Create an account
Most Reputable Members

Schools forcing atheism with lies in the name of science

You have contributed 0.0% of this topic

Thread Tools
Post New Topic Filter by poster  
Topic Appreciation
Appreciate
The following members appreciate this topic: bint e aisha, abu mohammed
Yasin
Yasin's avatar
Joined:
9th Sep 2004
Longevity:
100%
Location:
London, UK
Posts:
5284
Gender:
Brother
Reputation:
197
#1 [Permalink] Posted on 3rd April 2017 08:47

This has been on my mind for a long time. There are other threads with many details but I wanted to open a thread to highlight scientifically inaccurate and bogus claims in text books and syllabus that's wasting time and efforts reducing the intake of actual education.

1. Evolution

This theory is a glorified fairy tail for adults. Every aspect of this bogus belief has been shattered with science. To date, there isn't a single piece of scientific evidence (which is classed as scientifically valid and reliable). Not one. This is not science.

2. The Earth is 4.6 billion years old

This ridiculous number is published and pushed forcefully to validate the evolution theory. The method used to come up with this is radiometric age-dating. This method itself is bogus and very detailed.

Here's some results proving the method is bogus but will never be mentioned in schools:
  • Shells from living snails were carbon dated as being 27,000 years old.
  • Living mollusk shells were dated up to 2,300 years old.
  • A freshly killed seal was carbon dated as having died 1,300 years ago.
  • One part of the Vollosovitch mammoth carbon dated at 29,500 years and another part at 44,000.
  • Material from layers where dinosaurs are found carbon dated at 34,000 years old.

3. Dinosaurs

While there's no denying that huge animals probably did exist in the past but this is very specific, reptiles. With animations, cartoons all from imagination. There's plenty of studies proving how this fairy tale came about with pure imaginations from a single bone.

4. Multiverse

Another fairy tale theory. Not science

5. Stating Carbon Dating and Radiometric Dating as Fact

Teaching this as a fact with no option to challenge it. When it's proven to be 100%-2500% wrong.

6. Atheism is science

This is the biggest lie. Every aspect of their efforts breaks every rule of science and they back it with lies masquerading as science. 

7. Big bang theory

As much as people have made efforts to somehow bring an Islamic perspective to this, the theory is merely a challenge to the only altertative of there being a creator. To discover the "origins of the universe" is the claim and since it can never be repeated (as matter already exists) how can this be in science books as fact? 

Quote:
The big bang theory is widely supported by cosmological evidence.

No it's not!


There's so much more but I want to keep the above minimal.

  • Why is this religion being taught as science at the tax payer's expence?
  • Why are these beliefs forced onto children as "open thinking" when it's stated as fact with 3D renders, animations and computer generated graphics?
  • Children are taught to fear God and have morals. These teachings sit in the subconscious and emerge during tough times. Many have left their faith with doubts due to no knowledge of reality and believing this as science.
  • This religion takes a person away from morality with the evolutionist mindset of "survival of the fittest" - resulting in doing whatever it takes, right or wrong, legal or illegal, moral or immoral to move forward. And we wonder why Riba is accepted as Halal by many Muslims as a neccessity nowadays!

 

Everything typed above is backed up by sources, videos, articles, proof and whatever is required. I welcome any questions, additions or even challenges from anyone who think otherwise.

جزاك الله خيرا

report post quote code quick quote reply
Like x 4
Site Support
Please DONATE generously towards Muftisays

We spend hundreds of hours ensuring you receive a quality service from this site. We do not fall into the advertisement schemes as all the ads contain elements of Haraam including Haraam Islamic links. Please consider setting up a £1 monthly donation. May Allah (swt) reward you.

Yasin
Yasin's avatar
Joined:
9th Sep 2004
Longevity:
100%
Location:
London, UK
Posts:
5284
Gender:
Brother
Reputation:
197
Umm Khadeejah
Rank Image
Offline
Joined:
22nd Mar 2017
Longevity:
0%
Location:
Unspecified
Posts:
82
Gender:
Sister
Reputation:
79
#3 [Permalink] Posted on 3rd April 2017 10:49
Bismillahirrahmanirraheem
Alhamdulillah I needed this.
report post quote code quick quote reply
No post ratings
bint e aisha
Rank Image
bint e aisha's avatar
Offline
Joined:
7th Feb 2017
Longevity:
0%
Location:
Unspecified
Posts:
128
Gender:
Sister
Reputation:
89
#4 [Permalink] Posted on 3rd April 2017 14:32
EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION?
By a christian:
Evolution, it seems, is ingrained into the educational and informational fields of our society. As a consequence, until a couple of years ago, I was under the impression that evolution was possible, and likely was the path of which everything living today took en-route to existence. I have believed in God my whole life, but I had thought that evolution somehow fit into Christianity. After all, public schools teach it, it's displayed in museums, and it's reported in the news. How could all of these people possibly be misled?

Then one particular day, I caught a news headline: "Creationists build museum dedicated to the idea that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old."

My initial response was something along the lines of "Less than 10,000 years?? They're crazy! After all, 'everyone knows' that the Earth is billions of years old, and it's common knowledge that we probably evolved from simpler life-forms. Those crazy creationists."

The phrase to make note of here is "everybody knows." It occurred to me that I believed evolution was true because other people believed in it. I had never seen or read of any evidence for it, but because people referred to it as fact in public schools, science textbooks, publicly funded museums, and many magazines, I accepted it as an established fact.

I have always appreciated and enjoyed science, so I decided that if I'm going to adhere to a theory about where humans came from, I should base it on some reliable, provable, scientific evidence. So, with the preconceived notion that evolution was probably true, I set out to discover why it was true, and come up with the scientific evidence supporting it. After all, who in their right mind could possibly believe the Earth is less than 10,000 years old?

The logical way to approach this research project is to start from the beginning. Evolutionists believe we evolved from a single-celled organism. Where did the single-celled organism come from? Evolutionists say primordial soup. All I had to do is figure out what primordial soup is, and how it was formed, and we'll have the origin of the single-celled organism.

This proved to be rather impossible. As it turns out, evolutionists all believe in primordial soup, but they have no idea what it is, and cannot prove it ever existed. They do not know what chemicals it could have been, and it has never been successfully reproduced in the lab. People are still searching for a way to explain it. Well that presents a fundamental problem, doesn't it? I guess we're off to a bad start. Since no college professor, "scientist," or anyone else has any idea about the first phase of evolutionary theory, lets move past that issue and try to figure out the next steps instead.

Next, the unknown inanimate matter morphed into a simple, single-celled organism. Sounds feasible enough, since "everyone knows" that single-celled organisms are the simplest form of life. All we have to do is research their limited complexity so we can figure out how non-living matter formed life.

As it turns out, single-celled organisms are extremely complex. Did you know that a single-celled organism can have thousands of parts, can reproduce, eat, expel waste, move, and respond to stimuli? There's no way I'm going to ever figure out how inanimate matter can suddenly turn into a multi-thousand part, self propelled, eating, moving, reproducing, structured, organized cell. But it looks like I'm not alone.... evolutionists can't begin to explain it either. This is probably because it's genetic information would take up all the pages in a 1,000 page book, and have to be laid out in the right order. How much genetic information do rocks and other non-living matter have? None, of course. That's akin to using zero letters of the alphabet, and watching that turn into the first 2 Harry Potter books, all by random chance. That's a pretty impossible leap, but that is what evolutionists claim happens. Non-living matter would've had to jump from no genetic material to over a thousand pages of it, a cell structure would've had to somehow spontaneously form all at once, and the cell structure created would've had to magically come alive. This is what evolutionists believe in, although they cannot explain how it happens or why. With all the millions of dollars put into the varieties of science experiments studying this issue, never before has life formed from non-living matter. Evolutionists just believe it happens.

I guess we'll chalk that down as another leap of faith by the evolutionists, and keep going. Nobody knows what primordial soup is, and nobody has ever observed or proven that non-living matter turns into life; they simply believe in it. But, let's keep going. We're bound to find some evidence eventually.

Evolutionists also say that people, plants, and animals evolve into completely different things over time. If that's true, we should find an abundance of evidence, transitional species all over the place, and someone in the history of science must have observed this happening. After all, with all the trillions of creatures that exist on this planet, at least one of them should be evolving right now!

Interestingly enough, that is a dead end as well. All the fish we find are fish, all the birds we find are birds, all the bats we find are bats, all the people we find are people, and single-celled organisms never reproduce into anything except single-celled organisms. There's no transitional species to be found, and evolution (in the sense of organisms increasing in complexity) is not happening anywhere. In reality, if evolution were true, everything that is or was alive should just be another transitional species, including humans. There would be no point in classifying species, because they all would just be changing into something else continuously. But we find none of that. The evolutionists' theory suggests that fish grew legs and turned into mammals, and dinosaurs grew wings and turned into birds. If evolution were true, we'd be finding creatures that were:

3% fish, 97% land walking lizard
2% fish, 98% land walking lizard
1% fish, 99% land walking lizard
100% land walking lizard
99% land walking lizard, 1% mammal
98% land walking lizard, 2% mammal
97% land walking lizard, 3% mammal...

and so on, with similar processes for every type of animal that exists. Everything would be a transitional species, and we'd find abundant evidence for it. In reality, there is nothing anywhere close to that scenario. The fact that there is absolutely no evidence for such transitional species is illustrated by the articles published in 1999 by National Geographic, about the "missing link" fossil that was finally discovered that proved dinosaurs (lizards) evolved into birds. It was shaped like a lizard, but it had wings like a bird. They published a huge article with photos and great fanfare, and newspapers reported it with excitement across the country. Months later, it was revealed that someone just glued parts of different animals together in China and passed it off as a real fossil. Why would evolutionists be so excited over a single, glued-together, fake fossil? It almost seems as if they are completely devoid of any evidence whatsoever.
report post quote code quick quote reply
Yasin
Yasin's avatar
Joined:
9th Sep 2004
Longevity:
100%
Location:
London, UK
Posts:
5284
Gender:
Brother
Reputation:
197
#5 [Permalink] Posted on 4th April 2017 10:50
Carbon dating was not invented till 1949 but they started telling kids the earth is billions of years old back in 1830. Carbon dating didn't exist. So why did they teach this? To make their theory of evolution believable.

Radiometric dating is based on the geologic column. Without which it's not feasible. When tests are run, it's run many times until they get the result that matches the geologic column (which itself is flawed) otherwise it's discarded.

How is this science? Science is to achieve results. Every test run which is published is based on a predefined result. That's not science. As the result was predefined 160 years ago 90 years before carbon dating was ever invented.

This non-scientific belief system needs to be removed from schools and taught as extra curricular for those who want to study myths and fairy tales.
report post quote code quick quote reply
Agree x 1
Yasin
Yasin's avatar
Joined:
9th Sep 2004
Longevity:
100%
Location:
London, UK
Posts:
5284
Gender:
Brother
Reputation:
197
#6 [Permalink] Posted on 1st May 2017 04:02
report post quote code quick quote reply
No post ratings
Absolute truth
Rank Image
Absolute truth's avatar
Offline
Joined:
30th Apr 2017
Longevity:
0%
Location:
Unspecified
Posts:
5
Gender:
Brother
Reputation:
2
#7 [Permalink] Posted on 1st May 2017 08:13
السلام عليكم و رحمة الله و بركاته
جزاك الله خيرا

I have some topics on this subject, so that anyone can take benefit In shaa' Allah:
amazingreligion.tumblr . com/post/74597355314/topics-related-to-evolution-neo-darwinism

(Kindly, fix the link)
report post quote code quick quote reply
No post ratings
abu mohammed
Rank Image
abu mohammed's avatar
Joined:
6th Oct 2008
Longevity:
28%
Location:
London
Posts:
18667
Gender:
Brother
Reputation:
5105
#8 [Permalink] Posted on 1st May 2017 08:46
report post quote code quick quote reply
No post ratings
WifaqulUlama
Rank Image
Offline
Joined:
6th Dec 2015
Longevity:
0%
Location:
Unspecified
Posts:
290
Gender:
Brother
Reputation:
445
#9 [Permalink] Posted on 10th August 2017 08:32

Youtube Video

Youtube Video

report post quote code quick quote reply
Like x 4
Yasin
Yasin's avatar
Joined:
9th Sep 2004
Longevity:
100%
Location:
London, UK
Posts:
5284
Gender:
Brother
Reputation:
197
#10 [Permalink] Posted on 28th September 2017 19:10
Michael J. Behe on the subject of evolution being destroyed by advanvements in DNA studies:

Quote:
The idea of intelligent design is a completely scientific one. Certainly it might have religious implications but it does not depend on religious premises


-Michael J. Behe
-Biochemist - Lehigh University

Perfectly put.

PhD scientists debunk evolution (available on YouTube)
Posted via the Muftisays Android App
report post quote code quick quote reply
No post ratings
Back to top Post New Topic