Atlas of Creation by Harun Yahya
- Thread starter mercury904
- Start date
I'll agree that both have different ideas on the same subject, and both have flaws as well. That being said books that are published to try and discredit one over the other kinda seem silly. I'd rather read a non-biased book than a book about what I believe is better because....
I don't know if this book is like that, but it seems to be
I don't know if this book is like that, but it seems to be
I have read this book regarding creation and the author wrote that dinosaurs where not in the bible coz if God would put them on the book man couldnt understand without ever seeing a dinosaur,So he started at the story of man knowing that eventually man would figure out the whols story of creation
Some even say that Noah's Ark is big space ship that lifted above during the great flood ,with all of the animal DNA in it (and not the actual animals) imagine puting a 10 mammoth,10 elephant,10 anacondas,10 Lions,10 sabretooths etc....
welcome to the jungle
I wonder did noah setup an aquarium where he put the fishes?
Some even say that Noah's Ark is big space ship that lifted above during the great flood ,with all of the animal DNA in it (and not the actual animals) imagine puting a 10 mammoth,10 elephant,10 anacondas,10 Lions,10 sabretooths etc....
welcome to the jungleI wonder did noah setup an aquarium where he put the fishes?
THERE ARE TRANSITIONAL FORMS. FOR EVERYTHING.
The picture of a starfish "transforming" into a fish is also horribly inaccurate.
Starfish and Vertebrates are COUSINS, one did not come before the other.
Technically, echinoderms have bilateral symmetry in their larval forms, and radial symmetry in their adult forms. It's like a flatfish metamorphosing into a fish with NO symmetry.
Starfish in NO way came 'before' vertebrates. To imply that there needs to be a transitional form between echinoderms and vertebrates is simply ludicrous.
Furthermore, If a species has not changed significantly in millions of years, this only means that their design works for them, and needs no further modification unless their ecological niche is disrupted.
Can anyone who has a prehistoric fish, or a fish with a transitional form (bichir, lungfish, and bowfin are all very close to being four-legged tetrapods, but there was no need for them to adapt further) really have a problem with evolution?
*Cough*TIKTAALIK*Cough*
The picture of a starfish "transforming" into a fish is also horribly inaccurate.
Starfish and Vertebrates are COUSINS, one did not come before the other.
Technically, echinoderms have bilateral symmetry in their larval forms, and radial symmetry in their adult forms. It's like a flatfish metamorphosing into a fish with NO symmetry.
Starfish in NO way came 'before' vertebrates. To imply that there needs to be a transitional form between echinoderms and vertebrates is simply ludicrous.
Furthermore, If a species has not changed significantly in millions of years, this only means that their design works for them, and needs no further modification unless their ecological niche is disrupted.
Can anyone who has a prehistoric fish, or a fish with a transitional form (bichir, lungfish, and bowfin are all very close to being four-legged tetrapods, but there was no need for them to adapt further) really have a problem with evolution?
*Cough*TIKTAALIK*Cough*
Technically gravity is still a theory. One day someone could throw a ball up and it might not come down and the whole theory would be blown.
Same with evolution. Sure, it's a theory. All it would take to disprove this theory is say finding a fossil where it shouldn't be. Like digging in 100 million year old strata and finding an organism that came about later. One human bone in with the dinosaur bones and the theory goes out the window, but it's not happened yet.
What's amazing to me is that Darwin had no idea about genes or DNA or any of the HOW hereditary things are passed on but everything people have discovered about genetics backs up his theory. Again, all it would take is one fact not meshing with evolution and the whole theory is shot.
I'm going to see if I can check this out from the library. Looks like an entertaining read.
I'm of the mindset that evolution and religion compliment each other amazingly well.
Same with evolution. Sure, it's a theory. All it would take to disprove this theory is say finding a fossil where it shouldn't be. Like digging in 100 million year old strata and finding an organism that came about later. One human bone in with the dinosaur bones and the theory goes out the window, but it's not happened yet.
What's amazing to me is that Darwin had no idea about genes or DNA or any of the HOW hereditary things are passed on but everything people have discovered about genetics backs up his theory. Again, all it would take is one fact not meshing with evolution and the whole theory is shot.
I'm going to see if I can check this out from the library. Looks like an entertaining read.
I'm of the mindset that evolution and religion compliment each other amazingly well.
In science, a THEORY is as TRUE as anything will ever be.
Science is more skeptical than us, so NOTHING is ever proven.
A THEORY is the MOST PROVEN a hypothesis can be in Science.
It does NOT mean what laypeople mean when they say 'theory'.
Science accepts that the truth will never be reached, only approached.
Darwin knew of the genetic work of Gregor Mendel, and Genetics and Darwinism were two separate theories until the 1950s, when they were fused as one discipline. You can't fault Darwin for not knowing about DNA, anymore than you can fault Henry Ford for not knowing about Peak Oil.
Science is more skeptical than us, so NOTHING is ever proven.
A THEORY is the MOST PROVEN a hypothesis can be in Science.
It does NOT mean what laypeople mean when they say 'theory'.
Science accepts that the truth will never be reached, only approached.
Darwin knew of the genetic work of Gregor Mendel, and Genetics and Darwinism were two separate theories until the 1950s, when they were fused as one discipline. You can't fault Darwin for not knowing about DNA, anymore than you can fault Henry Ford for not knowing about Peak Oil.
Darwin didn't know of Mendel's work. Look it up. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa4015/is_200301/ai_n9226453. Hence why it's so amazing that the theory has held up. My whole little analogy was agreeing with what you responded with.
I looked through some of the "book" online and I've got to say it really cracked me up. All the illustrations of ape men with red "X"'s and FALSE drawn over them. I also liked how a few people faking fossils is their basis for saying fossils don't "prove" anything. That's like me saying the Crusades invalidate religion.
scientific study said:
I looked through some of the "book" online and I've got to say it really cracked me up. All the illustrations of ape men with red "X"'s and FALSE drawn over them. I also liked how a few people faking fossils is their basis for saying fossils don't "prove" anything. That's like me saying the Crusades invalidate religion.
