True Facts About The Fictitious ‘missing Link’ Ida

[Guest Ahmet Secer]

 

STOP LYING!

Darwinists are wretched out of desperation!

 

They attempted to show the complete lemur fossil named Ida--which is an extinct species--as a transitional form.

 

And about 90 percent of the animal and plant species on earth became extinct.[1] There are 99 species of lemurs. And 16 species of lemurs became extinct and many other species are now being determined as extinct. And many more species have been lost. All the extinct species are all perfect living forms with no sign of the so-called transitional forms.

 

Ida, is one the extinct species of lemur. It is a perfect developed lemur and it shows no sign of intermediary form. It is an evidence of creation.

 

THE TRUE FACTS ABOUT THE FICTITIOUS 'MISSING LINK' IDA THAT DARWINISTS NEVER MENTION

 

Nobody Attaches Any More Credence to Evolutionists’ False Evidence!

 

* Darwinism is now finished. Darwinists and materialists have been belittled in the public eye. They must now renounce their meaningless pride and obstinacy and free themselves from the spell of the last 150 years. Life did not come into being by chance, and living things are not descended from one another. Almighty Allah (God) created the universe and everything, living and inanimate, within it.

 

* Evolutionists who invent lie after lie and keep raising false evidence in order to keep the theory of evolution alive are being humiliated in the public eye. The latest evolutionist false evidence is the fossil dinosaur known as Tyrannosaurus, depicted as the “ancestor of birds.” The results of a study conducted on proteins obtained from this fossil, discovered in the state of Montana in the USA in 2003, were again made public in a sensational manner. Evolutionists compared the proteins they obtained from this fossil with those of 21 modern species of bird and came up with the lie that this creature was directly related to the chicken and the ostrich.

 

* The fact is, however, that the idea that birds evolved from dinosaurs is an invention opposed by leading ornithologists who produce clear evidence to back their case. Similarities among living things represent no evidence for the theory of evolution. It is of course utterly normal for there to be molecular similarities among living things, because they are made up of the same molecules, use the same water and atmosphere and consume nutrients made of the same molecules. It is perfectly natural for their metabolisms and therefore their genetic structures to resemble one another.

 

* If attempts are made to prove evolution on the basis of molecular comparisons, the picture that emerges leaves evolution in a totally helpless position. When evolutionists’ illusory family trees are prepared in the light of molecular comparisons, all previous family trees have to be thrown away and it even has to be maintained that there is an evolutionary link between human beings and the potato.

 

* Based on findings from the field of microbiology, the renowned biochemist Prof. Michael Denton makes this comment:

“Each class at a molecular level is unique, isolated and unlinked by intermediates. Thus, molecules, like fossils, have failed to provide the elusive intermediates so long sought by evolutionary biology… At a molecular level, no organism is "ancestral" or "primitive" or "advanced" compared with its relatives…” (Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, London: Burnett Books, pp. 290-91)

 

 

* The oldest-known bird fossil is Archaeopteryx, which dates back some 150 million years. With its perfect flight muscles and feathers ideally suited to flight, this animal was a flying bird. The dinosaur fossil in the latest study seeking to establish a relation with birds is only 68 million years old. This means that birds were in existence some 80 million years before this dinosaur. For that reason, the idea that there is an evolutionary link to this dinosaur, and that birds “evolved from dinosaurs” is a fantasy.

 

* These efforts are all in vain. Modern science has revealed that the extraordinary complexity in the origin of life cannot be explained from a materialist perspective. Reports of this kind on the press are just hopeless and misleading tactics on the part of various circles holding a materialist world view. Living things were created through Almighty Allah commanding them to “Be!” not through a chance process of evolution.

 

 

The newly announced Tyrannosaurus fossil, which is claimed to have a familial link to birds, is 68 million years old. Yet the fossil known as Confuciusornis, shown above and belonging to an extinct species of bird, is fully 120 million years old.

 

1. Not one single protein can come into being by chance.

Proteins are complex molecules that both represent the building blocks of living cells and also assume various functions within the cell. When the chances of an average protein molecule emerging by chance are calculated, the result is a number consisting of 10 followed by 950 zeros. In practical mathematical terms, such a figure represents “zero probability.”

 

2. Irreducibly complex organs refute evolution.

Irreducible complexity is a characteristic that invalidates the claim of gradual development that lies at the basis of the theory of evolution. For example, there is irreducible complexity in the eye and in wings. It is impossible for the organelles that combine to make up the eye, such as the tear gland, the retina and iris to form individually by chance. Because sight will only occur when all the components of the eye are all perfectly formed. The same thing applies to the wing.

 

3. The inconceivable amount of information in DNA repudiates chance.

The information concerning all characteristics, from a person’s physical appearance to the structure of their internal organs is encoded by a special system in their DNA. If we were to try to put the genetic information in DNA down on paper, we would need to create a huge library of 900 volumes of 500 pages each. But this inconceivable quantity of information is contained in those parts of DNA known as “genes.” And it is an absolute fact that DNA cannot emerge by chance.

 

4. The fossil record points to Creation.

Although some 100 million fossils belonging to 250,000 different species have been unearthed, not even one supports Darwinism. Each one of the fossils discovered, belongs to fully formed and flawless organisms. Were evolutionists’ claims true, a large part out of so many fossils should belong to “intermediate life forms,” though not a single one actually does.

 

5. Life forms appeared suddenly in the Cambrian Period.

Nearly all the main physical structures in living things (categories such as arthropods, chordates etc.) emerged in the Cambrian Period, some 530 million years ago. While only 1 or 2 of these main categories existed prior to the Cambrian, more than 50 emerged suddenly in different parts of the world during the Cambrian Period. Pre-Cambrian life forms have simpler structures, while those from the Cambrian are incomparably more complex. For example, there is no difference between the structure of the eye of the trilobite, which emerged during this period, and that of eyes today.

 

6. “Living fossils” are a response to evolutionist myths.

Living fossils are striking proof that, totally demolish the theory of evolution’s claim of “gradual development.” The reason why they are known as “living fossils” is that despite being hundreds of millions of years old, they are identical to specimens living today. There are many specimens of living fossils, from ants to trees and from bats to sharks. This is definitive evidence that no evolution ever took place in the course of natural history.

 

7. Reptiles are not the ancestors of birds.

Evolutionists are no longer able to point to Archaeopteryx as an intermediate form between reptiles and birds. Examinations of this fossil shown that it is not a transitional form, and that it is an extinct bird with a few different features to those of present-day birds. The presence of a breastbone indicating powerful flight muscles and an asymmetric feather structure identical to that in modern-day birds show that the animal was able to fly to perfection.

 

8. Fish did not emerge onto dry land.

Evolutionists used to point to the fish known as the Coelacanth as evidence for the myth of a transition from water to dry land. It used to be thought that the Coelacanth represented an intermediate form between fish and amphibians. However, a “living” specimen of a Coelacanth was caught in the Indian Ocean in 1938. More than 200 other specimens have been caught since. Examinations of living Coelacanths revealed that it is a perfectly structured fish and that all the previous conjectures about the fossils was mistaken.

 

9. Mutations do not form new species.

 

Mutations are breakages or dislocations occurring as a result of radiation or chemical agents in the DNA molecule in the nucleus of the living cell that carries genetic information. DNA has a highly complex structure. Therefore, any random change in the molecule will be damaging to it. Mutations usually lead to irreparable damage and deformity, and even to death. The people exposed to the disasters at Hiroshima, Nagasaki or Chernobyl are living indications of this. The claim that mutations are an evolutionary mechanism is proof of the dead-end in which the theory of evolution finds itself.

 

10. Natural selection does not lead to evolution.

Natural selection is an expression of the survival of strong living things best suited to their surroundings. But this does not give rise to any new species. For example, in a herd of zebra under threat from predators, those zebras able to run fast will survive and the herd will eventually come to consist of fast-running individuals. But this process is a limited one and cannot turn the zebra into any other species. Because zebra have their own unique skeletal structure and physiology recorded in their DNA, and the struggle against predators cannot alter that information nor bestow any new genetic information on the zebra.

 

11. Human beings never evolved, but were created as humans.

It has emerged that the human family tree is a diagram drawn up solely in the light of evolutionists’ imaginations. Evolutionists maintained that human beings emerged gradually in the following line of progression: "Australopithecines > Homo habilis > Homo erectus> Homo sapiens" They sought to give the impression that each one of the life forms in that list was the forerunner of the one after it. But the discovery of these life forms, which evolutionists portray as one another’s ancestors, right beside one another has demolished this family tree. The latest discoveries by paleoanthropologists show that Australopithecines, Homo habilis and Homo erectus existed at the same time in different parts of the world.

 

12. Evolutionists resort to frauds.

Evolutionists also resort to frauds in order to “prove” their theory. To date, there has been a great deal of such evolutionist fraud as that in embryo drawings and in fossils being hidden away or destroyed. The most striking example is the Piltdown Man fraud.

It was suggested that a skull discovered in 1912 near Piltdown in England belonged to an “ape-man.” This fossil, the skull of which exhibited human features and the jaw those of an orangutan, was displayed in the famous British Museum for 40 years. However, it was finally exposed as a forgery in 1953. The fossil had been produced by evolutionists who combined a human skull and an orangutan jaw and used chemicals to give it an aged appearance.

[Ouroboros]

Interesting.

 

Even if I think there must be something wrong with this claim, I will let this thread be for now and lets discuss this. I'd like to see arguments for and against this new claim of forgery.

[Vixentrox]

He forgot, "god isn't real" on that list.

[florduh]

Fictitious fossil? Doubt it.

 

Fictitious Allah? Bingo!

[Legion]

Here are some true facts about organisms…

 

1) Organisms reproduce with heritable variation.

2) Many more organisms are born than will survive to reproduce.

 

The first fact is simply an observation that organisms produce more organisms (offspring) and these offspring are genetically unique. Another way of viewing this fact is that organisms are constantly exploring new ways of being an organism.

 

The second fact is fairly self explanatory. And another way of viewing it is that there is a pressure being exerted on organisms which, in effect, selects some organisms and rejects others.

 

Any process which produces variations on a theme and then selects some portion of these themes for further production will demonstrate an evolutionary pattern.

 

No fossils are needed. (Though they do confirm it) All that’s needed are a few observations of nature as it presents itself to us today and a little bit of reasoning.

[OpheliaGinger]

This is new (at least for me), an apologist for Islam instead of Christianity.

 

I have a question: why would Allah (of course, the same question applies to Yahweh) let so many species die for no apparent reason?

 

A living fossil does not denote a hole in evolution, just that that species managed to live so long without change because their makeup was perfectly suited to their environment(s). Evolution does not have to happen at a constant rate for every species, just those that want to survive in a changing environment and a changing predator.

[florduh]

Ideas spawned from an ancient religion invented by a barbaric desert tribe have no relevance to modern reality. Those who are stuck in the old superstitions must break the fear that binds them to perpetual ignorance. So much of life is lost when you are enslaved by the mythology of early man. So much evil, injustice and violence result from that attachment. Read a book, think for yourself, discover what reality has to offer.

 

Arguing the well established and obvious fact of evolution with someone who has closed his eyes and mind is useless, so I won't even address the information that can be found in any high school biology textbook. There is no conspiracy to discredit an Allah or a Yahweh; science simply discovers, reports, revises, and refines the facts. The reality of our universe is amazing and awesome enough that nobody needs to make up fanciful stories about it anymore.

[Legion]

Arguing the well established and obvious fact of evolution with someone who has closed his eyes and mind is useless...

I mostly agree Chris, but others might be watching the exchange (as you mentioned in another thread) and come away informed.

[florduh]

Yeah, LR, you're right. I'm just not up to trying to teach basic biology online. It's just so easy to find volumes of information it seems a waste of bandwidth to teach classes here on all the subjects some people apparently missed in high school.

[Legion]

Yeah, LR, you're right.

I often am.

[florduh]

Me too, but only sometimes.

[BlueGiant]

Ok, abiogenesis and evolution confused together, check.

 

No arguments of own brought in, check.

 

Screeching fundie tone, check.

 

Complete ignorance of scientific principles involved. Check, check and check.

 

Yep, we have a certified moron, Islamic variety. Seems to be just as useless a pile as xtianity is.

 

I don't have the time or desire to teach the basics of biology, chemistry, reaction kinetics and thermodynamics to someone who obviously doesn't want to learn/has never paid attention.

[par4dcourse]

There is no missing link. We were once one celled blobs and are now people, therefore every link was firmly established, whether we've found the bones yet or no.

Except the creationists. Their bodies evolved but the brain is still a single cell organism.

[chefranden]

Let's put Muslim fundies in a big room with Christian fundies and see if we get an empty room or a new religion.

[OpheliaGinger]

Let's put Muslim fundies in a big room with Christian fundies and see if we get an empty room or a new religion.

 

*BOOM*

[Vixentrox]

Let's put Muslim fundies in a big room with Christian fundies and see if we get an empty room or a new religion.

Thow the orthodox jews in for good measure.

[Thurisaz]

 

STOP LYING!

Darwinists are wretched out of desperation!

 

Arsebackwards.

 

It's the cretinists (like you) who regurgipost the same long-debunked crap again and again... because they have nothing else.

 

Good job posting the same old shit once again. The images (from the website of well-known cretinist liar adnan oktar AKA "harun yahya") are the icing on the shitcake.

 

You are not worthy of more time than I need to write this short reply and *PLONK* you.

[Guest]

12. Evolutionists resort to frauds.

Evolutionists also resort to frauds in order to “prove” their theory. To date, there has been a great deal of such evolutionist fraud as that in embryo drawings and in fossils being hidden away or destroyed. The most striking example is the Piltdown Man fraud.

It was suggested that a skull discovered in 1912 near Piltdown in England belonged to an “ape-man.” This fossil, the skull of which exhibited human features and the jaw those of an orangutan, was displayed in the famous British Museum for 40 years. However, it was finally exposed as a forgery in 1953. The fossil had been produced by evolutionists who combined a human skull and an orangutan jaw and used chemicals to give it an aged appearance.[/size]

 

OMG I cant believe you guys are still bringing up piltdown man. Yes, it was a hoax...a hoax that was revealed in what, 1920? And it was uncovered as a hoax by the scientific community! That is the beauty of science, it is self correcting.

 

Science asks questions that may not be answered, but religion has answers that may not be questioned. Sorry, but I'll take the former any day.

[Neon Genesis]

Why do creationists always use the argument "the universe could not have come about by chance!" as an argument against evolution when the theory of evolution never claimed to explain the origin of the universe? And isn't it more of a chance for an invisible sky fairy to zap his fingers in the air and magically poof animals into existence? If evolution is "chance", how is Allah forming the universe any less of a chance? And who created Allah, by the way? Also, why do creationists act like if they disprove evolution, it suddenly proves creationism? Even if you could disprove evolution, disproving evolution does not suddenly prove the existence of God. Disproving evolution would disprove evolution. Even if evolution was disproved, saying "Goddidit" does not explain anything about how the process works and so we would still have to actually find another explanation for how we got here. Also, if God just magically poofed all the different animal species into existence, how do creationists explain mixed breeds in dogs?

[scitsofreaky]

Wow, that is a really stupid list. None of those arguments are original, and they are all retarded. There is no real point in even talking about any of these points. If you do not already know arguments against these, go here.

Also, if God just magically poofed all the different animal species into existence, how do creationists explain mixed breeds in dogs?

The same way they explain everything- Goddidit

[Doobie]

 

To an objective lay observer, they both look like typical lemurs. It's a lemur. It was discovered in 1983. It took 26 years to finagle the thinnest of cases for that it is a missing link to turn it over to the Evolutionist hype machine? "The opinion of Chris Beard, curator of vertebrate paleontology at the Carnegie Museum of Natural History, was that Darwinius was not a 'missing link'" -Wikipedia (notice the pathetic use of the word "was" by the twit writer). There appears to be significant dissent even among the vetted faithful.

 

Sorry guys, I have to ask, is your case so weak that Evolutionists run this kind of thing up the flag pole?

[Doobie]

Any process which produces variations on a theme and then selects some portion of these themes for further production will demonstrate an evolutionary pattern.

 

There's not one ounce of intelligence in this thread from the Atheist camp. So, here's a challenge for anyone to step out from the choir and support some of your empty rhetoric. Point out any process, without conjecture, but with blind selection, which produces variations on a theme and then selects some portion of these themes for further production will demonstrate an evolutionary pattern.

 

Note, any pettiness will be held against you.

[Ouroboros]

There's not one ounce of intelligence in this thread from the Atheist camp. So, here's a challenge for anyone to step out from the choir and support some of your empty rhetoric. Point out any process, without conjecture, but with blind selection, which produces variations on a theme and then selects some portion of these themes for further production will demonstrate an evolutionary pattern.

There are several software solutions where genetic algorithms (a simulation of the process of evolutionary theory) have been used successfully. So in mathematical/theoretical and even practical aspects, the "regenerate/mutate/select" process works just fine. And it usually prove to be more efficient than regular functional analysis and design.

 

Fascinating that to the Muslim who started this thread, the arguments prove Allah, while for the Christian, all points to Jesus...

[Neon Genesis]

To an objective lay observer, they both look like typical lemurs.

Which is why lay observers are not professional scientists but apparently you're smarter than all those scientists that actually make a living out of researching evolution. Forget biology. Why do we need to learn anything at all when we have the holey babble? Yay, no more school!

[RationalOkie]

Any process which produces variations on a theme and then selects some portion of these themes for further production will demonstrate an evolutionary pattern.

 

There's not one ounce of intelligence in this thread from the Atheist camp. So, here's a challenge for anyone to step out from the choir and support some of your empty rhetoric. Point out any process, without conjecture, but with blind selection, which produces variations on a theme and then selects some portion of these themes for further production will demonstrate an evolutionary pattern.

 

Note, any pettiness will be held against you.

 

This is what's in the fossil record. You can argue until you are blue in the face but it won't change this.

3.4 Billion Years Ago Single-Celled Life ( Fossil Record )

2.4 Billion Years Ago Oxygen was released from the seas as a byproduct of photosynthesis by cyanobacteria (Single-Celled Life).

800 Million Years Ago Oxygen levels reached about 21 percent and began to breathe life into more complex organisms.

600 Million Years Ago Multicelled Soft-Bodied Life

580 Million Years Ago Fish

405 Million Years Ago Amphibians

310 Million Years Ago Reptiles

210 Million Years Ago Mammals

40 Million Years Ago Apes

3.5 to 4 Mill. Yrs Ago Australopithecus

2.5 - 1.6 Mill.Yrs Ago Homo habilis

1.6 Mill - 500,000 Yrs Ago Homo erectus - Recently a Homo erectus lower jaw has been found in Georgia and said to be 1.6 million years ago.

500,000 to 275,000 Years Ago Homo sapiens