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 Huffington Post and Wikipedia is for Anti-Science Morons: Both Promote Lynne McTaggart

Talk about careless, stupid “a joke” and pathetic, the Huffington Post I just found out, has allowed the anti-science con artist  Lynne McTaggart to post a conspiracy rant claiming that Dan Brown’s “Science Fiction is Mostly Fact” speaking of his “The Lost Symbol” book. And wow what a clever title she came up with” “science fiction is fact” what a clever contrast! So original to say “why his lies are mostly truthful” too right? Lynn’s article begins with, “The most vehement criticism of Dan Brown’s new book The Lost Symbol concerns the view of many reviewers that while the material about Freemasonry may be based on fact, the science is more akin to science fiction.” Whatever. Lynn is a moron, she put out a book called “The Intention Experiment” in which she makes a big deal over something obviously false, which is that intentions can influence things, in other words, that you can will things to happen, such as events, not merely moving an object, in other words: WISHING! Talk about “wishful thinking”! When I made a sarcastic review of her book soon after it was listen on Amazon, the community moderators aggressively took action to suppress my review which was, as I intended, getting votes up immediately. Meanwhile they allow endless fake, malicious, sarcastic rants on books which promote or show evidence for creation science / intelligent design. Wikipedia even allows itself to be used to promote Lynn McMoron, meanwhile, they harassed me and aggressively, for including a page on the scientist prominent J.L. Naudin, aggressively attacking me for it and then deleting the page after pretentious consideration of it, and also for making a page on the prominent con artist Tom Bearden, for showing him to be a pseudo scientist while also attacking me for supposedly promoting Naudin for being a pseudo scientist and another scientist and inventor. The points: don’t trust the Huffington Post or Wikipedia. Liberals just make no sense: they latch on to main stream scientists in order to repel Christianity and promote them as legitimate unlike Christian ones, and at the same time also embrace clear pseudo scientists like McTaggert and Bearden in order to gain more followers against the honest Christian scientists. Their acceptance of liars in their hatred of God works against them; it self-defeating and so long as they do this, the greater technologies they desire, just in reach, will, in my opinion, continue to be withheld from the majority of them by God, and for the evil ones that do obtain or already have them, will not benefit the majority.