 |
This fictitious series was portrayed as the greatest supposed evidence for the evolution of the horse for the following century. The decrease in the number of toes and the regular increase in size, from smaller to larger, was enough to convince evolutionists.
Shortly afterward, inconsistencies within the horse series began manifesting themselves. New fossils dug up and attempted to be inserted into the false horse series became a problem. Because characteristics such as the fossils’ location, age and toe number formed inconsistencies and impaired the series, which turned into an inconsistent and meaningless mass of fossils in the face of these new specimens.
Many Darwinists were gradually forced to admit that the Darwinist horse series scenario was not based on any genuine evidence. In November 1980 a 4-day conference was held in the Chicago Museum of Natural History, which was attended by 150 evolutionists and considered the problems facing the theory of evolution. Boyce Rensberger, who spoke at the conference, described how the horse series had no basis in the fossil record and that no such gradual process as the evolution of the horse ever happened:
"The popularly told example of horse evolution, suggesting a gradual sequence of changes from four-toed fox-sized creatures living nearly 50 million years ago to today's much larger one-toed horse, has long been known to be wrong. Instead of gradual change, fossils of each intermediate species appear fully distinct, persist unchanged, and then become extinct. Transitional forms are unknown." (Boyce Rensberger, Houston Chronicle, 5 November 1980, Part 4, p. 15)
Another problem in the fictitious evolution of the horse series is that of dating. Doctor Nicholas Comninellis comments:
"An additional challenge to the proposal of horse evolution is that the timing is inconsistent. The theory of evolution is based on the concept that one species is prone to evolve into another because it is better adapted for survival. This leads to extinction of the first species. In the case of horses, the three-toed must not have been as hearty as the one-toed. Evolution demands millions of years for transition to occur between species— plenty of time for the first species to die out.
However, today we know that the three-toed and one-toed horses lived together in North America. The fact that varieties of horses co-existed is completely inconsistent with evolution’s explanation. Add to this the fact that missing links between Hyracotherium, Miohippus, and Equus have never been identified. Rather than lending support for evolution, the history of the horse is more consistent with special creation—fully formed beings that were created simultaneously." (Nicholas Comninellis, Creative Defense, Evidence Against Evolution, Master Books, 2001, p. 168)
Although the invalidity of the evolution of the horse series has been brought out into the open day and Darwinists have admitted this state of affairs, this mythical series is still used, like other Darwinist frauds, in Darwinist publications and text books. The series is depicted as concrete fact and placed on display in museums of natural history curated by world-famous paleontologists and scientists. Dr. Niles Eldredge, an evolutionist and paleontologist who served as director of the world-renowned American Museum of Natural History, admitted some 20 years ago that evolutionist claims regarding the horse series on display in his own museum were based solely upon their powers of imagination. Eldredge also criticized the way that this speculative series was portrayed as scientific fact in such a way as to find its way into school books:
"I admit that an awful lot of that [imaginary stories] has gotten into the textbooks as though it were true. For instance, the most famous example on horse evolution prepared perhaps fifty years ago. That has been presented as literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that is lamentable, particularly because the people who propose these kinds of stories themselves may be aware of the speculative nature of some of the stuff. But by the time it filters down to the textbooks, we’ve got science as truth and we’ve got a problem." (Colin Patterson, Harper's, February 1984, p. 60)
The Darwinist Eldredge's analysis is a most accurate one. Since deliberate distortions represent the essence of the system of the dajjal, this system engages in all kinds of lies, deceptions, hoaxes and distortions. All the examples of Darwinist deception listed above have been exposed, and their false nature has even had to be admitted by Darwinist scientists. These examples are sufficient to show the true face of the system of the dajjal. But it will still be useful to issue the following reminder: the theory of evolution, Darwinist ideology in other words, is built on a lie intended to deny the existence of Allah. Therefore, all the claims, suggestions and evidence produced by Darwinism are false. All the statements to the effect that “proof of evidence has been discovered,” “living things evolved,” “or “human beings are descended from apes” are lies. Darwinists espouse a lie. Their illogical obedience and devotion to the system of the dajjal is blind devotion to the religion of Darwinism solely in order to be able to oppose belief in Allah.
The fact is that they espouse a superstition, a terrible error. Almighty Allah, the Lord and Creator of All, says in His verses:
If anyone desires anything other than Islam as a religion, it will not be accepted from him, and in the Hereafter he will be among the losers. (Surah Al ‘Imran, 85)
Everyone in the heavens and everyone on the earth belong to Allah. Those who call on something other than Allah are not really following their partner-gods. They are only following conjecture. They are only guessing.(Surah Yunus, 66)
Ce l'article est aussi disponible en; Turc, Français.
Cet ouvrage a été vu 1.018 de fois.
|
|
|
