Evolutionist Fantasies – Logical Fallacies Made by Evolutionists

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 no one can tell if such crazy-talk is literal or not. 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.

The Enotes Evolution Hoax: Is Micro Raptor a Transitional Fossil? NO.

A picture of a Micro raptor gui fossil, by Marjorie Lipan

 

From http://www.enotes.com/topic/Archaeoraptor:

paleontologist Christopher Brochu concluded in November 2001: “That birds are derived theropod dinosaurs is no longer the subject of scholarly dispute.”[29] Though playing the role of “terrestrial dinosaur” in the “Archaeoraptor” affair, Microraptor, showing wings and clear traces of rectrices, is generally assumed to have had at least a gliding capacity and is itself an excellent example of a transitional fossil.

And the word of Christopher Brochu is oh so important, because? And notice how the author or authors weaseled in after Christopher’s comment another, in such a way that it could be easily confused for his own statement? And notice the narcissistic pretentious comment, “is generally assumed”? Is generally assumed by who, oh pompous writer? And who said it’s an excellent example of a transitional fossil? And hello: how many transitional fossils exist out of trillions that are supposed to be in the ground in what was generally assumed and still is by evolutionists, to be a nice neat stratum of small to big and big to small? Just enough for one or two pages, tabled, to make it look more impressive and long, as was done on Wikipedia. But that doesn’t raise a red flag for evolutionists? Or does it, but they continue their lie. There should be just as many transitional fossils as ones which aren’t. Further, what is the evidence that micro-raptor is a transitional fossil? Oh, it’s that it has “rectrices” (a rectrice is a type of feather). But the idiot author or authors don’t other to mention that the rectrices ARE FULLY FUNCTIONAL, not TRANSITIONING. And since when is assuming anything scientific? Disgusting and stupid babble and lying is what this is. As for Christopher magically being the representative of all paleontologists, he isn’t, there is no universally elected speaker for paleontology or science, and further, truth is not determined by consensus as these evolutionists on enotes and Wikipedia and everywhere else want you to think, and many of them are bent on mind control to get the consensus they want.

From http://creationwiki.org/Archaeoraptor:

Creationists and evolutionists both agree that there are some problems with dinosaur to bird transitions. Alan Feduccia stated that there are significant differences between the embryonic thumb structure and also how the lungs are shaped. He also states that “dinosaurs have exactly the wrong anatomy for developing flight, with their large tails and hind limbs and short forelimbs”[5]

And who is Mr. Feduccia? He’s only the

S. K. Heninger Professor at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. He is an evolutionary biologist interested in vertebrate evolution, especially the origin of birds from reptiles, the origin of avian flight, and Tertiary adaptive radiation. Feduccia took his B.S. in Zoology from L.S.U., and Masters and Ph.D. from the University of Michigan. He lectured at Michigan and then taught at S.M.U. for two years before joining the University of North Carolina faculty in 1971. Feduccia’s research has taken him on numerous expeditions to Central and South America and Africa. He is the author of more than 125 scientific publications dealing primarily with the evolution of birds and other vertebrates, embryology, comparative morphology, and evolutionary systematics. His publications include some ten books (including editions & translations), and five monographs, including the internationally acclaimed and award-winning, The Age of Birds, Harvard University Press (1980), which appeared in Japanese, German and paperback editions. Reviewer comments included: “a revelation of clarity and synthesis…Feduccia–himself a leading anatomist–has brought together startling new evidence on the reptilian-avian relationship… science writing at its best,” and in 1993 the book was termed “definitive” by the New York Times.

according to http://www.bio.unc.edu/faculty/feduccia/references.htm

And from http://www.unc.edu/depts/uncspeak/feduccia.html:

Perhaps no area of evolutionary study has been more controversial than the origin of birds. While most paleontologists have advocated a dinosaurian origin, Alan Feduccia, professor and chair of the Biology Department in the College of Arts and Sciences, challenges that view. His recent fossil finds in China indicate that there was an evolution of birds before the arrival of the toothy, reptile- like Archaeopteryx, which was popularly thought to be the dinosaurian ancestor of all birds. Feduccia’s talks also cover his “big bang” theory: that about 65 million years ago most birds died with the dinosaurs, and that the ancestors of all of today’s birds evolved explosively in only about 5 to 10 million years. His latest book, The Origin and Evolution of Birds, presents his position in detail.

And according to Wikipedia:

Alan Feduccia is Alan Feduccia is a paleornithologist, specializing in the origins and phylogeny of birds. He is now Professor Emeritus at the University of North Carolina.

And from Barbara J. Stahl, anatomy professor and paleoichthyologist of Saint Anselm College in New Hampshire, wrote a book titled, Vertebrate History: Problems in Evolution. She said,

“In the absence of fossil evidence, paleontologists can say little about the date at which these sixty-nine living families of Passeri-formes… appeared”. (You can read about Passeriformes here).

Why didn’t the authors of enotes note any of these opposing claims from high prominent mainstream evolutionists? They didn’t because they are biased hypocrites who love lies, hate God, and therefore the truth, because God is the source of truth, always says what is true, and the closest thing to living truth.

Related Articles:

Ornithologist and Evolutionary Biologist Alan Feduccia—Plucking Apart the Dino-Birds (published by Discover Magazine on 2/1/2003)

150 Years Later, Fossils Still Don’t Help Darwin (published by ICR on 3/2/2009)