pajarito

Why would it? As C.S. Lewis said, "You might as well say that the sheet of music which tells you, at a given moment, to play one note on the piano and not another, is itself one of the notes on the keyboard."

You've just said it does. God has no cause or origin; he 'regresses infinitely' into the past. Scientists believe that things like dirt came from somewhere, and then discover how it came to be. The following would be infinite regression with regard to God. That's not the case. Regressing infinitely into the past, as you said, doesn't refer to God. It refers to time. The design isn't the same as the designer. A painting is not the painter. A building is not the builder. The Creator is above his creation. He controls it. It does not control him nor are they equal.

The problem of infinite regression does not lie with Creationists. God is the uncaused cause (Psalm 90:2). Everything that has come into existence was brought into existence by something else. God did not “come into existence.” By definition, He has always existed. Alternatively, “dirt can’t just happen (e.g. Infinite Regression).” It is wise to understand your limits.

Apparently, the American Medical Association disagrees with you. Go figure... Medical Ethics and Performance-Enhancing Drugs by Carlos R. Hamilton, MD

My opinion is the same as pop's:

Because of the following. Especially, the ones concerning vital organs: Men - Reduced sperm count - Impotence - Development of breasts - Shrinking of the testicles - Difficulty or pain while urinating Women - Facial hair growth - Deepened voice - Breast reduction - Menstrual cycle changes Both - Acne - Bloated appearance - Rapid weight gain - Clotting disorders - Liver damage - Premature heart attacks and strokes - Elevated cholesterol levels - Weakened tendons Other - Behavioral side-effects - Psychological addiction - Can affect growth in adolescents Anabolic Steroids

"Molecules to man" evolutionists also believe organic matter originated from inorganic matter.

Thanks man!

Come on.... That was funny...

How's this... *** when are you ALL goingto realize 'hairyjuan' was a KNOWN MYTH 1900 years ago. PROVEN BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT *** Read this and you will have no more doubt. If you're scared to, it just proves my point. YOu're all weak!!! Worthless and weak!!!

You're right. My bad.

Fins also used to pull it along are not feet. There should be examples of these fins developing into better and better feet. Are there?

Is there added function with Down's Syndrome? Is that person with Down's Syndrome not human? Are you really saying that reducing one's capability to transfer oxygen and perfuse the tissues is a positive effect? Would that not be a trait leading to extinction rather than producing a new species? Besides, what has a deformity with a person's red blood cells got to do with their chances of catching a virus?

We're not talking about adding new traits (whether the effect is positive or negative for survival). We're talking about adding new genetic information transforming it into something else altogether with new function (which is required of evolution). You could duplicate the DNA adding to it and call it new genetic information but there's no added function and it's really the same old stuff and usually the consequences are negative (e.g. Down's Syndrome).

Where did you learn that from? Spetner, "Not by Chance : Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution", 1997 Why? Are you saying it's wrong?

Even if the Old & New Testaments didn't mention homosexuality as being wrong (which they both do; Leviticus 18:22, Romans 1:27), the model for the family and sexual relations are always spoken of in terms of heterosexuality. God created the standard for the family unit and sexuality. Jesus confirmed the creation of Adam & Eve when he quoted Genesis 1:27 and 2:24 in his teaching. As far as the question of whether one can be Christian and gay, it has less to do with homosexuality (whether born with those feelings or not) and more to do with the sinful nature which is in all of us and manifests itself in different ways. The problem comes in when one is acting on those sinful desires whether we’re talking about the physical act or in thought. If one is a Christian with homosexual tendencies, he/she will continually fight against that which he/she knows is wrong just like with any other sin. If that is the case, then I’d vote yes that it is possible to be Christian and gay.

You make the disctinction between macro evolution and micro evolution but in reality no such distinction is commonly made in bioligical science. All life on this Earth is made up of a genetic code from RNA and DNA strands. Each strand is a polynucleotide composed of A(adenosine), T(thymidine), C(cytidine), and G(guanosine) residues polymerized by "dehydration" synthesis in linear chains with specific sequences. Evolution occurs becase this code is copied imperfectly and the subsequent copy will either be more or les fit. The more fit will pass on their new change in the code more frequently than the less fit. So the code changes. Its simple maths, small changes will keep adding up and become big changes. please tell me how many changes in the code would qualify as micro evolution and howmany macro evolution? I think it will be a pointless task in trying to come up with a dividing line between the two and that is why biology does not tend to do so. for example: AGCCGTACGGTTCAACCG mutates to: ACGCGGACGGTTCAACCC Is this micro evolution or macro evolution? How many letters have to change for it to become macro and how do you justify your letter count? How many generations do the changes have to be confined to? After all whatever rate of change one has, (and we know roughly what the genetic drift rate is) with enough time the entire code coud easily become nothing like its original version. Whilst biology doesnt usually distinguish between macro and micro evolution it does distinguish events we called speciation. This is the creation of seperate species. What is a seperate species? becuase of the reasons above any defintion can never be objective. But the one that has become consesus is that a seperate species is one that cannot produce fertile offspring with its nearest relative. Speciation has been observed in the wild many times.Here are some references, there are many many many more: Firstly, the terms macro/micro evolution aren’t terms made up by creationists. They were first coined by a Russian entomologist named Iurii Flipchenko in 1927 (Evolutionist). I agree that they are misleading terms. Acceptance of one might imply acceptance of the concept in general. The idea that viewing species adaptation is just the starting point for a process that leads to change in species and the logic that if it can go that far then it should be able to go all the way is too simple (like the train analogy). As you said, changes occur when code is copied imperfectly. The problem is that selection always gets rid of information. It doesn’t add to it which would be required to change into something different (e.g. code necessary for development of a type of lung). Species diversification leads to a smaller and smaller gene pool which leads to less and less information available for populating a single type. The total information necessary to build on gets smaller and more diversified rather than larger which would be necessary in order to produce something more sophisticated. The reason for diversification and the reason for the distinction between micro and macro are because of the large amount of DNA variations within a species. The more adaptation we see within a species, the less potential for future adaptation there is. Hardly the trend it would need to produce what is necessary to gradually change into something else even if we were talking about millions and millions of years.

That's absolutely not true. I don't know and we should continue to search. Just not at the expense of real science. If you're missing a piece of a jigsaw puzzle, it isn't appropriate for you to hammer in a piece that doesn't go there just to finish the picture you want. No matter how desperately you want it that way.

Everyone is a nutter to you Kallend. You're a freakin genius. Your brain is huge. We're all like the ants you stomp on in your yard.

He was an outspoken agnostic before that but that's beside the point. I'm not Catholic but everyone "acknowledges at least some evolution." I don't know of anyone who disputes species environmental adaptation or viral/bacterial mutation in the lab. None of that points to one species gradually changing into a different species over time. Goes both ways. Neither are always correct. Oh... but it is.

Generally, I don't believe that at all. I think in this case, however, many may be. There seems to be a desperate attempt to make the pieces fit and establish fact when there is none or at least none that they can prove.

THAT is exactly what evolutionists appear to be doing.

Literary textual criticism, historical verifiability, hermeneutics, etc. is different from proving anything scientifically. Do I hold the Bible to the same standard of proof as other similar literary works? Yes. Also, the peer-reviewed self-correcting scientific evidence you mentioned has not even come close to proving morphology through natural selection.

Right. They're all just a bunch of idiots.