Post link: www.gaydna.tk
Yesterday, on Coast to Coast AM, “Ian Punnett was joined by psychology professor Douglas Kenrick for a discussion on how the primitive, animalistic underside of human nature, with its sexual fantasies and homicidal tendencies, has actually given rise to the most positive features of our race.” I listened to this show and found it interesting that this professor said that those who were exclusively homosexual were “a puzzle” to evolutionists, because it didn’t help to spread their genes. He made a one or two other nonsensical statements like this, which evolutionists often repeat, which is that “genes want to spread” / “copy themselves”. They do this so often without explaining further what they mean, that such insane-talk can be taken literally. Evolutionists literally believe that animals “desire to spread their genes”, as if that that is what they are thinking when they are “in heat” or trying to mate, and are literally “looking for a mate with good genes” or “the best genes”. It’s absolutely stupid to say such things. Animals obviously are not intelligent to think such things, and how much less would genes have thoughts and desires? And back to the homosexuality “puzzle” which he seemed to imply must have some usefulness; says who? Why would it have usefulness in evolution? Why can’t something be a non-useful trait in evolution? Douglas said himself that exclusive homosexuality is an irrational choice, and yet he insisted that it must have some usefulness that couldn’t be seen (a clear contradiction). Is he biased? Is he double-minded because he is pandering to the homosexuals “community” and the liberals that determine his pay or whether he gets paid or not? Why doesn’t he just say, “It’s an aberration that repeatedly gets eliminated like evolution, like a harmful genetic mutation”. He also said that, “It’s not like homosexuality is a choice”, which was evidence of his bias. Who says it’s not a choice and where is the evidence? There are homosexuals who have said that it is a choice. There are also former homosexuals. Sexual attraction is also something that develops over time; people’s tastes change. And who would argue that babies are born being sexually attracted to anything? Are babies also born in the act of theft? This claim that babies can be born gay and is why they are gay or bisexual seems to be tied in to the illogical belief and excuse that God made sinners. For example, it’s common for ignorant and confused people to blame God for themselves being corrupt, asking, “Why did God make people sinful?” or “Why did God make me gay?” That’s as nonsensical as asking, “Why did God ecreat me in the act of stealing a car?”; no one is created in the act of stealing, lying, murdering, having sexual thoughts or committing adultery, married to anyone, or born a “Jew” (“Jew” and “Jewish” are racial words which are often incorrectly used in place of “Judaism”) or Christian. And a side note: The “Free Will” Christians who often make these claims of God making them the way they are (in the act of doing something including lusting to do certain evil things) are contradicting their claim that they have a completely free will which God isn’t allowed to and doesn’t “mess with”.
Also, does evolution also have desires and want to perpetuate itself? Yet so called “scientists” like Professor Douglas and others who believe in evolution, especially evolution-scientists, keep making the clear logical fallacy of giving emotions to dna and genes, and another fallacy, which is giving animals (and they consider humans to also be animals) false motives. It’s also bizarre that they give animals and their “genes” and dna the same motives, as if the dna and genes that exist in the animal they are in have separate minds of their own and are not apart of one being (creature). Even if they are speaking figuratively, it is a bad form of teaching to repeatedly do this (as bad as the nonsensical cliches “science tells us” and “science says”) and not explain what you mean, and to keep doing that leads to the ones you saying it to, believing such fallacies and to their own hurt, leading them to Hell because of believing such stupid and illogical things. It may be that certain evolution-scientists used this stupid talk to make it easier for kids and “stupid people” to understand, and got into the bad habit of repeatedly explaining things this way, and/or that certain ones with bad intent, noticed that by saying “dna is programmed to replicate”, which some evolutionists will admit, gives the correct implication that it was intelligently programmed (because mindless things like evolution and so called “nature” do not program things, and obviously dna didn’t create or program itself), and in their hatred of God and the Bible, didn’t and don’t want anyone to know or believe the truth, which is that we were created by God and that the laws of universe, including our biology, were made by him.
Massive Nemesis of Stupidity in Nonexistant Oort Cloud Threatens to Destroy Earth’s Science Even Further
Massive Nemesis of Stupidity in Nonexistant Oort Cloud Threatens to Destroy Earth’s Science Even Further:
Massive dark object ‘lurking on edge of solar system hurling comets at Earth’
By Daily Mail Reporter
Last updated at 12:28 PM on 10th December 2010
Comments (190) Add to My Stories
A massive dark object may be lurking on the edge of our solar system, according to scientists. [What 'scientists'? Not all scientists despite the implication of this immoral weasel.]
Most comets that fly into the inner solar system seem to come from the outer region of the Oort cloud [seem to who you weasel? So you speak for everyone? Arrogant.]- a region of icy dust and debris left over from the birth of the solar system [it's an evolutionist theory, not a known real region as you imply].
The cloud starts from a point about 93 billion miles from the Sun and stretches for around three light years and contains billions of comets, most of them small and hidden [so goes the theory, liar. And if most of them are small and hidden, how do you know this cloud exists, or your "scientists" friends? Contradict yourself much Mr. Evolutionist Pretending to Be a Scholarly Scientists and Journalist?].
A Nasa graphic which illustrates how the Oort Cloud surrounds our solar system. [really? It's from NASA, that company packed full of creationist scientists? No.] Scientists believe [what scientists you weasel? All scientists? No.] that an object with a huge mass may be pushing comets towards Earth from the cloud[.][And? We should believe with these so far unknown scientists, because? Well because you're talking pretentiously, like you're king of the world, and mentioned scientists all believing so and so, and you mentioned NASA, the great center of scientific mastery, which is why it still uses rocket technology from the 60's.]
Now new calculations suggest a large object that is up to four times as big as Jupiter could be responsible for sending them in our direction. [Cool: "Now new calculations". I'm scared. I've now abandoned Christianity and recalculated my life to be atheist and believe in evolution and read dailymail all day long. I'm really productive now!]
The scientists [what scientists? 'Just have faith' right?] have analysed the comets in the Oort cloud [you can't analyse something that hasn't been found] and deduced that 25 per-cent of them would need a nudge by a body of at least Jupiter size before they changed orbit. [You still haven't explained why these scientists believe in this flying elephant planet.]
Astrophysicists John Matese and Daniel Whitmire at the University of Louisiana came up with theory said that ‘something smaller than a Jovian mass would not be strong enough to perform the task’. [You still haven't explained why these scientists believe in this flying elephant planet.]
They believe that our solar system has a hidden ‘companion’ that has so far remained undetected. [You still haven't explained why these scientists believe in this flying elephant planet, or why I should trust in these people. Oh I know: because you called them astrophysicists. They must be trustworthy..]
The scientists [the what? Repeat that 100 times in a row to brainwash me more.] have been studying the cloud using WISE, Nasa’s infra-red space telescope that is capable of detecting dark objects. [And what did they find?]
Matese said: ‘I think this whole issue will be resolved in the next five to 10 years, [Oh, they found nothing, and yet you speak of them as having found something. You wasted my time and the time of thousands of others.] because there’s surveys coming on line that will dwarf the comet sample we have today. [Because you said so.]
‘Whether these types of asymmetries in the directions that comets are coming from actually do exist or not will definitely be hammered out by those surveys,’ Matese added. [Wait: you mean you don't know? But this article was about you and other "scientists" knowing.] ‘We anticipate that WISE is going to falsify or verify our conjecture.’ [Wait again: I thought you were already sure and full of evidence for this imaginary cloud. And uh, so why was this invisible planet of faith brought up again? Oh: sensationalism, draw in people to read your article. Liars won't win in end, nor thieves. ]
About 3,200 long-period comets are known, one of the most famous being Hale-Bopp which was visible to even the naked eye during 1996 and 1997. [But where's the cloud?]
Halley’s Comet, which reappears about every 75 years, is a ‘short-period’ comet from a different part of the Solar System called the Kuiper Belt.
[...]These occasional comet showers could be why the mass extinctions on Earth are so regular, some scientists believe. [What... is this an allusion to evolution... in an astrophysics article...? No: evolutionists never use propaganda in other fields of science, they never associate things like the Big Bang with evolution and then repeatedly mock Christians by asking them why they "always talking about the Big Bang and evolution as if they have something to do with each other,"... nah: they never do that...]
The research appeared in the online edition of the journal Icarus. [Sounds sciency and cool: must be trustworthy.]
‘Most planetary scientists would not be surprised if the largest undiscovered companion was Neptune-sized or smaller, but a Jupiter-mass object would be a surprise,’ Matese told SPACE.com [And how does this person know that it's "most scientists" who would not be surprised at this? Did he take a poll? Is there a survey on this somewhere? ]
‘If the conjecture is indeed true, the important implications would relate to how it got there — touching on the early solar environment — and how it might have affected the subsequent distributions of comets and, to a lesser extent, the known planets.’ ["early solar system environment": How early? Are you trying to bring us back to the Big Bang? Weasel.] – Source
It occurred to me after having finished this post, and then adding the tags for it, that as I typed planet x as part of the keywords, repeatedly, realized this dailymail article and the “scientists” it quotes were trying to cash in on the Planet X scam, something which is discussed on certain radio shows and websites repeatedly, to get more visitors and more money from advertisers.
“Most of them small and hidden” indeed, just like the good deeds of these “scientists”. They are all liars, just as God said.