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, http://www.reasonandlogic.blogspot.com/), 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, http://www.evolution-facts.org/, 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 ca1ne@hotmail.com.
~ K. T. Stone
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, http://www.reasonandlogic.blogspot.com/), 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, http://www.evolution-facts.org/, 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 ca1ne@hotmail.com.
~ K. T. Stone
posted by ~ K. T. Stone at 3:34 PM
1 Comments:
Sorry Shaggy.
There are actually two distinct theories of evolution: Macro-evolution and Micro-evolution. Micro-evolution (evolution on a small scale which creates minor changes of genetic structure within a species) is demonstrable. Dog breeding is evidence of that. But, no matter how hard we try, we cannot breed a dog into a cat, as much genetic tinkering as can be done, they are still dogs.
Macro-evolution...the gradual genetic mutation of one species into an entirely different species...is not supported by any evidence whatsoever. Scientists see similarities between species and decide it is PLAUSIBLE that one may have mutated from another, but, to date, no difinitive evidence of such mutations has been discovered.
Macro-evolution is a theory...and a poorly supported one at that.
Post a Comment
<< Home