France Has Still Not Recovered From The Shock Of Atlas Of Creation

I found this online and though of sharing it with you guys...

"The December 2007 Edition Of The Well-Known French Magazine Science Et Vie Devoted Nine Pages To Harun Yahya’s Atlas Of Creation And Its Impact On The World, Particularly France. The Comments In The Magazine Regarding The Atlas, From A Confirmed Evolutionist Publication, Clearly Revealed The Defeat Of The Theory Of Evolution And The Traumatic Psychological Effect This Has Had On Evolutionists."

More info at this site

 

Can you provide the link from where you got this news?

 

Consider the source, it is a sales site trying to increase it's profits. Personally i despise any publishing company which will advertise solely to children to try and get people to 'believe' it.

They gave this book out straight to schools, straight to the children, they kept this away from adults who simply would see straight through it.

 

The books were given to university students which are big enough to think rationally.

To me personally it's not the marketing of the book that matters but the content is what we should think of. Are there any concrete evidence so far to prove the evolution theory. No there're none..

 

Only a couple of hundred were given to universities, globally they gave tens of thousands to school kids.
ed
There is a huge amount of concrete support to evolution, all you ahve to do is look at the history of nature and you can see how things have grown and changed, how certain coloured flowers prospered in differenct contries, how different types of humans prospored in different reas, how teh mountain goat differs from the normal goat how certain birds have grown adapted to swamps.

If you believe any creationst theory, if you believe anything could create the complexities and variations around us that as well as being naive you must be truely ignorant.

There has been no effect on evolutionaries, nor has there been any national reaction in France, I know a lot of people in France and the most I have heard is a complaint that this is being given out to school children from a mother.

It says the Evidence for theis book is taken from the Qur'an, but evolution is taken from the world around us, would you say Evience from the Bible's old and new testaments could be used as proof against the Qur'an?

All this book does is point out a few thigs that Darwin WAS wrong about, nothing about the basis of evolutionary theory itself.

The book does not bring any facts into play, it simply talks disparigingly about things, as in the page you showed, it says teh pattern ona butterflys wing or the honeycomb a bee created could not be created by chance, but the truth is they were only partially created by chance and mostly created by a fatal game of trial and error, the strongest surviving and the weakest dieing.

It even goes so far as to outright blatently lie,

Most museums have fossil records which strongly support evolution, you can see from bone records how changes have come about, have you never been to a natural history museum?

The book has been removed from several schools because they were teaching it as dogma in a personal agenda. In many countries it is required that work taught to students fairly reflects both sides of the argument, this ignores, and outright insults other works, calling them useless and wrong without possesing any evidence or structured argument to the contrary.

It constantly says teat the thory of evolution is monopolising schools, but in all countries emntioned religious studies is part of the ciriculum, Creationism is not included in science class bcause their is no proof or fact behind its existence, it is therefor not a science.

From a personal standpoint I view all religious people as mentally unstable, requiring a figure in the sky to hold an interest in them is at its best peverse and at its worst deranged.

If you want to believe in a figure in the sky who could watch stars explode or atoms collide but instead chooses to watch a corrupt race live through its mundane life then feel free, but pushing belief onto children should not be allowed, and in most classes in schools it is fortunately simply laughed at.

And unfortunately Universities have long been proven to be the breeding grounds of peer pressure related insanities. The groups at univerities who took in these books were unlikely to be unaffiliated with the creationism theory.

 

It's interesting to read about such comments. I'm just curious.. do you ever believe in GOD.

BTW have science found any prove that human came from ape.. can you give me any link to any site that proves we did came from ape.

 

Evolutionist: ‘You know, my whole family was once ape-like creatures. My ancestors were small chimp-like animals called autralopithecines, which have been found as fossils.’

Wise man: ‘But there are no fossils to prove that australopithecines evolved into humans.’

Evolutionist: ‘Well, they told me they were my ancestors.’

What a joke..


The fact is:

Evolutionists have done some extraordinary waving of magic wands to make evidence against their theory disappear.

For example, a well-preserved arm-bone fossil found in 1965 at Kanapoi, north Kenya, was found to be indistinguishable from a modern human’s arm-bone. But because it was regarded as being from a time before humans had evolved, it was suggested that it must be from an ape. This went against all the scientific evidence.

If the Kanapoi fossil had been given human status, as it obviously should have been, it would have contradicted the theory of human evolution—because it would show that humans had been around before their alleged ape-like ancestors had evolved into them!

Human did not evolved from ape.. That's a fact..

 

If you're so smart show me the prove on what you said.. If you know nothing don't pretend that you know something..


Question: ‘Why do evolutionists call the very robust Australian fossils Homo sapiens when they themselves state that they are almost identical to the Java Homo erectus material?’

Answer: ‘Those robust Australian fossils (the Kow Swamp material, the Cossack skull, the Willandra Lakes WHL 50 skull, etc.), by their dating methods, are just thousands of years old. Homo erectus wasn’t supposed to be living so recently. Hence, the evolutionist must call them Homo sapiens to preserve his theory.’


Question: ‘Why are the skull KNM-ER 1470, the leg bones KNM-ER 148 I, and the skull KNM-ER 1590, found by Richard Leakey in East Africa, assigned to Homo habilis when the skull sizes, skull shapes, and the very modern leg bones would allow assignment to some form of Homo sapiens?’

Answer: ‘Those fossils are dated at almost two million years. The evolutionist cannot allow modern humans to be living in that evolutionary time frame—no matter what the fossils look like.’


Question: ‘Why is the elbow bone from Kanapoi, KP 271, found in East Africa in 1964, called Australopithecus africanus when the computer analysis conducted by evolutionists declares it to be virtually identical to modern humans?’

Answer: ‘Because the fossil is dated at 4.4 million years! It would suggest that true humans are older than their evolu-tionary ancestors. No evolutionist worth his salt can follow the facts when they lead in that direction.’

 

"Darwin and his successors assume that it is possible to account for evolution without understanding the internal workings of the cell. But biochemists have now opened the “black box” of the cell—and what they have found there cannot be given a Darwinian explanation"

- David Buckna, “Should evolution be immune from critical analysis in the science classroom?” , Institute for Creation Research, El Cajon, California

“Darwinian theory is the creation myth of our culture. It’s the officially sponsored, government financed creation myth that the public is supposed to believe in, and that creates the evolutionary scientists as the priesthood… So we have the priesthood of naturalism, which has great cultural authority, and of course has to protect its mystery that gives it that authority—that’s why they’re so vicious towards critics.”

- Phillip Johnson, “In the Beginning: The Creationist Controversy” [May 1995], PBS television documentary.



Darwinists say, “We continually revise our theories and welcome critical examination and evaluation.” They may revise aspects of their theories, but because evolution is so incredibly malleable, no amount of contrary evidence will convince them otherwise. But how much contrary evidence must accumulate before a theory is discarded?

Today evolution survives, not so much as a theory of science, but as a philosophical necessity. Good science is always tentative and self-correcting, but this never really happens in the case of evolution. Regardless of the scientific data, the idea of evolution as a valid concept is not open to debate. Students are allowed to ask “HOW did evolution occur?”, but never “DID evolution occur?”.

Which is a more objective question: “What were the ape-like creatures that led to man?” or “ Did man evolve from ape-like creatures?”

 

GOD creates us all. You and I and all other fellow human being are so naive in knowing the true power that he could do upon us. Don't let our stupidity controls our act and make us go beyond what we capable of thinking.

You don't believe because you just can't see, touch, smell, hear and you just can't find the logic behind it. But what if I say, you were not the son of your father. You were actually adopted from some poor family living far deep in the jungle of Amazon. Will you believe that? Of course you don't. Why? Because you father, mother, grandmother told you otherwise. How silly you are.

Same goes to the existence of GOD. Do you need him to sit in front of you and tell you that he exist? Isn't it enough for you to just read & study his book to know that he do exist. No I don't think it will be enough for you. Why? Because you're so lazy to even read & study any books. Poor you..