Fingerprints scream evidence of God



Today, I want to share a few thoughts with you about fingerprints.

We are all aware that when we press our fingers down on any surface, an impression is left on these surfaces and this impression is known as our fingerprint.

When do we acquire our fingerprints?  A baby acquires fingerprints while still in the mother’s womb, sometime between the 11th and 16th week of gestation.  There is no scientific evidence to show that either the mother or the baby consciously determine the baby’s fingerprints.

Are fingerprints permanent? Yes, they are.  Scientific study has shown that a person’s fingerprint does not change after ageing and even after minor injuries.

Do conditions in the mother’s womb influence fingerprint patterns? No.  There is no scientific study to show that a particular set of conditions lead to a particular kind or range of fingerprints.  The established fact that even twins do not have identical fingerprints, clearly indicates that external conditions in the womb have no impact on the design of fingerprints.

Are fingerprints unique?  Yes.  In hundreds of years of scientific research and data compilation not even a single case of two individuals having identical fingerprints has been recorded, not even among identical twins. In addition, no single person has ever been found to have the same fingerprint on multiple fingers.  According to one study the statistical chances of two people having identical fingerprints is one in 64 billion.

So, what’s the point of narrating these facts? They point to the presence of a Creator who is in charge and in control of creation.  That is the only rational explanation which can satisfactorily account for the uniqueness of fingerprints. Atheists will of course argue and point to ‘random chance’ which is the bedrock on which the foundation of their hallucinatory castle of ‘evolution’ rests but then atheists have never allowed minor things like proof and statistical probability to come in the way of their magnificent ‘fairy tales.’  When they can believe without any scientific evidence or explanation that the first ‘life form’ came into existence ‘by chance’ on earth, when they can believe that thousands of factors like the water cycle, distance of earth from the moon, hosts and parasites existing together, etc could all fall in place perfectly in existence on earth ‘by chance,’ will they baulk at claiming that the explanation for uniqueness of fingerprints of billions of babies is ‘random chance?’

If the atheists want us to believe that everything and everyone is here ‘by chance’ and has evolved by ‘sheer good luck,’ then, they need to demonstrate to us: (1) how pregnant mothers/babies in the womb/pregnant mothers working in tandem with babies in their womb consciously imprint fingerprints designed by them on the fingers of the baby; (2) how mothers and/or babies ENSURE that the baby’s fingerprints are different from those of billions of other people on this planet.

For non-atheists, i.e. rational thinkers, the odds of one to 64 billion is too much.  If billions of babies were born, are being born and will be born without even one instance of duplication, then ‘random chance’ is unacceptable as a rational explanation.  There has to be a better, credible explanation.  The only solution which suits the facts is an external Creator.  We may not have seen such a Creator, we may not know anything about such a Creator, we may find it hard to believe in a Creator who is not detectable by our human senses; but, the only rational explanation acceptable to questioning minds, on this particular issue is an external Creator.

The mystery of the first bird migration

All of us have heard of bird migration which is the regular seasonal movement of some birds, often north and south along a flyway between breeding and wintering grounds.  Roughly one in five bird species migrate.

Bird migration is one of the great wonders of the natural world. A huge variety of birds make the journey and avian migration is considered to be a natural miracle. Migratory birds fly hundreds and thousands of kilometres to find the best ecological conditions and habitats for feeding, breeding and raising their young. When conditions at breeding sites become unfavourable, it is time to fly to regions where conditions are better.

It is said that albatrosses circle the earth, flying over the southern oceans, while Manx shearwaters migrate 14,000 km (8,700 miles) between their northern breeding grounds and the southern ocean.  Some bar-tailed godwits have the longest known non-stop flight of any migrant, flying 11,000 km from Alaska to their New Zealand non-breeding areas. The Red Knot has one of the longest total migration routes of any bird, travelling up to 16,000 kilometres twice a year. It breeds in Siberia and overwinters on the west coast of Africa, some even going down to the tip of South Africa. The tiny Rufous Hummingbird migrates up and down the North American continent, while the Arctic Tern migrates from pole to pole.

Migratory birds are said to have the perfect morphology and physiology to fly fast and across long distances. Often, their journey is an exhausting one, during which they go to their limits.  Prior to migration, 55% of their bodyweight is stored as fat to fuel this uninterrupted journey.  Birds need to alter their metabolism to meet the demands of migration. The storage of energy through the accumulation of fat and the control of sleep in nocturnal migrants require special physiological adaptations. In addition, the feathers of a bird suffer from wear-and-tear and require to be moulted. The timing of this moult – usually once a year but sometimes twice – varies with some species moulting prior to moving to their winter grounds and others moulting prior to returning to their breeding grounds. Apart from physiological adaptations, migration sometimes requires behavioural changes such as flying in flocks to reduce the energy used in migration or the risk of predation.

Most migrations begin with the birds starting off in a broad front. Often, this front narrows into one or more preferred routes termed flyways. These routes typically follow mountain ranges or coastlines, sometimes rivers, and may take advantage of updrafts and other wind patterns or avoid geographical barriers such as large stretches of open water. The routes taken on forward and return migration are often different.  Many, if not most, birds migrate in flocks. For larger birds, flying in flocks reduces the energy cost. Geese in a V-formation may conserve 12–20% of the energy they would need to fly alone.

Often, the migration route of a long-distance migratory bird doesn’t follow a straight line between breeding and wintering grounds. Rather, it could follow a hooked or arched line, with detours around geographical barriers or towards suitable stopover habitat. For most land-birds, such barriers could consist of seas, large water bodies or high mountain ranges, a lack of stopover or feeding sites, or a lack of thermal columns (important for broad-winged birds). The same considerations about barriers and detours that apply to long-distance land-bird migration apply to water birds, but in reverse: a large area of land without bodies of water that offer feeding sites may also be a barrier to a bird that feeds in coastal waters. Detours avoiding such barriers are observed: for example, brent geese migrating from the Taymyr Peninsula to the Wadden Sea travel via the White Sea coast and the Baltic sea rather than directly across the Arctic Ocean and Northern Scandinavia.

It is truly amazing how migratory birds can navigate with pin-point accuracy. Exactly how migrating birds find their flyways is not fully understood. Scientists believe that birds navigate through an innate biological sense resulting from evolution. Migratory birds may use two electromagnetic tools to find their destinations: one that is entirely innate and another that relies on experience. Our books claim that the timing of migration seems to be controlled primarily by changes in day length and that migrating birds navigate using celestial cues from the sun and stars, the earth’s magnetic field, and mental maps.

Scientists admit that the ability of birds to navigate during migrations cannot be fully explained by endogenous programming, even with the help of responses to environmental cues. The ability to successfully perform long-distance migrations can probably only be fully explained with an accounting for the cognitive ability of the birds to recognize habitats and form mental maps.

Points to think about

          We should start at the beginning i.e. the first flight.  As per our school books, some animals which had looked longingly at the skies did not just sit back on their haunches but actually grew wings and assorted paraphernalia required to fly and ….well started flying.  The rat had become a robin. 

          The first thing we learn from the above mentioned facts is that migratory birds require some special adaption in their bodies, storage of body fats, moulting of feathers, etc. So, the first question is how did the birds know about what changes would be required even before their first flight?  Remember, a flight without proper preparations would have resulted in certain death and dead birds would not have been able to pass on their wisdom to their young ones.

The second question is how did the first bird know its destination i.e. where to migrate? Birds had just evolved from land animals; they did not have the benefits of maps and aerial photographs; so, how did the first bird in Alaska know that the perfect place for its needs was in New Zealand which lay 11000 kms away?

The third question is how did the first bird navigate its way from Alaska to New Zealand? Scientists have surmised that they used cues from the sun and stars, electromagnetic field and mental maps.  Really? The first bird would not have had the benefit of memories of ancestral experiences, so a pre-existent mental map is ruled out.  So, how could the first bird which had just come into existence, know about using cues from the stellar bodies and the magnetic field?  It is illogical.  Logic demands that the bird would have to first create in itself the ability to read such cues.  So, how did it equip itself? Who taught it to read the cues? How did it know the right flyway?  Without a global map in the brain, how did it know about the geographical obstacles which lay ahead? 

In view of the lack of credible answers to any of the above questions, it is rationally impossible to accept that a bird which had just come into existence miraculously knew about a place thousands of kilometres away which was perfect for its needs; proceeded to equip itself for such a hazardous flight and then –wonder of wonders- actually completed such a flight.


If we read about Africa or watch videos on YouTube or episodes on the National Geographic or Discovery Channels, we will see that lions and buffaloes are natural enemies. Buffaloes are the staple diet of lions and not a day goes by without a struggle between these two animals, one to live and survive and the other to eat and thereby survive.

Now, the alleged evolution of the peppered moth is an important part of Darwin’s fables.  As per this story [Bernard Kettlewell], moths found out that the trees on which they rested were getting darkened due to industrial pollution and therefore their (the moth’s) light colour was rendering them easy prey for birds.  As per the norm in the atheistic world, the moths did not sit idle but took matters into their own hands, err antennae.  They passed on instructions in their DNA so that their succeeding generations were born with a darker colour.

Their evolution was speedy.  In just 47 years, between 1848 and 1895 in the Manchester region, the carbonaria form almost replaced the original form now known as typicagrowing from 0% to 98% of the population.

Two researchers named Martin Stevens and Olivia Walton went a step further and claimed that birds could see Ultra Violet Light and that the peppered moths had coloured themselves in such a way that they could escape even the enhanced vision of birds.

So, what do these moths have to do with the buffaloes of Africa? A lot. In just 47 years, the moths figured out a way to transform themselves and cheat certain death at the hands of their enemies, the birds.   

Question) Buffaloes stand on a higher rung in the evolutionary ladder as compared to moths, so what has stopped them from taking suitable evolutionary steps to escape from lions in 47 million years

Why are they so non-evolutionary?  Why are they still passing on DNA which gives rise to buffaloes just as stupid and helpless as themselves? Why have they not grown thick armour like skin, similar to that of rhinos/crocodiles? Why have they not grown claws and fangs?

Challenge:- I invite atheists to explain why thousands of species have lived for millions of years only to serve as food for other species without any attempt to evolve defensive mechanism when the peppered moths showed that such changes can be brought about in a period as short as just 47 years?

The Curious Adventures of Micro Organism ‘X’ (‘MOX’)

We humans are gifted with the ability to think.  Since ages, we have wondered about how we came into existence.  There appear to be only two possible answers – (a) creation by an Intelligent Creator OR (b) evolution. In school, we are taught that we are here on earth as a result of millions of years of evolution.   Evolution teaches that one species transformed and became another species; this implies that life must have started somewhere at some point of time on earth.  Thus, the spontaneous origin of life on earth is a crucial part of the story. 

Our school books tell us that the earth consisted of only non-living things, until all of a sudden, on one fine day, thousands of years ago, a ‘miracle’ took place and the first ever ‘life form’ was born on earth. Let us name this ancestor of ‘life on earth’ as ‘Micro Organism X’ or just ‘MOX.’ Now, do the circumstances surrounding the birth of ‘MOX’ ring a bill – have we heard anything similar… ‘all of a sudden’…. ‘on one fine day’…..-  yes – a bill rings – the ‘big bang.’  We remember that ‘the big bang,’ too, had exploded ‘all of a sudden’ ‘on one fine day,’ without any cause or reason. 

Coming to the Perfect Birth of ‘MOX’ – our books do not provide explanation for why it took place at that particular moment – why not earlier – why not later? It just happened.  Why it happened – well, no particular reason…. it happened….just like that.  So, why do we have to believe it – because it is the first rung of the tall ladder of later events like fish growing legs and donkeys growing wings.  

Since the books give such an old date to the birth of ‘MOX,’ our thinking minds inform us that the school books will not provide any evidence to prove that the miraculous birth of ‘MOX’ actually took place. We were right – no evidence is presented – in fact, there is not even an attempt to prove it – the authors have assumed correctly that we will not question anything written by them.

So, why is the birth of ‘MOX’ a miracle – it is a ‘miracle’ because of two reasons – (a) there was no cause or underlying driving force for this ‘event’ to have taken place at all.  The earth could have just gone on existing without any living things; (b) this ‘event’ has never been witnessed again. 

Now, science is all about factual observations leading to the formation of a theory which can be tested and verified before it is presented as a ‘scientific principle.’  In decades of scientific research, not a single ‘MOX’ has ever been observed being born by random chance; neither has any one been able to create ‘MOX’ under controlled laboratory conditions; therefore, there is no way of verifying the theory. 

So, let us examine the birth of ‘MOX’ and try to address the questions which arise in our rational minds:-

  • The composition of ‘MOX’:- our books inform us that some non living substances were lying around in close proximity, by stray chance, when all of a sudden, they combined and miraculously became ‘a living thing’ i.e. ‘MOX’.  Questions which arise are: – what were those substances? What was the proportion or ratio of the substances to each other?  How far away were the substances from each other? Were they lying on the ground or floating on the seas or flying in the air? Was ‘MOX’ merely a collection of non living things or was there some other substance or force which combined with the existing elements to spark life in ‘MOX’? Why hasn’t anyone provided us with the magical formula for eg – nonliving substance A + nonliving substance B, under conditions O = (hey presto) living organism X.  What must be the statistical probabilities of such a miracle having taken place?   
  • Circumstances:- our books are not very elaborate about the climatic and other conditions which were prevalent on earth when ‘MOX’ was born. Questions which arise are: – what was so special about those conditions that ‘MOX’ has never been seen to be born again, at least in the era of scientific observation?  Why are 21st century scientists unable to generate such miracles today in our sophisticated laboratories?
  • Life span:- our books are silent about the life span of ‘MOX.’  Why did ‘MOX’ die – I mean, since ‘MOX’ had been born in such a miraculous way, why couldn’t the miracle extend itself – why didn’t ‘MOX’ live forever? The heart of the question is – did ‘MOX’ program itself to die – or was the life span of ‘MOX’ determined by forces external to ‘MOX?’  If it programmed itself – why did it do so?  And if its death was caused by an external force, – what was that force?
  • Ability to think:- Our books tell us that ‘MOX’ performed some remarkable biological feats within seconds of being born, feats which even today’s scientists are unable to replicate.  These are the greatest feats known in the history of life on earth.  The books never tell us why ‘MOX’ did what it did – what was the motivation? Anyway, these feats could not have been possible without careful thought and analysis.  The only possibilities are that (i) ‘MOX,’ in addition to being born by a slice of good fortune was also lucky enough to be born with the inherent ability to think.  The other possibility is that (ii) ‘MOX’ (a) first created the ability to think in itself and then – (b) proceeded to actually think.   Both the possibilities are so outrageously improbable that any sensible mind will reject them outright. A lesser doubt which arises is which part of its single celled body did ‘MOX’ use to think?     
  • Conditions for living:- Every living being on earth needs certain things in order to stay alive, so, ‘MOX’ must have needed these things too.  There are two possibilities here, for eg – (i) ‘MOX’ was born or pre-programmed in such a way that it would able to live on ‘oxygen.’ (ii) The other option is that ‘MOX’ analyzed the available elements and then chose ‘oxygen’ as the element it would use in order to live.  Both the options are extreme, even by atheistic standards.  Now, is it sensible to believe that a new born ‘MOX’ could make such an important decision?  A more basic question – from where did ‘MOX’ get the idea that it should survive – it could have just lived and died.  What was the force which compelled/motivated ‘MOX’ to select conditions for living? Why did it not choose to live without any substances and conditions?  In any case, can our rational minds accept that ‘MOX’ made such a crucial and fortunately accurate decision without the benefit of an ‘information bank’ or list of possible conditions, and that too within a short span of time?
  • Reproduction:- The fable of evolution goes on to tell us that the new born ‘MOX’ made yet another crucial decision in the few seconds it had to live. Apart from determining ‘what’ it would need to stay alive, it also decided that it would reproduce itself so that life should not die out. Now, this is the most momentous decision in the history of life on earth.  Remember, had ‘MOX’ been a regular micro-organism, with a little sense of wonder maybe at the idea of being born but primitive otherwise, it would have just died – and with it there would have been no life on earth. 

All life on this planet with all its variety and beauty happened only because ‘MOX’ was not an ordinary, primitive and simple microorganism.  ‘MOX’ not only thought and analyzed – it took the decision to reproduce itself.  The entire atheistic fable of evolution hinges upon that incredible decision taken by ‘MOX’ on that eventful day.  No decision by ‘MOX’ to reproduce itself = no life on earth.

So, from where did ‘MOX’ get the idea that it needed to reproduce itself – more important, how was it even aware that there was such a possibility – i.e. the possibility of reproducing itself.  Our books are silent and instead simply inform us that a newly born ‘MOX’ took a historical decision and performed the mind boggling biological feat of reproducing itself.  Now remember that there was no possibility for experimentation or trial and error.  Things had to be got done in a few moments and a wrong move would have meant death but incredibly ‘MOX’ got it right in the very first attempt and reproduced itself.

Is it sensible for a person, with even an average IQ, to believe that ‘MOX’ would be able to dream, envisage, plan and execute its own reproduction within seconds of luckily having been born.  Have we seen any parallels in real life based upon which our rational minds can accept that such a miracle took place?

  • DNA:- DNA is the building block of life and we are told that every living being has its own unique DNA.  The question which arises is whether ‘MOX’ was luckily born with a DNA or did ‘MOX’ create its own DNA? Our fable writers are silent on this issue but they probably felt that it would be too much of a stretch for them to ask us to believe that in addition to being born due to sheer luck, ‘MOX’ also had the good fortune to be born with DNA.  Reproduction is all about passing on genetic information, so before ‘MOX’ could split into two halves, it had to replicate its DNA to make two identical strands.    Educated human beings living in the 21st century know about DNA only from their school books and even today their knowledge about it is vague and imprecise.  So, can our thinking minds accept yet another miracle – that a new born single celled creature which lived millions of years ago not only knew about DNA but also created DNA.

Human beings call themselves the highest form of evolved species on earth and yet their 21st century infants have no control over their bowel movements in their first few months of life.  Adult human beings cannot cure themselves of even a common cold and yet, we are told to believe that millions of years ago, primitive single celled ‘MOX’ which had just been miraculously born, went on to create medical and biological history by creating DNA and reproducing itself, all within a few seconds of being born. 

If the fable about ‘MOX’ is true, then, the journey from ‘MOX’ to human beings should be termed the very opposite of ‘evolution’ because while ‘MOX’ performed miracles and wondrous feats, its descendants after millions of years of evolution are woefully ignorant about their bodies and incapable of even a simple process like healing themselves.

Evolution can only work on the basis of memory.  Present generations remember the drawbacks of past generations and then evolve into superior and fitter future generations.  If evolution is true, then, all of us should have clear memories of past lives of our ancestors and their experiences of living conditions. The reality, however, is that we cannot even remember our days as infants let alone the past experiences of our ancestors and this ignorance tells us that we have not evolved on our own. Similarly, when we honestly accept that DNA, the building block of life, is something which we have only come to know about after reading books and that we don’t have the faintest inklings about our own DNA, it confirms what we have known all along – we have not made ourselves.

After examining all the questions and doubts which arise in our rational thinking minds, we are led to conclude that the incredible life and adventures of ‘MOX,’ as described in our school books is a lie.  There are too many odds stacked against it, too many improbabilities and too many assumptions which defy common sense. 

This leads us back to our very first observation which was that there could be two possible explanations for how we human beings have come into existence. The clue to the truth is hidden in that self realization.  Had we really evolved from ‘MOX,’ we would have inherently known that there is only one explanation for our origin.  There would have been no doubt.  No question would have risen in our minds as to what could be the possible explanation for how we had come into existence. 

Thus, since (i) ‘MOX’ which is the foundation of the theory of evolution has been proved to be a ‘lie,’ and (ii) we have not evolved on our own as our books have lied to us for all these years – the whole edifice of the atheistic fable of evolution comes crumbles down. 

The story cooked up by atheism about a string of miracles having occurred from ‘MOX’ to humans is totally unacceptable to any thinking, analytical and rational mind.  We have believed in these stories for far too long, simply because these atheistic fables have been dishonestly taught to us as ‘science.’  Now, we have seen for ourselves and satisfied ourselves that evolution is not credible and not scientific.  It is merely a prop to the ‘atheistic world view’ that everyone and everything in the Universe is here merely by chance and coincidence and not by design and purpose.  The time has come, therefore, to look beyond the false and obsolete philosophy of atheism and seek a more credible and believable explanation about our origins.

Killer Test or Spoilers for Atheists

Atheists strut around with a feeling of superiority vis-à-vis theists or those who believe in God.  They feel that rational thinking is the sole preserve and home turf of atheism and that it is alien territory for theists.  Nothing could, however, be further from the truth.

          God believers are people who have observed their surroundings, examined themselves and come to the factual conclusion that they have not created themselves, thereby leading to the rational corollary that they and the universe which surrounds them have been created by an External Creator.

          Atheists, on the other hand, are people who have blind faith in a heady cocktail of chance, good luck and hundreds of improbable coincidences; they believe in events which have never been observed and are in fact contrary to all known observations; they insist that all of us must believe what they say merely because they, the higher humans say that it is so.  While theists are honest about their beliefs, atheists hide and camouflage their philosophy behind the label of science in order to avoid critical scrutiny.

          I challenge all atheists to answer two very simple questions, QA and QB:-

Event A) Children are being brainwashed with the atheistic philosophy that our universe started with a mythical event known as the ‘big bang.’ According to this myth, a mysterious ‘dot’ which existed nowhere (there was no space, we are told) and which was ageless (time had not started flowing, we are told), suddenly exploded one fine day (yes, we can call it a day since time started with the explosion) throwing hot swirling gases and energy into existence.  Within Nano seconds of the ‘bang,’ the gases were obeying the Universal Laws of Physics and Chemistry and even today approximately 15 billion years after the ‘bang,’ matter and energy spread out over a radius of billions of light years continue to obey the same Laws. We see the same Laws of Physics and Chemistry at work on our earth too.

Obsevation A) Intelligence is required even for a small event like using a spark to create a fire.  We have never seen instances of non-living things doing anything intelligent; has anyone seen a ‘rock’ writing a poem or ‘sand’ painting a portrait? Obviously, to devise and promulgate the Universal Laws must have required a lot of Intelligence. The logical inference based on our factual observations is that non-living things like the hot swirling gases which had been thrown into existence by the big bang could not have created the Universal Laws. Moreover, no rational mind can accept that something as intricate and complex as the Universal Laws could have just randomly sprung into existence.

Question A) Who created the Universal Laws/ how did the Universal Laws come into existence in a non-living Universe?

Event B) Children are being brainwashed into believing that all life on this planet started with a fabled event when certain lifeless amino acids which were luckily lying close to each other suddenly and due to unknown reasons combined to miraculously form the first ever life form (Micro-organism X or ‘MOX’ for brevity).  This ‘MOX’ was miraculously able to reproduce itself, leading over a long period of time to a mind boggling variety of species including human beings.

Observation B) We have been told that we owe our existence on this planet due to a series of lucky coincidences, miracles and gradual evolution over thousands of years.  So, since we have created ourselves, we should have complete awareness about our entire body, all our organs and systems.  Is that so? – No, we have zero awareness. We don’t know how we designed our hearts – why did we set our heart beat range at 60 bpm to 100 bpm? Why not 20 bpm to 50 bpm or 120 bpm to 150 bpm? We are clueless about the material of which our eyes are made, let alone how we designed our wonderful eyes to see ‘light’ and things around us.  We don’t have the faintest idea about how we designed our breathing system, blood vessels and digestive system. We are blissfully unaware about how we designed our kidney, liver and gall bladder, what sort of trial and error we underwent before we created these organs to perfection.  It is truly shameful that all 100% of human beings are unaware about even how our internal organs (which were created by us) look like, let alone having ‘in-depth’ knowledge about their functions, secretions, disease resisting abilities, etc. DNA has been the building block of life from ‘MOX’ to human beings, yet, none of us knew about the DNA inside us till a few decades back when scientists first became aware about it. The takeaway from our inward introspection is that if the fable of evolution were true, we would be aware about 100% of our internal organs, their looks and their functions.  The factual truth, however, is that what little knowledge we have about our internal systems is only due to latest advances in medical science, i.e. our natural and inherent knowledge about ourselves is a big zero.

Question B) How can evolution be true, when, we who have allegedly evolved, have zero knowledge about the looks and functions of our internal organs and the process by which we designed them and fitted them in place in our body.

          I state clearly that atheism and its props i.e. ‘big bang’ and ‘evolution’ are lies. I openly challenge all those who call themselves atheists to (i) demonstrate before me that non-living things can create intelligent stuff like the laws of physics and chemistry and (ii) demonstrate before me awareness about every single cell, tissue, organ and system of our body (looks, dimensions, functions) and provide explanation about how all the organs and systems were fitted/woven into place by them.

Atheism is a Lie

        What is atheism?  It is a man made philosophy which claims that there is no God and alleges that the universe including life on earth and man have come into existence entirely due to chance, good luck and millions upon millions of improbable coincidences.

          Why is atheism a lie?  – Because the explanation it offers for the origin of the universe and life is not satisfactory/convincing and simply not true.  So, why is the atheistic myth about the big bang not satisfactory? –   Because it has no answers to questions like:-

  • Is there any scientific study to prove that tons of matter and energy can be compressed into a speck sized ‘dot?’
  • What is the origin of the ‘dot?’ Where were the materials which were compressed to form the ‘dot’ before their compression?  What is the history of those materials?
  • What triggered or caused the ‘big bang?’ Why did it explode 15 billion years ago? Why not 16 billion years ago?  Why not 14 billion years ago?
  • There are many more such questions!

          But isn’t the big bang theory a scientific theory?  Why call it atheistic philosophy? – Because there is nothing scientific about the ‘big bang’ at all.  In fact it is completely irrational. How so? – Science is based on observations and theories which can explain those observations. 

          All around us we observe that things break down and disintegrate when left to themselves. Let us try an experiment – take an old unused TV set, disconnect and dismantle the parts and then leave them on a work table – observe the parts for some months and years.  What will you see after some months? – The metal parts have rusted and the plastic has worn out.  Has anyone, anywhere ever observed such parts coming together, getting welded and soldered and then forming a functional TV set?  What will you say to people who insist that such miracles happen and that too on a daily basis, as a rule? And yet we unquestioningly swallow the nonsense that hot swirling gases went on to form intricate galaxies and solar systems complete with planets and satellites, which is totally contrary to all observations – just because the rubbish is termed as ‘science.’

          Similarly, why is the atheistic myth about evolution not satisfactory? –   Because it has no answers to questions like:-

  • If evolution were true, species would have gone on increasing and there would be intermediary species for eg an animal which was half donkey and half horse.  The truth is that fossil records indicate reduction in number of species with passage of time and zero evidence of intermediary species.
  • From where did simple life forms get the knowledge required to evolve? How did fish come to know about the shape and structure of legs and knowledge of gravity which would be required to move around on land – how did donkeys come to know about the shape and composition of wings and the intricacies of flight dynamics?
  • Science informs us that DNA is the building block of life. Evolution theory is unable to tell us whether the ‘first ever life form’ which was miraculously born on earth was luckily born with DNA or whether that simple creature went on to create its own DNA to be passed on to its successors.
  • There are many more such questions!

          Thus, we see that the evolution theory is not scientific either.  It is just wishful thinking and lacks even basic logic. How so? – Science is based on observations and theories which can explain those observations. 

          When we look at butterflies and some species of birds, we see that the designs on their bodies are symmetrical and incredibly beautiful; now geometrical precision and aesthetic values in body design are not even remotely connected to survival i.e. they do not increase the survival chances of any species, so what is the explanation for such beauty. Similarly, the theory claims that the ‘first ever life form’ (which was miraculously born due to extreme coinciding of great fortune) is said to have thought, planned and executed its reproduction within micro seconds of having been luckily born.  Is it possible?  A two month old 21st century human infant bawls incessantly and has no control over his/her bowel movements, yet we are expected to believe that billions of years ago a single celled organism executed one of the greatest feats of bio-engineering known to science within a few seconds of being born!! Is it sensible to believe in such absurdities just because they are cloaked with the label of ‘science?’

          The question before us is – should we remain quiet and allow atheists to indoctrinate our innocent children with their irrational philosophy by the trick of labeling it as ‘science?’  Is it not our moral and ethical duty to call out their lie?

          I think that it is high time that we informed young children two things –

(1) ‘Big bang’ and ‘evolution’ are part of atheism and therefore have no place in science;

(2) Atheism has nothing to do with facts, rational thinking and science and is therefore a lie.