IControlThePast said:
look at the Urey-Miller chemistry experiment where using only lightning they were able to create organic compounds, including 13 amino acids, from inorganic compounds with random strikes within a week.
All energy sources that produce the biochemicals destroy them even faster! The Miller/Urey experiments used strategically designed traps to isolate the biochemicals as soon as they were formed so the sparks/UV did not destroy them. Without the traps, even the tiny amounts obtained would not have been formed.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4220.asp
Genes can't be equated with money, because many of those microbe genes aren't expressed, they're useless. These genes can be lost through mutation to a new species where an organism is less fit to have those genes now and loses them. There are also things called haploid organisms, meaning they only have half the DNA of the parent cell, which can account for loss of genetic information through mutant haploid cells.
Still talking about
loss of genetic information.
Science doesn't conflict with a non-literal interpretation of the Bible. The Bible and Evolution can co-exist. There are other things driving people away from the Church, like the pedophile priests.
See, that's the thing. Who has more knowlegde and authority? Scientists, whose information changes rapidly, or God whose word never changes? One has to go. Why is it Genesis that has to compromise?
You're right, many things do drive people away from the Church (and I am not referring only to the Catholic religion, but all Bible-believing religions). However, evolution
is one of those things.
ID and Creationism aren't scientific because they don't fit Occam's Razor and are unfalsifiable. Let the coverage of "atheism" (if that's what you call science) be in a Science class and Religion in a Philosophy class.
I showed before how Creationism fits Occam's Razor. I also explained how creation science is just as testable as macroevolution.
You can't prove the universe had a beginning, it might be infinite in size. We've never seen the edge of the universe.
1st Law of Thermodynamics: The total amount of mass-energy in the universe is constant.
2nd Law of Thermodynamics: The amount of energy in the universe available for work is running down (entropy).
If the total amount of mass-energy is limited, and the amount of usable energy is decreasing, then the universe cannot have existed forever. It would already have reached heat death.
Once again Evolution is not about explaining how things started, but Biological pathways including macroevolution. You are correct that microevolution leads to macroevolution is not axiomatic, you don't have to add any more axioms, but you do have to add the axiom that a Creator exists for ID. You don't have to assume there is a beginning for Evolution, that once again is not the purpose of it. You just have to theorize using existing axioms that certain pathways continued to act over a larger time scale for a larger result. It doesn't have to assume a beginning.
Perhaps I am misunderstanding you, but it sounds like you just said that I was correct that "microev. leads to macroev." is
not axiomatic, but one
must theorize using this axiom.
I don't know what you mean by genetic information. Some one celled organisms have way more base pairs than humans. Because humans have less base pairs and are more complex proves that the number of complex mechanisms is dependant upon amount of genetic information. A man's wealth is entirely dependant on his money though, so your analogy doesn't fit.
Sounds like you just answered your own question m'dear.
The number of complex mechanisms is dependent on amount of genetic information. The information is the
meaning encoded in the proteins, directing the expression of the genes. Also correct, some plants (as an example) have more
genes than humans. However, they have less
genetic information, or complexity. Polyploid plants have duplicate copies of the genome.
Example:
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
ILOVEMYMOTHER
The first line has twice the number of characters as the second, but the second line has more
meaning. The first line has replicated copies of the character. The second line has more special
meaning behind the characters. This is another argument for a Creator. How else would we be able to make sense of randomness?
I know it isn't a record of everything, but that is why people are turning to Science, because it is adaptive and therefore tries to include everything. 
