Creation vs Evolution

Originally posted by Nocturnalwolf82
12. Natural selection only works with the genetic information available and tends only to keep a species stable. How would you explain the increasing complexity in the genetic code that must have occ urred if evolution were true?

Okay, I don't really care about the rest, don't want to waste my time, and have seen most of these before in this thread. This one has come up multiple times so I just wanted to clear this up.

The answer is: Random mutation and genetic recombination to create new traits. Those with the traits favorable (to living) are more fit to live. Therefore, they live while the unfit species for that specific niche dies off.

Originally posted by lord xyz
I wish I could copy and paste as good as you.

BOW DOWN!

Originally posted by ~Flamboyant~
Okay, I don't really care about the rest, don't want to waste my time, and have seen most of these before in this thread. This one has come up multiple times so I just wanted to clear this up.

The answer is: Random mutation and genetic recombination to create new traits. Those with the traits favorable (to living) are more fit to live. Therefore, they live while the unfit species for that specific niche dies off.

Also, genetic mutation and recombination provide the new genetic material. Missing simple facts like this is obviously the work of someone who has no background or understanding of what this theory is.

Originally posted by Nocturnalwolf82
I have some questions for Evolutionists.
26. Do you honestly believe that everything came from nothing?

I have a question for "poof there it is" Creationists.
1. Do you honestly believe that everything came from nothing?

HMmmmm if Nocturnalwolf82 starts posting Chick tracks all over the place too, i'll report him for socking

What creationists don't realise is that evolution is about life, not a painting or a machine.

Originally posted by Regret
I have a question for "poof there it is" Creationists.
1. Do you honestly believe that everything came from nothing?

That is precisely what evolutionists should ask themselves. Think about it. I know that I believe God's explanation about where the universe and everything herein came from.

We cannot fathom what we call god in our time and limitation, so we will not know all the answers here.........Yet with quantum physics making a role now, we see that all it not separate, but blended, even circular........things we are only starting to understand.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
That is precisely what evolutionists should ask themselves. Think about it. I know that I believe God's explanation about where the universe and everything herein came from.

Honestly, you wouldn't know evolution....because you don't believe in facts.

You know the differnce between evolution and Natural selection if they were your siblings.

And you wouldn't know anything about either one of them ever becasue you are simply ignorant.

Originally posted by Alliance
Honestly, you wouldn't know evolution....because you don't believe in facts.

You know the differnce between evolution and Natural selection if they were your siblings.

And you wouldn't know anything about either one of them ever becasue you are simply ignorant.

Man, I was going to say that. 🙁 😆

Originally posted by Regret
I have a question for "poof there it is" Creationists.
1. Do you honestly believe that everything came from nothing?

JIA...ther is no such f*cking thing as an evolutionist. Get over it.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Where did the first spark or whatever evolutionists hypothesize about evolution's genesis come from? What or who was it's first cause? The big bang had to have a first cause, so then what was it. Effects don't produce causes, causes bring about effects. So...If I am in Heaven by the time ya'll evolutionists figure out the answer to this question send me an email, fax, phone call, telegram, text message or other method of communication.

You missed the point, I quoted the creationist and asked him the same question. If the argument is valid, and can be applied to either side of the argument, both must respond to the argument. Nocturnalwolf82 asked the question of evolutionists, he needs to respond to the question appropriately before he can use it as a valid attack.

I do not believe there was ever an absolute vacuum. I do not necessarily agree with the scientific answers as they stand. Evidences that are found by science are evidences of Gods method, they are either that or evidences of the lie. I believe the Bible, so they are not evidences of a lie, they are evidences of the method God used. From your stance, it seems that you deny the evidence of nature as to God's existence.

Originally posted by Regret
You missed the point, I quoted the creationist and asked him the same question. If the argument is valid, and can be applied to either side of the argument, both must respond to the argument. Nocturnalwolf82 asked the question of evolutionists, he needs to respond to the question appropriately before he can use it as a valid attack.

I do not believe there was ever an absolute vacuum. I do not necessarily agree with the scientific answers as they stand. Evidences that are found by science are evidences of Gods method, they are either that or evidences of the lie. I believe the Bible, so they are not evidences of a lie, they are evidences of the method God used. From your stance, it seems that you deny the evidence of nature as to God's existence.

Ohhhhh! I thought you were promoting evolution and belittling creationism, No, no, no, on the contrary Regret, I have posted several Scriptures where God states (not necessarily in these words) creation or nature is evidence of His existence.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Ohhhhh! I thought you were promoting evolution and belittling creationism, No, no, no, on the contrary Regret, I have posted several Scriptures where God states (not necessarily in these words) creation or nature is evidence of His existence.

No, I do not belittle the creation. I do not have an absolute stance on the method of creation, and believe that scientific evidence may possibly point to the method. I do not promote evolution, but I do not state that such was not possibly a method employed. I state that I don't know the method, and try to understand the explanations that are suggested.

My post was merely attacking the use of that line of argument that was presented. A weak argument should be attacked whether you agree with the individual or not, and that line was weak.

Originally posted by Regret
No, I do not belittle the creation. I do not have an absolute stance on the method of creation, and believe that scientific evidence may possibly point to the method. I do not promote evolution, but I do not state that such was not possibly a method employed. I state that I don't know the method, and try to understand the explanations that are suggested.

My post was merely attacking the use of that line of argument that was presented. A weak argument should be attacked whether you agree with the individual or not, and that line was weak.

I understand, Yo comprehendo, I got you, I have intelligently inferred the articulately crafted communication that you conveyed via the information highway aka. the internet through the portal dubbed killermovies forum.

Every now and then I have to act immature.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
I understand, Yo comprehendo, I got you, I have intelligently inferred the articulately crafted communication that you conveyed via the information highway aka. the internet through the portal dubbed killermovies forum.

Every now and then I have to act immature.

Alrighty then.

Hey, yo, JIA ...ye who bastardizes the spanish language.... its "comprendo" ...idiot.

Ignorance shows, doesn't it?

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Where did the first spark or whatever evolutionists hypothesize about evolution's genesis come from? What or who was it's first cause? The big bang had to have a first cause, so then what was it. Effects don't produce causes, causes bring about effects. So...If I am in Heaven by the time ya'll evolutionists figure out the answer to this question send me an email, fax, phone call, telegram, text message or other method of communication.

Tell me, before people theorised about gravity, or understood what gravity was - did gravity not exist? Were people floating of into space on account of not understanding yet?

I am unsure why the uncertainty about what happened prior to the big bang, or the little holes that exist in the evolutionary theory cause such problems. I really don't. When everything else discovered seems to fit in pretty much perfectly with what has been theorised so far. It is very possible, I feel, that eventually we will know. At the momant we don't. The fact that at the moment we don't does not render the rest of the theories unworkable when they quite clearly do work. As with gravity - not knowing about it yet doesn't not make it untrue.

And we dont make up half-assed answers just to claim we're right.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Tell me, before people theorised about gravity, or understood what gravity was - did gravity not exist? Were people floating of into space on account of not understanding yet?

I am unsure why the uncertainty about what happened prior to the big bang, or the little holes that exist in the evolutionary theory cause such problems. I really don't. When everything else discovered seems to fit in pretty much perfectly with what has been theorised so far. It is very possible, I feel, that eventually we will know. At the momant we don't. The fact that at the moment we don't does not render the rest of the theories unworkable when they quite clearly do work. As with gravity - not knowing about it yet doesn't not make it untrue.