Sunday, March 9, 2008

Is There a "Gay" Gene?

Most people have heard, whether by magazines, cable news, or any other source of information, that there may be a "gay" gene that causes an individual to have homosexual tendencies. Therefore, homosexuality cannot be a sin, since it is a natural occurrence that people are born with. Just like people are born with different shades of skin, different colored eyes, and different types of hair. Being gay is nobodies fault, therefore, it should not be treated as an abomination, but should be looked at as just another trait that makes all people different. However, if you look at this from a logical perspective, if being gay is caused by genes, shouldn't the gay gene be nonexistent in the human gene pool, since homosexual's can't naturally have children to pass on their homosexuality to? Wouldn't that gene have been destroyed long ago by evolution, since homosexuals cannot reproduce?

Evolutionists, the greatest advocates of the "gay by genes" theory, contradict their other "theory," evolution, by proposing such a ridiculous idea. Wait, I got an idea. Why don't we just see what the Bible has to say about homosexuality, since it is right about everything else that it talks about? Why not homosexuality? Look up homosexual in a Bible concordance. You'll find many verses condemning it, and calling it unnatural. Well, there you go.

And for the record, everyone should drop the term "homophobe," except in the rare instances when an individual is actually scared to death of homosexuals, which is the meaning of "homophobe." The majority of people who oppose homosexuals are not frightened of them, yet, the term is used over and over again when people are being accused of hating homosexuals. Come up with a better term that actually matches what you're describing, liberals. People who disapprove of homosexuality and think it is wrong are not homophobes.

In conclusion, homosexuality is unnatural, not genetically caused, and people who think it is a sin should not be referred to as homophobes. Think, people. All I can ask you to do is think.

Saturday, March 8, 2008

Another Question For Evolutionists

I have another question for evolutionists. Once again, let's pretend that a living cell miraculously arose from the primordial goo. A living cell that could reproduce by cell fission. Why do more complex life forms have two different sexes, male and female? What reason did blind chance have for evolving two different sexes? How many tries did it take to get a male and a female organism that could reproduce together? If the original organism could reproduce asexually, then there would be no benefit to start developing to different sexes. Blind chance can't see future benefits, and any partially formed reproductive organs would be a hindrance to the organism, causing it to be less fit.

The only way to believe in molecules to man evolution without being considered a nut job that should be locked away in an asylum, is if you believe in an outside intelligent force that could direct the process of evolution. Once you get to this step, however, why don't you go the whole way and believe that God spoke everything into existence? Why not believe in His Holy Bible, which claims to be the inerrant and sufficient word of God? A book filled with prophecies, some that have been fulfilled, and others that are still in the future. A book that can explain life, and explain death. A book that told us that the earth was round 1000's of years before "scientists" discovered this. The same book that told us that the earth is hung on nothing, when the intellectuals of the day believed that the earth was on the back of a giant. This book even told us that everything visible, is made up of what is not visible, thousands of years before scientists discovered the atom.

So the choice is up to you. You can believe in molecules to man evolution if you want. But after looking at the logic and evidence behind it, if you still believe in that faulty "theory," you should quickly admit yourself to an insane asylum. You could also believe that God directed the evolution. But don't you think that if God was intelligent enough to run evolution and form the universe, that He would be able to communicate with His creation? Therefore, the belief that the God of the Bible, who spoke the universe and everything in it into existence, is the most logical choice. The first two choices require a lot more faith than the third. So make your choice. What choice you pick could have eternal consequences.

Friday, March 7, 2008

A Question or Two for Evolutionists

I have a question for evolutionists. Let's pretend here, I know its not very hard for evolutionists to do, that after billions of years, blind chance and luck finally gave rise to the first living cell from the primordial soup. How many times did this have to happen before the blind chance and luck "learned" how to develop a cell the could reproduce? How could a fully developed cell capable of reproduction come about in the first place by blind luck and chance? Furthermore, evolution can't even explain what causes death? Why do things die?

Well what a great "scientific fact" we have in evolution. The only reason a person would believe in evolution is that they are ignorant, stupid, insane, or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that.

Not only can evolution NOT explain how life arose... but it also FAILS to explain why life dies. The decision is up to you if you want to commit intellectual suicide and blindly follow the illogical theory built on blind chance. Talk about the blind leading the blind.