations that might have been caused by the nuclear weapons used in the Second World War: “ Many will be puzzled about the statement that practically all known mutant genes are harmful. For mutations are a necessary part of the process of evolution. How can a good affect—evolution to higher forms of life—result from mutations practically all of which are harmful? [Warren Weaver et al., "Genetic Effects of Atomic Radiation", Science, vol. 123, June page1159] ----------------------- --------------As written by Dr.com---------- The evolutionist scientist Warren Weaver comments on the report prepared by the Committee on Genetic Effects of Atomic Radiation, which had been formed to investigate mutations that might have been caused by the nuclear weapons used in the Second World War: Many will be puzzled about the statement that practically all known mutant genes are harmful. For mutations are a necessary part of the process of evolution. How can a good effect-evolution to higher forms of life-result from mutations practically all of which are harmful?20 ------------------------------- So quick review First half of your post as it was originally Now your post after romving Plagarism No, I cannot handle anymore have fun at Banned camp What is wrong man with quoting from a scientific reference and mention the reference name and page number? Have I said it was mine? I mentioned the references names and page numbers… But you are right in one thing... I really compared the text of the book I have and the website you mentioned and I found actually the author has - not just that website – but other websites and he published the text of his books on them… Please go to this link http://www.harunyahya.com/refuted1.php and you will find the book there… you can even download it for free as a PDF… As I said I was lying and I don’t lie at all…. Just a correction to my last sentence... I meant "As I said I was NOT lying and I don’t lie at all…."

I am not lying... I have not really known any thing about that website before…but it seems that the author of the books I am quoting from have their websites and publish their books materials there… The book I am quoting from named “Darwinism Refuted” Author Harun Yaha. You can Google it and see if you cam download a copy or buy it… I still do not understand to me a plagiarist while I mention the reference names and page numbers… So when anyone quotes from ‘The Origin of Species’, is he a plagiarist? So strange logic…. You guys should accept that other people have other opinions and accept the others…. Please answer my valid questions rather than reporting me to the administrators!!!!! Okay even though you are very good at playing the fool, stop. You are directly quoting...as an example...here is the first half of your post in response to me.... Now lets eliminate quotes ---------------As written by you-------------- Mutations are defined as breaks or replacements taking place in the DNA molecule, which is found in the nuclei of the cells of a living organism and which contains all its genetic information. ----------------------- -----------as written by DR.com------------ Mutations are defined as breaks or replacements taking place in the DNA molecule, which is found in the nuclei of the cells of a living organism and which contains all its genetic information. ------------------------- ------------As written by you-------- Mutation is not a magic wand that transforms living organisms into a more advanced and perfect form. The direct effect of mutations is harmful. -------------------------------------------- ---------------As written by DR.com Mutation, which evolutionists frequently hide behind, is not a magic wand that transforms living organisms into a more advanced and perfect form. The direct effect of mutations is harmful. ----------------------------- ---------------As written by you------- The reason for this is very simple: DNA has a very complex structure, and random effects can only damage it. Biologist B. G. Ranganathan states: “ 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, here would be a random change in the framework of the building, which, in all probability, would not be an improvement.” [b. G. Ranganathan, Origins?, Pennsylvania: The Banner Of Truth Trust. 1988.] ------------------------ ----------------As written by Dr.com------------ The reason for this is very simple: DNA has a very complex structure, and random effects can only damage it. Biologist B. G. Ranganathan states: 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 highy 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.19 --------------------------------- -----------As written by you----------------- The evolutionist scientist Warren Weaver comments on the report prepared by the committee on Genetic Effects of Atomic Radiation, which had been formed to investigate mutations that might have been caused by the nuclear weapons used in the Second World War: “ Many will be puzzled about the statement that practically all known mutant genes are harmful. For mutations are a necessary part of the process of evolution. How can a good affect—evolution to higher forms of life—result from mutations practically all of which are harmful? [Warren Weaver et al., "Genetic Effects of Atomic Radiation", Science, vol. 123, June page1159] ----------------------- --------------As written by Dr.com---------- The evolutionist scientist Warren Weaver comments on the report prepared by the Committee on Genetic Effects of Atomic Radiation, which had been formed to investigate mutations that might have been caused by the nuclear weapons used in the Second World War: Many will be puzzled about the statement that practically all known mutant genes are harmful. For mutations are a necessary part of the process of evolution. How can a good effect-evolution to higher forms of life-result from mutations practically all of which are harmful?20 ------------------------------- So quick review First half of your post as it was originally Now your post after romving Plagarism No, I cannot handle anymore have fun at Banned camp What is wrong man with quoting from a scientific reference and mention the reference name and page number? Have I said it was mine? I mentioned the references names and page numbers… But you are right in one thing... I really compared the text of the book I have and the website you mentioned and I found actually the author has - not just that website – but other websites and he published the text of his books on them… Please go to this link http://www.harunyahya.com/refuted1.php and you will find the book there… you can even download it for free as a PDF… As I said I was lying and I don’t lie at all….

I am not lying... I have not really known any thing about that website before…but it seems that the author of the books I am quoting from have their websites and publish their books materials there… The book I am quoting from named “Darwinism Refuted” Author Harun Yaha. You can Google it and see if you cam download a copy or buy it… I still do not understand to me a plagiarist while I mention the reference names and page numbers… So when anyone quotes from ‘The Origin of Species’, is he a plagiarist? So strange logic…. You guys should accept that other people have other opinions and accept the others…. Please answer my valid questions rather than reporting me to the administrators!!!!!