News you won't see in controlled mainstream media.

Russ, you have some pretty basic misconceptions here. I'll just discuss the first for now (seeing as it is the basis of your argument, and if it is false then the whole argument is invalid).

Evolution - [color:"purple"]the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation[/color] - is a process that can be observed in everyday life, it is a fact, and this fact is the basis for the Theory of Evolution (ToE) and together those two are the foundation for the science of Evolutionary Biology. The science of Evolutionary Biology studies the change in hereditary traits in all populations from generation to generation to generation ... and it tests the ToE against all the evidence, the vast diversity of life we know of from present day, history, the fossil record and genetics.

It is a natural science:
Natural science in general, and evolution in particular, doesn't cause\involve\imply any social impact other than to provide a sound basis to understand the truth about objective reality of the natural world\universe.

Evolution in particular, and science in general, is not concerned with social philosophy or morality - mathematics makes no moral statement. Physics - in spite of developing atomic bombs - makes no moral statement. Chemistry - in spite of developing nerve gas and poisons - makes no moral statement. Evolution makes no moral statement.

Evil people will use any concept to justify evil, but that does not make the concept evil, as I sure you would agree - seeing as the bible has been used as an excuse to do evil things.

Your premise is false. Evolution doesn't tell society what to do.

By the way, I'm new here so I was wondering what the 5 stars under my name (vs 4 under yours) mean? Just curious, as I haven't been here that long.

Enjoy.

Note: [color:"green"]My time (too) is limited, so I post on threads of particular interest to me, but I cannot guarantee a reply to all responses (particularly if they do not discuss the issue/s), and I expect other people to do the same. Thank you for your consideration.[/color]

DNA Double Helix: A Recent Discovery of Enormous Complexity
The DNA Double Helix is one of the greatest scientific discoveries of all time. First described by James Watson and Francis Crick in 1953, DNA is the famous molecule of genetics that establishes each organism's physical characteristics. It wasn't until mid-2001, that the Human Genome Project and Celera Genomics jointly presented the true nature and complexity of the digital code inherent in DNA. We now understand that each human DNA molecule is comprised of chemical bases arranged in approximately 3 billion precise sequences. Even the DNA molecule for the single-celled bacterium, E. coli, contains enough information to fill all the books in any of the world's largest libraries.

DNA Double Helix: The "Basics"
DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) is a double-stranded molecule that is twisted into a helix like a spiral staircase. Each strand is comprised of a sugar-phosphate backbone and numerous base chemicals attached in pairs. The four bases that make up the stairs in the spiraling staircase are adenine (A), thymine (T), cytosine (C) and guanine (G). These stairs act as the "letters" in the genetic alphabet, combining into complex sequences to form the words, sentences and paragraphs that act as instructions to guide the formation and functioning of the host cell. Maybe even more appropriately, the A, T, C and G in the genetic code of the DNA molecule can be compared to the "0" and "1" in the binary code of computer software. Like software to a computer, the DNA code is a genetic language that communicates information to the organic cell.

The DNA code, like a floppy disk of binary code, is quite simple in its basic paired structure. However, it's the sequencing and functioning of that code that's enormously complex. Through recent technologies like x-ray crystallography, we now know that the cell is not a "blob of protoplasm", but rather a microscopic marvel that is more complex than the space shuttle. The cell is very complicated, using vast numbers of phenomenally precise DNA instructions to control its every function.

Although DNA code is remarkably complex, it's the information translation system connected to that code that really baffles science. Like any language, letters and words mean nothing outside the language convention used to give those letters and words meaning. This is modern information theory at its core. A simple binary example of information theory is the "Midnight Ride of Paul Revere." In that famous story, Mr. Revere asks a friend to put one light in the window of the North Church if the British came by land, and two lights if they came by sea. Without a shared language convention between Paul Revere and his friend, that simple communication effort would mean nothing. Well, take that simple example and multiply by a factor containing many zeros.

We now know that the DNA molecule is an intricate message system. To claim that DNA arose by random material forces is to say that information can arise by random material forces. Many scientists argue that the chemical building blocks of the DNA molecule can be explained by natural evolutionary processes. However, they must realize that the material base of a message is completely independent of the information transmitted. Thus, the chemical building blocks have nothing to do with the origin of the complex message. As a simple illustration, the information content of the clause "nature was designed" has nothing to do with the writing material used, whether ink, paint, chalk or crayon. In fact, the clause can be written in binary code, Morse code or smoke signals, but the message remains the same, independent of the medium. There is obviously no relationship between the information and the material base used to transmit it. Some current theories argue that self-organizing properties within the base chemicals themselves created the information in the first DNA molecule. Others argue that external self-organizing forces created the first DNA molecule. However, all of these theories must hold to the illogical conclusion that the material used to transmit the information also produced the information itself. Contrary to the current theories of evolutionary scientists, the information contained within the genetic code must be entirely independent of the chemical makeup of the DNA molecule.

DNA Double Helix: Its Existence Alone Defeats any Theory of Evolution
The scientific reality of the DNA double helix can single-handedly defeat any theory that assumes life arose from non-life through materialistic forces. Evolution theory has convinced many people that the design in our world is merely "apparent" -- just the result of random, natural processes. However, with the discovery, mapping and sequencing of the DNA molecule, we now understand that organic life is based on vastly complex information code, and such information cannot be created or interpreted without a Master Designer at the cosmic keyboard.

If they can con every one into believing there is no creator,nobody will have any values or morals.... a whole lot easier to take over power!!!
Your own words:Evil people will use any concept to justify evil!!!

Thank you skieslimit for your interesting post

This is a large copy and paste, apparently from this site, and there are many errors in it, not the least being frequent logical fallacies, mostly dealing with the argument from incredulity and the like ... "Information" ... I've dealt with that elsewhere, that horse don't run.

I also checked your website and found several articles rife with error, falsehood, misinformation and more fallacies. Thermodynamics? ... really.

I don't see any point in discussing these errors unless you are the author. If you want to discuss them then I expect you to furnish the arguments in your own words.

I'd be happy to discuss the concept of "information" as it is applied by people like the author of your article if you want, but post it in your own words.

If you are not the author then you are guilty of plagiarism, which is essentially lying and claiming someone else's work as your own. In science this is enough to get you fired and never hired again. How do you feel about lying? Why do creationists need to lie if creationism is true?

This is just an assertion, based on your own biases and your ?stolen? post that you should have reviewed to check for fallacies and errors before posting.

It looks to me like the ones doing the conning are your article authors (they conned you) and you (providing false information and not crediting the authors).

I also noticed that you did not answer any of my points about how it is wrong to imply social concerns to any science, but went right ahead and did it anyway. Do you read for content or just look for places to drop copy and paste articles from dubious sources?

See if you can provide some content of your own eh?

Enjoy.

Note: [color:"green"]My time (too) is limited, so I post on threads of particular interest to me, but I cannot guarantee a reply to all responses (particularly if they do not discuss the issue/s), and I expect other people to do the same. Thank you for your consideration.[/color]

It does not matter what I cut and paste to you I am still a liar and that is ok with me. I did not claim any work of my own it just happen to convey the messege I wanted to get across so that does not matter. I did not know I should have written it like a term paper.

It does not matter whether I have written it or copy and paste it you will still call me a liar. I just wanted to throw a dog a bone and see if he would take it and you did. Jumped right on it too. Funny, thanks I needed a laugh today.

wait wait, I got a bone!

<img src="http://herballure.com/ForumExtras/Images/sqnanikzzu.jpg">

Is the puppy dewormed, skies?

Nice bone So Sick LOL
No need to deworm if you are an evoltionist you will probably turn into a worm one day!!! So what's the point?

Quite logical skies.

I commend you for factual reporting.

Thanks again for your interest, skieslimit

Then why do it? Because you like talking to yourself? Or is it because, like SoSick, you appear to have trouble defending your arguments when you get past the first level?

You realize that I could also paste a barrage of factoids from any number of websites and fill multiple pages with a single post -- what seems to be the modus operandi on this forum -- and yet what does that accomplish? We both already know that information is out there, so why not engage in a "battle of paste jobs"? Because it doesn't involve any critical application of intellect, no filter for fact versus fiction.

The real question skieslimit, is how do you tell fact from fiction? What is your test for truth? Do you know?

Glad you liked the entertainment. Meanwhile, you haven't addressed the issue, nor has SoSick or anyone else. Why is that?

Because you can't? Or because you won't? Do you know why creationists in general seem to be completely incapable of addressing issues they don't like?

Can't because you don't know? Or won't because it is "too dangerous" to discuss? I can understand both. There's a "bone" for you.

Enjoy.

Note: [color:"green"]My time (too) is limited, so I post on threads of particular interest to me, but I cannot guarantee a reply to all responses (particularly if they do not discuss the issue/s), and I expect other people to do the same. Thank you for your consideration.[/color]

You are wrong in the most fundamental way.

The fact is, any belief system has tremendous fundamental impacts on behavior and values.

Honestly, this is such a basic concept that it would take much time to explain it to you, but I'll attempt to make it clear in this way.

If I were to believe in evolution, then my killing of another person to make myself rich is only the process of the survival of the fittest in action. If I were an evolutionists, I would not see anything wrong with this behavior as it happens in nature all the time. I would also believe that attempt to inhibit this behavior would only be suppressing the natural processes that results in human evolution and would be detrimental for the long-term survival of the "species" (why preserve the weak?).

Evolution is the official religion of secular humanism and satanism, and ultimately communism. Most socialistic philosophies derive from evolution. This is a fascinating study in and of itself with profound implications.

If, with some thought, you are still unable to make this fundamental connection between a faith in evolution and behavior, please let me know and I'll post some material to help you.

This video has some information that is useful:

The Dangers of Evolution, Hovind

This is not true. Animals think on this level but humans have the capacity to empathize and thereby know their harmful actions on another are simply not nice. It's called the Golden Rule. You don't need religion to enter into morality. Morales are a human invention - and should always be thus. Furthermore, I probably needn't remind you of the horrific actions done in the name of religion (with Christianity at the forefront of the bloodshed). While it may be easy for you to dismiss these people as not "true" Christians, I'd say a person who kills for monetary wealth is not a true HUMAN.

I know you want to place the blame somewhere, I understand this feeling, but unfortunately Christianity has been a tool for bloodshed one hundredfold compared to evolution and/or atheism (the latter two of which have a death count of exactly 0).

There are countless people who believe in evolution yet wouldn't so much as harm a fly. Moreover, I don't know of a single person who has ever actually used evolution as a means of saying "We can kill indiscriminately, it's natural, it's survival of the fittest." Now let's talk about Christians who HAVE.

Thanks Russ for another concept filled post.
Creationist PRATT/Lie/Claim CA610: Evolution is a religion because it encompasses views of values and ultimate meanings.
Somebodies been lying to you Russ. Once again your argument breaks down because you start from false premises. That you are limited, in your understanding and evaluation of reality, to the methodology of belief systems, does not mean everyone else is so limited.
What you have done (whether you know it or not) is conflate evolution with natural science, natural science with the philosophy of naturalism, and naturalism with metaphysical naturalism, and the problem for you is reconciling that view with the fact that many honest people of faith that study evolution have no religious conflict with their personal faith, and this simple fact contradicts your opinion. Not all {A} is {B}, Russ.

As a methodological naturalist (deist) I recognize these distinctions.

I also recognize the distraction from reality - the lie, the con, the scam (complete with character assassination) - that you either encourage or have yourself been taken by.

The truth shall set you free.

Enjoy.

[color:"green"]Note: my time is limited, so I only choose threads of particular interest to me and I cannot guarantee a reply to all responses (particularly if they do not discuss the issue/s), and I expect other people to do the same. Thank you for your consideration.[/color]

I'd definitely agree we got a real strong belief system of some sort going on here.

Far be from me to try to define it though. I really haven't got a clue as to what it is.

I mean... one day it's this..



the next day it's something else, even exactly the opposite... kind of a category all by itself with it's own definitions of everything too depending on the moment. Religion usuallly has set beliefs, this is quicksand no matter where you try to step, it moves, it changes, it evolves itself to fit ever changing personal views. It always negates someone else's experience. It is evolution in and of itself.

I guess basically that's the thing to look for. Insistent negativity and strict denial of a self-as-god religious complex. Maybe that's it even... it's not religion at all Russ... RAZD must be the creator himself. I do get the very strong impression he is seeking faithful followers for his creation, whatever that is.

RAZD, do you have any intentions of donating your brain to science when you die? Maybe it would be wise to draw up a set of instructions of exactly where to look to find the answers to everything before you get too old.