If skepticism is the basis of science, then in the same way that Darwinists believe that chance brought all things into being, they must also allow the possibility that Allah (God) created them. Since science requires skepticism, then they must admit at least a 50% probability that Allah created life.

Students, ask your teachers these questions and see the helplessness of Darwinism:

- Is there a single intermediate form fossil among all the 100 million or so that have been unearthed to date?

- No, there is not. Nobody can say there is, because every fossil evolutionists have to date proposed as a "missing link" either turned out to be a hoax or else was removed from the literature because it had been distortedly interpreted.


see The Transitional Form Dilemma

- Can a single protein molecule emerge by chance?

- No, it cannot. The chances of a protein molecule forming by chance are 1 in 10950. In practical terms that figure means "zero probability."

The probability of an average protein molecule made up of 500 amino acids being arranged in the correct quantity and sequence in addition to the probability of all of the amino acids it contains being only left-handed and being combined with only peptide bonds is "1" over 10950. We can write this number which is formed by putting 950 zeros next to 1 as follows:

10950 =


see http://www.evolutiondeceit.com/chapter11_1.php

- Is it true that there have been shown to be millions of living fossils?

- Yes. Specimens of living fossils are displayed all over the world. Thousands of fossils have been on show in hundreds of exhibitions in Turkey alone.


see Atlas of Creation

- Is it true that Piltdown Man, exhibited for 40 years, was a hoax?

- Yes. A 500-year-old human cranium was joined onto an orangutan jaw and then stained with potassium dichromate to give it an aged appearance.

Piltdown Man, portrayed for 43 years as highly significant evidence confirming evolution, turned out to be a hoax. In 1953, investigations into the skull revealed that Piltdown Man was no fossil, but a forgery produced by combining human and orangutan bones.

Left: Excavations at Piltdown, birthplace of the Piltdown Man scandal


see http://www.evolutiondeceit.com/chapter9.php

- Is it true that Nebraska Man was a fraud based on a single peccary tooth?

- Yes. The reconstructions based on a single molar tooth took their place among evolutionist frauds when it was realized the tooth actually belonged to a peccary.

Nebraska man, and Henry Fairfield Osborn, who named it.


see http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/origin_of_man_16.html

- Is it true that Archæoraptor liaoningensis, proposed as a "dino-bird," was a fraud?

- Yes. The fossil, consisting of bone and stone held together using glue and plaster, was made by adding a dinosaur tail to a bird body. The fossil, described in the press as evidence for so-called evolution, was declared to be "dino-bird waffle" two years later.


National Geographic's great hit, the perfect "dino-bird." Archaeoraptor soon turned out to be a hoax. All other "dino-bird" candidates remain speculative.


see http://www.harunyahya.com/srefuted6.php

- Is it true that the Coelacanth, for years depicted as an intermediate form fossil, is a species of fish still living today?

- Yes. Because of the bones in its fins the Coelacanth was depicted as a fish about to progress to the walking stage. However, the capture of many living specimens consigned all fictitious evolutionist scenarios to the waste bin.


see http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/natural_history_1_08.html

- Is it true that Archaeopteryx, also put forward as a missing link, was actually a fully flying bird?

- Yes. It has been realized that this extinct bird, a tool for evolutionist claims because of the teeth in its jaws, the claw-like nails on its wings and long tail, actually flew in just the same way as present-day flying birds.




see http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/natural_history_2_06.html

- Is the invalidity of the fictitious horse series accepted today?

- Yes. Since the equine series contains a great number of inconsistencies and contradictions and is based on assumptions many times disproved, it is today a totally discredited scenario.

The horse series charts looked most convincing at first glance, but were actually the result of distortions of the facts. Every new fossil discovery has revealed the invalidity of these imaginary charts.


see http://www.harunyahya.com/books/darwinism/therewasdarwinism/therewasdarwinism11.php

- Did Ernst Haeckel admit that the embryo illustrations submitted as evidence of evolution were hoaxes?

- Yes. The lie that in the mother's womb the human embryo exhibits first fish-like and then reptilian features during the course of its development has gone down as another of the theory of evolution's deceptions.

Haeckel's fraud under the magnifying glass: Photographs of embryos taken by the British embryologist Richardson in 1999 showed that Haeckel's drawings were totally unrelated to reality. Above can be seen Haeckel's fictitious drawings, with authentic photographs left.


see http://www.harunyahya.com/books/darwinism/therewasdarwinism/therewasdarwinism7.php

- Is it true that the fossil known as Lucy belonged to an extinct type of ape and has been removed from the fictitious tree of human evolution?

- Yes. Lucy, portrayed to the public as a missing link, is today agreed to have been an ape with no place in the human family tree. The magazine Science et Vie announced this in its cover story titled "Adieu Lucy" (Farewell, Lucy) in May 1999.


Scientific findings have proven the evolutionist assumptions regarding Lucy, the best-known example of the genus Australopithecus, to be unfounded. In its February 1999 issue, the well-known French scientific magazine Science et Vie accepted this in an article entitled "Adieu Lucy," and confirmed that Australopithecus cannot be considered an ancestor of man.


see http://www.harunyahya.com/nas09.php

- Have mutations ever been observed to produce beneficial organs?

- No, they have not. Since mutations occur at random, they are almost always harmful. The changes brought about by mutations can only resemble those caused in human beings in Hiroshima, Nagasaki or Chernobyl: death, handicap and disease...


see http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/mechanisms06.html

- Can natural selection bring about changes in an organism's genetic data or produce a new organ?

- No, it cannot. Natural selection proposes that those individuals able to adapt to their surroundings survive, while those that are unable, die out. This unconscious form of elimination cannot bestow ever more complex organs or systems on living things.


see http://www.evolutiondeceit.com/chapter4.php

- Is it true that the "peppered moths" (in the industrial melanism story), for so long proposed as evidence of natural selection as an evolutionary mechanism, were actually pictured by being glued onto trees?

- Yes. But even if the pictures in question were genuine, they would still provide no evidence for evolution. That is because as the numbers of light-colored moths declined as a result of natural selection, the darker population increased. But the population acquired no new genetic features. 

Industrial Melanism is certainly not an evidence for evolution because the process did not produce any new species of moths. The selection was only among already existing varieties. Moreover, the classical story of melanism is deceptive. The textbook pictures above (portrayed as genuine photos) are in fact of dead specimens glued or pinned to tree trunks by evolutionists.


see http://www.evolutiondeceit.com/chapter4.php

- Can the information sufficient to fill 1 million encyclopedia pages that is contained in DNA be coded in the correct sequence by chance?

- No, it cannot. In the same way that it is impossible for someone wearing a blindfold to randomly print out a million pages of meaningful information, so it is impossible for unconscious and haphazard factors to arrange DNA.


see http://www.harunyahya.com/books/science/dna/dnamiracle1.php


- Is it true that Darwin thought the cell was just a dark blotch and that he was unaware of such organelles as DNA, the nucleus, ribosome and mitochondrion?

- Yes. Darwin imagined the cell to have a very simple structure, and proposed his theory using the primitive scientific equipment available at the time and his own imagination. However, modern branches of science, such as molecular biology, biochemistry, microbiology, biomathematics and molecular genetics, have revealed that the cell is far too complex to emerge by coincidence.


see http://www.harunyahya.com/dna01.php

- Is it true that inanimate atoms cannot join together and spontaneously give rise to life?

- Yes, it is true. Such medieval beliefs as flies emerging from food waste, moths from wool, or wheat producing mice, have been disproved in our day. "Life comes only from life" is today a generally agreed, proven scientific reality.


see http://www.harunyahya.com/atom01.php

- Is it true that thousands of complex life forms appeared simultaneously and with no forerunners during the Cambrian Period?

- Yes. Known as the "biological Big Bang," this shows that living things appear suddenly in fossil strata dating back 530 million years, without undergoing any evolutionary process.

An illustration showing living things from the Cambrian Age.


see http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/20questions02.html

- Does the fact that two life forms possess genetic similarities mean they have a physical resemblance?

- No, it does not. For example, there is a 75% genetic similarity between human DNA and that of nematode worms, but this does not mean that humans are 75% worm or that there is only a 25% difference between the two. The similarity between humans and chimpanzees therefore constitutes no evidence for evolution, and is in fact mere propaganda.


see http://www.harunyahya.com/books/science/dna/dnamiracle1.php

- Can the idea that dinosaurs grew wings and began to fly as they chased after flies account for the origin of flight?

- No, it cannot. People who believe it can first have to explain how it is that flies, which beat their wings up to 500 times a second, flew using a technology that scientists are still unable to replicate.

The idea that "dinosaurs grew wings while trying to catch flies" is not a joke, but rather a theory which evolutionists claim is very scientific. This example is sufficient by itself to show how seriously we should take evolutionists.


see http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/20questions07.html

- Are the illustrations we see of half-human, half-animal creatures in their social environment entirely imaginary?

- Yes. As with Nebraska Man, imaginary pictures of the skull and the entire body, and even a living thing's mate and offspring can be invented on the basis of a single tooth.


see http://www.harunyahya.com/refuted8.php

- Is it true that past civilizations depicted as primitive actually used highly advanced technology and possessed an unsurpassed conception of art?

- Yes. The idea of semi-ape and semi-human creatures, savage cavemen, devoid of the power of speech and able only to grunt, incapable of standing on two legs, is propaganda aimed at deceiving the public. The fact is that the people described as ape-men sailed over the oceans on well-built ships, drew pictures with the same ability and aesthetic awareness as contemporary artists, made musical instruments and took pleasure from the clothes they wore.

Pots, a model table, and a spoon dating to between 7,000 and 11,000 BCE provide important information about the living standards of people of the time. According to evolutionists, people of that age had only recently adopted a settled lifestyle and were only just becoming civilized. Yet these materials show that there was nothing lacking from these people's culture, and that they lived a fully civilized existence. Just as we do today, they sat at tables, ate using plates, knives, spoons and forks, played host to their guests, offered them refreshments-and in short, lived regular lives. When the findings are examined as a whole, we see that with their artistic understanding, medical knowledge, technical means and daily lives, Neolithic people lived fully human lives just like those before and after them.


see http://www.harunyahya.com/books/darwinism/stoneage/stoneage02.php

- Is it possible for it to be the unconscious atoms constituting the brain that ask these questions, think, judge, rejoice, feel excitement, enjoy eating chocolate or listening to music?

- No. Human beings are entities with souls. The existence of the soul cannot be explained in material terms.


see http://www.harunyahya.com/struggle3.php

- Is it true that 40 fundamental components need to be present at the same time and working in harmony together in order for the human eye to see?

- Yes. The human eye is an organ with irreducible complexity. For example, the absence of the tear gland alone will lead to a complete loss of eye function.


see http://www.harunyahya.com/books/science/miracle_eye/miracle_eye_01.php

- Is it true that the human eye provides a much more advanced and clearer image than any camera produced by even the most advanced present-day technology?

- Yes, it is true. It is irrational and illogical to maintain that images that thousands of conscious and rational engineers have failed to come up with are constantly produced by chance in a small area in the brain.


see http://www.harunyahya.com/books/science/biomimetics/biomimetics07.php

Your teachers will never be able to provide any other answers to these questions. If any of them do say anything different, this will be a most interesting lie. If you tell us, we will give you detailed evidence. In order to learn about the lies people tell regarding the theory of evolution and in order to be able to cite your own evidence, you can make free use of the works of Harun Yahya (www.harunyahya.com)


This site is based on the works of Harun Yahya. www.harunyahya.com