Only when human barbarism that will release the faith abandoned the nonsense. –Voltaire

Some kinds of lies from other types of خوشایندترند. A lie is a pleasant time that our understanding of the world or our world view To approve the.

Humans did not evolve to see facts; who have evolved to survive and if understanding the truth of tmarz, a way to show there is no truth to them. Yet for a group that is brave enough to accept the facts, or at least seek logical answers to their questions, there must be a glimmer of light in the depths of darkness; that's the only reason I'm publishing this post..

Whether we believe or not, there we find something purely because we have an interest in the existence or lack thereof of a variety of Cognitive errors (Cognitive Bias) The incorrect nature of the argument to read it!

In the past few years the group with the name of the fight against heresy and rejected the application to span ملحدین On social networks And were active on Wikipedia (Possibly with financial support of the Iranian Government) And repeatedly to counterfeiting, falsification, or logical mghaltat *. These posts as facts and to keep the faith and those who struggle with atheism to be released and on other sites like The highest website Also send.

Whether we are religious or religious, with God or without God, we need to know that these things have been distorted, and some of these distortions are complex and involve fundamental issues..

Despite having very limited time on the Internet, I decided to list a number of these lies for their wrong reasons so that it would be available to Persian-speaking readers from Google's search engine, because the number of these materials is increasing and each mirror is familiar with the methods of forging these materials, it becomes more difficult for Jaalin to continue this process..

The titles of the contents

(Click on the titles below to navigate to the relevant section.)

جنایتهای Darwin, Darwinism and the theory of evolution
The principle of creation, آنتروپیک, فاین set theory or tuning world
Ethics and people's opinion about atheists
Darwin, the crimes of communism, atheism and the murder of millions
Scientists and scientists around the world do most atheism; khdanabaurnd?
Response to claims of unbelievers about the theory of Darwin, EES, and hit the scientists believe in God
Bell death Darwinism and opinions of Dennis noble
Parallel universes, and the perspective of theory of science physics the most fake
The main origin of life, the existence of God and the theory of evolution
The illusion of atheists, proving the existence of God, not God and answer for the killing of Richard Dawkins and the nature of the LGBT
View the scientific method and evolution of signs to confirm the theory of evolution
The rejection of materialism quantum physics, داروینیسنم, nightmare, and God
DNA (DNAِِِ), Genetics, acceptance of intelligent design (Intelligent Design) And the existence of God
Richard Dawkins, Professor of the University of Oxford, and ignorant یوسدی santaso, students of the world
Richard Dawkins, the biologist, Dr. William Lane; Ferrari Creek, اونجلیک hero
God, quantum mechanics and physics beyond matter and human intelligence
Mghaltat Gaby atheists or superficial man mghaltat khdadaran scientist
Atheism and morality: Corrupt الاخلاقی, debauchery, lie, mental illness, and narcissism

جنایتهای Darwin, Darwinism and the theory of evolution

Address entry And Mirror Edition

In this post, except for the distorted scientific facts, there are two logical fallacies: The term "personal attack fallacy fake account.

Personal attack fallacy (adhominem): There are two types of personal attack fallacy. In the first type a correct argument assumes the character of the speaker because it is موجهی Appeal to authority Both say. For example, the existence of God can be proved because some scientist believe it and we know that a certain person is موجهی scientist. In the second type of person is rejected with the comment this is not a justifiable excuse that he does not have the competence and commenting. Both of these are fallacies, and instead show the validity of an argument (The validity of the assumptions and that the desired outcome is not necessarily given to the result to be)The credibility or lack of credibility, the speaker put base.

The subscription term fallacy ( Equivocation): In this fallacy, two things that have similarities in name, but in essence they are against the difference up to the reader to بیافد mistake.

Here is the claim that Darwin did a racist and is taken as a result of this issue that Darwin's theory is incorrect. Though Darwin's racist or not and to what extent the right of the author says, this is not the topic of discussion, because to show invalidity claim, verify the authenticity of the given time does not guarantee its. What is the داورین meaning, does not show that the theory of evolution is valid or not.

The second objection is that the theory of evolution or evolution of Darwin with social Darwinism or what decades after Darwin's death (With the absence of false understanding of and) The tool was put against the racism that these are not equal. I.e. Darwinism is not the same as the theory of evolution Darwin or Wallace.

As in the other post I described the theory of evolution is the basis of today's knowledge of biology; The Foundation of modern biology of natural selection Is. After one and a half century of evolution Known as the principle of Or اینجا And what is the necessity of the existence of God as a clever design to the world (Intelligent designer and argument order) Been raised today as true science/scientific شیادی (Pseudoscience) To be determined. For example, the: اینجا Or اینجا Or اینجا Or اینجا.

When I knew that the evolution of the Earth is not spherical as the claim is–Of course this comment is طرفدارانی is in the midst of religious Because apparently in the Quran is the Sun moves around the Earth/. (وَالشَّمْسُ تَجْرِی لِمُسْتَقَرٍّ لَّهَا ذَلِکَ تَقْدِیرُ الْعَزِیزِ الْعَلِیمِ)–And the theory of evolution/evolution is the basis of modern biology and science knowledge; then we can freely decide to which of the two opinions we trust.

The principle of creation, آنتروپیک, فاین set theory or tuning world

Address entry

This entry was posted in the beginning is a fallacy Appeal to authority Is. To believe the author of the famous "کازموس" scientific site and something our fellow and notification should accept shtsh! The site is a fun science site (The site of public scientific publication psandaneh) That academic articles (Articles in the journal are valid پیرریو) Does not publish and issue that referenced a rule name The principle of انتروپیک (Anthropic principle) Is.

First of all, let us not forget that the rule is not a rule of scientific آنتروپیک. The آنتروپیک is also occasionally as a newer version of smart designer Soddo as science can name. (اینجا Or اینجا ) The word "principle" and "theory" in science have specific definitions that I will explain in the future and in a separate story how to examine them, their concept and ways to measure their dogma..

From Rule آنتروپیک For explaining the concept of using another to which it Good settings (Fine-tunning) Say. This فاین tuning Is the same as our friend for proving the existence of the creator refers to it. The rule is not necessarily the result of آنتروپیک that there is a God or God has known the rules; it merely claims that there is a special setting in the world that the current forms of life makes it possible. However, as a result of the فاین tuning that there is a God.

Generally about the idea and there is neither a tuning فاین آنتروپیک. For example, Steven Weinberg, Nobel Physics Prize winner, rejects this idea Or اینجا:

Some physicists have argued that certain constants of nature have values that seem to have been mysteriously fine-tuned to just the values that allow for the possibility of life, in a way that could only be explained by the intervention of a designer with some special concern for life. I am not impressed with these supposed instances of fine-tuning

Some physicists claim that the exact nature of some fixed size have been set up which exactly provide life possible in circumstances that explain them, merely by the existence of a creator who wishes may be possible in the world of the life. I agree with the examples of فاین not affect the tuning of steel.

For example, Weinberg noted that carbon to the core of one of the components of life and show the Genesis is so contrary to claims not set accurately!

Weinberg's article can Thoroughly read with Google Translator Or the English language from the above link. This entry is a more detailed response to the same question, whether there is a God in the world and are the exact settings of the world makes it necessary the existence of God.

Or Joseph silkAkhtar, head of the Department of Physics of the University of Oxford and is a former Professor of Johns Hopkins University, In an article published in natureWhile rejecting the rule of انتروپیک mentions that we exist in this world that hid its regulations there describes to us is because we are there in this world we have. To believe his installation Maltese (Multiple worlds) Better than the existence of God describes the world.

It is a tautology to assert that our existence selects an appropriate universe from the ensemble of all universes. After all, we can only observe a universe of a certain size, old enough for stars and planets, and for life to have developed. But it is physics, or at least metaphysics, to state, as the physicist Robert Dicke first did, that the Universe must be old enough for stars to have synthesized carbon, a necessary condition for our presence. It is one further logical step to assert that the values of all of the fundamental constants of nature, which may vary throughout the Multiverse, are determined by our presence. This is the anthropic principle in its weakest form. It is simply observational selection, with the caveat that our presence is not guaranteed.

یکی از ایرادات مهم قاعده آنتروپیک این است که مفروضات خودش را در استنتاج فرض می کند یعنی نتیجه چیزی است که فرض شده. (Circular reasoning)

Ethics and people's opinion about atheists

پیوند مطلب

Alleged that Columbia University and University of Oregon jointly published the story and concluded that people (Probably inside the USA) Sexual aggressors to trust more than atheists.

First of all, you should know that universities do not publish anything on جورنالی that the name of the University; Down here the names of The authors belong to the educational institution come show. But what is not entirely incidentally and claims in the US aggressors and the size of the trust to the gods at a level because the United States is a country of religious. For example, in China the statistics is very different. However, the result is called a fallacy Argumentum ad populum or referring to people.

That group a lot, or most, or all of the people have to believe the subject is absolutely not meant to be properly or its authenticity.

The crimes of communism and socialism, Darwin, killing millions and atheism

پیوند مطلب

In this article there are two types of fallacies Redherring and fake personal attack.

Personal attack fallacy (adhominem): There are two types of personal attack fallacy. In the first type a correct argument assumes the character of the speaker because it is موجهی Appeal to authority Both say. For example, the existence of God can be proved because some scientist believe it and we know that a certain person is موجهی scientist. In the second type of person is rejected with the comment this is not a justifiable excuse that he does not have the competence and commenting. Both of these are fallacies, and instead show the validity of an argument (The validity of the assumptions and that the desired outcome is not necessarily given to the result to be)The credibility or lack of credibility, the speaker put base.

It is claimed here that Marx had accepted many influences from Darwin, and Stalin, who had accepted many influences from Marx, concludes that evolution did not occur, which is, of course, a personal attack..

Perverted thing is a fallacy (Redherring): This fallacy is something assumed to be or prove to be absolutely nothing to do with something that is not concluded. In most cases, jael tries to prove something that is largely inductive inference to assume necessary to be close to the audience to boo pocketed.

For example, if we prove that Marx was in love with Darwin or Wallace had plagiarized or Hitler had dreamed of Darwin at night, these issues would not have the right or wrongness of the theory of evolution..

Scientists and scientists around the world do most atheism; khdanabaurnd?

Address entry

Overwhelming scientists are khdanabaor elite (For example, here Or اینجا Or اینجا see)Members of the Academy of Sciences; (The highest level of American scientists) Ninety-three percent are atheist and the number of Nobel winners in science among theists (The highest academic level) Almost zero.

Open here at Harvard University did not notice anything but the author's mtlebsh of Harvard University sent!

The answer to how many theistic and how many khdanabaor are largely open to being who we define the scientist. It turns out that the scientist is what we can ascertain whether they are khdanabor or believe in God. For example, I saw a link from the University of برندایس that the same person was sent (News from the blog on the برندایس domain) And the author had a similar claim about being dominant theistic scientists. When I carefully examined the statistics, I noticed that scientists from Turkey, Bangladesh and Pakistan were a large part of the study group that did not produce anything scientifically globally, but by our definition they could be known scientists..

But if you believe in God or a few scientists do not believe that claim otherwise; the scientists creating God, God's existence proves the fallacy Appeal to authority That is the concept of it I description.

I've already showed that, for example, on this website God does not believe in the existence of Einstein Or Razi (Probably the most respected scientist on Iran) The prophets called trickster Or Steven Hawking denies the existence of God Or The greater part of elite scientists are godless; But merely gave the U.S. and never did it on the basis of the argument that God exists or because to prove a matter solely for the reason that we need to guarantee its authenticity. How many people believe in something is not a reason on its authenticity.

This entry is incorrect:

In the context of evolution, scientists are divided into several categories. The first category are the scholars who do not accept evolution and believe that each family of the process of formation and have a complete separate. This is a bunch of scientists are quite a theistic. Another batch of the divine evolution scientists agree that this is a bunch of scientists also are theistic. One of the very strong associations that sponsor the divine evolution scientists are in it is called Biologos.

Not having to believe in evolution and لاطئلاتی in such prestigious universities like plan is to rotate the Sun revolves around the Earth or the earth being flat or tales of witches and fairy stories bring arguments!

The last section of the Royal Academy of the United Kingdom noted that related to Dennis noble (ِDenis Noble) That is because an article published at the bottom of ایراداتش time پیرریویود 'll explain that.

Response to claims of unbelievers about the theory of Darwin, EES, and hit the scientists believe in God

Content of the links اینجا Or اینجا

This entry is a lie:

But a very important point that the unbelievers of Persia(Deliberately or inadvertently) To say nothing about it is that in recent years it has shown so much scientific evidence of darwinism's immissibility that practically other scientists have abandoned their support for Darwinism, and Darwinism is almost on the verge of collapse..

As mentioned several times, if Darwinism is the theory of evolution/evolution, evolution is fully accepted by the scientific community, if it means natural selection, it is the basis of biology..

The Royal Academy of the United Kingdom's most prestigious academic reference, contrary to the author's claim is not in the world, and in addition it can be rather systematic so that the theory of evolution Darwin's impossible to demonstrate. To change a scientific perspective is generally goes out جورنالی articles and others will write books and make a paradigm shift that is also about changing what it is impossible to limit the full development; Nevertheless, by someone with a something in place of the universe does not change.

Something that Referenced The meeting had been a scientific plan for the position of Professor Denis Noble–The time that I wrote to the position he'll pay. No such claim that Nobel's own theory of evolution Darwin is invalid merely because the evolution of new ideas about how to bring the forms

More nature (Interview and article is not ریویو) The two raised the perspective: One who believes on the basis of a new form of EES is the rule we have to define the evolution of organisms and the دیدگاههی that is the opposite of this idea and considers valid the previous paradigm. Make sure none of these topics to the concept of the rejection of the theory of evolution Darwin and Wallace, and is merely a discussion over the details. Also, make sure there's nothing to do with any of these articles, or non-existence of God, and God does not prove.

SS a (ESS) ?

A hypothesis is a SS game theory John Nash, a Princeton University mathematician, related to the evolution of living things does. In the old form of the theory of evolution we believe that evolution based on natural selection (natural selection) Change comes. SS a claims that something beyond the purely natural selection shaped the evolution of this and believes that a species with finds evolution محیطش. بر پایه نظریه بازی های جان نش مجموعه ای از تعاملات میان بازیگران نتیجه را معلوم می کند.

برای درک بهتر این مقاله see:

The principles of game theory provide a theoretical framework for understanding the evolution of biological interactions. Evolutionary game theory applies to organisms that interact repeatedly, both within a generation and over evolutionary relevant timescales. In special cases, evolutionary stable strategies emerge in which a particular strategy is adopted by all members of a population and alternative strategies (mutant phenotypes) cannot invade and displace the ESS. The flexibility of game theory allows for the testing of complex mixed strategies and incorporating reward and punishment in evolutionary strategies. Importantly, game theory demonstrates the evolution of cooperation and altruism ESSs is consistent with evolution through natural selection.

نظریه بازی ها جارچوبی را برای درک تعاملات زیستی میان موجودات تعریف می کند. Evolutionary game theory of the interaction between an organism in a generation and refers to تکاملش. When an evolutionary strategy with all the members of a population, not an alternative strategy could take it from among the.

In other words, proponents of this view believe that natural selection has evolved a species alone cannot describe the creatures and the evolution in the relationship with other creatures and species that are found evolution takes shape. All of these are nothing to do with being replaced by the theory of evolution is not valid or it merely describes how evolution.

Another entry The author sent a The Washington Times is that another site has released:

In this article, which the author of the article above referred that sent the beginning almost to certainty as to the theory of evolution, scientists operating the human believe Genesis:

Scientists almost unanimously accept Darwinian evolution over millions of years as the source of human origins

Even referenced that Most scientists are godless time (This is an article that has sent his own):

While most US scientists think humans are simply smarter apes

It merely claims that forty percent of scientists are somehow intelligent creation (And not necessarily a personal God, or God of religions Ebrahimi) Believe, that this is for the author of the entry about our great victory will be considered a reference, because the scientists hit bakhda is less.

at least 4 in 10 believe a creator “guided” evolution so that Homo sapiens are ruled by a soul or consciousness

As I mentioned the number of elite scientists believed God created is less. However, all of these are related to the scientist that we define how and which groups these statistics in terms of how we. Generally, among biologists Only about 5 percent of creating Believe in God and the godless are 95%.

Bell death Darwinism and opinions of Dennis noble

Link to article Or اینجا. This entry again to new shape اینجا Also published.

The person named Dennis noble, a former Oxford University Professor, believes the evolution of organisms based on random mutation/میوتیشن–That are accepted by the public–Some happen and instead proposes that the physiological function of these genes in the evolution of the role is. Be careful, Mr. noble claims there is a God does not necessarily or the theory of evolution is incorrect or there is an intelligent creator. On the contrary, Mr. noble of the intelligent designer's opponents, namely to work far, proving the existence of God God's endless!

Noble has been quote mined by intelligent design proponents, but Noble soundly rejects intelligent design

Another person named Jerry Cayenne that Professor of biology, University of Chicago Is All of the comments Dennis noble rejects in the field. Both of these guys are scientists but not accepted Mr. Nobel's comments merely raised the new assumptions until a hypothesis for the dominant theory scholars a string yet remain much the same hypothesis. All of these are also nothing to do with Darwin's theory of evolution and death Bell proving the existence of God or intelligent designer does. That is, assuming the correctness of the theory of evolution does not mean rejecting Nobel.

Parallel universes, and the perspective of theory of science physics the most fake

Link to article

This is the result: «Parallel universes as the most fake(Unscientific- Yellow- Void) The view of science of physics was introduced. "the following assumptions, perverted thing is a fallacy of.

Perverted thing is a fallacy (Redherring): This fallacy is something assumed to be or prove to be absolutely nothing to do with something that is not concluded. In most cases, jael tries to prove something that is largely inductive inference to assume necessary to be close to the audience to boo pocketed.

On the basis of what the author has to assume the result will not be achieved in high dlkhahsh:

The University of کلمبیای in the text 22 days ago(20 January of 2017) Be released, To introduce more than 10 articles in the science of physics and counterfeit yellow payment. Interestingly the article 9 of the 10 fake article( Void) Related to parallel universes( The existence of the other worlds apart from our world) Is.
In the context of Columbia University said that one of the reasons for bringing scientists to publish news on the unscientific and yellow, The inability to answer the hard questions and even impossible, such as the “What has been before the big bang?” ..

First Columbia University did not publish anything that Just at the University Colombia Have a story published. Here again, I did not see mention of a virtual world, refers to non-specialists is fakes. Not long ago, Abolhassan Banisadr had also published a podcast proving the existence of God and the Prophet and the religion of Islam through quantum physics, just as Mr. Banisadr's forgery does not distort quantum theory, forgery about parallel universes neither confirms nor rejects it, and regardless of whether the virtual worlds are invalid or valid, this is a matter of fraud. that will be published in this about.

There is a valid theory in physics called My theory There are other worlds that the forecast does not. About my theory I A documentary film on the same blog from reputable scientists and theorists had translation That is not an empty تماشایش of thanks. All of these are of course nothing to do with Darwin's theory of evolution or proof of the existence of God does not have.

The main origin of life, the existence of God and the theory of evolution

Link to article

The whole thing about the Huffington Post article that said person interviewed claims, Abiogenesis is not just a technical issue and another unknown factor is the impact of. No all that NASA expects what happens not in the solar system. In fact, NASA's budget to find life in the solar system which did not expect to find anything if Just ۱۸٫۵ billion to spend money to find life in the language of the moons of Jupiter Were not.

This entry Fallacy of the bully (ُStrawman fallacy) Is:

If this is a question from an Iranian nabaor to ask most likely will receive this response:
“The laws of quantum mechanics and the principle of non-قطعییت of this world that allow to automate absolutely no chance of the”
You may ask yourself that “The principle of non-قطعییت” ? how to “The principle of non-قطعییت” And “Quantum mechanics” The result of the unbelievers that the world has a chance to come out of nowhere? I dont how something can “No” Comes into existence? This “No” Consider that the unbelievers is what does it mean?

The opposite side of the story to the next with no base plan show what they plan themselves, the failure of the opposition to the notification. That the world emerged how This story of Steven Hawking See.

About the origin of the biological materials of life was probably the primary that had the ability to reproduce. For example, see here. We still don't know for certain how the most basic form of life emerged, for example, whether it came through an asteroid from other worlds or, as I mentioned, it emerged from reproducible biomaterials, but I know with certainty that creatures emerged as a result of evolution and man evolved from other beings..

The illusion of atheists, proving the existence of God, not God and answer for the killing of Richard Dawkins and the nature of the LGBT

In the previous entry Investor link was asked The responses For this video Be sent.

In short, the Narrator claims in this article consists of two parts:

1.- Prove that God does not exist

The person who can be seen in the video of the viewers asking that if only for one reason only, and that there is no God; show herself claims that have not been correctly no response disappointed! It is clear that the desired result is a one-way going to the judge is.

Before to prove or reject the existence of God we should be examining the two subject:

We should first recognize what is knowledge acquisition tools/world. Supernatural science understanding of the tools that is highest and most are but mere ghlmrosh dogmatism of the world article. There is the understanding of the nature of toy آنتالوژی. Beauty is آاستتیک the understanding of the tools and instruments, there is understanding of the metaphysics is. These are not the same as any territory. For example, you cannot check the existence of the science, because science is based on observation and experience and Falsifiability works. If the existence of God is not in the material world in the field of science, but not with other tools to pay. As the argument to prove the existence of God, the argument is presented for the existence of God. Here you can see a list of these items.

Secondly, we ask God? God is the God of Aristotle or Spinoza in order? The order is the God of the Roman gods or religions Ebrahimi? These are not common features with خدایانی. Our response to that is to the order of God, part 1 (Recognition tools) Returns and claims the writer who says "Why can't be negative (Negative) Fixed? "or in other words the rejection of God.

If the purpose of the Indian beetle God (Long been worshipped as God about the) Or the Egyptian cat, then we can go to the کنکاشش with the scientific understanding of the tools because it is in the sphere of the supernatural. If the purpose God religions Ebrahimi (Islam, Christianity, and Judaism) With the logic then we can prove that if God is absolute perfection, then there is no as David Hume showed. But if God is a creature that has no clear definition and properties, then it can neither be denied nor able to prove it, because basically we don't have the tools to study it..

But the speaker of the analog video to reject the negative or denying the God raised A logical fallacy called a Faulty Comparison. This is a fallacy that occurs when two things are the same qualities that have different and same result, we assume. Here's an example that the speaker gives and claims to be able to deny that he doesn't have tomato sauce in his veins, it's within the confines of the physical world whose revocation tool is science, the existence of God cannot be denied or proved in this way because basically these two categories of God and ketchup do not have the same qualities..

۲- Proof that God exists

The announcer says in a three-step proving that there is a God. Asks the: (1.) Do you see things آفریدید? Or (۲) If you نیافریدید have created his own creation? Or (3.) If none of these are not so sure there is a God. Speaker claims except three modes, there's another mode and the desired God is to describe that is outside of the framework of time and place.

This argument has a few;:

If God is outside of time and space within then how in the world created? Because we didn't solve the problem, and the only one we added!

This argument is based on the concept of causality is that every disabled for some reason there is no need to own before. No cause for the disabled cannot appear simultaneously with or before it comes. Spend being disabled for some reason there is a need for the front. If God is the first cause, then it cannot be outside of time because they have second reason before or the world happens. If God is the first cause then not necessarily God. If God is in time and place, within the time and space that has been created? While the cause of the being of God is first his handicapped available.

You can see that the premise to this simplicity is not a banality. Stephen Hawking to a large extent to this issue about the existence of God is the first cause and pays. If you have interest in this video that was translated, Watch.

Continue on two issues objectively life objectively toilet (!) Compare that with the above explanation I gave is a fallacy The name of the Faulty Comparison.

View the scientific method and evolution of signs to confirm the theory of evolution

In the previous entry Investor link (With Naughty) Was asked The responses to this video Be sent. This entry refers to the questions that fans of the theory of intelligent creator–It turns out that the world's scientific knowledge as the place is known as شیادی–The plan and trying to demonstrate the required components of the theory of evolution a theory does not have scientific.

In short, every scientific theory components and including them is visibility. Fans of intelligent creator claim that the evolution of the components of the scientific theory does. دپارتمان بایولوژی دانشگاه کالیفرنیا در برکلی فهرستی از این ادعاها و دلایل نادرستی آنها را تهیه کرده. در مورد قابل مشاهده بودن تکامل می گوید:

MISCONCEPTION: Evolution is not science because it is not observable or testable.

CORRECTION: This misconception encompasses two incorrect ideas: (1) that all science depends on controlled laboratory experiments, and (2) that evolution cannot be studied with such experiments. First, many scientific investigations do not involve experiments or direct observation. Astronomers cannot hold stars in their hands and geologists cannot go back in time, but both scientists can learn a great deal about the universe through observation and comparison. In the same way, evolutionary biologists can test their ideas about the history of life on Earth by making observations in the real world. Second, though we can’t run an experiment that will tell us how the dinosaur lineage radiated, we can study many aspects of evolution with controlled experiments in a laboratory setting. In organisms with short generation times (e.g., bacteria or fruit flies), we can actually observe evolution in action over the course of an experiment. And in some cases, biologists have observed evolution occurring in the wild. To learn more about rapid evolution in the wild, visit our news story on climate change, our news story on the evolution of PCB-resistant fish, or our research profile on the evolution fish size in response to our fishing practices. To learn more about the nature of science, visit the Understanding Science website.

Akhtsara this lack of visible claim of evolution is based on two basic two premises that all controlled on the basis of knowledge based view laboratory and testing capabilities in such situations is not evolution. Both of which is incorrect. First a lot of scientific principles do not have the visibility laboratory. For example, astronomers cannot study the stars in the laboratory or geologists cannot return back. But both can view and compare their knowledge about the topics of study. Also, biologists can make their ideas in the real world test.

In the case of errors the claims This page also See or Here with Google translate The list of errors and wrong reasons for fans of intelligent design claims them as follows.

The rejection of materialism quantum physics, داروینیسنم, nightmare, and God

Link to article

This article and a few other posts with the same field given the sample release fallacy is called the fallacy of counterfeit care dilemma (انگلیسی: False dilemma).

Fake care dilemma fallacy (False dilemma) Assumes that there are only two alternative and thus by rejecting one of them it can be proved that the latter be sure is correct.

This is a fallacy with quantum mechanics an intelligent creator fans attention (Intelligent design) They repeatedly try to prove that the Intelligent Creator is true by showing articles that merely question the materiality of the components of the universe, consciousness, intelligence, and life and materialistic perspective, that the intelligent Creator is true, that the theory of evolution is invalid, and that the existence of the universe is a sign of God's existence..

The problem here is that, firstly, all the facts out of which فرضیاتی the origin of the universe article is introduced, as of today have not proven anything, because it basically is something that is not revocable in the material world (falsifiable) And secondly assume correctly, all of these assumptions to the meaning of the existence of an intelligent creator, reject the theory of evolution or not the existence of God.

They recently raised some of the view that our universe is not merely the initial element of the material world and not the components of the atom, but the information is provided such as a computer program, where the processing and we are actually in a Simulated world we live (simulation hypothesis). It's actually another reading of the same parallel universes that assumes man in one of the myriad other universes;.

Nevertheless, for what these comments will not know a valid signal, not the world of material or components spend the world or the world's phenomena are not necessarily something does not prove.

DNA (DNAِِِ), Genetics, acceptance of intelligent design (Intelligent Design) And the existence of God

Link to article

This post is an example of the same fake care dilemma fallacy is that the above explained.

In this article, merely sent A third perspective For the evolution of the animal data suggest:

Moreover, the symmetry in the SCT between
4.- fold-synonymous and <4-fold synonymous codons has been explained in terms of minimizing
mistranslation. In this paper, the hypothesis that the finely tuned optimization of the SCT originates
in external intelligence is compared to the hypothesis that its fine tuning is due to the adaptive
selection of earlier codes. It is concluded that, in the absence of metaphysical biases against this
hypothesis, external intelligence better explains the origin of the SCT. Additionally, this hypothesis
prompts lines of inquiry that, 50 years ago, would have accelerated the discovery of the now-known
features of the SCT and that, today, can lead to new discoveries.

این مقاله Also proposes that it should be more complete paradigm to explain the information to be presented in the life of living beings. Nothing has been proven, not the paradigm (The public often view a range of scholars) میوتیشن (Gene mutations) Rejected and the work of science is always the same, which is to create a more comprehensive offering that will be able to explain more phenomena. This means the previous invalidity opinions but what have been the previous theory on something more comprehensive integration, with the assumption that when the provision of a new thing and accepted by the. همه ی اینها هم دخلی به بی اعتباری نظریه تکامل داروین ندارد.

Richard Dawkins, Professor of the University of Oxford, and ignorant یوسدی santaso, students of the world

Richard Dawkins, the biologist, Dr. William Lane; Ferrari Creek, اونجلیک hero

But it's not bad to know William Lane Craig cyst as it may be in the future, they moved him from the material. Lynn Craig is a اونجلیک (Evangelical Christian) Strongly anti-Islam. اونجلیک to the truth of the contents of the entire world, for instance, believe that the Bible is just a seven-thousand-year's life Or humans and dinosaurs In a period of life (A world where seven thousand years and have more time for the remaining dinosaurs.!) Dawkins rejected the invitation, with the grace of this business opportunity is Craig sea of knowledge be Fairy gave the floor!

God, quantum mechanics and physics beyond matter and human intelligence

Mghaltat Gaby atheists or superficial man mghaltat khdadaran scientist

Futuyma: Philosophers and scientists use "chance" only in the sense of unpredictability. Chance means essentially that you cannot predict the outcome of a particular event. For example, you cannot predict whether your next child will be a son or a daughter, even though you can specify the probability or likelihood. “Chance” does not mean lack of purpose or goal in science. If it did, we could say that absolutely everything in the natural world is by chance because we don’t see any purpose or goal in storms, in ocean currents, or anything else. Evolution certainly does involve randomness; it does involve unpredictable chance. For example, the origin of new genetic variation by mutation is a process that involves a great deal of chance. Genetic drift, the process I referred to earlier, is a matter of chance.

Natural selection provides predictability.

However, natural selection itself is the single process in evolution that is the antithesis of chance. It is predictable. It says that, within a specific environmental context, one genotype will be better than another genotype in survival or reproduction for certain reasons having to do with the way its particular features relate to the environment or relate to other organisms within the population. That provides predictability and consistency. So, if you have different populations with the same opportunity for evolution, you would get the same outcome.

In other words, natural selection, and Darwin's theory of evolution does not mean that solely creatures of blind luck and accident came on the Green.

Atheism and morality: Corrupt الاخلاقی, debauchery, lie, mental illness, and narcissism