Deep Truths Header

The Big Lie - Exposed!

--By David Brandt Berg

Part I of Darwin's doctrine of delusion debunked

Forward: Did you know that the teaching of Evolution is linked to racism? If you don't believe it, please know that the full title of Charles Darwin's book "On the Origin of Species" is, "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life" Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_Species Evolution is also the cornerstone for Communism and Nazism and the justification of such evils as genocide.

Hitler said in "Mein Kampf" that if you tell a lie for the purpose of propaganda, tell a big one! Because the bigger the lie is, the more people are apt to believe it, because they can't possibly believe you would dare to tell such a big lie unless it was the truth!

So the Devil was smart with Evolution. He told the big lie: "In the beginning, God didn't create the Heavens and the Earth; it just happened by some kind of a big accident, forces working on the materials, and blah, blah, blah. Therefore, man is merely a beast who evolved from lower forms of beasts over millions of years, from one species to another, and life originated itself spontaneously from chemicals!"

This doctrine of delusion has become the general theme of modern so-called science, and is therefore no longer true science, but pure, imaginary, evolutionary bunk! Evolution is now referred to as the "great principle" of biology. But a principle, according to the dictionary, is a foundation truth, or fact, the basis of other truths. And if you know anything about evolution at all, you know it has never been proven to be either a truth or a fact, much less the foundation or the basis of other truths.

Now when I'm talking about evolution, I'm not talking about or minimizing the true science of true biology, which can be proven--how plants grow and animals propagate and multiply and so on. I'm talking about a wild, fictitious fairy tale of imagination which they have never come close to proving!

There is no proof for evolution! It has to be believed, therefore it's a faith, therefore it's a religion ! So they're teaching a new compulsory religion in today's hallowed halls of higher learning. Even the great high priest and founding father of this new false faith, Charles Darwin himself, confessed that "the belief (note the emphasis on belief) in natural selection (evolution) must at present be grounded entirely on general considerations. ... When we descend to details, we can prove that no one species has changed ... nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory."

Three monkeys sat on a coconut tree,

Discussing things as they're said to be.

Said one to the other,

"Now listen you two,

There's a certain rumor

That can't be true ...

That man descended from our noble race.

The very idea is sure to disgrace."

"No monkey ever deserted his wife,

Starved her babies and ruined her life.

And you've never known another monk,

To leave her babies with others to bunk,

Or pass them on from one to another."

"And another thing you will never see ...

Is a monk build a fence around a coconut tree;

And let the coconuts go to waste,

Forbidding all the other monks to taste."

"Why, if I put a fence around this tree,

Starvation would force you to steal from me."

"And here's something else a monk won't do ...

Go out at night and get on a stew;

Or use a gun or club or knife,

To take some other monkey's life."

"Yes, man descended ... ornery cuss,

But, brother, ... he didn't descend from us!



~ Author Unknown ~

Darwin's ardent apostle and dedicated disciple, Thomas Henry Huxley, likewise admitted that his own opinion was NOT grounded on any true scientific facts or evidence, but was more of a "religious" expression: "I beg you once more to recollect that I have no right to call my opinion anything but an act of philosophical faith."

So Evolution is really a religion of unbelief in God. And that's its whole purpose; To eliminate faith in God and to foster the false doctrine of devils that the creation created itself and God had nothing to do with it, so there doesn't need to be a God--it could have happened without Him!

This attitude was made evident at the Chicago Darwinian Centennial in 1959 where 2,500 delegates assembled themselves to commemorate the hundredth years since the release of Charlie's book The Origin of Species. The noted evolutionist Sir Julian Huxley, Thomas' grandson, declared in his sermon to the congregation,

"Evolution had no room for the supernatural. The earth and its inhabitants were not created, they evolved. We all accept the fact of evolution. The evolution of life is no longer a theory. It is a fact. It is the basis of all our thinking.

It's like what the idol-makers said to ancient Israel that day they made the golden calf: "Behold these be thy gods, O Israel, fall down and worship!" (Ex. 32:4) But today the calf doesn't even have to be golden anymore! In fact, it can be a monkey, or a tadpole, or any creeping thing. "Behold, these be thy gods, O Israel, crawl down and worship the little tadpole and a little bit of jelly, a little wriggle-tail and the four four-footed creatures and creeping things. These are thy gods, these are the creatures that made you, this is what you came from, they are your creators"--this is exactly what evolution teaches!

Life from non-life?

At the core of evolutionary theory is the big assumption that life somehow arose from non-life, that by pure chance the right chemicals happened to be in the right place, in the right arrangement, at the right time, under the right conditions, and by some mysterious, unknown electrochemical process -- POOF -- life created itself! This assumption is completely contrary to a universally accepted and proven law of science, known as the second law of thermodynamics, which states that "All processes (left to themselves) go toward a greater state of disorder, disorganisation, disarrangement and less complexity."4

In other words, inanimate matter never increases its own order, organisation or complexity--these always decrease! And even if the elements could arrange themselves into a certain definite pattern, as is necessary for life, they could not make themselves a living cell because LIFE is not a mere physical arrangement of chemicals! The likelihood of this happening is so far-fetches that Princeton University Professor of Biology Edwin Conklin has said: "The probability of life originating from accident is comparable to the probability of the unabridged dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop."

As for the so-called "simple cell", from which the evolutionists say all living creatures have evolved, Look Magazine declared, "THE CELL IS AS COMPLICATED AS NEW YOUR CITY." The well-known evolutionist Loren Eisely likewise admitted in his book, The Immense Journey, that "Intensified effort revealed that even the supposedly simple amoeba was a complex, self-operating chemical factory. The notion that he was a simple blob, the discovery of whose chemical composition would enable us instantly to set the life process in operation, turned out to be, at best, a monstrous caricature of the truth."

Can you imagine a dictionary, a chemical factory, or New York City, coming into existence by itself--POOF--without any assistance from an intelligent designer, planner or creator? Such is the logic of evolution's imaginary assumption that the infinitely complex "simple" cell accidentally came together and came alive by blind, unguided chance! Commenting on this assumption, the British biologist Woodger said, "It is simple dogmatism--asserting that what you want to believe did in fact happen." The absurdity of this evolutionary logic is only amplified as we move on to the even more complex, multi-celled forms of life.

The existence of species

According to evolution, today's plant and animal species are all merely transitional forms, part of an endless chain of life whose links are gradually evolving into more advanced stages. For this reason Darwin regarded the classification "species" as "a mere useless abstraction" and "as one arbitrarily given for the sake of convenience."

This is in direct contradiction to God's Word which states that all living creatures were created "after their kind" with the ability to bring forth seed, or fruit, "after their Kind." (Gen. 1) Now this word "kind" is the old King James translation of the Hebrew word "min", which today's scholars have translated to mean "species" So today's living creatures are not the result of some sort of transmutation of species, but definite set species! Not natural selection, but God's selection! Not evolutionary adaptations, but God's Creations!

We never heard yet or they never proved yet that any dog ever became a cat or a cat a dog! There are all kinds of dogs and all kinds of cats, but there are no dog-cats or no cat-dogs! Because God created everything "after its own kind" and they can't possibly get out of that kind. They may vary within their kind or specie, but they'll never change into another! It's impossible!

These facts even disturbed Darwin, who questioned, "Why, if species have descended from the other species by fine gradation, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion, instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?" The answer to Charles' question is simple! All he had to do was read Genesis Chapter One and he could have known that species have not descended from other species, but were created by God in orderly, set "kinds"--and that's why all nature is not in confusion!

Hybrids

But haven't the scientists working with genetics produced new species of hybrid plants and animals? Doesn't this prove that entirely new species could have evolved from the interbreeding of different parent species? NO! The accepted definition among the scientific community of a species is, "A group of organisms that freely interbreed and produce fertile offspring." And the rare hybrids that can be produced by crossing two species are not "fertile offspring," but are sterile! As The Collegiate Encyclopedia acknowledges, "The infertility of species hybrids is one mechanism by which species can remain distinct."

In other words, God Himself has placed the barrier of sterility against the mixing up of his original appointed "kinds." An example of this is the mule, which is a species hybrid between a male, ass and a female horse. Although outwardly appearing to be a new species or "kind", it is impossible for a male and female mule to reproduce mule offspring!--They cannot bypass the unmovable boundary of sterility! The only way to produce more mules is to continually cross a male ass with a female horse. This God ordained biological principle was verified by the famous evolutionary professor of zoology, Richard B. Goldschmidt, who wrote, "No where have the limits of the species been transgressed, and these limits are separated from the limits of the next good species by the unbridged gap, sterility."

Mutations

What about the extensive radiation experiments that have produced actual mutations and changes in creatures such as the fruit fly? Isn't this ample evidence to prove that similar mutations could be the "chief building blocks of evolutionary change," as Sir Julian Huxley has called them, and as most scientists and educators today claim them to be?

No! None of the many thou sands of scientific experiments with mutations have ever produced a new "kind" or specie of animal or plant--never! All of the geneticists and evolutionists, with all of their knowledge and intellect, under "perfect" laboratory conditions, and using their modern radiation techniques that speed up the occurrence of mutations a million-fold--they have utterly failed to change or mutate one "kind" into another! Yet these same evolutionists somehow expect us to believe that blind, unguided chance has produced the millions of beautiful, varying and complex forms of life on the earth today!

And as far as mutational changes being the "chief building blocks" of evolution, Hermann J. Muller, who won the 1946 Nobel prize for his contributions to the science of genetics, said,

"IN MORE THAN 99 PERCENT OF CASES THE MUTATION OF A GENE PRODUCES SOME KIND OF HARMFUL EFFECT, SOME DISTURBANCE OF FUNCTION. ... Most mutations are bad; in fact, good ones are so rare that we may consider them ALL as BAD." To illustrate the effect of gene mutations on an organism, H. Kalmus stated in his book, Genetics, "A popular comparison would be with a watch; if a part of the mechanism is altered by some change, it is very unlikely that the watch will be improved by the accident."

A clear-cut example of the negative effects of gene mutations occurred in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan, at the end of World War II. The members of the populace that escaped immediate death from the hellish atomic bombs used against these cities were subjected to varying degrees of atomic radiation--resulting in thousands of mutations. None of these mutations produced any new, superior, advanced forms of human beings, as evolution might lead us to expect. Instead, the pitiful victims of these gene mutations suffered deformities, damage and death!

Drugs and chemicals can also cause mutations, as countless victims today can sadly testify. One of the most widely known instances of this in recent years was the tranquilizer THALIDOMIDE. Again, none of these chemically-induced mutations were beneficial to the "human species," but rather resulted in cruelly deformed babies, many without arms or legs! These tragic examples certainly affirm the assertion of Dr. W.E. Lammerts, former director of research for Germains Seed Company, that "biologically, ALL mutations are defective!" They are by no means the purely theoretical "building blocks of evolution" that some liars claim them to be.

The fossil record

If this big, ridiculous, idiotic lie, this complicated, fabricated framework of fiction called evolution were true, then there should be more missing links dug up than anything else! If there were billions of years of evolution, we'd be up to our ears in missing links!

Even Darwin realised this, and so said, "As by this theory innumerable transitional forms ("links") must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth? ... The number of intermediate and transitional links between all living and extinct species must have been inconceivably great. He then answered his own question about these missing links by declaring: "I believe the answer lies in the (geological) record being incomparably less perfect than is generally supposed."

But now, 120 years later, Darwin's excuse is totally ridiculous! Literally hundreds of millions of fossils have been extracted from all fossil-bearing rock strata and none of them are "transitional forms" or missing links--they all obviously belong to a definite species! In fact, it is estimated that over 100,000 different, distinct species of fossils have been found! Yes, no "links"!

A.S. Romer, professor of zoology at Harvard University, recently summed up the present situation when he said:

"'Links' are missing just where we most fervently desire them, and it is all too probable that many 'links' will continue to be missing."

The Monkey-Men

There are no man-apes and no ape-men, and all that baloney you read about and see pictures of in most of today's biology textbooks is just hellish, fiendish, tommyrot! All those half-ape, half-man ape-men and man-apes, screaming and grinning and groaning like a bunch of horrors from some nether-world down in the depths of hell are imaginary monsters created by the fiendish mind of the Devil and promulgated by men.

And although we do not usually like to soil our fingers or pollute our minds with the dirty lies of dirty liars, it might be helpful to some of you if we at least balance the scales with the truth while pointing out a few of the ridiculous boners and fallacies of the theory of "the descent of man," which is currently taught as gospel truth and historical fact by most of today's "educators."

This might at least clarify the issues in your own minds and give you a little more effective ammunition to fire back at them in defense of the truth so you can "be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you," as the Apostle Peter said (1Pet.3:15). We will now briefly examine the most famous of the fossil remains which are supposed to have been the forerunners of modern man and the theories surrounding them.

You will notice that the evolutionists have chosen some very long and difficult-to-pronounce names for their "missing-links", the foundation stones, or bones, on which their faith is built. Doing this sort of thing envelopes it all with a shroud of mystery and even puts a little superstitious awe into the minds of the average laymen. Like many other religious authorities, the high priests of the "sacred cow" of false-science has done this to give credence to their faith and to gain reverence for themselves!

Darwin claimed that "The Simiadae (monkeys) branched off into two great stems, The New World and The Old World monkeys; and from the latter, at a remote period, Man, the wonder and glory of the universe, proceeded." In other words, great and glorious man evolved himself from a monkey and was not created by God in His image, as the Bible says!

However, the scientists soon found it impossible to reconstruct a halfway believable evolutionary chain showing man rising from the ape family, so they had to cook up a new theory--which they promptly did!

Now the modern evolutionists believe that man came not from the apes, but from an older, more primitive primate who was the common ancestor of both the apes and man! But as far as any fossil evidence to prove this new theory, New Scientist magazine commented:

"The unmistakable correspondence between man and anthropoids points clearly to a common ancestor. but it has not yet been found and we may have some difficulty in recognizing it."

As for any evidence to prove early man's progressive evolution from this supposed "common ancestor," the prominent evolutionists who wrote the book The Primates confessed,

"Unfortunately, the early stages of man's evolutionary progress along his individual line remain a total mystery."

Scientific American likewise stated: "The nature of the line leading to living man ... remains a matter of pure theory." So the very basis or foundation of the evolutionary teaching that man has descended from a lower, ape-like form is "a matter of pure theory," cooked up by a bunch of nincompoops who are perpetrating on the world what the Bible refers to as "the vain babblings of science falsely so called." (1Tim.6:20)

The first actual fossils that the evolutionist classify as "the earliest known form of man" are said to belong to a species called "the Australopithecines," or the "man-apes" of Africa. Although their brains were only a third as large as modern man's, it is theorised by some that they were toolmakers and therefore men. But even many of the evolutionists, including the famed explorer and anthropologist J.T. Robinson, have disputed this, claiming that the tool-making was not done by these so-called "man-apes" at all, but by true men!

Another well-known evolutionist, Le Gros Clark, warned of the Australopithecines: "The terms 'man' and 'human' can only be applied to them with some reserve, for there is no certain evidence that they possessed any of the special attributes which are commonly associated with the human beings of today." And R.L. Lehrman, another evolutionist, wrote in his book,

"AUSTRALOPITHECUS WAS MERELY AN UPRIGHT, INTELLIGENT APE, NOT A MAN. The small braincase bearing heavy ridges over the eyes, across the back, and down the center was like that of any ape."

The next fella the evolutionists usually show us on their near little evolutionary sequence from monkey to to man is "Pithecanthropus Erectus," whom they affectionately refer to as "Javaman" for short. He was discovered in a Javanese river bed in 1891 by Professor Dubois, a young Dutchman who was greatly influenced by the erroneous teachings of Ernst Haeckle. Haeckle was an ardent German evolutionist who concocted and was caught in several 'scientific' frauds' openly praised and perpetrated evolutionary theory as a means by which he hoped to destroy Christianity and all faiths in God, and was the first to construct the imaginary evolutionary "family tree" showing how life rose from non-life and how today's creatures evolved from more primitive forms.

The section of Haeckle's fraudulent family tree that most interested and eventually obsessed young Dubois was the branch which led from ape to man, where, by an act of blind faith, Haeckle had placed an unknown, undiscovered "link" whom he named "Pithecanthropus erectus," which literally means "walking ape-man."

Dubois was challenged with the thought of personally discovering the "missing-link" and soon forsook home and career as he set out for Java, where in 1887 he began a determined search, digging doggedly for the as yet unknown bones. Then four years later this dog had his day and Dubois' moment of glory arrived as he gleefully made his announcement to a waiting world: At last, out ancient ancestor, the long sought "link" between man and monkey was found! Thus was "Java Man" born and christened with the name his godless godfather Haeckle had reserved for him, "Pithecanthropus erectus."

His fame and acclaim were immediate and today in almost any museum of natural history you can find elaborate busts and reconstructions of him, giving his viewers the impression that they are beholding a creature who was found like the mastodon, embedded in ice, perfectly preserved for our awe and admiration. Or if you prefer full-colour portraits of him romping about in his natural habitat with his friends and fellows, you need but consult any standard textbook on biology or anthropology and there you'll find him in colourful detail--showing that, indeed, the very hairs of his head are numbered.

Little does the uninformed person imagine that these awe-inspiring masterpieces are the reconstructions of three molar teeth, a fragment of a skull cap, and a left thigh bone -- found over 50 feet apart in an old riverbed in Java! Neither do they tell you. as does the 1949 textbook Mankind So Far, that after the world had accepted Dubois' "missing link", "One voice alone now cried that the Java Man was not a man, but a giant, tree-walking gibbon. ... And here it was that Pithecanthropus felt the unkindest cut of all. For the voice was the voice of Dr. Dubois himself." Yes after further studying his fossils, Dubois decided and announced with certainty that "Java Man" was merely an extinct ape or monkey, and was not the "missing link" after all!

"The discovery which ranks next in importancE," reports the Encyclopedia Brittanica in its 1946 edition, "was made by Mr. Charles Dawson at Piltdown, Sussex, between the years 1911 and 1915. He found the greater part of the left half of a deeply mineralized human skull, also part of the right half; the right half of the lower jaw, damaged at certain parts but carrying the first and second molar teeth and the socket of the third molar or wisdom tooth."

"Amongst British authorities there is now agreement that the skull and the jaw are parts of the same individual." These remains came to be known as the famous "Piltdown Man" OR "Eoanthropus Dawsoni" (dawn man of Dawson) in honour of their devout discoverer, Charles Dawson. However, Dawson's honour soon diminished and another "missing link" bit the dust as the world found out that Piltdown Man's resurrection involved considerable monkey business! As Science Newsletter tells us:

"One of the most famous fakes exposed by scientific proof was Piltdown Man, found in Sussex, England ... and thought by some to be 500,000 years old. After much controversy, it turned out to be not a primitive man at all, but a composite of a skull of modern man and the jawbone of an ape. ... The jawbone had been 'doctored' with bichromate of potash and iron to make it look mineralized."

Piltdown man's teeth also revealed some not-too-primitive dental work: They had all been filed down to make them appear more ancient. In fact, Reader's Digest pointed out: "Every important piece proved a forgery. Piltdown Man was a fraud from start to finish! ... All the circumstantial evidence points to Dawson as the author of the hoax." 33 --HA!

The next gentleman the evolutionists introduce us to in this imaginary journey on their non-existent road from monkey to man is a certain "Neanderthal Man." He is often kindly referred to as "the best known of our fossil relatives," and like "Java Man" you can easily find convincing full-colour photograph-like portraits of him hunting and cooking his supper, chatting with his mates around the campfire, doing his household or cavehold chores, etc. In such illustrations he is usually very hairy, ape-like and moronic looking, just what you'd expect a "missing link" to look like. However a recent edition of The Collegiate Encyclopedia wrote regarding Neanderthal Man's bestiality:

"As a consequence of preconceived notions as to what Neanderthal Man should have looked like, an unfortunate myth has been perpetrated upon several generations respecting his appearance. He has been traditionally represented with a bull neck, knock knees, a stooped gait and a rather bestial appearance. The truth is that Neanderthal Man had none of these traits, that he walked erect and that his appearance was almost certainly not less benign than that of contemporary man.

"A remarkable fact about Neanderthal Man is that in males brain volume varied between 1,425 and 1,641 cc. with an average of 1,553 cc. The average brain volume of contemporary man is about 1,350 cc. Thus the average size of the brain in Neanderthal Man was substantially greater than it is contemporary man." 34

So the so-called "Neanderthal Man" WAS "not less benign" in his appearance than you or i, and his average brain size was "substantially greater" than ours! This indicates that mankind is not evoluting--but if anything he's devoluting or degenerating which is what I've said for years. Man today has devolved and degenerated--and that's why you can see some people running around today looking like missing links, because of degeneration and sin and devolution.

THis is exactly what the bible predicted about the end time when it said, "In the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves ... ever learning (today's educational system!), and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth ... evil men and seducers shall wax (or grow) WORSE AND WORSE, deceiving and being deceived!" (2Tim.3) And this is what's happening today--mankind is not "progressing towards perfection"35 as Darwin promised, but is growing "worse and worse" as the Bible predicted!

This same "Last Days" passage also warned that "The time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine (the truth); but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears (ears that want to be tickled with lies!). And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables!" This time has come, and these days are here, and their ears have turned from the truth and they are turned unto fables!--Like evolution!

Another disturbing problem which confronts and baffles the evolutionists is the fact that the remains of modern type, "Homo-Sapiens" men have been found in the same strata and even in earlier, more ancient strata than the so-called "prehistoric" men. Professor A.M. Winchester said in his book, Biology and its Relationship to Mankind, "The remains of Swanscombe Man in Europe, the Kanjera Man in Africa, and others suggest that true man (modern type) may have existed as long as 300,000 years ago,* which would have made him a contemporary of homo erectus (Java man)."

* Later in this lesson you will see why we do not agree with this "300,000 years" calculation--we are merely quoting Prof. Winchester here to show you that even the scientists must admit that modern men were around at the same time as the so-called "Java Man."

Other remains of modern-type men found in a lower, older layer than their supposedly more primitive "prehistoric ancestors" were unearthed in 1947 at FonteChevade, France. As for these fossils, whose brain volume was calculated to be 1,470 cc, The Collegiate Encyclopedia states, "In FonteChevade Man we have the evidence that homo sapiens (modern man) actually preceded neanderthal man in order of appearance." 37

So here the evolutionists have to admit that "homo sapiens," normal modern-type human beings, were running around at the same time as the Pithecanthropines (Java man) and were here before the Neanderthals--both of whom we're supposed to have evolved from!--Ha! Isn't that just absolutely ridiculous?! I mean, it takes more faith to believe evolution--it takes more faith to believe this incredible, fictitious, fairy tale of man's origins than it does to accept God's simple, beautiful, inspired explanation in His Word!

Copyright (c) 1998 by The Family International

Request



James Arendt

If you find this website useful, your gifts toward support of my ministry sharing the truth of God's Word are greatly appreciated. The Church, the Elect of God, the Ecclesia, the born again believers of Christ Jesus, have been flooded with false doctrines from Jesuits and the Pope. I hope to correct them with this website. Your support will encourage me to keep this website updated! My Paypal ID: james.arendt@deeptruths.com Or you can click on the icon below:



I'm also the webmaster of I'm also the webmaster of jamesjpn.net . You can read my bio there.

Related web articles:

Comment about this article from a scientist

Footnote before the comments section:

Some readers of this article may consider the language and tone used in this article to be too strong, maybe even insulting. The author does not what to offend you. He is attempting to stir you up to cause you to question whether you have been fed a lie by the educational system and mass media, both controlled by the elite of this world. People have written me angry responses about "The Big Lie" article. It shows me that emotions have clouded their reasoning. True scientific research has nothing to do with our emotions, or what we believe or hope to see. It has everything to do with following facts based on research. No matter how much one can rationalize as truth what the pseudo science of evolution is feeding you, it still doesn't make it true. One of my jobs is PC repair, both hardware and software. In my experience in troubleshooting PC problems, I learned that the solution does not lie necessarily in what I think or what I believe or what I hope it might be, but in the reality of what it is. This reality is only discovered by testing all the possible factors and variables concerning the problem. Unless you yourself are a scientific researcher, can you say you have done the same in testing the doctrines of evolution whether or not they be based on reality? If not, I suggest that you might consider questioning your beliefs.

WARNING! This is not a debate forum! I will allow only one negative comment per user so that I may reply to it. Any further negative comments by the same person will be deleted, and the commentator will be banned from posting any further comments either on this page or anywhere else on this site.

Update January 27, 2013:

What we believe is an act of our will. We choose to believe what we believe because of our paradigm of life, our perceptions which form our opinions. Opinions and perceptions do not necessarily equal reality. If you read the comments below, you see those who believe the assumptions of scientists are trying to draw me in to a debate over religion! The ones who have mocked the truths of this article have clearly shown me they do not want to even consider what the Bible has to say. If one rejects the very written Word of God, what can I tell them that might change their mind? It boils down to a debate about religion which is exactly what it is all about, their religion of faith in so called "science" verses mine of faith in God and the Bible. I am not against learning and science. True scientific research is supposed to be a quest for knowledge. Knowledge is supposed to better our lives, not hurt them. Darwinism is not science, it is dogmatism, the tendency to lay down principles as incontrovertibly true, without consideration of evidence or the opinions of others. You might call me dogmatic as well, but know I have been on the other side of this debate! I once believed that Evolution was true science. Later I chose to reject it after learning the truths of the Bible. Though I was supposed to be a Roman Catholic and therefore believe in God the creator, I was so dumb that when my high school biology teacher suggested that life may have begun with lighting striking some primordial soup, I didn't even think to question it! By the way, "Primordial soup" is a term introduced in 1924 by the Soviet biologist Alexander Oparin. Consider the source: All Soviets were supposed to be atheists. You may reject all of the above as useless babble. If you do, I submit to you a final consideration: If the evolution of life is a fact, it means we are not created equal, which means that war, racism and genocide are easily justifiable. If evolution is true, the strong and powerful exterminating the weak and poor would ultimately benefit the human race. If you think so, you are part of the problem of the all the evil in the world.

Are you sure you want to report it? Topic : THE BIG LIE of Evolution-1 Sort Newest Oldest Likes Dislikes Positive Critical 4/5 (4) 1 2 > Last RSS Alerts 1 2 > Last Page 1 of 2 Please enter at least one item. Item:

Item:

Item:

Item:

Item: Please enter at least one item. Item:

Item:

Item:

Item:

Item: Please enter the link of the website

Optionally you can add display text

Please enter the email address

Optionally add any display text

Please enter the link of the image

Please enter the link of the video. Supports

YouTube, Vimeo, MetaCafe and Dailymotion.

Add Comment Powered by Commentics