Creationists who do quote mining:

Originally posted by sonhouse
Then there should be no effort by Christians to quash evolution and old Earth time scales.

But they continue their misbegotten agenda anyway. THAT is the point, not that we believe this and you believe that.

It is the USES fundamentalists put to those beliefs, which makes it a political struggle having nothing to do with religion, but with political p ...[text shortened]... problem with all this BS.

THAT I will fight to my dying day, which should be a long ways off.

To begin with I don't care if you believe the universe is billions of years
old, or that is taught in schools. I also don't care that the only place
people hear about the creation story is when they are being taught
about religion!

With respect to misbegotten agenda, what a load! The truth of the matter
is going to be the truth of the matter no matter who teaches what where!
It is going to be the truth of the matter no matter if man can figure it
out through science or not.

I've not promoted any political struggle, nor do I want to force anyone
into being taught anything! I do question your goals when you want
to shut down debate or forbid creation to be taught! If science is that
solid it should be able to stand up next to any questions, if it has to be
protected from any view that does not support it, how weak it must
really be in your own eyes!
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Like I said, a model is meaningless if what you are modeling can not be
shown wrong or false. Modeling something that was being made up was
my point. You can complain about people making stories up, but when you
do the same thing, oh well.
Kelly

Do you often find yourself not getting perfectly plain english? What makes a model
plausible is precisely the fact that it's supported by collected evidence. It's not just make-
believe then, is it?

Originally posted by sonhouse
Then there should be no effort by Christians to quash evolution and old Earth time scales.

But they continue their misbegotten agenda anyway. THAT is the point, not that we believe this and you believe that.

It is the USES fundamentalists put to those beliefs, which makes it a political struggle having nothing to do with religion, but with political p ...[text shortened]... problem with all this BS.

THAT I will fight to my dying day, which should be a long ways off.

I don't want Satan's lies about evolution this and evolution that and billions and millions of years to be taught to our kids. It is a deception that might result in them going to Hell, in my opinion.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Without a doubt, the scientific evidence favors a supernatural creation model for the origin of the universe, of life, and of species.

Though there are many creation models differing in specifics of sequence and time of events, some fundamental evidences are convincing many scientists that creation models are more credible than evolution models.

http: ...[text shortened]... n/

Evidence against Evolution and for Creation

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LW46sYeYkEc

what do you find convincing about them? can you explain the key points and how they refute the current accepted scientific theory?

Originally posted by C Hess
Do you often find yourself not getting perfectly plain english? What makes a model
plausible is precisely the fact that it's supported by collected evidence. It's not just make-
believe then, is it?

Plausible just means it could be true/real. It does not mean it is!
Having something made up then modeled only means it was made up and
modeled! That being said it could be true, but it only means, it could be.

All of that said, people are still making things up in hopes they get it right.
Kelly

Originally posted by stellspalfie
what do you find convincing about them? can you explain the key points and how they refute the current accepted scientific theory?

Origin of the Universe

The first law of thermodynamics is a scientific law for which there are no known exceptions. Because credible science relies on known, empirical evidence, an objective scientist is compelled to admit that based on the first law of thermodynamics the origin of the universe is best explained as a supernatural event.

1. The first law of thermodynamics states that energy and matter cannot be created by natural means.

2. Observation shows that the universe is made of energy and matter.

3. Therefore, the universe must have originated by supernatural means, such as the creation by God.

In contrast, the evolution model proposes only natural explanations for origins. Thus, this model is seriously flawed because it contradicts a known scientific law.


Origin of Life


The evidence for the supernatural origin of life also involves a law of science:

1. The law of biogenesis states that living cells come from preexisting cells. There are no known exceptions.

2. There is no evidence for the natural origin of life from lifeless molecules.

3. Therefore, the origin of life must have originated by supernatural means, such as creation by God.

Origin of Species

1. Both the natural evolution model and the supernatural creation model agree that change within living organisms occurs by means of mutation of the DNA molecule and pressures of natural selection. This change is unlimited in the natural evolution model, but limited by the supernatual creation model.

2. Laboratory evidence shows that cumulative change in the DNA molecule will result in death.

3. Therefore, the evidence support the creation model of limited change.

Also the appearance in the fossil record of different kinds of highly complex living organisms that are fully formed and fully functional and independent of other kinds of organisms with a lack of transitional forms in the fossil record reveals that organisms resist change, which supports the creation model of limited change within species and special creation of the species by God.

The creation model is the most logical and scientifically supportable model for origins.

Also, the creation model is the most logical and scientifically supportable model for diversity and adaptive changes within species.

There are two potential sources for changes to gene sequence; mutations and recombination. The cell recombines DNA for various reasons including the purposeful generation of diversity. Mutations on the other hand are changes resulting from exposures to foreign mutagens, or the result of errors during biochemical reactions such as DNA replication. Changes to genes are almost universally attributed to the latter, however, replication attempts to copy the genome verbatim, while recombination is intentionally making alterations in a largely uncharacterized manner. Therefore, any changes found should be automatically assumed the result of recombination.

Given our history of selective breeding and the apparent ability of the molecular machinery to rapidly create new alleles, it is appropriate to postulate that organisms are able to continuously produce genetic diversity. Arguably, the wolf did not already possess the variability we now find among the domestic dogs. Instead, diversity began to increase following domestication, which effectively removed the natural selective pressures that kept the animal true to form. It would appear that selection must persistently remove new alleles to keep a bloodline pure. That assertion is adequately demonstrated by the need to continuously remove variants from registered breeds in order to maintain desired traits.

We should remember that adaptation to a particular habitat or niche involves largely uncharacterized modifications of the genome. Vaccinations can completely eradicate disease from a population because every single individual will develop immunity if inoculated with a functional serum. There are many examples of viruses such as Polio and Small Pox that have been eliminated from the modernized world because it is unquestionable that functional antibodies will be assembled following exposure to almost any foreign substance. Since random genetic changes will simply not result in an expected sequence, the immunity system provides an excellent example of the seemingly unlimited potential of Homologous Recombination to generate new information.

http://www.nwcreation.net/articles/recombinationreview.html

The ability for diversity and adaptability has obviously been designed by God into His creatures.

Originally posted by RJHinds
[b]Origin of the Universe

The first law of thermodynamics is a scientific law for which there are no known exceptions. Because credible science relies on known, empirical evidence, an objective scientist is compelled to admit that based on the first law of thermodynamics the origin of the universe is best explained as a supernatural event.

1. The f ...[text shortened]... bility for diversity and adaptability has obviously been designed by God into His creatures.[/b][/b]

That last statement about 2 sources of gene changes is wrong. There is a third effect, called epigenetics. I know you know practically nothing about science, especially the ones you hate but why don't you googe epigenetics and read up on it before you do you cut and paste job?

Originally posted by RJHinds
1. The first law of thermodynamics states that energy and matter cannot be created by natural means.

In this day and age, with Wikipedia at your fingertips there is no longer any excuse for such stupid statements - or for copy/pasting such stupid statements made by other people. Who did you copy/paste that off? You would be well advised to avoid them in future.

Originally posted by RJHinds
[b]Origin of the Universe

The first law of thermodynamics is a scientific law for which there are no known exceptions. Because credible science relies on known, empirical evidence, an objective scientist is compelled to admit that based on the first law of thermodynamics the origin of the universe is best explained as a supernatural event.

1. The f ...[text shortened]... bility for diversity and adaptability has obviously been designed by God into His creatures.[/b][/b]

The first law of thermodynamics applies to energy not matter. Creating matter isn't a problem, provided no conserved quantities are changed. Conservation of energy is explained using Noether's theorem by time being symmetric under local translations - in other words because now is pretty much like then energy is conserved. Clearly, this is not true at the beginning, so there's no reason to expect energy conservation to apply then.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
what do you find convincing about them? can you explain the key points and how they refute the current accepted scientific theory?

Really? You had to ask him this?

Originally posted by sonhouse
That last statement about 2 sources of gene changes is wrong. There is a third effect, called epigenetics. I know you know practically nothing about science, especially the ones you hate but why don't you googe epigenetics and read up on it before you do you cut and paste job?

Scientific Proof about Genetics and Evolution

YouTube

Originally posted by RJHinds
Scientific Proof about Genetics and Evolution

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RoKwxmt4oq0

So you just ignore epigenetics. Expected. Your MO all the way, as befitting a tenth century mind besotted with your so-called religion.

Originally posted by sonhouse
So you just ignore epigenetics. Expected. Your MO all the way, as befitting a tenth century mind besotted with your so-called religion.

Yes, until, you reference a Youtube video that shows me what you think proves evolution.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Yes, until, you reference a Youtube video that shows me what you think proves evolution.

As befitting a troll. You would no more actually seek out what epigenetics is on your own than you would actually studying evolution or the refutation of all those bogus pseudo scientific clap trap political BS video's designed not to learn the truth but to gather enough political clout to force creationism to be taught as if it were a science in a science classroom which would be a great disservice to science and students anywhere on the planet.

Originally posted by sonhouse
As befitting a troll. You would no more actually seek out what epigenetics is on your own than you would actually studying evolution or the refutation of all those bogus pseudo scientific clap trap political BS video's designed not to learn the truth but to gather enough political clout to force creationism to be taught as if it were a science in a science classroom which would be a great disservice to science and students anywhere on the planet.

But you are really the troll in this Forum. You do have a clue about spiritual matters. Troll be gone!