Madagascar and Australia, a question for creationists.

[The Stamp]

God is self-existent.

Are you saying then that not everything needs a creator? if so how do we know what needs a creator and what doesn't?

 

[HitchSlap]

God is self-existent.

Just like the universe, then. Neat.

 

[AV1611VET]

Are you saying then that not everything needs a creator?

I'm saying God is self-existent.

if so how do we know what needs a creator and what doesn't?

I wouldn't know, I don't deal in myopics.

Playing around with science without my spiritual armor on eventually makes my heart start to harden against the Bible.

 

[AV1611VET]

Just like the universe, then. Neat.

There are two universes, are there?

Oh well ... science says we had two moons at one time too.

 

[HitchSlap]

There are two universes, are there?

Oh well ... science says we had two moons at one time too.

One to guided by day and one to guide by night?

 

[The Stamp]

I'm saying God is self-existent.

I see so God made God.
You're not only digging a hole you've brought the excavators in.

 

[USincognito]

not realy. we indeed found cases of similar genes in far sepcies but not between some of the species between them. in this case evolutionery biologists "solve" this by gene loss. and this is another proof that evolution isnt a scientific theory.

Examples? And just how "similar" were these genes?

Since it's pretty clear you don't even understand the science, I'm not sure you're in a position to judge.

 

[USincognito]

what about a snail that can use photosynthesis?

Are you referring to sea slugs that have integrated chloroplasts via horizontal gene transfer, as opposed to evolving it?

 

[USincognito]

As we all know everything needs a creator please tell me who created your God?

Apologetics are off topic for this thread and this subforum. If you want to discuss that topic, you need to start a thread in Christian Apologetics.

 

[The Stamp]

I think I've answered all the questions sufficiently.

As long as you're satisfied with your answers that's all that matters.
Take care.

 

[AV1611VET]

I see so God made God.

Self-existent ≠ made.

 

[AV1611VET]

Apologetics are off topic for this thread and this subforum. If you want to discuss that topic, you need to start a thread in Christian Apologetics.

You mean here?

 

[pat34lee]

Dogma and not progressing is what happens when you do NOT alter explanations in light of new evidence/data and actually actively refuse to do so.

And when new data shows your previously accepted ideas are false... you change your ideas, instead of assuming that the new data is false.

No, dogma is refusing to drop a theory when it is proven wrong. Instead, they add pixie dust to make the facts and theory seem to still agree.

Throwing out data that does not match the paradigm is another way to prevent progress, and it happens all the time in archeology.

https://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/04/the_dogma_of_darwinian_evoluti/

 

[The Stamp]

No, dogma is refusing to drop a theory when it is proven wrong. Instead, they add pixie dust to make the facts and theory seem to still agree.

Have you never heard the saying "we live and learn"? remember the old radios and TV's they were huge? today we have smart sleek radio's and TV's that do exactl the same thing as the old ones only much better, the basics of the radio and TV didn't change just the application, instead of valves we now use transistors and micro chips but Radio and TV were never proven to be wrong, thankfully things change as our knowledge increases and we learn more if we hadn't we would all be dead by now from influenza.

 

[USincognito]

No, dogma is refusing to drop a theory when it is proven wrong.

I was going to note that ironically applies to Creationism, but Creationism isn't even a theory. As far as evolution goes it's never been "proven wrong" (I think you mean falsified.)

 

[xianghua]

As we all know everything needs a creator please tell me who created your God?

if he eternal he dont need a designer. simple. in the other hand: we know that nature have a beginning.

 

[xianghua]

Examples? And just how "similar" were these genes?

Since it's pretty clear you don't even understand the science, I'm not sure you're in a position to judge.

same to you. so if i will show you such a case, you will admit that evolution is false? yes or no?

 

[USincognito]

same to you. so if i will show you such a case, you will admit that evolution is false? yes or no?

How about just providing this supposed example?

 

[pitabread]

Examples? And just how "similar" were these genes?

There are cases of convergent gene evolution. Apo(a) is an example of the "same" gene evolving separately: Convergent evolution of apolipoprotein(a) in primates and hedgehog. That said, the sequences and path of evolution are clearly not identical.

That paper references a few other examples of convergent gene evolution.

 

[xianghua]

How about just providing this supposed example?

why? you cant make a prediction about your theory?