If you are in the mood for some great food and wine, just go Cardiff’s city centre, in the Brewery Quarter, where you can find all sorts of restaurants offering local and international cuisine. There are also other restaurants in other parts of the city, these also being great venues to please your appetite.

The list of restaurants and places to dine is endless in Cardiff.

If you go to the Armless Dragon on 97 Wyeverne Road, Cathays, you will be welcomed by a lot of Welsh specialities and you can have a pleasurable meal in a relaxing atmosphere.

For some oriental food go to Bar Oriental. You can enjoy the special cocktails in this bar, located in Mermaid Quay.

Are you looking for something new? Check out the Bali restaurant which will offer you a wide range of specialities from Malaysia, Singapore and Indonesia. The bar is on 30-32 Caroline Street.

If you want to watch a cooking show, go to the Bayside Brasserie, which has an open kitchen as well as a pleasant view over Cardiff Bay. They serve all sorts of fish dishes and dishes prepared with meat, so this is not a place for vegans. However, a good place for vegans and vegetarians is the Crumbs Salad Restaurant, which will offer you numerous choices of huge salads, all served in wooden bowls. Another great venue for vegetarians is the Greenhouse Cafe, where organic and seasonal ingredients are used.

Take a glimpse at Italy’s finest recipes at Bella Italia, and taste the spaghetti and pizzas they make here with Italian ingredients. This restaurant is on 6 High Street. If you want to compare Italian dishes, you can also check out Bella Pasta, which is a traditional Italian restaurant in the Red Dragon Centre. Or you can go to 48 Charles Street, to the Capsule Space and Cantina restaurant.

For Turkish traditional food, visit Bosphorus on Mermaid Quay and you will be able to sample Turkey’s best dishes served in a pleasant ambiance. Listen to some jazz at Cafe Jazz, with live bands playing on a regular basis. For Moroccan food, go to Casablanca, a great place for couples. The Celtic Cauldron will offer you specific Welsh dishes in an atmosphere that will remind of the legendary times of Wales.

For Spanish Tapas, go to Champers on St Mary’s Street. There is also an open kitchen here, so you can witness your food being made.

Are you up for a large steak? Go to Charleston’s Brasserie, a place that is decorated in the 1920s style. Another place to eat a good steak is the Taurus Steak House on St. Mary Street.

China China is a restaurant where you can eat Chinese dishes. The place is on St Mary Street. Would you rather taste some Mexican food? Then Chiquito is the place for you. It is located in the Old Brewery Quarter. Da Venditto is a restaurant that has been awarded with the AA restaurant of the year 2003, so check it out on 7-8 Park Place. For the French Cuisine lovers, the Dome will offer you the best wine in a relaxing romantic atmosphere. The restaurant is at Atlantic Wharf.

If you want food served in a Swedish buffet, you should go to El Puerto, where you can choose from all kinds of fish and meats to put on your plate. An elite place in Cardiff is the Elements Champagne Bar and Restaurant, but make sure you book well in advance. The place is in Harbor Drive. If you would just like some fish and chips while you are visiting Cardiff, stop at Harry Ramsdens, placed in the very heart of Cardiff bay. Juboraj is the restaurant that brings Indian and Bangladeshi dishes to Wales. It is located on 10 Mill Lane. For Peking, Szechuen and South East Asian cuisine, check out the Noble House on Wood Street.

The Norwegian Church will offer you the best choice of Scandinavian dishes, and you can also enjoy the art exhibition at this restaurant.

As you can see, there are various themed restaurants scattered all around Cardiff. If you haven’t decided yet on what type of cuisine you would like, go to Belllini’s , where you’ll find food from all around the world prepared in delicious dishes.

If you are full, and would like to drink something instead, you can choose from a wide range of wines, not to mention the delicious beers of Wales. You will find a multitude of bars on St. Mary Street.

Mill Lane and the Mermaid Quay are also places crammed with bars and clubs, so you can check them out one by one.

Cardiff Bay is another place to go when you want some ‘Brains’, which refers to the local brewery, producer of Cardiff’s most popular pint.

Choose from the Buffalo Bar, Bar XS, Buff’s Wine Bar, Fat Cat Café Bar, Floyd’s Bar, Kiwi’s, Lava’s Lounge, Rummer Tavern, Rosie’s Bar, Salt, The Wharf, The Yard, Tiger Tiger, Varsity, Zync Bar…..the list could continue much longer.

All in all, Cardiff is a city that will offer you great sights, delicious food and, last but not least, good beer, perhaps even the best. Going out in a bar or a restaurant is a popular activity, and fortunately Cardiff has endless offers, so that no one is excluded.

Article by Susan Ashby of Cardiff Singles. To read more articles like this or for dating in Cardiff visit http://www.cardiff-singles.co.uk

- The Bible never mentioned that life originated from water.

- Articles and links of official web sites that confirm the Noble Quran’s claims.

Allah Almighty in the Noble Quran makes very important scientific claims:

“He it is Who created the heavens and the earth in six Days – and His Throne was over the waters

- that He might try you, which of you is best in conduct. But if thou wert to say to them, “Ye shall indeed be raised up after death”, the Unbelievers would be sure to say, “This is nothing but obvious sorcery!” (The Noble Quran, 11:7)”

“Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together (as one unit of creation), before we clove them asunder? We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe? (The Noble Quran, 21:30)”

“It is He Who has created man from water: then has He established relationships of lineage and marriage: for thy Lord has power (over all things). (The Noble Quran, 25:54)”

“And God has created every animal from water: of them there are some that creep on their bellies; some that walk on two legs; and some that walk on four. God creates what He wills for verily God has power over all things. (The Noble Quran, 24:45)”

“Protoplasm is the basis of all living matter, and ‘the vital power of protoplasm seems to depend on the constant presence of water’ (Lowsons’ Text-book of Botany, Indian Edition. London 1922, p. 23). Text books of Zoology are also clear on the point. For example, see T.J. Parker and W.A. Haswell, Textbook of Zoology, London, 1910, Vol I. p. 15: ‘Living protoplasm always contains a large amount of water.’ ” [2]

“About 72 percent of the surface of our Globe is still covered with water, and it has been estimated that if the inequalities of the surface were all leveled, the whole surface would be under water, as the mean elevation of land sphere-level would be 7,000-10,000 feet below the surface of the ocean (cf. 11:7). This shows the predominance of water on our Globe. That all life began in the water is also a conclusion to which our latest knowledge in biological science points. Apart from the fact that protoplasm, the original basis of living matter, is liquid or semi-liquid and in a state of constant flux and instability, there is the fact that land animals, like the higher vertebrates, including man, show, in their embryological history, organs like those of fishes, indicating the watery origin of their original habitat. The constitution of protoplasm is about 80 to 85 percent water (see also 24:30-31 and 24:45).” [3]

The Bible never mentioned that life originated from water:

For those who say that “Muhammad stole from the Bible”, the Bible never said that life originated from water. In fact, the Bible says that water was created along with other things such as “light”, “darkness”, “dry land”, “sky”, “animals”, “vegetation”, etc…, and it is used for aiding life such as the animals and vegetations:

From the NIV Bible, Genesis 1:1-20:

Genesis 1

The Beginning

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.

4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness.

5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning-the first day.

6 And God said, “Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water.”

7 So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so.

8 God called the expanse “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning-the second day.

9 And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so.

10 God called the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” And God saw that it was good.

11 Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so.

12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

13 And there was evening, and there was morning-the third day.

14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years,

15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so.

16 God made two great lights-the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars.

17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth,

18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good.

19 And there was evening, and there was morning-the fourth day.

20 And God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky.”

Please be advised that the following analysis and comments are not meant to criticize the Bible or to prove it wrong. They are only meant to prove that Islam’s claims are indeed unique and didn’t exist in the Bible before.

Some analysis to the verses above:

1- In Genesis 1:1-2, and Genesis 1:6-9 we see that GOD Almighty created the Heavens and the Earth, and the Heavens were filled with water. GOD created “expanse” to separate the waters in the Heaven. He called the expanse a “sky”. Then GOD gathered all of the water under the sky in one place on Earth and then created dry land and made seas from the water. And GOD saw that it was good. The Earth was originally made of water.

2- In Genesis 1:20, we see that GOD made water teem or prosper with the living creatures.

Even though the Bible is correct about the Earth being initially a liquid planet before land ever existed if we were to interpret Genesis 1:2 as such even though it doesn’t really directly say so especially in Genesis 1:9 “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.”, which could be interpreted as WATER WAS COVERING LAND WHEN GOD’S SPIRIT WAS HOVERING OVER THE WATERS (Genesis 1:2), AND NOT NECESSARILY EARTH WAS ALL 100% WATER, but no where does it mention that life of any animal or human being originated from water. The Bible seems to suggest that water was created first since “the Spirit of GOD was hovering over it” , and then GOD Almighty created light, darkness, sky, vegetation, animals, made land appear etc….., but never did the Bible claim that the life of any human being or animal was created from water. The Bible suggests that animals were created by GOD Almighty without the use of water. He just said “let there be animals”, and there was animals.

According to the verses above, the relationship between the water and animals for instance, is the same thing between the animals and the vegetation or any other creation. The Bible talks about water as a solo creation of GOD that had nothing to do with the creation of anything else. The Bible claims that on some spots on Earth that were occupied by water, he created land, and then vegetations and then animals, etc…. So this doesn’t prove at all that the Bible claims that animal and human life was originated from water.

And also, if we were to assume from the Bible that the Universe originated from water, then we would be in grave scientific error. The Universe out side earth did not originate from water. It originated from Hot Smoke or Hot Gas, in which also amazingly was mentioned in the Noble Quran.

I just want to make it clear that the Quranic scientific claims are much more accurate than the ones in the Bible. The Noble Quran was crystal clear in claiming that life originated from water. The Bible simply wasn’t and never made such claim.

Articles and links of official web sites that confirm the Noble Quran’s claims:

The following are links of official web sites that prove the Noble Quran’s claims about life originating from water. I pasted the best ones in this article along with their U

Possible Sites for the Origin of Life There are many different theories about where the origin of life occurred. These theories range from life beginning in deep sea thermal vents to bacterial life arriving from other places in the universe, among others. Some of these theories are more credible than others, yet all provide an interesting explanation for life’s beginnings.

Significance of Water

Everyone knows that liquid water is essential for humans to survive. In fact, it is essential in the chemistry of all biological systems. Water (chem window: give link to water module) provides the medium in which the transport of molecules can occur in reactions. Because water is necessary for all life, scientists look for evidence of liquid water wherever they search for life, whether it is somewhere on Earth, or even somewhere else in our solar system or beyond. In fact, astronomers are currently examining the satellites of Jupiter, Europa and Ganymeade, and Titan, one of Saturn’s satellites, to see if they contain liquid water and the conditions which may give rise to life as we know it

Thermal Vents

One current theory is that life originated deep beneath the surface of the ocean at deep sea hydrothermal vents. These hydrothermal vents were first discovered in 1979. Soon after, scientists made an exciting discovery. These vents release hot gaseous substances from the center of the earth at temperatures in excess of 572oF. Previously scientists were sure that life could not exist, deep beneath the surface of the ocean. After the discovery of hydrothermal vents, they found ecosystems thriving in the depths of the ocean. These ecosystems contained various types of fish, worms, crabs, bacteria and other organisms which had found a way to survive in a cold, hostile environment without energy input from sunlight. Because life had been found to exist where it previously was thought unable to, many scientists began to ask questions as to whether or not this was where life may have originated on the earth.

On the molecular level, the chances of life originating at deep sea thermal vents is not likely. It is known that organic molecules are unstable at high temperatures, and are destroyed as quickly as they are produced. It has been estimated that life could not have arisen in the ocean unless the temperature was less than 25oC, or 77oF.

Supporters of this theory claim that the organic molecules at the thermal vents are not formed in 300oC temperatures, but rather in a gradient formed between the hydrothermal vent water, and the extremely cold water, 4oC (39.2oF), which surrounds the vent at the bottom of the ocean.

Extra Terrestrial Sources

PanspermiaIn the early twentieth century, a Swedish chemist named Svente Arrhenius developed a theory called panspermia. Arrhenius’ theory accounted for life’s origins by simply stating that life did not originate on the Earth, but originated elsewhere in the universe. He believed that cellular life reached the Earth hiding inside a meteor which hit the Earth long ago. Newly uncovered evidence suggests that this might be possible, since an organism inside a meteor (Picture of impactor) would be safe from the high levels of radiation in space, and would be kept at a relatively low temperature. The odds of an organism surving inside a meteor for thousands of years, however, are not high. It is even less likely that organisms would be able to withstand the high energy impacts of bolides into the Earth or other planetary objects. Most scientists today do not look at this hypothesis as a very likely origin of life on the earth. However, it is considered possible, at least for now, and so is still a candidate for life’s origin on earth.

Frozen OceanThree billion years ago, the Sun which lights our solar system was thirty percent less luminous than it is today. Mant people believe that if the Earth’s atmosphere was the same then as it is today, the oceans would be frozen. But receeeze. Instead, he calculates that only the top 300 meters of the ocean would freeze over.

Life originated from water in the Noble Quran:

The sections of this article are:

- The origin of life in the Noble Quran. – The Bible never mentioned that life originated from water. – Articles and links of official web sites that confirm the Noble Quran’s claims.

Allah Almighty in the Noble Quran makes very important scientific claims:

“He it is Who created the heavens and the earth in six Days – and His Throne was over the waters – that He might try you, which of you is best in conduct. But if thou wert to say to them, “Ye shall indeed be raised up after death”, the Unbelievers would be sure to say, “This is nothing but obvious sorcery!” (The Noble Quran, 11:7)”

“Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together (as one unit of creation), before we clove them asunder? We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe? (The Noble Quran, 21:30)”

“It is He Who has created man from water: then has He established relationships of lineage and marriage: for thy Lord has power (over all things). (The Noble Quran, 25:54)”

“And God has created every animal from water: of them there are some that creep on their bellies; some that walk on two legs; and some that walk on four. God creates what He wills for verily God has power over all things. (The Noble Quran, 24:45)”

“Protoplasm is the basis of all living matter, and ‘the vital power of protoplasm seems to depend on the constant presence of water’ (Lowsons’ Text-book of Botany, Indian Edition. London 1922, p. 23). Text books of Zoology are also clear on the point. For example, see T.J. Parker and W.A. Haswell, Textbook of Zoology, London, 1910, Vol I. p. 15: ‘Living protoplasm always contains a large amount of water.’ ” [2]

“About 72 percent of the surface of our Globe is still covered with water, and it has been estimated that if the inequalities of the surface were all leveled, the whole surface would be under water, as the mean elevation of land sphere-level would be 7,000-10,000 feet below the surface of the ocean (cf. 11:7). This shows the predominance of water on our Globe. That all life began in the water is also a conclusion to which our latest knowledge in biological science points. Apart from the fact that protoplasm, the original basis of living matter, is liquid or semi-liquid and in a state of constant flux and instability, there is the fact that land animals, like the higher vertebrates, including man, show, in their embryological history, organs like those of fishes, indicating the watery origin of their original habitat. The constitution of protoplasm is about 80 to 85 percent water (see also 24:30-31 and 24:45).” [3]

The Bible never mentioned that life originated from water:

For those who say that “Muhammad stole from the Bible”, the Bible never said that life originated from water. In fact, the Bible says that water was created along with other things such as “light”, “darkness”, “dry land”, “sky”, “animals”, “vegetation”, etc…, and it is used for aiding life such as the animals and vegetations:

Darwin added another chapter to his book, one called “Difficulties on Theory,” and openly admitted the existence of difficulties in these terms:

Such is the sum of the several chief objections and difficulties which may justly be urged against my theory… I have felt these difficulties far too heavily during many years to doubt their weight. 1

The fact is, however, that the NG article discussed not one of the phenomena that Darwin regarded as a problem for his theory, and even ignored their existence. For example, although Darwin referred in his book to the way the fossil record failed to back up his theory and to the complexity in the eye, NG magazine did not even touch on such subjects which the theory of evolution is unable to account for as the Cambrian Explosion, biological complexity and the origin of genetic information.

Quammen, who thus appears to be more of a Darwinist than Darwin himself, emerged as the defender not of a theory that can account for difficulties, but of a “dogma” that needs to be shielded from criticism.

In this article, Quammen’s so-called evidence is analysed and the Darwinist propaganda embarked on by NG magazine refuted.

An Example of NG Turkey’s Dogmatic Stance

The English language edition of the NG article “Was Darwin Wrong?” also devoted space to Harun Yahya’s works about the theory of evolution. In the section describing worldwide reactions against evolution the following words appeared in reference to Harun Yahya:

Their discomfort is paralleled by Islamic creationists such as Harun Yahya, author of a recent volume titled The Evolution Deceit, who points to the six-day creation story in the Koran as literal truth and calls the theory of evolution “nothing but a deception imposed on us by the dominators of the world system.”

Interestingly though, Harun Yahya did not appear in NG’s Turkish version, and this section was altered, assuming the following form: “This unease displays a parallelism among those who support the Islamic idea of creation.”

As someone who states his primary aim as being that of describing the philosophy and scientific invalidity of Darwinism, Harun Yahya has closely monitored Darwinist propaganda in recent years and has responded, in the light of scientific findings, to the pro-evolutionist writings and broadcasts of media organisations, of which NG is one. (see www.darwinism-watch.com)

If Darwinism really were supported by a mass of evidence, as claimed in this NG article, then why is NG Turkey trying to prevent Harun Yahya’s scientific criticisms from being heard? Could it be that NG Turkey was concerned that Darwinism will be unable to withstand such scientific criticism? In fact, this attitude by NG’s Turkey desk not only shows that the magazine is unwilling to inform its readers of the source of effective criticism of evolution, but also confirms the criticism that it is seeking to keep Darwinism on its feet as an ideology.

NG Is Unwilling to Face the Modern Scientific Facts

There can be no doubt that in order to provide a realistic response to the question “Was Darwin Wrong?” one needs to look at what Darwin actually said and to compare this to modern scientific facts. In his book The Origin of Species, in which he unveiled his theory of evolution, Darwin provided a very important criterion by which to test his theory. So concrete is that criterion that in Darwin’s own words it could “absolutely break down” the theory. Darwin wrote:

“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” 2

Darwin maintained that organs evolved during a gradual process. Thinking of this imaginary process in reverse, it appears that Darwin assumed that these organs possessed reducibility. However, advances made in the field of biochemistry, especially over the last 40 years, have revealed that the cell possesses a superior complexity, the details of which were unknown in Darwin’s time, for which reason it was equated to a “black box,” and that certain structures within the cell actually possess the feature of “irreducible complexity.”

“Irreducible complexity” is a phenomenon based on empirical evidence and literally constitutes the antithesis of Darwin’s theory. The most important figure to bring this concept onto the agenda of the scientific world is the biochemist Michael J. Behe from Lehigh University in the USA. In his 1996 book Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution Behe examines the irreducibly complex natures of the cell and certain other biological structures, and reveals that these cannot possibly be accounted for in terms of evolution. Behe sets out the effect that irreducible complexity has on the claims of Darwinism thus:

“To Darwin, the cell was a ‘black box’ — its inner workings were utterly mysterious to him. Now, the black box has been opened up and we know how it works. Applying Darwin’s test to the ultra-complex world of molecular machinery and cellular systems that have been discovered over the past 40 years, we can say that Darwin’s theory has ‘absolutely broken down’.” 3

Irreducible complexity has demolished Darwinism, and proved that life is the product of intelligent design, in other words that God has created all living things. The way that NG seeks to keep this from its readers constitutes a flight from reality.

NG’s biogeographical tales

In his article in NG, Quammen begins his account of the so-called evidence for Darwinism with biogeography, and it may be of use to provide a description of this concept at this point. Biogeography is a branch of science that investigates the geographical distribution of species and seeks an answer to the question of how they came by these habitat regions by drawing up maps of their locations on the Earth.

Most books in the field of biogeography are full of facts that say nothing, neither in favour nor against, the theory of evolution: such as maps of living species’ habitat areas, the features of those areas, questions regarding the spread of organisms, and the grouping together of species on the basis of geographical area … 4

When their distribution on the Earth is examined it can be seen that species do not generally exhibit a global distribution. Species have rather spread in large groups in areas possessing specific climatic and environmental conditions. Ever since Darwin, evolutionists have sought to portray this spread as evidence for evolution, though with regard to the “fundamental” living categories of geographical distribution their efforts have failed to come up with a consistent evolutionary scenario.

In their book Systematics and Biogeography, G. Nelson and N. Platnick of the New York American Museum of Natural History analysed the studies performed in this field and set out their conclusion:

We conclude, therefore, that biogeography (or geographical distribution of organisms) has not been shown to be evidence for or against evolution in any sense. 5

If evolutionists really wish to offer evidence for their theory then what they need to do is to abandon their fairy tales about “if this living thing is found here then it must have evolved here, and if that living thing is found there then it must have evolved there,” and instead scientifically document their own responses to the question of how living things came into being in the first place. (It is an indisputable fact that the mechanisms of random mutation and natural selection cannot account for the origin of species.)

The fact that evolutionist claims based on biogeography are myths devoid of any scientific evidence clearly emerge on inspection of NG’s claims about palaeontology. The fossil record clearly reveals that the idea that living things spread by evolving is a myth.

NG’s palaeontology deception

NG makes a generalisation about the fossil strata, telling its readers that so-called closely related species are generally found side by side in consecutive strata, and that a life form going back millions of years in one stratum is followed by a similar, though not identical, one in the subsequent stratum. As an example of this generalisation it cites the equine sequence that even evolutionists abandoned years ago; it maintains that the modern-day horse emerged at the end of the sequence Hyracotherium, Orohippus, Epihippus and Mohippus, fossils of which are found in consecutive strata.

What NG is doing here consists of a blatant deception. The equine sequence is an unfounded one, the invalidity of which has now been demonstrated. That being the case, putting it forward as a generalisation regarding the fossil record cannot be described as anything else than an attempt to verify that generalisation with a deceptive example.

Life forms emerged with no evolutionary progenitors, but in a single moment, and with flawless bodily structures

Darwin, who maintained that living things emerged through graduated evolution and who hoped that the fossil record to confirm that claim would be obtained in future excavations, was mistaken. The fossils obtained in endless excavations carried out by palaeontologists all over the world have produced findings that openly refute the idea of gradual change in consecutive strata. These facts concern the phenomena of sudden appearance and stasis.

Species emerge suddenly, with no evolutionary progenitors but with flawless bodily structures. In his 1999 book Fossils and Evolution, Tom Kemp, Curator of the Zoological Collections in Oxford University Museum of Natural History, admits this:

In virtually all cases a new taxon appears for the first time in the fossil record with most definitive features already present, and practically no known stem-group forms. 6

Fossils hundreds of millions of years old that bear no

trace of evolution invalidate neo-Darwinism

Furthermore, species exhibit no gradual change as suggested in the NG generalisation. Species with natural histories of hundreds of millions of years exhibit a “stability” demonstrating a permanency throughout geological strata. The shark, coelacanth, ant, salamander and many other species, fossils of which have been found and which have remained unchanged for hundreds of millions of years, have led to palaeontologists accepting stasis as one of the most striking aspects of the fossil record. This phenomenon refutes Darwinism’s prediction of gradual change and invalidates the theory. Professor of Geology Peter J. Williamson describes this in Nature magazine:

The principal problem is morphological stasis. A theory is only as good as its predictions, and conventional neo-Darwinism, which claims to be a comprehensive explanation of evolutionary process, has failed to predict the widespread long-term morphological stasis now recognized as one of the most striking aspects of the fossil record. 7

In short, NG’s claim of graduated change throughout geological strata is a myth supported in the face of the science of palaeontology. The way that NG seeks to support that myth with the equine sequence only makes matters worse.

The truth in the equine sequence that NG seeks to conceal from its readers

The equine sequence is based on various hoofed fossils unearthed in North America. Darwinists set these out in such a way as to establish a sequence, according to the fossils’ dental characteristics and numbers of toes, and for years put this forward as evidence for Darwinism. Continuing palaeontological excavations, however, definitively revealed the inconsistencies within that series. NG, known for its blind devotion to Darwinism, has no qualms about concealing this development from its readers and writing that the alleged evolutionary ancestors of the horse follow one another in consecutive geological strata.

Former BBC science editor Gordon Rattray Taylor describes how the equine sequence constitutes no evidence for Darwinism:

But perhaps the most serious weakness of Darwinism is the failure of paleontologists to find convincing phylogenies or sequences of organisms demonstrating major evolutionary change… The horse is often cited as the only fully worked-out example. But the fact is that the line from Eohippus to Equus is very erratic. It is alleged to show a continual increase in size, but the truth is that some variants were smaller than Eohippus, not larger. Specimens from different sources can be brought together in a convincing-looking sequence, but there is no evidence that they were actually ranged in this order in time. 8

At a meeting in November 1980 at the Chicago Museum of Natural History, attended by 150 evolutionists, one speaker, Boyce Rensberger, stated that there was no basis in the fossil record for the scenario of equine evolution, and that no gradual equine evolution ever took place:

The popularly told example of horse evolution, suggesting a gradual sequence of changes from four-toed fox-sized creatures living nearly 50 million years ago to today’s much larger one-toed horse, has long been known to be wrong. Instead of gradual change, fossils of each intermediate species appear fully distinct, persist unchanged, and then become extinct. Transitional forms are unknown. 9

Discoveries that living things included in the imaginary sequence of equine evolution actually lived at the same time, and even together, totally refute Quammen. One of the most striking examples of this came to light in 1981. Fossils of thousands of living things, 10 million years old, that had been buried under lava as the result of a volcanic eruption and whose skeletons had been preserved down to the present day, were dug up in the US state of Nebraska. With that discovery it emerged that three- and single-toed equines assumed to have lived at different periods and to have ancestral relationships with one another in the framework of evolutionists’ imaginary equine sequence, actually lived side by side. Interestingly the source of this information is NG magazine. 10

The myth of whale evolution

I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by natural selection, more and more aquatic in their structure and habits, with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale. 11

From watching bears fishing along a river bank, Darwin set out his ideas on the origin of whales in these words in his book The Origin of Species, though he elected to remove that section from subsequent editions of the book. Yet evolutionists who came after Darwin had no hesitation over adopting this myth, with various minor amendments, that came down as a monument to the unrestricted nature of his imagination. They continued to propagate the myth that the whale evolved not from the bear but from other land mammals, as if this were a scientific fact.

It can now be seen that NG, one of the main representatives of Darwinian mythology, is behaving no differently, and is seeking to portray this great myth, supported for the sake of the dogma of evolution, as representing evidence for evolution.

There are enormous differences, in terms of such basic physiological characteristics as water conservation, sight and communication, between whales and the land mammals alleged to have been their progenitors. Let us now consider the scientific dilemma facing the myth of evolution by examining the design in whales:

The special water conservation design in whales’ bodies

Although they live in water, whales are unable to meet their water requirements from salty sea water. They need fresh water to live. Although it is not known exactly how they meet their water needs, it is thought that a large part of it is obtained by eating sea creatures that contain levels of salt that are 30% lower than those of the ocean water.In such an environment, where fresh water is exceedingly scarce, the maximum conservation of water in living things’ bodies and minimum consumption thereof are critical. Water levels are of great importance to whales, for which reason, just like camels, whales do not perspire. Their kidneys regulate urine concentration in such a way as to supply water.

Why is whale milk fatty?

Another delicate balance with regard to water needs appears in the fat level in the female whale’s milk. The mother whale feeds her young with a very thick milk, of the consistency of cheese. This milk is ten times fattier than human milk. There is a chemical reason why this milk contains such a high level of fat. Water is produced as a side product as fat is processed after being consumed by the baby. In this way the mother meets her offspring’s need for water with minimal water loss.

The design in whales’ eyes

There are complex arrangements in the design of the whale eye and its communication systems, no examples of which are to be found in terrestrial mammals. Land mammals have eyelids to protect against dust and impact. Whales, on the other hand, have a hard layer to protect against a different danger, the pressure under the sea. Moreover, the refractive index in the design of the whale eye makes it possible for a killer whale to leap up and catch a fish six metres above the water level in an amusement park with considerable accuracy. In addition, whales’ eyes are on either side of the head, unlike terrestrial mammals, thus protecting them from the current. Thanks to the levels of rod and cone cells in the eye, their sensitivity levels to light, colour and other details are very high. In addition to that ratio, the presence of phosphorus in the eyes is a design that facilitates their ability to see in the dark depths of the oceans.

The mathematical calculation employed by whales

The sense used by whales in the location of sources of food and of one another is not actually sight, but rather hearing. Many whales hunt at the dark regions at the bottom of the sea thanks to a form of natural “sonar.” The whale’s brain emits clicking sounds, in a way not yet fully understood by scientists. The distance of an object is determined by means of a mathematical calculation. The whale brain multiplies the speed at which the sounds it emits strike an object and bounce back by the time necessary for this, and divides the result by two. The result is the distance of the object from itself. Furthermore, the whale also possesses the ability to focus the sound waves with its brain on a specific point and to emit these like a light impulse. The returning waves are analysed and interpreted in the animal’s brain. This interpretation determines the shape of the body in front of it, its size, speed and position. The animal’s skull is sound-proofed to protect it from the bombardment of powerful sound waves it constantly emits and which could even seriously damage the brain itself. The sonic system in the animal is unbelievably sensitive, so much so that the US Navy imitates the sonar design in sea mammals in developing its own technology. 12

Special designs for whale calves

The perfect designs in whales are by no means limited to these. The shape of a whale calf’s mouth has been designed in such a way as to be ideally suited to fit its mother’s teats, so that the calf is able to suckle without losing a drop of milk and without taking in a drop of sea water. Moreover, they possess lungs capable of storing high levels of oxygen for protracted dives and an ear membrane designed to protect them from high pressure.

These arrangements, every one of which indicates an evident design, are particular to whales and are not to be found in any terrestrial mammal. NG, however, expects it readers to set reason aside and believe that these all came about by chance. NG denies that whales were intelligently designed, maintaining instead that one fine day a land mammal decided to live in the sea, and that the whale evolved as the result of unconscious mechanisms such as random mutations and natural selection.

Yet what mutation could possibly produce sonar in a mammal that was allegedly the progenitor of the whale? Bearing in mind the effect of mutations and the importance of the brain to the whale’s survival, it is clear that mutations would damage the brain, crippling or killing the whale. Could the brain, that produces sound waves, be able to focus these on a particular point and determine the location of objects using a mathematical calculation, acquire a perfect sonar in an area that would be damaged during this random process? By what coincidence could it produce sonar of such a high quality that even the US Navy’s technology development units have been unable to match it? What mutations could turn a land mammal’s feet into fins and a tail capable of propelling several tons of weight?

There is no doubt that these questions may also be asked with regard to the systems that make it possible to use water so productively, the suckling system and the protective systems in the eye and ear. However, NG has no reasonable response to give to these questions. There is but one answer. Whales were created fully formed in a single moment. God created whales to be flawless, endowed with all the systems for their needs, just as He did all other living things. In one verse of the Qur’an it is revealed that:

Mankind! remember God’s blessing to you. Is there any creator other than God providing for you from heaven and earth? There is no god but Him. So how have you been perverted? (Qur’an, 35: 3)

(For a more detailed reply to NG’s fantastical whale story see http://www.harunyahya.com/70national_geographic_sci29.php)

NG’s error regarding embryology

Another error in Quammen’s article in NG is the repetition of a myth once known as the “law of recapitulation.” This belonged to the German biologist Ernst Haeckel and in his claim regarding embryology Darwin was to a large extent “inspired” by Haeckel. The law of recapitulation maintains that the embryological development of living things repeats the imaginary stages undergone during the descent of the alleged evolutionary ancestors.

The fact that Quammen devotes space to this in his article reveals a wide gap of knowledge on his part. Objections along the lines that Haeckel’s claims were devoid of any scientific justification and that the evidence he offered was forged began 136 years ago13, and the end of the law of recapitulation as the subject of scientific debate came as far back as 80 years ago 14. Even George Gaylord Simpson, one of the founders of neo-Darwinism, admitted this fact 42 years ago in the words:

Haeckel misstated the evolutionary principle involved. It is now firmly established that ontogeny does not repeat phylogeny. 15

Moreover, the myth of recapitulation, which NG has no qualms over recapitulating itself, involves what one British embryologist referred to in 1997 as “the best known fraud in the history of biology.” In his book Natürliche Schöpfungsgeschichte (The History of Natural Creation), written in 1868, Haeckel deliberately distorted the pictures of human, monkey and dog embryos in such a way as to support his claim.

One striking aspect of this fraud is that it also constitutes a “centennial monument” to Darwinist dogmatism. Until recently, a number of Darwinist sources, including text books, continued either to use the counterfeit drawings as they were, or else to repeat the myth of recapitulation. The Harvard University professor and evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould displayed great common sense and offered the following criticism:

… [W]e do, I think, have the right to be both astonished and ashamed by the century of mindless recycling that has led to the persistence of these drawings in a large number, if not a majority, of modern textbooks! 16

NG has not used counterfeit drawings. Yet it has no hesitations over using recapitulation, the invalidity of which emerged at least 80 years ago, as support for Darwinism.

We urge NG to consider Stephen Jay Gould’s words.

NG’s errors with regard to morphology

Quammen exhibits a most thought-provoking attitude in that section in which he deals with Darwin’s claims on the subject of morphology. The way that a zoo is organised into birds, monkeys, big cats, crocodiles or fish in the aquarium is interpreted as evidence for evolution. According to Quammen, the fact that living things can be classified under a hierarchical system in families, orders and kingdoms must be the product of an evolutionary process.

However, Quammen’s portrayal of hierarchical classification as evidence for evolution is nonsensical. That is because the fact that forms of life can be classified hierarchically is not a prediction first put forward by evolutionists and then subsequently confirmed. The Swedish scientist Carl Linnaeus, the father of the modern system of classification, was a scientist who believed in creation from nothing and regarded that classification as the product of intelligent design. That is compatible with what we see with our own eyes and is grounded in common sense. The ability to be hierarchically classified is a well known hallmark of intelligent design. Means of transport, for example, can be classified as land, air and sea vehicles, and may be broken down into subcategories and even smaller subgroups. Yet this classification does not show that the modes of transport in question came into being through evolution.

Indeed, in an article published in the magazine New Scientist, the prominent evolutionist Mark Ridley makes the following statement:

The simple fact that species can be classified hierarchically into genera, families, and so on, is not an argument for evolution. It is possible to classify any set of objects into a hierarchy whether their variation is evolutionary or not. 17

Quammen’s preconception

In the same way that what Quammen writes on this subject are far from supporting his claim, it also reveals how he relies on preconceptions rather than scientific evidence:

Such a pattern of tiered resemblances?groups of similar species nested within broader groupings, and all descending from a single source?isn’t naturally present among other collections of items. You won’t find anything equivalent if you try to categorize rocks, or musical instruments, or jewelry. Why not? Because rock types and styles of jewelry don’t reflect unbroken descent from common ancestors. Biological diversity does. The number of shared characteristics between any one species and another indicates how recently those two species have diverged from a shared lineage. (p. 13)

Quammen placed the hierarchical categorisation in living things in a separate place, on the grounds that it reflects a continual chain of descent from a common ancestor. That term, however, is helpless labelling in Quammen’s desperate attempts to prove Darwin right.

As is made clear above, there is no fossil record capable of being proposed as evidence of any evolutionary link between living categories. The words of the prominent evolutionary palaeontologist Stephen Jay Gould that “The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches” are an admission of the fact that there is actually no evidence for the evolutionary links assumed to exist among living things. 18

In short, the origin of the evolutionary chain of descent that Quammen claims exists among living categories is not scientific fact such as the fossil record, but rather his own dogmatic mentality.

The five-digit skeletal structure error

Quammen maintains that the way that various vertebrates such as the bat, the dolphin and human beings all share the feature of having five digits stems from descent from a common ancestor. This claim rests on the fact that although there is the same basic plan in the front and rear legs of the living things in question, these can still be easily differentiated (the homological claim). This claim of Quammen’s can of course only deceive those readers who are unaware of the facts of modern science. Advances in the field of molecular biology definitively invalidate this morphology-based claim. One striking discovery that led to this is that the production of these organs, assumed to be a legacy from a common ancestor, is in fact controlled by different genes in different creatures.

The evolutionary biologist William Fix describes the collapse of the evolutionary thesis concerning pentadactylism (having five digits) in this area in the face of this discovery:

The older textbooks on evolution make much of the idea of homology, pointing out the obvious resemblances between the skeletons of the limbs of different animals. Thus the `pentadactyl’ limb pattern is found in the arm of a man, the wing of a bird, and flipper of a whale, and this is held to indicate their common origin. Now if these various structures were transmitted by the same gene couples, varied from time to time by mutations and acted upon by environmental selection, the theory would make good sense. Unfortunately this is not the case. Homologous organs are now known to be produced by totally different gene complexes in the different species. The concept of homology in terms of similar genes handed on from a common ancestor has broken down. 19

NG’s vestigial Darwinism

Quammen displays a striking determination not to grasp the fact that Darwin’s claims have been demolished by modern science. One of the indications of this is his repetition of the claim regarding vestigial organs, a claim which is utterly illusory. It is maintained in the article that organs such as the male nipple, structures claimed to be the vestiges of rear legs in certain snakes, or the covered wings in coleoptera that are not actually used, are redundant, functionless organs left over from the evolutionary process. Quammen is clearly ignoring the definitive results from scientific developments:

The list of up to 180 supposed vestigial organs at the beginning of the 20th century eventually shrank to almost none in the face of discoveries from scientific research. One by one it emerged that a great many organs, such as the appendix and the plica semilunaris, once supposed to be vestigial organs, do actually have functions.20 “Science” is in any case the process by which human beings come to know what was previously unknown. The gradual emergence of the functions of organs that were once regarded as vestigial shows that, logically, the functions of the last few remaining organs whose functions are still unknown will soon be revealed.

Indeed, a great many present-day evolutionists have admitted that the myth of “vestigial organs” is an argument rooted in ignorance. In an article headed “Do Vestigial Organs Represent Evidence for Evolution?” published in the journal Evolutionary Theory, the evolutionary biologist S. R. Scadding admits this fact:

Since it is not possible to unambiguously identify useless structures, and since the structure of the argument used is not scientifically valid, I conclude that ‘vestigial organs’ provide no special evidence for the theory of evolution. 21

Evolutionists’ claim on the subject of vestigial organs stem not from any vestigialism in these organs, but from the vestigial nature of their own perspectives. The existence of any living thing proves only the existence of God, its creator. The way that inanimate and unconscious atoms combine to produce a hearing, smelling, touching and seeing human being is proof of God’s flawless creation. That it is because it is impossible for atoms, which cannot smell, hear or see, to wish to have perception and to combine together for that purpose. For a collection of matter to stand and look at itself in front of a mirror, or for matter to taste and touch itself, has no place in evolutionary logic. These feelings can only be explained in terms of a superior creation, in other words the existence of God and His flawless creation. Despite this self-evident truth, evolutionists hold to the irrational and blind belief that they themselves are the product of matter and blind chance, which shows that their claim regarding vestigial organs is one based on this prejudiced and dogmatic perspective.

The realisation that the organs regarded by evolutionists as vestigial do actually have functions is a proof of this. For example, the structures portrayed as the vestiges of rear legs in certain species of snake are now known to help them to grip one another during mating. To regard the male nipple as the product of an evolutionary process also rests on a distorted logic. If the male nipple were a leftover from an evolutionary process then males must have evolved from a population consisting solely of females, which is a scenario so unimaginable that no evolutionist has felt able to accept it. Coleoptera, another example cited by Quammen, also constitute no evidence for evolution. Insect species which do not develop a functional wing are generally seen in open habitats with strong winds, such as ocean islands. In an environment where strong winds blow and surrounded by large masses of water, insects’ being able to fly is by no means an advantage, and may even represent a danger. That is because insects flying in the air are exposed to the effects of the wind and can be hurled into trees or rocks, ending up crippled or dead. There may, therefore, have been a tendency for them to move towards a ground-based lifestyle. Over time, the insect population that lives near the ground comes to consist of individuals that do not develop fully fledged wings. That is because, unlike flying insects, mutations that prevent insects that live near to ground level developing wings may not be damaging to the insect (on the provision that they do not cause a total interruption in its physiology).

A mutation that prevented wing development in a flying insect living in a habitat uninfluenced by winds would be harmful and maybe even lethal. That is because normally an insect that uses its wings to feed and to avoid predators would possess functionless wings because of that mutation and would be unable to survive and thus eliminated from the population.

On the other hand, in insects living in a habitat affected by winds and that used their feet to move about in the same way as non-flying insects, a mutation in the wings might not have lethal consequences. That is because the insect will already have grown accustomed to a life style in which it does not use wings, and it will make no difference whether its wings are healthy or else lose their function due to mutation (as long as the mutation in question is not one that affects the insect’s general physiology). In short, a destructive mutation leading to the loss of an insect’s wings may not be lethal in an environment where wings are in any case of no consequence.

However, it cannot be said that the coleoptera that are assumed to have undergone such a process represent evidence of evolution. The theory of evolution proposes that organs gradually assume a more complex form. The genetic change proposed in support of this claim must be of such a kind as to add new genetic information to creatures’ DNA. It is evident, however, that coleoptera do not gain any new genetic information during this process and that, on the contrary, they suffer a loss of information in the genes that control wing development.

Can this acquisition of genetic information, which is not seen in coleoptera, be observed in any other living thing? Definitely not. Evolutionists have been unable to show the emergence of a new organ, or even a new protein, by means of random mutations.

In short, the theory of evolution maintains that living things acquire new organs with the addition of new genetic information to their DNA, but the vestigial organ argument is one that concerns a loss of function, in other words a loss of genetic data. Therefore, vestigial organs provide no scientific support for the theory of evolution. The reason for evolutionists’ determination to place this claim on the scientific agenda is psychological rather than scientific. Their display of blind devotion to materialism leads them to adopt a vestigial perspective towards the evident truth of creation. (You can read Harun Yahya’s article that demolishes evolutionists’ vestigial viewpoint here. http://www.darwinism-watch.com/hurriyet_science0407.php)

James P. Gills, M.D., founder of St. Luke’s Cataract and Laser Institute in Tarpon Springs, Florida, is a creationist scientist. He is also a world-renowned ophthalmologist. In his book Darwinism Under the Microscope, Gills cites a great many proofs of creation that totally undermine evolution, and writes that the only reason why scientists still insist on evolution is the spiritual cataract of thinking of themselves as the product of blind chance. 22

The error of thinking that resistance to antibiotics and DDT is evidence of evolution

The NG article seeks to show that bacterial immunity to antibiotics and insects’ resistance to such pesticides as DDT constitutes evidence for evolution. On the subject of the resistance that microbes appear to develop to drugs Quammen confidently states:

There’s no better or more immediate evidence supporting the Darwinian theory than this process of forced transformation among our inimical germs. (p. 21)

However, Quammen’s excitement in portraying bacterial immunity as evidence for evolution is totally misplaced. It is explained below why these two phenomena do not represent evidence for Darwinism.

The first of the “deadly molecules” employed against micro-organisms was penicillin, discovered by Alexander Fleming in 1928. Fleming discovered a molecule that killed the Staphylococcus mould bacterium, after which antibiotics taken from micro-organisms were used against various bacteria. Although it appeared at first that definitive results had been obtained, the truth later emerged: bacteria gradually acquire resistance to antibiotics. The great majority of bacteria exposed to antibiotics die, but since a small minority remain unaffected this rapidly multiply and eventually come to constitute the entire population. Thus the entire population becomes resistant to the antibiotic.

However, there is no question of bacteria developing through mutation here, because the bacteria already possess the characteristics in question before being exposed to antibiotics. Despite being an evolutionist publication, Scientific American magazine admitted these facts in its March 1998 edition:

Many bacteria possessed resistance genes even before commercial antibiotics came into use. Scientists do not know exactly why these genes evolved and were maintained. 23

Insects acquire resistance to pesticides such as DDT in the same way, and, again in the same way, this represents no evidence for evolution.

The prominent evolutionary biologist Francisco Ayala accepts the truth of this in the words:

The genetic variants required for resistance to the most diverse kinds of pesticides were apparently present in every one of the populations exposed to these man-made compounds. 24

One of those to carry out the most detailed research on this subject is the Israeli biophysicist Dr. Lee Spetner. In his book Not by Chance, published in 1997, Spetner showed that bacterial immunity is brought about by two different mechanisms, but that these offer no support for the theory of evolution. For more detail on this subject see http://www.harunyahya.com/20questions05.php#q19 and http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/embryology_01.html)

Another so-called piece of evidence in the NG article, in addition to the resistance in bacteria and insects, concerns genetic similarities.

The deception that evolution can be observed

NG claims that evolution can actually be witnessed in nature and in the laboratory. This, however, is a fantastical and groundless claim. In an article titled “How Are New Species Formed?” published in the 14 June, 2003, edition of New Scientist, George Turner made the following significant “admission”:

Not long ago, we thought we knew how species formed. We believed that the process almost always started with complete isolation of populations. It often occurred after a population had gone through a severe “genetic bottleneck,” as might happen after a pregnant female was swept off to a remote island and her offspring mated with each other. The beauty of this so-called “founder effect” model was that it could be tested in the lab. In reality, it just didn’t hold up. Despite evolutionary biologists’ best efforts, nobody has even got close to creating a new species from a founder population. What’s more, as far as we know, no new species has formed as a result of humans releasing small numbers of organisms into alien environments. 25

As we have seen, evolutionists do not actually know how new species are formed. In other words, Quammen’s claim about being able to witness evolution in action is totally unfounded. The fact that the long years of study carried out by the Grants into chaffinch beak lengths on the Galapagos islands is cited in support is the result of Darwinism misrepresenting variations to represent evidence for itself. (For further information, see http://www.harunyahya.com/nas04.php)

Conclusion

As we have seen, Darwin was wrong. National Geographic’s posing the question whether he was wrong is as ridiculous as asking “Was Freud wrong?” or “Was Marx wrong?” That is because, like Freudianism and Marxism, Darwinism is a theory that has come to the end of its life. We call upon NG magazine to abandon its support for this outdated myth and to accept that creation is the true origin of life.

What NG needs to do is to set its preconceptions to one side and cease supporting Darwinism as a dogma, and to face up to the scientific evidence that undermines this theory. Discoveries in the last 40 years in particular have definitively revealed the invalidity of the naturalist philosophy at the heart of Darwinism. If NG does face up to that fact it will see that the organised complexity of life and the genetic information on which it depends point to intelligent design, in other words that life did not evolve on its own through chance and natural events, but was “created.”

NG – and all other Darwinists – have so far avoided facing up to this, and may therefore have resorted to covering up the difficulties facing their theory. Yet they must be aware that this avoidance will be of no use in keeping their theory alive. That is because a major development in the world of science is serving notice that the age of sweeping matters under the carpet has come to an end.

The way that the intelligent design movement, that has been sweeping through the USA over the last 10 years, has one by one unmasked the dogmas of Darwinism, has made it the focus of wide interest. The intellectual basis of this movement is the “Theory of Intelligent Design.” The theory in question maintains that complex biological structures containing large amounts of information can only be explained in terms of intelligence-based causes, and that these causes can be empirically studied in the field of biology. 26

One indication that the intelligent design movement may represent the dynamic for major cultural changes is the way it is effectively and in a widespread manner revealing that the evidence for so long taught as evidence for Darwinism in schools actually consists of mythology, deception, misrepresentation and even fraud. California Berkeley University’s Professor Phillip E. Johnson, the leader of the movement, stresses that Darwinism will pass into the dustbin of history sometime in this century. 27

It will be of use here to remind NG of the damage from a determined persistence in its policy of uncritical defence of Darwinism. It will be remembered that NG announced the discovery of the Archaeoraptor fossil discovered in China as definitive proof that birds evolved from dinosaurs, without waiting for it to be described in referred scientific journals. Later, however, it was realised that the fossil did not represent a missing link at all, but was a counterfeit “produced” by a Chinese peasant.26 Because of its blind devotion to Darwinism NG had no hesitation in embracing this fossil as “proof” by unscientific methods, and later found itself in “modern paleontology’s greatest embarrassment.” 29

According to the ornithologist Dr. Storrs Olson, “National Geographic has reached an all-time low for engaging in sensationalistic, unsubstantiated, tabloid journalism.” 30

The portrayal of the claim of recapitulation, which died at least 80 years ago, as evidence for evolution in NG’s article “Was Darwin Wrong” shows that it is devoid of the seriousness required by science and is continuing with its “unsubstantiated, tabloid journalism.” NG is not behaving intelligently. Maintaining this approach does not provide any support for Darwinism. On the contrary, NG is documenting its own dogmatism in an ever more obvious way.

We invite NG to consider these points and to accept that creation is the true origin of life.

There is no doubt that the Lord of all living things, on Earth, in the Sky, and between, is God. In one verse of the Qur’an God reveals that:

Your God is One God. There is no god but Him, the All-Merciful, the Most Merciful. (Qur’an, 2: 163)

Under the pen name of Harun Yahya, Adnan Oktar has written some 250 works. His books contain a total of 46,000 pages and 31,500 illustrations. Of these books, 7,000 pages and 6,000 illustrations deal with the collapse of the Theory of Evolution. You can read, free of charge, all the books Adnan Oktar has written under the pen name Harun Yahya on these websites www.harunyahya.com

1. Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, Electronic Text Center, University of Virginia Library.

2. Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species: A Facsimile of the First Edition, Harvard University Press, 1964, p. 189.

3. Michael Behe, Darwin’s Black Box, 1996

4. For more information about the evolutionist theses on biogeography, please see Walter J. Remine, “The Biotic Message: Evolution Versus Message Theory”, Saint Paul Science; 1st ed edition, 1993. page 538.

5. G. Nelson & N. Platnick, Systematics and Biogeography: Cladistics and Vicariance, Columbia University Press, 1981, p. 223.

6. Fossils and Evolution, Dr TS Kemp – Curator of Zoological Collections, Oxford University, Oxford University Press, 1999, p. 246.

7. Peter G. Williamson, “Morphological stasis and developmental constraint: real problems for neo-Darwinism,” Nature, vol. 294, 19 November 1981, p. 214; Stephen E. Jones, http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/

8. Gordon Rattray Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, Abacus, Sphere Books, London, 1984, p. 230.

9. Boyce Rensberger, Houston Chronicle, November 5, 1980, p. 15.

10. Voorhies M.R., “Ancient Ashfall Creates a Pompei of Prehistoric Animals,” National Geographic, Vol. 159, No. 1, January 1981, pp.67-68,74 ; “Horse Find Defies Evolution” Creation Ex Nihilo 5(3):15, January 1983, http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3723.asp

11. Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species: A Facsimile of the First Edition, Harvard University Press, 1964, p. 184.

12. Spotting Mines With Dolphin Sonar , ScienceNOW 1998: 2

13 L. Rutimeyer, “Referate,” Archiv fur Anthropologie, 1868

14 Keith S. Thompson, “Ontogeny and Phylogeny Recapitulated”, American Scientist, vol. 76, May / June 1988, p. 273

15 G. G. Simpson, W. Beck, An Introduction to Biology, Harcourt Brace and World, New York, 1965, p. 241.

16 Stephen Jay Gould, “Abscheulich! – Atrocious! – the precursor to the theory of natural selection,” Natural History, March 2000, p. 45.

17 Mark Ridley, “Who Doubts Evolution?” New Scientist, vol. 90 (25 June 1981), p. 832.

18 Gould S.J, “Evolution’s Erratic Pace,” Natural History, May 1977, p. 13-14.

19 William Fix, The Bone Peddlers: Selling Evolution, Macmillan Publishing Co., New York, 1984, p. 189.

20 J. Bergman & G. Howe, Vestigial Organs are Fully Functional, CRS Books, Terre Haute, IN, 1990.

21 S. R. Scadding, “Do ‘Vestigial Organs’ Provide Evidence for Evolution?,” Evolutionary Theory, vol. 5, May 1981, p. 173.

22 James P.Gills, M.D. & Thomas Woodward, Ph.D., Darwinism under the Microscope, Charisma House, 2002, p. 39.

23 Stuart B. Levy, “The Challenge of Antibiotic Resistance,” Scientific American, March 1998, p. 35

24 Francisco J.Ayala, “The Mechanisms of Evolution,” Scientific American, vol. 239, September 1978, p. 64

25 George Turner, “How Are New Species Formed?,” New Scientist, vol. 178, issue 2399, 14 June 2003, p. 36

26 http://www.arn.org , http://www.discovery.org/csc/

27 Phillip E. Johnson, “Mothballed Science,” Touchstone Magazine, December 2003

28 For more information about Archaeoraptor forgery, please see http://www.harunyahya.com/20questions03.php#q7

29 Tim Friend, “The ‘missing link’ fossil that wasn’t”, USA Today, 02/01/2000

30 Open Letter to National Geographic Society by Storrs L. Olson, Curator of Birds, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution

Are Mwhere The Regis’s On Platinum?
In the desert’s cave,mt coronet cave, and iron island cave,but you stipulation a special regigiges In a temple it is in snowpoint city

Does terror campaign ever erupt at Speakers corne contained by Hyde Parkr?
The speaker’s corner is an area in Hyde Park, London within where on earth free speech is allowed and any person can talk on almost any topic without the apprehension of being prosecuted; anyone can stand in the place and talk or…

Finding Domain And The Range Of {(7,-2), (-6,-4) (9-9,)-(5-5),(6,6)}what…
In the above given set: Domain of the set is; 7, -6, 9, 5, 6 Range of the set is; -2, -4, -9, -5, 6 Domain is the number which is represented as an x-coordinate while range is determined by the numbers…

How can I bring back the sixth maximum stipend from the EMP table? In SQL…
In the given examples suppose table name is emp. select max(sal) from emp e1 where (select count(sal) from emp e2 where e2.sal>=e1.sal)=6); Or you can use the following enquiry. select distinct (a.sal) from emp A where &N=(select…

How Can I Open An Email Address?
Well go on some of these websites like gmail.com myspace.com msn.com and comcast.net Try to find the way to open out up my own e-mail how can i get started

How Can I Stop It?
I Have “windows Xp” And Can Not Stop “automatic Startup” Of “antispywareshield 2.1″ When Clicking On “internet Explorer.” How Can I Stop It?”I am a novice to computers. Click on start and run. Write msconfig and click ok. A window will appear. Click on ’startup’ and then select the…

How Did They Take This Picture?
Well, this picture looks incredibility cool, and i wanted to know how i could take a similar picture like this.Thanks you guys x-Abh* I believe it to be an fantasy…I do not believe a mirror is there. I do however, see that each of them have within own sink…but…

How Do You Get Started Chatting On The Internet?
Chat ting is the best way to stay connected with people adjectives over the world. There are many software available on the internet free of charge which can be directly downloaded from the respective chat service websites like Yahoo.com, MSN.com. You can even see the face…

How Do You Get Wireless Internet On Your Laptop When You Already…
You have to have a wireless adapter thing. It’s similar to 40 bucks or something No. That just means that your laptop is capable of connecting to a wireless access point. You still inevitability an access point or router connected to…

How To Develop Menu Driven Programs Using Different Languages And…
Take a look at PHP and MYSQL. This is the fastest and easiest way to develop programs (in the form of programmed web sites). Start with simple programming discourse like ‘C’. You can give user a display where adjectives the varous menu items are…

How To Make An Email Id?
Plz tell me how to make my new id It is tremendously easy and absolutely free too. First visit the E-mail creating form of your desired E-mail Provider. You can use the following links to drop by the most famous E-mail Provider’s E-mail Sign up forms. Visit: Google E-mail…

How To Put Photos From Email Onto A Disc?
First of all you should save your photos on desktop (select the photos right click save imitation as desktop) or other drive like C, D or E. Then you should burn a disc from burning software. Saving on pc and then burning them next to the software!

How To Solve That Open With Option Is Appearing?
When i double the drives in my computer. Open with option is appearing. How to solve that. When i right click and click explore the drive is debut. There is no auto.inf is inside. There is some virus problem. It is HDD. It has two partition…

I Copied And Paste These Symbols, But Does Anyone Know How…
It depends on the computer, but most symbols can be made by using the Alt key and typing in a number on the keypad. Here’s a website with some of those push button combinations: office.microsoft.com

I Log Into My Myspace Account And I Try To Send A Message But When…
You will have entered a user name and password when joining. If you cannot remember you may still own the confirmation email they send you. Then request the password in an email. All the above has be done but…

I Was Told That I Might Be Able To Delete Icons On My Desktop Through…
You should be able to just right click the icon and choose delete fromk the drop down. You may encounter some icon that are programs requiring you to utilize add/remove programs to delete. There are also things like My…

I’m Looking For A Code For A Wharfedale L26TA6A, L32TA6A, L37TA6A…
1376 1407 are two codes listed

Is Broadband Digital?
I am new to Blurtit could you help with this queation Yes broadband digital is a concept and set of services contained by developing standards for integrating digital transmission services in a broadband network of fiber optic. (True)

Is Cheatcc.com The Right One For Wii Games?
I’m going to this website called cheatcc.com and i look up release dates for wii games and I’m not sure if there the right ones? I muse it’s the right website. But sometimes it doesn’t have the right cheats. In my opinion it is a right…

Is Cisco Certification Good Or Microsoft Certification?
I want to do the CCNA certification so please clear my dough. Well Cisco certification is good but i you should stir for Microsoft Certification. Microsoft and Cisco are working as a team to improve network warranty. Find a Certificate in which Microsoft and Cisco both are…

Lost The Disc That Comes With Phone And Dont Where To Find A Driver,…
Kindly tell which the phone is your mobile phone disc or wireless phone disc if it not available you not worry you went to www.softpedia.com www.download.com www.9down.com and investigate the driver of your phone it is available i think you…

Warehouse Differs From A Database?
Describe three significant ways in which warehouse differs from a database. Your answer should consider of design in regard to purpose This is time-consuming and out-of-date debate to find out the differences between the database and the data warehouse. One of the major differences between these two terms is…

What Are Some Examples Of Other Components That You Can Get With…
You’re thinking about peripherals, or non-essential components. There are thousands of examples, such as sound cards, USB memory sticks, printers and so on. None of these things are required to get a computer up and running. They are add-ons. Anything that…

What Can I Do To Make The Laptop Turn Back On?
I have a Apple MAC iBook Laptop Clamshell M2453 OSX. I don’t know a lot about it. The laptop be on and was not shutting down so I took the battery out of the back and after tried to turn it on again and…

When I apply my 3D fish blind depositor the peak get black. What…
You should check whether your 3D fish screen saver is properly installed or not if it is of installation type. If the read me file is provided along near your 3D fish screen saver then you must read it first. If…

Where does the creator of linux come from?
The creator of Linux is Linus Torvalds. He hails from Helsinki, Finland, where he was born on 28 December 1969. His parents are Nils and Anna Torvalds. Though he be born in Finland, his mother tongue is Swedish, not Finnish, the official language of Finland. Linus studied…

Why do individuals use “#”define within turbo C?
Perhaps you wonder what we have gained by substituting PI for 3.14159 in our program. Hopefully we hold made program easier to read. Although such a common constant as 3.14159 is easily recognized, in attendance are many instances where a constant does not reveal its purpose so…

Are here any regional pattern sites to go objects handling equipment…
Yes there are many websites to sell your stuff handling equipment on the internet at your region.The biggest and most popular is www.craiglist.com.

Can I Join Hotmail If I Haven’t Got JavaScript?
Guess,the question does not signify at all.JavaScript are instruction which can be processed by the browser and ppl use javascript mainly for validation n i guess it have nothing to do with hotmail

More Technology answers please visit : isFAQ.com

In speaking with an up and coming B.A.S.E. jumper, I inquired if they had heard of “Jevto Dedijer”; they paused for a moment and said “they didn’t think so.” When I in turn asked, “B.A.S.E. 66”, he replied, “The book? Yes I have heard of it.” In a sport where names seem to become lost and number’s take their place Jevto Dedijer cemented his number into the history of the sport at Europe’s exit points and behind the brightly colored orange book jacket with the simple title, “BASE 66”.

A story of a young man who took up skydiving at the age of 17, who in the summer of 1983 set off to Paris, France from his homeland of Sweden to start his work career and during that period he discovered an adventure of a lifetime.

Yuri Kuznetsov-BASE416 described the book as “BASE 66 is a fascinating story about life and death, terror and joy, and intimate friendship. It is an account of extraordinary people taking a step beyond.”

Not only does Dedijer paint a picture of his pioneering B.A.S.E. experiences, but brings into play the dynamics of concealing and balancing his journey into attaining his B.A.S.E number from family, work and relationships.

I originally wrote to the B.A.S.E. jumper turned author months ago, introducing myself and ordering his book from his website. I asked if we might talk once I completed reading his story, to which he said “it would be a pleasure to talk with you” and sent me his telephone number. In the end, the pleasure became mine to make the acquaintance of this energetic man who has maintained his lust for fear and fun. For those of you that have read the story or met Dedijer, I hope you enjoy hearing from an old friend. For those who have yet to do so, read the interview and then do yourself a favor and buy the book.

The first 5 questions are from a university student/B.A.S.E .jumper (Spawnmaster) that had written a book review for a class.

1) During the early days of B.A.S.E. the community was much smaller and it had to have felt very lonely during that period, being a pioneer and on the very edge of a new and exciting activity. How did you overcome fear of the “unknown” as you had no past experiences to draw from?

You know what? I never overcame the fear of the unknown because it transformed itself into the fear of the known, which was even worse. It is difficult today to imagine a world without Internet, e-mail, MSN, YouTube etc. but in a sense it was good. We had to rely entirely on our own judgment and knowledge, which when we started jumping in 1982 wasn’t impressive. We had no one to ask for advice, no one to talk to who was more experienced than we were and we had no clue where to find these guys. We heard about people BASE jumping through the grape vine on the Dropzone La Ferté Gaucher outside Paris. That was it. We indeed felt lonely and that’s what made it even more thrilling.

2) Your book B.A.S.E. 66 does not detail much about how active you were after you achieved your B.A.S.E. number.

After my jump from Trollveggen I kind of took a break for a year. I needed perspective on what I had accomplished and I also felt that if I continued BASE jumping I would be taking bigger and bigger risks, try more stuff, jump from lower objects etc. But after that break I went back to Kochertalbrucke for a weekend of jumping with Scott and Bernard, I went to Bridge Day and that was about it. In total I made 15 BASE jumps although it felt as if I had done 100. Every jump was emotionally exhausting because we had to figure out things along the way. Our parachutes weren’t the coolest stuff in the world and I didn’t really trust my gear and that is kind of nerve racking!

3) Do you kept in touch with other jumpers and keep abreast of the sport as a whole?

Yeah I do keep in touch with the BASE jumping community because I get e-mails and calls from people who have read my book. I exchange ideas with some of the guys out there– Tom Aiello, Johnny Utah and a lot of people who are less experienced. I am on the BASE forums reading, watching videos etc. and I am amazed at how far the sport, no that’s terrible to call BASE jumping a sport because that means it has become so mainstream, has come. On August 5th I am meeting the French BASE jumper Marc Audap in the bar on the 56th floor in the Montparnasse Tower in Paris. On August 6th I a meeting a Portuguese screen writer in the same place and he is currently working on a screen play based on my book.

4) Do you ever feel like returning to B.A.S.E.?

I never felt as close to making another BASE jump as when I came to Bridge Day in 2006. I was there to promote my book and all these people were telling me: ‘’Come on Jevto, make a jump, just one. You’re gonna love it. ‘’ I spent the weekend watching other people jump and that was real tough. On the other hand how smart would it have been to strap on a BASE rig and go off the edge off the bridge 22 years after having made my last BASE jump? That’s how you end up dead.

5) What do you think of the B.A.S.E. jumping wingsuit piloting or ski base jumping?

I think it’s great that jumpers out there are innovating and inventing new ways to have fun and be scared. It’s like any adrenalin based activity; things need to evolve to stay relevant.

1. What became of Cloudia?

I sold Cloudia to a Swedish Skydiver in 1985 but I think she been in a retirement home for a long time now.

2. Selling ones story to the newspapers is frowned upon by many in the community of B.A.S.E. jumpers. Did you receive any personal criticism when your story appeared in the papers? You freely admit in your book that you sold your story to earn money.

No, I didn’t receive any criticism because there was no real community talk about at that time and it was also a way to communicate with other BASE jumpers. ‘’I read about a guy who jumped a bridge in Switzerland, let’s go check it out’’. That was how we learned about jumpable objects and about other BASE jumpers. Remember, no Internet, no e-mail. I guess publishing articles became like having a sponsor. Today there is the Red Bull team, back then it was selling the story to the press.

3. What motivated you to write B.A.S.E. 66 and share not only the telling of the B.A.S.E. jumps but your personal life as well?

I wrote the book for several reasons. The first one was to find the answer to why I did all that. Surprise! I never really found out. The best answer I have found so far is: BASE jumping is reality in its truest sense; life and death separated only by your own decisions. The second reason is that I thought it would be fun for my kids to be able to read about my adventures. Today they still tell me: ‘’Dad, did you see that guy who jumped from a cliff with a wing suit? ’’ I tell them I did stuff like that more than 20 years ago but I have no video to prove it and without a video I guess it never happened to them. So by reading my book one day they should get a better understanding for what I did back then. The third reason is that I decided to write the book for people interested in adventure and crazy pursuits. I never intended the book to be a technical manifest for the BASE jumping community and I believe that you cannot separate BASE jumping from what we call our ‘’normal’’ life. How fun would BASE jumping be if we never got back to our normal lives in between. It’s doing mundane things such as the laundry, sipping a latté at Starbucks, washing the car etc that makes BASE jumping more exciting. One moment you are in the ‘’normal’, world and the next you are freefalling from a cliff.

4. Were Bernard and Scott aware that you were going to write the book? What was their initial reaction to the book?

Yeah I told them I was writing a book but I never let them read the manuscript. After all I was writing about my perception of the whole adventure. Scott liked the book and has been promoting it actively in his entourage in Bangkok. I don’t think Bernard ever read it because he doesn’t read English.

It took a long time to get the book printed. After having finished my first manuscript of 200 pages I pushed the wrong button on my word processor (that’s what we called it back then) and the whole manuscript vanished into thin air. I didn’t have a copy and that was it. It took me one year to muster the courage to start writing from scratch again.

5. I know you mentioned to me in the past that a screenwriter is developing a screenplay to bring B.A.S.E. 66 to film. Does the screenwriter feel there is a large enough audience to warrant backing for a film or is it being looked at as an independent film?

Here is Joao Martins, the screen writer’s answer.

I believe there is much more to “BASE 66″ than base jumping. The underlying “coming of age” story about courage, friendship and the discovery of life’s finer things has a universal appeal that can reach large audiences. We are not limited to the BASE jumper’s niche at all!

This being said, it must be understood that in the screenwriting process it doesn’t make sense to talk about a choice between a “commercial” or “indie” approach. The screenwriter – if he is intellectually honest – will use whatever form and substance he may find necessary for telling a good story. No more, no less.

The story told in BASE 66 is very much alike the Oscar winning documentary Man on Wire which is a story about a French guy, Philippe Petit, who strung a wire between the twin towers in New York in 1976 an walked back and forth 8 times.

6. I seen where you are organizing a reunion of “the idiots club” in France during the upcoming year when was the last time you all gathered?

The last time the three of us got together was when we jumped Kochertalbrucke in 1985! I have met Scott in Rode Island, Bangkok and Paris and I have gotten together with Bernard in Paris several times but it has been a long time since the Idiot Club had an annual meeting. When we do get together it will have to be without our wives. Otherwise we will try to behave, be polite and not curse. That would be bad.

7. I know your wife skydived with you, have you taken your children skydiving and would you want to know if they B.A.S.E. jumped?

I haven’t taken my kids skydiving yet but the plan is to celebrate my 50th birthday in freefall the four of us. My daughter Chloé asked my last week if the plan was still on. Damien, my son, is an artist and has o interest in BASE but with Chloé it’s different. She is into risk taking (she stole a pair of jean in a store when she was 13!) and yeah I would like to know if she decides to beat the world free diving record, become a bull fighter or white shark trainer. I would be nervous about it but how well placed am I to criticize such a decision?!

8. What is your latest passion?

I have had this dilemma since I stopped BASE jumping. What am I going to do now to keep the adrenalin flowing? It came naturally though. Since my childhood in Sweden I have had this passion for nature and wildlife. My parents had a cottage in the woods in southern Sweden and my brother and I used to spend all our free time outside. As I live in Québec, in Eastern Canada, the is no shortage of space, wildlife, rivers, lakes etc. I spend about a month per year alone in the woods, track bears with cubs (yeah I know not smart!), sleep where the wolves congregate and listen to them howl, fly fish for salmon… I feel totally free and at peace all alone in the middle of nowhere. My next project is to spend a month alone in Yukon, paddling down a river in a canoe.

9. What did B.A.S.E. contribute to your personal growth as a person?

I definitely became a stronger person mentally. It has helped me immensely in my professional life and as a business owner because taking calculated risks comes naturally now and I have no problem venturing into the unknown. Once you have stared death in the eye several times you are not the same anymore. On the other hand I became a more difficult person for ‘’normal’’ people to be around. I am very demanding, have a freakish attention to detail and can be arrogant.

10. How is it that you came to live in Canada?

I was working as a Marketing Director for IKEA in France and one day I went fly fishing on a lake near Paris. I got lost in my thoughts when I suddenly had a vision. I saw my grandkids, which do not exist yet, come up to me and ask: ‘’Grandpa, tell us about your life.’’ I started telling them about my career in Marketing, my nice Volvo 480 etc. After two minutes they got off my lap and ran away. I was horrified, stopped fishing and drove home. As soon as I got home I told my wife Yolaine: ‘’we have to change the story, the grandkids we don’t have yet don’t want to sit on my lap, and my life story is to boring! (I had BASE jumped but to me it was no big deal. It took time for me to discover that it was a bit special. ) So we took out the world Atlas and made a short list of 7 countries. Only two years later I picked up Yolaine, Damien, who was 5 at the time, and Chloé, who was one, at the Québec City Airport. They had never set foot in Canada before and we have been here for the last 15 years. Yolaine was either madly in love with me to trust me that much or totally insane. I think she was insane.

11. Are your parents still alive? What became of your brother?

My father passed away in his bed in Dubrovnik, Croatia, in 2005 at the age of 94. The last book he read before his death was BASE 66. I think he read it 10 times and he told me every time he finished it that he couldn’t believe what I had done. Coming from a guy who was in the 101 airborne and General Maxwell Taylor’s bodyguard in the battle of the bulge is kind of amazing. My mother still lives in southern Sweden and is in good health. Last week she sent me an e-mail telling me that she had just watched a guy wing suit jumping a cliff in Norway and that I had to promise not to ever do something so foolish again. I promised to never BASE jump again but couldn’t promise her I wouldn’t do something foolish in the future. My brother Miki lives on the west coast in Sweden with his wife Cecilia and son Corbin. They have a 35 acre eco farm and have a fusion like relationship with nature and the animals surrounding them.

12. You write in your book that B.A.S.E. jumping websites have made is “easy” for people to get into B.A.S.E. and that First Jump Courses can have a jumper up and going in a matter of days. You add that that is “dangerous stuff”. Even with the advancement in gear, do you still feel it’s too “easy” to get into the sport?

All the available training out there is great. The gear is fantastic and there is a huge quantity of collective knowledge out there. BASE jumping is more accessible, or seams more accessible, today than ever before. I am just reading an article in Outside Magazine, the same issue with the tribute to Shane McConkey, about how K2 is well on its way to becoming the new death trap in the Himalayas. When you get people with very little training and knowledge up on a mountain like that it’s a disaster in waiting. It’s the same with BASE jumping. BASE jumping looks great on YouTube but it’s not for everybody.

13. Besides the advances in gear, First Jump courses and the wealth of information on the internet, do you see any changes to the “philosophy “of B.A.S.E. itself?

Of course there has been a change. 20 years ago we were in the pioneering era of BASE and those are scary, challenging and exciting times. Edmund Hillary and Tenzing Norgay faced the same situation when they climbed Everest in 1953, so did Joe Kittinger when he leaped from a hot air balloon from 102,000 feet in 1960. Having had the opportunity to experience the pioneering era of BASE is something I will cherish forever. I think most ‘’Extreme Sports’’ have gone through the same thing. Back in the 80ies BASE was a more personal thing than today because we didn’t have to worry about the cameras, YouTube uploads etc. But now I will stop because I am starting to sound like an old fart!

14. Do you see a common thread in all jumpers, regardless of location, gender or skill level?

Yeah I do and I think it goes not only for BASE jumpers but for all adrenalin based activities. Just look and soldiers, they feel that people from the outside don’t understand them. They have difficulties communicating their experiences and feelings to people who haven’t been in a combat zone. The same goes for war photographers, fighter pilots, free climbers… I think most BASE jumpers have an uncomplicated outlook on life, like to drink huge amounts of alcohol, be wild, go over the edge or maybe I’m just talking about myself here!?

15. What advice would you offer to new jumpers?

The day you don’t feel fear, quit. The day you feel over confident, quit. The day you don’t trust yourself, quit. By the way that’s a good question to ask your self – Do I trust myself today? Always listen to your gut. I would also advise them to read Tom Aiello’s article – getting into BASE. I loved it when he gave practical tests such as: If a coin falls from the table, do you catch it before it hits the ground? If not, don’t get into BASE.

I would also advise a new jumper to set personal limits and never to cave in to group pressure from other BASE jumpers.

Bonus Question: Today when a new jumper asks for information on the forum they are told to “go read” or “you’re not ready because you had to ask” I know that Scott wrote letters to Carl for advice. Would you have still jumped if Carl or Jean’s response to your letters was “go read” or “you’re not ready because you had to ask questions”?

There was nothing that could have stopped us from jumping. We were determined to get our BASE numbers. It might sound corny today but that’s how we felt about it. If somebody had told me: ‘’you are not ready because you have to ask.’’, I would have kicked him down something very high! Who would ever be ready to jump if you had to exhaust all questions circulating in your head before jumping? I think it is a question of balance; balance between reading, hanging out with experienced jumpers, watching videos, reading incident reports and hands on experience etc. It’s about trusting yourself and your jumping buddies with your life.

All rights reserved. No republication of this material, in any form or medium, is permitted without express permission of the author.

You can visit Jevto at BASE66

1. Okay, Okay, I’ll cave and include Disney World first so you don’t keep bugging me. There are far too many attractions to describe in detail. Let’s see, there’s the Magic Kingdom, Animal Kingdom Lodge, Blizzard Beach, Typhoon Lagoon, Epcot Center, MGM Studios, Legoland, and much more. In my opinion, the only attraction that’s getting a bit old is Epcot Center. The others are terrific. Just a word about the Animal Kingdom. The lodge is decorated with earth tone walls and African ambiance. Thirty-three wild acres contain over 100 different species including impalas, zebras, giraffes, Thompson’s gazelle… Your kids will love Orlando.

2. The Out ‘n About Treesort in the woods of Takilma, Oregon is a kid’s dream. What child hasn’t dreamed of living in a tree house? Well, families can actually live in one during their vacation. There are fourteen tree houses sleeping 2-8 people each. Lodgers use rope swings, swinging and suspension bridges, fire poles, and a 160 foot-long zip line to get around! During the day, families can take courses in tree house building or they can go rafting, swimming, or horseback riding, scale a 51-foot rope climbing tree, or take arts and crafts classes. The kids won’t stop raving about this place.

3. Atlantis Resort in Reno only cost $850 million to create. The complex includes 20,000 guest rooms, 38 restaurants, 11 exhibit lagoons, 50,000 animals, 11 pool areas, 7 water slides, including a 60-foot Mayan Temple drop into a tunnel submerged in a shark infested lagoon. Kids feel like they’ve just discovered the infamous lost continent themselves. If you live closer to Florida, there’s an Atlantis Resort on Paradise Island, Bahamas which includes many similar attractions to the Reno resort. But while we’re talking about good old Nevada we might as well mention the other fabulous kid-friendly resort, Circus Circus. It’s only the biggest permanent big top in the world and 3.5 million people flock there each year. Circus performers do their amazing feats non-stop, plus there are 200 arcade games, plus carnival games, and wandering clowns. As if that’s not enough, there are over 20 rides in the theme park, miniature golf, and laser tag.

4. Now for something completely different: dude ranches. Tanque Verde Ranch, in Arizona’s Sonoran Desert, is one of the best known. Throughout its 640 acres roam over 120 horses. There are riding lessons, as well as every kind of trail ride you can imagine. Naturalist guides offer hikes through desert wilds, yawning canyons, towering cacti, and even secret waterfalls. Kids also can take tennis lessons, swimming, and arts and crafts. Appealing to adults are the delicious steak cook-outs, gourmet picnics, the square dancing, and the beautiful mountains rising in the distance.

5. As more and more vacationers are discovering Alaska, it’s becoming a top favorite. Alaska is still a bit wild, with 14 major mountain ranges, glaciers, much wildlife, and almost 34,000 miles of coastline. Ideally, it’s best if you can take a land and sea cruise to enjoy the best of both worlds, but do what your pocketbook can afford. Summer is the most comfortable time of the year and there is plenty to do. You can whale-watch or view a vast panoply of wildlife at Denali State Park or another refuge. You can tour a gold mine, count moose, backpack, bird watch, camp, cross country ski, dog sled, hike, salmon fish, visit Mt. McKinley, stargaze, take a riverboat discovery tour, or visit the Imaginarium Science Discovery Center. And this is the short list. I don’t think the kids will get bored.

6. New York City is sometimes left out as a kid-friendly place for whatever reason. But there’s a lot for kids in New York’s Central Park alone. You’ll find horse-drawn carriage rides, Heckscher Playground, lake boating, Swedish Cottage Marionette Theater, Central Park Zoo/Tisch Children’s Zoo, Billy Johnson Playground, the Wollman Ice Skating Rink, and Belvedere Castle Nature Center. In the Broadway area, artists set up shop on the sidewalks and draw personalized names in a colorful pattern of dragons, pandas, and dolphins. These are extremely popular with kids. But the big draw, of course, is what Broadway offers. Disney invested $34 million to restore the old Ziegfield Follies haunt, the New Amsterdam Theater, to stage The Lion King in 1997. It’s still playing to packed audiences. More recent Disney extravaganza include the Little Mermaid. Other popular family-friendly fare includes Mary Poppins, Wicked, and Hairspray. What can I say? This only scratches the surface in regard to what New York offers. Check it out.

7. Most don’t realize it, but while some other states slept, South Carolina has been quietly becoming the #2 state for tourism, after Florida. Myrtle Beach alone welcomes over 13,000,000 guests per year. It’s a 60-mile stretch of sand called the Grand Strand and features a great beach, water parks, amusement parks, dinner shows, the Hard Rock Park, special hotel and beach activities, and much more. MagiQuest, a major attraction, is a uniquely interactive experience. It takes many elements of a child’s fantasy world, combines them, and creates a special place where children can be heroic, valiant, and brave. Children can fight the dragon, run around a Magical Kingdom, wave magic wands, and have lots of fun doing it. MagiQuest even brings out the child in all of us big kids too! So, if you’re looking for some great fun, or wish to burn off some of that rambunctious child energy, you’ve got to take the kids to MagiQuest.

8. I’ve got to include at least one choice that’s considered extra easy on the family budget. It’s the YMCA in Winter Park, Colorado and it goes by the name of Rockies’ Snow Mountain Ranch. Last time I checked, rates for a two-bedroom cabin with kitchen started at $126 per night. If you cook a lot of your own food, you can get off pretty easy. The area comprises 5,100 acres of pristine near world-class ski resorts. There is hiking, snowshoeing, cross-country skiing, downhill skiing, a climbing wall, an indoor pool and gym, and horseback riding in the summer. And best for families with kiddies, there’s a full kids’ program for ages 3 and up. Who likes winter sports? This is for you.

9. Club Med Ixtapa may be the attraction on the list that would appeal most equally to both adults and kids. It is 30 acres along Mexico’s western coast that hosts over 20,000 visitors a year, 60 percent of them grade schoolers. Kids of every age group are kept gloriously busy with all sorts of outdoor activities, fun shows, and crafts. If you want, there’s even a perfect kids-only dining room. Meanwhile, the parents get to play! There’s tennis, scuba, archery, kayaking, water polo, volleyball, and gourmet picnics. Families venturing off the Club Med property can visit the island, take a sunset cruise, go fishing, or take an excursion into the Mexican fishing village of Zihuatenejo. Then melt your troubles away at the Ixtapa Club Spa and get an outdoor massage or whatever else your heart desires.

10. There’s a reason Caribbean cruises corner almost 50 percent of the cruise line market in the U.S. It’s because the Caribbean offers the vacation so many have dreamed of for years. Imagine yourself on the largest, sleekest ocean liner imaginable, watching a brilliant sunset against rippling waves out of your cabin window. Then imagine eating superb food whenever it strikes your fancy, day or night. Imagine wonderfully entertaining shows, on-shore excursions to lush islands, and see yourself relaxing or engaging in activities according to your fancy. Then realize that, if you wish, the kids will be engaged for much of each day in a children’s program tailor-made just for them. This is what you call an all-inclusive vacation. What more could you want?

Go ahead, Google your favorites if you want. Choose your family vacation of a lifetime and begin planning for it. This will be the vacation that your kids will still remember fondly when they have their own kids. Cool.