Hajj & Umrah, - Mistakes inSlaughtering the Sacrificial Animal

Share

Giving the value of the sacrificial animal as charity instead of slaughtering it. This does not free one from liability.
Slaughtering the sacrificial animal before the day of‘Eed. It is obligatory to slaughter at the prescribed fixed time which is the day of‘Eed.
Throwing the sacrificial animal after slaughtering it and this implies wasting the blessing of Allaah The Almighty. Rather, the pilgrim is required to present that animal to the poor and the needy. The pilgrim is permitted to eat from his sacrificial animal if he wills.
Slaughtering a defective, lame or one-eyed animal. TheHajjsacrificial animal is similar to theUdh-hiyah)the‘Eedsacrifice for those who are not pilgrims( and the same conditions must be fulfilled. Freedom of defects is one of these conditions.
Slaughtering the sacrificial animal outside the sacred precincts of Makkah. Rather, one is required to slaughter within the boundaries of these precincts.

Share

Darwinism, - The invalidity of the famous Darwinist claim that ''useful mutations do exist.''

Share

The false idea that useful mutations exist is a classic Darwinist claim. Although the whole scientific world knows, with absolute scientific evidence, that mutations have a destructive or fatal effect, this claim is still persistently made, out of a fear of humiliation. Because Darwinism is a theory that depends totally on mutations. All Darwinists know that if the destructive effect were to be mentioned just once, that would spell the end of Darwinism. It is for that reason they try to give the impression, citing invalid and utterly pitiful examples, that mutations can be beneficial. But this is a complete deception.
As we have set out many times before, mutations have a net harmful effect, with only 1% being neutral, though the latest scientific research has shown that even these can produce long-term damage in the organism. [1] The net harmful effect of mutations is not a psychological defense mechanism, but an explicit truth revealed by science.
If Darwinists object to this, then they are directly flying in the face of science. Because this is not a matter of opinion, but an absolute scientific fact.
It is impossible for mutations to bestow any useful characteristic. Under normal conditions, everything in a living body exhibits complete regularity, order and symmetry. In addition, these systems co-exist with the most delicate balances and exhibit a glorious complexity right down to the finest detail. Mutations are random interventions, such as with radiation, and mean breakages, impairments and dislocations. They INEVITABLY DAMAGE these extraordinarily complex systems, with their regularity, symmetry and order. It is illogical and a violation of science to maintain anything else.
The results at Chernobyl, Nagasaki and Hiroshima were all the results of mutations. Under the effect of mutations, organisms with regular structures either died or suffered severe damage, and this harmful effect even manifested itself in subsequent generations.
Darwinists generally cite various examples of immunity in order to try to corroborate their claims that “beneficial mutations do exist.” But these examples all consist of a variation or impairment in bacteria or immune cells.
Sometimes, a dislocation in a single DNA nucleotide, or base, can bestow immunity to an antibiotic on a micro- organism. But although this may be useful to the micro-organism, IT IS NOT A BENEFICIAL MUTATION. Because the mutation in question has actually harmed the micro-organism. The ribosome sequence belonging to the micro-organism has been impaired, and it prevents the antibiotic binding to the organism by damaging the lock and key harmony. In other words, rather than there being any novelty in the micro- organism, we are looking at a loss of information.
Mutations are literally like firing at a regular structure with a machine gun. Opening fire on a healthy structure will entirely do away with that structure. The fact that one bullet has no effect or destroys an existing infection in the body changes nothing. The organism will already have been killed by the other 99 bullets hitting it.
The example that Darwinists cite with such examples is like a bullet healing the body by destroying a single infection. The organism is devastated by mutations, but Darwinists concentrate on the one that heals this infection.
Since the subject of mutations constitutes one of the most damaging points for Darwinists they engage in demagoguery by depicting minor instances of variation or the effects examined above as major evidence. The fact is, however, that the adherents of evolution, who maintain that all living things acquired their present symmetrical and complex structures by way of evolution, have to be able to cite examples of mutations that take place one after the other and are all beneficial, and that also bestow new information on the organism.
What is more, Darwinists also have to provide evidence for the scenario of one living thing’s physiology turning into that of another life form through mutation at the macro level. BUT THEY CANNOT EVEN CONTEMPLATE PRODUCING SUCH EVIDENCE. Because as they know full well, mutations destroy and ruin and occasionally entirely destroy the organism concerned.
It addition, we need to make the following point very clear: mutations can never bestow any new data on an organism that is not already in its genome. That is impossible. The examples alleged to have “added new information” are all misleading. No new genetic information is ever added. All that happens is that information already existing in a living thing’s genes starts to be used by becoming more visible as a result of variations.
Breaks and dislocations in the bases that make up DNA CAN NEVER PRODUCE NEW INFORMATION. They do not equate to information that did not already exist being bestowed on a living thing. Darwinists are without doubt well aware of this. But they insist on depicting dislocations in genetic bases as new data. This is an example of Darwinist demagoguery.

Share

Darwinism, -

Share

Darwinists admit that the fossils portrayed supposed transitional forms are eventually taken back and removed from the literature, but they justify this by claiming that “a better one has been found.” The fossils brought to public view to great Darwinist fanfare in the last few years in particular show how comic this evolutionist claim really is .
- The evolution deception involves a process that has constantly been repeated in its 150-year history. First, a fossil is produced. An amazing scenario is dreamed up on the basis of that fossil, which is then claimed to be the ancestor of man. This is all set out with much decorative scientific terminology and illustrations in the Darwinist press. Finally, it transpires that the fossil actually comes from an orangutan or a pig, at which IT IS HASTILY REMOVED FROM THE MUSEUM THAT HAS BEEN EXHIBITING IT.
- Piltdown Man, made by adding an orangutan jaw to a human skull, and Nebraska Man, depicted living in wild surroundings together with his family on the basis of a single pig tooth, are the best known examples of this. Darwinists have had to retract all their countless such claims regarding fictitious ancestors. A huge number of supposed “ancestors” have had to be removed from the scientific literature.
- ALL OF THE SKULLS so far acclaimed as ancestors of man by Darwinists have transpired to belong wither to an extinct type of orangutan or else to a human race. The reason why none of the fossils in question can be brought up any more is that they have all turned out to be invalid.
- Unable to bear this major defeat, Darwinists claim that the fossils in question have been removed from the literature because “a better one has been found.” But these fossils they describe as “better” are made up of such infamous examples of fraud as Ida, Ardi and Australopithecus sediba that have also been retracted soon after.
- Ida, a lemur fossil heralded as the ancestor of man, was a fraud on the same sort of scale as Piltdown Man. All the fuss made about Ida, which even embarrassed some Darwinists, quickly turned into a profound silence and Darwinist publications soon had to admit that the fossil was nothing more than a lemur. Darwinists had no qualms about admitting the embarrassment they felt at all the fuss over Ida in their own Darwinist scientific journals. (You can find more detailed information on the subject from here .)
- Ardi, the next to be brought up, was also subjected to Darwinist speculation and an obvious monkey fossil was made to walk upright using computer software. Following that latest embarrassment, Darwinists again had to retract their claims. (See here for more detail)
- Darwinists next produced a little finger fossil and shamelessly used this in reconstructions of a “third species.” This strange-looking human figure, illustrated in full, appeared under captions suggesting it would “rewrite the history of man,” just as in the case of Nebraska Man, the product of a single tooth. The only evidence, however, is a little finger fossil belonging to a human race. (See here for more detail)
- The Australopithecus sediba deception , the latest in the line, will go down in history as one of the worst embarrassments for Darwinists. This fraud, that even the eminent evolutionist Carl Zimmer greeted with suspicion, saying, “Not another Ida?” against inflicted terrible humiliation on Darwinists. (See here for more detail)
- That is the humiliating picture painted by Darwinists in recent years. It is clear therefore, just how invalid the claim that “the others have been removed because better transitional forms have been found” really is.
- Darwinists are in a hopeless position. They are in a defeatist state of mind because no transitional forms have been found. So they engage in demagoguery and make illogical claims in order to avoid the truth revealed by science that is so troubling to them. But that demagoguery has now become too ludicrous to deceive anyone any more. Even world-renowned Darwinists are ashamed of it.
- The fact that Darwinists now have to accept – and that the whole world already knows – is that not a single transitional fossil exists. So long as they refuse to admit that, they will have to keep making nonsensical claims to keep their ideology propped up and will keep on being humiliated.

Share

General Articles, - The invalidity of the claim that ''transitional forms do not mean deformed living things''

Share

After the fact that 99% of mutations are harmful, one of the most difficult and problematic subjects for Darwinists is the total absence of the fictitious fossils known as transitional forms.
Darwinists have sought to explain the absence of transitional forms in other ways, in order to neutralize this fact that is so embarrassing for them, and say instead that “transitional fossils are different to what you imagine.”
First and foremost, this needs to be made crystal clear: the concept of the “transitional form” is one produced by Darwinists themselves. It was Darwinists who came up with the idea that countless transitional forms must have resulted from unsuccessful mutations between two life forms, and that the majority of these fictitious life forms would have been eliminated while only a very few survived. According to this tale, there must have been a time when a fish would supposedly grow feet or when reptiles’ arms would be wings. But this mythical period DOES NOT EXIST in the fossil record.
There is therefore no question of “a concept that we think of as transitional forms.” All descriptions of the entities referred to as transitional forms come from Darwinists. For years, paleontologists have sought but failed to find the transitional form described by Darwin himself. According to that description, transitional forms are DEFORMED AND MONSTROUS living things. It is impossible, according to that description, for them to be anything else.
Were the theory of evolution true, there is no doubt that traces of these fictitious intermediate periods should be found in the fossil record. Fish spending millions of years as its fins supposedly turned into legs, as evolutionists maintain, should exist in this alleged “intermediate state” in the fossil record.
And that is not all. Bearing that 99% of mutations are harmful, there should also be many more examples of all the failed stages pertinent to a life form. There should be millions or even billions of odd-looking life forms that emerged as a result of failed mutations everywhere on Earth.
Bearing in mind that mutations are blind and random processes and are inevitably harmful, then, no matter how unwilling Darwinists may be to admit the fact, all these supposedly successful or supposedly unsuccessful transitional forms would all have been deformed and twisted, with legs coming out of ears, half-fins and half-legs, with three ears instead of two...
Yet not one such deformed living things, nor any transitional form of the kind imagined by evolutionists, has ever been found among the more than 300 million fossils that have so far been unearthed. Indeed, what troubles Darwinists most is that all fossils are completely regularly, symmetrical and fully formed; in other words, that FOSSILS REFUTE EVOLUTION.
As readers will recall, Darwin’s greatest worry was that transitional forms would not be “IN A STATE OF CONFUSION” and that everything in nature HAS A PERFECT REGULARITY AND SYMMETRY:
HY, 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? . . 1
MUTATIONS DO NOT PRODUCE SYMMETRY.. THEY KNOW NOTHING OF HARMONY, ORDER OR THE GOLDEN MEAN. THEY DO NOT CALCULATE WHAT WILL BENEFIT A LIVING THING. Mutations are unconscious processes. They cannot lead to two symmetrical eyes and ears, symmetrical heart valves or two legs of the same length.
That is why one Turkish Darwinist, well aware of this fact and that transitional fossils do not exist, despairingly DESCRIBED HIMSELF AS A TRANSITIONAL FORM on a television program.
This is really a desperate state of affairs for Darwinists. Darwinists have no hesitations over rejecting the scientific facts and humiliating themselves for the sake of their ideology.
People need to be reminded that demagoguery no longer has any effect on people, since it has become a laughing stock. Darwin’s nightmare has come true, the fossil record refutes evolution.

Share