Відео

Ghamidi sahab ka urdu buhat deep hai, isliye isko samjna mushkil hota hai, but ma Jo samja hu wo ma apko batata hu Ghamidi sahab ka mtlb hai ki haiwaan jinko English ma nenderthals kehte hai wo buhat pehla se hai jo evolution se bane thay, aur inhi nenderthals ma ek ko chuna gaya jisko Allah ne apni rooh ponki aur saari cheezo ke naam sikhaye aur isiko Adam kehte hai. Nenderthals humans ke ancestor hai inko sirf shikar karna aata tha mager inki koi zaban nahi thi janwaru ki tarah. Mager aap disagree karsakte hai, kyu ki isme Mane apna kuch add Kiya hai

ap phir Engr mirza ko sun ley wo sai bata dein gy apko

baqi reh gaya ASAL SAWAL. to evolution k Quran me kai hawale maujood hain. jis me sub se mashor to Surah Fussilat (41) me hai k Allah ne Dunya 6 din me banayi... 2 din me ye, phir 2 din me ye... aur phir 2 din me ye... . chand aur bareek hawale bhi hai... jis ko aj tak kisi ne bayan nahi kiya _(jo ذریۃ من حملنا مع نوح ky phrase me posheedah hai....)_ . baqi Imam Jafar Sadiq ki ek ravayat ati hai... k Allah ne 1 milloin Adam khalq kiye... jis me hum Akhri Adam ki Aulad me se hain. (Ref. book Khisal, akhri ravayat, at the end of book)

​@@abroazhar *Which Evolution? Chemical vs. Biological, Macro-Evolution vs. Micro-Evolution?* 📑 *✍🏻Dr. Lawrence Brown, Biologist* One of the biggest problems when discussing evolution, as occurs with many other hot-button issues, is that the language deployed therein is inadequately vague. Without defining exactly what is meant by evolution we are leaving ourselves open to misunderstanding or even manipulation, "How can you not believe in evolution?!" The atheist mocks, and a complete capitulation or rebuff, while tempting, will only paint you into a corner. A wholesale affirmation implies that you believe even the most grandiose and controversial claims of the theory, such that a single cell eventually evolved into living organism, which eventually became other organisms all the way up the food chain to human beings, whereas a complete disavowal implies that you deny the most minute claims of evolution that are supported by observation, that characteristics of a species can change over time by passing on advantageous traits via their offspring. Thus, defining terms and drawing distinctions is critical. By evolution are we intending to talk about biological evolution, which attempts to account for the diversity of species on earth and/or the capacity for the characteristics of a species to change over time, or are we talking about chemical evolution, which is the evolution of inorganic molecular arrangements into organic molecular arrangements, essentially the origin of life? If by evolution we're referring to chemical evolution, we can summarily dismiss the idea as contrary to religion, reason, and science. The primary evidence upon which chemical evolution is based, the Miller-Urey experiment in which electric charges were sent through what the scientists then believed represented the "primordial soup" of the earth's early atmosphere, has since been debunked. Scientists now believe the earth's atmosphere was comprised of much less reactive material than that of the original Miller-Urey experiment. When the same experiment was conducted with these less reactive elements, the results of the initial experiment were not reproducible. Additionally, the results of the initial experiment in which atheists so blindly and fervently believe is a far cry from what they are claiming it proves: whereas the original Miller-Urey experiment produced amino acids, to prove that enough amino acids could be produced to form a single protein, and then enough proteins could be produced to form even a single cell, is a separate matter entirely, one that, ironically, requires a great leap of faith. A basic peptide chain requires hundreds of individual amino acids. A single yeast cell is made up of around 100 million proteins. Statisticians have concluded that, based on current estimates of how old the universe is, there simply hasn't elapsed enough time to reasonably believe that chemical evolution, as posited by atheists, can account for the origin of life. Many atheists, realizing that the connection between their claims and the Miller-Urey experiment is tenuous, reach to other non-sequitur solutions to explain the origin of life, including aliens, meteors, or the big bang. None of them actually answer the question of where and how life originated from inorganic matter. If life came from a meteor then where did the meteor get it from? If from aliens then where did the aliens get it from? This is a very basic logical fallacy that many scientists have fallen into. And what of the Big Bang? The Big Bang theory has undergone revisions, as all conclusions reached by scientific method do, according to the latest available data. The perpetually nagging question regarding the Big Bang regards why it took place at all and what if anything existed before it. Initially, it was believed that after the bang all matter, like a yo-yo, would slow down and eventually the gravitational pull of everything would bring it all back together again, resulting in an endless cycle of big bangs and big "crunches," and thus explaining the origin problem by way of a process with no beginning and no end. Then data revealed that the universe is expanding not at a slowing rate but actually an accelerating rate, ending the big bang/big crunch idea. So can the Big Bang alone explain the origin of matter and even life using only naturalistic explanations alone? Not quite. In order to adhere to the first law of thermodynamics, which states that matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed, the matter that exploded in the Big Bang would have had to be eternally existent, since it can't have come from just nowhere. However, we then run into the second law of thermodynamics, which states that everything is always moving toward entropy unless an input of energy restores away from entropy. If the universe existed before the Bang, what was it doing in a state of such low entropy, as scientists believe? And what energy could have been introduced into the system to reduce that entropy? Responding, as some atheists have, with speculation that perhaps there are multiverses from which our universe got the input of energy is akin to the alien explanation, it still leaves unresolved the question of origin: from where did those other universes come? All this relates to chemical evolution and its supposed claims. As for biological evolution, the evolution Darwin wrote about, the scope is quite different; rather than offer claims relating to the origin of life it attempts to account for the diversity found within life. Here again, a distinction must be made between micro-evolution, in which characteristics can change over time within an individual and be passed on within a species, thus eventually altering the characteristics of the entire species, and macro-evolution, which seeks to account for the very existence of not only separate species, by separate classes, orders, phyla, and kingdoms of organisms by means of these subtle changes that occur in individuals. Micro-evolution is uncontroversial, incontrovertible, and not at odds with Islam at all, as far as I'm aware. Macro-evolution, on the other hand, as with biological evolution, opposes both reason, religion, and scientific evidence. Examples given by atheists seem innocuous enough. Imagine a herd of gazelle, one of which has the advantageous trait of being taller. The taller gazelle can reach leaves higher up than his peers, thus making him grow bigger and stronger, thus making him a better mate, thus enabling him to reproduce more and eventually out-populate rival progeny with his own. Among his progeny there are those taller yet, who out-compete their peers, and of their progeny some that are still taller, and so on and so on until these gazelle have evolved into a giraffe. This example is neat and clean because the advantage is functional in every generation. But the vast majority of alleged mutations and advantages have a complexity that is irreducible, and functions that are non-functioning until they are complete. The human eye, for example, is indivisible; each part of the eye is useless and can't even exist by itself. Also take the mere flagellum, which has over 300 separate, coordinated moving parts. The random mutation of any of these parts individually would not have any advantage, rather it would likely be a hindrance to survival. Atheists have attempted to respond by claiming that there is nothing categorically preventing these different mutations to have different functions along the way. What eventually became an eye were individual, disparately advantageous mutations that eventually changed their function and had a separate mutation that resulted in their coordination as a single organ. Not only is this explanation far-fetched, it's not evidenced by the fossil record and, in light of statistics, virtually impossible. But the final death blow to the thesis of macro-evolution is contained in none other than the Quran, the word of our Creator: "And of all things We created two mates; perhaps you will remember." (51:49) If the thesis of macro-evolution were true, if the fittest truly have survived, passing on different advantageous mutations and traits generation after generation, and this is the mechanism by which we can account for all origin and diversity of life on earth, then sexual reproduction should have never happened. There is absolutely no evolutionary advantage to sexual reproduction, quite the opposite; it requires more energy to locate and obtain a mate, it runs the risk of not conceiving or misconceiving, and even after conception the offspring only have a 50% of acquiring any advantageous traits possessed by the parents. Asexual reproduction guarantees the continuity of advantageous traits being genetically passed on, requires less energy, and has no hangups related to conception. Thus, far from being the voice of reason, atheism and the evolutionist ideology requires more leaps of faith, more unquestioning belief in miraculous, inexplicable occurrences than most if not all religious traditions.

​@@abroazhar *Commendable books About The Myth of Evolution* ● The Greatest Hoax on Earth? Refuting Dawkings on Evolution by Dr. Jonathan Sarfati ● Evolution Impossible-12 Reasons Why Evolution Cannot Explain the Original of Life on Earth by Dr. John Ashton ● Not by chance by Dr. Lee Spetner ● Collapse of The Theory of Evolution in 20 Questions by Harun Yahya ● Darwinism Refuted: How The Theory of Evolution Breaks Down in Light of Modern Science by Harun Yaya ● Evolution Deceit: The Scientific Collapse of Darwinism and Its Background by Harun Yahya ● The Other Name For Illusion: Matter by Harun Yahya ● What Is The Origin of Man? By Dr. Maurice Bucaille (French Academy of Surgeons) ● The Design in Nature by Harun Yahya ● Darwin's Black Box-The Biochemical Challenge To Evolution by Dr. Michael J. Behe ● Tornado In A Junkyard- The Relentless Myth of Darwinism by James Perloff ● The Evolution Revolution: Why Thinking People Are Rethinking The Theory of Evolution? By Dr. Lee Spetner ● Science and Evidence For Design in Universe by Dr. Michael J. Behe, William A. Dembski, Dr. Stephen C. Meyer ● Signature in The Cell: DNA and The Evidence For Intelligent Design by Dr. Stephen C. Meyer (Geo-physicist) ● In The Beginning Was Information: A Scientist Explains The Incredible Design in Nature by Dr. Werner Gitt ● The Case Against Darwin: Why The Evidence Should Be Examined by Dr. James Perloff ● Purpose And Desire: What Makes Something 'Alive' and Why Modern Darwinism Has Failed To Explain It- J. Scott Turner (Biologist & Physiologist) ● Undeniable- How Biology Confirms Our Intuition That Life is Designed by Douglas Axe (Molecular Biologist) ● Evidence Against Evolution by George A. Zellers ● Nature's Destiny: How The Laws of Biology Reveal Purpose in Nature by Dr. Michael Denton (Biologist) ● Man The Unknown by Dr. Alexis Carrel (French Surgeon who was awarded Nobel Prize in Physiology and Medicine) ● Refuting Evolution: A Handbook For Students, Parents and Teachers Countering The Latest Arguments For Evolution by Dr. Jonathan Sarfati (Earth Chemist) ● Darwinism: Science Made To Order by Prof. P.A.Wahid (Agricultural scientist) ● The Great Gene Fiasco by Prof. P.A.Wahid (Agricultural scientist) ● The Miracle of Creation in DNA by Harun Yahya ● The Miracle of Creation in Plants by Harun Yahya ● The Miracle of Migration in Birds by Harun Yahya ● The Two Great Deceptions: Darwinism and Materialism: Science is Shattering These Myths by Harun Yahya ● Scientific American's 15 Errors by Harun Yahya ● New Skull Fossils Sinks Evolutionary Theories by Harun Yahya

​@@abroazhar*Wisdom and Wonder of Life on Earth: The Theory of Evolution is an Unscientific Nonsense* *✍🏻Dr. Cyrus Varan* (1) The creative ingenuity and logical gifts of humankind have never been more richly demonstrated than in our age, epitomized in the marvels of engineering that have transformed our lives and expectations. But in comparison to the infinitely complex order that operates within the "engineering" of nature, the achievements of human intelligence pale to nothing. Appreciating the true complexity of the world, in comparison to human achievements, inspires a sense of wonder, making it possible to accept the presence of an infinitely suble and intelligent Creator. As opposed to the engineering construction, natural growth joins two germinal cells to initiate the formation of different organs-the arms, fingers, eyes brain-until a miniature prototype model is realised. This prototype is then reared by nursing from two fountains of pure milk made available by the mother with precise timing, and reinforced with the necessary elements of nourishment, then loved and guarded with affectionate eyes in spite of the numerous shortcomings of the newborn until the organs are grown into their full-scale model. Viewed as a process of construction, natural growth seems to require a supreme command over the very soul and essence of every particle. It is generative in nature. A major task confronting the design of a specialised robot is to create a mechanism that can differentiate between an egg and a cotton ball, a robot that can handle different objects without crushing them. In contrast, medical researchers have estimated that in each square inch of human skin there are approximately 160 to 165 sensors for pressure, 80 sensors for heat, 13 sensors for cold, 1300 nerve endings, 650 sweat glands, 100 sebaceous glands, and 19,500 interrelated, coherent, and functional cells among the blood and lymph vessels, muscles, connective tissue, and hairs, each of which serves a specific function, creating a "mechanism" infinitely more complex than a robot. A similar contrast can be seen in language. Dictionaries consisting of words and their meaning, as well as sequential memories of a lifetime, and knowledge of complex mathematical fields, among others, are all stored and filed in a small piece of flesh in the brain. Any portion of these billion bits of stored information can be retrieved in a flash of a second many decades later. The ability to speak shows a higher level of creativity. One can store the knowledge of dictionaries in a computer. However, it is beyond a computer's capability to compose and utter an original humorous speech or think of a story line for a best-selling novel.

​@@abroazhar (2) The varied and numerous neuron constellations serve different functions in the brain. This information stored within each neuron is readily available to a few billion members of other constellations for each cubic centimetre of the brain-all of which are provided with blood lines for oxygen and nourishment. Moreover, the capability of the brain to see in colour and respond to other senses and it's ability to control bodily dynamic stability during motion and other bodily functions are all very complex. The concept of designing a small mass of flesh that, for many decades, without a direct source of electricity, is capable of creating, inventing, and discovering the material composition and the course of distant planets, or the concept of designing a brain wherein the early removal of one-half of its mass could result in the adaptation of the balance to carry on the necessary complex functions of the missing half, are concepts that grip the most brilliant minds with awe. For its creative order, the human brain is the most phenomenally inexplicable mass of communication and control systems in that part of the entire universe that is known to us. That many trillions of these "systems" have been produced shows an incredible creative order at work in nature. The magnitude of this order is particularly apparent if one considers the fact that the blueprint and the characteristics of these systems are inscribed inside micrisized genes. Yet no skilled hand is visible to create and assemble a brain's intricate trillions of interconnections without flaws. The mystery of the brain is compounded by the fact that there exists hundreds of thousands of different types of brains each of which is designed to meet the needs of a different species. However, behind such natural systems lies a great mystery. Even though rain and sunshine are necessary for the growth and realisation of a tree, the structure of the seed itself contains not only the blueprint for that particular tree but for the generations of trees to follow. Similarly, the blueprint not only for an individual person but for successive generations of people is potentially contained within two particles of dust, a sperm and an ovum. The bodies of a male and a female are structured to produce potent sperms and ovums that are the right key and lock combination, mechanically, chemically, and biologically to initiate a mysterious chain of humans for thousands of years, even though they are produced independently by separate male and females of a species. While defective engineering facilities will inevitably produce defective products, defective parents can have children free of defects, and the delicate chain of production may continue indefinitely. Millions of different species in animals and vegetable kingdoms appear in two different genders which are the right match to generate. The universality of the phenomenon defies coincidental existence. The pre-embryo resembles a transparent bubble floating in space till it divides into eight cells. Each of the eight cells looks exactly the same under microscope- some mysteriously grow into brains, others into eyes or heart. No less mysterious is the appearance of of a feeding apparatus consisting of of a placenta within the womb of a mother, with a blood-supplying cord providing nourishment to the developing embryo. The mystic motherly instinct to love and protect a newborn which is necessary for the continuance of life is incomprehensible, and yet it is common among millions of different fowls and beasts. Millions of hens of different birds all seek confinement for long to hatch their eggs to avoid extinction. These reflect a creative order. Visible order can also be found in the billions of heart cells in the body. Unlike other cells, each heart cell is provided with a separate generator for pulsation. When such cells are isolated from each other, the individual cells beat at slightly different frequencies, but when in contact with each other, heart cells harmonize and beat with the same frequency. This is a phenomenon as complex as designing billions of watches synchronized to strike seconds at the same time for one hundred years. It is surprising that we continue to live since our life depends on har.ony between billions of cells striking at the same frequency for decades. The pulmonary valves in the heart ventricles automatically close during the contraction of the heart to prevent blood back-up and facilitate blood circulation.

Jamat ke saath ada karne ke maamle mein bhi har shaksh apanee hi namaaz padhta hai, aur aap tagreeb talkeen se aage kisi ko namaz parhne pe mazboor nahi kar sakte...har ek ko apanee namaaz kaayam karnee hai, iztimaayee ya infiradi yahi baat deen ke liye kahi ja rahi hai