Moreover, I do not object to the true science...
Yes you do. You've been corrected repeatedly in this thread and all your other "science" threads, which generally just turn into religious proselytizing, by sound science and reputable references, but you just deny them and turn back to your Quran and al-Hilly's interpretation of it, erroneously believing that *that* represents true science.
Some of the factual and logical errors you've made just in this thread:
.
..While if they search in the temperate regions, they may find people, animals and plants.
Not a chance. If there were that kind of life on Mars, it would be detectable from here. The spectrum of chlorophyll is quite distinctive, it could be easily found with earth-based instruments, and if there were people there, they'd require a technology at least equivalent to ours to survive. There would be signs detectable by a Mars orbiter, like thermal signatures and photographic evidence of industrial works.
...where does the large amount of snow, which melts in spring and summer time, go? There must be seas and rivers.
Not necessarily. There is some evidence that water once flowed on Mars, but under present conditions, ice would sublimate directly to vapour without passing through the liquid stage. Look up a phase diagram for water and you'll see that there's a relatively narrow range of temperatures and pressures under which water will persist as a liquid. Surface conditions on Mars are not in that range.
...This large planet with all these features, and with its two moons, is certainly full of living beings: people, (and demons or genies), animals and plants, and is suitable for living of the people of Earth (may be with some modifications.)
Mars is not large, it's less than half the size of Earth, not the almost two times your web site claims, it's certainly not full of living beings--if it were, we'd know it by now--and it's not suitable for human habitation without a significant level of technology, of which there would be detectable signs.
This Phoenix (although it is stationary in its place) carries many advanced equipment to measure the constituents of the air; I don't think it is much different from that of our Earth; it is fresh air that is present there.
It's fresh air alright, but as others have told you in this thread, it's very different from that of our Earth. The constituents are different, and the surface atmospheric pressure is a tiny fraction of what it is here.
If we study the atmosphere of Earth from the surface of Mars using the same methods, we may reach the same results and say that the earth atmosphere is full of methane and some other similar gases.
No, spectroscopy's not limited to just detecting the upper layers, we'd get it exactly right.
While concerning what they say the atmosphere is thin; this might have been for the same reason just mentioned; then how can such atmosphere carry many clouds at some high distances, and these clouds move by the wind?
The thinness of the atmosphere has very little to do with whether clouds and winds can form. If there's any atmosphere at all, there'll be weather.
If the snow is little, it may go under the ground; but in case there is such tremendous frozen pole, it should melt and form many water bodies like rivers and seas.
No; already explained that one.
The extinction of life occurred on Mercury and Venus when their circumstances became deadly and fatal.
There's no evidence there was ever any life on Mercury or Venus. Their circumstances have always been deadly and fatal.
While Mars is viable with life, and its circumstances are better than Mercury and Venus; only it has to be explored more, and in new methods and this will occur by time.
No, Mars is not viable, all evidence indicates it's cold and dead. There may be some residual life at the level of bacteria, but almost certainly nothing bigger than that.
Moreover, some planets have the pole as the hottest region like the planet Uranus, which rotates around its horizontal axis, so that the polar region will be always facing the sun;
Obviously you don't understand the gyroscope effect. It's true that Uranus' rotational axis is almost horizontal, but that doesn't mean the polar region will always point toward the sun, it means that for half the planet's year it'll be pointing away from it. The axis of rotation does not rotate to always point at the sun, it keeps the same orientation with respect to the stars throughout its orbit, and over the course of its year its entire surface will be illuminated.
...there are people, other than us, there on the planets.
No there aren't. Only the earth has people on it, and the moon did briefly during the U.S. Apollo program. There is no place in the solar system but earth where people can live without elaborate technology to protect them, and it would be detectable from here.
Moreover, life did not evolve spontaneously on Earth...
Yes it did. Multiple converging lines of evidence all point that way, but I won't be drawn into a discussion with you about evolution versus creation. You wouldn't understand it.
God created these four distinctively, and neither was Darwin right nor was Marx correct.
Darwin was indeed correct, descent with modification by natural selection is the way it works, the evidence is overwhelming and incontrovertible. I have no idea what you think Marx has to do with it though. What you keep calling the four races are not really that distinct. They're not distinguishable genetically; race is a social construct, not a biological one.
Mercury Has Stopped Its Axial Rotation
Venus Has Stopped Its Axial Rotation
Wrong on both counts. Mercury makes one orbit of the sun in 88 earth days and one rotation about its axis in about 59 days. Venus makes one orbit in 225 days, and one rotation in 241 days. You can look it up, the data's readily available on space.com, Wikipedia, and a thousand other places.
This [the Sudbury impact]
was not a meteorite or asteroid; it was a comet; this also confirms our past thread about the Tenguska comet. This proves also that comets have a predilection and affinity to cold regions of the earth, like Siberia, Alaska, the northern parts of Canada and the Antarctica.
No, it was not a comet, the reference does not confirm anything in your Tunguska thread, that impact was almost certainly an airburst of a stony asteroid about 5 miles above the surface, and it proves nothing like what you claim. Comets are mostly ice and dust, as you could easily discover if you'd use any reference but the Quran and al-Hilly's interpretion of it for this information. There is no evidence that comets are preferentially attracted to colder parts of the earth, and that claim is completely at variance with well-understood principles of orbital mechanics. Temperature is simply not a factor.
So if the impact vaporize the asteroid, from where has the deposit of the nickel come?
Up from the earth's mantle, as you could easily have discovered with about 2 minutes of research.
This is in contrary to the meteorite which will stay on the ground.
Meteorites usually make pretty big holes and do a fair bit of damage. The surfaces of the moon and Mercury offer ample evidence of that. Impacts on the earth don't leave such obvious lasting impressions because weathering and vegetation soon obliterate them. It's certainly not obvious standing on the ground, for instance, that the Sudbury basin is an impact crater. According to the Earth Impact Database maintained by the University of New Brunswick, there are 174 confirmed impact sites on the earth, all caused by meteorites, none by comets.
To prove you wrong: it is in the Quran 2: 6-7
That proves absolutely nothing. The evidence that the Quran is what you believe it to be comes entirely from within the Quran itself, or from others like you who believe what it claims about itself. That's self-referential and, like most of your arguments, not logically valid.
