السلام عليكم..
كنت قد احتجت لترجمة هذا المقال الى الانجليزية, ثم رايت عرض الترجمة هاهنا لمن يحتاجها او لمن لديه اقتراح لتعديلها خاصة انها محاولة غير "محترفة"...
مع العلم ان هناك مواضع لم تكن الترجمة حرفية فيها.
حبذا لو تترجم باقي المواضيع المهمة في هذا المنتدى لما في ذلك من فوائد جمة..فاغلب الملاحدة هم من غير الناطقين للعربية
فرجاء لمن يتقن الانجليزية ان يساعدنا في هذا.
سلامي
1.The Paleontology gives one result :
The primitive beings existed before the superior ones, and this is not at all an evidence that the superior beings came from the primitives ones.
For example, if researchers come after us in 1million year, and find the remains of a cart in the first layers of the earth, the remains of a car in the second layers, the remains of a rocket in the third ones, and the remains of a spaceship in the forth ones..
Does this chronological order prove that the cart evolved by natural conditions to a rocket?
Professor Keith said: “we can not attribute human to any of these species”
Professor Branco said: The Paleontology do not recognize the human-being’s ancestors. P. Verchot proved that the skull bone, which is attributable to the so-called Java-man is only a piece of skull of a chimpanzee, and the femur is for a man.
The Beltdon-man was a collection of a human skull fragments, and the remnants of a jaw of a chimpanzee, as demonstrated by the report prepared by Professor Hrdlika.
Professor Arther Keith said that collecting these fragments is supposed to be for a being which can not eat or breath.
P.Virchot says: “the idea of the monkey-man is purely a myth”.
P.Soryal said that the missing links are missed in all the beings’ layers and not only missed between the human-being and his “ancestors”, they do not exist between the single-cell animals and the multiple-cell ones, nor between the soft articulated animals and the articulated, nor between the invertebrate and the vertebrate, nor between the fishs and the amphibians nor between the latter and the reptiles, nor between the latter and the birds…(they are mentioned on the order of appearance in the geological ages).
2.P.Jamal el din Al Fandi said that the age of the earth is no more than 3 billion years, while scientists estimated that the necessary time for the beings’ development is more than 7 billion years, and this mean that the age of the earth must be about 10 billion years twice the sun’s age. How does this make sense while the earth resulted of its splitting from the sun?
3.Natural selection:
The darwinism is based on the so-called “Natural selection”, which says that the annihilations factors perish the vulnerable organisms, and maintain the strong ones, and this is what they call the law of “survival of the fittest”, and so ,only the strong and healthy being remain, and inherit its qualities to its offspring. And these qualities gather by the passage of time to create a new attribute in the organism, and this what is called “emerging”.
It is true that there is a system and a law to destroy all living creatures, strong or weak, but there is another system in the other side, which is the interdependence between the being and the environment, so we find the sun, the sea, the rain, the wind, the gravity…and other factors which cooperate for the maintenance of human life and other beings.
Looking to the annihilations factors, and ignoring the survival ones disturbs the mind. If there are laws of destruction, there are also laws of survival, and each has a role in this life.
So if the natural conditions: the wind, thunder, heat, storms, water… etc are capable to distort the creation or to destruct it, -like distorting the eye or to demolish a building-, it is not reasonable to say that these unsane natural conditions created the eye and mended a building.
The mind accepts that the natural conditions may cause the death and the destruction, but it is unconceivable that these conditions are valid for the interpretation of the magnificent, systematic and diligent creation.
Each organ in organisms is systematicly created, very well placed, and its parts are wisely arranged, and coordinating its mission with other ones. It is impossible to attribute this proficiency to the mess of the random natural conditions.
Professor Luc from cambridge university says: “The selection whether natural or artificial can not create something new.”
4.The sexual selection:
Darwinism based on this law which is about the tendency of male and female to mate the fittest and the strongest, and so the best qualities will be inherited, and the vulnerable attributes will vanish.
First: This law is not an evidence of an evolution in the species, but what we understand from it, is that the healthy and strong individuals of the same species remain, but they are still under the same species.
Second: It is not true to say that the good qualities are inherited by genetics, for example a muscular blacksmith does not inherit his muscles to his offspring, and a scientist does not transmit his knowledge to his offspring by genetics.
5.The modern genetics:
Obviously, Darwin’s ignorance of the modern genetics, made him go on on his theory, and if he ever knew the ADN and the modern genetics laws, he would change his mind.
Because the say of emergence of accidental qualities and characteristics, and then inheriting them in the offspring, is something rejected by the modern genetics.
Because each characteristic not contained in the gene, is an accidental characteristic, and can never be transmitted by inheritance.
In addition to the contradiction between Darwin’s theory, and the modern genetics, there is no practical proof at all on it.
Here are the jews and muslims circumcising their children thousands years ago, but no one is born circumcised!
To be continued..
Bookmarks