CHOICE SCRAPS FROM UNPUBLISHED POSTS PART II

CONFUCIUS - ANALECTS

"It espouses an approach that I would consider soft (don't just focus on money, etc)."


SWIFT - A MODEST PROPOSAL

"I had a hard time with the thought of suggesting that the children of the poor be used as a source of food and clothing and just couldn't finish it."


PUSHKIN - EUGENE ONEGIN

"rhymed verse detracts from enjoyment of the novel."


DARWIN - ON THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES

"still even today this books contradicts itself and it doesn't answer the most simple question,if we humanscare descending from monkeys,why and when did we became conscius ?!"

"This is just crud cause do you really believe that we came from monkeys I mean seriously. What comes after monkeys? MONKEYS! And what come after humans? HUMANS!! I'm a Christian and I believe what is true. I'm not trying to force religion on you (by the way Christianity isn't a religion it's a relationship with our one, true, living Creator) but how can you believe that we came from monkeys? Sure our skeletons look alike but that doesn't mean that we came from them! And how can Darwin ever be a Christian if he said we came from monkeys? How can monkey 'all of a suddenly' turned into humans? This is just pure crud."


SHAKESPEARE - THE TEMPEST

"The Tempest is an outdated attempt of a sci-fi story. Yes it may have been a basis for many other authors and even present day movies, but his stories are so inapplicable and painful to read that I think they should just be destroyed. Hypothetically speaking, if Adolf Hitler was alive today and were to burn all of William Shakespeare’s texts, I feel as if the modern college and high school students would praise him just for this noble act. The only version of Shakespeare I will ever spend another minute on is if film producers have taken his story and somehow made it into a bad ass movie with a similar plot line."


DE BEAUVOIR - THE SECOND SEX

"feminism has certain core beliefs that are simply crazy -- yet women listen to the philosophy anyway."


JOYCE - DUBLINERS

"the fact is just plain and simply that Irish politics and what Ireland was going through in the early 2oth century just is not important"

"Nearly all the stories are boring. Our modern sensibilities have us yelling mentally at them, or rolling our eyes."


LAO TZU - TAO TE CHING

"Not very impressed. Philosophic fumblings about a mysterious power. Makes me so grateful to have the restored gospel of Jesus Christ."


ARISTOPHANES - THE BIRDS

"this title makes you think that its a field guide to birds but if you arent familiar with the aristophanes it is just nonsense"


JUNG - THE ARCHETYPES AND THE COLLECTIVE UNCONSCIOUS

"i think we die millions of times like we dnt wake up the same the next day evan in a moment we die an r reborn how far into non exitence is yesterday its gone like it was never ther just the ties of repocution jus the memories of our consiousness its hard 2 explain sumthing i dnt understand evan in my head and 2 express acuratly but think about time patterns and blind spots the answers right ther but im not evan sure wat the question is"

"Jung and Freud were listened to only because they managed to convince people they knew what they were talking about. Their era was so filled with ignorance and illiteracy that everyone believe them, even though most to the time they were incorrect."

"Jung was an idiot who had little understanding of the life force."


DICKENS - A TALE OF TWO CITIES

"I read A Tale of Two Cities my freshman year of high school and it drove me crazy. That following summer, I went to London on a trip and toured Westminster Abbey. Most of the tour I avoided the graves as much as possible, but once I arrived at The Poet's Corner, I spotted Dickens' grave and, well...I was jumping up and down on the grave in a post-AToTC fury. The guide was appalled until my mother explained that I had read that particular novel for class only a month prior."


MELVILLE - BILLY BUDD, SAILOR

"Melville seemed to wonder off topic a lot, writing about stuff I really didn't care about."


DANTE - THE DIVINE COMEDY

"In the dark ages it seems the whole focus was on the negative."


ORWELL - ANIMAL FARM

"Well, I really did like how the book related to World War 2, I'm a HUGE history geek when it comes to World War 2"

"Very great way to exemplify Hitler's rule"

"ANIMALS RUN A FARM 15/10 LIVES UP TO THE NAME."


TOLSTOY - ANNA KARENINA

"Six words- That Anna is one jacked-up whack-o!"

"It took every ounce of effort to get through this never-ending novel. It's difficult for me to admit that I didn't find this book captivating. After all-I'm an English major!"


GENERAL ENGLISH MAJOR BULLSHIT

"I’m definitely aware of postmodernist tenants regarding having no universal truths and the subjectivity of individual existence…"

"I'll admit it: I don't read a lot of classics. I know, 'a real reader reads the classics' and all that but I have so many books to read that it just doesn't seem like I have time for a bunch of old books."

"Using Elvis Presley and christmas songs as an example, He still makes alot of money and we never hear new christmas songs, just remakes of the old classics, because they were first. Books are the same way. Certain books remain classics because they were first and people refuse to let go and move on and create newer books, songs, and artists to replace the original."

ON THE VICTORIAN NOVEL:

"Slightly different take, from someone with 2 degrees in English.

Yes, they do suck. . .

By OUR standards. They're over-long, end with deus ex machina too much of the time, depend on astonishing coincidence and 180-degree reversal, and all sorts of other stuff we would dismiss in our entertainment today.

But they're not writing for our market. They're writing for theirs, and understanding that is what makes them interesting to study.

200 years from now, Stephen King, Thomas Harris, Jane Green, Maeve Binchy, yes even JK Rowling, will seem boring/hideous/old/dusty to everyone too. That's just how it goes."

Darwin - On the Origin of Species II

"Darwin had a great imagination, but with no scientific evidence to support it, its just a fable. I can't believe people are so gullible as to believe the things written in here. I'm judging it as a work of fiction."

DIDN'T READ THE BOOK HUH


"Yes, I just marked it as read so I could put it on my 'needs-to-be-burned' shelf."

DIDN'T READ THE BOOK HUH


"I love putting this book under 'fiction.'"

DIDN'T READ THE BOOK HUH


"The true title that Darwin gave this thesis is: 'On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.' Amazon.com makes no mention of this. Darwin believed that the peoples of Africa were inferior."

DIDN'T READ THE BOOK HUH


"this book has contributed to the worst atrocities of the twentieth century, from the Jewish holocaust to the evils of Josef Stalin. The concept of 'survival of the fittest' and the idea that all existence is a mere accident, has also spawned many deranged and oddball fantasy/philosophies ... But now, with the complexity and beauty of even the simplest life forms, (one bacterium contains enough DNA information to fill a public library)the scientific validity of this book can be safely called into question. Darwinian ideals have badly shaken our civilization, directly or indirectly resulting in two world wars and the slaughter of millions. this book, although important, should be nonetheless relegated to the back shelves to gather dust, as should the beliefs and suppositions it contains."

DIDN'T READ THE BOOK HUH


"Here is an interesting experiment: Empty your garage of every piece of metal, wood, paint, rubber, and plastic. Make sure there is nothing there. Nothing. Then wait for ten years and see if a Mercedes evolves. If it doesn't appear, leave it for 20 years. If that doesn't work, try it for 100 years. Then try leaving it for 10,000 years."

DIDN'T READ THE BOOK HUH


"Darwin says that if we find out that the cell is not simple, then his whole theory is destroyed."

DIDN'T READ THE BOOK HUH


"I find it interesting because he doesn't actually support macro-evolution, like an amoeba becoming a fish which becomes a frog. But rather in micro-evolution, like a fish growing an extra fin which helps it swim faster to escape predators."

DIDN'T READ THE BOOK HUH


"In order to prove the theory proposed, he requires future findings of fossils that, to this day, haven't been found yet. 1/5 Stars for Charlie."

DIDN'T READ THE BOOK HUH


"It's like 1/10 theory and 9/10 observational evidence for the theory. Since I buy it, I don't need all that evidence."

IDIOT HUH


"The animals are de - evolving. Less DNA being accessed due to different threats and food sources for each animal group. Animals are changing because they are outside of the collective. Not from live that we can see with the naked eye, other animals why some are not afraid of other animals, but from microscopic organisms; bacteria and viruses (lack of exposure) on islands. Darwin was not aware of these. Survival of the sickest ( in isolation). Traits (mutations) 'tells' who is healthiest in the isolate group to be the 'healthiest' strongest against the next mutation insects in the environment. Life structures we can'tsee influences the design of the shape of the life we do see."

HARD NIGHT ON THE P HUH

Darwin - On the Origin of Species

"Many people don't realize that there are many flaws with the theory of evolution."


"P.152: 'We are profoundly ignorant of the causes producing slight and unimportant variations'.

He doesn't say who the 'We' refers to."


"P.105: 'I believe that the nearly wingless condition of several birds, which now inhabit or have lately inhabited several oceanic islands, tenanted by no beast of prey, has been caused by disuse.'

The kiwi of New Zealand is a flightless bird that thrived until Westerners imported rats to the island. Beasts of prey existed in New Zealand before the rat arrived. So it would seem that he is wrong in his belief."

YES, ALL WE HAVE TO DO IS MAKE UP LIES ABOUT BIOLOGICAL CONDITIONS IN NEW ZEALAND AND DARWIN'S HOUSE OF CARDS COMES TUMBLING DOWN

"On page 62 he claimed that 'the vigorous, the healthy and the happy survive and multiply'. Therefore, is he stating that the European plants and animals are happier, healthier and more vigorous than the NZ species? H.G. Wells in Mr. Blettsworthy on Rampole Island, makes the following point: 'The struggle for life can terminate in the triumph of types unfit to live, types merely successfully most noxious. In nature a relative survival of the rotten and dying is possible.' So, as the kiwi bird is exterminated by the rat, this presumably the sort of evolution that Darwin has in mind in his Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection."

THAT'S PRECISELY WHAT HE'S THINKING OF, WHICH IS WHY HE SPENDS PAGES AND PAGES TALKING ABOUT THIS SPECIFIC EXAMPLE, BECAUSE SOMETIMES THINGS THAT ARE UNPLEASANT ARE ALSO TRUE

"P.157: 'Natural selection in each well-stocked country must act chiefly through the competition of the inhabitants one with another, and consequently will produce perfection, or strength in the battle for life, only according to the standard of that country. Hence the inhabitants of one country, generally the smaller one, will often yield, as we see they do yield, to the inhabitants of another and generally larger country.'

Is he saying that perfection equals strength, or that either perfection or strength will be produced? If he is saying that strength and perfection are the same thing then this is Marxist ideology. As for the inhabitants of smaller countries yielding to those of larger ones, perhaps this is what provided some inspiration to the Nazi lebensraum program."


"It takes more faith to believe in natural selection and evolution as the origin of species than creation. A single living cell is more complex than a space shuttle , and we are naive enough to presume that random mutation lead to utter complexity& diversity. This planet is at a fixed distance from the sun, sun , moon and planets revolving at fixed speed, fixed orbits, at a fixed distance, just enough to maintain life on earth. And we still teach evolution to our kids when secant explain where are all the unevolved,partially evolved species disappear. We must have scientific and humble minds to question every thing we we're taught in high school, rather than eat everything our 'superiors' have to offer. Random chance,...........hmmmmm"


"Just a couple of things to say about this one:

1. I'm not a scientist but I know enough about science to know that this book was, admittedly (as in, the author admitted to) 70-80% speculation. That is NOT science."


"Did you know…
1. Spontaneous generation was finally disproved in multiple ways, and this book was published in the same year that Louis Pasteur performed his famous S-shaped flask experiment, demonstrating that life cannot pop out of nowhere." NOPE PASTEUR'S EXPERIMENT WAS 1864, DARWIN WAS 1859 "3. The complexity of DNA points to a Creator, not a big explosion and a random accident.

…now you know. Darwin didn't."


"Regarding the phrase 'preservation of the favoured races,' who or what is doing the favouring? Natural selection? Can a natural selection process favour anything? Really...how does it pick what to favour? By a process! What process? Natural selection of course. It's a circus wheel!"


"people of the socalled hard sciences(up until the 19!80's when physicists also started to make their science softer because of the problems they ran into), looked down on Darwinism as a soft science employing a magical struggle for existence and intuitive terms like that."


"First of all, let's quote Darwin himself from this book, page 75: 'To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.' There you have it, from Darwin himself, from his famous book."

...WHICH THEN GOES ON TO GIVE A COMPLETE HYPOTHESIS FOR HOW THE EYE IS DEVELOPED BY NATURAL SELECTION, USING THE EYES OF CRUSTACEANS AND IN PARTICULAR THE EYE OF THE CIRRIPEDE AS A CASE STUDY


"IF true we have NO hope and no future
evolution and creation CANNOT both be right!"


"'can we doubt (remembering that many more individuals are born than can possibly survive) that individuals having any advantage, however slight, over others, would have the best chance of surviving and of procreating their kind? On the other hand, we may feel sure that any variation in the least degree injurious would be rigidly destroyed. This preservation of favourable variations and the rejection of injurious variations, I call Natural Selection.'

The fact is that *all* individuals do not survive, all individuals die. Such exactness is important in science and Darwin fails this scientific standard. This seemingly insignificant error in the fundament of the theory gives a cascade of errors later on. It is really quite different to say that the chance of reproduction determines which organisms are left in the world, then to say a struggle for survival/existence determines it."

IF ONLY DARWIN HAD KNOWN THAT EVERYBODY EVENTUALLY DIES, MAYBE HE WOULD HAVE SEEN THE FOLLY OF HALUGHLAHG WAVING MY DICK IN YOUR DROOLING FACE

OKAY THAT'S ENOUGH FOR TODAY. LET'S BE STRAIGHT UP ON THIS, I AM NOT SOME KIND OF FOURTEEN-YEAR-OLD MILITANT ATHEIST -- THE BLOG WILL COVER THE BIBLE THIS MONTH AND THE KORAN AT SOME POINT THIS YEAR -- I JUST LIKE IT WHEN PEOPLE READ BOOKS INSTEAD OF FLAPPING THEIR FAT BIGOTED IGNORANCE ALL UP IN MY FAT BIGOTED SUPERIORITY COMPLEX

I MEAN HOW DARE THEY SELECTIVELY QUOTE AND CHERRY-PICK FROM A TEXT TO MAKE DARWIN LOOK DUMBER THAN HE IS

OUTRAGEOUS