News you won't see in controlled mainstream media.

What Came First?

What came first:

(1) DNA, or
(2) The organism it describes?

DNA is not subject to natural selection. It is only subject to chaotic external forces, so how could so much information—enough information to describe a human being's body—come into being under such conditions?

Conversely, how could a human being's body come into existence without the vastly-complex molecule that describes it—DNA?

These are fundamental questions that require little more than common sense to evaluate, and when evaluated, we realize that evolution is a myth.

If we are passionate enough to research the world we live in politically, we eventually come to realize that evolution is a social control that justifies killing by chemtrail spraying, in the name of expediting evolutionary processes.

Can a process that claims to bring life really bring so much death?


It's time to wake up and recognize that only an Intelligence external to the system can build such things.

This has been discussed before Russ. No one believes that human DNA suddenly popped into existence -- except creationists. No one believes that any kind of DNA did.

We have evidence of the existence of self-replicating molecules. Once you have those, evolution takes its course. The first organisms would have been very simple, unlike anything alive today. Life has been evolving, in many cases gaining complexity, for billions of years.

Gosh a lot of creationist posts have suddenly appeared. Funny, that.



This totally speaks for itself.

http://herballure.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=44752#Post44752

No need to respond to the same post twice...

So, where are these "self-replicating molecules"?

So, this means that you believe DNA evolved?

Just for prudence sake:
http://herballure.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=44752#Post44752

If you don't believe that DNA was created and came into existence from a standpoint of design, would you explain how such an ordered code began and how it managed to come into existence and survive its evolution? Since all the "ingredients" require the other to exist/survive and work. In fact, DNA is necessary for DNA to work.



As far as I'm aware, there is no such thing as a "self-replicating molecule", but if there is, please show us. However, if this is not much more than a hypothetical "molecule" based upon assumptions/imaginary ideas, rather than evidence - this is not proof for evolution.

You said the first organisms....very simple....unlike anything alive today.....so based upon this, we have something that cannot be observed, hasn't been observed nor tested or can be tested since there are no such examples/observations ...

You said - Unlike anything alive today! This is convenient. So the unknown, the unobservable, the untestable, becomes a scientic probability or fact. Even if one could manipulate such a process in a lab - would that tell us that nature was capable of doing this at will? Or would it prove the necessity of outside intelligence and input?