Does repeating a lie over and over make it the truth?

Of course not. I think it was the Nazi minister of propaganda, Goebbels, who said - repeat a lie enough times, and people will believe it.

It’s like evolution. Evolution is a lie that’s been repeated over and over again, in schools, on nature programs on TV, etc. etc. to the extend that modern people accept evolution as a fact.

Even the former pope in Rome had to cater to evolution, so prevailing and massive is the indoctrination.

Still, no matter how much the general population is indoctrinated in evolution, regardless of how many people believe in evolution, it doesn’t make it true.

Of course, this is known in science, but most people accept evolution, not even as Darwin’s theory anymore, but as a scientific fact.

Evolution is probably the most common myth, people in general hold to be true. Of course, most scientists know that evolution is pure belief, with no evidence to back it up, still, this belief is being taught in all educational institutions of the world as a scientific fact.

Before science came along, people needed religion to tell them about the world. Religion taught people that God created the world, that God was the original cause of everything.

Now a days, of course, we know better, because now we have science to tell us how the world works. Today we we know that chemicals combined to create life and then evolution created all the different living entities.

The theory of evolution according to Darwin, is not even a theory anymore. It’s been updated to science. For the last five decades or so, evolution has been propagated to the general populace as a scientific fact.

So lets examine how existence is accounted for by evolution, and see if it makes any sense.

You see, first there was a pool of chemicals. Then, by the fluctuations of those chemicals, an amoeba-like creature was formed, and then this amoeba gradually, through many, many intermediate species, grew legs and learned to talk.

Ok, so far so good. Don’t even think about whether the first human was a male or female, that’s just an annoying detail you don’t have to worry about.

Then, how did the first human learn to talk, when there was no one to talk to? That’s another annoying detail they don’t teach you about evolution.

Imagine, you are the first human on the planet, completely alone, no one to talk to. So what do you do? Do you sit down and wait for your counter part to evolve, so you can begin procreating? Maybe you grunt a little bit under your breath at the sheer idiocy of your situation.

hahaha :D I know, right? Who comes up with shit like that?

Also when your counter-part finally evolves, you can begin grunting together and evolve some kind of language. Of course, don’t ask what language evolved, and was spoken by the first people, that’s another annoying detail.

As far as we know Sanskrit is the mother of all languages. Sanskrit is also the most sophisticated and complex language, and how that exactly fits into evolution is not yet clear.

Note, in contrast to the sheer idiocy of this evolution nonsense, and it’s linear conception of time, the logical, coherent and authentic explanation we are offered in the Vedic tradition - humans have simply always existed. Time is cyclic - civilizations goes through endless cycles of creation, maintenance, and destruction, age after age. At least that explanation makes sense to a rational mind.

The modern explanation of evolution is not only improbable and highly wishful thinking, it is also complete and utter anti-intellectual garbage.

Still, it is being taught in all universities as an objective, scientific fact. It is considered completely rational and the best explanation according to observable facts. They actually teach you that in school - evolution is the best explanation we have right now to explain the world.

The fact is that modern mainstream people are thoroughly brainwashed. They don’t have so much as one single independent thought in their brains. If they didn’t have TV, newspapers and magazines to tell them what to think and believe, they’d be up the proverbial creek without a paddle.

It’s a statistic fact that the general mass of people are more disturbed and dissatisfied than ever before. Anti-depressants are selling like never before. Some years ago WHO reported that the biggest health problem facing humanity in the new millennium is that more and more people will be born with mental problems. Is that the symptoms of an evolved civilization?

It's rather peculiar how people in this scientific age are so little scientifically oriented when it comes to God and religion. The dogma has been created in modern society, that religion is faith only and science is knowledge only. That’s hardly a scientific approach to religion and God.

I can understand, how one may reject certain religions, but to downright deny the existence of a Supreme Being is simply irrational, and indicates an unevolved mind and intellect.

There is nothing healthy or open-minded about being an atheist, and the proof is that at the same rate society dispenses with its former religious values, at the same rate society becomes debased, riddled with crime and insanity.

Besides, it should be noted, that whether one calls himself a Christian, Hindu, Mohammedan, Democrat, Republican or whatever, one can still be of an atheistic mentality. It is not the designations we put on ourselves that determine our identity. It's our mindsets and actions and the knowledge we cultivate that define who we are.

There is a Bengali saying - phalena parichiyate - something is judged by its result. Or, like Jesus said - you judge a tree by its fruits. So things are judged and understood, not by their names, but by their effects and influence. And the effect modern society has on the world is one of destruction. Again, are those the symptoms of an evolved culture?

In conclusion, here is what science has to say about evolution.

"Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, And the story they are telling may be the GREATEST HOAX EVER." -- Dr.T.N.Tahmisian, Atomic Energy Commission

"We must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations." -- Franklin Harold, Emeritus Professor of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology at Colorado State University, in an Oxford University Press text.

"Darwinian evolution - whatever its other virtues - does not provide a fruitful heuristic in experimental biology. This becomes especially clear when we compare it with a heuristic framework such as the atomic model, which opens up structural chemistry and leads to advances in the synthesis of a multitude of new molecules of practical benefit. None of this demonstrates that Darwinism is false. It does, however, mean that the claim that it is the cornerstone of modern experimental biology will be met with quiet skepticism from a growing number of scientists in fields where theories actually do serve as cornerstones for tangible breakthroughs." --U.S. National Academy of Sciences member Philip Skell

"[The] Darwinian claim to explain all of evolution is a popular half-truth whose lack of explicative power is compensated for only by the religious ferocity of its rhetoric." --National Academy of Sciences member Lynn Margulis

"Mutations have a very limited constructive capacity . No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution." --Past president of the French Academy of Sciences Pierre-Paul Grasse

"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution." --Late American paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould

"Phylogenetic incongruities can be seen everywhere in the universal tree, from its root to the major branchings within and among the various taxa to the makeup of the primary groupings themselves." --The father of molecular systematics, Carl Woese

"Most of the animal phyla that are represented in the fossil record first appear, 'fully formed,' in the Cambrian . The fossil record is therefore of no help with respect to the origin and early diversification of the various animal phyla." --Invertebrate Zoology Textbook

"It remains a mystery how the undirected process of mutation, combined with natural selection, has resulted in the creation of thousands of new proteins with extraordinarily diverse and well optimized functions. This problem is particularly acute for tightly integrated molecular systems that consist of many interacting parts." --Two leading biologists in Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics

"New species usually appear in the fossil record suddenly, not connected with their ancestors by a series of intermediates." --Eminent evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr

Science now know that many of the pillars of the Darwinian theory are either false or misleading. Yet biology texts continue to present them as factual evidence of Evolution. What does this imply about their scientific standards? - Jonathan Wells

The bacteriologist Alan H. Linton wrote:

"None exists in the literature claiming that one species has been shown to evolve into another. Bacteria, the simplest form of independent life, are ideal for this kind of study, with generation times of twenty to thirty minutes, and populations achieved after eighteen hours. But throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another. Since there is no evidence for species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not surprising that there is no evidence for evolution from prokaryotic to eukaryotic cells, let alone throughout the whole array of higher muliticellular organisms."

Evolutionary biologists Lynn Margulis and Dorion Sagan echoed the same thing in 2002:

"Speciation, whether in the remote Galapagos, in the laboratory cages of the drosophilosophers, or in the crowded sediments of the paleontologists, still has never been traced."

"Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." (Charles Darwin, The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin)