Books that demolish the theory of evolution

Documentaries that demolish the theory of evolution

Websites about the collapse of the theory of evolution

Books on the fact of creation

Documentaries on the fact of creation

Articles on the fact of creation

The logic that nothing, but chance, is scientific is a flawed one. It is a logical dead-end. If brand-new civilizations were discovered in outer space, would the logic of Darwinism and chance be employed in all of them? Would it be claimed that chance established civilizations everywhere? The portrayal of this miserable logic as scientific is the shame and disgrace of the current century.

Vol I:
Acrobat (pdf)
MS Word (rtf)
Vol II:
Acrobat (pdf)
MS Word (rtf)
Vol III:
Acrobat (pdf)
MS Word (rtf)
Vol IV:
Acrobat (pdf)
MS Word (rtf)

34 / 2004-05-22

The 22 May 2004 issue of New Scientist magazine carried a report titled “Four-winged birds were first to take to the air.” The article concerned an investigation into the fossil Archaeopteryx by zoologist Per Christiansen of the University of Copenhagen. Christiansen reported the existence of objects resembling traces of feathers along the fossil’s back, around its legs and possibly on the base of its neck.1 The New Scientist article recalls a parallel claim made by Nick Longrich, a graduate student at the University of Calgary in Canada2, referring to his claim that the Archaeopteryx specimen had flight feathers on its legs.

These two claims that Archaeopteryx had feathers in these regions of its body are being linked to the “four-winged bird theory” regarding the alleged evolutionary origins of flight. It will be remembered that the four-winged bird thesis was based on the discovery of a 130-million-year-old Microraptor gui fossil announced to the world in January, 2003. The finding of traces indicating feather on the fore arms and rear legs of this fossil, reported as belonging to a dinosaur, led to evolutionist speculation that flight had evolved from four-winged birds capable of gliding from tree to tree. At that time we revealed, with evidence, how such conjecture was mere fantasy in the face of the scientific facts.

New Scientist is now bringing this claim up all over again, maintaining that the thesis that “the earliest birds were four-winged gliders, and that these later developed into birds capable of beating their wings” is supported by the two studies in question.

However, what the researchers who carried out these two studies announced in New Scientist have done consists of setting out forced conjecture in the light of a fantasy that flies in the face of scientific findings. The four-winged bird thesis is nothing but a myth. In reality, M. gui constitutes no scientific basis to show that flight emerged through evolution. The fact that M. gui is 20 million years younger than Archaeopteryx, the oldest known fossil bird, makes the evolutionary scenario ascribed to it totally groundless. Moreover, even prominent evolutionist palaeontologists admit the impossibility of M. gui’s anatomy undergoing an evolution that could result in powered, flapping flight.

Palaeontologist Henry Gee, for instance, an editor for Nature, opposes the claim that M. gui’s gliding movement is related to bird flight by saying “Four wings is a perfect recipe for gliding, but not for powered, flapping flight." 3

You can read an article of ours that deals with the claim that the first birds were four-winged and that reveals the insoluble dilemmas facing evolutionists with regard to M. gui here.


1. Comptes Rendus Palevol, vol. 3, p. 99
2. New Scientist, 25 October 2003, p. 15
3. Henry Gee, “Fossil boosts trees-down start for flight,” Nature Science Update; Perspective on Ref.1, 23 January 2003


The way that all of Europe has become acquainted with Atlas of Creation and the declaration of the fact that living creatures have remained unchanged for millions of years and that evolution is devoid of any scientific worth have led to a major change of belief among the people of Europe. Independent polls conducted by well-known publishing institutions in different European countries have revealed a major drop in the numbers of people believing in Darwinism and that belief in Allah now dominates Europe. >>

In order to create, God has no need to design

It's important that the word "design" be properly understood. That God has created a flawless design does not mean that He first made a plan and then followed it. God, the Lord of the Earth and the heavens, needs no "designs" in order to create. God is exalted above all such deficiencies. His planning and creation take place at the same instant.
Whenever God wills a thing to come about, it is enough for Him just to say, "Be!"
As verses of the Qur'an tell us:
His command when He desires a thing is just to say to it, "Be!" and it is. (Qur'an, 36: 82)
[God is] the Originator of the heavens and Earth. When He decides on something, He just says to it, "Be!" and it is. (Qur'an, 2: 117)

Home | Books | Documentaries | Articles | Audio | Contact us | Subscribe

2007 Darwinism-Watch.com
Our materials may be copied, printed and distributed, by referring to this site.