Answering Christianity Research Center

The original video:

This man made many points and she refuted none.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Jx_7kkuJfI

2-
Can the so-called "Vestigial Organs" Be A Proof Of Neo-Darwinism ?
A vestigial organ, by evolutionary definition, is an organ that was once useful during a previous stage of your evolution for a supposed ancestor, but in the course of time, that organ was no longer needed, but continued to remain in the body.

Analysis:


1- Devolution Not evolution !

If vestgial organs would prove anything, they prove devolution, NOT evolution !
Darwinists claim that some of our organs are falling into disuse. Yet, in contrast, they provide us with no one NEW, developing organ. The "vestigial organs" idea, if it could be true, would only prove the opposite: devolution!

2- Not for survival !

Not all organs are necessary for survival,this doesn't mean they are useless!
You have 2 lungs, you need one to survive. You have 2 kidneys, you need 1/10 for survival. No one claimed the other lung may be 'just for fun'.
you will survive if your eyes and arms are cut out, and they are not "vestigial," or useless organs.

3- Causing problems ?!

people have far more problems with their lungs, hearts and stomachs, than they have with 'vestigial' organs. Almost any organ in your body can kill you if is it sufficiently diseased. How many people die of heart attacks vs. appendicitis? The heart, the physical or the spiritual one, is far more troublesome. If your lungs become infected, you can die but no one suggests removing the lungs as a preventive measure during surgery for another reason.

4- Affirming the consequent !

[If we ignored the fact that they actually prove devolution] For this type of argument to be used, one has to assume evolution to be true in the first place! So, if vestigial organs are obviously left over from our evolutionary heritage, then evolution must be true. Here evolution is assumed to be true in order to make the argument. This is a logical fallacy.


5 - FOUNDED ON IGNORANCE:

How did such an idea become accepted in the first place? It happened in a time of great ignorance. The whole idea of "vestigial organs" was originally conceived back in the early 1800s, at a time when physicians were still blood-letting in order to cure people of infection. But since that time there has been an immense quantity of research in every imaginable field. There is now no doubt by competent biologists that every large and small part of the human body has a special function during the life of the individual.

It strongly appears that the true "vestigial organ" in earlier times, was an ignorant mind; a mind that did not know why organs were in the body, and was too impatient and lazy to do the laborious work needed to identify functions. But we should not want to call ignorance a proof of evolution.

Just because someone doesn’t know the function of something, that does not mean there is none, which means:If none of our organs nor genes were "known" to have function, this wouldn't prove it's vestigial, It's more appropriate to say: Human don't know Yet!
http://en.wikipedia....ert_Wiedersheim

Blechschmidt notes that
"no organ could exist that is functionless during its development," an axiom that also applies to the nervous system.(Blechschmidt, The Ontogenetic Basis of Human Anatomy, 91. )

6- HINDERS SCIENCE

Reputable scientists now recognize that the evolutionary teaching of "vestigial organs" actually retarded scientific knowledge for decades. Instead of finding out what the appendix was for, it was called "vestigial" and was cut out. Researchers were told it was a waste of time to study any possible use for it. For the same reason, lots of children have had their tonsils removed, when they really needed them!

"The existence of functionless 'vestigial organs' was presented by Darwin, and is often aced by current biology textbooks, as part of the evidence for evolution . . An analysis of the difficulties in unambiguously identifying functionless structures . . leads to the conclusion that 'vestigial organs' pride no evidence for evolutionary theory." *S.R. Scudding, "Do 'Vestigial Organs' Provide Evidence for Evolution?" Evolutionary Theory, Vol. (May 1961), p. 394.

7- Lost primary functions !

Confronted with the fact that many previously thought to be "vestigial" organs, are now known to have functions , Darwinists made a funny conjecture that these organs "developed secondary functions", however, they didn't provide the scientific criteria to determine if a function is primary or secondary !!

8- Some known functions of some "alleged vestigial organs":
http://evolutionfactormyth.blogspot.com/2013/03/can-so-called-vestigial-organs-be-proof.html

Click here: https://www.4shared.com/office/jFCqfYxyei/WHY_I_AM__A_MUSLIM_AND_I_AM_NO.html?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGG9uM8l1GE

"In the original Hebrew, the Ten Commandments don’t address coveting, so common renditions like “do not covet” or “thou shalt not covet” are mistranslations.

The Hebrew verb in the 10th commandment (or, for some, the 9th and 10th commandments) is chamad. As usual, we learn what the word means by looking at how it is used elsewhere.

The clearest case against “covet” is Exodus 34:24, which has to do with the three pilgrimage holidays, for which the Israelites would leave their homes and ascend to Jerusalem. Exodus 34:24 promises that no one will chamad the Israelites’ land when they leave for Jerusalem to appear before God.

It seems absurd to me to think that the Israelites were afraid that in leaving their land for a while, other people would desire (“covet”) it. After all, other people could desire the land whether or not the Israelites were around.

So it’s pretty clear that chamad doesn’t mean “covet” or “desire” there.

In Deuteronomy 7:25, we see chamad in parallel with “take” (lakach): “Do not chamad the silver and gold [of statues of false gods] and take [lakach] it…” Just from this context, the verb could mean “covet,” but other than our preconceptions of what the text should mean, we see nothing to suggest that translation. (By similar reasoning, it could mean “draw a picture of” or any number of other possibilities for which there is no evidence.)

Furthermore, the parallelism here suggests that chamad is like lakach. That is, to chamad is to take in some way, not to want in some way.

We find the same juxtaposition of chamad and lakach elsewhere. For example, in Joshua 7:21 we read “[Achan said,] `when I saw among the spoil a beautiful mantle from Shinar, and two hundred shekels of silver, and a bar of gold weighing fifty shekels, then I chamaded them and took them” (NRSV, my emphasis). Proverbs 6:25, too, puts the two verbs together. These examples further reinforce the close connection between chamad and lakach.

And in Proverbs 12:12, we see a pair of opposites: “righteous” and “give” versus “wicked” and “chamad.” So chamad seems to be the opposite of “give.”

All of these point in a clear direction: chamad doesn’t mean “covet” or “want.” It means “take.”

So the last commandment should read: “Do not take…”

Vit. C has nothing to do with sunlight exposure,

There are two ways we get our vit. D other than exposure to sunlight: Diet and supplements.



In your diet, you can get a natural form of vitamin D3 from foods such as egg yolks (one yolk has 20 IU of vitamin D) and fatty fish (youll get 400 IU of vitamin D from 5 ounces of salmon). Alternatively, look for cereals, juices and other D-fortified foods to supplement your D intake. Milk, for example, is fortified with 100 IU per cup.

Muslim women can easily expose their bodies to sun as men do. They don't have to go out naked. Sunlight exposure can happen inside home too !

Does wearing hijab cause osteoporosis?
http://questionsonislam.com/question/does-wearing-hijab-tasattur-cause-bone-thinning-osteoporosis

 Asalam Alaikum

Muslim woman who follows Islamic dress code consider themselves free from being judged by her physical features, but rather to be judged by her character. What important is their intellectual and personality, and not the discrimination for their beauty. While women always emphasize on their beauty to fulfil the standard of attractiveness set by men, Muslim women set themselves free from being such a display object , but rather consider themselves as humans who have an exclusive right over themselves.

-------

First and foremost, we must wear hijab because Allah has commanded us to do so: "O Prophet! Tell your wives and daughters and the believing women that they should caste their outer garments over their persons (in abroad). That is most convenient, that they should be known and not molested. And Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful." [Qur'an, 33:59].

" And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty and their ornaments except what appear thereof; that they should draw their veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty..." [Qur'an 24:31].

We must obey Allah because He created us to obey Him: "I have only created jinn and man that they obey Me." [Qur'an 56:51]. Therefore, being Muslim means to obey Allah whatever He commanded us to do. We know that whatever Allah has commanded us to do is for our own benefit and it does not profit nor harm Him.

Some of the benefits are:

a) We are protected from sexual attention. Have you noticed how women who beautify themselves and walk down the street get a lot of sexual attention? The West says that it is not the women's fault that she is sexually molested and rapped. And that it is her right to dress as she pleases. But it is her fault for enticing the offender and his fault for committing the crime. Both are at fault. When a Muslim woman is fully covered, she will not get the sexual attention. She may get attention at first out of curiosity but this is not the same as sexual attention, for sexual attention is the dangerous one.

b) Society is not corrupted by evils. It is common knowledge, even amongst Western psychologists who would admit it, that man is a sexual creature. When he sees a beautiful woman, he will get sexual urges. You can just imagine what happens to a society with so many women flaunting their beauty around! Where will these men (and women) go to fulfill their urges? Look around your society - rape, pedophilia, buggery, gayism/lesbianism, adultery, broken homes, mistresses etc - all sorts of indecency arises. A'uthubillah! We seek refuge with Allah from such vulgarity!!! At the other extreme, when women's beauty is seen as a common thing because it is everywhere, people will get bored with it and therefore want to try something different - hence, homosexuality, buggery etc. A'uthubillah! We seek refuge with Allah from such horror!!! So it does not matter whether a woman is in mini skirts or in loose clothing, as long as she is not totally covered, her beauty is still seen. Have you noticed how a change in hairstyle can beautify a person? Or how long, beautiful, not-so-clinging clothing actually accentuates the body? If you have seen those 'make overs' you will understand that it is the hair, make-up and clothing that beautify the person (superficially of course).

c) Promotes modesty. Women don't become slaves to their vanity. They don't compete with each other and 'bitch' over it. This is not to say that wives don't try to look good for their husbands. In fact, they should because this is the norm: the woman and man makes her/himself beautiful for her/his partner. What makes more sense? A woman who beautifies herself for the all and sundry to see but does not do so inside her home for her loved one, or a woman who beautifies herself for her husband and covers and protects herself from the eyes of the world?

We pray that this has helped. May Allah guide you.

http://www.answering-christianity.com/munir_munshey/hijab.htm
http://www.muhajabah.com/onveiling.htm
http://www.answering-christianity.com/bassam_zawadi/womens_veil.htm
http://muslimconverts.com/hijab_niqab/hijab-why.htm

http://www.answering-christianity.com/bassam_zawadi/was_muhammad_deceived.htm

If you have further points, kindly explain them because I don't watch anti-Islamic videos.