Evolution Hoax

< <
11 / total: 12

Transcriptions of the Talks 8/8

Jeff Gardner - “Picture Christians Project”

Hello, and I want to thank the organizers of this conference, especially Mr. Adnan Oktar, for giving me the opportunity to speak to you. Thank you.

My name is Jeff Gardner and I am scholar who studies images, I am a professional photographer and a journalist. Perhaps an unusual combination to some, but for me, all aimed at the single purpose of communicating the human experience more about that in just a minute.

To begin, let’s address the obvious this is an extraordinary gathering. Representatives of such different faiths, some, even, that the world would assume could not come together as we have. This in itself is an accomplishment worthy of note.

But self-congratulations is not the reason we are here. No, we are here because despite our differences as Muslims, Christians and Jews, we all share, we all face, a common enemy secularism, atheism and violent ideologies.

Of these three the last, while most deadly, is (thankfully) rarer than the first two. the first two secularism and atheism, are the most pervasive and thus more problematic.

Although secularism and atheism attack people of faith from various quarters, be that sexual politics, educational material or opposition to public displays of religion, they share a common tactic in their attempts to silence those that they disagree with they work constantly at making their opponents disappear.

How do you make someone or some ones disappear in the 21st century? It does not involve a magical formula. No, it is as simple as not showing or discussing them, that is, not allowing them to be heard or seen, especially in public.

Out of sight is truly out of mind and secularists and atheists know this. If we look back to the book of Genesis, that account of God’s relationship to creation and humanity, we find that after forming humankind, God breathed life into us an intimate communication with us, an intimate connection with us.

Why does this matter? Well, we must recognize that unlike anytime in the history of the world, our mental landscape is dominated by images. Although the printed word is in more laces than it has ever been, people now read less than they did even a year ago.

Images, from small symbols called emojis on cell phones, to building-sized billboards, now dominate how we see, feel and relate to the world around us. Those who control the image control the argument those who control the argument often control the outcome. Therefore, concerning this struggle with secularism and atheism, our challenge is twofold. First we must continue to formulate sound, rational arguments concerning the origins of life.

I will tell you that I was an atheist who was converted to Christianity, in part, through rational arguments about the origins of the material world that is, I knew, by way of reason, that all Creation is dependent on an intentional Creator. We must explain the same to the world at large. Which brings us to our second challenge to better understand and utilize the means of communication to deliver the message.

In this instance, communicating the message, the challenge is the opportunity. Communication in the 21st century is a moving target, a rapidly developing mix of electronic, so-called conventual and tried and true interpersonal methods of connecting and communicating, a mix that welcomes innovation and is often forgiving of mistakes.

Secularists and atheists attack this connection between humanity and the divine, not only by denying that it exists, but by refusing to even discuss the matter, in word and especially image.

Jeff Gardner

We should embrace this opportunity along with its challenges. For my part, I began the Picture Christians Project in order to use images and supporting media to reconnect distressed peoples, Christians, all around the world, with their brothers and sisters, fellow children of God. to re-humanize them to transform them from objects back into subjects.

It may surprise you to hear that one of the greatest fears that refugees and displaced peoples have is that they have been forgotten disappeared by those who wish to harm them and not seen by those whose help they badly need. So I go out to the forgotten places in the world and find those who have been:

1. Stunted in the beauty of the youth like Mary
2. Forgotten underground in unfinished buildings
3. Under bridges
4. In refugee camps

5. Simply abandoned on the streets
6. Forced to live without heat, running water or even walls
7. Our work is embodied in this little girl


To proclaim without fear or being intimidated that each of us, male and female, has been wonderfully made by God in His image. to proclaim and act on behalf of each other because of our common, divine humanity to serve and love one another as God serves and loves us through the very act of His Creation.

That is, at the heart of it, our challenge, our task: to instruct the world that each of us has been made purposefully, and with the purpose of being seen, of being heard and not being silenced, forgotten or disappeared.

Thank you. Jeff Gardner

Adnan Oktar Says

Darwinism Is a Superstitious Belief That Disparages Women


The alleged scientific support that Social Darwinism provided for racism, fascism and imperialism, as well as communism, is a widely known subject that has been much written about. But one lesser known fact is that a great many Darwinists, including Charles Darwin himself, have believed in the fallacy that women are both biologically and mentally inferior to men.

As the evolutionist scientist John R. Durant also acknowledges, racism and sexual discrimination are the two main consequences of the theory of evolution. Durant verbalized the fallaciousness in Darwin’s stance regarding women as follows:

… Darwin extended this placement by analogy to include not only children and congenital idiots but also women, some of whose powers of intuition, of rapid perception, and perhaps of imitation were “characteristic of the lower races, and therefore of a past and lower state of civilization.”1

The errors made by Darwin that Durant referred to appear in the Descent of Man, as follows:

It is generally admitted that with women the powers of intuition, of rapid perception, and perhaps of imitation, are more strikingly marked than in man; but some, at least, of these faculties are characteristic of the lower races, and therefore of a past and lower state of civilisation.2

It is clearly obvious that Darwin looked down on women even while he explains why marriage is useful: … children—constant companion, (friend in old age) who will feel interested in one, object to be beloved and played with—better than a dog anyhow—Home, and someone to take care of house— Charms of music and female chit-chat. These things good for one’s health.3

Darwin states that he – in his twisted way regards marriage as necessary using the reasoning which predicates that “a woman’s friendship is better than a dog’s,” yet his statements about marriage made no reference at all to features such as friendship, affection, love, devotion, loyalty, closeness, sincerity and trust between two people who spend their lives together. About marriage, Darwin also had this to say:

… loss of time—cannot read in the evenings—fatness and idleness—anxiety and responsibility—less money for books, etc.,—if many children, forced to gain one’s bread ... perhaps my wife won’t like London; then the sentence is banishment and degradation with indolent idle fool.4

In the Descent of Man, Darwin also claims that men are superior to women:

The chief distinction in the intellectual powers of the two sexes is shown by man’s attaining to a higher eminence, in whatever he takes up, than can women—whether requiring deep thought, reason, or imagination, or merely the use of the senses and hands. If two lists were made of the most eminent men and women in poetry, painting, sculpture, music, ... history, science, and philosophy ... the two lists would not bear comparison. We may also infer, from the law of the deviation from averages, so well illustrated by Mr. Galton, in his work on “Hereditary Genius” that if men are capable of a decided pre-eminence over women in many subjects, the average of mental power in man must be above that of women.5

Of course, all of Darwin’s negative opinions regarding women and the misogynistic discourses of some other Darwinists, the samples of which will be given as we proceed, are diametrically opposed to the moral values described in the Qur’an. In the Qur’an, God commands us to be very compassionate, respectful and protective towards women. Furthermore, He cites women with superior morality such as Mary and the wife of the Pharaoh as role models. Superiority in the Sight of God is not according to one’s race, gender or rank but according to their closeness to God and their faith.

In many verses of the Qur’an God informs us that all those who believewithout any discrimination between man and womanwill be rewarded with what they have done:

Anyone who acts rightly, male or female, being a believer, We will give them a good life and We will recompense them according to the best of what they did. (Qur’an 16:97)

Examples of the Nonsensical Remarks of Darwinism Regarding Women

Darwin’s misogynistic statements are very clear and many scientists are well aware of this fact. Dr. Jerry Bergman, who is against the evolution theory and who explains the negative impacts of Darwinism on social life in his more than 800 published works and more than 20 books, says the following in his book titled the Dark Side of Charles Darwin:

Darwin himself concluded that the differences between human males and females were so large that it was surprising “such different beings belong to the same species” and that “even greater differences” had not evolved. Natural and sexual selection were at the core of Darwinism, and human female inferiority was both a major proof and a chief witness of this theory.

Darwin concluded that men shaped women’s evolution the male’s liking by sexual selection, just as animal breeders shaped animals to the needs of humans. Conversely, war tended to prune the weaker men, allowing only the more fit to return home and reproduce. Men were also the hunters, another activity that pruned weaker men. Women, in contrast, were not subject to these selection pressures because they “specialized in the ‘gathering’ part of the primitive economy” that did not require the strength or stamina of war or hunting.” 6

The major (and mistaken) justifications Darwin gave for his female inferiority conclusions are summarized in his classic work, the Descent of Man. In this book, Darwin argued that adult females of most species resembled the young of both sexes and that “males are more evolutionarily advanced than females.” He mistakenly concluded that since female evolution progressed at a slower rate than male evolution, a woman was “in essence, a stunted man”. This degrading view of women rapidly spread to Darwin’s scientific and academic contemporaries.

For example, Darwin’s contemporary and disciple, anthropologist McGrigor Allan, states that women are less evolved than men and that “physically, mentally and morally, woman is a kind of adult child… it is doubtful if women have contributed one profound original idea of the slightest permanent value to the world.” 7

Of course, Darwin had no scientific basis for proposing these fallacies, but his biased and prejudiced claims about women spread rapidly among his scientific contemporaries.

For example, the materialist Carl Vogt, a professor of natural history at the University of Geneva, accepted all the conclusions drawn by Darwin, without subjecting them to any scientific analysis, and claimed that “the child, the female, and the senile white” all had the intellectual features and personality of the “grown-up Negro,” and that consequently they were inferior. 8

Herr Vogt went even further and brought forward the lie that they were actually closer to animals than men. According to Vogt, a woman was “a stunted man” whose development had been obstructed because her evolution had come to a premature halt.9 Vogt even claimed that the gap between males and females increases with civilization’s progress and is greatest in the advanced societies of Europe.10 Darwin was greatly influenced by Vogt’s rantings, and stated that he was honored to count him among his most important supporters.11

Evolutionist Paul Broca (1824-1880) of the Faculty of Medicine in Paris was particularly interested in the skull differences between men and women. Broca misconstrued the relatively smaller brain in women and came up with the fallacy that women were intellectually inferior to men. of course, that is a very irrational claim; today it has been concluded that there is no relationship between human intelligence and the size of the brain. It is absolutely impossible to come to a truthful conclusion simply by looking at the weight of the brain. Many other evolutionists following the fallacies of Darwin and continued to claim that women are biologically and intellectually inferior to men. Furthermore, some evolutionists even classified men and women as two different psychological species. According to this fallacy, men are classified as homo-frontalis and women as homo-parietalis. Again an evolutionist writer, Elaine Morgan stated that Darwin encouraged men to work on the reasons why women were “manifestly inferior and irreversibly subordinate.”12

Being a Woman Or a Man Would Not Make One Superior to the Other

Obviously, Darwin’s theses were based not on science, but on the culture and primitive scientific understanding of the Victorian Era he lived in. These theses gave way to harmful behavior, violence towards women and caused women to be regarded as inferior beings in many societies. Philosophies such as fascism and communism that disparage women, basically embrace Darwin’s misguided understanding regarding women.

The intellectual characteristics that Darwinists use as criteria are abilities given by God, irrespective of gender.

In one verse, God reveals: “You who believe! If you fear [and respect] God, He will give you a standard (of right and wrong)...” (Qur’an 8:29)

As this verse reveals, judgment-and thus, intellect-develops not according to gender, but according to fear of God.

According to the Qur’an, men and women are equal, and superiority is defined by heedfulness. God has imposed equal responsibilities on both, and holds both responsible for the same matters.

Whether one is a male or female does not make a person superior in the Sight of God, but fear and deep love of and devotion to Him, and proper moral values do. In one of His verses, our Lord reveals that regardless of gender, those who exhibit the best behavior will receive the best reward for their moral values:

Anyone, male or female, who does right actions and is a believer, will enter the Garden. They will not be wronged by so much as the tiniest speck. (Qur’an 4:124)

Their Lord responds to them “I will not let the deeds of any doer among you go to waste, male or female...” (Qur’an 3:195)


  1. John R. Durant, “The Ascent of Nature in Darwin’s Descent of Man” in the Darwinian Heritage, Ed. by David Kohn, (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1985), p.295
  2. Charles Darwin, the Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex, New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1871 (1896 print), p.326
  3. Charles Darwin, the Autobiography of Charles Darwin 1809-1882 (Ed. by Nora Barlow), New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc., 1958, p. 232-233
  4. Charles Darwin, the Autobiography of Charles Darwin 1809-1882 (Ed. by Nora Barlow), New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc., 1958, p. 232-233
  5. Jerry Bergman, the Dark Side of Charles Darwin, Master Books, 2011, p. 246
  6. Jerry Bergman, the Dark Side of Charles Darwin, Master Books, 2011, p. 246
  7. Jerry Bergman, the Dark Side of Charles Darwin, Master Books, 2011, p. 249
  8. Carl Vogt, Lectures on Man: His Place in Creation, and the History of Earth, edited by James Hunt, London: Paternoster Row, Longman, Green, Longman, and Roberts, 1864, xv, 192
  9. Stephanie A. Shields, “Functionalism, Darwinism, and the Psychology of Women; a Study in Social Myth,” American Psychologist, no. 1 (1975): 749
  10. Evelleen Richards, “Darwin and the Descent of Women,” in David Oldroyd and Ian Langham (Eds.), the Wider Domain of Evolutionary Thought (Holland: D. Reidel, 1983), 75
  11. Evelleen Richards, “Darwin and the Descent of Women,” in David Oldroyd and Ian Langham (Eds.), the Wider Domain of Evolutionary Thought (Holland: D. Reidel, 1983), 74 49
  12. EIaine Morgan, the Descent of Woman, New York: Stein and Day, 1972, p. 1

Distinguishing Between Science and Materialism


The theory of evolution has no scientific basis, and on the contrary, evolutionist claims conflict with scientific facts. In other words, the force that keeps evolution alive is not science. Evolution may be maintained by some “scientists,” but behind it there is another influence at work.

This other influence is materialist philosophy. the theory of evolution is simply materialist philosophy applied to nature, and those who support that philosophy do so despite the scientific evidence.

This relationship between materialism and the theory of evolution is accepted by “authorities” on these concepts. For example, the discovery of Darwin was described by Leon Trotsky as “the highest triumph of the dialectic in the whole field of organic matter.”1

The evolutionary biologist Douglas Futuyma writes, “Together with Marx’s materialist theory of history and society…. Darwin hewed the final planks of the platform of mechanism and materialism.”2

And the evolutionary paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould says, “Darwin applied a consistent philosophy of materialism to his interpretation of nature.”3

Materialist philosophy is one of the oldest beliefs in the world, and assumes the absolute and exclusive existence of matter as its basic principle. According to this view, matter has always existed, and everything that exists consists of matter. Materialism denies the evident existence of a Creator.

So the question becomes one of why the materialist point of view is false. One method of testing whether a philosophy is true or false is to investigate the claims it makes about science by using scientific methods. For instance, a philosopher in the tenth century could have claimed that there was a divine tree on the surface of the moon and that all living things actually grew on the branches of this huge tree like fruit, and then fell off onto the earth. Some people might have found this philosophy

attractive and believed in it. But in the twenty first century, it is no longer possible to seriously hold such a belief. Whether such a tree exists there or not can be determined by scientific methods, that is, by observation and experiment.

We can therefore investigate by means of scientific methods the materialist claim that matter has existed for all eternity and that this matter can organize itself without a supramaterial Creator and cause life to begin. When we do this, we see that materialism has already collapsed, because the idea that matter has existed since the beginning of time has been overthrown by the Big Bang theory which shows that the universe was created from nothingness. the claim that matter organized itself and created life is the claim that we call the theory of evolution and which has been shown to have collapsed.

However, if someone is determined to believe in materialism and puts his devotion to materialist philosophy before everything else, then he will act differently. If he is a materialist first and a scientist second, he will not abandon materialism when he sees that evolution is disproved by science. On the contrary, he will attempt to uphold and defend materialism by trying to support evolution, no matter what. This is exactly the predicament that evolutionists defending the theory of evolution find themselves in today.

Interestingly enough, they also confess this fact from time to time. a well-known geneticist and outspoken evolutionist, Richard C. Lewontin from Harvard University, confesses that he is “a materialist first and a scientist second” in these words: It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, so we cannot allow a Divine [intervention]...4

The term “a priori” that Lewontin uses here is quite important. This philosophical term refers to a presupposition not based on any experimental knowledge. a thought is “a priori” when you consider it to be correct and accept it as so even if there is no information available to confirm it. As the evolutionist Lewontin frankly states, materialism is an “a priori” commitment for evolutionists, who then try to adapt science to this preconception. Since materialism definitely necessitates denying the existence of a Creator, they embrace the only alternative they have to hand, which is the theory of evolution. It does not matter to such scientists that evolution has been belied by scientific facts, because they have accepted it “a priori” as true.

This prejudiced behavior leads evolutionists to a belief that “unconscious matter composed itself,” which is contrary not only to science, but also to reason. the concept of “the self-organization of matter,” which we examined in an earlier chapter, is an expression of this.

Evolutionist propaganda, which we constantly come across in the Western media and in wellknown and “esteemed” science magazines, is the outcome of this ideological necessity. Since evolution is considered to be indispensable, it has been turned into a taboo subject by the circles that set the standards of science.

Some scientists find themselves in a position where they are forced to defend this far-fetched theory, or at least avoid uttering any word against it, in order to maintain their reputations.Academics in Western countries have to have articles published in certain scientific journals in order to attain and hold onto their professorships. All of the journals dealing with biology are under the control of evolutionists, and they do not allow any anti-evolutionist article to appear in them. Biologists, therefore, have to conduct their research under the domination of this theory. They, too, are part of the materialist order, which regards evolution as an ideological necessity.

The Definition of the “Scientific Cause”

The German biologist Hoimar von Ditfurth, a prominent evolutionist, is a good example of this bigoted materialist understanding. After Ditfurth cites an example of the extremely complex composition of life, this is what he says concerning the question of whether it could have emerged by chance or not: Is such a harmony that emerged only out of coincidences possible in reality? This is the basic question of the whole of biological evolution. ...Critically speaking, we can say that somebody who accepts the modern science of nature has no other alternative than to say “yes,” because he aims to explain natural phenomena by means that are understandable and tries to derive them from the laws of nature without reverting to supernatural interference.5

Yes, as Ditfurth states, the materialist scientific approach adopts as its basic principle explaining life by denying “supernatural interference,” i.e., creation. Once this principle is adopted, even the most impossible scenarios are easily accepted. It is possible to find examples of this dogmatic mentality in almost all evolutionist literature. Professor Ali Demirsoy, the well-known advocate of evolutionary theory in Turkey, is just one of many. According to Demirsoy, the probability of the coincidental formation of cytochrome-C, an essential protein for life, is “as unlikely as the possibility of a monkey writing the history of humanity on a typewriter without making any mistakes.”6

There is no doubt that to accept such a possibility is actually to reject the basic principles of reason and common sense. Even one single correctly formed letter written on a page makes it certain that it was written by a person. When one sees a book of world history, it becomes even more certain that the book has been written by an author. No logical person would agree that the letters in such a huge book could have been put together “by chance.”

However, it is very interesting to see that the evolutionist scientist Professor Ali Demirsoy accepts this sort of irrational proposition:

In essence, the probability of the formation of a cytochrome-C sequence is as likely as zero. That is, if life requires a certain sequence, it can be said that this has a probability likely to be realized once in the whole universe. Otherwise some metaphysical powers beyond our definition must have acted in its formation. to accept the latter is not appropriate for the scientific cause. We thus have to look into the first hypothesis.7

Demirsoy writes that he prefers the impossible, in order not to have to accept supernatural forces—in other words, the existence of a Creator. However, the aim of science is not to avoid accepting the existence of supernatural forces. Science can get nowhere with such an aim. It should simply observe nature, free of all prejudices, and draw conclusions from these observations. If these results indicate that there is planning by a supernatural intelligence, which is the case in every corner of the universe, then science must accept the fact.

Under close examination, what they call the “scientific cause” is actually the materialist dogma that only matter exists and that all of nature can be explained by material processes. This is not a “scientific cause,” or anything like it; it is just materialist philosophy. This philosophy hides behind such superficial words as “scientific cause” and obliges scientists to accept quite unscientific conclusions. Not surprisingly, when Demirsoy cites another subject—the origins of the mitochondria in the cell—he openly accepts chance as an explanation, even though it is “quite contrary to scientific thought”: the heart of the problem is how the mitochondria have acquired this feature, because attaining this feature by chance even by one individual, requires extreme probabilities that are incomprehensible... the enzymes providing respiration and functioning as a catalyst in each step in a different form make up the core of the mechanism. a cell has to contain this enzyme sequence completely, otherwise it is meaningless. Here, despite being contrary to biological thought, in order to avoid a more dogmatic explanation or speculation, we have to accept, though reluctantly, that all the respiration enzymes completely existed in the cell before the cell first came in contact with oxygen.8

The conclusion to be drawn from such pronouncements is that evolution is not a theory arrived at through scientific investigation. On the contrary, the form and substance of this theory were dictated by the requirements of materialistic philosophy. It then turned into a belief or dogma in spite of concrete scientific facts. Again, from evolutionist literature, we can clearly see that all of this effort has a “purpose”—a purpose that requires maintaining, at no matter what cost, that living things were not created.

Coming to Terms with the Shocks

As we recently stressed, materialism is the belief that categorically rejects the existence of the nonmaterial (or the “supernatural”). Science, on the other hand, is under no obligation to accept such a dogma. the duty of science is to observe nature and produce results.

And science does reveal the fact that living things were created. This is something demonstrated by scientific discoveries. When we examine the fantastically complex structures in living things, we see that they possess such extraordinary features that they can never be accounted for by natural processes and coincidences. Every instance of extraordinary feature is evidence for an intelligence that brought it into being; therefore, we must conclude that life, too, was created by a power. This power belongs to a nonmaterial wisdom—the superior wisdom of the All-Powerful God, Who rules all of nature… In short, life and all living things were created. This is not a dogmatic belief like materialism, but a plain fact revealed by scientific observation and experiment.

We see that this fact comes as a terrible shock for scientists who are used to believing in materialism, and that materialism is a science. See how this shock is described by Michael Behe, one of the most important scientists to stand against the theory of evolution in the world today:

The resulting realization that life was designed by an intelligence is a shock to us in the twentieth century who have gotten used to thinking of life as the result of simple natural laws. But other centuries have had their shocks, and there is no reason to suppose that we should escape them.9

Mankind has been freed from such dogmas as that the world is flat, or that it is the center of the universe. and it is now being freed from the materialist and evolutionist dogma that life came about by itself.

The duty that befalls a true scientist in this respect, is to do away with materialist dogma and evaluate the origin of life and living things with the honesty and objectivity befitting a real scientist. a real scientist must come to terms with the “shock,” and not tie himself to outdated nineteenth-century dogmas and defend impossible scenarios.


  1. Alan Woods, Ted Grant. “Marxism and Darwinism,” Reason in Revolt: Marxism and Modern Science, London, 1993
  2. Douglas Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology, 2. b., MA: Sinauer, Sunderland, 1986, p. 4. (emphasis added)
  3. Alan Woods, Ted Grant, “Marxism and Darwinism,” Reason in Revolt: Marxism and Modern Science, London, 1993. (emphasis added)
  4. Richard Lewontin, “The Demon-Haunted World,” the New York Review of Books, January 9, 1997, p. 28. (emphasis added)
  5. Hoimar Von Dithfurth, Im Anfang War Der Wasserstoff (Secret Night of the Dinosaurs), vol. 2, p. 64. (emphasis added)
  6. Prof. Dr. Ali Demirsoy, Kalitim ve Evrim (Inheritance and Evolution), Meteksan Publishing Co., Ankara, 1984, p. 61. (emphasis added)
  7. Ali Demirsoy, Kalitim ve Evrim (Inheritance and Evolution), Meteksan Publishing Co., Ankara, 1984, p. 61. (emphasis added)
  8. Michael J. Behe, Darwin’s Black Box, the Free Press, New York, 1996, pp. 252-53.
  9. Every material entity which we believe exists in our lives, is in fact only a vision which is created in our brains.


11 / total 12
You can read Harun Yahya's book The Origin of Life and the Universe - 2nd International Conference 2017 online, share it on social networks such as Facebook and Twitter, download it to your computer, use it in your homework and theses, and publish, copy or reproduce it on your own web sites or blogs without paying any copyright fee, so long as you acknowledge this site as the reference.
Harun Yahya's Influences | Presentations | Audio Books | Interactive CDs | Conferences| About this site | Make your homepage | Add to favorites | RSS Feed
All materials can be copied, printed and distributed by referring to author “Mr. Adnan Oktar”.
(c) All publication rights of the personal photos of Mr. Adnan Oktar that are present in our website and in all other Harun Yahya works belong to Global Publication Ltd. Co. They cannot be used or published without prior consent even if used partially.
© 1994 Harun Yahya. www.harunyahya.com - info@harunyahya.com
iddialaracevap.blogspot.com ahirzamanfelaketleri.blogspot.com ingilizderindevleti.net