subscribe to our mailing list:
|Reply to Tremblay's argument
||Mar 03, 2005
REASON would have me believe that I am actually playing flute to deaf ears but hey one has to try his/her best.
I should begin by stating that you are actually afraid of Harun Yahya. This is the very reason you have nt answered to his reply.
Secondly your idea of things coming into complex design and further improving after a million years is downright dumb. To quote you on that...
No, it does not seem paradoxical at all. I would like very much to hear
your argument as to why something without consciousness cannot produce
complexity, especially given millions of years.
But hey!! Why even bother. Could nt you give us a FACT or a PROOF that something without consciousness CAN produce complexity, especially given millions of years. And we would nt even have an argument in the first place!!
Like it or not... You bunch have got nothing to do with REASON... Its only faith that you are acting on..
I should say I m surprised why Harun Yahya even answered you in the first place.. But then I m surprised why I am doing the same...
BTW have you got any answers for the eye of the trilobyte dilemma that evolutionists call an oddity and dont even dare attempt to explain. Although I m sure you have no explanations for it I would still like to read your comments on it or any actual data that you may have regarding the issue. The evolutionists I met (and I ve met many) could nt give me any explanation at all.
||Jan 31, 2005
|1.Can some one explain whether Tremblay considers himslef a person inflicted with the disease of Sickle Cell Anenima or a
person with high immunity to malaria ? from his own statement he says he is a person affected by Sickle Cell Anemia which has
the side effect or immunity to malaria.
2.Has Mr.Trembaly abandoned Charles Darwin , the very founding father of the concpet he is trying to defend?
His relegation of darwin as "Irreverent" on the issue of Vestigal organ simply proves that.
3.According to the mathematics of Tremblay any event in the world , how complicated it may be , can be designed by random
forces,Its probability may be low but it is certainly not Impossible since it has a probability.This kind of reasoning can be extended virtually to system , not just abt the structure of the cell.
any boy can claim , it is possible to create a Microsoft Windows Operating system by exposing a empty writable disk to heat , in the course of million of years one day the force will carve
the CD with the right number of zero and one bits in the correct places.
If he had understood the internals of Cell , he would know , it is much more complex and sophisticated than a Computer
4.Tremblay has acknowledged the Majesty of Natural law ,Doesnt it seem paradox that a majestic law which does such unimaginably complex thing is doing it without purpose and consciousness.
If it has consciousness, then the line of distinction between the Majesty of Natual law and the Majesty of God becomes nullified.But According to Tremblay however majestic the natual law is, it is a indeed a mad force, becuase only insane
and deranged people do things without purpose and consciousness.
4.His prentending to have understood yahya's reply cannot be taken in by mentioning the link of yahya's reply.
||Nov 09, 2003
|as-alaam alaikum wa rathmatulla,
My name is Adib and I am a Muslim living in Britain. I just thuoght I would write and point out a few errors on this site with how you address the Quran and the guy called Harun Yahya.
"I would be the first to admit that he is a very annoying book where every point he makes is rounded of with this proves that God exists and created every thing".
But at the same time he does write some Good articles if you give them thought.
Anyway to get to my main problem is when I first came on to this site. I read your first page and found it quite laughable.
You go on about the Quran as if you understand it or have read it where as you have not and so you can not comment about it.
Firstly when your pointing out about how God makes feotus's out of clay. Point one is it is not literally made out of clay it is a analicy. Sorry my spelling is very bad.
God reveleed this book over 4000 years ago and so he had to make sure it was written in away that all people from that time to the future could understand.
point two the Quran is written in Arabic and not in English. English does not have the words to give a 100% perfect translation, infact it does not even come close. I could not even begin to explain it to you in a way you
could under stand.
The Quran should be read in Arabic if you are looking for faults in it as thats the language it is supposed to be read in. A lot of the Quran's meaning is lost due to the lack of words to translate properly in other
The second grudge is where you say that people have written a sura like that found in the Quran, but they have not. They have written some thing that goes in English and sounds similier next to the English translation, but if you translate there Sura'a into Arabic
then they do not even come close to the Quran's beauty.
As for scientific data in the Quran, well firstly its a religous book not a science book. Its a book of signs to man kind. secondly it has loads of scientific data in it if you bothered to pick it up and read it.
At the end of the day you can't prove evolution 100% and we can not prove to you that God exists so its actually a pointless discussion. When we die we will find out who was right.