User login
Author Information
Poll
Why have you visited this website?
To check for updates
11%
Read posts
39%
Contribute to discussions
6%
Share content
3%
Social media brought me here
6%
Tis fate
35%
Total votes: 633
Active forum topics
Recent blog posts
Upcoming Events
- 30 Nov 2024 - 11:30 to 16:30
- 30 Nov 2024 - 11:30 to 16:30
- 7 Dec 2024 - 11:30 to 17:00
- 8 Dec 2024 - 11:30 to 16:30
- 15 Dec 2024 - 11:00 to 16:00
Who's online
There are currently 0 users online.
Ya know I gotta say, i'm really not impressed by this website. I've seen many if not most of these arguments before, they are ripped from the Institute for Creationist Research - i've used them before, until I learned that most of their "scholars" do not actually hold doctorates or degrees in any of the relevant areas of science they are talking about, they haven't published anything for peer review and they don't actually conduct any testing, lab or field work.
In fact just brushing over one of these it looks like Yahya copied Henry Morris' book "The Long War against God" almost word for word - he just islamicized it... - in fairness I see he credits Morris in the bibliography.
That explains his obsession with Evolution being the single cause of racism in the modern world, Morris attacks Darwinism as racist with single minded obsession. However Yayha appears to have some curve ball ideas in there as well, i'm a little concerned at his tangent * about evolution being the brainchild of Jews and Masons.
It seems Yahya embraces a world view in which everything bad that's ever happened was the result of freemasons, kabbalism and evolution.
This whole webpage rambling nonsense...
* [size=7]http://www.harunyahya.com/globalfreemasonry_introduction.php[/size]
No, it implies I would have tried to make the necessary adjustments to make you debate the ideas and not the personalities.
That may be by making a post, or by editing.
And I believe Harun Yahya is a pen name for a group of writers? This was recently conttradicted by some article which i saw where the author was somebody AKA Harun Yahya, implying he was a single person... which is diferent from what I had thought... anybody care to clear this up?
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
augustus you seem naive- the world is run by freemasons and jews , freemasons are against religion, agaisnt islam and for evolution.
Harun Yahya is a great islamic scholor and very intelligent individaul.There is enough doubt raised by Yahya and numerous others to suggest the thoery is not 100% valid. Evolution is against the teaching of religions and those who choose to believe it , then its there choice. To all the fellow muslims trust in Islam and trust in the teachings of islam which decree evolution false.
admin Harun Yahya is the pen name by Mr. Adnan Oktar.
Born in Ankara in 1956, Adnan Oktar, he studied at Mimar Sinan University . During his university years, he carried out detailed research into the prevalent materialistic philosophies and ideologies around him, to the extent of becoming even more knowledgeable about them than their advocates. As a result of his accumulation of knowledge, he has written various books on the fallacy of the theory of evolution. His dedicated intellectual effort against Darwinism and materialism has grown out to be a worldwide phenomenon. Quoting from the [b]22 April 2000 issue of New Scientist, Mr. Oktar became an “international hero” in communicating the fallacy of the theory of evolution and the fact of creation.[/b] The author has also produced various works on Zionist racism and Freemasonry and their negative effects on world history and politics. Besides these, Oktar has written more than a hundred books describing the morals of the Qur’an and faith related issues.
What a great man :!:
http://www.harunyahya.com/
According to wikipedia it is the pen name of Adnan Oktar.
I found pictures of him:
[img]http://www.harunyahya.com/images/Adnan_Oktar_11.jpg[/img]
[img]http://www.endoftimes.net/images/Adnan_Oktar_1.jpg[/img]
...interesting sense of style.
Anyway according to [url=http://www.ahjur.org/tabsir/?p=122]this[/url] website, run by [url=http://www.ahjur.org/mecat.jpg]this[/url] peculiar individual he's a womanizing egotist who thinks he is the Mahdi.
All other descriptions of him seem to either originate from his website or suggest "he" is actually a team of writers - noting he's got way too much stuff published for a man with too much free time.
That speaks for itself.
Trust me, you can beat your head in with this stuff all day but you're just running away from the inevitable.
There's a point where you have to ask yourself if you are looking for the truth of the matter or just a justification for something you want to be correct - that's what I was doing, and I wasted a good deal of time doing it. Go play GTA 4 or something.
The guy is stealing arguments from the fringe right of a religion outside your own... doesn't that make a difference to you?
RAF you are too biased.
The thing About some of his amterial is that it is old.
And 'science' always changes.
Noone says that evolution is 100% accurate. Those who advocate it say its the best fitting 'solution' to the data. It does not totally fit.
And the theory that we are taught at secondary schools is just plain wrong. But that is no diferent from most other 'science' taught at school. The majority has been simplified to such an extent it is no longer true...
evolution is too broad a term.
The bit that contradicts islam according to most (but not all) scholars is iner-species evolution where humans evolved.
Apart from that The qur'an itself hints at natural selection and says life was created in water etc...
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
I'm guessing from the gold tie bar in that second pic that in all his reading Mr. Oktar never came across the Islamic ruling on muslim men wearing gold.
The devil is in the details
augustus all that information on that site you linked is wrong he is clearly anti islam and most likely a jew/freemason.
If Harun yahyas material is old, then what about the theory of evolution and darwin that isnt exactly new.
science changes but the teachings of the quran doesnt
some aspects of evolution are true e.g. adaptation, but the fact about inter species evolution , coming from monkeys, all rubbish.
raf no point blaming everything on freemasons/zionists/someone else.
The thing is even if it is true, because the argument is so overused it has no impact.
The theory of evolution is constantly changing. Darwin himself refuted the finer points of his theory and spent the rest of his life unsiccessfully trying to defeat it. Just einstien tried to disprove his own theories.
its not black and white.
The teachings from the qur'an may not change but the interpretations taken by people do.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
it seems someone is searching incredibly hard to slander him that they have to resort to his clothes and jewellery. Maybe it is gold plated.
even if it is real gold , how does that possibly dissprove his theory, and what has that got to do about anything.
Harun yahya is world recognised and sold millions of books
What's anti-Islam about it (I haven't explored either site) and what does that have to do with anything?
It seems like "anti-Islam" "Zionist" and "freemason" are kneejerk reactions for you.
Yahya is obviously a crackpot - did you actually [i]read[/i] that ridiculous article of his I posted that traces evolution back to kabbalism, the Knights Templar, various plots to take over the world, and finally down to darwin?
lol doesn't that strike you as a bit fantastic?
And he is stealing his material from a right wing Christian organization that is far from scientific - i've used them, i'd know.
Doesn't that send up some warning flags for you...?
I think he is concentrating more on the fact that you called him a scholar... and scholars generally do not do such things.
(btw why would it be diferent if it is gold-plated instead of gold? same thing!)
More to the point none of us really have enough knowledge on this subject. from either side.
We do not even know what the theory of evolution says. We have heard the generalisations, but after that i do not know what it really says in detail.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
...no not really, i've just picked up a thing or two about Islam since i've been here - unless you are saying it's okay for muslim men to wear gold in which case i'm clearly incorrect.
It doesn't disprove the ICR's theory which Mr. Oktar is borrowing. There is nothing to disprove... I'm simply pointing out his commitment to money seems to be more important than his commitment to God.
lol I think you got right to the heart of the matter with that last part - he has sold millions of books and propelled himself to a world (albeit not a very prominent one) stage.
He's a demagogue - don't waste your time with this guy.
Yea admittedly I don't know all the ins and outs - and I highly doubt there are people that subscribe 100% to the theory.
But the basic ideas I am familiar with, natural selection, the origins of man I really don't find myself disagreeing with anymore. And I don't find that counter to my religious convictions so there is no point living in a self propelled fantasy world.
ok augustus put harun yahya for aside as you clearly are against him.
you seriously believe we came from monkeys and yet christianity states we came from adam and eve
explain ?
Not monkeys - Apes.
And who is to say that God's hand didn't guide humanity through the evolutionary process - you have to admit we are peculiar among animals.
The Bible is not the Qur'an - we do not take everything literally. I haven't read much about Genesis other than St. Augustine's work (which would have endorsed evolution) and Knox (who would not), however I believe the central focus of Genesis is to remind us that God is the creator, that humans unlike every other creation were created with a [i]specific purpose[/i] and that we unlike any other creation are given the choice to fulfill that purpose or reject it.
As for the "Persons" of Adam and Eve - who knows. They could be allegorical as much in the bible is or they could be the first of the evolved Modern Human race.
That's not all in the bible I don't take literally. The miracles described in Genesis were normal natural occurences in Egypt during the day - and recent archaeological evidence has determined that Pharoah's son was in fact killed by a skull fracture - not a mysterious plague.
What is miraculous about them is that they all happened within a short period of time, and that we all attribute to God.
I don't need magic tricks to believe in God anymore - i'm smart enough now to see the real miracles in my life to understand this isn't all coincidence.
if you do not take the bibles sayings literally , who determines the meanings, is it that every individaul who reads the bible determines the bibles meanings for themselves, if so it will all get confusing and very unclear
You are unsure of adam and eve , doesnt the bible making it clear they were created by god :?:
where do you get the idea adam and eve could have been the first of the evolved human race, if the bible doesnt state it and evolutionists dont state it, why do you :?:
does it not seem you are try to come to a compromise , to accept evolution and christianity where you should accept one , since they contradict one another :?:
To a certain extent people can read their own interpretations of the bible into it - but they do that facts or no facts.
I don't see how anyone could walk away from Genesis without the understanding that God is the creator, that humans unlike every other creation were created with a [i]specific purpose[/i] and that we unlike any other creation are given the choice to fulfill that purpose or reject it.
It's the whole point.
I was merely suggesting the possibility that IF an Adam or an Eve ever existed, it is possible they were the first of an evolved Human race - but I find that doubtful, and I don't believe there was an actual person of an Adam or an Eve.
Compromise? No. Christian scholars have always debated the "facts" of genesis.
in the fourth century St. Augustine wrote this warning against "the literal interpretation of Genesis"
[i]"Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, [..] and this knowledge he holds as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason?"[/i]
If Evolution teaches that God something against the central points I outlined above - obviously I don't believe it. But since science has yet and will never disprove God I don't find the two incompatible at all.
Remember - it was the Pharoah who needed to see Aaron's staff turn into a snake to believe in the power of Moses' God.
This is just a typical example of where attempts to slander the person rather than challenging his line of reasoning.
Gold plated accessories.. lol.. Dave, with all due respect.. I expected better. anyways there's not a clear consensus on this issue, hence your attempt to make his work unworthy has failed.
http://www.islam.tc/ask-imam/view.php?q=1248
Also regarding him, claiming to be the Mahdi, again slander. If you look at his other works, he's done a lot of research on the end of times.
www.endoftimes.net
There you can find clear descriptions, Hadiths, Ayah's, of signs of the end of times, descriptions of the mahdi, and information of Jesus a.s second coming.
To be perfectly honest, I'm somewhat surprised by your position on evolution. i was also surprised by the new popes remarks on the issue a few months back.
I see a trend happenning in both the Christian and Jewish faiths of moving towards acceptance of evolution, and the playing around with the meanings of holy texts in order to support it.. I'm really surprised they're doing that before Evolution has actually been proven..
maybe they're getting worried, and see evolution as a threat to the faith.. just incase a missing link does appear.. 'look we told you.. it was all in Genesis!'
Definatly makes me proud to be part of the Islamic community. At least we're united on this issue inshAllah.
Freemasons, forget them fools. They've had their times of a secret society. Last I heard they're going under the guise of a charity.
[b][i]Round and round the Ka'bah,
Like a good Sahabah,
One step, Two step,
All the way to jannah[/i][/b]
Sorry to interrupt guys but I couldn't help it. I just want to ask a simple question which you knowledgeable people may know the answer to is that why are all humans similar? I mean two eyes, two ears, two legs etc? I know the colour may be slightly different but thats a minor difference and a maybe a different subject. Why isn't there a human with three eyes or say 4 legs and two arms? what about pointed ears on top of the head? or maybe a tail and a wing for that matter? Doesn't it make one realise that the only answer maybe is that we all come down from the same ancestors, the same source? And why has evolution stopped...why doesn't the human evolve or at least start to move to evolve into something different, surely humans have been around for millions of years...why don't we turn into a different being altogether that can run faster than a train, fly faster than a bullet.....it's makes you think... :roll:
The best preacher is the conscience, the best teachers are time and experience, the best book is the world, the best friend is God
Brother umar, u raise valid questions..
Okay, let me take you back half a century when there we're all these films and images in the mainstream media of Aliens invading. These Aliens had Big heads, Big dark eyes, long fingers, and thin bodies. Recently I saw a documentary of why Aliens we're portrayed in such a way.
Reason being was that they are more advanced in the evolution than humans. Long fingers because they do a lot of typing, big heads because they have a bigger mental capacity, and thinner bodies because they do not need strong muscles as technology does everything for them.
To me and you its fiction. But believe me there are people out there who are fooled into believing we humans may one day evolve into these creatures.
There is an incredible equilibrium within all this dynamic movement and it reveals that life on earth is based on a very delicate balance. Very slight, even millimetric variations in the orbit of heavenly bodies could result in very serious consequences. Some could be so detrimental that life on earth would become impossible.
In such systems in which there is both great equilibrium and tremendous velocities, gigantic accidents may happen at any time. However, the fact that we lead our lives in an ordinary way on this planet makes us forget about the dangers existing in the universe at large. The present order of the universe with the almost negligible number of collisions of which we know, simply makes us think that a perfect, stable and secure environment surrounds us.
People do not reflect very much upon such matters. That is why they never discern the extraordinary web of interlocking conditions that makes life possible on earth nor do they apprehend that understanding the real aim of their lives is so important. They live without even wondering how this vast yet delicate equilibrium ever came to be.
Nevertheless, man is endowed with the capacity to think. Without contemplating one's surroundings conscientiously and wisely, one can never see the reality or have the slightest idea why the world is created and who it is who makes this great order move with such perfect rhythms.
One who ponders these questions and grasps their importance comes face to face with an inescapable fact: [b]the universe we live in is created by a Creator, whose existence and attributes are revealed in everything that exists.[/b] The earth, a tiny spot in the universe, is created to serve a significant purpose. Nothing occurs purposelessly in the flow of our lives. The Creator, revealing His attributes, His might and wisdom throughout the universe, did not leave man alone but invested him with a significant purpose.
The reason why man exists on earth is recounted by Allah in the Qur'an as follows:
[i]He Who created death and life, that He may try which of you is best in deed: and He is the Exalted in Might, Oft-Forgiving. (Surat al-Mulk: 2)
Verily We created Man from a drop of mingled sperm, in order to try him: So We gave him (the gifts) of hearing and sight. (Surat al-Insan: 2) [/i]
In the Qur'an, Allah further makes it clear that nothing is purposeless:
[i]We did not create heaven and earth and everything in between them as a game. If We had desired to have some amusement, We could have found it in Our presence, if We would do (such a thing)! (Surat al-Anbiya: 16-17)[/i]
www.harunyahya.com
[b][i]Round and round the Ka'bah,
Like a good Sahabah,
One step, Two step,
All the way to jannah[/i][/b]
Khan,
When considering the veracity of a so called authority's points you necessarily have to consider their intentions, and where their facts are coming from, it's part of being intellectually responsible.
The man is little more than an opportunist trying to sell some books by stealing arguments from ICR. I'm seeing "borrowed points" and ignoring simple islamic points like not wearing gold as evidence of this - perhaps you don't.
As for the Genesis story in Christianity, we have always gone back and forth on the issue of whether it is literal or figurative. St. Augustine died 1,600 years before Pope Benedict X was born.
The Freemasons and the Jews are not part of some secret conspiracy to propagate Darwinism. The Freemasons are little more than old men looking for something to do in the afternoon - though I am grateful for their Zem Zem burn clinics for children, they do a lot of good there. Harun Yahya's "explanation" connecting them to Jewish idolatry in the Old Testament and Kabbalism and suggesting it is all part of some sinister plot which involves evolution some is obviously the incoherent ranting of someone divorced from reality.
I don't see why you and Raf keep pushing this guy with religious zeal. So far to question the veracity of his claims and his motives in this thread is an invitation to a lecture on our own religions. I remain unimpressed.
do you not see ur double standards Dave.
on one side ur questioning Harun Yahya's intention, on the other side it appears u find the intentions of Darwin and other evolutionary masons quite acceptable.
stealing arguments.. please dave there's no need. Harun Yahya mentions all his references.
and you've definatly changed ur views of freemasons, i remember a discussion in our past where u accepted them as a 'secret' society following me presenting articles from 'credible' sources such as the bbc.
so far u have just presented slander on harun yahya. u do not appear to accept him as an international hero as quoted by the new scientist as quoted by raf.
[b][i]Round and round the Ka'bah,
Like a good Sahabah,
One step, Two step,
All the way to jannah[/i][/b]
Anyway, sir augustus, let's get everyone else which we may have grudges against because they tickle our wrong nerve and come to ourselves and our own thoughts and intelligence. Can you explain my earlier post? Think about it without resorting to Darwin or any theories or religions...lets just look and think....Why does man have a set of teeth which can cater for both vegetables and meat including the human digestive system? How many other animals have such a ability? little things like that really gets one thinking....
Read the following:
[url]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4702336.stm[/url]
See how people run hither and dither but end up bouncing off from one wall to the other and then again back to the other wall when the door is right infront of them but they can't see?
The best preacher is the conscience, the best teachers are time and experience, the best book is the world, the best friend is God
Khan do you have any points other than everything I say is prejudiced and wrong and the freemasons are evil?
Because i'm going to class - so try to contain it in a post or two.
erm.. forget freemasons and ur double standards.. it's not going anywhere.
edit.. I can't be bothered, to go any further.
To summarize my points, Islam is united on the front that Evolution is a myth.
We believe in the literal concepts of Adam and Hawa (pbut). There's an abundance of evidence to prove Allah's artistry throughout the universe. One just has to open their eyes.
Unlike certain sects of Christianity and Judaism we are united on the front that man did not evolve from Apes and there is NO evidence to suggest such a joke.
[b][i]Round and round the Ka'bah,
Like a good Sahabah,
One step, Two step,
All the way to jannah[/i][/b]
Very well
Umar i'm not a scientist. But it has been pointed out to me before that the reason we stopped evolving is that 1. we no longer need to, and 2. we still are.
Odd answers I realize - let me elaborate. The basic idea behind evolution is not the "strongest survives" but the most adaptive to change survives. Birds have wings as a result of pressure changes during after the dinosaur's extinction which made the air below a certain altitude nearly unbreathable, and also to avoid predators. Humans developed human characteristics as responses to the environment in which we adapted and evolved.
So goes the argument.
Small changes over time result in dramatic changes over large swaths of time. It wasn't like one minute a velociraptor was running through the jungle and the next it was an eagle. Consequently when you are asking about whether humans are still evolving you have to look on the smaller scale. Examples of continued human adaptivity are best seen in disease research. When the Conquistadors brought small pox to the New World it nearly wiped out all of tenochtitlan - yet it did little to no damage to the European carriers. The reason - the evolutionary and biological argument goes, is that those who did not die in the European outbreaks passed on adaptive genes to the next generations, who inherited it. They in turn became carriers and it became a "trait" of that gene pool.
This is the same with the flu outbreak in the early 1900s USA, and the reason - many believe, the lack of vaccinations in the flu vaccination crisis several years ago resulted in absolutely no flu pandemic.
Does that mean 200 million years down the line humans will have 6 arms and 4 eyes as the result of minor adaptive changes over that time? Not necessarily. For the most part human adaptation is handled by our higher processes. Whereas in the past massive flooding could turn gorgon into an alligator over the course of millions of years of adaptation - a human would just build a boat. Our brains take care of the adaptation for us - or at least that adaptation we can control. Disease is one example of changes we may not ever be able to control since bacteria - like all organisms, also adapt to their environment. Thus it is a contest.
But like I said i'm not a scientist and I am not completely familiar (nor do I subscribe to) all the precepts of Darwinism.
Hmmm, I'm not totally convinced Augustus:
That doesn't make any sense at all to a intelligent being...maybe to a gorilla or an ape but certainly not me.
How can scientists today say what the pressure was then? Don't you think that the dinosaurs where made extinct (by a greater being) so humans could survive? If dinosaurs existed today do you think we will be living as we are? And your argument regarding birds flying due to unbreatheable air below...I'm sorry that sounds more ape stories to me. Imagine if the air below was unbreatheable, don't you think everything would cease to live, or will we idle around on the ground until we had wings and then weyhey we can fly? still not convincing.
I won't go any further because I'll end up making a joke story or maybe a script for a sci-fi movie and I don't want to give away ideas do I
Lets forget about millions of years ago, lets look at present, if apes/gorillas/monkeys were our ancestors why are they still living in the jungle eating each others nits? I'm sure we should have inherited that from them? why haven't they at least constructed buildings to live in? Why the lack of intelligence and the choice of right and wrong, good and bad etc, etc?
You still haven't convinced me Augustus my friend.
The best preacher is the conscience, the best teachers are time and experience, the best book is the world, the best friend is God
Well.. technically speaking my explanation of why birds have wings is an ape story - it's the evolutionary explanation that most Paleontologists subscribe to "Dinosaurs to Birds"
And i'm not trying to convince you - i'm just saying that this is the stuff I considered when I gave up the ultra right creationist argument. I [i]thought[/i] that evolution automatically meant Christianity was wrong and they are incompatible and that it needed to go - that was my basis for examining everything. I was wrong.
A mythical explanation more like. You shouldn't give up your beliefs so easily Dave, especially when the reasons are based on blatant lies.
The "dino-bird" stories that appear in the evolutionist press consist of biased analyses by evolutionist palaeontologists, and sometimes even of distortions of the truth. (In fact, one of the best-known "dino-bird" discoveries, the Archaeoraptor portrayed by National Geographic as incontrovertible proof of bird evolution, [b]turned out to be a forgery produced by combining fossils of five separate specimens[/b]). The "dino-bird" fossils in question are either those of extinct species of bird or of dinosaurs, and not one of them represents a "missing link" between birds and dinosaurs.
Drs. Alan Feduccia and Julie Nowicki of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill... opened a series of live ostrich eggs at various stages of development and found what they believe is proof that birds could not have descended from dinosaurs"...
Whatever the ancestor of birds was, it must have had five fingers, not the three-fingered hand of theropod dinosaurs," Feduccia said... "Scientists agree that dinosaurs developed 'hands' with digits one, two and three...
Our studies of ostrich embryos, however, showed conclusively that in birds, only digits two, three and four, which correspond to the human index, middle and ring fingers, develop, and we have pictures to prove it," said Feduccia, professor and former chair of biology at UNC.
"This creates a new problem for those who insist that dinosaurs were ancestors of modern birds. [b]How can a bird hand, for example, with digits two, three and four evolve from a dinosaur hand that has only digits one, two and three? That would be almost impossible."[/b]
In the same report, Dr. Freduccia also made important comments on the invalidity-and the shallowness-of the "birds evolved from dinosaurs" theory:
"There are insurmountable problems with that theory," he [Dr. Feduccia] said. "Beyond what we have just reported, there is the time problem in that superficially bird-like dinosaurs occurred some 25 million to 80 million years after the earliest known bird, which is 150 million years old."
If one views a chicken skeleton and a dinosaur skeleton through binoculars they appear similar, but close and detailed examination reveals many differences, Feduccia said. Theropod dinosaurs, for example, had curved, serrated teeth, but the earliest birds had straight, unserrated peg-like teeth. They also had a different method of tooth implantation and replacement." (ii)
This evidence once again reveals that the "dino-bird" hype is just another "icon" of Darwinism: A myth that is supported only for the sake of a dogmatic faith in the theory.
[b][i]Round and round the Ka'bah,
Like a good Sahabah,
One step, Two step,
All the way to jannah[/i][/b]
Pages