Deep Truths banner
Articles from David Berg and the Family International -

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: Evolution is also the cornerstone for Communism and Nazism and the justification of such evils as genocide.
The Big lie of Evolution

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."

Did Charley make a monkey out of you?

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!


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."


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!

(Continue to part 2)
Copyright (c) 1998 by The Family International

The article you just read is free, but the staff time working on it ... isn't. Please consider a small gift of even $1.00 to keep this site going. If you have a Paypal account, you can send a donation to:

Related web articles:

Comment about this article from a scientist

I am mailing to say what a pleasure it was in reading The Big Lie Exposed, myself a scientist in haematology & a Muslim by faith found your internet articles so related to my thought process I had to e-mail you and thank you for your intellectual efforts in exposing lies that are being taught today to the so called intellectuals of our forth coming societies. Having worked as scientist in healthcare for over 6 years now I can say there is irrefutable and a vast amount of data in all circles of science to disprove the theory of evolution, unfortunately it is the evolutionists that have the higher posts to indoctrinate the youth into believing this mythical formulation in the educational institutions. Therefore the syllabus they are taught reflect their secular social beliefs and continue to propagate the Evolutionists agenda. Just like to say keep up the good work!!!!

Update January 27, 2013:

I disabled adding additional comments to this page. There are more than enough comments to prove debates have no merit whatsoever. You either choose to believe the truth of creation by Intelligent Design, God, the Creator, or you choose to believe the assumptions and theories of pseudo science. You either choose to believe the record of Genesis 1:27    "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them." or you choose to believe the assumption of pseudo-science, "Life arose from nonliving matter"

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.

Comments (72)

Topic: big_lie_exposed.html
4/5 (5)
Nick (US) says...
Okay first and foremost I would like to applaud the stupidity of Richard (US) for holding his book that I am quite positive hye has not fully read, and his oh-so-logic reasoning of believing in 6 days plus magic beard man over 6000 years plus natural selection. It has been proven that animals (and other living things) change themselves overtime to longer survive in their habitat. For instance, a zebra getting faster to evade his predators easier, the fastest will survive and breed faster ... Read More
26th January 2013 3:03am
Webmaster James (Japan) says...
Richard (US) is one of the few honest people who wrote a comment on the article that made sense! Your statement, \"Evolution happened\" only reflects your beliefs,nothing more. Of course anybody who questions your paradigm of life would offend you. That\'s because you are led by your feelings, not facts. You do not prove anything. There are scientists who DO believe in a Biblical 6 day creation. See
26th January 2013 12:50pm
Jill Dawson (India) says...
Evolution might be a lie but Adaptability isn\'t and the proof is what you can see in all the living species including humans and it only improves the quality of a species doesn\'t degenerate it. When you say God made human as his own image you take it in the wrong sense. There is a deeper meaning. God is a soul, a light, an energy which is the driving force behind the universe. Instead of being superficial think about the life, our soul which is similar to God and so there\'s a God in each ... Read More
17th January 2013 1:45am
Webmaster James (Japan) says...
OK, the article may not be perfect to your liking but fact remains there is no design without a designer. You might appreciate this one better:

As for dinosaurs: They are lizards and lizards never stop growing. Before the Great Flood people and animals lived 10 times longer than they do now. A lizard had 10 times longer to grow. Hence you get a bigger lizard. This is what Dr. Kent Hovind teachers.
17th January 2013 11:38am
John (Auckland, New Zealand) says...
Christians claim that God is all-loving but the Bible states that only Christians may go to heaven. If this is the case, then people of other religions such as Islam, Buddhism or Hinduism will suffer in Hell regardless of whether or not they were good in their life or not. If you are a non-Christian or an Atheist you automatically go to hell. All of a sudden, God longer seems ALL-loving but loves only those that believe him. Suddenly, God is no longer caring and benevolent but genocidical, ... Read More
16th January 2013 6:19pm
Dan (US) says...
In the not to distant future all of the supporters of evolution will admit to the existence of god.
The political influence of the most powerful religion will be at the heart of this.
In the not to distant future u will be forced to make a choice.
Thank you Dan for sharing that.  I think I know what you mean by the political influence of the most powerful religion is.  Its headquarters is in  Rome.
18th January 2013 11:52pm
Webmaster James (Japan) says...
For some insights and answers to your questions, please read on this website.
26th January 2013 7:28pm
Ian (UK) says...
Who ever claimed a cat would evolve into a dog, or that humans evolved from monkeys? All I have to say is that if God is a designer, he is not a very good one. Why not simply design humans in a manner that would remove the necessity to create technological advancements, such as flying. Why not just give us wings? I do not believe there has ever been a designer and since no one in history has ever managed to prove there is one, I stand by reasoned argument, and believing an old man built a boat, ... Read More
6th January 2013 10:04am
Webmaster James (Japan) says...
Ian, you only expose your self-righteousness by saying the Great Designer did a poor job. If you were God, you think you would do a better job in the design of our body? You would make humans with wings? IMHO, if mankind had wings, our path to self-destruction would have been yet faster than it is now! Mankind\'s technology makes it even easier for us to self-destruct. One reason why God confused the tongues of mankind from one language into many when they built the Tower of Babel was to slow ... Read More
6th January 2013 1:42pm
Azzz (South Orange, US) says...
Why would anyone believe in one more than the other is the question? Neither has been proven, correct? I guess believing in some Almighty man in the skies is less believable than believing that somehow two things came together and someone created intelligent beings? If they both sound over the edge and like fairy tales how can one be believed over the other? Well it all boils down to FAITH. I rather have faith in believing there is a God and believing in him if its going to give me eternity ... Read More
30th December 2012 12:00am
Conor (UK) says...
For indeed Like 10:27 says: \\\"And he answered, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself.”\\\"

Also John 2:9 \\\"Whoever says he is in the light and hates his brother is still in darkness.\\\" Do you not agree that to apologise is the Christian thing to do?
Absolutely! Thank you for your comments.
19th December 2012 5:52am
Conor (UK) says...
Admin, you say that there can be no design without a designer. I respond thus: there had to be something there. I am actually a christian and I believe that God was the first cause of creation, however I believe that he triggered evolution. Now then, back to my point - after god started it all, there had to be something there - so we may say: \'My word, look at that gecko! It is so complex in structure and behaviour, it must have been created\" Well there had to be something there, correct? ... Read More
19th December 2012 5:19am
Conor (UK) says...
Just to clarify - my conclusion of my comment below is that there is really nothing that puts creationism above evolution in terms of believability. Even if you think the same of evolution, I cannot see any viable reason for creationism being of more validity than evolution. What I find interesting is the blind following of the Bible - I hold it to be a metaphor rather than literal truth - for example the story of Noah\'s Ark is in fact a retelling of an ancient Sumeric tale of a man building a ... Read More
19th December 2012 5:29am
Webmaster James (Japan) says...
I do not believe there are inconsistencies in the Bible. The inconsistencies lie in our understanding of the Bible. Reading it just once or twice is not enough. One must first of all MUST look at God\'s Word as factual truth in order to understand it. Why do I think so? Because the Bible itself teaches that in Hebrews 4:2: \"For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it.\" Real faith in NOT ... Read More
31st December 2012 3:38pm
Karen Sanders (Monroe, US) says...
Why does this particular subject, Creation/Evolution, receive such heavy response? Why the strong adamance on both sides of the issue, the intransigent inflexibility of opinion? It is a cornerstone argument, a stronghold which, if removed, could very well set its house of faith on course to utter oblivion. One thing I like about the evolutionists is their heads-down, hands-to-the-grindstone approach to discovery. They are determined (whether they will admit it or not) to disprove the existence ... Read More
Thank you, Karen, for your comments. You may have just wrote them in time. I\'m trying to figure out how to disable more comments on this page while leavinig the rest up.
3rd December 2012 10:19am
Paul (Netherlands) says...

You have managed to prove Evolution is a theory!

1 question though: Why is Christianity (The believe in a God that has never been measured in any way and contradicts most of our scientific laws) more believable then Evolution?
Paul, you are merely stating an opinion. I do not believe that faith in God contradicts laws of physics or is something without substance. For example, many people have testified of dying, seeing themselves though outside their body, and seeing what they called a Being of light filled with love. And though these witnesses are not related or connected to each other, they all see similar things.

If the root meaning of \"science\" is \"knowledge\" why do not honest scientists take these testimonials to heart? The truth is that there are some who do!

Creation by God is far easier to believe than Evolution because of the principle of \"There is no design without a Designer.\" Evolution has no designer. If you found a wristwatch in the middle of a field would you say it happened to be there because it evolved from the ground? Out DNA is programming, FAR more complex than a watch or even all the programming that goes into the space shuttles of past days! There is no programming without a Programmer.
18th November 2012 11:45am
Daniel VanArsdale (Lompoc, US) says...
If wrist watches had been scurrying about for eons reproducing themselves, with variations that are passed down to descendants if they make one more successful at reproduction, then I might well believe they had evolved rather than been designed and constructed by some entity. If design requires a designer, who is it that designs each snow flake? Maybe God has more important things to do than design beetles and snowflakes.
The design of a snowflake has to do with the physical properties of water molecules forming on dust particles and crystallizing into a hexagonal lattice. The structures needed in the reproduction process of any form of life are extremely more complex! To compare a snowflake to human DNA is like comparing a sand castle to New York City and everybody who lives there. Why would life even want to reproduce itself? How could the sexual organs evolve to fit so nicely together when one doesn\\\\\\\'t know what the other is evolving into? No my friend, simple logic tell me it was created by a Designer.

Using the design of a beetle and the design of a snowflake in the same sentence is also like comparing a sand castle to NYC. A single cell of a beetle is infinitely more complex than any snowflake. God DID design a bettle.

I will not argue further what should be plainly clear to an honest and reasoning person. If you don\\\\\\\'t want to believe that life was created by God, the Creator, it is because you choose not to believe it. What we believe has a great deal to do with our will.

21st November 2012 8:38pm
Dirk Jan ter Brugge (Amsterdam, Netherlands) says...
This article is the #1 example from creationist ignorance. If you would actually understand the theory of evolution you would NOT post such an ignorant article on the internet. There are TONS of evidence that support evolution, 97% of scientists in america accept the theory of evolution. DNA research shows that humans and chimpanzees almost certainly hale a common ancestor, since our DNA is for 97% the same. You should also notice that: • Chickens have the genes for ... Read More
I already answered the question of why the DNA of humans and chimpanzees is 97% the same. I answered it in reply to another comment below. It\'s because they had a common Designer! This is also the reason why God\'s creatures, especially mammals, have similar facial features of a forehead, eyes, nose and mouth, and in that order of placement. It\'s because of a common Designer! There is NO design without a designer. To think otherwise is not science, it\'s faith in your particular beliefs.

If science is supposed to be a quest for knowledge, why do not scientists even CONSIDER the possibility of intelligent design? The reason why is the same reason you bring up your question of God: It\'s because Darwinism / Evolution is a RELIGION that competes with faith in God the Creator! If you cannot see that, my friend, it\'s because you have been brainwashed by the media as most of the world has been. Just because 97% of American scientists believe a lie doesn\'t make it truth. The majority of Americans are deceived by the System. They swallow most anything the System gives them. I\'m also an American citizen but I live in Japan and see America now how the world sees it. Pretty pitiful.

16th November 2012 11:18am
Ozaware (Australia) says...
Hi there. INTELIGENT DESIGN? .NOTHING has ever disproven the Bible and in turn GOD. We know for a fact that the KING JAMES BIBLE came out in 1611. There is a MATHEMATICAL PROPHECY which predicts Israel would be given back to the Jews in 1948... exactly 2320 years before the event took place. 101 Scientific facts the Bible knew BEFORE MAN. Even before ... Read More
15th November 2012 8:08pm
Mike (Australia) says...
Because I couldn\\\'t enter the original comment I planned (Apparently it was Spam, was too long, and contained \\\"repeated\\\" characters), I will say this: • If humans were created 6,000 years ago, what about Australian Aboriginals? They have been here 10,000 years or more, and some suggest 40,000 years. Geee, I think SOMEONE was proven wrong • Early humans had large heads because Apes do. Can you not SEE the resemblance some humans have to apes? Some Australian Aboriginals come ... Read More
Early humans had large heads because the average lifespan was hundreds of years before the Great Flood and people were larger then, giants compared to people today.

Sciences of technology based on provable mathematical principles such as the science that created the PC, the automobile, and all the practical things we use daily are certainly not a lie, but ALL the sciences that have Evolution as their cornerstone, i.e. astronomy, geology, biology, etc. ARE basing their teachings on a lie! They are basing their teachings on assumptions! They don\'t even consider creation by intelligent design as an option calling it \"unthinkable\"!

Can Australian Aboriginals procreate with any other race? The can because the Human Race is one! We are all descendants of Noah and his family!

13th November 2012 3:38am
Fahid (Vienna, Austria) says...
Whoever wrote this hilarious article is simply broadcasting jaw-dropping scientific ignorance. Please read Dawkins\\\' book \\\"The Greatest Show on Earth\\\" and educate yourself in Evolutionary Biology beyond elementary school level. Although the astounding lack of knowledge was amusing, I found myself pitying the author.
And I pity you sir for swallowing the big lie. Common sense reasoning tells me that there is NO design without a designer. Ask any builder, designer, engineer or architect that.
5th November 2012 4:37pm
Fahid (Vienna, Austria) says...
@Admin. You pity ME for \\\"swallowing the big lie\\\" but you believe in God? LOL! I totally agree with you that there is no design without a designer. However, we weren\\\'t designed, we evolved, which involves trial and error not design, so all you\\\'ve done is display FURTHER ignorance about evolution. Please dont reply again until you have read \\\"The Greatest Show on Earth\\\". I have read the bible cover-to-cover so am in a position to compare. You are simply rejecting something you do ... Read More

Genesis 1:27  So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

To believe in evolution without the force of intelligent design from a designER is to believe a fantasy, a fairy tale, or a religion. There is no common sense reasoning or scientific evidence to prove otherwise. This web page and its website, Deep Truths, didn\\\'t look like it does now 5 years years ago, it evolved into it\\\'s present appearance, but that evolution didn\\\'t happen by itself, I caused it! This comment section didn\\\'t even exist a year ago. I created it. When my websites break and go off line due to problems, they stay broken till I fix them. They don\\\\\\\'t fix themselves. Because I was created in the image of God, and because God is the Creator, He has given me the power to create this website.

If you wish to base your beliefs on your prejudice, that is your choice. What we believe has a great deal to do with personal will. I choose to believe God created me. I choose to believe in God\\\'s Word, the Bible. It works for me and is the basis for my happiness, my entire life, what I do in Japan, what I did in Russia, what I did in a dozen other countries in sharing God\\\'s truth with others. I will not give your agenda a higher priority than the things I hold of value. We can agree to disagree. I will not debate about your religion, the belief that matter evolved into its present forms on its own..That\\\'s your faith, not mine.

PS. I will not debate with you any further than this. English is not your native language which means we are bound to have different definitions of basic meanings of words!

6th November 2012 5:12pm
gandalf (Australia) says...
to admin youre absolutely right, a theory that is backed by a hundred of years of evidence(proof) is a big lie instead what we should all believe is we came from a dirt man and rib women who communicated a talking snake while were at it, gravity, which also is a theory, is a big lie too considering the fact that theres more evidence of evolution than theres evidence for gravity, thats true, look it up. and fyi, did you know that the part of the bible which states that jesus was born of a virgin ... Read More
23rd January 2013 12:21am
Webmaster James (Japan) says...
I see we have quite a difference in our paradigm of life in general. I know a lot of people who doubt that man even went to the moon. You\'re right about \"religion causes wars and slows down mankind\" however you need to qualify what that religion was. It was the Roman Catholic church\'s religion. The Renaissance of learning in Europe was due to escaping the oppression of the RCC, and the Protestant Reformation helped greatly in that respect. Newton was a strong believer in God and Jesus ... Read More
24th January 2013 10:21am
Amani Bassilli (UK) says...
I would like to add a quote from a book called \'Evolution\' by Colin Paterson, the head of Paleantology at the Natural History Museam. On page 3 he says, \"And if Darwin is right- that all species are the product of change, of divergence from common ancestors- we should expect to find examples of species in the making, which can be distinguished only arbitrarily or with difficulty. IT REMAINS TRUE THAT SPECIES ARE REAL, DISTINCT UNITS IN NATURE\" Basically what he is saying is that the is NO ... Read More
22nd October 2012 5:22pm
Daniel VanArsdale (Lompoc, US) says...
We read above: \"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!\" Serious misunderstandings: (1) \"hundreds of millions\" is an absurd exaggeration, (2)many \"fossil-bearing rock strata\" are not exposed or have not been searched, (3) every organism is a member of a \"definite species\" - this does not at all rule out that it is a ... Read More
11th October 2012 8:20am
Izzy (Canada) says...
What was the real religion that crucified the Prince of Peace?If as Jesus said,\"where your treasure is,that\'s where your heart is also,what was the religious\' leaders true religion or true mindset or better yet, true heart set?Were they willing to humble themselves to wash others feet?Didn\'t they want the Messiah to exalt them even higher and make them even richer than they already were?So to equate God\'s loving example through Jesus with any religion is pure non sense.Jesus said if you ... Read More
7th October 2012 7:01am
Judas says...
Moses did not write Genesis.
The Pentateuch claims in many places that Moses was the writer, e.g. Exodus 17:14; 24:4–7; 34:27; Numbers 33:2; Deuteronomy 31:9, 22, 24.
23rd October 2012 11:35pm
ajgerth (Syemore, US) says...
OK so you want proof OK here it is Darwin didn\'t even believe in his own theory he said it could be true and the skeletons they found is not real so there it is your proof of evolution is gone
6th December 2012 2:50am
Conor (UK) says...
This page saddened me to read. This page relies on circular reasoning to peddle its point. In an admin\'s reply to a comment it says: \"Evolution is a RELIGION! If it is your belief based upon the assumptions, speculations and prejudices of false science and their priests (so called scientists), You cannot prove it. Your \"facts\" are merely the words of the priests of your religion.\" Just wow. This quote is a collection of what we would call assertions (statements without proof) Essentially ... Read More

First, for carbon-14 dating to be accurate, one must assume the rate of decay of carbon-14 has remained constant over the years.  However, evidence indicates that the opposite is true.  Experiments have been performed using the radioactive isotopes of uranium-238 and iron-57, and have shown that rates can and do vary.  In fact, changing the environments surrounding the samples can alter decay rates.

Another assumption is that the rate of carbon-14 formation has remained constant over the years.  There are a few reasons to believe this assumption is erroneous.  The industrial revolution greatly increased the amount of carbon-12 released into the atmosphere through the burning of coal.  Also, the atomic bomb testing around 1950 caused a rise in neutrons, which increased carbon-14 concentrations.  The great flood which Noah and family survived would have uprooted and/or buried entire forests.  This would decrease the release of carbon-12 to the atmosphere through the decay of vegetation. 

These are just two of several *assumptions* about carbon dating. These assumptions are easily proved by honest scientists to be incorrect.

The bottom line for me in spite of all the rationalizations you can give me is, there is NO design without a DESIGNER! I think any honest person should be able to figure that out. Evolution in the absence of Intelligent design is simply a figment of the imagination in the minds of those who choose to believe it! Emphases on the word \"choose\". I choose to believe in the Biblical account of Creation by God. Have you read the Bible? Most people only think they know what the Bible says based on what their preacher told them. They haven\\\'t yet read or studied it for themselves.
27th September 2012 1:58pm
Judas says...
This is a reply to the admin. If carbon-14 dating is inaccurate, and all species existed together at the same time over only 6,000 years this means that at some point dinosaurs and humans lived together. Where in the bible are dinosaurs mentioned?
The Bible mentions two dinosaurs by name and describes them in great detail. \"Behemoth\" (Job 40:15-24) and \"Leviathan\" (Job 41:1-34)
23rd October 2012 11:44pm
Dustin (Newark, US) says...
In Job 40, it mentions behemoth (I may not be spelling it right) and leviathan soon after. They are very vague descriptions and just sound like generic huge beasts.
6th January 2013 12:36pm
Sarah (London, UK) says...
If you have any humility and want to open your eyes, Google Scott Hann and listen to his story on youtube. There are many more like him. If love of enemies is what you preach, then practice it and show love toward you Catholic brethren, because the reality is that Catholics show much more love and tolerance towards Protestants than Protestants do toward Catholics. So who imitate Christ the more? The word of Jesus has been spread all over the world mainly due to Catholics, there is no denying ... Read More
25th September 2012 4:29pm
ladi (Lagos, Nigeria) says...
well all i know as to evolution is simply that Darwin has limited knowledge of how how the blacks came about, but he had seen that the albinos were very much like whites. (that my \'joker\' evolution)if i am Darwin, i will mystify the whole process and just pick nuggets here and there, bible resemblance, galapagos , creatures resemblances, I also need to answer my enemies such as Compte Gobineau and other hatist of my time slam them with theory of a great magnitude, be sure that i will ... Read More
15th September 2012 9:57am
ladi (Lagos, Nigeria) says...
well all i know as to evolution is simply that Darwin has limited knowledge of how how the blacks came about, but he had seen that the albinos were very much like whites. (that my \'joker\' evolution)if i am Darwin, i will mystify the whole process and just pick nuggets here and there, bible resemblance, galapagos , creatures resemblances, I also need to answer my enemies such as Compte Gobineau and other hatist of my time slam them with theory of a great magnitude, be sure that i will ... Read More
15th September 2012 8:03am
fuj says...
humans haven\'t evolved from monkeys.
That\'d be an insult for the monkeys
Humans were created by god
8th September 2012 6:08am
TubeSalvation (US) says...
The ONLY Way to Heaven! Not everyone who says to me, Lord, Lord, will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Mathew 7:21 1 John 2:4 Whoever says I know him but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him Revelation 14:12-14--- Here is a call for the endurance of the saints, those who keep the commandments of God and their faith in Jesus. Stay Strong keep the Faith until the end! ... Read More
26th August 2012 7:50pm
Izzy (Canada) says...
Einstein proved that anything material to exist has to have length,breadth,height,depth and one more, probably the most important one \"TIME\" it needs time to exist.So the evolution/ creation debate has to go back in time to the actual beginning of time or nothing material could scientifically exist. Time can\'t result from an explosion as there would be nothing in existence to explode! In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
23rd August 2012 7:54am
Conor (UK) says...
But at what point is that a proof against Evolution? If we take God to be the first cause, who requires no cause as he is before he universe and outside of the universe and so not bound by the universe\'s laws of cause and effect, then one following belief is that He, in his initial creation caused evolution to begin.
19th December 2012 5:39am
D. VanArsdale (Lompoc, US) says...
Quoting from above: \"A.S. Romer ... recently summed up the present situation...\" Romer lived from 1894 to 1973.
3rd August 2012 2:52pm
Hichul (Belchertown, US) says... You Guys should READ THIS ... Found something that will change the whole evolution thing
Very good link! Thanks!
2nd August 2012 9:14am
Alan (South Africa) says...
If you ever take the time to read a explanation of evolution from evolutionists, you will be very embarrassed. Unless you lack all sense. While I doubt you will be convinced - since you are starting from conviction and demanding that evidence conform to it (rather than the other way around as a scientist does), reading such a book, you will not be able to pretend that you had even begun to understand what evolutionary biology was saying before writing this. This is like condemning Christianity ... Read More
I would not be embarressed at all but would rather will embarrase THEM. No possible intellectual argument can possibly disproved a basic concept of the universe: \"There is no design without a desiger.\"
27th July 2012 10:12am
Henry says...
I hope you die very soon. Leave science to the scientists and stop putting the progression of humanity into reverse with brainless dogma.
31st August 2012 7:41am
Lies is what your father speak says...
Wow, man is the biggest liar...this world is going backwards. that so many will believe in this coming anti-messiah. He has brainwashed the masses very well indeed. Cuss me out if you must but Satan is very smart and doing a grand job! His devices and SCIENCE is believed to be GOOD! Sad that so many believe in man over Christ(The true WORD)! 2 Timothy 3:7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. Ephesians 5:6 Let no man deceive you with vain words: for ... Read More
29th June 2012 11:59am
Vidur says...
I am afraid evolution is a true fact. I know people want to cling on to their childish beliefs, but when there is masses of evidence pointing to a fact, the fact shouldn\'t be replaced by a petty fiction story. Just look at genetics, all living things share the same coding, DNA. We are 98.5% genetically similar to chimpanzees, fact. The fossilised evidence is conclusive as well, and of course we\'ll not find all of the missing links, but we have a good few. This is actual science, verified by ... Read More
I am afraid you don\'t know what you are talking about. If true science is a quest for knowledge, how about considering that the reason humans are 98.5 genetically similar to chimpanzees is because of a common Designer? The is no design without a Designer!

\"The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth His handywork.\" - Psalm 19:1

All of God\'s creation is a thing of beauty. Beauty is a result of design. I bet you cannot improve the beauty of a woman\'s face by rearranging its components.

Next time you\'re making love with your loved one, ask yourself how natural selection could have designed such a marvelous means of emotional intimacy, bonding, and procreation with another human being. How did the male organ know how to evolve to fit hand in glove with the female organ? They would both have to know what the other was doing. To believe it happened by chance is to believe nonsense, absolute nonsense. And if that is your belief, it also makes it your religion. The car you drive is a product of design, not chaos. It was once only a concept in the mind of the Designer. So were you.
29th June 2012 2:41am
Mike (US) says...
Sorry. But the fact is evolution is almost certainly true. Genetics offer strong evidence.

Teaching creationism in classrooms...\\\"is not about the separation of church and state, its about separating ignorant scientifically illiterate people form the ranks of teachers.\\\"
Evolution may be your religion, but its not mine. A doctrine based on assumptions is not science, it\'s a fairy tale. If you believe it, you are simply taking the word of those who hold it to be true. That\'s no different from any religion.
7th June 2012 12:20pm
dave (Portsmouth, UK) says...
you say evolution is a fairytale but we have proof we have evidence, you have a book. a single book that i think is simply a fictional saga of storys such as harry potter that like star trek turned into a religion by people who dont know any better. evolution is not a religion its a fact
Evolution is a RELIGION! If it is your belief based upon the assumptions, speculations and prejudices of false science and their priests (so called scientists), that makes is your belief system and therefore your RELIGION! You cannot prove it. Your \"facts\" are merely the words of the priests  of your religion.
13th June 2012 9:49am
Squidward (Portsmouth, UK) says...
i think this is very true dave your right
13th June 2012 9:50am
Zed (Australia) says...
Genetics evidence shows that a cow with anther cow will offspring a cow and never a dog. And a dog has four legs and a tail which is encoded in its genotype like a cow. Links or evidence is only an assumption that they evolved from a common ancestor. This genetic evidence only proves they had a common designer. To say over millions/billions of years a frog will evolve into a prince is exactly what evolution teaches… this my friend is a fairytale which is blinding you with the bad ... Read More
13th June 2012 7:26pm
dave (Portsmouth, UK) says...
a in a million years a frog will evolve into a better more adapted version of a frog. as soon as religion disappear the better for the entire world. religion is the reason for most of the wars in the world.

You only show your ignorance by writing such nonsense. MONEY is the reason for war, not a faith in God based on LOVE.

1 Timothy 6:10  For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.

 According to the Bible, if you even have hate in your heart toward somebody, you are no different from a murderer!

1 John 3:15  Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.

Scumbag polititians and the wealthy elite who pull their strings are the reason for war. Jesus is the Prince of Peace. U.S. Presidents who claim to have faith in Jesus Christ and yet wage war are dogs, scumbags, hypocrites, and liars.

Peace and love to you in Jesus Christ, the Creator!
14th June 2012 4:09pm
John (Walker, US) says...
Fact, Genetics is programming. WHO is the Programmer.
Thank you for your support of the truth of creation by God! :-)
6th November 2012 1:23pm
Dennis (Esposende, Portugal) says...
Both Evolution and Creationism are world views or belief system. Both start with a belief and then look at the scientific evidence to see if it justifies their belief system. That is why people can get so fired up about the subject. It is like two people from different football clubs debating which team is better. Some times the facts get embellished in emotions. However there is a book written by 50 scientist called "In Six Days" ... Read More
7th May 2012 5:22am
Zed (Melbourne, Other) says...
After reading many books on Evolution and the Bible I have come to the conclusion that both are religions. Problem is that Evolution is classified as science? I know which one is the Truth (my personal belief)! Evolutionist will tell you they have MILLIONS of accountable evidence that Evolution is fact, it happened... THEY CANNOT SHOW YOU ONE THING (about MACRO) THAT HAS STOOD THE TEST OF TIME AND NOT PROVEN TO BE FALSE!!! YES they lie!!!!FACT. Taking Tax money to indoctrinate young minds with ... Read More
4th May 2012 9:00pm
One Question (US) says...
@myles webb, please explain how evolving from being asexual living organism to having to reproduce by way of mating with another oganism at certain times, and risking death (organisms fighting for mates), and disease a better way of reproducing? If anything, evolution would have caused all living things to reproduce without mates.
18th April 2012 1:20pm
austin (US) says...
apparently a lot of people failed high school biology, I'm 15 and i can prove evolution. only ignorant people who can't grasp the simple concept of evolution which is the foundation of biology would say that evolution is a lie.
Is that so? I know a lot of highly educated people who DO say evolution a lie! Check out how Kent Hovind how explains it!  He offered $250,000 to anybody who can prove evolution.

True science (AKA knowledge) does not contradict the Bible.

8th April 2012 3:35am
Chest (Bangkokm, Thailand) says...
Every living thing that has ever existed has evolved from one thing into another. There is hard evidence of this. You thinking your so special that you had to have been created is nothing but narcissism. There is factual evidence for the scientific theory of evolution while there is not a shred of evidence for your ridiculous Bronze Age religious myths and superstitions. Our world will be a better place when all religion ceases to exist.
20th March 2012 2:02am
Webmaster James (Japan) says...
Name one of the "hard evidence" you lay claim to. I don't know of any. Please give me empirical, provable tests that show it.
20th March 2012 4:09am
Adrian (US) says...

The empirical proof you ask for has often been taken from tracking physical discrepancies in skeletons and even measurable genetic variations. Here we have an empirical, human time-scale test showing what you ask for, sir.
22nd March 2012 12:42pm
Webmaster James (Japan) says...
Check out this statement from a palaeontologist:

“We are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species, but the situation hasn’t changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin’s time.” David M. Raup, University of Chicago paleontologist.”

23rd March 2012 1:58am
foxual says...
Someone who believes the bible asking for Empirical evidence? Oh dear oh dear....... (facepalm)
21st August 2012 4:24am
Oliver (South Africa) says...
Where's the proof that all things evolved from one into another.. that's just a stupid notion since there is no proof of this happening. The article is spot-on summing it all up nicely, death to Macro-evolution once and for all!!
4th April 2012 2:20pm
Bobby says...
This has to be the most ridiculous article I have read in years...
24th February 2012 10:01pm
Webmaster James (Japan) says...
It's nice to be described in the superlative form of the adjective, but you present nothing substantial to back up your argument.
25th February 2012 1:20am
Evolution is not a cause... says...
Evolution is not a cause it is a result. Evolution is not a force or entity. Evolution is merely the changes which occur when conditions select for these individuals and against those individuals. The result of natural selection is improved likelihood of reproduction not "better" or "more advanced" or "more complex". When genetically caused behavior (as opposed to culture) increases the likelihood of successful reproduction those genes will be seen more than the genes which do not improve the ... Read More
12th February 2012 2:52pm
Milford says...
Okay...I just really felt obligated to point out that evolutionists never suggested that cats and dogs would conceivably morph into each other. (To be honest, when I read the third paragraph under "The Existence of Species" I nearly burst out laughing, it was so utterly ridiculous.) Anyway, some of the information you have on the theory of evolution is very flawed, and just makes this page seem extremely biased (which it is). Also, saying that something is true because the Bible says that it's ... Read More
4th February 2012 11:44am
stephen says...
I am amazed with DNA. The proof of intelligent design. THe most complex code ever discovered. The blueprint for a living being. Animals and Humans. Where there is a code there is a coder. And this DNA code THe way it constructs the heart and nerves, skeleton and all the parts is mind boggling. Where does such a complex code come from. information comes from an intellegent source. Like king David stated " I am fearfully and wonderfully made" Also the heavens are declaring the Glory of God. WHen ... Read More
1st February 2012 12:39am
myles webb (Barrie, Canada) says...
ok i understand you view of how a monkey has never left his mate, starved its babies and ruined her life but what you need to realize is that times change and you know what? monkey's never had cars, buses, houses, and garenteed example:that female monkeys didnt mate with there bosses to cause there mate to leave them, oh wait MONKEY's didn't work, they made sure there family was taken care of. You cannot compare the relationships of a primape to the relationship of two humans because the one ... Read More
31st January 2012 7:23pm
man will be (I Live In Uae, Uruguay) says...
whoa i am a Muslim dude and i agree i mean not every one is super smart and dexter this people every time overwhelms me i know they are lying and blind but now it will change you gave me enough ammunition to fire at them GOD do exist thnks
26th January 2012 1:53pm
We are not lying says...
We are not lying! We do not even BELIEVE in evolution, it just makes sense!

This whole article is just ridiculous, and merely checking the facts exposed here would prove it, but people you have to listen with your heart next time someone tries to tell you more about evolution. If you want to learn about it, regardless of your opinion on the matter, don't go to this kind of websites, just ask an evolutionist that you know

22nd March 2012 1:29pm
Webmaster James (Japan) says...
Reading your "We do not even BELIEVE in evolution" statement made me laugh out loud! Of COURSE you BELIEVE it if you hold it to be true. I believe evolution to be false. Whether you know it or not, everything us humans hold to be true is based on our perceptions of reality, and our perceptions are based on our beliefs. Ask any *honest* psychologist about it.
23rd March 2012 1:52am
Richard (US) says...
Dear Sir, I would like to thanks you for your website and its goal. I have myself for years been driven to despair by how lies are so easily digested and increasingly how the cliché and sound bite are substituting truth and enlightenment and turning ourselves into slaves. I love science, science is making a tea in the morning, and observing how one can improve the experience, but bad science it seems to me is to create new narratives that have no foundation in observation nor fact, and set ... Read More
9th January 2012 10:17pm
RSS RSS Alerts

Add Comment

Adding comments has been disabled for this page.

Activated MagazineIf you'd like more inspirational material,
subscribe to Activated! Each issue deals with topics that count, such as:

- Faith
- Love
- Prayer
- Success with People
- The Future
- Marriage
- Parenting

...and much more--all in terms that are relatable and easy to follow. Personal accounts from active Christians around the world confirm that God is still alive and working just as wonderfully as ever on behalf of those who love Him.

Put that power to work for you! Connect with the source of love, happiness, peace, freedom, contentment, and the rest of the best life has to offer--God, who the Bible says is love. Change your life! Change your world! Get activated!


Email E-mail this link to your friend! Email
Enter recipient's e-mail:

Did this page make you either mad, sad, or glad? Please tell me about it! E-mail:

Deep Truths Home | Top of page