Wednesday, September 15, 2004

Sorry Javaan. I realize I've been doing a lame job with blogging. But that's what you've come to expect, is it not? For you readers, you've gotta understand that I never come through for Javann. I never really noticed that till yesterday when - after informing him that I wasn't going to make it to a party he invited me to - he would simply add it to his list of Jon Disappointments. It was then that it kinda hit me: dude, the ratio of me actually going through with what I say when it comes to Javann is way off balance; the favor of which tips to the negatories. We're talking, not's to do's, here. My bad.

To make an attempt to recover my flow of deep thoughtage here, I've typed up this brief rant about how the theory of evolution is extremely stupid and it is as follows.

So. This theory is obviously the theory that things came to be, step by step, over a long, long, long timetable. It's not likely, but whatever. Of course, I'll tell you why it's not likely, and I won't be going into things on a cellular level too much, but I'm just saying, evolution and whatever it's got backing it is really pretty crap when you actually look at it.

Now, before we get started, let me say that I know all about Stanley Miller's experiment from 1953 where he formed some evidence on how life could have formed in the past. I know about this and it means nothing. Interesting perhaps, but it means nothing. This theory rests on the hope that the earth, when this life forming was going on, was free of oxygen. "Oxygen is highly reactive… If there was much free oxygen in an atmosphere when the amino acids were assembling, it would quickly combine with and dismantle the organic molecules as they formed" says 'Is There a Creator who Cars About You?’ which was published the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. I suggest you get a hold of this and read pages 36 and 37. That particular bit correlates pretty much right on with our topic here.

In the experiment, we see that our pal Miller has a gas mixture for the atmosphere, an electric spark for the lightning, and we've got boiling water for the sea. These things did, in fact, create some sort of living things. Nothing major, but some sort of living thing. This has probably been done again, with other elements playing the parts of the environment of the earth. Here's my question: what do the scientists performing the experiments represent?

It's said that these things formed step by step over huge amounts of time. The biggest problem with that claim is that it is impossible. You can take the fossil record and toss it out the window when you look at things from a cellular level. There are many diseases that are all about cellular malformation, or simply not having a certain kind of cell. If one of the cells that clot your blood were to stop working, you'd eventually bleed to death if you cut your finger. Either that or your entire blood stream would clot, and you would die there too. That's only two small examples of the bad stuff that happens to you when you've got certain cells out of whack. So let's put two and two together: if cells formed one by one, over thousands or millions of years, life forms wouldn't have time to form! You would have dead things everywhere. Nothing else.

I really believe that evolution has become nothing more than a shortcut for scientists that has backfired. They wanted to take the easy way out by saying that everything just kinda got here and now they're faced with tons more questions that they simply can't answer, only theorize on. Lucky for them, the masses are stupid and believe whatever they read/see/are told to believe. They've used the word 'lucky' way, way too many times with evolution. Luck is a metaphysical speculation; the purpose behind science is to prove things to us about ourselves. As far as Darwinism and Neo-Darwinism go, this hasn't happened.

Well, I'm sure those of you who actually read that are glad it's over. I'm off to drink some chocolate milk.

No comments: