WHY I HATE OBEFIEND’S VIEWS ON RELIGION

Bismillahirrahmanirrahim. In The Name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful

.
Disclaimer: This entry is quite offensive to those who have issues with Religion vs Science subject.
Peeps. Do you know who’s this guy called Obefiend? If any of you never heard of him, let’s start with the introduction. Since I have no intention to cover his private life, I will only discuss things that I’d know of him on the surface.

He is a blogger, which I definitely admire. He has this sharp point of view, very cynical and wise. His words made people think deeply and finally realized that they had a thing inside their heads called ‘the brain’. He is currently very popular with his Blog Serius, of which many of my friends viewed daily. Blog Serius contains many facts and pictures that people are able to indulge in and enjoy. 

If he is that good, why should I put such title right? Well, after viewing one of his post in Freedom of Association, I realised that something is not right. The post is actually published on 25th April 2010, which is more or less one year ago. And to be frank, it was quite too late when I read the entry (I’ve just read the entry earlier tonight), but due to some cumulative unease that I felt due to viewing his many other ‘moderate’ posts regarding religion (especially Islam), I think it is my responsibility to criticise some of his views that might endangering the faith of his fellow readers.

Nope, I’m not playing an ustaz or holier-than-thou card here (like how Obefiend and his fellow bloggers claim), just feeling that I have this responsibility to correct some flaws happening in my religion. Basically, not the teachings of the religion, but how the followers of the religion is jeopardising the name of their very own religion. I know, we have many issues to tackle regarding our religion and Muslim society right now, but I think this issue caught my attention the most because I am also a blogger, and I also think that we have lots of things in common, except that he tends to view things quite more liberate-ly than I do.

The entry title is Teori Evolusi – Simplified Argument Edition. For starter,The Evolution Theory is a theory that had caused dispute among the pro-creationism (read: believers in God) and the pro-evolutionism.
In my opinion, there is nothing wrong in saying that evolution does exist, but denying the power of God in creating things is unacceptable. And for some scientists themselves, they did not conclude that evolution is disproving the existence of God. In fact, evolution theory, for them, does not proving; or disproving the existence of God.

Well in Obefiend’s case, the most disturbing argument he had made was ‘the origin of humans is apes’.
Let’s then go through Obefiend’s arguments in his post.



As a science student, yes, we all agree with this theory. Given the right condition, many things can change their form from one to another. Simple example, water. Given the right heat and atmospheric pressure, water can change to vapour. Next:



This is also true. Yes, the same element, but different forms and characteristics.



OK, stop it right there Obe! OMG, you had just made a fool of yourself! OK, the main thing wrong about his argument here is how he compared the transformation of elements in nature with the transformation of living beings.

For all I concern, the fossil changes to petroleum is rather an easy process, but time consuming. The only things needed in this process are pressure and temperature. What happened was quite a simple process. The remains of dead living beings are trapped under layers of sediment on the ocean floor, and the sediments become thicker by time. The thickening of sediment then exerts pressure and temperature to the decaying materials, for millions of years, and they finally transformed into petroleum.

Simply put, just a process of cooking with a pressure cooker. After a while, your chicken changed form into something edible.

For graphite and diamond, is also the same. The process is much simpler, they even replicate the process in lab, where they change human body, which is carbon rich; into diamond. Don’t believe me? Try this link. The only structure change in this process is the 2D configuration of bonds in graphite into a strong 3D configuration in diamond. This is very simple, since the same element is retained, and the element is carbon, and only carbon, that undergoes changes in just a bonding.

That is the most basic concept in the transformation of graphite into diamond. Just change one aspect, and you’ll be rich.

So then, why comparing these transformations with chimpanzee-human evolution is wrong?

Firstly, evolution is very complex. Very complex that comparing evolution with carbon transformation is underrated and unfair. It’s like comparing an engineer making a kite with a kid inventing a computer. Making a kite is very simple, especially by an engineer, but can we say the same to inventing a computer, let alone by a kid? There are many aspects in evolution that is not comparable to carbon transformation or petroleum transformation, and to start with, let’s consider DNA structure. DNA is very specific and unique, and also complex, that the structure is impossible  created by nature, or simply changed by nature. 

What is DNA? Going through this topic itself, makes people feeling like throwing out. It consists of two long chains or double helix as they called, and consists of nucleotides as the basic unit. What is nucleotides? It is made of a sugar molecule and phosphate, which are joined by ester bond. And DNA could not exist without nothing, it must be exist within an organelle, which in eukaryotic cells, it exist in nucleus and some other organelles, while for prokaryotic cells, they exist in cytoplasm. 

Now, first of all, to pro-evolutionism, how can you explain that the DNA happened to create by itself? Because to make a DNA is not easy. You have to have the right temperature, the right material and many other factors to make one. You have to make the sugar, the phosphate. The bonds. How in the world the sugar and phosphate can bond themselves, started to queue in a two long sequences consists of thousands, no, millions of nucleotides? How can the nature prepare such conditions? How can nature decide what sequence should it do, what nucleotide should start the sequence and what nucleotide should end it?

And what perplexing more, after the sequence is completed, which in this case, all by itself, suddenly a living thing is alive? Suddenly after nature completed the DNA sequence, the nucleus, cytoplasm, membrane, chloroplast, mitochondria, and other organelles that come from nowhere surround and protect the DNA. And suddenly the now-call cell is able to take oxygen, giving out carbon dioxide, find its food to eat, digest its food. What? How come?

Tell me how nature can decide a DNA structure. Please do tell!

I also came across this quote that I think worth mentioning:

"If you took all the carbon in the universe and put it on the face of the earth, allowed it to chemically react at the most rapid rate possible, and left it for a billion years, the odds of creating just one functional protein molecule would be one chance in a 10 with 60 zeros after it. In other words, the odds for all practical purposes are zero. That's why even though some people who aren't educated in [molecular science and DNA research] still believe life emerged by chance, scientists simple don't believe it anymore."
        Walter L. Bradley, The Mystery of Life's Origin

See? Then how come nature can give rise to a DNA structure? Just HOW?

And even if nature can create DNA, how in the world suddenly they have nucleus to put the DNA in? Hm, did the DNA create the nucleus itself, because the materials for making a nucleus is not the same as making a DNA. Unlike petroleum, DNA was never found to be transforming from other life forms, because it is the start of life itself.

And DNA does not happen to have no function. It has a very important function in giving the right code for the production of protein. In particular, how come nature could decide to create something so functional and complex, all by itself? To cut it short, to claim that nature created DNA, one must also claim that nature had been able to create, say, a refrigerator. Because trust me, making a DNA is harder than creating a MacBook.

Until now, human beings had never been able to figure out how DNA was created by nature. Do you have the answer Obe? If nature can create something as complex as DNA, surely it can create a refrigerator right? Yes, given some time, I’m sure nature can. (Tangan di bahu, mata ke atas)

But that is totally unfair since that is not what Obe had claimed. He did not claim that we all come from a single cell, as I had highlighted above. He only claimed that our ancestors are monkeys. Nevertheless, that shows how unfounded the theory of evolution is. They cannot even prove that DNA is able to create by itself in nature, and suddenly gives rise to our single cell ancestor. Let’s have a look on Obe’s claim then:


Undeniable connection?

Obe, did you forget what your God had said in His holy Qur’an?

Al-Baqarah, ayat 65:

"And certainly you have known those among you who transgressed in (the matter of) the Sabbath. So, We said to them, "Become apes, living in disgrace!'

“Dan sesungguhnya kamu mengetahui bagaimana buruknya akibat orang di antara kamu yang melanggar larangan pada hari Sabtu, lalu Kami berkata kepada mereka: Jadilah kamu kera yang hina.”

Al-A’raf, ayat 166:

“So when they were insolent about that which they had been forbidden, We said to them, "Be apes, despised."”

“maka ketika mereka bersikap sombong terhadap apa yang mereka dilarang mengerjakannya, Kami katakan kepada mereka : “Jadilah kamu kera yang hina””

Al-Maidah, ayat 60:

Say (to the people of the Scripture): "Shall I inform you of something worse than that, regarding the recompense from Allah: those (Jews) who incurred the Curse of Allah and His Wrath, those of whom (some) He transformed into monkeys and swines, those who worshiped Taghut (false deities); such are worse in rank (on the Day of Resurrection in the Hell¬ fire), and far more astray from the Right Path (in the life of this world)."

“Katakanlah mahukan aku khabarkan kepada kamu tentang perkara yang lebih buruk balasannya di sisi Allah daripada yang demikian itu? Ialah orang yang dilaknat oleh Allah dan dimurkaiNya dan ada di antara mereka dijadikan kera dan babi. Mereka inilah yang lebih buruk kedudukannya dan yang lebih sesat dari Jalan yang betul.”

It’s not that I’m trying to hide behind these verses, but scientists themselves could not figure out how the human and chimpanzees can be related. But God said human had been turned into apes, and that explained why we are so related, up to 96% of our DNA is similar to chimpanzees. For me, these verses sounded more convincing than the bluffing theory of ‘chimpanzee is our father’.

What if WE are their fathers?

But it’s because evolutionists are so blind. For them, the organisms must shift into a better organism, not downgrading. A chimpanzee must evolve into something more intelligent, like human, not human evolve into something less developed like chimpanzees. That’s what Obe’s point after all. We must come from chimpanzee’s vagina, all our ancestors were born by orangutan. He never thought that at least, the Qur’an had been keeping the ‘undeniable connection’ of us and apes that scientists had been searching all along. That the common ancestor might be human, not the other way round.

And evolution is a process that takes time, that a species shifts slowly and step-by-step into a new species, before the new species gives rise to another species, until finally an end species will arise. But consider that, and let’s look on how illogical this Evolution Theory is. They say that lizards and snakes share a common ancestor. What ancestor? And can they show all the intermediate species in between lizards and snakes? The intermediate species must have at least shown some gradual changes from having feet, then smaller feet, to lastly evolved into a totally feetless animal like snakes. Not even one fossil is found in favour of supporting the theory.

And even if they are exist, then why they must all extinct altogether after there comes a final species? Why they can’t coexist with the final species? Let’s consider again. In between us and apes, if according to Evolution Theory, there must be some intermediate monkeys that shown gradual changes from monkey to human, right? Then why must they all gone, extinct? Why after human arises, the intermediate species suddenly disappear into thin air? We are talking about the whole species population, not just one individual. Why the whole population dies out? And again, a few species bridge us and apes. Why all the species must all die after human finally were born? Or maybe, they had never existed at all?

What is funnier more is that both the initial and final species can coexist, but in between the two species, all the species extinct. Chimpanzees and human still exist, but where had gone all the intermediate species that can prove evolution does happen from chimps to human? Same like snakes and lizards. Snakes and lizards exist, but not the species in between. Care to respond somebody?

And one more thing, I’ve read once, giraffes used to have a short neck, but since they need to eat shoots from trees, their necks grew longer by time. But scientists never found the intermediate species, the medium-length neck giraffes. Not even one fossil! But they said there were a few species existed between the two, before we finally have our giraffes today.

Which means we should have many fossils to support the claim. But are we? And what is shameful more, they didn’t even have the short necked giraffe’s fossil to start with!
Evolution is an interesting theory after all, and I am amazed on how people can come out with such theory and went to such length to disapprove the human’s lineage. Not that I’m saying being cucu cicit of monkeys is a downgrade, but God Himself stated that turning from human into apes are despised. What more can I say? Or, what if, Charles Darwin got the Evolution idea from the Qur’an? Nobody can tell right?

To all reading this, especially Muslims, I am just doing my responsibility. For I fear that if I knowingly let you keep believing things that might jeopardizing your faiths, I would later asked by Him on the judgment day, why I did let you go astray when I was enlightened with the knowledge. The knowledge that he had written in His Book well before the existence of the Earth itself to show us the signs of the Believers, but we were stupid enough to follow the paths that human like us were showing.

To Obe, I do hope sometimes you really checked your Qur’an before using a scientific fact to challenge the faith of Muslims. If you are trolling around, do tell because you don’t know when a Muslim might loses his faith when reading your blog.
Forgive us, ya Allah.