Leave Evolution to Evolutionists

November 23, 2014


In a day and age when more and more scientists are challenging “why evolution is being taught in schools as science when there is not a shred of proof?”, the Pope’s statement has left creationists and believers in an all-powerful God angry and confused. In fact, when the Pope’s statement appeared for the first time, a lot of people were quite sure that the media had mangled his words. They simply would not believe that the Pope could have said something like that. 

In a few days, it became clear that the Pope had indeed made the following statement:

“When we read in Genesis the account of Creation, we risk imagining God as a magician, with a magic wand able to make everything. But that is not so. He created beings and allowed them to develop according to the internal laws that He gave to each one, so that they were able to develop and arrive at their fullness of being. … And so creation continued for centuries and centuries, millennia and millennia, until it became which we know today, precisely because God is not a demiurge or conjurer, but the Creator who gives being to all things. The beginning of the world is not the work of chaos that owes its origin to another, but derives directly from a supreme Origin that creates out of love. The Big Bang, which nowadays is posited as the origin of the world, does not contradict the divine act of creating, but rather requires it. The evolution of nature does not contrast with the notion of Creation, as evolution presupposes the creation of beings that evolve.”

Of the many reactions I have read, this comment says a lot: “What the Pope did was continue the departure of Roman Catholicism from the true Christian faith.” Because the true Christian faith has always accepted the Genesis version of creation. 

While this article mainly examines the fallacies in the theory of evolution, it also looks at certain questions that arise with the billions of years process. Since youngsters like scientific information to satiate their intellectual hunger, I am mainly using science to debunk the theory. The verses from the Holy Bible are quoted to show how science is actually proving the revelations made in this Book that was written by lay people. And since the authors of the Holy Bible were not scientists, it becomes even more evident that the verses had to be revealed by God through the Holy Spirit. I have no doubt that Christians will find this very interesting. 

First, and since many people don’t even know exactly what the theory of evolution is, here is an outline of it: 

1. All life forms (species) have developed from other species. 
2. All living things are related to one another to varying degrees through common descent (share common ancestors). 
3. All life on Earth has a common origin. 
4. In other words, that in the distant past, there once existed an original life form and that this life form gave rise to all subsequent life forms. 
5. The process by which one species evolves into another involves random heritable genetic mutations (changes), some of which are more likely to spread and persist in a gene pool than others. 
6. Mutations that result in a survival advantage for organisms that possess them, are more likely to spread and persist than mutations that do not result in a survival advantage and/or that result in a survival disadvantage.
 
To explain how life began in the first place, the most preposterous argument is that everything started after the Big Bang. They say that as gases began to cool, somehow singled-celled organisms began to appear. Now imagine life coming from an explosion perhaps a hundred million times more powerful than the nuclear bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined. Essentially, they say that life spontaneously generated from absolutely dead matter to single-celled life forms and then to millions of complex life forms, including us. (By the way, now some evolutionists are saying that the Big Bang was not an explosion, it was merely an expansion). The moment you pose a difficult question, they find a way to wriggle out of it. 

Dinosaurs are often quoted to show that evolution is real. Interestingly, the Holy Bible clearly describes a creature that can only be a dinosaur, in the book of Job 40:15-19 (circa 1500 BC) - “Behold, Behemoth, which I made as I made you; he eats grass like an ox. Behold, his strength in his loins, and his power in the muscles of his belly. He makes his tail stiff like a cedar; the sinews of his thighs are knit together. His bones are tubes of bronze, his limbs like bars of iron. He is the first of rthe works of God; let him who made him bring near his sword!” The oldest book in the Bible is Genesis and the entire Christian world knows that it is no more than 6,000 years old – not millions of years old. If that is not enough, unfossilized dinosaur bones have been unearthed with red blood cells – clear evidence that dinosaurs did not live millions and millions of years ago but a few thousand years ago. Evolutionists have tried to explain away this creature as a hippo or an elephant – neither have tails “stiff like a cedar.” The description is used to show how big and strong the creature’s tail was. 

The process of evolution – whether with God’s intervention (theistic evolution) or without (atheistic evolution) – necessarily requires billions of years and trillions (if you look at all present life forms) of transitional life forms. For example, a blue whale would have to go through a few million changes with each new birth to become a man. Now imagine a few million or even a few thousand changes for one creature to turn into another creature. Did you get it? Well, I don’t. Now, why would a man go back to become a blue whale (because you can still them in the oceans)? But, that’s another question and, by the way, I don’t get that either. 

Louis Pasteur disproved this whole idea of spontaneous generation after death by a simple experiment. He boiled a rich broth in a flask and closed it with an airtight lid. He left it for months and found no microbial activity in it. No microbe has been found in space because it is a deadly vacuum – an environment where it is impossible to survive without life-support components. Much like the inside of an airtight flask. 

So far, evolution has not met two criteria for it to be called a scientific fact: (a) it has not been observed in nature; and (b) it has not been experimentally proven. 

Evolution, in the strictest sense, always has been something that happens randomly and spontaneously. Later, as creation began to look too sophisticatedly fine-tuned for it to happen by random chance, another view began to take root: evolution is real, but not without the hand of God. Here are the two types of evolution in a nutshell (credit: Werner Gitt):

The atheistic formula: Evolution = matter + evolutionary factors (chance and necessity + mutation + selection + isolation + death) + very long time periods.

The theistic formula: Evolution = matter + evolutionary factors (chance and necessity + mutation + selection + isolation + death) + very long time periods + God. 
 
So, when did God begin to fit in? Of all the compelling scientific arguments for God’s existence, one of the strongest is the law of causality (there is no effect without a cause). And, this is why we have more believers in God than atheists because this law is really all about common sense. Ronald Reagan summed it up quite nicely when he said, “Sometimes when I'm faced with an atheist, I am tempted to invite him to the greatest gourmet dinner that one could ever serve, and when we have finished eating that magnificent dinner, to ask him if he believes there's a cook.” The truth is even a simple vegetable broth with salt and pepper needs a cook. 

An all-powerful God can either create something from nothing or He cannot; He does not need the help of the mechanism of evolution. 

Evolution pre-supposes that mutation is proof of continuous higher change. Genetic mutations of many forms occur in human beings - Down’s Syndrome, Polycystic Kidney Disease, Cystic Fibrosis, to name but a few. None of them are progressive. 

What about change from one form to another through mutation? Take microbes - they mutate all the time, but they have remained microbes. There is a reason for it: genetic coding embedded in the DNA of every cell of any living organism pre-empts it from becoming another creature.

I am reproducing an excerpt from the article 'DNA: The Tiny Code That's Toppling Evolution': [ As scientists began to decode the human DNA molecule, they found something quite unexpected - an exquisite 'language' composed of some 3 billion genetic letters." One of the most extraordinary discoveries of the twentieth century," says Dr. Stephen Meyer, director of the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute in Seattle, Washington, "was that DNA actually stores information - the detailed instructions for assembling proteins - in the form of a four-character digital code." It is hard to fathom, but the amount of information in human DNA is roughly equivalent to 12 sets of The Encyclopaedia Britannica - an incredible 384 volumes" worth of detailed information that would fill 48 feet of library shelves! Yet in their actual size - which is only two millionths of a millimeter thick - a teaspoon of DNA, according to molecular biologist Michael Denton, could contain all the information needed to build the proteins for all the species of organisms that have ever lived on the earth, and "there would still be enough room left for all the information in every book ever written". Who or what could miniaturize such information and place this enormous number of 'letters' in their proper sequence as a genetic instruction manual? Could evolution have gradually come up with a system like this? ]

Evolutionists have been trying hard to argue with some possible explanations for the complexity of life. But now, they are faced with this “information dilemma”. The question that they cannot answer is: how can meaningful, precise information be created by accident - by mutation and natural selection? None of these contain the mechanism of intelligence, a requirement for creating complex information such as that found in the genetic code. 

Adaptation – which at times can also be mistaken for evolution – is only possible if the creature is inherently designed to adapt. For example, if human beings find themselves marooned by water with no way out, we may be able to swim for several hours at a time, hold our breath for a few minutes at a time, even catch fish; but, we will not be able to breathe underwater and our offspring will certainly not be born with gills or fins. With all our intellect, we cannot make it happen. 

Evolutionists jump quickly to conclusions when they see microbes in hot vents. They proclaim that over millions of years those microbes have evolved to live in hot vents. Any microbe that falls in hot water will die and it even seems silly that one has to say this. So, how can a microbe evolve after dying into a microbe that survives hot water? 

As for creatures that we can see, the common argument is: but it has taken billions of years. So, why are scientists only looking for one missing link? Life forms would have to go through millions and millions of changes (transitions), which means the entire earth – according to one scientist – would be covered in six feet of transitional fossils. In other words, we would not have to dig for any fossils. Caught in such dilemma, some evolutionists will tell you that change was quite rapid. Here again, there is a problem because no one has seen a bird or a half-bird come out of a lizard’s egg. 

Interestingly, Charles Darwin himself had confessed that his theory of evolution posed a problem. This is what he had to say, "Firstly, why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, 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 complete absence of transitional life forms, or fossils, is – as one scientist put it - absolutely fatal to the theory of evolution. In fact, fossils have only shown that life forms were just clearly and distinctly set apart from each other as they are today.

Here is another difficult one for evolutionists: did the male and female of all species of life forms evolve together, or did the male (or female) had to wait a few billion years for a female (or male) to come along? If the answer is ‘yes’ to both these questions, then evolutionists are also people of blind faith because no male creature can will and bring forth a female partner, or vice versa. A male or female offspring of any species would have to have male and female parents. And that is possible only if both male and female were part of creation (not evolution) from the beginning. Jesus Christ says in Mark 10:6 “But from the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female.” The law of gender manifests in all things as masculine and feminine. It is this law that governs what we know as creation. 

Now, consider this verse: In the book of Romans 1:20, the Apostle Paul says of God, “For His invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.” Kindness, goodness, love, power, are just a few of God’s attributes. To perceive is to have the ability to recognize, to sense, and even if we are a product of theistic evolution then what the Apostle Paul is saying that even single cells perceived God’s attributes. But, Paul cannot be saying that because God has sought a personal relationship with human beings. And in choosing to live a good life, perception was not a precondition for cells, it was a precondition for human beings. 

What we can also make out from the Apostle Paul’s revelation of God is that life has not started billions of years ago. If you believe that the ability to perceive would be given by God to cells, then the earth is 3.7 billion years old (the entire universe approximately 14 billion years old); if you believe that the power to perceive was given ‘ever since the creation of the world’ – which includes man and woman - then the earth is very, very young. There is NO PURPOSE for God to give cells the ability to perceive His attributes. Further, it has not been proven that the earth is billions of years old. 

Talking about perception, I am reminded of Dr. Francis Collins. He served as Director of the National Human Genome Research Institute between 1993 and 2008 - some call it the most prestigious scientific job in the U.S. Collins had led the effort to decode human DNA. Even in his twenties, he was described as an obnoxious atheist. While still in college, he went to see a priest and began to bombard him with questions. The priest handed him a copy of the book ‘Mere Christianity’ by C.S. Lewis, who interestingly was also an atheist and a late-comer to Christ. After reading the book, Dr. Collins became a believer in God. 

He was asked which was the most compelling arguments for God that he found in C.S. Lewis’ book. This is what Dr. Collins had to say, “…the one that I think was most surprising, most earth-shattering, and most life-changing — is the argument about the existence of the moral law. How is it that we, and all other members of our species, unique in the animal kingdom, know what's right and what's wrong? In every culture one looks at, that knowledge is there. Where did that come from? I reject the idea that that is an evolutionary consequence, because that moral law sometimes tells us that the right thing to do is very self-destructive. If I'm walking down the riverbank, and a man is drowning, even if I don't know how to swim very well, I feel this urge that the right thing to do is to try to save that person. Evolution would tell me exactly the opposite: preserve your DNA. Who cares about the guy who's drowning? He's one of the weaker ones, let him go. It's your DNA that needs to survive. And yet that's not what's written within me.” 

In stating that the process has taken centuries and centuries, millennia and millennia (suggesting billions, or even millions, of years), the Pope has posed another scientific problem for himself and all who believe it. If the first man and woman did arrive even a few million years ago through the process of evolution, then where is everyone? Here is what would have happened if the first man and woman had started populating the earth a few million years ago: the earth would have been grossly overpopulated and its resources would have been ravaged a very long time ago. No complex life forms would have existed – a horrifying picture, indeed – totally in contrast with what we presently see. Today, more and more scientists believe in a young earth, not an earth that is billions of years old, because of these problems. 

In the early eighties, some scientists had predicted that in a few decades children would be born with larger heads (to accommodate larger brains). And where did they get this “scientific” idea from? They explained that larger brains would be required to accommodate and store vast amounts of knowledge as we were set to enter the information age and that through mutation we would have larger brains. No such thing has happened. Today, it is almost common knowledge that our brain is big enough to hold any amount of information. In fact, now they say we don’t use it enough. With all the problems our world is facing, who can argue with that? 

Creating anything from nothing requires more than a magic trick. In that sense, there is no greater magician than God. Does a god that can bring the universe into existence from nothing need billions and billions of years to create something? If you cannot believe that God is all powerful, then how can anyone believe that He is in existence from billions of years? 

If anything looks like a magician’s trick, then it would be the changing of water into wine by Jesus Christ, the miraculous multiplication by Him of a few loaves of bread and fish that satiated the hunger of a crowd of thousands, His bringing of Lazarus back to life, and the healing of hundreds and hundreds of people. And, yet, these were no tricks. These miracles happened, were witnessed and have been recorded in the Holy Bible. Creation from nothing cannot count amongst tricks, because we have not seen it happening; or, as a magician does, made to look like it is happening. Whereas, miracles are happening even today. None can be explained naturally. In fact, not everything can be explained through natural science. 

For a moment, let us set aside the entire creation of the universe. A god that has no super-powers will be in a quandary if we were to ask him to create just one cell. Today, scientists have concluded that the working and complexity of an entire city like New York City, pales in comparison to the chemistry, working and complexity of a single cell. Such complexity alone is proof that there is a superior entity that has designed and created everything, not just a cell.

Molecular biologist Michael Denton states, "Although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, weighing less than 10-12 gram, each is in effect a veritable micro-miniaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up altogether of one hundred thousand million atoms, far more complicated than any machinery built by man and absolutely without parallel in the non-living world.”

A minimal cell needs several hundred proteins. Even if every atom in the universe were an experiment with all the correct amino acids present for every possible molecular vibration in the supposed evolutionary age of the universe, not even one average-sized functional protein would form. So how did life with hundreds of proteins originate just by chemistry without intelligent design?

Evolutionist Professor Paul Davies admitted, “Nobody knows how a mixture of lifeless chemicals spontaneously organized themselves into the first living cell.” 

If one cell is so complex, consider the microscopic zygote in a woman’s womb and how it begins to divide. Trillions upon trillions of cells are formed, each cell type “knowing” what it is supposed to become, each cell containing hundreds of proteins, enzymes and what not, each working with unimaginable precision and timing, each having a self-repair system, and after about nine months a fully developed baby emerges. If the creation of the universe is on a grand scale, the creation of a baby from a microscopic cell in the mother’s womb is no less grand. Such harmonious symphony of complex chemicals can only be the work of a Creator beyond anyone’s imagination.

Irreducible complexity ensures that one cell cannot work without the other and the only environment in which the cells can at all even work is inside a woman’s womb. I submit that God does not need a magic wand to achieve something like this, He only needs to speak the word. No wonder the Holy Bible says in Psalms 139:14 “I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made.” 

The compromise stance on evolution taken by the Roman Catholic Church has happened a few decades ago. The early church fathers did not have a problem believing every single revelation made in the Holy Bible. In fact, St. Peter, who is considered the church’s first Pope, believed every word. 

Many Christians (including priests) believe that the Great Flood during the time of Noah did not occur. Here’s the problem: Jesus Christ Himself spoke of it. Similarly, if Adam and Eve are also stories, then Christians have a serious problem because the book of Luke in the Holy Bible gives Jesus Christ’s genealogy and it is traced to Adam on earth. If even one line in the Holy Bible is not true, how can we believe anything about Jesus Christ? And, we are talking about the God of history, whose life, the miracles He performed, His death and resurrection, all of which have been accounted for by historians and eye witnesses. 

Here is the problem for Christians and Christianity put in the words of atheist Bozarth Richard, “Christianity has fought, still fights, and will fight science to the desperate end over evolution, because evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus’ earthly life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the son of god. It takes away the meaning of his death. If Jesus was not the redeemer who died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing.” Like it or not, this atheist is very clear and his understanding of the matter is far better than many compromising Christians. 

Here’s the logic put forth by Jesus Christ in John 3:12 “I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things?

People, especially those entrusted with the matters of the propagation of faith, should not get carried away by unproven statements made by some scientists, when there is so much compelling scientific data out there today to confirm the revelations made in the Holy Bible? Would we accept it if we called a carpenter and he comes without a hammer and asserts, “I don’t need a hammer.” 

I was talking to a priest on the subject and he told me so many youth come to him with questions on the subject. He added that the church simply could not afford to look the other way. Youth are hardly seen in churches in western countries. Are we learning anything from it? It is believed that in 15 years or so, churches in India will only see a handful of youth. 

Science buffs will quickly argue that science has progressed more in the last 50 years than before and that new research is throwing more light on evolution. In reality, the opposite is true. There was a time when evolutionists got away with anything they said. Fortunately, today there are hundreds of Christian scientists who defend their faith with ease. More and more scientists are drawn to the idea of a Creator responsible for creation because the theory of evolution is full of potholes. 

As for the Holy Bible, even some other scientific revelations made in this wonderful book are worth looking into and with each passing decade more and more are being proven by science. It appears that as science (that does not make sense) and science (that makes sense) battle it out, the Holy Bible confirms the latter version.

The earth was long thought to be supported by mega-beasts. The revelation, “He suspends the earth over nothing,” is found in the book of Job 26:7 written circa 1500 BC. Science has confirmed that the earth is indeed suspended in space. 

Ferdinand Magellan circumnavigated the earth in 1715 AD and prove that the earth is round, while all along this fact has been sitting in the Holy Bible, “It is He who sits above the circle of the earth…” Isaiah 40:22 (circa 600 BC)

Written circa 600 BC, the book of Jeremiah 33:32 declares, “…so that it will be as impossible to count them as it is to count the stars in the sky or the grains of sand on the seashore.” Today, astronomers estimate that there are a 100 billion galaxies, each with a 100 billion stars. 

Today primary students know how rain is formed. Interestingly, the water cycle again appears in the book of Job 36:27-28, “For he maketh small the drops of water; they pour down rain according to the vapour thereof; which the clouds do drop and distill upon man abundantly.”

It was only in the 20th century that high-powered telescopes peering into the night sky observed that the universe is expanding. Amazingly, this was revealed by Isaiah in 42:5 “God created the heavens and stretched them out.” If you think this is poetry and by some fluke it contains an accurate, proven, scientific statement, then let me tell you that similar statements appear in the Holy Bible more than 10 times. 

Earth, scientists have claimed, was formed through a cooling process after it came hurtling through space in a great ball of fire and gas. Science has still not been able to come up with a satisfactory answer to the question: How and from where did earth’s life-sustaining properties (the right mixture of gases, rivers, lakes, seas, waves, clouds, rain, wind, micro-organisms, major life forms, the sun and the moon’s exact distancing from it, its tilt, its weathers, its rotation/revolution) come? To believe that the earth and everything about it has come by random chance is also a matter of faith because it is mathematically impossible for all factors to come together. I will believe it if one can throw the colours of the Indian flag from a building, all mixed up, and show me a perfect flag laid out on the ground – even though we are only talking about three colours. 

Look at the spinning of the earth. No known object can spin without application of some form of energy. We can spin a round object for some seconds, but anything beyond that would need an apparatus attached to a motor. The earth and other objects in our known solar system have been spinning for thousands of years. How is it even possible for them to (a) spin on their own; and (b) remain in their own orbit? Interestingly, at the same time, there are stationary objects as well in space. The Holy Bible says that God “is upholding all things by the word of His power.” Hebrew 1:3

Further, if it has happened by random chance, why is earth the only planet with life, why not a few thousand nearby? Consider what appears in the Holy Bible, “Thus says Yahweh, your Redeemer, who formed you from the womb: ‘I am Yahweh, who made all things, who alone stretched out the heavens, who spread out the earth by myself.’” (Isaiah 44:24)

I believe what Lord Kelvin has said to be so true, “If you study science deep enough and long enough it will force you to believe in God.” 

Consider what John Clayton, a former atheist had to say, “I tried my best to find scientific inaccuracies in the Bible, but I could not.” Mind you, this is after thorough research. There are many like Clayton who started with the goal of tearing the Holy Bible apart believing that they will find inaccuracies, but have turned to God instead. Knowledge is one way of coming to God. Some are drawn to God through their own life’s experiences. 

It is increasingly becoming difficult in western countries to talk about God in schools and colleges. I was thinking it would be great to include some lessons on creation in the catechism books before the one-sided idea of evolution gets deeply entrenched in young minds. It is only fair that we study both views. Perhaps I was hoping for too much because – as it now appears – the Christian leadership itself has openly embraced a compromise position. 

Richard Dawkins – a hard-core atheist and a well-known God-hater - has spent his life travelling and giving talks to disprove the existence of God. He has so much hatred towards believers that he once said, “It is arguable that sexual molestation is less damaging to children than religious training.” This very guy has admitted that: The origin of life is a complete mystery and the origin of consciousness is the biggest puzzle.

I do see a silver lining in the controversy that the Pope’s statement has generated. If people read what he has said, including the comments from numerous creationists, it will help them open their minds. Atleast that is what I hope will happen. 

On the sidelines, someone I know – who has stopped going to church – recently asked me, “With all the controversies and with all the things we hear, don’t you think we should just stop going to church?” 

First of all, who does everything right? There are problems with leaders of all faiths because human beings will be human beings. I am at times concerned that somewhere, somehow, priorities with some of the people in the Church may have gotten lost – but, again, this is my opinion. I like what the great composer Yanni said, “As our population increases, our planet becomes smaller and smaller. It’s therefore very important that we learn how to love and accept each other. Whenever that’s not possible, let us at least learn how to tolerate one another.” 

The truth is: the Holy Bible has stood all tests. Many, many have tried to prove it wrong, but without success. 

In no way I am suggesting that the Pope is deliberately trying to question the Holy Bible. Like so many believers, we have a tendency to get carried away with anything that is offered in the name of science. For instance, I was recently discussing the various techniques used for dating fossils and I told my friend how science was now questioning the very dating methods that they claim proves that fossils are millions and millions of years old. My friend was very offended by the idea that science could be wrong. It was as if I was questioning something holy the scientists had said. 

Yes, the crusaders may have killed in the name of God, the Pope may say something outlandish, the priests may do something wrong, His followers may do something stupid, but how is Jesus Christ responsible for any of it? He is not. 

I can never understand why a Christian should stop going to Church because he or she has a problem with someone. It is immature. 

The bad news, if you think you are holy, is that He loves sinners. The good news, if you know you are not holy, is that He loves you, too. I thank Him for the Good News. 




By Oliver Sutari
To submit your article / poem / short story to Daijiworld, please email it to news@daijiworld.com mentioning 'Article/poem submission for daijiworld' in the subject line. Please note the following:

  • The article / poem / short story should be original and previously unpublished in other websites except in the personal blog of the author. We will cross-check the originality of the article, and if found to be copied from another source in whole or in parts without appropriate acknowledgment, the submission will be rejected.
  • The author of the poem / article / short story should include a brief self-introduction limited to 500 characters and his/her recent picture (optional). Pictures relevant to the article may also be sent (optional), provided they are not bound by copyright. Travelogues should be sent along with relevant pictures not sourced from the Internet. Travelogues without relevant pictures will be rejected.
  • In case of a short story / article, the write-up should be at least one-and-a-half pages in word document in Times New Roman font 12 (or, about 700-800 words). Contributors are requested to keep their write-ups limited to a maximum of four pages. Longer write-ups may be sent in parts to publish in installments. Each installment should be sent within a week of the previous installment. A single poem sent for publication should be at least 3/4th of a page in length. Multiple short poems may be submitted for single publication.
  • All submissions should be in Microsoft Word format or text file. Pictures should not be larger than 1000 pixels in width, and of good resolution. Pictures should be attached separately in the mail and may be numbered if the author wants them to be placed in order.
  • Submission of the article / poem / short story does not automatically entail that it would be published. Daijiworld editors will examine each submission and decide on its acceptance/rejection purely based on merit.
  • Daijiworld reserves the right to edit the submission if necessary for grammar and spelling, without compromising on the author's tone and message.
  • Daijiworld reserves the right to reject submissions without prior notice. Mails/calls on the status of the submission will not be entertained. Contributors are requested to be patient.
  • The article / poem / short story should not be targeted directly or indirectly at any individual/group/community. Daijiworld will not assume responsibility for factual errors in the submission.
  • Once accepted, the article / poem / short story will be published as and when we have space. Publication may take up to four weeks from the date of submission of the write-up, depending on the number of submissions we receive. No author will be published twice in succession or twice within a fortnight.
  • Time-bound articles (example, on Mother's Day) should be sent at least a week in advance. Please specify the occasion as well as the date on which you would like it published while sending the write-up.

Comment on this article

  • Rony Menezes, Manipal, Oman

    Wed, Dec 03 2014

    Oliver, having read the overwhelming interpretation on this article, from much diversified audience on creation and evolution (theory), whereupon equating to way of live, I stay by the doctrine that was given to me over my growing years during when, not known of my own surrounding, stands good even until this day. No questions on that. It’s a great article Oliver, thank you !

  • sam, world

    Mon, Dec 01 2014

    Dear Oliver,

    Thank you for your kind words. You too are a guardian angel for all of us :)

    I am thankful to you and the many people who wrote comments to defend against the lies that have originated from the theory of evolution taught in school.

    Most people, including believers in Christ, fail to understand that evolution removes the sacredness from every living form. In their quest to appear as scholars they are eager to embrace the theory of evolution and any other latest theory without understanding the terrible damage (abortion, euthanasia, broken families, etc.) it continues to cause in society.

  • Rohit,

    Mon, Dec 01 2014

    @ John Furtado, udipi

    Few questions:
    1) What is 'natural ion'? Is it a new fruit drink? Is there an 'unnatural ion' also?

    2) Why does a species need to survive? and why does it need 'natural ion' to ensure its survival? Why cant species survive without 'natural ion'? Or why doesn't 'natural ion' keep occurring slowly and create new species?

  • john furtado, udipi

    Sun, Nov 30 2014

    “unfossilized dinosaur bones have been unearthed with red blood cells – clear evidence that dinosaurs did not live millions and millions of years ago but a few thousand years ago”- incorrect – Dinosaurs perished 65 million years ago. Red blood cells cannot survive even after 5 minutes of death only mitochondrial DNA in hard bones..Please quote your reference. . The closest we have come is from the find of a 30000 yr old wooly mammoth in Russian recently with a little bit almost intact DNA They are trying to clone it.
    “necessarily requires billions of years and trillions (if you look at all present life forms) of transitional life forms”- incorrect – number of transitional life forms will always be less than the age of the earth- simple logic as evolution is time and space based.
    So far, evolution has not met two criteria for it to be called a scientific fact: (a) it has not been observed in nature and (b) it has not been experimentally proven. See response above on what in meant by fact , theory etc.. FYI fact is recorded observation against a set of rules.
    “Adaptation – which at times can also be mistaken for evolution – is only possible if the creature is inherently designed to adapt. For example, if human beings find themselves marooned by water with no way out, we may be able to swim for several hours at a time, hold our breath for a few minutes at a time, even catch fish but, we will not be able to breathe underwater and our offspring will certainly not be born with gills or fins. With all our intellect, we cannot make it happen”. – classic case of whales and dolphins – mammals in water – they breath with lungs not gills. They come up to the surface and go down again .

  • John Furtado, udipi

    Sun, Nov 30 2014

    Theory of evolution has three fundamental ideas, one being that species change over time and space. Darwin believed that evolution had its core in natural ion that occurred slowly in time as ecosystems changed and species adapted. The species that exist today are different from those of the past due to adaptations brought about by natural ion. Natural ion allows for better traits to be passed down to other generations to help ensure the species survival.
    Natural ion can occur because one member of a species was able to breed more successfully than another for various reasons like size, strength, survival skills, being more fertile and by adapting to their environment. This applies to all living organisms on the planet. Being able to adapt and change is what keeps a species going. Nature will favor those with some variations over others because they can survive the conditions put forth in their ecosystem where others cannot.
    The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by vast body of evidence. A theory then is an explanation rather than a guess. A scientific theory incorporates facts, inferences , laws and tested hypothesis. Theories explain laws. Evolutionary theory is built in the same way that theory is built in particle physics can be directly tested .
    The heart of creationism cannot be tested by science because the actions of omnipotent creator are compatible with any and all observations of the natural world. However some types of creationism go beyond the basic statement “God created” to make claims of the natural world. Eg the age of the earth which is in great variance to scientific observation.

  • Rudolf Rodrigues, Mumbai

    Sun, Nov 30 2014

    Just the other day, I was listening to a famous mystic where he was telling if we pass on a small piece of information in the morning to some person, and it passes on to 20 people in 24 hours, you will be shocked to see the difference between the original info and that which came back just in 24 hours so in that context how can one firmly believe that what has been written by humans, over the course of thousands of years, not been changed in multiple ways/times for their vested interests till it has reached us?

    Secondly, earth is supposed to be only one out of the billions of galaxies of which we do not know even the basics, there is a definite possibility of some very intelligent alien life somewhere out there in the cosmos!! Yesterday, a respected physicist and author, John Brandenberg, has claimed that intelligent life once flourished on Mars – but was annihilated by a nuclear attack so intense it left the planet cold and lifeless.!!

    And if at all a Supreme Soul is there why would and how it is possible for him to be 'exclusive' i.e. favor a person who is praying to him, giving his place of worship lots of gifts etc. and ignore a person who for whatever reason does not do all such favors to HIM!! In my opininion, for HIM good and bad is same, it is only a matter of our perception, he has set the rules of nature exactly in which way the Earth functions, HE is neutral, HE cannot be exclusive like us, my wife, my family, my children, my money, et al!!! A personal opinion.

  • Oliver Sutari, Manipal

    Sun, Nov 30 2014

    This one is for Sam:

    Dear Sam,

    A few friends asked me if you are a friend. I told them that I did not know you, but one thing is certain I added, "He is my guardian angel."

    Thank you for your highly informative inputs. I have been reading them with great interest.

  • Oliver Sutari, Manipal

    Sun, Nov 30 2014

    In response to R. D’Souza’s comments (29 Nov):

    An assembling of hundreds and hundreds of components to become functional does not come under evolution – it is a question of whether such a thing can come into existence (for the first time) by CHANCE. Evolution, if it occurs, would be based on an existing structure, or an existing life form.

    I am afraid you keep saying that I am using the analogy of a 747 with evolution, although I have NOT shown it as an example under evolution.

    I do not want to assume anything and, therefore, will not form an opinion about you. Also because respect for each other’s opinion warrants it.

    You, too, have a nice day. Thank you.

  • sam, world

    Sun, Nov 30 2014

    @Roshan Braganza, Mumbai
    "Jews Talmund narrated creation of Human as a Hermaphrodite"
    - Do you believe in this Jewish 'opinion'?
    - Sir, can you also let us know which view do you believe in - Judaism, Islam, Christianity, Hinduism, Hermaphroditology, etc.? Are you a Theist/Atheist/etc.?

    "I believe in God and its wonderful creation of Adam / lillith/ eve."
    - The Jewish Talmud has various other sayings, do you believe in them or not?

    "The ' ovotesis' has both male and female organs, a social insect is example of tri sex , where queen , male and labour bees are part of procreation "
    - Male and female organs are not male and female kinds! (male and female dogs, cows, etc.)

    "Evolution works on existing material "
    - Where did this existing material come from?

    "procreation is by conjugation"
    - Asexual reproduction is a type of procreation which is seen in Paramecium, a ciliate.
    - Do ciliates have a male and female gender?
    - Can you compare ciliates with human beings or even animals? Are they the same (kinds)?

    "One of the likely scenario would be , hermophridites started to give birth male or female species , and then they r the one to survive and started to procreate themselves."
    - Where did the hermaphrodites come from?

  • ad, mangloor

    Sun, Nov 30 2014

    Please leave God and nature alone. Give credit to science wherever need be. But have some wisdom to know that nothing happens without God or whoever that be.

  • R D'Souza, Bantwal

    Sat, Nov 29 2014

    Thanks Oliver for responding,

    It appears to me that you have not understood the fallacy in comparing the 747 coming together with evolution. Moreover, your paragraph on `common sense' did not make any sense.

    Also, it seems that you have made up your mind - so an objective debate is out of question.

    Have a nice day.

  • Oliver Sutari, Manipal

    Sat, Nov 29 2014

    This is in response to Chris Emmanuel D’Souza’s comments:

    Thank you for enlightening us on the progress science has made. We also know there is a lot of hypocrisy in this world. Kindly, however, enlighten us as to how your comments are related to the article. Science and advancements in science is wonderful – it is not miraculous. If it was, it would not be termed as science.

    If you believe in unproven science then you are equally gullible. So, instead of calling someone who believes in a higher power gullible, perhaps you could show us why it is so.

    If you have read the article attentively, there are a lot of scientific facts that have been presented to debunk a supposedly scientific theory – which, unless proven, calls for believing it based on faith. That is why evolution and atheism are somewhat like religions. In fact, the science that is proving evolution wrong is progressive, whereas evolutionists have been stuck right after Darwin proposed the theory, and refuse to even consider what the advancements in science is revealing. So, who is gullible?

    Taking advantage of modern science is not the exclusive right of any particular class of people. One can appreciate advances in science (perhaps that is what you meant), but how does anyone thank it?

  • Chris Emmanuel Dsouza, Mangalore

    Sat, Nov 29 2014

    The power of Religious faith has been overrated by the believers. If a dying patient survives his loved ones immediately credit his recovery to God, thanking him and showering currency notes to places of worship. But if the same patient meets death on the following day, they immediately blame the Doctor, alleging him being irresponsible and complacent!

    Its a modern day tragedy, that people in-spite of having fingertip access to internet, e-books and gadgets still cannot acknowledge the miracles of science, just how much change in communication technology within a span of a decade science has brought. Yet, gullible people use the same medium produced by science to propagate religious myths and superstitious beliefs to fool innocent people.

    Narendra Modi, is a best example for such defecate thoughts. He spouts such smutted pseudo-scientific claims of ancient india on open ground and national television. Today, we may shamelessly take the benefit from science but our filthy minds wont thank it. And it is sad.

  • aneesh , manipal

    Sat, Nov 29 2014

    Dear sir,
    Appreciate ur efforts to write such a long article and the research behind it.
    I remember u had talked on this topic once in the church youth prayer meet and few things helped me. Like the example of entropy u have given i am using it in my class room teaching whenever i come across the subject thermodynamics. It made entropy explained in a more simple way.
    Happy to go across ur article liked it.

  • Oliver Sutari, Manipal

    Sat, Nov 29 2014

    This is in response to M. Pinto’s comments:

    “Hear this, O Job stand still and consider the wondrous works of God.” Job 37:14 Indeed, if anyone can just stand still and look at creation and ask if this can come by chance !

    Since you have so much interest in God’s wonderful creation (as do I) I am giving you the link to a video that I believe you should download. Scientists have put together this video to show how extraordinary creation is. At the end of the video, one will only be left with awe. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vvVt4lDSPeY

  • Rohit,

    Sat, Nov 29 2014

    @ Oliver,

    Good article and discussion.

    In your comment to Ruben, just wanted to point out that Heliocentric model is a Theory, just like Geocentric model. Unfortunately, most commentators on this forum not bother to study the facts and history behind the Heliocentric and Geocentric models and keep parroting that the church was wrong and Galileo was right. Hope some of the comments on this forum help to clear their minds of the lies.

  • M. Pinto, Mangalore

    Sat, Nov 29 2014

    I have always been an ardent believer of creation and not evolution. One has to look at the vast expanse of the universe and the millions of galaxies which comprise of thousands of planets, stars and other celestial bodies and know that the mighty hand of creator is there behind all this. Catch a glimpse on the earth itself where science cannot expalin the wonderful colour of the nature with its thousands of shades in the leaves, flowers, birds etc. The eyes of different species of birds, animals, insects and of the human is so marvellous that one has to sit back and think that there is a creator. The different cycles that govern the earth like day, month and year science can explain but why are there seven days in a week one has to go back to the creation and the bible alone. One day is a 24 hour cycle where the earth rotates around its own axis, one month is taken as the duration of the moon orbiting around the earth and one year as the earth's orbit around the sun but how are there seven days in a week? Even NASA cannot answer this question. So the creator (our Elohim) as the Hebrew word calls him has left a stamp on us as the bible says in six days he created the heavens and the earth and rested on the seventh day. So the seven days in a week. Great is our creator and his creation where we humans are the crown of it.

  • Anil Rodrigues, Manipal

    Fri, Nov 28 2014

    Scholarly, descriptive article, juxtaposing Gospel proof vs. Scientific theory about the origins of life. I am no theologian, but i think the underlying criteria of the Bible is based on Love of all things, Compassion of fellow beings, and Forgiveness - virtues related to the heart whereas, evolution theory is based on human logic and reasoning (no matter the proof) - the cognitive abilities of the mind. And as humans given our trait for intellectual curiosity, we are bound to seek simplistic, justifiable answers and closure to the complex mysteries of the universe. Unfortunately, no matter how many more future, successive generations that we will continue to "evolve", we still will be unable in our thinking capacity to comprehend God's wonderful mystery of creating the universe the way that He deemed fit, and the reasons for our existence in it.

    Great article, Oliver.

  • Oliver Sutari, Manipal

    Fri, Nov 28 2014

    Ruben,

    Where have I implied that Galileo was wrong? Perhaps I was not clear. I am, fact, using Galileo’s example to show that church leaders can also be ignorant because they are human first.

    The gospels are a different matter. They are the truth. Don’t take my word for it. As I have said repeatedly in my comments, a lot many people have tried to find inaccuracies, but have found none. There is an Australian website (www.creation.com) that you could visit. This is a mind-boggling website. Ph.D. level Christian scientists contribute their ideas to this website and it only confirms to me that scientists and science lovers can also be believers in God. I believe God is using them because today’s generation tries to solve everything through reason and logic.

    I am drawn closer to God through my own personal experiences (which is purely the work of the Holy Spirit and is faith-based) and through the amazing scientific discoveries that are being made today (which is based on reason and logic).

    You do not have to fear the dark ages taking over. The truth given in the gospels is as relevant today as it was when they were first written. Science will continue to evolve, as it should.

    Contrary to popular belief, new technologies are only confirming what the Holy Bible has said centuries ago.

  • Francis X V Passanha, Manipal

    Fri, Nov 28 2014

    Congratulations Oliver. It was mind boggling. I always knew you as a person of promise. But I never expected you to write a finely researched and thoughtful article, 'Leave Evolution to Evolutionists' I must confess I am a dumb guy, who fails to understand the so called theory of evolution and its consequential millions and billions of years. I am proud of you, that you have successfully used the truths in the Bible to put the protagonists of the theory of evolution on the back foot. They may have their points. Cannot but agree with you, when you question the simultaneous evolution of the male and female of each species. Yeah, I cannot stop going to church, because I have any problem with any person, whether it is the pope or the parish priest. My faith does not depend on the words or lack of it, or in the misdemeanors of any persons. Besides I have no complaints with atheists and agnostics. I believe it is their problem. As someone said, 'My God is bigger than my problem'. How true. My faith stands. Oliver I continue to be a fan of yours, through your various articles.

  • Oliver Sutari, Manipal

    Fri, Nov 28 2014

    This is in response to Roshan Braganza’s comments (28 Nov):

    I am just trying to understand something. If today a human couple feels that their environment is disturbed, are you saying they can actually cause a mutation to occur in their baby’s genes that would help their new born baby survive the world better? For example, can an impoverished couple bring about genetic changes in their yet-to-be-born offspring in such a way that the child's need for food is reduced?

    Either we are created by God, or we have evolved from non-living material to living beings with flesh and blood, and also emotions, thought, conscience. Spiritual wellness, love, compassion, do not come from random chemicals. If you and I are evolved creatures, then God does not own us any more. It is as simple as that. Our goal should just be to survive by any means. Giving a life to save another goes directly against evolution.

  • Oliver Sutari, Manipal

    Fri, Nov 28 2014

    This is in response to Arnold’s comments (27 Nov)

    You are confirming precisely the point I have tried to make. If the iguana finds itself in a situation where the only way to survive is to get out by flight, then it will die, because it has no means to fly. You must understand one thing: it cannot develop wings. Even if it does, it would take hundreds of years, but the iguana would die long before it develops wings.

    Sick lions that cannot hunt do not eat grass to stay alive till they get their strength back. They die! Even if a lion tries to survive by eating grass, its guts will not be able to digest grass. Its system is not designed to do so. It will, indeed, die. You are making the same mistake many people do – they mistake adaptation for evolution. I repeat, no creature can adapt unless it is already designed to do so. If it cannot adapt, it will die – it cannot evolve after it is dead.

    One millenia equals to 1,000 years. That is nothing for an evolution time scale. You probably meant millions of years and, if so, I am aware that evolution NECESSARILY means millions and millions of years. My argument to that is already contained in my article. You may want to read it once again and then pose the question.

    Do you know how much difference even one gene makes? If we are so close to chimps, why can’t chimps and humans interbreed? Why have we not seen a chimp given birth to a human-like creature? Why has the chimp stopped evolving?

  • Roshan Braganza, Mumbai

    Fri, Nov 28 2014

    @ Oliver , Sam . The evolution of sexes is true and can be validated using religious and scientific sources.

    1 . Jews Talmund narrated creation of Human as a Hermaphrodite , later separated into Adam and Lilith , due to difficulty in locomotion. Lilith upon being feminist and dominating in nature , argued with adam and settled with demons at Red Sea. Upon Adams complaint , God then created submissive EVE as a companion.

    2. The evolution of sexes genetically can be validated. The ' ovotesis' has both male and female organs , a social insect is example of tri sex , where queen , male and labour bees are part of procreation . Slim mold has hundreds of different sexes !

    Evolution works on existing material , advantageous technique arrises and ggenerally spreads. Procreation exibit 2 cells is actually a battle of mitochondria and birth of 2 genders depends upon the one ' which concedes the battle ( male ) ' and ' those who do not ( female )' . Any deviation from fifty fifty ration would benefict the rarer type and cause ratio to correct itself. As in slim mold species., procreation is by conjugation , so there is no need of battle , no need of concession. So there exists hundreds of different sexes in this species.

    Humans procreation which is by fusion of cells is non conjugation type , so chance of evolution can be only male.or female ( at present ! but future can bw deviation from male or female ) . Its very likely we evolved from unicell multicell a sexualhermaphrodite-sexual male or female - Ape , then to Human spanned over millions years. Genetic variation plays a very important role here.

    May our ancesters species relied whats best for them at that particular time , looking at the disturbing environment. One of the likely scenario would be , hermophridites started to give birth male or female species , and then they r the one to survive and started to procreate themselves.

    I believe in God and its wonderful creation of Adam / lillith/ eve. But we have always has to explore creation with science , which makes us even stronger spiritually.

  • Oliver Sutari, Manipal

    Fri, Nov 28 2014

    This is in response to R. D’Souza’s comments:

    It IS IMPOSSIBLE to demonstrate complex life forms coming from simple forms. It is one the two criteria I have mentioned that evolutionists must prove for their theory to become a law. So far they have not been able to demonstrate it.

    Hoyle’s analogy is not given to counter evolution – it is given to prove that a complex structure cannot come together into a perfect flying machine by chance even if all the components were there in the first place. Please show me anywhere if this has happened.

    What are the chances that a 15-page article would come together by chance – if all the letters were scattered? The answer is: it would not, unless there is an organizing entity. Could the proteins, enzymes, etc., in a cell come together to form a perfectly functioning cell on its own? Even more importantly, why? Why would a cell want to divide and form into a complex creature? What purpose does it serve? Where did the genders come from?

    In olden times people were in awe of creation because COMMON SENSE told them that for something as beautiful they see with their eyes had to come from someone powerful with a sense of beauty. Today, common sense is done and dusted with and evolutionists come up with theories upon theories, more complicated to understand than the previous ones. Note, those who believe in God still ask common sense questions and those very questions evolutionists are unable to answer.

  • John DSouza, Mangaluru

    Fri, Nov 28 2014

    Dear Mr. Sutari, thanks for your response with knowledge, experience and wisdom. I am sorry for my irrelevant comments. As I am away I will contact you through fb and email. Kind regards

  • sam, world

    Fri, Nov 28 2014

    @Arnold, mangalore
    "Well I have not read the bible and don't intend to"
    - That is quite disappointing. If you want to understand the Christian view, you have to read the Bible, otherwise your understanding will be based on second hand knowledge .

    "But am living in a civilised world and am a law abiding citizen"
    - Civilised based on what? What are you comparing the civilised world to?
    - Gundas and Godmen also live perfectly well within the world. Should we be upset with Gundas and Godmen?

    "In a civilised society only good is intended and avoidance of harm to others."
    "Why is that I will not harm or kill anybody?"
    - If you believe only good is intended in such a society, I have to ask you, what is good? And why deny the bad? Does goodness or badness have any meaning to a person who believes in a world that emerges from the theory of evolution?

    "If there was God and no civil laws and no civilised society most probably you will see crime."
    - When people disobey laws, it gives rise to all kinds of problems. Thus blaming God for something he is not responsible for is a false charge. The problem rests with humans, not with God.

    "We have to evolve to a higher level of civilised state"
    - Evolve? Like the Nirbhaya incident, Saradha Group financial scandal?

  • sam, world

    Fri, Nov 28 2014

    @C D Souza , Kuloor, Mangalaru.
    Are you a believer in the theory of evolution?

    "As regards the other aspect about quoting bible dont think you are an authority on bible and others are ignorant"
    - Do you have a specific issue or are you simply writing this because you are upset about the Bible?

    "When you said Oscar Wilde was hodonist i quoted bible to say arent we all come in the same category. We want good life, we want more money and that gives us happines."
    - Same category of what?
    - Are you sure money gives you happiness? How much money you think is enough?

  • Rohit,

    Fri, Nov 28 2014

    @ Ruben Pinto, Australia

    Ruben, do you question science before you progress?

  • C D Souza , Kuloor, Mangalaru.

    Fri, Nov 28 2014

    Sam
    Pl read the the matter in relation of oscar wilde as 'i talked about what oscar said about bible and not his faith. The not was left out by mistake.

    As regards the other aspect about quoting bible dont think you are an authority on bible and others are ignorant. When you said Oscar Wilde was hodonist i quoted bible to say arent we all come in the same category. We want good life, we want more money and that gives us happines. Otherwise the world would have been full of sadhus who would go to the Himalayas and meditate rather than discuss this topic here.

  • sam, world

    Fri, Nov 28 2014

    @R DSouza, Bantwal
    "It is not impossible to demonstrate that complex forms can arise out of simple components given only few simple rules."
    - Conway's problem deals with a few simple rules. Conway assumes his system starts with an initial pattern and that the cells can reproduce
    - So the question is, how did the initial pattern exist? Who put it there and why? Why do the cells need to reproduce? Can evolution tell how did the initial pattern originate? Can evolution tell why the cells need to reproduce?
    - Certainly once the assumptions are given, you can create complex systems from simple rules. That is what is most fascinating - isn't it.

    "The difficulty I have is that I cannot prove that God created life just as I cannot prove that an eight-headed rainbow colored flying spaghetti created life"
    - Ok. Let us assume that an eight-headed rainbow colored flying spaghetti created life. Can we explain the world we live in and every aspect of creation on this wonderful spaghetti?
    - Evolution proposes a world contrary to a world that believes God exists. The outcomes of living in respective worlds are very different and differs across religions also (e.g. Christian view of the world is very different from Islamic view of the world is very different from Hindu view of the world, etc.)
    - The interesting part is the evolutionist lives by the rules that originate from a world that believes in God, rather than an Evolutionist world.

  • Ruben Pinto, Australia

    Fri, Nov 28 2014

    Oliver are you implying that Galileo was wrong and gospel truth is nothing but the truth? Human kind needs science to question and progress. Accepting all religious dogmas/metaphors would be encouraging dark ages as opposed to quest for finding the origins of the universe and consequently our's too.

  • Dr.Pamela.Pinto, New Zealand, Kuwait

    Fri, Nov 28 2014

    continued (2) ...
    I guess what im trying to put forth is that moral values have been mentioned in Holy Books, not in the Constitution. You trust someone based on how you feel about them and not because the law makes you. How else do you speak of this 'gut feeling' ... instincts? Yes we have scientifically shown how instincts work but what are they? where are they located? in our gut? in our brain? in the form of chemicals or a tiny little cell? Im not posing an argument against it, i do know instincts are a real thing. But i want those who side evolution to explain to me, why is that i cant see, hear, treat or even point out where instincts are in me and yet i believe that there is such a thing?! And as most often say, debunking evolution doesnt prove the existence of God, then debunking the existence of 'instincts' would mean we are merely humans high on acid talking about a something we can not prove because we are delusional. The same goes for all these things like trust, love, concern etc. No one can measure trust, yet we 'trust' someone. With what, how? Is there an exchange of something? Is there a signal to indicate, why is it sometimes one sided? why does trust get 'broken'? What happens to you chemically that you either stop trusting that person or stop trusting everyone completely? Answering these simple questions will probably then make it easier for us to explain why we believe in a God, love a God we can neither see, hear or talk to and yet have faith and trust in

  • Dr.Pamela.Pinto, New Zealand, Kuwait

    Fri, Nov 28 2014

    continued ...
    Humans have tried their best to be adapt to nature but we will still remain in the form we always have. Human. In the meantime, humans are doing whatever they can to alter nature which affects the existence of every other species, hence the term 'Endangered' and not 'Evolving'. Once the endangered species are completely wiped out, they are termed extinct and not 'TBA' (to be announced), as to which new species it would turn into - AFTER it has long gone (meaning it would have to rise from the dead to make it happen - unless fossils can evolve) after 'million's of years'. Oceanographers are now discovering thousands and thousands of species under water in the farther darker regions that have never been ventured into. They have always been there, just never discovered. They havent evolved from anything. But yes, give it a couple of years and we would surely find their numbers dwindling too.
    Also, while on the topic of creation vs evolution, why does CD D'souza talk about selfishness? what does being selfish mean and why is it a bad thing? the word was coined in a language, has a meaning created by humans and to some it means putting one's self before others. Why does evolution care about such things? doesnt every animal do that too? How about convincing a child that it is wrong to kill because the government said so. To me, that is not a very convincing argument. Laws keep changing so would it mean that someday based on the circumstances, it would be okay to kill?

  • Dr.Pamela.Pinto, New Zealand, Kuwait

    Fri, Nov 28 2014

    Just the same point with an example to cite and a question to follow. As the author spoke of the gender evolving at the exact same time into different species, why havent we seen the transitional form for so many years? like the ones turning into the highly evolved species they presently are with a bit of what they were? Also, if someone could explain to me the possibility of every specie's transition from said form to the evolved one happening at the exact same time with the male and female gender, at all times since the beginning of evolution. As Arnold had mentioned of the iguana (which is adaptation and not evolution), then the under water living iguanas, albeit briefly, would become adapted to the change - would that mean they will grow gills and the land ones would be extinct? If this is true, then all those life forms that have been the supposed ancestors of the present day species (chimpanzees for man included), would mean that they would no longer be seen. But that isnt the case now is it? we still see those creatures that have supposedly evolved along with their supposedly evolved successors. Or is it that some chosen ones get to evolve while some are discriminated by nature to stay the same? Take the dodo for example, its extinction had nothing to do with evolution into another species (or if it has evolved into a new breed of a Hyena, im unaware). It is extinct due to human carelessness. So is the case with almost everything.
    Continued ...

  • arnold, mangalore

    Thu, Nov 27 2014

    comment on Oliver's response
    cont from previous

    Evolution takes place over a millennia and you may check this. Evolution does not happen in a short span . Adapting to the current changed surroundings over a period of millennia will produce a evolved species from the previous
    Only humans are capable of immediate adaptation as we are on top of the food chain and able to control our surroundings and environment. Animals cannot adapt immediately , they will perish the moment food is not available. For the lion to adapt to eat grass the meat source would have to gradually disappear and the lion would have to start eating grass parallely with the dwindling source of meat until such time the lions system is adapted to eating more and more grass. But this has to happen over generations not immediate.
    Talking about us, why is that we have a difference of only 2 genes with chimps. we see many similarities in body structures between us and apes/chimps. And what about we sharing DNA with all animal forms on this earth? Why should we . Is it Intelligent design? If it is , then why?

    end of the evolution

  • geoffrey, hat hill

    Thu, Nov 27 2014


    To truly comprehend the scientific theories especially those in astrophysics and quantum physics one needs to possess a high degree of mathematical background along with abstract thinking and space reasoning. And the only necessity to understand any religion is deep rooted faith. Without these qualifications, trying to justify one’s own stand and disprove other’s on either of these (science/religion) is like the story of six Blind men and the elephant. Even with the above mentioned superior qualifications and with the aid of super computers, there are many unresolved mysteries in science. As per Godel’s theorem, there shall always be unsolvable problems. Once there was a quest for ToE, Theory of Everything or unification of four fundamental forces. Einstein himself during last years of his life was under such a quest. But many prominent physicists of today, including Stephen Hawking are of the opinion that such quest is futile as ToE shall always remain elusive to man.

    Let me conclude with an old but favorite joke:

    An atheist was seated next to a little girl on an airplane and he turned to her and said, "Do you want to talk? Flights go quicker if you strike up a conversation with your fellow passenger."
    The little girl, who had just started to read her book, replied to the total stranger, "What would you want to talk about?"
    " Oh, I don't know," said the atheist. "How about why there is no God, or no Heaven or Hell, or no life after death?" as he smiled smugly.
    "OK," she said. "Those could be interesting topics but let me ask you a question first. A horse, a cow, and a deer all eat the same stuff - grass. Yet a deer excretes little pellets, while a cow turns out a flat patty, but a horse produces clumps. Why do you suppose that is?"
    The atheist, visibly surprised by the little girl's intelligence, thinks about it and says, "Hmmm, I have no idea." To which the little girl replies, "Do you really feel qualified to discuss why there is no God, or no Heaven or Hell, or no life after death, when you don't know crap?"

    And then she went back to reading her book.


  • arnold, mangalore

    Thu, Nov 27 2014

    comment to Oliver's response

    I believe adaptation over time will lead to evolution and a distinct species will arise if the iguanas on the islands continue with present state and into the future. They may spend so much time in water to search for food that biological changes are bound to happen and they may eventually become sea animals and travel extensive distances in search of food ( and become similar to dolphins & whales) or they may even go back to the mainland of south America. Should they reach mainland south America their need to go to sea will cease as there is plenty of food on land . In this case the tendency to adapt to water will cease immediately and factors of land will influence their behaviour.
    I don’t agree fully with your point that iguanas are inherently suited to stay or swim under water. Yes we and animals will instinctly swim when in water ( man fares worse). This is restricted to a short time for land animals and man for recreation ( swimming and diving).
    Then what other characteristic do you think are inherent to them? These are land animals on an island and circumstances have forced them to go under in search of food to survive. Do you think they are inherently suited fly?
    Do you think there would be any difference between the iguanas on the mainland continent and the iguanas on the Galapagos islands? Even though the iguanas on the islands came to Galapagos hundreds or thousands of years ago from the mainland ( ie from the same species)
    cont..

  • Arnold, mangalore

    Thu, Nov 27 2014

    In response to Sam
    Good question sam,
    Well I have not read the bible and don’t intend to.
    Now to salvation : about the crime
    I don’t believe in God so as far as I am concerned I am living in a world without God. But am living in a civilised world and am a law abiding citizen. Being civilised and law abiding I will not do anything that will harm others or break the law. That is what civilised society is all about. So your question of me committing crime doesn’t arise. I want to live in a peaceful society where everyone is happy and I don’t need God for that.
    Our civilised behaviour and the civil law will suffice. I agree the present civil laws and our civilised behaviour had some influence of good aspects from religions . In a civilised society only good is intended and avoidance of harm to others.
    Why is that I will not harm or kill anybody? It is because I am civilised and don’t want anybody harming me in return and I don’t want to be shamed in society. Also the law will try me and put me in prison but this is secondary.
    If there was God and no civil laws and no civilised society most probably you will see crime.
    No God but good civil laws and good civilised society – far less crime ( almost heaven on earth)
    Sarcasm is not good but may be required once in a while but has no rious effect on society .We have to evolve to a higher level of civilised state whence there will little or no more sarcasm.

  • R DSouza, Bantwal

    Thu, Nov 27 2014

    Mr. Sutari, I appreciate the time taken to provide a rebuttal to my comments.

    It is not impossible to demonstrate that complex forms can arise out of simple components given only few simple rules. One example is the “Game of Life”, invented by mathematician John Conway. If you can understand the reasoning behind evolving systems given some rules, then understanding evolution might be easier. This also relates to the fallacy in the quote by Fred Hoyle. (FYI, Fred Hoyle’s has also said that AIDS came from outer space!!). The example you have given is that of “false analogy”. The example does not conform to the model of evolution.

    The difficulty I have is that I cannot prove that God created life just as I cannot prove that an eight-headed rainbow colored flying spaghetti created life. Yes, it is OK to criticize theory of evolution the understanding is not complete but progress is being made. Attempting to poke holes at features of evolution does not mean that God made life. Have a nice day!

  • Zeitgeist, Mangalore

    Thu, Nov 27 2014

    Mr. Oliver,

    You have mentioned that more and more scientist are supporting for a younger earth. Would you please tell from where did you get that info.

  • sam, world

    Thu, Nov 27 2014

    @C.D'Souza., Kuloor, Mangalaru

    "You have effectively chosen to answer only a few questions"
    - If you had restricted your questions, then it would be easier to discuss. Your response jumps across many many topics.

    "But i thot god is above all human related shortcomings"
    - Can you explain this statement?

    "Oscar Wilde said about bible and about his faith"
    - People say all kinds of things about the Bible.
    - Most people do not know that Oscar Wilde died a Catholic.

    "Let the one who has not sinned throw the first throne"
    - Taking Jesus' words or Biblical verses out of context is a common theme by those who have not read the Bible and misquote it
    - Did you read the passage in the Bible where Jesus says this? Why did Jesus say those words? Does his words have any relevance to an evolutionist?

  • Alex Sequeira, Manipal

    Thu, Nov 27 2014

    Sam,
    You are entitled to your priorities in life.

    I choose to refrain from arguing about the age of the Universe. Prefer to work on improving MY many faults TODAY!!

  • sam, world

    Thu, Nov 27 2014

    @Arnold, mangalore
    "This is a slow adaptation process which will lead to a new species after a few thousand or million years."
    - The author has given a correct response to your question.
    - Here is mine to let those grey cells think. Most humans in India are vegetarians and the rest of the humans in India are non-vegetarians. Would you say that eating sea weed is an evolutionary process?

    "The 3 wise men could find jesus because the 3 camels had highly evolved brains that could

    track the birth location"
    - Does sarcasm have any significance in the world that believes in evolution?
    - Once again, if the cosmology of the prophets was poor, then how did the three wise men know how to find Jesus?
    - If you believe that the 3 camels have a highly evolved brain, can you explain how did the camel communicate with man and share cosmological directions?

  • sam, world

    Thu, Nov 27 2014

    @Arnold, mangalore
    "Write out the scientific phenomena you are referring and also tell the events in the bible

    that correlate history and scientific facts"
    - It seems like you know the evolutions in its entirety. Why not take the effort to find out what the Bible says? Have you read the Bible?

    "Salvation for what? And what is salvation?"
    - Good question. This question assumes you value salvation or value being saved? Does that have any significance in a world defined by evolution?
    - Answer this Arnold - If you lived in a world without God, and you are going to commit a crime (e.g. a poor man who wants to steal a loaf of bread), and you are saved before you did the act, by a concerned human (e.g. Mother Teresa, Baba Amte, Kailash Satyarthi) how do you respond? Do you hurt the one who saved you or commit hurt on the person who saved you?

  • C.D'Souza., Kuloor, Mangalaru.

    Thu, Nov 27 2014

    Sam

    You have effectively chosen to answer only a few questions. Doest not matter. You have objections to my calling god selfish for which you says i have to refer evolution theory. But i thot god is above all human related shortcomings. And bout Oscar Wilde he was imprisoned for indecent behaviour because homosexuality was considered an offence those days. And i had talked about what Oscar Wilde said about bible and about his faith. And about hedonism the less said better. remember bible - which says Let the one who has not sinned throw the first throne". Why not apply that here sam?

  • Oliver Sutari, Manipal

    Thu, Nov 27 2014

    Dear Mr. D’Souza,

    Believe it or not, I write this with genuine concern.

    Not a single statement you have made relates to the article I have written. I also sense a lot of anger in you. Your questions are not difficult to answer, but such a forum is not ideally suited to answer the questions you have raised because it takes a great deal of time and effort. A face-to-face, one-on-one approach would be far easier.

    A person who seeks answers for the purpose of personal upliftment finds them. If your purpose is to simply find someone to ridicule, you will never find the truth. There is a saying that goes somewhat like this: if the student is ready, the teacher will appear.

    Please do not pin every person’s hypocrisy on Jesus Christ’s chest – He has nothing to do with it.

    There are no contradictions in the Holy Bible. There cannot be because the Holy Bible is the Word of God. Many have sought to destroy it with their venomous penmanship, but have ended up embracing it. Jesus Christ Himself has said, “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.” This is no small talk.

    I see you are from Mangalore. I am based in Manipal. I would love to engage in a dialogue, provided we do it face to face. If you are interested, please feel free to let me know. My email address is oliversutari@gmail.com

    If we do meet, then let it be in the SPIRIT OF LEARNING something from each other.

    Take care, Sir.

  • Oliver Sutari, Manipal

    Thu, Nov 27 2014

    This is in response to Arnold’s comments:

    To begin with, there are questions that can only be answered if the person is a person of faith in God. Faith-based questions generally end up in dark alleys of abuses during discussions when people of opposite views meet.

    I would like to stick to the subject of creation vs. evolution because that is what the article is all about.

    The iguanas that you have mentioned are specific examples of adaptation – not evolution. I have alerted readers that adaption is quite often mistaken for evolution. The iguanas are able to swim, remain under water for a good amount of time because they are INHERENTLY suited to do so. The iguanas did not have to make any biological changes. A lion on the other hand will not be able to do what the iguana does. The creature does not need a thousand or a million years to do it. It can either adapt immediately or it will have to die. If all the animals that a lion preys on die, the lion will either have to eat grass and survive, or it will die in a few weeks time. The lion cannot adapt its gut cannot digest grass. In other words, it cannot evolve in a thousand years after it has died in a few weeks time.

  • JC Pinto, Mumbai

    Thu, Nov 27 2014

    Those who find fault with the article and Holy Bible, pl. keep in mind that the New Testament was written about 2000 years ago and the Old Testament much earlier. Taking advantage of today's knowledge and discoveries, if one is trying to find fault with what was written thousands of years ago, the arguments seem senile. Nonetheless, what is contained in the Holy Bible holds good today also (in fact till the end of world, as told by Jesus himself).

  • Arnold, mangalore

    Thu, Nov 27 2014

    This in in response to sam's comments.
    It seems like you know the bible in its entirety. Write out the scientific phenomena you are referring and also tell the events in the bible that correlate history and scientific facts . By the way elaborate on your statement ..”to explain God and his plan of salvation “ . Salvation for what? And what is salvation? When does this happen and where?
    Evolution steps occur within a species , a group and over generations. A single entity cannot evolve as procreation is required to transfer the changes to the next generation. An evolved species cannot create its ancestorial species as its DNA will change.
    Iguanas, the land lizards on the Galapagos islands in south America now dive under the sea to forage for sea weed as they have nothing else to eat on the island . These land animals have managed to adapt to stay under water for half an hour or more . This is a slow adaptation process which will lead to a new species after a few thousand or million years.
    Perhaps your little grey cells need to start working rather than mine. I will give you credit for telling me “ please understand”. You have enlightened me. I never knew that I could not understand
    The 3 wise men could find jesus because the 3 camels had highly evolved brains that could track the birth location. That explains evolution in the bible!.

  • Zeitgeist, Mangalore

    Thu, Nov 27 2014

    Sam, my old friend. How are you?

    Since i understand you take Bible literally, I am not going to explain any of arguments for Evolution, nor for the age of earth and universe. Because nothing i say will change your mind.

    Please send any of your reply to my mail zeitgeist.zues(at)gmail.com

  • Antony DS, UAE / Bangalore

    Thu, Nov 27 2014

    Science and evolution do not offer anything after life but religion offers hope of life after death. Religion offers moral and ethics. May be atheists are moral abiding people but atheism is not. All the religious holy books teach about the beginning of creation, evolution on the other hand has no answer because it starts from some point of life. Evolution is just a theory still with proofs shaky but New Testament is historically proved. God the creator is the designer of vast universe to the smallest of cell and ever man is not able to create a living cell or DNA double helix and its code? No. It is ridiculous to think that Cell and DNA is happened randomly.

  • Alex Sequeira, Manipal

    Thu, Nov 27 2014

    Sam, you are free to live your life the way you choose. We are a free world!
    I am involved in the world TODAY and I choose not to be overly concerned about the age of the World.
    My association with My God is in the present.

  • John DSouza, Mangaluru

    Thu, Nov 27 2014

    Being our life is a momentary slide of a lengthy film role, we are incapable to change the history, stop the current and control the future. Perhaps the discussion on evolution will go on endlessly, but we cannot continue to live in blindness and deprive the right of future generations to live in a good and clean environment. Though we cannot create or destroy things but certainly can alter, change, use and enjoy.
    Dear intellectuals, kindly pause for a moment and give your one word priceless answer i.e. “yes” or “no” Do you agree and accept that during the introduction of vehicle engine, the automakers kept the vehicle engine (bulls) and the cart (commuters and goods) on wheels due to lack of proper roads (at that time) and moved the vehicle with the fuel force? The silly error was instead of making the bull (the vehicle engine) to pull the cart they carried and moved it on the wheels by causing several drawbacks. If your answer is “yes” then we can have a rapid revolution in the surface transport sector and “no” will make us to carry and move the bullock cart on wheels as a continuing process of the lengthy evolution of automobiles industry and a silly error of ages will continue being we remain blind, deaf and dumb.
    Our choice is to enjoy a wonderful revolution or continue with the evolution of severe problems.
    Good to live this uncertain life in peace with the hope of a life everlasting.

  • C.D'Souza., Kuloor, Mangalaru.

    Thu, Nov 27 2014

    Sam,
    Your chose to answer only a few questions because it suited you. About oscar wilde read it correctly and not with a jaundiced eye. He talked about harm done by bible. Who talked about whether he came to Christ or not. But i would like to point out that the so called soceity killed him by imprisoning him for being a homosexual. What is wrong in being a hedonist. he could afford it. people who cannot do so crib about it. I dont think we have a shortage of hedonistic people in our society. What you say Sam?

  • sam, world

    Thu, Nov 27 2014

    @Roshan Braganza, Mumbai
    "The chronology of creation in bible is not reliable as what science tells us."
    - So then there must be an alternative chronology that was given down, isn't it? Can you find this chronology? If it doesn't, how can you rely on it?

  • sam, world

    Thu, Nov 27 2014

    @C D Souza , Kuloor, Mangalaru.
    Did you know that Oscar Wilde lived a life of debauchery and hedonism? Do you know that in the end he died a Catholic? Now why would a man who had everything he wanted at his death bed come to Christ?

    If you charge God with being selfish, then can you explain from a perspective that believes in the theory of evolution what is selfishness? and what relevance does it have?

    The frequent charge against the God of the Bible arises from viewing the broken world and believing in Satan's lie that God created this. Have you read Genesis 1, 2? Where did God say that he created a world of disease, sickness, suffering?

    You also ask another important question - "who created god"? I presume that you believe in the theory of evolution, so can you answer what created evolution?

  • Sam,

    Thu, Nov 27 2014

    @ Alex Sequeira, Manipal

    You said "Why care if Earth and/or the Universe is a few thousand years or many billion years!". Why shouldn't we

    care? Sir, if someone was spreading lies about you, would you care? In the same way, when charlatans are spreading lies about the earth and how it was formed, and calling it 'Science', shouldn't you care?

  • C D Souza , Kuloor, Mangalaru.

    Thu, Nov 27 2014


    When I think of all the harm the Bible has done, I despair of ever writing anything to equal it.” — Oscar Wilde

    The world has produced three great impostors: Moses, Jesus and Muhammad. - Emperor Frederick II of Sicily.
    All religions worship god and worship them in their own way. Everyone wants to go to heaven. No one knows whther anyone has gone there and come back to say what heaven actually is.

    I dont understand why god is so selfish that he wants all of us to surrender to him so that we all can be saved. Sometimes even after fully surrendering - people who return from churches, mosques or temples meet with accident and die. Then some god believers say they did not pray with devotion.
    People say oh god take us to heaven to be on your side. Yet when they fall sick they go to hospitals and try to prolong their lives. Why not accept god's calling and hurry up to go to heaven.
    As per bible when Satan asked jesus to surrender to him he did not. Then why he expects us to be servile to him. Of course there is no guarantee he will protect us.
    isnt god selfish that only if you do this i will give you this. quid pro quo?
    Why bible says we inherit sins when we ourselves dont commit them.
    Finally who created god?
    i think if the author is able to answer all this and also answer some of the contradictions in bible (as he based his theory on bible) in support of his lengthy surmon?

  • Alex Sequeira, Manipal

    Thu, Nov 27 2014

    Science is EVOLVING and learning It tryies to explain to human beings at current levels of human intelligence. Science is nowhere near explaining the origin of the Universe.

    Relgions answers the yearning of the Soul and the Spirit. Its focus is always on the present on how I can live TODAY in the world and society as it exists TODAY.

    There was, is and always be a Creator. Call Him (or Her or It if you will) God, Master Designer...what you may! His intelligence level is infinitely superior to man. Thats why we all accept that "The more we know, the more we know how little we know"

    Let Science continue to evolve as it has done in the past. Why care if Earth and/or the Universe is a few thousand years or many billion years!

    I believe the basic tenet "MY GOD LOVES YOU AND ME. WE MUST LOVE OUR GOD AND LOVE OUR NEIGHBOURS AS OURSELVES

    This is the crux. It is all that matters vis-a-vis Science and Religion.

  • Oliver Sutari, Manipal

    Thu, Nov 27 2014

    This is in response to Roshan Braganza’s comments:

    Time and again I ask this question: if evolution is true, how did both genders of every species evolve together? The monkey’s tail you talk about does not prove anything. Compare the elephant and the hyrax – they are supposed to be close relatives. The elephant is a 6-tonner while the hyrax less than 6 kilos. Can you imagine how many transitions the hyrax would have to go through to become an elephant – or vice versa? And remember, again, each would have to bear a male and a female. Now imagine every creature known to us. We are talking about billions and billions of slow transitions for creatures to evolve into some other creature. So, where are the transitional fossils?

    What is pathetic? The fact that science has been telling us that dinosaurs lived hundreds of millions of years ago, or the fact that the Holy Bible actually describes one so accurately? Could you elaborate? Did you read in the article that they have found unfossilized dinosaur remains with red blood cells? Did you know that red blood cells cannot last for hundreds of millions of years? Carbon dating: May I suggest you do some reading on this subject and why it is not possible to date objects that are “millions” of years old.
    If you have a problem with the number of days mentioned in Genesis, can you tell me if Jesus Christ has risen or we have to wait some thousands of years?

  • Sam,

    Thu, Nov 27 2014

    @ Roshan Braganza, Mumbai

    Actually, carbon dating DOES NOT take us back to millions of years. This statement is a good example of 'a lie, when repeated sufficient number of times, becomes the truth'.

    The Bible is a Holy and Historical book. So pray tell us, what holistic approach to history are you looking for? and where do you plan to get this history from?

    If "Evolution need not be spontaneous but Habitual", why is it so? Why can evolution not be spontaneous? Why do we have male and females? Can evolution answer this? And who came first, male or female? Why did evolution not create hermaphrodites in all living creature? And why do males and females procreate?

  • Roshan Braganza, Mumbai

    Thu, Nov 27 2014

    The ' religion ' and 'science ' are both on extream ends regarding evolution but their source are one and same , thats ' life'. The chronology of creation in bible is not reliable as what science tells us. Genesis of creation , couple of thousands of years back!!? , and information on dinosaurs in bible !!?. Pathetic !!. Carbon dating takes us back to millions of years. But we need a holistic approach to understand and stop viewing bible as mere historical book.

    Whats happened in genesis can be a RECREATION. Bible gives us account that there was something before creation. God put that into order , this can be a missing link in the evolutionary theory of HOMOSEPIANS. Gods account of 7 days can never be equavalent to world standard time , as HE is outside TIME realm. Evolution need not be spontaneous but Habitual , a fish started to have legs as tentacles inside the river rather than assuming suddenly transformed into Herbivorous four legged animal. Its curious we still have tiny skeleton part of ' tails' which we inherited from our MONKEY forefathers.


    Science is still on ' craddle' stage and religious scripts are not complete. The BIGBANG is a crazy incomplete doctrine , which is silent on what was before that. A highly dense singular entity also should have begining. This puts us into something extream like Multiple dimensions and timeless phenomenon , which concludes past , present and future can co exist at a single point. There is a strong reason to believe existance of infinite dimensions with infinite conciousness , which is possiblly be God. So far closest theory we can putforward is STRING THEORY , but that too very typical. Way to go , God bless us all. Religion gives us the answer where science fails.

  • Sam,

    Thu, Nov 27 2014

    @ zeitgeist:

    Please give me a well reasoned scientific argument of how Male AND Female originated? And why do they need to procreate?

  • Sam,

    Thu, Nov 27 2014

    @ A Fernandes, Mangalore:

    The Bible is a Holy AND Historical book, not a scientific text book. However the Bible does record scientific phenomena. Many events from the Bible correlate with history and scientific facts. Please understand the purpose of the Bible is not to teach science, rather it to explain to people God and his plan of salvation for human beings.

    Now let us come to some other absurdities in your comments. If you place such a great emphasis on scientific writings, then can you pray tell us how did woman come to exist and why? If you say that the woman and man evolved, can you explain how and from what? Which soup did they evolve from? Perhaps those little gray cells of yours need to start working. For example, if the cosmology of the prophets was poor, then how did the three wise men know how to find Jesus? I'm sure they had internet and GPS to guide them, isn't it?

  • Sam,

    Thu, Nov 27 2014

    @ Zeitgeist:
    "Theory of evolution is well established fact". How does a THEORY become a FACT, my friend?

  • Oliver Sutari, Manipal

    Wed, Nov 26 2014

    This is in response to Chris Emmanuel D’Souza’s comments:

    Dear Chris,

    Sadly, it is the criticism of religions that go unchallenged. Of course, it would all depend on which country you are in. If you take secular countries in the west, the Christian religion is mocked left, right and center. Even Jesus Christ has been called a hippie on shows. Bill Maher’s has an audience that cheers him when he makes fun of believers. He is actually making money out of it.

    People in the west want their Christmas holidays, but they don’t want to hear about the person whose birth is celebrated on that day.

  • Oliver Sutari, Manipal

    Wed, Nov 26 2014

    This is in response to Peter Kinnon’s comments:

    How is the observation on complex information found in cells unfounded? Information Scientists will tell you that no information can come about without the input of intelligence, unless you believe that your computer wrote its program by itself.

    If, indeed, natural ion is the primary ratcheting mechanism that imparts direction to the evolutionary process, then why have we not seen the emergence of new life forms from existing ones – or atleast the beginning of the process. That, and another question still remains unanswered, how did the genders evolve together? I am afraid this is my favourite one, because this one truly stumps anyone who thinks we are a product of evolution.

    Evolutionists may use sophisticated terms to explain that evolution has happened and is still happening, but I would give anything to find out how some ape-like creature gave birth to a male and female version of human beings, and how that ape-like creature and the one before that, and the one before that, and the one before that, come to have both male and female of the species. When I give talks, this is the one that grabs the attention of the most ardent believer of evolution.

    Thank you for suggesting the reading material. In due course I will take a look at them.

  • Oliver Sutari, Manipal

    Wed, Nov 26 2014

    Dear Anita & Dexter,

    What a beautiful, uplifting, thing to say, “My God is bigger than my problem…” I should remember that when I am feeling low.

    Every once in a while, a musical note may give us goose-bumps, the smell of burning wood may bring back memories of childhood spent with our grandparents, the sound of a bird singing may take us to a serene place. I wonder if any of these can happen if we are mere flesh and blood made up of random chemicals. I don’t think so.

    Your grandmother would be proud of you. By the way, you story is unfinished. Mind if I ask you to finish it?

    Thank you very much for your encouraging words.

  • Oliver Sutari, Manipal

    Wed, Nov 26 2014

    Dear Dr. Pinto,

    I am truly appreciative of your warm, encouraging words and an all-encompassing positive feedback.

    Yes, I have put in a great deal of time and effort to write this article. I have done a lot of research and among other things have found that evolutionists will offer no proof, but keep repeating that evolution is true. It is also sad that many, many, don't even know what evolution really means. The comments I have received from some quarters confirm it.

    Your comments made my day and I feel it was worth all the time and effort. I will remember to go back to your words to find encouragement whenever I ask myself, “Should I be writing another article?”

    Thank you very much, Dr. Pinto, and it is heartening to know that you enjoyed it.

  • Oliver Sutari, Manipal

    Wed, Nov 26 2014

    This is in response to Zeitgeist’s comments:

    The theory of evolution is either a hypothesis or a well-established fact – it cannot be both.

    There is a possibility that with research we will find more, but don’t you think it is prudent to act upon something that we know now. If you are sentenced to 15 years in prison without evidence and told that the evidence will be found while you languish in prison, would you accept it? I know I wouldn’t, but I hope that I can overturn the judge’s verdict!

    Comparing me with Dr. Zakir Naik – now that is really something (I wish you could see me laugh)! Dr. Naik once told an audience that Darwin went to an island of Kelotropist. I would not tell that to anyone because there is no such island. Dr. Naik is also known to pick and choose PARTS of verses from the Holy Bible to confuse his audience. Dr. Naik is passionate about tearing other religions. Kindly do not put me in the same league, when you don’t even know who I am. I hope that is not too much to ask.

    Yes, I am a Christian – and to be specific a Roman Catholic, but I don’t know why I have to claim it. What “other beliefs” are you talking about?

    Lastly, can you please stick to the topic? As I have said, you cannot prove your theory by berating me personally. Please share any INFORMATION that you may have to refute the data I have provided.

  • Oliver Sutari, Manipal

    Wed, Nov 26 2014

    This is in response to Wilston D’Mello’s comments:

    I am not sure if these are your own comments, or you have quoted someone because your entire text appears within quotes.

    If God was a dictator, He would have done everything in His power to make sure you don’t write against Him. Because that is what dictator’s do. Stalin went to great lengths to bring “order” after he came to power. If killing millions and millions was not enough, he also waged an all-out war against God (funny trying to remove someone you don’t believe in). He had the word God removed from every book, not realizing that God’s name is written on every person’s soul. That is why even atheists cannot do without taking His name – even if it is for a wrong purpose.

    Victims of circumstances believe that they don’t have a choice. Ironically, successful people will always say that they had a choice and that they made the right choice.

    If you were God’s puppet – in its true sense – you would only glorify God. That is what a programmed puppet would do.

  • Oliver Sutari, Manipal

    Wed, Nov 26 2014

    This is in response to R. D’Souza’s comments:

    The article is about creation and evolution. Life from dead matter, complex life forms from random chemicals –it does not make sense. Please show me if I am wrong !

    About Galileo - it only goes to show that the church is not run by perfect people, but then who is?

    Dawkins is not the only evolutionist who has mocked believers. There are many. I agree that that was not the intention of the father of evolutionary science.

    Just so that people don’t think I have interpreted evolution it to suit my own arguments, I have outlined it from a science source. Also, I know what “randomness” and “chance” mean. Fred Hoyle (a scientist by the way) asked if a 747 can come together (by chance) after a tornado sweeps a junkyard.

    I have spent a great deal of time studying both sides – whether creation has the hand of a Creator, or whether it has come by random chance – and have presented my arguments based on data upto the present time. If there is a chance that new evidence will come to light, then the opposite is also true. Interestingly, all new evidence is pointing to a Master Creator.

    If you feel someone is wrong, it is only to be expected that you should pose a counter argument with some data. Just saying something is there does not necessarily mean it is and it does not help to undermine someone.

  • Oliver Sutari, Manipal

    Wed, Nov 26 2014

    In response to Zeitgeist:

    Mass murders committed in the name of religion pales in comparison to the number of people wiped out by atheists like Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, among others. However, the article is not about religion, so why digress?

    There is a difference between a theory and a law. When it comes to gravity, it is called the Law of Gravity – not the theory of gravity. Even if once the apple comes off a branch, and fails to fall to the ground, it will bring the law of gravity into disrepute.

    I have given several reasons why the theory of evolution is not acceptable. If you can prove otherwise, let’s see it.

    The “fight” has always been between creation and evolution. The alternative to one is the other. When Einstein’s equations pointed to a “beginning” of the universe, he hesitated to publish his findings. Because the word “beginning” has serious implications. Nothing can begin without a cause. As Einstein pondered, Hubble published his own findings which confirmed there was a beginning. Einstein later published his findings. Here again, the Holy Bible wins: The first verse of the first book starts with, “In the beginning…”

    A growing number of people – who may not believe in God – but believe there is intelligent design. It is not just about any creature as a whole, but even one part of the creature – say, an eye – demands intelligence.

  • Zeitgeist, Mangalore

    Wed, Nov 26 2014

    Dr. Pamela,

    In human history mass murders were committed in the name of religion. You don`t have to go too far, some of them are committed by god himself.

    Theory of evolution is widely accepted in scientific community. A theory does not require 100% approval from all scientist. I must have come across some other outlandish hypothesis by crazies like growing earth, flat earth, geocentric proponents. Why do religious people attack theory of gravity?

    If you think that theory of evolution isn`t acceptable, then why dont you give me an alternative theory explaining the life of earth. Please dont bring up Intelligent Design. It does not explain anything.

  • R DSouza, Bantwal

    Wed, Nov 26 2014

    The items below points some of the numerous inconsistencies of logic in the opinion piece.

    The writer makes the cardinal mistake of pitting evolution vs. religion. These are two different endeavors. Religion tries to answer questions that are different from what evolution would like to answer. The purpose of the evolutionary science is not to make a mockery of religion. It is simply to uncover truths about nature via reasoning and observation. The understanding need not be perfect all the time. When new information becomes available, the understanding improves and books are rewritten. There is no shame in saying “I don’t know” or “I was wrong” or “Let’s think about this again”. This is how, in general, science makes progress.

    Cherry picking some scientists/politicians/musicians who have something positive to say about God does not validate the existence of God. The writer does not speak of scientists/musicians/politicians who have contrary views?

    The writer says that Isaiah 40:22 alludes to the roundness of Earth. Why did the church take such a long time to accept this truth? Have you heard about what happened to Galileo? What about Kepler?

    It becomes apparent right from the start that the author does not understand evolution. He is misinterpreting evolution to suit his arguments. The author does not even know what randomness (i.e. chance) means. In the unlikely event that evolution be proved wrong, that would still not be the proof for the existence of God.

  • Dr.Pamela.Pinto, New Zealand, Kuwait

    Wed, Nov 26 2014

    Religion and freedom can and do coexist just as knowledge and freedom do. Crime in the name of religion makes as much sense as crime in the name of science. I see the crime being committed by the person and that person would be responsible for his or her actions and not the the community or culture they belong to.

  • Dr.Pamela.Pinto, New Zealand, Kuwait

    Wed, Nov 26 2014

    Zeitgeist,
    Theory IS indeed the highest degree a hypothesis can achieve. But theories are being disproved/debunked every other year or so.The theory of Evolution is NOT a well established FACT. It is the best explanation so far, science has come up with albeit still trying to answer queries that do not conform to the basis of logic.Religion doesnt need to justify miracles and hence why they are termed that. If religion were to justify anything with the aid of something, that something would be looked upon as Science and Knowledge - and religion would be blamed for using a crutch.

    A Fernandes,
    Having started your comment with 'The Bible disagreeing with centuries of observation ...' you have initiated the compartmentalisation of your comment. But if you were to retort that it was your opinion, well then so is the article - the Author's.

    Wilston,

    God is not a dictator hence we arent His slaves. Any devout would tell you that they love, not fear, the creator. Even if a parent raises his/her child morally who then goes out and murders someone for whatever reason - the parent isnt held responsible, ethically, lawfully and even commonsensically.Indeed responsibilities belong to someone who has the freedom to act. So a toddler running about, stumbles, falls and hurts themselves - would you say it would take responsibility for its act or would you blame the parent? If the latter, then does it mean the toddler is still a slave and needs to work for its freedom?

  • Wilston Dmello, Bangalore

    Tue, Nov 25 2014


    "All the religions believe that God created the world and also mankind. But if you are created by someone, you are only a puppet, you don't have your own soul. And if you are created by somebody, he can uncreate you any moment. He neither asked you whether you wanted to be created, nor is he going to ask you: "Do you want to be uncreated?"

    "God is the greatest dictator, if you accept the fiction that he created the world and also created mankind. If God is a reality, then man is a slave, a puppet. All the strings are in his hands, even your life. Then there is no question of any enlightenment. Then there is no question of there being any Gautam the Buddha, because there is no freedom at all. He pulls the strings, you dance he pulls the strings, you cry he pulls the strings, you start murders, suicide, war. You are just a puppet and he is the puppeteer.

    "Then there is no question of sin or virtue, no question of sinners and saints. Nothing is good and nothing is bad, because you are only a puppet. A puppet cannot be responsible for its actions. Responsibility belongs to someone who has the freedom to act.

    "Either God can exist or freedom, both cannot exist together.

    "That is the basic implication of Friedrich Nietzsche's statement: God is dead, therefore man is free.

  • A fernandes, mangalore

    Tue, Nov 25 2014

    The bible disagrees with centuries of observation so dramatically that it fails at even the most elementary level. Telescopic observation is five hundred years old and portions of the Bible predate that by another couple thousand years (more or less). The cosmology of the Bible is the cosmology of the Prophets. On this account and at this time it is useless.
    I'm sure one could repeat this exercise with other topics. What does the Bible say about geology? chemistry? atoms? bacteria? internal organs? disease? What about mathematics ? It would fail over and over again that it would disagree so strongly with our current understanding that teaching from it would be beyond preposterous.. And yet, here we are in a supposedly enlightened age using Scriptures to support creation and debunk evolution.It is a feeble attempt.
    Free thinking articles are far better than compartmentalized literalism like this one . This article illustrates nicely, the doublethink needed to believe in the Bible as literal truth. I think there is more to write on fallacies of The Bible than fallacies of the theory of evolution.

  • Zeitgeist, Mangalore

    Tue, Nov 25 2014

    I would like to quote Late Great Christopher Hitchens-

    Religion has run out of justifications. Thanks to the telescope and the microscope, it no longer offers an explanation of anything important. Where once it used to be able, by its total command of a worldview, to prevent the emergence of rivals, it can now only impede and retard—or try to turn back—the measurable advances that we have made.
    Sometimes, true, it will artfully concede them. But this is to offer itself the choice between irrelevance and obstruction, impotence or outright reaction, and, given this choice, it is programmed to the worse of the two.

    Meanwhile, confronted with undreamed-of vistas inside our own evolving cortex, in the farthest reaches of the known universe, and in proteins and acids which constitute our nature, religion offers either annihilation in the name of god, or else the false promise that if we take a knife to our foreskins, or pray in the right direction, or ingest pieces of wafer, we shall be “saved.”

  • Zeitgeist, Mangalore

    Tue, Nov 25 2014

    Susan,

    In scientific community, a theory is the highest degree an hypothesis can achieve.

    Theory of evolution is well established fact. Yes there are some unanswered questions but with time and research we will find more and more about evolution.

    This article does nothing. what i see in this article is nothing but Dr. Zakir Naik style linking of Science and religion.

    In this article Mr. Oliver has given quotes from the bible. So first he much claim that the Christian beliefs must be right and all other beliefs are wrong. So you see he hits a brick wall over here.

  • Susan Vaisian, Kerala

    Tue, Nov 25 2014

    Very well researched and explicated.The uniqueness of DNA and the diversity and specificity of males and females are miracles by itself. Mutation causing disease instead of progress is a very valid argument. If we only chose not to devise more and more theories for how we got here or, imagine, but accept that they are merely theories, we would be able to appreciate and truly experience being human.

  • Peter Kinnon, New Zealand

    Tue, Nov 25 2014

    Oliver Sutari writes "The question that they cannot answer is: how can meaningful, precise information be created by accident - by mutation and natural ion? None of these contain the mechanism of intelligence, a requirement for creating complex information such as that found in the genetic code." This, in common with many other remarks in this article is quite unfounded. While it is true that our best observations indicate that mutation is a predominately random process, natural ion is most certainly not. Quite the contrary! For, within the biological sphere, natural ion is the primary ratcheting mechanism that imparts directionality to the evolutionary process.

    The broad evolutionary model which supports this assertion is outlined very informally in "The Goldilocks Effect: What Has Serendipity Ever Done For Us?", a free download in e-book formats from the "Unusual Perspectives" website.

    A much more formal and detailed treatment is now available in "The Intricacy Generator: Pushing Chemistry and Geometry Uphill". which is available through the usual outlets.

  • Chris Emmanuel Dsouza, Mangalore

    Mon, Nov 24 2014

    Dear Oliver, One great contradiction which people fail to observe in debates relating to Science and Religion, is that, While Science allows questions and criticism, Religion detests doubts, criticisms and inquiry. As books on science can be openly mocked and ridiculed, Books of faith (Holy Books) cannot be criticized atleast legally. Any criticism of the content of holy books is bound to be considered as 'Blasphemy' or sacrilege. Infact, there are laws preventing criticism of religion.

    But, yes, Evolution theory propagated by Charles Darwin has its own drawbacks and limitations, in the eyes of a pious religious individuals, and at the same breath some of the contents in holy texts of every religion have numerous defects and flaws and some claims do seem to be absurd, while taken in context of Logic in the eyes of Atheists and Scientists.

  • Dr.Pamela.Pinto, New Zealand, Kuwait

    Mon, Nov 24 2014

    Hi Oliver,

    Let me first congratulate you on an exemplary, intellectual, no nonsense, well researched and a hard-out-fact-stating write up. Kudos to your courage for being fearless and writing without hesitation! So many points in your article resonate with what I've always laid, as the basis of my argument (read explanation) when speaking with non believers or even doubters. Your article reflects intelligence, humour and facts that are often plainly ignored by few too many. Of the many questions and challenges you posed, two particular ones caught my attention and made me smile. The randomness with which one would expect three mere colours align in perfect accordance to display the pattern of our national flag. Non believing scientists - equation/probability here. The other fascinating point you made was the constant so called evolution of genders together at all times, every time. Such a fabulous observation (so to speak) :)
    Thank you for the brilliant article. I've added it to my list of 'Favourite reads of all time'.
    Cheers
    Pam

  • Peter Kinnon, New Zealand

    Mon, Nov 24 2014

    Oliver Sutari writes "The question that they cannot answer is: how can meaningful, precise information be created by accident - by mutation and natural ion? None of these contain the mechanism of intelligence, a requirement for creating complex information such as that found in the genetic code." This, in common with many other remarks in this article is quite unfounded. While it is true that our best observations indicate that mutation is a predominately random process, natural ion is most certainly not. Quite the contrary! For, within the biological sphere, natural ion is the primary ratcheting mechanism that imparts directionality to the evolutionary process.

    The broad evolutionary model which supports this assertion is outlined very informally in "The Goldilocks Effect: What Has Serendipity Ever Done For Us?", a free download in e-book formats from the "Unusual Perspectives" website.

    A much more formal and detailed treatment is now available in "The Intricacy Generator: Pushing Chemistry and Geometry Uphill". which is available through the usual outlets.

  • dexter & anita, Mangalore/ Auckland

    Mon, Nov 24 2014

    Such an interesting and well-researched article. Have read it a few times to take it all in and I must confess that every time I read it, I find a new line to reflect upon and question my thoughts and beliefs on the same. Made me do a lot of soul-searching as I love mulling over stuff like this especially on long walks.

    Faith ! Such am amazing word - takes me back to my favourite memory and place - my Grandma's lap. Every time I am faced with a challenge in life, I bury my head in her lap and listen to that beautiful calming voice telling me stories about a Man who walked the Earth, 2000 years ago - who suffered and died for us - and all of a sudden - I am reminded that My God is bigger than my problem. am not one to let my guard down and talk about my innermost thoughts on an open forum -and not proud of myself for needing my Grandma when I'm 48 - might regret posting this, later - but for now am letting my younger impulsive self take over - and if this touches a chord with any one person and helps them find a way to deal with tough stuff - i guess it's not such a bad idea.

    A story which I am reminded of which resonates strongly with me :

    "What are you reading, Old Man?"
    A century ago, an old man was traveling alone in France by train. A much younger man, who was sitting next to him, watched as the older man reached into his traveling case, took out a Bible and began to read. After a while, the younger man decided to strike up a conversation. "What are you reading?" h

  • ad, mangloor

    Sun, Nov 23 2014

    why go to explore, in fairness there is no science without God and his creation.
    Popes recents reformists views are unwarranted. All religions are breakaways. Truth of the matter is "one creator" God I suppose and many religions and their offshoots.

  • geoffrey, hat hill

    Sun, Nov 23 2014

    Comment by Kurt Waschnig, Oldenburg, Germany is 'copy paste' from 'Science And Christianity Are CompatibleWith Some Compromises' by Eugenie Scott published in the 'The Scientist' Jan 9, 1995.

  • Kurt Waschnig, Oldenburg, Germany

    Sun, Nov 23 2014

    ´Science assumes the universe is ultimately knowable, while religion is comfortable with the assumption that some things will always be unknowable science requires logic, while religion uses logic but also allows evidence from faith alone science is limited to matter/energy/time, whereas religion adds "spirit"a non- corporeal, timeless phenomenon unknown to science. The main difference between science and religion is the limited domain of science: It is restricted to explaining the natural world using material (natural) explanations. No miracles may be invoked. This "methodological naturalism" was a fundamental tenet of late-20th-century science. Given such differences between science and religion, are they not inevitably incompatible? Ironically, some have concluded that because so many differences between science and religion exist, they need not conflict. Science and religion can be viewed as different windows on the same universe, as different ways of knowing about different kinds of things. Many scientists hold this view, and it is reflected in the National Academy of Sciences' 1984 booklet Science and Creationism. The underlying assumption is that science and religion don't conflict so long as religion doesn't try to explain the natural world. History shows that Christianity has indeed gradually ceased trying to explain the natural world through revelation, largely because of the growth of scientific explanation. If God's wishes are offered as proximate explanations for events, then as science explains more and more, God is diminished. Theologians call this the "God of the Gaps" problem, whereby God is plugged into ever-narrowing gaps of knowledge that science hasn't explained. If sound waves cause thunder, and evaporation and condensation cause rain, there is less for God to do, and certainly the growth of science and 18th-century Deism (the idea that God is a prime mover but only distantly involved in earthly affairs) are correlated. Christianity's solution was to withdraw from the business of explaining nature, thus avoiding a major arena of potential conflict between science and religion. By the 20th century, the focus of mainline Christian theology had shifted further from explaining the natural world, concentrating on spiritual matters. Catholic and mainline Protestant theologies, for example, accept the scientific evidence for evolution. God created through the process of evolution, a perspective known as "theistic evolution." However, biblical literalist Christian theology continues to attempt to explain nature through the Bible, typified in the writings of creation "scientists" that, for example, the geological column was laid down by the receding waters of Noah's flood. We began by asking, "Are science and Christian religion compatible?" The answer is, "They must be," since so many scientists are also religious. But modern science undeniably has consequences for theology, which theology has largely accommodated through the years.

  • Vijay, Mangalore

    Sun, Nov 23 2014

    For that Matter what we know as the Big Bang Theory was proposed by George Le Maitre, He happened to be A Catholic Priest.

  • geoffrey, hat hill

    Sun, Nov 23 2014

    Someone said 'Science can answer only ‘How’ questions, it takes religion to answer ‘Why’ questions'. Science does attempt to answer ‘Why’ but at some stage draws a blank, whereas religion attributes everything to Him right at the beginning. As for big bang, well, both science and religion might accept it and religions with some interpretations might claim ‘Look, it was already mentioned in our holy books’, but if you question further, what was before big bang, physicists talk about an infinitely dense entity called ‘Singularity’, but Einstein’s theory of relativity and the laws of quantum physics on which foundation of modern physics is laid, break down at singularity.
    Contrary to writer’s feeling, spinning of earth and all other heavenly bodies for that matter is no mystery to science. They rotate because of the way they were formed which resulted in a phenomenon called angular momentum. The continuation of spinning is explained by Newton in his law of inertia that we studied in primary schools. Has earth’s speed of spinning (duration of one whole day) been same from the beginning ? No, as per physicists, it was faster and a day was of 6 hours and it's slowing down further due to the gravitational effects of moon on earth’s tidal waves. Consequently in 100 years from now, a day will be shorter by 2 milliseconds.

  • John DSouza, Mangaluru

    Sun, Nov 23 2014

    Good to Leave Evolution to Evolutionists and Revolution to Revolutionists
    Let us enjoy or suffer momentary opportunities simply being the opportunists
    As if problems are not our concern, we neither look for nor support the solutions
    We live because we are alive by enjoying good moments and suffering the bad
    Altogether we spend life in ignorance, sleep, blindness by just following traditions
    Salt lose taste, light fades, iron rusts, treasures hid, talents and ideas being buried
    Wholeheartedly we carry and move the bullock cart on wheels, being conservative
    While millions are hungry and thirsty, the super rich are still trying to fill big bellies
    If a thief granted the heaven pleasure for repentance, why we carry the history of ages?
    Track losers do not need libraries or records, but just a hint towards the right direction
    While the academics and scholars simply discuss and argue, the lay people live the Bible


Leave a Comment

Title: Leave Evolution to Evolutionists



You have 2000 characters left.

Disclaimer:

Please write your correct name and email address. Kindly do not post any personal, abusive, defamatory, infringing, obscene, indecent, discriminatory or unlawful or similar comments. Daijiworld.com will not be responsible for any defamatory message posted under this article.

Please note that sending false messages to insult, defame, intimidate, mislead or deceive people or to intentionally cause public disorder is punishable under law. It is obligatory on Daijiworld to provide the IP address and other details of senders of such comments, to the authority concerned upon request.

Hence, sending offensive comments using daijiworld will be purely at your own risk, and in no way will Daijiworld.com be held responsible.