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 ca1ne@hotmail.com.
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 ca1ne@hotmail.com.
posted by ~ K. T. Stone at 8:01 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home