Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
New posts
All threads
Latest threads
New posts
Trending threads
Trending
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New ads
New profile posts
Latest activity
Free Ads
Latest reviews
Search ads
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Contact us
Latest ads
Ad icon
ZTE MF283U 4G Unlocked Router (Used)
ayanthamaxi
Updated:
Sunday at 8:26 PM
ලංකාවේ හොඳම උපකාරක පන්ති සහ ගුරුවරුන් එකම තැනකින් - TopTuition.lk
dulithapathum
Updated:
Saturday at 8:07 AM
Colombo
RidhMathraa ’26 🎶✨
Tmadhusanka
Updated:
Wednesday at 11:58 PM
Ad icon
Colombo
PXN V10 Pro Direct Drive Racing Wheel (Under Warranty)
Abdur Rahman
Updated:
Wednesday at 10:23 PM
Ad icon
USDT ණය සේවාව - USDT Loan Service
පුරවැසියා
Updated:
Wednesday at 4:54 PM
Electronics
Vehicles
Property
Search
Reply to thread
Forums
General
ElaKiri PRO!
Fifteen Proofs that Disprove Darwin on the 200th Anniversary
Get the App
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="casper_fms" data-source="post: 4852995" data-attributes="member: 79855"><p><span style="color: red"><span style="font-size: 26px"><strong>Fifteen Proofs that Disprove Darwin on the </strong></span></span></p><p><span style="color: red"><span style="font-size: 26px"><strong>200th Anniversary of His Birth</strong></span></span></p><p></p><p><span style="color: green">On the 200th anniversary of Darwin’s birth, the magazine Nature carried an article in the hope of restoring his outdated theory to the agenda and resuscitating it after its demolition this century. The Turkish scientific journal Cumhuriyet Bilim Teknik also carried the Nature report under the title “Fifteen Proofs That Prove Darwin Right.” Its aim was the same as that of the Darwinist journal Nature; to restore the theory of evolution, a theory that has been demolished and rejected by 80% of the world, to its former good name. </span></p><p><span style="color: green"></span></p><p><span style="color: green">But no matter what they, Darwinists will be unable to alter the fact that Darwinism is dead and buried. There is literally NOBODY LEFT IN THE WORLD TO SUPPORT EVOLUTION. </span></p><p><span style="color: green">THE 100 MILLION FOSSILS THAT DARWINISTS KEPT HIDDEN AWAY HAVE BEEN BROUGHT OUT INTO THE DAYLIGHT. AND THERE IS NOT A SINGLE TRANSITIONAL FORM AMONG THEM! The proponents of Darwinism have suddenly realized that Darwin’s prophecy he made 150 years ago has come true. Because 150 years ago, in his book The Origin of Species, Darwin wrote:</span></p><p><span style="color: green"></span></p><p><span style="color: green">... 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? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory. (Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, pp. 172, 280)</span></p><p><span style="color: green"></span></p><p><span style="color: green">Darwin’s words have been confirmed – NOT ONE SINGLE TRANSITIONAL FORM HAS BEEN UNEARTHED. THAT FACT IS SUFFICIENT TO REPUDIATE DARWINISM all by itself. </span></p><p><span style="color: green"></span></p><p><span style="color: green">The full detail of all the extraordinary complexity in the molecular structures in living things then emerged, and it was realized that it is impossible for even a single protein to form by chance and that a single DNA helix contains an equivalent amount of information to 1 million encyclopedia pages. In other words, it has emerged that Darwinists can offer no explanation or evidence for the origin of species or the origin of life. </span></p><p><span style="color: green"></span></p><p><span style="color: green">The whole world is now aware of the Darwinist deceit. And Darwinists realize it. The typical evolutionary propaganda that recently appeared in Cumhuriyet Bilim Teknik also serves, on close examination, no other purpose than to announce the collapse of Darwin’s theory. That is why we are examining the 15 claims made in the journal under the heading 15 CLAIMS THAT DISPROVE DARWIN; </span></p><p><span style="color: green"></span></p><p><span style="color: green"><strong>1. The False Claim of Whales’ Terrestrial Ancestor: </strong></span></p><p><span style="color: green">The subject of the fictitious forebear of whales is a terrible embarrassment for Darwinists. Contemporary Darwinists have long tried to eliminate that embarrassment by concealing the claim that “bears fishing on the sea shore gradually turned into whales.” But their own suggestions were little different to that of Darwin’s. Darwinists despairingly attempted to portray the ear and tooth structure of a living thing no bigger than a raccoon as evidence of this impossible and fictitious transition. The fact is that this is a classic Darwinist tactic. By pointing to anatomical similarities between different life forms, Darwinists attempted to establish a relationship between a totally unconnected land dweller and a marine mammal. But they were unable even to mention the evidence that would confirm this mythical transition, in other words the subject of transitional forms. They cannot do so because like all Darwinists’ other claims, this is a lie, and THERE IS NOT A SINGLE TRANSITIONAL FORM TO SUBSTANTIATE IT. </span></p><p><span style="color: green"></span></p><p><span style="color: green"><strong>2. The Transition from Water to Dry Land Deceit: </strong></span></p><p><span style="color: green">For years, Darwinists portrayed a well-known fossil fish as evidence of their myth of the transition from water to dry land. Described as the best known transitional fossil, the Coelacanth was depicted as a perfect example of that transition from water to land. According to the Darwinist myth, the creature had fins that turned into feet and was developing a lung. However, A LIVING COELACANTH was discovered in the sea in 1938. Darwinists could no longer lie about the Coelacanth. For example, the structures they had for years described as a primitive lung was nothing more than an OIL SAC. The structures they heralded as primitive legs were in fact PERFECT FINS. This life form, alleged to be on the brink of moving from the water to dry land, was in fact a BOTTOM-DWELLING FISH that inhabited depths of 180 meters and that immediately died when brought up into shallower waters. More than 300 other LIVING SPECIMENS have subsequently been caught. </span></p><p><span style="color: green"></span></p><p><span style="color: green">The Darwinist speculation regarding the Tiktaalik was no different to that concerning the Coelacanth. The Tiktaalik, a creature with a mosaic character (containing perfect structures from different life forms), is an exceedingly complex life form with well preserved fossil remains. But its characteristics display no transitional features. Each one is a fully developed, perfect structure found in mosaic life forms (such as the platypus). The sole reason for the Darwinist conjecture around the animal is that they interpret the fossil remains of this extinct mosaic form in the light of their own preconceptions. Just as wsith the Coelacanth. </span></p><p><span style="color: green">The absence of a single transitional form in the myth of the transition from water to dry land, not to mention such a transition being anatomically and physiologically impossible, is alone sufficient to repudiate the claims on the subject.</span></p><p> <span style="color: green"></span></p><p><span style="color: green"><strong>3. The Evolution of Feathers Deceit: </strong></span></p><p> <span style="color: green"></span></p><p><span style="color: green"></span></p><p><span style="color: green">LIAONINGORNIS </span></p><p><span style="color: green">CONFUCIUSORNIS</span></p><p><span style="color: green"></span></p><p><span style="color: green">Darwinists ignore one very important fact as they espouse the myth of a transition from land to the air. The 100 million fossils they kept hidden away have now been brought out into the daylight, and these contain perfect flying birds that were contemporary with Archaeopteryx. People have personally examined the 125-million-year-old LIAONINGORNIS fossil and the 120-million-year-old CONFUCIUSORNIS fossil. And that is why they now laugh at deceptions such as “Archaeopteryx is a transitional fossil” or “Epidexipteryx, discovered more recently, was the ancestor of birds.” </span></p><p> <span style="color: green">ARCHAEOPTERYX</span></p><p><span style="color: green">All the claims regarding Archaeopteryx have long since been discredited. It has been realized that the animal was a bird capable of perfect flight, and that its teeth and claws are structures also found in contemporary birds. </span></p><p><span style="color: green"></span></p><p><span style="color: green"><strong>4. The Evolution of Teeth Deceit: </strong></span></p><p><span style="color: green">The way that Nature magazine and Cumhuriyet Bilim Teknik are able to carry the claim that teeth evolved and to cite a study performed on the molar teeth of mice is quite amazing. All living things have their own unique characteristics. Their anatomical structures are therefore different to one another. It is perfectly natural for mice to have genetic sequences different to those of other rodents. This is evidence, not that they evolved, but that the life forms in question were specially created for their habitants and living conditions. All living things possess, by Allah’s will, the most perfect equipment and structures. In order to portray this as evidence of evolution, Darwinists need to produce transitional fossils revealing the supposed development of these structures. But not a single intermediate form fossil exists. That means this claim is nothing more than Darwinist demagoguery.</span></p><p> <span style="color: green"></span></p><p><span style="color: green"><strong></strong></span></p><p><span style="color: green"><strong>5. The Evolution of the Vertebrate Skeleton Deceit: </strong>The explanation in the report is literally this: “The neural crest, the existence of which is known only in embryos, explains why vertebrates have different skull and facial structures. But it is impossible to indicate the evolutionary history of the neural crest through fossil evidence because of the lack of embryonic data.” </span></p><p><span style="color: green">It is inexplicable how something for which there is no fossil evidence, as openly admitted in the article, can be depicted as evidence for supposed evolution. The neural crest in the human embryo is a magnificent structure. Cumhuriyet Bilim Teknik made do with describing the perfection of the structure in question and was also obliged to admit that there were no evolutionary races belonging to it in the fossil record. This is a blatant confession that evolution never happened and that living things are created with all their immaculate structures. </span></p><p><span style="color: green"></span></p><p><span style="color: green"><strong>6. The Speciation Deceit: </strong></span></p><p><span style="color: green">Members of a species always reproduce with members of the same species in nature. And various characteristics in members of a species arising due to environmental factors or present in the genes, may come to predominate in subsequent generations. In the same way that tallness may predominate in the children of one tall and one short individual. But this change arising in subsequent generations cannot turn living things into another species. Darwin’s finches developed longer or shorter beaks, but they never became other life forms. They did not turn into peacocks or bats. In the example in the article, sticklebacks did not give rise to a new species by reproducing one another. Sticklebacks anosticklebacks and have acquired no new features apart from those arising from their own genes. No matter how much Darwinists attempt to mislead people by the use of variations, this very definitely constitutes no evidence for evolution. </span></p><p><span style="color: green"></span></p><p><span style="color: green"><strong>7. The Natural Elimination Is Evolution Deceit: </strong></span></p><p><span style="color: green">Ever since Darwin’s day, natural elimination has been put forward as Darwinists’ most favored supposed evolutionary mechanism. But it is actually a terrible lie. Existing information in a living thing’s genes may give rise to various anatomical changes on account of environmental factors. But these changes never turn one life form into another. They never bestow any new organs or structures on it. The fact that lizards’ tails shorten due to environmental factors is no evidence of evolution. </span></p><p><span style="color: green"></span></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="casper_fms, post: 4852995, member: 79855"] [color=red][size=18][b]Fifteen Proofs that Disprove Darwin on the 200th Anniversary of His Birth[/b][/size][/color] [color=green]On the 200th anniversary of Darwin’s birth, the magazine Nature carried an article in the hope of restoring his outdated theory to the agenda and resuscitating it after its demolition this century. The Turkish scientific journal Cumhuriyet Bilim Teknik also carried the Nature report under the title “Fifteen Proofs That Prove Darwin Right.” Its aim was the same as that of the Darwinist journal Nature; to restore the theory of evolution, a theory that has been demolished and rejected by 80% of the world, to its former good name. But no matter what they, Darwinists will be unable to alter the fact that Darwinism is dead and buried. There is literally NOBODY LEFT IN THE WORLD TO SUPPORT EVOLUTION. THE 100 MILLION FOSSILS THAT DARWINISTS KEPT HIDDEN AWAY HAVE BEEN BROUGHT OUT INTO THE DAYLIGHT. AND THERE IS NOT A SINGLE TRANSITIONAL FORM AMONG THEM! The proponents of Darwinism have suddenly realized that Darwin’s prophecy he made 150 years ago has come true. Because 150 years ago, in his book The Origin of Species, Darwin 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? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory. (Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, pp. 172, 280) Darwin’s words have been confirmed – NOT ONE SINGLE TRANSITIONAL FORM HAS BEEN UNEARTHED. THAT FACT IS SUFFICIENT TO REPUDIATE DARWINISM all by itself. The full detail of all the extraordinary complexity in the molecular structures in living things then emerged, and it was realized that it is impossible for even a single protein to form by chance and that a single DNA helix contains an equivalent amount of information to 1 million encyclopedia pages. In other words, it has emerged that Darwinists can offer no explanation or evidence for the origin of species or the origin of life. The whole world is now aware of the Darwinist deceit. And Darwinists realize it. The typical evolutionary propaganda that recently appeared in Cumhuriyet Bilim Teknik also serves, on close examination, no other purpose than to announce the collapse of Darwin’s theory. That is why we are examining the 15 claims made in the journal under the heading 15 CLAIMS THAT DISPROVE DARWIN; [b]1. The False Claim of Whales’ Terrestrial Ancestor: [/b] The subject of the fictitious forebear of whales is a terrible embarrassment for Darwinists. Contemporary Darwinists have long tried to eliminate that embarrassment by concealing the claim that “bears fishing on the sea shore gradually turned into whales.” But their own suggestions were little different to that of Darwin’s. Darwinists despairingly attempted to portray the ear and tooth structure of a living thing no bigger than a raccoon as evidence of this impossible and fictitious transition. The fact is that this is a classic Darwinist tactic. By pointing to anatomical similarities between different life forms, Darwinists attempted to establish a relationship between a totally unconnected land dweller and a marine mammal. But they were unable even to mention the evidence that would confirm this mythical transition, in other words the subject of transitional forms. They cannot do so because like all Darwinists’ other claims, this is a lie, and THERE IS NOT A SINGLE TRANSITIONAL FORM TO SUBSTANTIATE IT. [b]2. The Transition from Water to Dry Land Deceit: [/b] For years, Darwinists portrayed a well-known fossil fish as evidence of their myth of the transition from water to dry land. Described as the best known transitional fossil, the Coelacanth was depicted as a perfect example of that transition from water to land. According to the Darwinist myth, the creature had fins that turned into feet and was developing a lung. However, A LIVING COELACANTH was discovered in the sea in 1938. Darwinists could no longer lie about the Coelacanth. For example, the structures they had for years described as a primitive lung was nothing more than an OIL SAC. The structures they heralded as primitive legs were in fact PERFECT FINS. This life form, alleged to be on the brink of moving from the water to dry land, was in fact a BOTTOM-DWELLING FISH that inhabited depths of 180 meters and that immediately died when brought up into shallower waters. More than 300 other LIVING SPECIMENS have subsequently been caught. The Darwinist speculation regarding the Tiktaalik was no different to that concerning the Coelacanth. The Tiktaalik, a creature with a mosaic character (containing perfect structures from different life forms), is an exceedingly complex life form with well preserved fossil remains. But its characteristics display no transitional features. Each one is a fully developed, perfect structure found in mosaic life forms (such as the platypus). The sole reason for the Darwinist conjecture around the animal is that they interpret the fossil remains of this extinct mosaic form in the light of their own preconceptions. Just as wsith the Coelacanth. The absence of a single transitional form in the myth of the transition from water to dry land, not to mention such a transition being anatomically and physiologically impossible, is alone sufficient to repudiate the claims on the subject. [b]3. The Evolution of Feathers Deceit: [/b] LIAONINGORNIS CONFUCIUSORNIS Darwinists ignore one very important fact as they espouse the myth of a transition from land to the air. The 100 million fossils they kept hidden away have now been brought out into the daylight, and these contain perfect flying birds that were contemporary with Archaeopteryx. People have personally examined the 125-million-year-old LIAONINGORNIS fossil and the 120-million-year-old CONFUCIUSORNIS fossil. And that is why they now laugh at deceptions such as “Archaeopteryx is a transitional fossil” or “Epidexipteryx, discovered more recently, was the ancestor of birds.” ARCHAEOPTERYX All the claims regarding Archaeopteryx have long since been discredited. It has been realized that the animal was a bird capable of perfect flight, and that its teeth and claws are structures also found in contemporary birds. [b]4. The Evolution of Teeth Deceit: [/b] The way that Nature magazine and Cumhuriyet Bilim Teknik are able to carry the claim that teeth evolved and to cite a study performed on the molar teeth of mice is quite amazing. All living things have their own unique characteristics. Their anatomical structures are therefore different to one another. It is perfectly natural for mice to have genetic sequences different to those of other rodents. This is evidence, not that they evolved, but that the life forms in question were specially created for their habitants and living conditions. All living things possess, by Allah’s will, the most perfect equipment and structures. In order to portray this as evidence of evolution, Darwinists need to produce transitional fossils revealing the supposed development of these structures. But not a single intermediate form fossil exists. That means this claim is nothing more than Darwinist demagoguery. [b] 5. The Evolution of the Vertebrate Skeleton Deceit: [/b]The explanation in the report is literally this: “The neural crest, the existence of which is known only in embryos, explains why vertebrates have different skull and facial structures. But it is impossible to indicate the evolutionary history of the neural crest through fossil evidence because of the lack of embryonic data.” It is inexplicable how something for which there is no fossil evidence, as openly admitted in the article, can be depicted as evidence for supposed evolution. The neural crest in the human embryo is a magnificent structure. Cumhuriyet Bilim Teknik made do with describing the perfection of the structure in question and was also obliged to admit that there were no evolutionary races belonging to it in the fossil record. This is a blatant confession that evolution never happened and that living things are created with all their immaculate structures. [b]6. The Speciation Deceit: [/b] Members of a species always reproduce with members of the same species in nature. And various characteristics in members of a species arising due to environmental factors or present in the genes, may come to predominate in subsequent generations. In the same way that tallness may predominate in the children of one tall and one short individual. But this change arising in subsequent generations cannot turn living things into another species. Darwin’s finches developed longer or shorter beaks, but they never became other life forms. They did not turn into peacocks or bats. In the example in the article, sticklebacks did not give rise to a new species by reproducing one another. Sticklebacks anosticklebacks and have acquired no new features apart from those arising from their own genes. No matter how much Darwinists attempt to mislead people by the use of variations, this very definitely constitutes no evidence for evolution. [b]7. The Natural Elimination Is Evolution Deceit: [/b] Ever since Darwin’s day, natural elimination has been put forward as Darwinists’ most favored supposed evolutionary mechanism. But it is actually a terrible lie. Existing information in a living thing’s genes may give rise to various anatomical changes on account of environmental factors. But these changes never turn one life form into another. They never bestow any new organs or structures on it. The fact that lizards’ tails shorten due to environmental factors is no evidence of evolution. [/color] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Hath warak paha keeyada? (hatha wadikireema paha)
Post reply
Top
Bottom