Evolution is Illogical, Contradictory and Unscientific

Humans from Apes?

The idea that humans evolved from lower animal species is not like other fraudulent theories of evolution that we can just hear or read about with impartiality.  That is because it touches us in a deeper and more personal way than other topics.  After all, human evolution implies, no, clearly states that, intrinsically and extrinsically, people are no different in value from a germ, an earthworm, or a cockroach, since we, too, are nothing more than the result of a long string of accidents, beginning with dust particles that materialized out of nowhere, and leading to the accidental generation of bacteria from lifeless chemicals (both of which we know are scientifically impossible).

Unevolvable Humanity 

If evolution were real it would, by definition, be an ongoing never-ending process.  Therefore, if humans really evolved from apes, we would see this process still happening around us now.  We would not only see transitional fossils (which we know do not exist), but, more importantly, living examples of apes that are transitioning to humans.  But we do not.  We see only distinct ape species and distinct human ethnic groups; nothing in between.  Why?  It is simple: being human is not an evolvable quality.  A species is either born human or will never be human.  Even the most “primitive” of ethnic groups are still distinctly human.  The term “primitive,” when used with humans, relates only to things like the type and level of our education and the environmental conditions that we adapt to, not to a person’s level of humanness.  That is why a child taken from a primitive group and raised in a more modern one will eventually be able to behave and perform like members of the new group.

                                                    
It Makes No Sense 

We now know that evolution of any type is senseless from a scientific standpoint. We already know how senseless it is for evolutionists to base their claims on fossils that actually prove nothing.  But what about classifying people as purely physical accidents?  Isn’t that also senseless? If, as evolutionists teach, we are the products of purely physical accidents, it would mean that human qualities like artistic appreciation, altruism, creativity, imagination, morality, and spirituality are also just purely physical accidents.

But, wait a minute.  Don’t evolutionists teach that, to be “naturally selected,” a trait must give its host species some physical survival advantage over competing species?  If so, wouldn’t the “non-survival” qualities mentioned above have the opposite effects?  That is, wouldn’t the altruism, morality, and the brotherly love taught by Christianity prompt us to embrace our competitors rather than to defeat or avoid them?  And wouldn’t qualities like artistic appreciation, imagination, and creativity also reduce our chances of survival?  After all, by painting the beauty of a setting sun or writing science fiction, aren’t we distracting ourselves from perceiving and/or protecting ourselves against possible predators?

So, on the one hand, evolutionists tell us that we homo sapiens evolved strictly along the lines of physical survival advantages, but on the other, we possess “higher” traits that have nothing at all to do with survival and that no other “accidental” life forms possess.  Evolutionists, of course, cannot explain this with their theory, because it makes no sense to them either.