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

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

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

Variability is an excuse by evolutionists to try and give evolution credibility.Variability as in mankind, is limited to the superficial, as with leg length etc etc etc etc etc... and more etc. Its variety but we do NOT get a new species or apelike creature from our combinations via matingSTUDY GENETICS evolutionists and stop this insanity of yours !!!

Stop supporting racism with your evolutionary doctrine that we are branching out to new species, or superior species, or more viable species, whatever your insane terminolgies allow you to say.No, variety of humans is not evolution. I am taller than my wife, and are children are a combination of those lengths, and recessive and dominant genes persist depending on the recombination.Have you people never ever studied how the DNA splits, and the recombinations occur.... just because you have a religion of evolution, dont negate all of true science because of your wish for NO CREATOR and NO DESIGN.

Again evolutionists insisting that others and the sane and the logical ones, dont understand their insanity and lack of science and math, etc.Theo.. the probability of ZERO is ZERO. No matter how many times you shake your hands and throw the dice, when there is nothing on the dice, you never get a probability.Evolution is totally a religion of luck and chance and is not scientific. Even there luck and chance is ZERO.There is no probability of a BENEFICIAL MUTATION. Explosions in our gonads do not bring about beneficial changes to our children... STUDY MEDICINE, study NUCLEAR RADIATION, etc.. STUDY GENETICSEdited by Davidjay, : No reason given.

I wonder why evolutionists cant explain their own theory and get upset when people dont just accept it hook, line and sinker, by FAITH. Why cant they answer questions, why are they so sensitive, and get so angry. If someone doesn;t understand their double speak, why dont they just use scientific principles to explain their theory or theory of a theory or a theory of a theory of a theory... So come on evolutionists dig deep and explain how sellection is alive and picking out life forms that are already alive.Tell us how variety and recombination is a mutational change rather than a God Gifted variety change.Ready begin now. Stick to the subject !!!PST) Inbreeding is not mutational change nor selective change. Its man made manipulation.I think I know why ? Theres nothing to the theory !Edited by Davidjay, : No reason given.

The Lord limits it, and reality shows it as their has never ever been a beneficial mutation.But thanks for admitting that you think variability is a mutational change, and want to fight to the hilt on that premise.I repeat, I repeat inbreeding does not produce a new dog species. You can try and try Raz, as others have, but those wierd dogs are still just dogs.Such a desperate desperate ploy Raz.Read, I have answered this question many times, and you still refuse to study genetics.Recombination brings on variety but it never ever has produced a new species. Mutations, kill, radiation kills, cancer misreproduction kills...... there have been no beneficial mutations, and you suggesting that there must be some kind of chance somewhere sometime even given enough shakes of the dice is literally a desperate desperate ploy.Study genetics, study recessive and dominant genes and charasteristics...

Poro, behaviours do not get passed on in genetics...... looking both ways is a learned response...learned responses do not change our DNA...behavoirs are given us humans at birth, from Creation.All life forms have behaviours, instincts, traits given at Creation..Mutations have nothin g to do with behaviours.. How many times do I have to instruct desperate uninformed evolutionists.Creation wins, selection is not a living process. No amount of semantics makes it a living process. The environment is the environment and does not

Why are evolutionists so ignorant of genetics, simply because it goes against their religion. I repeat no behavior changes our DNA. None as in none. Nothing you learn in this lifetime goes into your sexual reproductive DNA, each generation of children remains exactly the same from Genesis. All humans remain the same.The look both ways behavior must be learned, it doesnt go into the genes.Behaviours, instincts, traits etc are given at CREATION and are not mutations. That is a desperate ploy of evolutionists to try and claim evolutionary differences or ascents or branching.Watch out for tricky evolutionists and atheiusts and their semantic twistings.... behaviours are in our original genes, traits are in our original gene make up, instincts and adaptions are in our ORIGINAL gene make up.Behaviours are not mutations that just happen to make us more viable..... via the god of insane SELECTION.But evolutionists hate this genetic truth.

Instincts are not from mutations, or from learned behaviours Mutations do not bring on learned behaviours...
and learned behaviours are not passed onto new generations of insects or humans.Instincts are implanted in the original species. Birds do not learn to fly by the stars, nor do fish learn to smell their original rivers and streams, nor do the myriad of insticts and behaviours that define a KIND just happen to magically get into their DNA. All offspring come out exactly as with their parents back to their creation. Evolution nor environment ever have changed instincts or created behaviours.I repeat learned behaviour does not go into our genes, never has, never will. A species does not get more educated and brighter and more viable via mutations or supposed evolution.Its just a theory in the minds of insect-ologists who have been in the fields way toooo long. Sexual genes are not influenced by what happens to a species or KIND in their lifetime and in their experiences while alive.Mother Nature does not select as if alive, beneficial mutations or beneficials behaviours........ its just too much pollen in the noses of those that have gotten too close to the god of evolution and selectionEdited by Davidjay, : No reason given.Edited by Davidjay, : No reason given.Edited by Davidjay, : No reason given.

Wow, evolutionists have finally spoken up and answered. They finally agree . that LEARNED BEHAVIOUR does not go into our genes..NEWS ALERT......LEARNED BEHAVIOUR does not go into our genes..It takes so long for any of them to speak up and converse about their theory...... soooo very long.But there it is, and we will repeat this GIVEN and principle from basic genetics, that totally destroys evolutionary theory.Adaptions, instincts, behaviours all are given at conception, at creation and none of them are from what a species does in their life time. Environment does not, dictate mutations, and environment does not make new behaviours or give them new instincts or new knowledge at the birth of new generations.The God of Selection does not select beneficial mutations..... no learned behaviour passes on to the next generation. No behaviour changes because of magical mutations.Mystery solved, even though its straight forward genetics from Level 1 University studies.This thread can now be referred to in any and all other threads as a proven TRUTH and PRINCIPLE..... to determine other truths and principles.

Here it is Correct. We all agree.Tany admits that all of us agree including evolutionists, that learned behaviour does not pass into our genes. And He or She, I dont know his or her gender, puts it in CAPITAL LETTERS for emphasis.

The debate seems to be over, as the conclusion and agreement have been made.The opposition headed by Jay, fell asleep, and could only try to attack me, and attack the messenger rather than the message. Again proof that evolutionists can not discuss anything and hence must try to get subjective.Nevertheless, as mentioned no behaviour gets passed on genetically that was not there in the original creation. Instincts, behaviours, adaptions all came from the original, and mutation and mutations have never effected the original (unless it kills it, as with radiation etc..) Similarly as agreed upon, the environment does not induce so called beneficial mutations, and hence the evolutionists slection God has no beneficial mutations within an original to select from.Creation wins, evolution loses.The debate has been won...again.ATHRAEGWTT

Blue genes,Skin, eye color and hair, still doesnt change skin into non skin, or eyes into ears, or hair into scales. The moth colour change is hardly the missing link evolutionists so want to show as proof of their evolutionary theory. Its just a different color, an adaption ability given by the Lord at Creation...You must show us some men evolving or a system changing from one type to another, show us some men. Or better yet show us some real women.But please no more rabbits in a hat. ThanksDavid