Friday, June 17, 2005

Watch Out for Dust!

Once again, Esteemed Reader, we find ourselves discussing the dubiously interesting validity of evolution, and this time in earnest. To begin, however, I must comment that no one has yet tried to countermand the errant comment by an evolutionist from the last column, “Getting My Facts Straight.” So, feel free to go to my site (once again, to leave a comment- though I’ll not be able to post this column nor the next few for a few days. Long story, won’t bore you.
In any case, one of the most prevalent arguments and theories of evolutionists is that the earth that we live on is really old- I believe that the current theory is that it’s around 4.6 billion- or 4,600,000,000- years old.
Now, the reader must ask themselves- why would evolutionists propose, even insist, such an outrageous number? That’s a simple enough answer. Evolution would take time, and a lot of it. For the random forming of a cell, lots of chance must be allowed, and for this chance to be allowed, lots of time must be allowed also. The time it would take for a unicellular species to change- at a rate so slow we don’t even see it at all today- into a more complex animal- let’s say, a sponge- would be stupendous. And this is all based on the assumption that said evolution could even take place- a dubious proposition at best.
So, it should strike you as humorous that when evolutionists need time, they make it up. Seriously, that was the thinking process behind this “age of the earth is 4.6 billion years” crap. This is 100% speculation, and has absolutely no evidence backing it whatsoever.
Now, would it surprise you that there’s plenty of evidence contradictory to this claim?
Since I’m writing it and bringing it up, it shouldn’t.
All right, here’s the facts, folks:
My first piece of inflammatory evidence is the absence of “moon dust.” Although most people do not know it, one of the reasons so much money was spent to send a rocket to the moon was to see how thick the dust was on its surface!
Evolutionists had long held to the fact (as we do) that the earth and moon are about the same age. It is believed, by many, that the earth and its moon are billions of years old. If that were true, the moon would by now have built up a 20-60 mile [32 to 97 km] layer of dust on it!
In *Isaac Asimov’s first published essay (1958), he wrote:
" . . I get a picture, therefore, of the first spaceship [to the moon], picking out a nice level place for landing purposes, coming slowly downward tail-first and sinking majestically out of sight."—*Isaac Asimov, Asimov on Science: A Thirty-Year Retrospective (1989), xvi-xvii.
In the 1950s, *R.A. Lyttleton, a highly respected astronomer, said this:
"The lunar surface is exposed to direct sunlight, and strong ultraviolet light and X-rays [from the sun] can destroy the surface layers of exposed rock and reduce them to dust at the rate of a few ten-thousandths of an inch per year. But even this minute amount could, during the age of the moon, be sufficient to form a layer over it several miles deep."—*R.A. Lyttleton, quoted in R. Wysong, Creation-Evolution Controversy, p. 175.
In 5 to 10 billion years, 3 or 4/10,000ths of an inch per year would produce 20-60 miles [32-97 km] of dust. In view of this, our men at NASA were afraid to send men to the moon. Landing there, they would be buried in dust and quickly suffocate! So NASA first sent an unmanned lander to its surface, which made the surprising discovery that there was hardly any dust on the moon! In spite of that discovery, Neil Armstrong was decidedly worried about this dust problem as his March 1970 flight in Apollo 11 neared. He feared his lunar lander would sink deeply into it and he and Edwin Aldrin would perish. But because the moon is young, they had no problem. There is not over 2 or 3 inches [5.08 or 7.62 cm] of dust on its surface! That is the amount one would expect if the moon were about 6000-8000 years old.
*Dr. Lyttleton’s facts were correct; solar radiation does indeed turn the moon rocks into dust. With only a few inches of dust, the moon cannot be older than a few thousand years.
It is significant that studies on the moon have shown that only 1/60th of the one- or two-inch dust layer on the moon originated from outer space. This has been corroborated by still more recent measurements of the influx rate of dust on the moon, which also do not support an old moon.
In case that’s not enough for you- which it shouldn’t be- another intriguing aspect of this deal’s with the earth’s magnetic field. As you probably know- at the risk of sounding repetitious- the earth has a magnetic field. Without it, we could not use compasses to identify the direction of magnetic north (which is close to the North Pole). Dr. Thomas G. Barnes, a physics teacher at the University of Texas, has authored a widely used college textbook on electricity and magnetism. Working with data collected over the past 135 years, he has pointed out that earth’s magnetic field is gradually decaying. Indeed, he has shown that this magnetic field is decreasing exponentially, according to a decay law similar to the decay of radioactive substances.
In 1835 the German physicist, K.F. Gauss, made the first measurement of the earth’s magnetic dipole moment, that is, the strength of earth’s internal magnet. Additional evaluations have been carried out every decade or so since then. Since 1835, global magnetism has decreased 14 percent!
On the basis of facts obtained from 1835 to 1965, this magnetic field appears to have a half-life of 1400 years. On this basis, even 7000 years ago, the earth would have had a magnetic field 32 times stronger than it now has. Just 20,000 years ago, enough Joule heat would have been generated to liquefy the earth. One million years ago the earth would have had greater magnetism than all objects in the universe, and it would have vaporized! It would appear that the earth could not be over 6000 or 7000 years old. (On the accompanying graph, beyond the point where the curve becomes vertical, our planet would have had the magnetosphere power of a magnetic star!)
"The over-all intensity of the field is declining at a rate of 26 nanoteslas per year . . If the rate of decline were to continue steadily, the field strength would reach zero in 1,200 years."—*"Magnetic Field Declining," Science News, June 28, 1980.
"In the next two millennia, if the present rate of decay is sustained, the dipole component of the [earth’s magnetic] field should reach zero."—*Scientific American, December 1989.
This magnetic decay process is not a local process, such as one would find in uranium, but worldwide; it affects the entire earth. It has been accurately measured for over 150 years, and is not subject to environmental changes since it is generated deep in the earth’s interior.
If any fundamental planetary process ought to be a reliable indicator of the earth’s age, it should be our earth’s magnetic field—and it indicates an upper limit of decidedly less than 10,000 years for the age of the earth.
Most of the factors described above would apply to the age of the earth, which appears to be decidedly less than 10,000 years.
Most of the following items of evidence would apply to the length of time since the Flood, which evidence indicates may have occurred about 4350 years ago.Hopefully, this still isn’t enough for you. I’m not into trying to brainwash people with only two facts, you know. So, please and by all means, attempt to research this stuff yourself. Preferably, you’ll try the good web site for such endeavors, which I again give credit to for the information:

Monday, April 25, 2005

Getting My Facts Straight

So, the real question right now is what I’m to write about this time. I’ve got so many choices and subjects to address; it makes it difficult to approach one, in fear of my intentions being diverted to another…
So far, Reason and Logic has touched only three topics, albeit each was rather brief in and of itself. “Stay on Target…” brought up the point of how evolution was a religion, and how evolutionists would much rather attack Creationism rather than attempt justification of their own highly erroneous theory. “Love, Hate, And Yes…” address how evolution can easily be considered immoral, as well as touching on how evolution is mathematically improbable. The latest column, “Don’t Let Them Call You a Monkey!” was almost singularly functional as an attack on “ancient men,” predominately speaking of the australopithecine “Lucy-” however it also raised how the argument that evolution should be taught in school because religion is taught in schools is astonishingly stupid.
Thus, let it be known that I like to wander… but at least it’s relevant, correct?
By the way, for those of you who’ve never seen my website (which is, ahem,, perhaps you’ll be amazed by an evolutionist’s comment left on my final posting. All grammatical errors are the writer’s- who wisely decided to remain anonymous- and the bold is mine.

“you know what you are one of those crazy people. white people evolved from monkeys and black people came from gorillas, so you are the one who needs to get your facts straight”

And this is the highly educated response that the evolutionists have pulled together so far for me. I stand not entirely unsurprised, you know. The Esteemed Reader should understand that evolutionists rarely have any argument at all, so this actually… almost… refreshing… No, never mind. Tell you what, if you’re an evolutionist who hates to see this stand as a symbol of the scientific community’s intelligence, by all means visit my site and leave a posting that displays more than half of a second grader’s intellect. Indeed, if the evolution-oriented Esteemed Reader would be so kind and brave, leave your identity so that I can refer back to you.
If you’re not an evolutionist, check out my site and comment on it anyway, dang it.
Now, if you’re actually on the site right now as you read this (there’s nothing more confusing than trying to write to a written and electronic audience at once, let me tell you), than you should know by now to leave a comment of some sort. Also, here’s the real meat of this column, where I attack the “Scientific Theory of Evolution”- oxymoron contained within quotations.
Speaking of morons, there are people and teachers everywhere, including our dearly beloved school, who believe that Darwin was this amazing person who used his whole life to further science for the sheer joy of furthering man’s mind, and should be respected as a modern “thinker,” seeing as he came up with this great theory and all.
Here’s what a well-researched website,, has to say about Darwin. This is awesome material, Esteemed Reader.

“*Charles Darwin (1809-1882) was born into wealth and able to have a life of ease. He took two years of medical school at Edinburgh University, and then dropped out. It was the only scientific training he ever received. Because he spent the time in bars with his friends, he barely passed his courses. Darwin had no particular purpose in life, and his father planned to get him into a nicely paid job as an Anglican minister. Darwin did not object.

But an influential relative got him a position as the unpaid "naturalist" on a ship planning to sail around the world, the Beagle. The voyage lasted from December 1831 to October 1836.

It is of interest that, after engaging in spiritism, certain men in history have been seized with a deep hatred of God and have then been guided to devise evil teachings, that have destroyed large numbers of people, while others have engaged in warfare which have annihilated millions. In connection with this, we think of such known spiritists as *Sigmund Freud and *Adolf Hitler. It is not commonly known that *Charles Darwin, while a naturalist aboard the Beagle, was initiated into witchcraft in South America by nationals. During horseback travels into the interior, he took part in their ceremonies and, as a result, something happened to him. Upon his return to England, although his health was strangely weakened, he spent the rest of his life working on theories to destroy faith in the Creator.

After leaving South America, Darwin was on the Galapagos Islands for a few days. While there, he saw some finches which had blown in from South America and adapted to their environment, producing several sub-species. He was certain that this showed cross-species evolution (change into new species). But they were still finches. This theory about the finches was the primary evidence of evolution he brought back with him to England.

Darwin, never a scientist and knowing nothing about the practicalities of genetics, then married his first cousin, which resulted in all seven of his children having physical or mental disorders. (One girl died after birth, another at 10. His oldest daughter had a prolonged breakdown at 15. Three of his children became semi-invalids, and his last son was born mentally retarded and died 19 months after birth.)

His book, Origin of the Species, was first published in November 1859. The full title, On the Origin of the Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, reveals the viciousness of the underlying concept; this concept led directly to two of the worst wars in the history of mankind.

In his book, Darwin reasoned from theory to facts, and provided little evidence for what he had to say. Modern evolutionists are ashamed of the book, with its ridiculous arguments.

Darwin’s book had what some men wanted: a clear out-in-the-open, current statement in favor of species change. So, in spite of its laughable imperfections, they capitalized on it. Here is what you will find in his book:
• Darwin would cite authorities that he did not mention. He repeatedly said it was "only an abstract," and "a fuller edition" would come out later. But, although he wrote other books, try as he may he never could find the proof for his theories. No one since has found it either.
• When he did name an authority, it was just an opinion from a letter. Phrases indicating the hypothetical nature of his ideas were frequent: "It might have been," "Maybe," "probably," "it is conceivable that." A favorite of his was: "Let us take an imaginary example."
• Darwin would suggest a possibility, and later refer back to it as a fact: "As we have already demonstrated previously." Elsewhere he would suggest a possible series of events and then conclude by assuming that proved the point.
• He relied heavily on stories instead of facts. Confusing examples would be given. He would use specious and devious arguments, and spent much time suggesting possible explanations why the facts he needed were not available.
Here is an example of his reasoning: To explain the fossil trans-species gaps, Darwin suggested that species must have been changing quickly in other parts of the world where men had not yet examined the strata. Later these changed species traveled over to the Western World, to be found in strata there as new species. So species were changing on the other side of the world, and that was why species in the process of change were not found on our side!
With thinking like this, who needs science? But remember that Charles Darwin never had a day of schooling in the sciences.
Here is Darwin’s explanation of how one species changes into another: It is a variation of *Lamarck’s theory of inheritance of acquired characteristics (*Nicholas Hutton III, Evidence of Evolution, 1962, p. 138). Calling it pangenesis, Darwin said that an organ affected by the environment would respond by giving off particles that he called gemmules. These particles supposedly helped determine hereditary characteristics. The environment would affect an organ; gemmules would drop out of the organ; and the gemmules would travel to the reproductive organs, where they would affect the cells (*W. Stansfield, Science of Evolution, 1977, p. 38). As mentioned earlier, scientists today are ashamed of Darwin’s ideas.
In his book, Darwin taught that man came from an ape, and that the stronger races would, within a century or two, destroy the weaker ones. (Modern evolutionists claim that man and ape descended from a common ancestor.)
After taking part in the witchcraft ceremonies, not only was his mind affected but his body also. He developed a chronic and incapacitating illness, and went to his death under a depression he could not shake (Random House Encyclopedia, 1977, p. 768).
He frequently commented in private letters that he recognized that there was no evidence for his theory, and that it could destroy the morality of the human race. "Long before the reader has arrived at this part of my work, a crowd of difficulties will have occurred to him. Some of them are so serious that to this day I can hardly reflect on them without in some degree becoming staggered" (*Charles Darwin, Origin of the Species, 1860, p. 178; quoted from Harvard Classics, 1909 ed., Vol. 11). "Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a phantasy" (*Charles Darwin, Life and Letters, 1887, Vol. 2, p. 229).”
Doubtlessly, this is causing some consternation within the Esteemed Reader. The public schools have practically canonized Darwin as the “Savior of Science,” and yet, with this information, they are indubitably incorrect in their assumption that Darwin should be hailed as anything at all, let alone such a prominent figure in the scientific community.
Well, Esteemed Reader, believe it or not I meant to go into an attack on micro- versus macroevolution, but alas, it’s too late now. I think I’ve reached my word limit, or close to it, so I’ll try to write another soon. Tell me what you think by writing to me at

~ K. T. Stone

Thursday, April 21, 2005

Don't Let Them Call You a Monkey!

Even as I’m writing this, a friend of mine is busy informing me, “Wow, you’re making too many! You’re going to run out of stuff to write about!”
Well, I’ve got news for you nay-sayers out there: I’m not going to run out of material. The evolutionists have dug themselves a hole with a diameter that rivals the sun’s, and with all of the false information that they’ve put out to the public, it’d take me thirty years and about 1x10^137,976 articles to put it straight (anyone recognize that number?). And only on column three, so this friend of mine can chill out… and anyone else thinking I write too much.
Speaking of false information, I’ve just been through yet another debate on evolution with students, and still does the old adage hold true: my opponents (multiple opponents, I had to hold my own this time… not that it was difficult, my opponents knew little or nothing about their belief) attacked my religion. I thought about giving them my website address-, by the way (check it out for columns old and new)- and the reasoned that if they didn’t take the time to research their own theory, why research mine?
I find it exceedingly interesting that few students who believe in evolution have the slightest idea of what it is. When I requested the slightest bit of evidence from my most recent opponents, their collective response was, “Look in the biology book.” This is shortly after stating that evolution had been indisputably proven due to the “vast amount of evidence we’ve found.” I see it as a little ironic that they could not pull a single bit of data from their minds, seeing as there is supposed this vast accumulation of purported evidence.
In any case, they had, before any of this, decided to bring up a very interesting point in the slaughterhouse know as evolutionary “debate.” See, I was in my US History class when the Scopes trial arose as part of the lecture. The teacher asked us what we thought about evolution being taught in school, and a classmate brought up the old argument “religion should be taught by parents, and science by school.” His idea was that religion was taught at church, so why couldn’t evolution be taught in school?
Ever have I been dumbfounded by the sheer stupidity of that statement. It’s so incongruous that when I first heard it, I assumed that individual was a moron and didn’t think to ever hear again, so you could imagine my surprise every time that blatantly foolish statement decides to impinge upon my ears…for those of you who’ve no logical thinking processes, I’ll tell you why. Despite its simplicity, don’t doubt its validity:
Church is optional, public school is mandatory.
Wow. I know that’s a tough one to wrap your mind around, but I’m going to encourage you to try. Look, not to get too deep here, but there are people… yes, I know this will come as a shock to you, but there are people who don’t go to church. Whose parents’ beliefs are in the line of evolution and hate Christ. I know that’s a shock.
Hold on, I’ve got a couple more really deep metaphysical concepts for you to grasp here: public school is mandatory, other than those who go to a private school. And private schools often teach evolution as well, even a few Christian schools, believe it or not. I went to a military school- Fishburne Military School- last year, and they taught evolution, so don’t give me the “it’s only public school” crap. Besides, it’s easy to say more kids go to public school than private anyway…
Once again; church is optional, pubic school is mandatory.
I’m thinking there’s an awe-inspiring gap between a religion that you choose to be a part of and a place where a theory is force-fed to you, whether you like it or not, and if you write to the contrary, you pay for it with your grade. Now, maybe it’s just me, but I think that there’s a tremendous difference here.
Needless to say, I swiftly ended that argument.
But in doing so, managed to start another, because the when I phrasing this, I couldn’t help but add in that evolution is “scientifically baseless.” So even as I was delivering the metaphorical coup de grace to my opponent in one argument, another classmate spoke up: “Wait, wait! Did you just say that evolution is scientifically baseless? Then what about ‘Lucy’ and all that other crap?” Then the speaker continued to look proud of himself as I said “Lucy is crap,” in the nicest tones I could manage. Indeed, however; what about Lucy?
Try to remember that an asterisk (*) by a name indicates the person being a non-Creationist.
Lucy, one of the most recent of the Australopithecus finds, was unearthed by *Donald C. Johanson at Hadar, Ethiopia in 1975. He dated it at 3 million years B.P. [Before Present]. In 1979, *Johanson and *White claimed that Lucy came under an ape/man classification (Australopithecus afarensis). But even before that startling announcement, the situation did not look too good for Lucy. In 1976, *Johanson said that "Lucy has massive V-shaped jaws in contrast to man" (*National Geographic Magazine, 150:790-810). In 1981, he said that she was "embarrassingly un-Homo like" (Science 81, 2(2):53-55). Time magazine reported in 1977 that Lucy had a tiny skull, a head like an ape, a braincase size the same as that of a chimp—450 cc. and "was surprisingly short legged" (*Time, November 7, 1979, pp. 68-69).
*Dr. Yves Coppens, appearing on BBC-TV in 1982, stated that Lucy’s skull was like that of an ape.
In 1983, *Jeremy Cherfas said that Lucy’s ankle bone (talus) tilts backward like a gorilla, instead of forward as in human beings who need it so to walk upright, and concluded that the differences between her and human beings are "unmistakable" (*J. Cherfas, New Scientist, (97:172 [1982]).
*Susman and *Stern of New York University carefully examined Lucy and said her thumb was apelike, her toes long and curved for tree climbing, and "she probably nested in the trees and lived like other monkeys" (Bible Science Newsletter, 1982, p. 4).
Several scientists have decided that the bones of Lucy come from two different sources. Commenting on this, *Peter Andrews, of the British Museum of Natural History, said this:
"To complicate matters further, some researchers believe that the afarensis sample [Lucy] is really a mixture of two separate species. The most convincing evidence for this is based on characteristics of the knee and elbow joints."—*Peter Andrews, "The Descent of Man," in New Scientist, 102:24 (1984).
Regarding those knee joints, *Owen Lovejoy, *Richard Leakey’s highly qualified associate (an anatomist), declared at a 1979 lecture in the United States that a multivariate analysis of Lucy’s knee joints revealed her to be an ape
So whether Lucy’s bones belong to one creature or two, they are both apes.
*Johanson’s theory about Lucy is based on an assumption linking two fossils 1,000 miles [1,609 km] apart:
"Although the Lucy fossils were initially dated at three million years, *Johanson had announced them as 3.5 million because he said the species was ‘the same’ as a skull found by *Mary Leakey at Laetoli, Tanzania. By proposing *Mary Leakey’s find as the ‘type specimen’ for Australopithecus afarensis, he was identifying Lucy with another fossil 1,000 miles [1,609 km] from the Afar [in northern Ethiopia] and half a million years older! *Mary thought the two not at all the same and refused to have any part of linking her specimen with [*Johanson’s] afarensis . . She announced that she strongly resented Johanson’s ‘appropriating’ her find, her reputation and the older date to lend authority to Lucy. Thus began the bitter, persistent feud between Johanson and the Leakeys."—*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 285.
*Johanson, himself, finally decided that Lucy was only an ape.
"Johanson himself originally described the fossils as Homo, a species of man, but soon after changed his mind based on the assessment of his colleague, Tim White. They now describe the bones as too ape-like in the jaws, teeth and skull to be considered Homo, yet also sufficiently distinct from other, later australopithecines to warrant their own species."—*Ibid.
Mehlert sums it up.
"The evidence . . makes it overwhelmingly likely that Lucy was no more than a variety of pigmy chimpanzee, and walked the same way (awkwardly upright on occasions, but mostly quadrupedal). The ‘evidence’ for the alleged transformation from ape to man is extremely unconvincing."—A.W. Mehlert, news note, Creation Research Society Quarterly, December 1985, p. 145.
Why, the normal person might ask, would we be told that “Lucy” is an actual piece of evidence? Could it be that the schools are lying to us? That scientists are lying to us! I tell you, Esteemed Reader, to doubt it not, they are! So, boys and girls, when the school starts crowing its favorite ‘scientific’ theory, remember: don’t let them call you a monkey!
But if the evolutionists want to be monkeys, feel free to let them. And feel free to let me know what you think of this column, by emailing me at And check out both my site (mentioned at the top of the article), and, to which I credit the 'Lucy' information.

Wednesday, April 20, 2005

Love, Hate, and Yes, This IS on Science

Alright, Esteemed Reader, here it is again, the fresh column you’ve been waiting for four days for. Or, more likely, you still haven’t heard of Reason and Logic, but that’s acceptable, seeing as it is doubtlessly the least-read and spoken-of publication in our school.
Here’s a quick recap of the last column: evolution is a religion, so stop attacking mine. Mine relies on a basis of faith, which I’ve got; yours relies on a basis of facts, which you don’t have. So step off, Jack.
Now for the “new” material… I put “new” in quotations because of a heavy dose of sarcasm is to be inferred, as these facts have been sitting around for forever, but no one bothers to pick them up and perhaps use them.
Seeing as scientists have been studying evolution for such a time now, it amazes me how willfully stupid they can be. For example, they choose not to listen to the mathematicians using huge computers and such because they “aren’t biologists, and so… must not know much about evolution.” Yes, that’s a quote from a science teacher here in this school.
Now, maybe I’m just some opinioned columnist or something, but it strikes me that a mathematician doesn’t need to know the theory of evolution to calculate odds. Let’s say, the odds of a single cell randomly forming. This is an extremely complex process, might I add, and works somewhat like this: a cell is composed of proteins, each protein composed of amino acids, and all of this has to be put together in exactly the right order. Yes, Esteemed Reader, I said exactly. Compare this to putting ten pennies in a bag, numbered from one to ten. You want to pull Penny #1 out of the bag in one try. That’s odds of- you guessed it- one in ten. Now let’s say you want to pull Pennies #1 and #2 out of the bag, in order. That’s odds of one in a hundred. To pull all ten pennies from this bag is odds of one in 10,000,000,000; or one in 1x10^9. Now, laws of science would consider this possible, if not probable. Scientists consider anything with chances of one in 1x10^56 possible. Anything above that is merely too outrageous. For example, the random formation of a cell.
To show this, let’s take a cell made up of 216 proteins, with twenty amino acids per protein. This number of proteins is ridiculously small, in fact, no cell has been found with half so many, but just for giggles, I’m going to use this number to illustrate how laughable scientists can be. The chances of this cell forming itself randomly in order (which must be done) is one in 1x10^137,976. Folks, that’s a “1” followed by 137,976 zeroes. Alright, here’s a bonus question, I bet even the stupidest two year old can answer: is 137,976 bigger or smaller than 56? That’s right, Esteemed Readers, scientists consider something outrageously impossible to not only be possible, but probable, even fact. And let’s not forget that that demonstrative cell was ridiculously simple.
There are plenty of other examples of scientists appearing to be willfully stupid, as well. Like how evolution is assisting the cause of immorality, and no one seems to care. Since we all now that every article of Reason and Logic should be filled with quotes, here’s one from- SHOCK (and a half)- an evolutionist! This one concentrates primarily on the idea of sexual immorality, and let us not forget that a (*) by a name indicates his status as a non-Creationist.

"I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning; consequently assumed it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption . . The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics; he is also concerned to prove there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do . . For myself, as no doubt for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom."—*Aldous Huxley, "Confessions of a Professed Atheist," Report: Perspective on the News, Vol. 3, June, 1966, p. 19. [Grandson of evolutionist *Thomas Huxley and brother of evolutionist *Julian Huxley, *Aldous Huxley was one of the most influential writers and philosophers of the 20th century.]

Yes, that sounds like what I said: scientists and other evolutionists are using evolution to their own end, such as hiding from God. Another quote for you demonstrates this:

"Darwinism removed the whole idea of God as the creator of organisms from the sphere of rational discussion. Darwin pointed out that no supernatural designer was needed; since natural selection could account for any new form of life, there is no room for a supernatural agency in its evolution."—*Julian Huxley, "At Random, A Television Preview," in Evolution after Darwin (1960), p. 41.

Why would they wish to hide from our Creator? Because that would cause them to be responsible for their actions! Which would the common guy rather have: the freedom to do as he will with consequence, or the freedom to do what he will without? The funny thing is, there are consequences either way, but evolutions love to block that out. Quote three; and another example:

"[Man] stands alone in the universe, a unique product of a long, unconscious, impersonal, material process with unique understanding and potentialities. These he owes to no one but himself and it is to himself that he is responsible. He is not the creature of uncontrollable and undeterminable forces, but he is his own master. He can and must decide and make his own destiny."—*George G. Simpson, "The World into which Darwin Led Us," in Science, 131 (1980), p. 968.

The other ironic thing is that I’m a Christian, and at the risk of sounding like a “goody-goody,” I got to tell you using my life to serve God has been a blast, and every true Christian will tell you that very same thing, or a variation of it. And yet, how many drunkards, addicts, murderers, etc, etc; do we hear about regretting their actions? Ever hear a Christian mournfully and solemnly say something to the effect of “Gee, I wish I had thought before giving my life to Christ”? I’m willing to bet you haven’t, and if you have- well, then, find that person and slap them for me, for they never really did find Christ.
At the risk of sermonizing, I’ll continue on this point. What every person wants, deep down inside, is to be loved. Even atheistic psychologists will tell you that a human’s acceptance is the most basic part of any normal man’s (or woman’s, of course) life. When have you not wanted to fit in, be loved?
Now, I go to Christ and find one thing: love. I go to my Christian friends and find one thing: love. I go to my church (very good church, by the way), and find but one thing: love.
Then I look at evolution and Darwinism: it preaches messages of hatred. “Survival of the fittest;” which means only the most aggressive and savage, the most willing to push others out of the way for their selfishness are considered great. Let’s not forget a great promoter of this; whom we all fondly remember as a ruthless dictator name Adolf Hitler. Anyone but me know that evolution was the driving theme behind his policies (quotes like “stamping out those not of the Aryan race… to create a perfect human race” seem to lend credence to this)? Anyone other than me know that Hitler was an avid fan of Darwin, and heavily promoted the teaching of evolutionary theory in German schools?
So, in comparison: Christ can only be construed as Love and “turn the other cheek,” “love your neighbor” and your “enemy”; and Evolution can easily be interpreted as “kill the Jews,” and your mother if she’s got something you want.I’ve reached my word limit, which I’ve imposed on myself, so I’ll leave you be. More coming, and remember: is you want to comment, just write to me at

Friday, April 15, 2005

Stay on Target...Stay on Target

This being the first of hopefully many columns of the newly invented series Reason and Logic, allow me to point out that despite this might be called an “opinionated editorial,” a reader will find much of this work supplemented by indisputable fact, and the reader is actually encouraged to check my facts against whatever fair source you might find. In fact, I’m so confident of these facts of mine that I’m quite willing to give the reader my email address so as to inform me of these dastardly errors: Have fun. I would love for readers to be checking things like this out for themselves, in opposition to just taking my word for it, as so many have decided to just take our school’s word for it.
Which, in a round-and-about way to segue into what this column actually exists for: to dispute the formerly “indisputable fact” of the theory of evolution. Now, I’m not so arrogant to say it’s been debunked completely- since it’s (as evolutionists will be sure to remind you) a theory and therefore cannot be disproved- but the amazing amount of evidence amassed against it would lead one to believe that it shouldn’t be taught in a public school. After all, Christianity can’t be disproved and it’s not allowed…
Doubtlessly, some are thinking that of course Christianity shouldn’t be taught, because it’s- all right, you left-wingers, let’s have some audience participation here- *GASP* a RELIGION! And yet, what is evolution? Since no one’s proven it yet- that is irrevocable, even evolutionists will tell you it won’t be proven, just like they’ll say it won’t be debunked- you must have some degree of faith to believe in it, correct? Oh, and let’s not forget the rather obvious fact it doesn’t even fit the scientific method for being a theory (hypothesis, observation, experimentation, repeated results), it’s not really science, then, is it? So… then exactly what is it? Alright, for two credit points for those in the back of the class: what would one call something that uses a belief system to exist, explains man’s origin and the afterlife (or the lack of one), and is followed blindly by millions, without any evidence whatsoever?
Yes, that’s right, Esteemed Reader, we’re talking about a religion. The 1971 edition of On the Origin of Species, by Darwin, contained an introduction which puts it succinctly:

"The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory - is it then a science or a faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation - both are concepts which believers know to be true but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof." - Introduction to The Origin of Species (London: J.M. Dent & Sons, Ltd., 1971)

So, with all the shouting over a non-existent “separation of church and state” issue, it strikes me as a little ironic that a religion has not only snuck by the same people who complain about it (cough, cough, liberals, cough…), but apparently by America as a whole. Why is no dispute brought up over such a flagrant opposition to what we true Americans should believe?
Because, ladies and gentlemen, it is introduced as fact, and repeated as such until none would contend with it. Another quote, by Robert Jastrow, a very popular evolutionist, states the same thing, saying that “…The fact of evolution has been repeated so many times that…at the risk of one’s career, none will not [dissent in opinion] with it.”
Since I love quotes so much, how about this one- by yet another evolutionist! You’d think they’d give up the fight with so many of them providing Creationists with material- to rehash something I said earlier- and, again, by an evolutionist, no less!

"The theory of evolution suffers from grave defects, which are more and more apparent as time advances. It can no longer square with practical scientific knowledge."—*Albert Fleischmann, Zoologist.

Why are there still discussions about evolution, when we’ve got promoters of the Great Lie saying things such as this?

Now, I’ll end the introduction. The title of this column is such for a reason, believe it or not, and not to remind me to stay on the target.
It amazes me how often, when discussing with evolutionists as to the credibility of evolution they will turn their argument in a direction that will attack Creation. Inevitably, it has happened- and will likely to continue to happen- in every single discussion I’ve been part of. I will be in the midst of slaughtering a previously believed evolutionary “proof” and they will break out and say- yeah, I get interrupted a lot, too- something to the effect of “So how would you prove Creation then.”
Usually, I’ll take a couple seconds to process what they said, for my mind can only sort out so much ignorance at once, you know. Eventually I’ll wrap my mind around the sheer incongruity of their question and in turn, ask them if we were even talking about Creation.
Now, for those of you who are of a different religion or have lived in a bomb shelter for all of your life but the past fifteen minutes, allow me to explain what I believe Creation is. Creation is- you might want to sit down, I’ve got a shocker coming- the creation of the world. Specifically, by God (the God shared by Abraham and the Christians), Who spoke the universe into existence. Except for humans, of course, He came down and personally shaped us and breathed life into us. Creation is antithetical to the evolutionist’s god of random chance, in other words. This was purposeful, and by a much higher Power.
For some reason, the answer of their question with “Why would you bring that up?” seems to allow evolutionists to think they’ve scored a metaphorical ‘point’ in the debate, even that they’ve won. They will almost always reply with a supercilious, sarcastic reply, thought some have not the wit for sarcasm.
I have always been relatively confused by this exchange, in reality. Why would anyone argue about Creation? That makes no sense. Think about it: if you could prove a whole religion, no one would have any choice but to believe in it. That’s somewhat far from what God intended. God didn’t give us free will for no reason. He’s made sure that we go to Him as a choice, not because of irrevocable scientific proof. It’s a matter of heart, not logic.
There’s absolutely no point in arguing religion, you’ll never get anywhere. It relies on only faith.
Evolution, on the other hand, is completely debatable. It relies on evidence and fact to exist, so when it has none… it’s over. As yet, no real evidence has been found, and so I love to debate aggressively… my opening line in almost all debates has been “All right, then: give me some hard evidence.” Sometimes, my opponent knows what he’s talking about, more often he doesn’t. And he’ll always attack my religion. When I argue with those people who can’t seem to back off my religion in the middle of a scientific debate, I feel like that actor on the very first Star Wars film constantly repeating the mantra, “Stay on target…come on, stay on target…”
My target is this: Evolutionists should either (a) finally find at least a little evidence to support their erroneous theory; or (b) admit that they were wrong and give it up; or, preferably (c), give up their evil theory and convert to Christianity, and maybe they’ll enjoy life. More stuff coming, Esteemed Reader, bear with me.

~ K. T. Stone