Welcome to Islam, - Scientific finds versus speculations of evolutionists

Share ::-

:-> The teeth and claws of Archaeopteryx are no indication that they are descendants of dinosaurs. The two important points evolutionists rely on when alleging Archaeopteryx to be a transitional form, are the claws on the bird’s wings and its teeth. It is true that Archaeopteryx had claws on its wings and teeth in its mouth, but these traits do not imply that this living creature bears any kind of relationship with reptiles. Besides, two bird species living today, Taouraco and Hoatzin both have claws to hold on to branches. These creatures are fully birds with no reptilian characteristics. That is why it is completely groundless to assert that Archaeopteryx is a transitional form just because of the claws on its wings. Neither do the teeth in Archaeopteryx’s beak imply that it is a transitional form. Evolutionists make a purposeful trickery by saying that these teeth are characteristic of reptiles. However, teeth are not a typical characteristic of reptiles only. Today, some reptiles have teeth while others do not. Moreover, Archaeopteryx is not the only bird species that has teeth. It is true that birds with teeth do not exist today, but when we look at fossil records, we see that both in the same age as Archaeopteryx and afterwards, and even until fairly recently, a distinct bird genus existed that could be categorized as “birds with teeth”. The most important point is that the teeth structure of Archaeopteryx and other birds with teeth are totally different from that of their alleged ancestors, the dinosaurs. The famous ornithologists Martin, Steward and Whetstone observed that Archaeopteryx and other birds with teeth have teeth with flat top surfaces and large roots. Yet, the teeth of theropod dinosaurs, the alleged ancestors of these birds, are protuberant like a saw and have narrow roots. The researchers also compared the wrist bones of Archaeopteryx and their alleged ancestors, the dinosaurs and observed no similarity between them. The studies of anatomists like Tarsitano, Hecht and A.D. Walker revealed that some “similarities” asserted to have existed between this creature and dinosaurs as put forward by John Ostrom, a prominent authority who claims that Archaeopteryx evolved from dinosaurs, were in reality misinterpretations. All these findings indicate that Archaeopteryx was not a transitional link but only a bird that fell into a category that can be called “birds with teeth.” Archaeopteryx and other ancient bird fossils While evolutionists have for decades been proclaiming Archaeopteryx to be the greatest evidence for their scenario concerning the evolution of birds, some recently-found fossils invalidate this claim in other respects. Lianhai Hou and Zhonghe Zhou, two paleontologists at the Chinese Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology, discovered a new bird fossil in 1995 that they named Confuciusornis. This bird was almost the same age as Archaeopteryx )around 140 million years old(, but it did not have any teeth in its mouth. In addition, its beak and feathers shared the same features as today’s birds. Having the same skeletal structure of modern birds, this bird also had claws on its wings just like Archaeopteryx. The special structure called the “pygostyle” was present in this bird species that supported the tail feathers. In short, this bird which was the same age as Archaeopteryx )considered to be the oldest ancestor of all birds and accepted as a semi-reptile( looked very much like a modern bird. This fact invalidated all the evolutionist theses holding Archaeopteryx to be the primitive ancestor of all birds. Another fossil unearthed in China in November 1996, caused even greater confusion. The existence of this 130 million year old bird named Liaoningornis was announced in Science by Hou, Martin and Alan Feduccia. Liaoningornis had a chest bone on which the muscles for flight were attached, just like modern birds. This bird was indistinguishable from modern birds in other respects also. The only difference was the teeth in its mouth. This showed that birds with teeth did not have a primitive structure at all, as alleged by evolutionists. This was stated in an article in Discover: “Whence came birds? This fossil says that not from dinosaurs.” Another fossil to refute the evolutionist claims regarding Archaeopteryx was Eoalulavis. The wing structure of Eoalulavis, which was said to be 30 million years younger than Archaeopteryx, was also observed in modern birds that flew slowly. This proved that 120 million years ago there were birds indistinguishable from modern birds in many respects flying in the skies. These facts once more indicate for certain that neither Archaeopteryx nor other ancient birds similar to it were transitional forms. The fossils do not indicate that different bird species evolved from each other. On the contrary, fossil records prove that today’s modern birds and some archaic birds like Archaeopteryx actually lived together at the same time. Yet some of these bird species like Archaeopteryx and Confuciusornis have become extinct and only a part of the pre-existing species have been able to make it to the present day. In brief, some peculiar features of Archaeopteryx do not indicate that this living thing is a transitional form! Stephan Jay Gould and Nailes Eldredge, two Harvard paleontologists and world famous evolutionists, accept that Archaeopteryx is a “mosaic” living thing housing various features in its form, yet that it can never be regarded as a transitional form! The imaginary bird-dinosaur link The claim of evolutionists trying to present Archaeopteryx as a transitional form is that birds have evolved from dinosaurs. However, one of the most famous ornithologists in the world, Alan Feduccia from the University of North Carolina, opposes the theory that birds have a kinship with dinosaurs, despite the fact that he is an evolutionist himself. Feduccia says on the subject: "Well, I’ve studied bird skulls for 25 years and I don’t see any similarities whatsoever. I just don’t see it… The theropod origins of birds, in my opinion, will be the greatest embarrassment of paleontology of the 20thcentury." Larry Martin, a specialist on ancient birds from the University of Kansas, opposes the theory that birds come from the same lineage as dinosaurs. While discussing the contradiction evolution falls into on the subject, Martin states: "To tell you the truth, if I had to support the dinosaur origin of birds with those characters, I’d be embarrassed every time I had to get up and talk about it." To sum up, the scenario of the “evolution of birds from dinosaurs” erected solely on the basis of Archaeopteryx, is nothing more than a product of the prejudices and wishful thinking of evolutionists.

- PUBLISHERNajimudeeN M

Welcome to Islam, - Evolution forgeries

Share ::-

:-> There is no concrete fossil evidence to support the “ape-man” image, which is unceasingly indoctrinated by the media and evolutionist academic circles. With brushes in their hands, evolutionists produce imaginary creatures, yet the fact that these drawings have no matching fossils constitutes a serious problem for them. One of the interesting methods they employ to overcome this problem is to “produce” the fossils they cannot find. 'The Piltdown Man' -- the biggest scandal in the history of science, is a typical example of this method. Piltdown Man: An orang-utan's jaw and a human skull! A well-known doctor and amateur paleoanthropologist, Charles Dawson, came out with an assertion that he had found a jawbone and a cranial fragment in a pit inPiltdown,Englandin 1912 CE. ُُEven though the jawbone was more ape-like, the teeth and the skull were like a man’s. These specimens were labeled the “Piltdown Man.” Alleged to be 500,000 years old, they were displayed as an absolute proof of human evolution in several museums. For more than 40 years, many scientific articles were written on the “Piltdown Man,” many interpretations and drawings were made and the fossil was presented as an important evidence of human evolution. No less than 500 doctoral theses were written on the subject. The famous American paleo-anthropologist Henry Fairfield Osborn said: “…we have to be reminded over and over again that Nature is full of paradoxes and this is an astonishing finding about early man…” while he was visiting the British Museum in 1935 CE. In 1949 CE, Kenneth Oakley from theBritishMuseum’s paleontology department attempted to try the method of “fluorine testing,” a new test used for determining the date of some old fossils. A trial was made on the fossil of the Piltdown Man. The result was astounding. During the test, it was realised that the jawbone of the Piltdown Man did not contain any fluorine. This indicated that it had remained buried no more than a few years. The skull, which contained only a small amount of fluorine, showed that it was only a few thousand years old. The latest chronological studies made with the fluorine method have revealed that the skull is only a few thousand years old. It was determined that the teeth in the jawbone belonging to an orang-utan had been worn down artificially and that the “primitive” tools discovered with the fossils were simple imitations that had been sharpened with steel implements. In the detailed analysis completed by Weiner, this forgery was revealed to the public in 1953 CE. The skull belonged to a 500-year-old man and the mandibular bone belonged to a recently dead ape! The teeth were thereafter specially arranged in an array and added to the jaw and the joints were filed in order to resemble that of a man. Then all these pieces were stained with potassium dichromate to give them a dated appearance. These stains began to disappear when dipped in acid. Le Gros Clark, who was in the team that disclosed the forgery could not hide his astonishment at this situation and said that “the evidences of artificial abrasion immediately sprang to the eye. Indeed so obvious did they seem it may well be asked – how was it that they had escaped notice before?” In the wake of all this, “Piltdown Man” was hurriedly removed from theBritishMuseumwhere it had been displayed for more than 40 years. NebraskaMan: The phantom who was born from a pig’s tooth! In 1922 CE, Henry Fairfield Osborn, manager of theAmericanMuseumof Natural History, declared that he had found a fossil molar tooth inWest Nebraskanear Snake Brook belonging to the Pliocene period. This tooth allegedly bore the common characteristics of both man and ape. Deep scientific arguments began, in which some interpreted this tooth to be of Pithecanthropus erectus while others claimed it was closer to human beings. This fossil which aroused extensive debate was called the “Nebraska Man.” It was also immediately given a “scientific name”: Hesperopithecus haroldcooki. Many authorities gave Osborn their support. Based on this single tooth, reconstructions of the Nebraska Man’s head and body were drawn. Moreover, the Nebraska Man was even pictured along with his wife and children, as a whole family in a natural setting. All of these scenarios were developed from just one tooth. Evolutionist circles accredited this “ghost man” to such an extent that when a researcher named William Bryan opposed these biased decisions relying on a single tooth, he was harshly criticized. In 1927 CE, other parts of the skeleton were also found. According to these newly-discovered pieces, the tooth belonged neither to a man nor to an ape. It was realized that it belonged to an extinct species of wild American pig called Prosthennops. William Gregory entitled his article published in Science magazine where he announced this fault as: “Hesperopithecus: Apparently not an ape nor a man.” Then all the drawings of Hesperopithecus haroldcooki and “his family” were hurriedly removed from evolutionary literature. Ota Benga: The African in the cage AfterDarwinadvanced the claim with his book The Descent of Man that man evolved from ape-like living beings, he started to seek fossils to support this contention. However, some evolutionists believed that “half-man half-ape” creatures were to be found not only in the fossil record, but also alive in various parts of the world. In the early 20thcentury CE, these pursuits for “living transitional links” led to unfortunate incidents, one of the cruelest of which is the story of a Pygmy by the name of Ota Benga. Ota Benga was captured in 1904 CE by an evolutionist researcher in theCongo. In his own tongue, his name meant “friend”. He had a wife and two children. Chained and caged like an animal, he was taken to the USA where evolutionist scientists displayed him to the public in the St Louis World Fair along with other ape species and introduced him as “the closest transitional link to man.” Two years later, they took him to the Bronx Zoo inNew Yorkand there they exhibited him under the denomination of “ancient ancestors of man” along with a few chimpanzees, a gorilla named Dinah and an orang-utan called Dohung. Dr. William T. Hornaday, the zoo’s evolutionist director gave long speeches on how proud he was to have this exceptional “transitional form” in his zoo and treated caged Ota Benga as if he were an ordinary animal. Unable to bear the treatment he was subjected to, Ota Benga eventually committed suicide. The ‘Piltdown Man’, the ‘NebraskaMan’, Ota Benga…. These scandals demonstrate that evolutionist scientists do no hesitate to employ any kind of unscientific method to prove their theory. Bearing this point in mind, when we look at the other so-called evidence of the “human evolution” myth, we confront a similar situation. Here, there is a fictional story and an army of volunteers ready to try everything to verify this story.

- PUBLISHERNajimudeeN M

Welcome to Islam, - Origin of birds and mammals

Share ::-

:-> Evolutionists embark on flights of fancy of their own, while trying to justify how birds and mammals developed from amphibians According to the theory of evolution, life originated and evolved in the sea and was then transported onto land by amphibians. This evolutionary scenario also suggests that amphibians evolved into reptiles, creatures living only on land. This scenario is implausible, due to the enormous structural differences between these two classes of animals. For instance, the amphibian egg is designed for developing on land. A “step by step” evolution of an amphibian is out of the question, because without a perfect and fully-designed egg, it is not possible for a species to survive. Moreover, as usual, there is no evidence of transitional forms that were supposed to link amphibians with reptiles. Evolutionist paleontologist and an authority on vertebrate paleontology, Robert L. Carroll has to accept that ‘the early reptiles were very different from amphibians and that their ancestors could not be found yet.' Yet the hopelessly doomed scenarios of the evolutionists are far from over. There still remains the problem of making these creatures fly! Since evolutionists believe that birds must have somehow evolved from lower life-forms, they assert that they were transformed from reptiles. However, none of the unique mechanisms of birds, which have a completely different structure from land-dwelling animals, can be explained by gradual evolution. First of all, the wings -- which are the exceptional traits of birds -- pose a great impasse for evolutionists. One of the Turkish evolutionists, Engin Korur, confesses the impossibility of the evolution of wings: "The common trait of the eyes and the wings is that they can only function if they are fully developed. In other words, a half-developed eye cannot see; a bird with half-formed wings cannot fly. How these organs came into being has remained one of the mysteries of nature that needs to be enlightened." The question of how the perfect structure of wings came into being as a result of consecutive haphazard mutations remains completely unanswered. There is no way to explain how the front arms of a reptile could have changed into perfectly functioning wings as a result of a distortion in its genes )mutation(. Moreover, just having wings is not sufficient for a land organism to fly. Land-dwelling organisms are devoid of many other structural mechanisms that birds use for flying. For example, the bones of birds are much lighter than those of land-dwelling organisms. Their lungs function in a very different way. They have a completely different muscular and skeletal system and an extremely specialized circulatory system. These features are pre-requisites for flying, at par in their importance with wings. All these mechanisms had to exist simultaneously, they could not have formed gradually by being “accumulated”. This is why the theory asserting that land organisms gradually evolved into aerial organisms is completely fallacious. All of these bring another question to mind: even if we suppose this impossible story to be true, why are evolutionists unable to find any “half-winged” or “single-winged” fossils to back up their story? Another alleged transitional form:Archaeopteryx Evolutionists pronounce the name of a single creature in response. This is the fossil of a bird calledArchaeopteryxwhich is one of the most widely-known so-called transitional forms among the very few that evolutionists still defend. Considered the ancestor of modern birds by evolutionists,Archaeopteryxlived 150 million years ago. The theory holds that some of the small-scaled dinosaurs namedVelociraptororDromeosaurevolved by acquiring wings and then starting to fly. Thus,Archaeopteryxis assumed to be a transitional form that diverted from its dinosaur ancestors and started to fly for the first time. However, the latest studies ofArchaeopteryxfossils indicate that this creature is absolutely not a transitional form, but a bird species bearing some characteristics distinct from today’s birds. The thesis thatArchaeopteryxwas a “half-bird” that could not fly perfectly was popular among evolutionist circles until not long ago. The absence of a sternum )chest bone( in this creature, or at least the structural difference from flying birds, was held up as the most important evidence that this bird could not fly properly. )The chest bone is a bone found under the thorax on which the muscles required for flight are fastened. In our time, this chest bone is observed in all flying and non-flying birds, and even in bats – a flying mammal which belongs to a very different family(. However, the seventhArchaeopteryxfossil found in 1992, caused great astonishment among evolutionists. The reason was that in this recently foundArchaeopteryxfossil, the chest bone that was assumed to be long missing by the evolutionists actually existed. This recently-found fossil was described inNaturemagazine as follows: "The recently discovered seventh specimen of theArchaeopteryxpreserves a partial rectangular sternum, long suspected but never previously documented. This attests to its strong flight muscles." This discovery invalidated the mainstay of the claims thatArchaeopteryxwas a half-bird that could not fly properly. On the other hand, the structure of the bird’s feathers became one of the most important pieces of evidence verifying thatArchaeopteryxwas a flying bird in the real sense. The asymmetrical feather structure ofArchaeopteryxis indistinguishable from modern birds, indicating that the animal could fly perfectly. As the famous paleontologist Carl O. Dunbar states: “because of its feathersArchaeopteryxis distinctly to be classed as a bird”. Another fact that was revealed by the structure ofArchaeopteryx’s feathers was the bird’s warm-blooded metabolism. As it is known, reptiles and dinosaurs are cold-blooded animals that are affected by environmental temperatures and are incapable of regulating their body heat independently. A very important function of the feathers in a bird is the maintenance of the animal’s body heat. The fact thatArchaeopteryxhad feathers showed that it was a real, warm-blooded bird that needed to maintain its body heat in contrast to the dinosaurs.

- PUBLISHERNajimudeeN M

Dought & clear, - Putting one’s trust in Allah and taking measures.

There was a discussion about the issue of putting one's trust in Allah
(tawakkul) and taking measures; the trust of some of the righteous is
like that of Maryam, to whom summer fruits used to come in the winter
and vice versa without her taking any measures; rather she focused
completely on worship. Please advise us about that, may Allah bless
you.
Praise be to Allaah.
Putting one's trust in Allah involves two things:
(i)Depending on Allah and believing that He is the One Who causes
measures to be effective; His decree comes to pass; He has decreed all
things, counted them out and ordained them, may He be glorified and
exalted.
(ii)Taking appropriate measures; putting one's trust in Allah does not
mean refraining from taking measures; rather part of putting one's
trust in Allah is taking appropriate measures and striving to do so.
The one who refrains from doing so has gone against the laws and
decree of Allah. Allah has commanded us to take appropriate measures
and He encourages us to do so; He commanded His Messenger (blessings
and peace of Allah be upon him) to do that.
So it is not permissible for the believer to refrain from taking
appropriate measures; in fact he is not truly putting his trust in
Allah unless he takes appropriate measures. Hence it is prescribed to
get married in order to have a child, and it is enjoined to have
intercourse. If someone were to say: I shall not get married and I
shall wait to have a child without getting married, he would be
regarded as insane; this is not the way of those who are wise and
rational. Similarly, he should not sit in his house or in the mosque
seeking charity and waiting for provision to come to him; rather he
should strive hard and work to seek to earn halaal provision.
Maryam (may Allah have mercy on her) did not forgo taking measures.
Allah said to her (interpretation of the meaning):"And shake the trunk
of date-palm towards you, it will let fall fresh ripe-dates upon you"
[Maryam 19:25]. So she shook the palm tree and took appropriate
measures until the dates fell. Her action is not contrary to taking
measures and the fact that she found provision with her and that Allah
honoured her and gave her some provision does not indicate that she
refrained from taking appropriate measures; rather she devoted herself
to worship and also took appropriate measures.
If Allah bestows upon some of His close friends some miracles
(karaamaat), this is by His grace and bounty, but that does not
indicate that we should forgo taking appropriate measures. It is
proven that the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him)
said: "Strive to do that which will benefit you and seek the help of
Allaah, and do not feel helpless." Narrated by Muslim, 2664. And
Allah, may He be glorified and exalted, says (interpretation of the
meaning):"You (Alone) we worship, and You (Alone) we ask for help (for
each and everything)" [al-Faatihah 1:5].