'' Our Lord ! grant us good in this world and good in the hereafter and save us from the torment of the Fire '' [Ameen]
-
{in Arab} :->
Rabbanaa aatinaa fid-dunyaa hasanatan wafil aakhirati hasanatan waqinaa 'athaaban-naar/-
(Surah Al-Baqarah ,verse 201)
Share 
Cambrian period dated back 60 million years:
- Darwin imagined thatthe Cambrian period referred to a time some
60 million years before his day. Stephen Jay Gould said that
"Nothingdistressed him [Darwin] more than the Cambrian explosion , the
coincident appearance of almost all complex organic designs..." Darwin
felt that distress over fossils that he imagined dated back only 60
million years. Had he known that they actually dated back 540 million
years, he would probably have abandoned his theory entirely.
- Examples can be citedof Cambrian fossils that were around in
Darwin'stime. Because Cambrian fossils were first unearthed in
Darwin's day, and he was well aware of these.
The presence of oxygen in the primordial atmosphere makes the chemical
reactions that form the cell impossible:
- Oxygen in the primordial atmosphere will immediately oxidize and
destroys the molecules that form. In addition, the reactions that form
the compounds that existed before that cannot take place in the
presence of oxygen. The reactions required for protein andDNA to form
cannot take place in the presence of oxygen. [William Dembski and
Jonathan Wells, How To Be An Intellectually Fullfilled Atheist (Or
Not), 2008, p. 27]
It is impossible for amino acids to inter-react in the primordial atmosphere:
- Under normal conditions, amino acids do not react with one
another. But they immediately react with other substances, such
assugar.
- If, as Darwinists claim,amino acids formed by chance on the
primeval Earth, then they would not float around waitingto combine
with the correct amino acids. Instead, they would enter into reactions
withdifferent compounds and become biologically unusable through being
bonded to them. As a result, all there would beis a chemical soup.
The mutations describedas neutral are in fact deleterious, but for
various reasons Darwinists try to depict these mutations as
beneficial:
- An article titled SILENTMUTATIONS SPEAK, published in Nature
magazine on 21 December, 2006, showedthat the 1% of mutationsthought
to have no effect at all did in fact have effects.
(http://www.nature.com/news/2006/061221/full/news061218-12.html)
- According to the research, neutral mutations (described as silent
mutations) damage a protein by impacting on its two amino acids. The
proteinpump that expels proteins outside the cell is damaged.
- Darwinists claim that treatment such as chemotherapy has a more
rapid effect on the damaged part of the cell and that this is an
example of useful mutation.
- But the important thing here is that mutations described as
neutral in fact damage proteins. In order to be useful they need to be
able to bestow new structures on an organism. But that is impossible.
- This is like opening fire on someone. Ninety-nine out of 100
bullets shatter the body. One bullet may, however, have a healing
effect by destroying an infection in the body. But the person
concerned has in any case been blown to smithereens. - - ▓███▓
Translator:-> http://translate.google.com/m/ ▓███▓ - -
No comments:
Post a Comment