Creationist quotes and citations reflects a greater level of academic dishonesty

But when you take their statements out of context to make them look like they're saying something they're not, that's lying.Is your support for creationism so weak you have to resort to lying to defend it? Disgusting. Do you think that's what Jesus wants you to do? Lie? Don't you think you're going to go to hell for lying, Almeyda? Just because you're lying for Christ doesn't make it right.

We're trying to tell you something, Almeyda, and you're not listening.What we're trying to tell you is that the people you say said those things didn't say those things.They may have used those words, but they used them as part of a larger context that you're ignoring.That means that when you say these people said the things you say they said, you're lying. Do you think lying is good as long as you're doing it for God? I doubt God thinks so.

How do you know? Did you look them up in their context to check? Did you have the expertise and training in the sciences to understand the context?If you say that these quotes aren't out of context, but it's obvious to anyone who knows the context that they are, you're lying again.Don't you get tired of lying all the time? I know I'm getting tired of pointing it out. Do you think that's how God wants you to act, or what? No, they really don't. As a rule, they generally only have Ph.Ds in irrelevant fields - like engineering or computer science - or degrees that are outright fraudulent or worthless, like Kent Hovind. Oh, yeah? C'mon - tell me who among Creationists has a Nobel Prize in a relevant field. Yeah, just like Holocaust deniers and UFOlogists. That's because those things - like creationism - just aren't science.

Ask Buz. I'm sure he's old enough to have seen men on the Moon. (One was even named after him. )Moreover they left stuff there, so they must have been there. Not sure what your point was with this.

Lord Kelvin supplied a thermodynamic proof that the Earth had to be much, much older than 6,000 years. YEC was disproved by this creationist. These biologists all supplied the groundwork theories for evolution. Creationism was disproved by these "creationists." These geologists all supplied evidence that the Biblical timeframe for the Earth is in error. Despite being Christians they concluded that the Bible was not literally correct on the age of the Earth. Men who made it their life's work to study the stars, and in doing so, proved the Bible to be in error about them. (Seriously? You tried to pass off Copernicus and Gallileo as adherents to Church doctrine?)Great. You've hit us with a list of people who disproved the positions of Answers in Genesis and a literal reading of the Bible. What was your point here, exacly? I can't believe that you thought these people supported your position without actually looking up there accomplishments. Duh!

Right, which proves not only that evolution can occur, but that it must. The second law after all is what makes all chemical processes possible. Nothing can ever happen in the world without the second law. A) Evolution says nothing about the big bang. That's two different theories.B) That's not the second law of thermodynamics. You might want to look it up in a physics text. What argument? You've made up a fake law and pretended that evolution contradicts it. No, evolution. I meant what I said. The theory of evolution is based on the contributions of these scientists, especially Linneaus and Mendel. Linneaus outlined the hierarcheal model of taxonomic classification, which suggested common decent of creatures. Mendel explained the mechanisms and patterns of heredity, on which evolution relies.Maybe you would have been better served if you had looked up what these scientists had discovered, because then you wouldn't have presented the forefathers of evolutionary theory as "creationists." If it was creationists who came up with evolution, that sort of destroys your "interpretation" argument, doesn't it? No, there's really not.

And you're a piece of work - lying, dissembling, and promoting mistruths. Why do you think it's ok to lie for God?

It means that because organisms reproduce chemically, they can't do so perfectly. Entropy causes changes, which we call "mutations." The second law necessitates imperfect reproduction.Any time you have imperfect reproduction, you have variation in a population. Any time you have variation you have differential survival. That's natural selection.Random mutation and natural selection, both inevitable results of the second law. That's evolution. Because the second law always applies, evolution must happen, and it does. No. The foundation of evolution, like all science, is observation, not other theories. Evidence is the foundation of evolution, not the big bang. Evolution is true no matter where the universe comes from, be it the big bang, or Genesis, or a steady-state universe. Says you, but I've already shown that they did.And anyway, why should I believe you? It's obvious that you don't know anything about evolution, biology, or science. Am I supposed to believe that, in an hour, you've become an expert on the history of science? Please. Maybe one or two. They certainly don't have "thousands." What they have thousands of are shysters, hucksters, and mountebanks. Folks with fake degrees and bogus credentials. We'll never get past it until you stop lying and start telling the truth.