Watching this video will provide a good introductory explanation to this very valid truth:

Evolution's Moral Implications (video)

This post will also provide some enlightenment in this regard:

----

Evolution is possibly the grandest social deception ever devised. I cannot express how amazed I am that anyone—anyone at all—believes this ridiculous and completely illogical idea.

• Virtually ALL genetic mutations are harmful and destructive, not beneficial. This alone should give thinking persons an idea about how incredibly unlikely—virtually impossible—evolution really is.
• The theory of evolution contradicts the established second law of thermodynamics.
• If evolution is true, we would have found a myriad of transitional forms by now.
• Common sense completely refutes that evolution could occur, even in the most fundamental stages.

The real reason for the promotion of evolution is to create a social climate for the centralization of power and the promotion of certain, otherwise, unethical activities. For these morally deplete power brokers, evolution solves all kinds of problems. It legitimizes:

• Killing weak and "undesirables" like unborn children or elderly persons (natural selection [survival of the fittest])
• Genetic engineering (If nature is a series of errors, we can certainly do better. However, if nature is by intelligent design, we better not mess with it.)
• Immunization (Again, they promote the idea that natural methods are not enough since they are the product of a series of "errors". Intelligent design says we can solve these issues with existing "natural" technology, like enhancing the immune system via diet and supplementation.)
• Democracy (rule—or government—of man. Hey, if there is no "Intelligent Designer", who else is going to rule or set the standard of morality?)
• Communism & socialism (Same)

There is much that can be said about that vastness of this deception, but one thing is certain:

It is not the depth or integrity of the idea of evolution that extends it's life, it is in fact, the broad and unrelenting promotion of the deception coupled with the human tendency to follow.

To accept that evolution is false is to—by implication—accept that there is a conspiracy (a group of people working together) to conceal the truth, and this is, by itself, the reason most cannot overcome the evolutionary absurdness. Americans have been well conditioned to believe that usage of this word (conspiracy) itself undermines credibility. It takes a leader to take a stand against common misconceptions, no matter how farcical.

A simple mind conducting a little research would find that nearly all of the mass media in the United States (and most other industrialized nations) are owned by a handful of God-hating elitists with no morals and no accountability, and it is these who so actively promote the evolution theory.

"As for what is not true, you will always find abundance in the newspapers."

Thomas Jefferson to Barnabas Bidwell, 1806. ME 11:118

"I deplore... the putrid state into which our newspapers have passed and the malignity, the vulgarity, and mendacious spirit of those who write for them...

Thomas Jefferson to Walter Jones, 1814. ME 14:46

Mutation looks like a mole; Unorganized, shapeless, useless and destructive. However, intelligent creation displays very highly organized symmetry which is absolutely impossible to explain by mutation (and therefore evolution).

----




The term "evolution" is currently being taught the world over as the process that inorganic compounds (rocks eroded with water) turn into life which evolve into humans. This also happens to be the definition of abiogenesis.

I'm clear what is being missed here. Please explain what you are missing and I'll elaborate.




Evolution is being taught as fact (which it is not) and it teaches that rocks turned into humans over time. If you teach children that they evolved from animals how can you expect them to act morally.

Again, this is a simple point that I believe anyone reading this thread would have no problem grasping (with all due respect to you). Hovind does an excellent job explaining this in this video:

Evolution's Moral Implications (video)




Strawman alert.

Actually I believe all evolutionists think like Dawkins does, namealy, that it's impossible to believe in evolution without a preteen naivete. Dawkins makes arguments with the same mental acuity. That was my point. It was not specific to RAZD.




No. Actually this is yet another modification to the previous modification of the term evolution, and these modifications keep coming about because intelligent people are actually beginning to question the sanity of the idea of evolution as it has been taught for decades, namely, that rocks turn into humans over time.

This is what I was taught as the theory of evolution and this is what is currently taught in schools world wide.

This attempt to soften and generalize the myth of evolution is nothing more than another retreat from an idea that is finally being seen for what it is, namely, ridiculous.

[color:"blue"]"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. In explaining evolution we do not have one iota of fact.' A tangled mishmash of guessing games and figure juggling [Tahmisian called it]."[/color]

—The Fresno Bee, August 20, 1959, p. 1-B [quoting T.N. Tahmisian, physiologist for the Atomic Energy Commission].




If we did that, evolution would never find its way into our discussion.




The problem with this approach as it relates to "science" is this: The things you have faith in as being science—as it relates to evolution—are actually perfectly akin to junk science.

Because we live in a time when integrity can be purchased and truth has a price, much scientific fraud exists and we are then required to wade through this fraud and determine what is valid and what is not.

This is the same issue that exists with the amalgam issue. It had been taught as safe for decades, but now we know this is a lie. The same can be said for numerous so-called scientific "truths".

In wading through this false scientific information, it is important to remember that some scientists are currently compromising scientific integrity for money. Again, this happened concerning NutraSweet as it relates to phenylalanine, for example, at a price of $30,000 (from "60 Minutes"), and the producer of NutraSweet has made untold billions because of this lie, and it continues even now.

We also watch as textbooks continue to increase the age of the Earth—teaching it as fact—over the past few decades. First a few million years, then a few hundred million, then a billion, then 2 billion, then 4 billion, now 6 billion. Of course, we can sensibly see that this number is being tweaked to attempt to make the already impossible odds of evolutionary processes seem more feasible in the mind of the naive. I mean no offense by this. It is simply the way the world works, and—with all due respect—you have shown incredible naivete over the past year in blindly believing that scientists nearly always have integrity. You clearly implied this by your statements in previous posts.

Scientists are human and subject to the same subjectivity as many of the rest of us. We must learn to know and accept this so we don't have more amalgam issues and more phenylalanine issues. Unfortunately, these myths are kept alive and are actually enabled by those who blindly have faith in the integrity of men who practice science. In truth, we should be constantly looking over their shoulders.

Here's an example of the NIH pulling funding for mercury research in order to promote their own agenda at the cost of the health of millions:

http://herballure.com/MediaCenter/HaleyOnAutism.html

You see, as a person who loves science, I detest what is happening to "science", nevertheless, I recognize these times as being dominated by those who know that false scientific studies can be used for the tremendous profit of the few.

Junk Science: Global Warming Myth Busted

Nevertheless, here are some issues that are perfectly supported by a logical creationist model and impossible with the evolutionary belief system:

(1) Symmetry

(2) Reproduction

(3) Irreducible Complexity (the eye, the brain)

(4) Population growth over time

(5) No intermediates

(6) Solar system anomalies:
Our Solor System

(7) Granite Halos

(8) Potassium/Argon Dating

(9) Biblical Prophecy

(10) Biblical Gematria


You may choose if you like.



[color:"blue"]"The evolution theory can by no means be regarded as an innocuous natural philosophy, but that it is a serious obstruction to biological research. It obstructs—as has been repeatedly shown—the attainment of consistent results, even from uniform experimental material. For everything must ultimately be forced to fit this theory. An exact biology cannot, therefore, be built up."[/color]

—H. Neilsson, Synthetische Artbuilding, 1954, p. 11.


[color:"blue"]"The problem of the origin of species has not advanced in the last 150 years. One hundred and fifty years have already passed during which it has been said that the evolution of the species is a fact but, without giving real proofs of it and without even a principle of explaining it. During the last one hundred and fifty years of research that has been carried out along this line [in order to prove the theory], there has been no discovery of anything. It is simply a repetition in different ways of what Darwin said in 1859. This lack of results is unforgivable in a day when molecular biology has really opened the veil covering the mystery of reproduction and heredity . .[/color]

[color:"blue"]"Finally, there is only one attitude which is possible as I have just shown: It consists in affirming that intelligence comes before life. Many people will say this is not science, it is philosophy. The only thing I am interested in is fact, and this conclusion comes out of an analysis and observation of the facts."[/color]

—G. Salet, Hasard et Certitude: Le Transformisme devant la Biologie Actuelle (1973), p. 331.


[color:"blue"]"I am not satisfied that Darwin proved his point or that his influence in scientific and public thinking has been beneficial . . the success of Darwinism was accomplished by a decline in scientific integrity."[/color]

—W.R. Thompson, Introduction to *Charles Darwin's, Origin of the Species [Canadian scientist]. (emphasis mine)


[color:"blue"]"The hypothesis that life has developed from inorganic matter is, at present, still an article of faith."[/color]

—J.W.N. Sullivan, The Limitations of Science (1933), p. 95.