A creationist caught lying.

Creationists pretend to teach the rest of the world moral standards, and purport to possess the truth. Most of them are just plain ignorant, but some of them are straight liars. Take for example the following article by Thomas Heinze, titled: Science 'Discovers' We All Have Common Ancestors.

First of all, Science has long known that all humans, and in fact all life on Earth, has a common ancestor. Obviously, Heinze is either not too well versed in science, or pretends not to know.

Second, commenting on the findings that the Most Recent Common Ancestor may have lived around 5000 BC, according to a particular computer simulation (others report a possible date of 1 AD!), Heinze states that: "For the Bible believer, this is no surprise. Two events fit into that time frame: Adam and Eve started the first family and a little later Noah started it all over again when he stepped off the Ark." However, Heinze neglects to mention that at that moment, the Most Recent Common Ancestor shared the Earth with between 5 and 20 million humans. Where did I find this data? The U.S. census bureau, the same source Heinze uses to explain how world population increased to the current levels. How come he failed to notice the amount of people living in 5000 BC, or 10000 BC? This is called lying!

Third, Heinze comes to a conclusion on how evolution should have happened, directly contradicting the principles of Darwin's theory: "If humans have evolved as evolutionists claim, most of it should have happened within the time covered by history, because that is when most people have lived." No, that's not Darwin's story. Evolution says that apes evolved over the course of millions of years, resulting in the current species of apes, which include humans, among others. If Heinze thinks himself qualified to ridicule evolution, why does he turn out to be ignorant on what evolution says? I think he is lying again.

Finally, Heinze brings in the known evolutionist canard of Darwin doubting his theory when asking: "Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links?" Has Heinze bothered to check the context in which Darwin writes this? Here is how the quote continues: "Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record. In the first place, it should always be borne in mind what sort of intermediate forms must, on the theory, have formerly existed..." Again, Heinze is either ignorant, or blatantly lying.

Why do people like Heinze resort to presenting a false version of the theory of evolution? Either they never bothered to check what the real one says, or they purposely misrepresent it, perhaps because they know that so far they have not come up with arguments to prove it false. I am willing to give Heinze the credit of an education on the topic, and therefore I necessarily conclude that he is lying. Why, then, does he lie? Is it because he thinks you cannot handle the truth? Who is he to think for you?