Episode 35 - Pancake Theory

The Pancake Theory: Deceptive Labeling

But Hawking has good news for those despairing of life on Earth, indeed in this entire universe. Hawking has found an exit for you!

They named their idols Al-Lat, Manat, and Hubal. Upon investigation, you find these to be names without meanings, shells without truths; for there is no might in Al-Lat, nor does Manat fulfill wishes, and Hubal has nothing but nonsense. Following the footsteps of the pagan idolaters, Darwin and his followers march on; resonant names, and laughable content.

The priests of superstition gave names to what they claimed were human-like beings found hundreds of thousands and millions of years ago: Homo erectus, Homo habilis, Homo ergaster, Homo neanderthalensis. They said these creatures filled the gap between humans and their alleged animal ancestors.

After feasting—for decades—in supporting the superstition that Neanderthal man is a transitional link between humans and semi-animal ancestors, research emerged... and consequently... the naive youth, influenced by intellectual terrorism, will find themselves psychologically driven, unconsciously, to escape the prison, the frame, the framework (frame) in which creationists placed them; to describe themselves among the ranks of enlightened scientists.

Speaker 1: Read, please. Speaker 2: Hesperopithecus, Hesperopithecus haroldcookii, Ha Harol Harolodokokoko, Harharldokokoki, (sound of a rooster) Speaker 1: Kokokoki? His name: Hesperopithecus haroldcookii. You don't know how to spell the name and you're discussing the theory, you ignorant one!

This is the scientific name for the Nebraska Man. Do you remember, brothers, the story of the Nebraska Man, which they imagined based on a molar they found, and said it belonged to one of the semi-animal ancestors of man; lived 6,000,000 years ago, and drew pictures of him, and major magazines at the time like "Science" published about him? Do you know that he was given a scientific name? Maybe you can read this name with me, please? I will enlarge it for you: Hesperopithecus haroldcookii! (Hesperopithecus haroldcookii) Got it, brothers?

Hesperopithecus haroldcookii, of course, you will find someone who sits for an hour trying to pronounce the name and feels helpless and ashamed of himself for not knowing how to pronounce it, and says to himself: "If I don't know how to pronounce the name, then what do I know about these sciences?! These scientists are more knowledgeable." But it turned out—as we mentioned—that this molar belongs to a pig, so "Science" returned and published a denial of the existence of this human-like being.

Similarly, the alleged feathered dinosaur fossil on which a conference was held and promoted by the magazine "National Geographic" in 1999, was also given a scientific name: Archaeoraptor liaoningensis, and they said it lived 125 million years ago. Oh, what joy! It turned out later that it was a fake fossil, as published by "Nature" and others.

We know that there are people who are born and not given names; while in the science of superstition, there are names given to imaginary creatures that were and will never be born. Deceptive labels are often used by the priests of superstition, and they have a great impact on the superficial.

And to organize the matter, we will mention how they use them in three main fields: First: Naming silly superstitions with resonant names. Second: Naming facts with imaginary names to serve their superstitions. Third: Framing names (framing).

First: Naming Silly Superstitions with Resonant Names

As usual, Darwin paved the way for his followers, and they will have this year in giving grand names to superstitions. When he wanted to justify one of the four superstitious pillars of his theory, which is the superstition of inheriting acquired traits through use and neglect, Darwin invented the theory of gemmules, which are released by every cell in the body and concentrated in the reproductive organs to affect the fetus.

Darwin's Pangensis Theory

What did he call this theory? Pangensis (Pangenesis), comprehensive formation, or comprehensive creation, a grand name, isn't it? But the content is completely empty. Even sensory observation indicates that traits acquired through use and neglect are not inherited. Nevertheless, Darwin contradicted what is known even to the common people, formulated his superstition into a theory, and gave it a name: (Pangenesis).

Theory of Directed Panspermia

Although the majority of Darwin's followers acknowledge his error in this theory, the tone of Pan (Pan) pleased them, so they formulated, in its manner, the theory of "Directed Panspermia," meaning the seeding of the origin of everything in a directed manner. What is the conclusion of this theory? Francis Crick (Francis Crick), one of the discoverers of the structure of genetic material; realized that genetic encoding could not have come about by mere chance. Okay, excellent, and consequently...?

Consequently, he proposed that extraterrestrial beings from another civilization are the ones who seeded the seed of life; containing the genetic code, and left, and this seed underwent subsequent evolutionary processes!

• Hmm, okay, and how did these extraterrestrial beings form, Francis Crick?
• It's not important; the important thing is that we have explained life on Earth and transferred the problem to outer space.
• Okay, is this assumption (that extraterrestrial beings seeded life) based on observation, monitoring, or experimental science?
• Of course not.
• Then, you deny the existence of the Creator; because you only believe in what can be observed and experimented with, as you claim, and you believe in the superstition of panspermia, even though it cannot be observed or experimented with. "Wretched is the exchange for the wrongdoers" [Al-Kahf: 50]. Anything, the important thing is not to believe in the Creator.

This is the story of "Directed Panspermia," the theory of the comprehensive seed, the seed of everything—according to them—and yet they make you feel grand by using the word "Pan" this way, Pan Genesis, Pan Spermia, while these theories, in reality, are not worth a piece of pancake (Pancake).

Hawking's Theory of Everything

Do you remember, my brothers, when Stephen Hawking (peace be upon him) passed away and the battle over his entry into paradise, which he denied, intensified? These people mentioned among Hawking's achievements that he was the owner of the Theory of Everything (Everything Theory). Did they know what this theory was? Or was it just parroting?

• "Without knowing, it's clear that it's a great and important theory, man! It explains everything."
• Everything?! ... Hmm.

Let us revisit Hawking's retreat from the possibility of reaching a theory that explains everything. What was the conclusion of this Theory of Everything when Hawking proposed it? He explained it in his book, "The Grand Design," where Hawking built on Darwin's interpretation of the existence of living beings without the need for a Creator—in his claim—and concluded that the universe can be explained without the need for a Creator.

• How, Hawking? He told you: "Thanks to the law of gravity, the universe created itself from a very, very small particle. Over the years, the physical calculations estimating the size of this particle kept getting smaller and smaller. Then Hawking concluded that thanks to the law of gravity, the universe created itself from nothing, no small particle, no need! And in his words: (in English) 'Because of the existence of the law of gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing.'" Hawking claimed that he carried out the necessary calculations to reconcile the cosmic constants within this conception using M-theory (M theory).

Thus, the law in the Hawkingian way transforms from describing the effects of an act of a willing, choosing doer into an actor in itself. That is, imagine that I form you by typing on the keyboard at a speed of 100 words per minute; so I conclude that this law "typing speed 100 words per minute" is what created the keyboard, it is what struck its keys, and it is what turned this striking into words.

Moreover, Hawking has good news for those who are desperate for life on planet Earth, and indeed in this entire universe. Hawking has found an exit for you! He promoted the idea that if a black hole swallows you, you might pass through it to another universe. So, it's no wonder that the editor of the (Physics World) website, Dr. Hami Johnston, expressed concern that the British might refuse to allocate part of their taxes to physics research if they thought that more physicists were spending their time discussing theories like this!

Nevertheless, put the word "theory" (theory) before nonsense; for its speaker, as for Hawking, it lightens the criticism of other experts for him and his theories from the media; so nonsense, with a magical touch, turns into a scientific theory; indeed, a Theory of Everything. If you have a myth, all you have to do is add the word "theory" to it, and it will have dignity in the minds of the ignorant.

While giving names does not mean anything on the scale of science and does not turn a myth into a reality, giving empty names is an old style of the people of falsehood; to promote their myths, as Allah the Almighty said: "They are not but names you have named" [Al-Najm:23]. They named their idols Al-Uzza, Manat, and Hubal, and upon investigation, you find them to be names without referents, shells without facts, so no might for Al-Uzza, nor does Manat fulfill wishes, and there is nothing but foolishness with Hubal. And following the footsteps of the pagan idolaters, Darwin and his followers after him walk, resonant names, and funny content.

Secondly: Naming Facts with Fake Names to Serve the Myth

The second area of manipulation by the priests of myth with labels is naming facts with fake names.

"The Human Tail" and Atavism

Diseases such as lipoma (Lipoma) and spina bifida (Spina bifida) were given a deceptive name by the priests of myth: "human tail" (Human Tail), and they considered it evidence of an alleged phenomenon they called: atavism (Atavism). We have scientifically refuted some of these nonsense in an episode: (Your Tail That You Don't Know Much About). They give these scientific names to convey a psychological message so that you feel that you are facing an accepted fact that has taken a name, and finally they say to you: "You poor thing! You still deny the validity of these things? History has surpassed you; we are no longer concerned with their validity, they are valid; but they have taken scientific names and that's it, but we are looking for more examples of them."

Microevolution

One of the biggest examples of naming facts with false names is their naming of adaptation models in organisms as microevolution (Microevolution), to deceive you that these adaptations are nothing but random mutations and blind selection. While we have shown in an episode (The Citrate-Digesting Bacteria Experiment) that they are precise and wonderful adaptations, with exquisite mechanisms, indicating the wise Creator, and there is no place for randomness or chance as they try to deceive you.

Alleged Human Ancestors

The priests of myth gave names to what they claimed were human ancestors found hundreds of thousands and millions of years ago: Homo erectus, Homo habilis, Homo ergaster, Homo neanderthalensis. Between humans and their alleged animal ancestors—in their claim—and far from the absurdity of talking about one, two, ten, or twenty fossils, as we have detailed in an episode (Who Stole the Million), if you go back to each of these fossils that they named Homo (Homo), to make you believe that they are human-like, you will find that research has revealed that they are either fake, or they are traces of animals, unrelated to humans, or they are human fossils, humans like other humans but they gave them a different name; to deceive that they are transitional beings.

An example of this is the most prestigious of these names; Homo neanderthalensis, or Neanderthal man, which has the largest number of studies on it. We start talking first, as I told you, what is Neanderthal man? He is Homo neanderthalensis, Homo neanderthalensis, meaning he is (Homo). From the late human-like beings; we understand. You will see that they tell you that they discovered more than 300 fossils for him, and he became an accepted fact, and therefore this large number of fossils cannot all be fake.

• About 300 samples, some of which are almost complete, more fossils were found for Neanderthals, about 300 at least, at least.

Notice, my brother, one of the deception tactics; changing the subject of the discussion, they move the arena of disagreement to something other than what we lie to them about or make mistakes in, we did not say that all the fossils are fake, but we lie about the interpretation of many of them; even if they discovered 300, 3,000, 3,000,000 fossils of Neanderthals, that would not support their myths in any way.

After they fed—for decades in supporting the myth—on the lie that Neanderthal man is an intermediate link between humans and semi-animal ancestors, research indicating that he is a complete human being not less intelligent than us has followed. He had a language as in this research published 43 years ago. He had religious rituals and used various pigments and tools. Among the best research in this regard is this comprehensive study published 4 years ago, in which a comprehensive review of 151 studies on Neanderthals was conducted, proving that they are humans like humans; they are not inferior to us in any way, and this has become an accepted fact as published by the British Guardian and others.

Therefore, Neanderthals, simply, are a nation of humans, not an intermediate link, nor a transitional being, nor any of this fabrication. Despite all this, some of the mythmakers of our own kind are still laughing at the youth after publishing all these studies, and they confirm to them that Neanderthals are strong evidence of evolution.

Thirdly: Framing Names

The third area of use by the priests of superstition for labeling: "using framing names" or what is known as "framing" (framing). Followers of superstition use the term "creationists" (Creationist), meaning those who believe that Allah created creatures with intention and will, and repeated; with intention and will, not as some imply that the difference between us and them is independent creation, or evolution, or development. The issue of (intention and will) is more important than all of that, and this is what the superstition of evolution wants to deny or cast doubt on.

They call you a creationist to make it seem as if you believe in something that is not obvious or genuine, while they call the symbols of pseudo-science scientists! Therefore, the naive young person influenced by intellectual terrorism will find himself psychologically, unconsciously, driven to escape from the prison, the frame "frame," which the creationists have put him in to describe him among the enlightened scientists.

While the truth is that we are the ones who say that Allah created creatures with intention and will, our name is not (creationists); but we are simply normal humans, using our minds that have not been polluted by superstition. You may discuss with one of those influenced by superstition in an article or research, and he will say to you: "But the author of this research is a creationist," - a creationist?! Does this mean that believing in creation is a flaw that diminishes the scientific value of the research or article, no matter how objective and logical it is? Does it diminish its value in advance before looking at the details?

While the research published by followers of superstition gains in the minds of these deceived people - unconsciously - value and credibility for no reason other than that in his subconscious mind they are scientists! Thus is the effect of "framing" framing. You may say to me: Here you are using framing, and you describe them as followers of superstition, so I say to you: Review the fifteen episodes so far, to see, is their theory science or superstition. And then you will know, is describing them as such deceptive framing, or an accurate description of their condition?

Therefore, "They are not but names which you have named" [53:23], so do not be deceived by these names - brother - and look at the facts.

Conclusion: Methods of Promoting Superstition

Thus, we have discussed ten methods of promoting superstition:

1. Dazzling.
2. Mixing observations with superstition.
3. Addressing people as children.
4. Evading what necessarily follows from superstition.
5. Shifting the burden of proof.
6. Arguing from ignorance.
7. Repeating lies refuted for more than 130 years.
8. The fallacy of analogy.
9. Circular reasoning.
10. Deceptive labeling.

In the next episode, we will talk with God's permission about the method of turning destructive evidence into supportive evidence under the title: (All roads lead to superstition), so follow us and peace be upon you and the mercy of Allah.

[End of episode music]