1x1=1
This would be a mutation that changes a portion of the dna into something different, but doesn't change it's 'size'. This will always be neutral when it comes to the amount of genetic material.

1-1=0
This is what happens when we get a mutation that decreases the genetic material. This kind of mutation will never create anything bigger, or the same size as the original. It will always loose.

1+1=1
This is what is require for macro evolution. They are little positive changes that can be added together to create something bigger than the original. This is what we do not see happening except in examples where things clearly go very bad and usually kill the organism. These mutations are detrimental, not beneficial, and are more likely to be bred out into extinction.

So in other terms,
1-1 would be degeneration and natural selection (sometimes loss is a good thing such as the gene in a bug that makes it susceptible to antibiotics. Loosing this gene would make it a superbug)
1x1 would be natural selection where traits are simply switched on and off.
And 1+1 results in macro evolution. WHICH DOES NOT HAPPEN.

GG wrote:
What they don't need is a self-righteous Bible-beater, bring them down.

As I said earlier, if God chooses not to cast anything out, there is absolutely nothing man can do to change that. No incense, magic water or hocus pocus chants will change it.
So the merit of these practises is what?

Consequences of sin maybe? Punishment for wrongs?

And the evil spirit answered and said, Jesus I know, and Paul I know; but who are ye? And the man in whom the evil spirit was leaped on them, and overcame them, and prevailed against them, so that they fled out of that house naked and wounded.

Just because they make claims means absolutely nothing. If God doesn't will it, no priest or pope can cast anything out.

2Ch 36:13 And he also rebelled against king Nebuchadnezzar... and hardened his heart from turning unto the LORD God of Israel.

Isa 63:17 O LORD, why hast thou made us to err from thy ways, and hardened our heart from thy fear?

Joh 12:40 He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them.

Joh 12:37 But though he had done so many miracles before them, yet they believed not on him...
Therefore they could not believe, because that Isaiah said again, He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them.

I merely have a different (not necessarily better - just different) understanding than he does on this topic of election.

I myself am Presbyterian and being in New Zealand have little knowledge of the overseas Baptists teachings.

Question.
Who are those that believe? Where in that verse does it say that they who believe were able to believe on their own unbiased will? It doesn't. Where does it say that God did not choose to enable them to be able to choose to believe? It doesn't (and for arguments sake, it doesn't say that they were either).

From a text publishing point of view that sort of text causes people to ignore the post entirely because it's harder on the eye to read. And any emphasis intended is completely lost.

Well those Roman Catholics who I spoke of would be horrified to know that a fellow Roman thought they were protestant based. They make all the same arguments you make, except that some of them recognise falsified history.

For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.

And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, without understanding, covenant breakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

What he means is that they teach observation and conclusion skills that disagree with the presupposed answers he has determined are absolute truth.
Their scientific method is perfectly valid even tho their conclusions differ from the mainstream scientist's opinions.

"It just seems odd to license an organization to offer a degree in science when they're not teaching science," Mr. Quinn said.

Another guy who clearly has forgotten what the definition of science actually is.
And these are the smart guys? :-P

It's a choice between believing a scientist who relys on a book claimed to be provided by a designer (and I agree), and on the other hand a guy claiming he is the product of millions of years of mutations and death and struggling, which he accepts by simply beliving that his opinion about present day fossils determins the reality of the past.