Debunking the Evolutionary God of 'Selection'

As a good and honest debater I always try to answer questions to further the debate.
Evolutionists complain about losing, and like yourself never seem to add to the debate.Debate is two sided, not one sided.You evolutionists have never been athletes or in a fair athletic contest, I have, others have... debate is a contest, a two sided contest where a team who hasnt got a defense like you Evolutionists, have to try and go on the offense. Why because you have no defense.These types of teams are bluffers and almost always lose, lose, lose.They are losers.Creation wins because it has answers, evolutionists lose because they can;t explain their own theory and their own god of Selection.Your god of Selection sustains life, is what you all are trying to say.Read past posts, as I had to figure it out rather than you evolutionists explaining your theory.IT looks like I *** again

Perhaps you could get around to answering mine?And if you could do it using quotes and without the posturing and preaching it would be great too.

Then do it. In Message 31 I asked you to, "Explain in detail why genes can't determine the length of a zebra's legs. And then explain in detail why longer legs won't help a zebra run faster."

Creationists are too fat and stupid to play basketball. I went to the court last night and I racked up 100 points and you didn't even get one basket. You suck at basketball.

Ringo, you were put on my NO REPLY LIST..But because you wouldnt have seen that post as yet, as I just posted it.I shall again answer your questions even though evolutionists have no explanations for their theory or religion.Length of a leg is not a mutation, its a recombination.Inbreeding of dogs, can produce longer legs in a new breed of dog, but it still remains a dog. They can inbreed short legs, hairy legs, etc etc... DONT YOU KNOW GENETICS, have you never studied anything.Yes, it brings on recessive genes to the forfront and gives that breed some pretty bad weaknesses, but in a controlled environment these new breeds (NOT new species) can be useful via mans manipulation.Study inbreeding, as that selection is man made, or via the isolations, laws, etc etc that I already posted. Study darn ya, learn, get some intelligence.Leg length is not evolution it is recombination or inbreeding etc etc....Its amazing how evolutionists claim inbreeding is evolutionary mutations.If a mutation happens or a misread happens, then it almost always dies. Third legs are not needed for a chettah etc to run, no advantage. Mutations are selected out, mutations die, mutations dont reproduce, mutations become recessive at best.I win again, and answer again, and evolutionists grind their teeth again..... and complain and deny and deny and complain.Selection is not a god and is not alive and does not sustain life. There are no beneficial mutations.Sorry Ringo you are on my NO REPLY LIST....Ask your friends to ask me a question, rather than yourself

Uh, I was talking about the likelihood of coin tosses landing heads. But thank, Davidjay! - I actually did leave a post there: Message 100
Unfortunately, no one thought it worth a response!

That isn't the point. The topic is selection so we're talking about how leg length effects selection.If lions ate dogs, wouldn't they be more likely to eat the dogs that can't run as fast? Aren't they also more likely to eat the zebras that can't run as fast?So wouldn't the Great Danes be more likely to breed than the dachshunds?That's selection. The slow dogs (or zebras) are selected out by the lazy lions. The ones that are not selected by the lions go on to make newer, faster dogs (or zebras). And the lions eat it. In your own words, "ALMOST always".The very few exceptions, one in a million, may produce a faster zebra or a Greater Dane. If not, explain why.

Sorry Ringo, youre on my NO REPLY LIST. Email your fellow evolutionists your questions, and I shall answer if asked in sincerity and if it helps READERS understand the debate.Thanks for turning out for the team.ATBITFIYRJ

If you don't answer, the READERS will assume you don't know the answer.

No one is saying that magic mutations will make an animal run faster. We are saying that regular mutations can do that.If you are claiming that changes in DNA can not cause animals to run faster, then please provide your proof.

Which evolutionist thinks that inbreeding is an example of mutation change? There is already a thread on that topic. Why do you think humans and chimps are different from each other?Do you accept the finding that humans and chimps are different from each other because the DNA sequence of their genomes is different?

Recombination of what? I know from genetics that there are different alleles for the same gene due to mutations. Breeding through mixing of alleles works because mutations have produced those alleles. Variation wouldn't exist without mutations. I really dont' see how those are mutually exclusive. Why can't evolution work through recombination of existing alleles, or mating between closely related individuals?

So says the person who can't answer our questions.

Then defend your claim in Message 29 that I refuted in Message 34.you said: My response was: This falsifies your claim, and you have not defended it.Now I expect you will dodge rather than be honest and admit that you were wrong.Enjoy

Well, that explains a lot. You live in your own made up batshit crazy world.Thanks for clarifying that. I'm not a groupie evolutionist, my beliefs have nothing to do evolution, I understand evolution based on reason and the evidence.
You are the one in fact confused, you have made up your own interpretations of evolution, then attempt to disprove an already bogus claim. You don't even know the proper definition of a scientific theory to even comment on such things.Hopefully this helps clear things up for you. Get well soon.