So, you disrespect the First Law of Aristotle's Logic: "everything must be defined."
That's an unusual way of describing the Law of Identity, if that's what you're referring to here.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
So, you disrespect the First Law of Aristotle's Logic: "everything must be defined."
Well, please define:
1. God,
2. Idol.
If you are able to frame-up statements like this and assume it has any bearing on the concept of evolution, then it is objectively true that you have a gross misconception of the processes involved in evolution. You simply lack an accurate depiction of the concept in your mind, and you must not have done much study, or if you have, then there is some other problem - such as that you were unable to understand any of it, or some bias prevented you from absorbing the knowledge/ideas.Where are no monkeys, fish, reptiles, and the Big Bang in Biblical account of human ancestors.
I'll take the opportunity to share a video from a channel I really love. They put text into google translate over and over and read it out. They do songs, random everyday tasks, and info videos. Recently they did one on evolution. Yes, it's a silly video made for fun, but I think sometimes that's the best way to learn things. The version on the left (white text) is the original, and the version on the right (blue text) is translated. It's actually a really good basic explanation of how evolution works!Where are no monkeys, fish, reptiles, and the Big Bang in Biblical account of human ancestors: "Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God." Luke 3:38.
Humanity is a collection of creatures that are linked by conception. Every time a person conceives a person, not a bird.
This includes cases of in vitro fertilization, but not the genetic manipulation to put animals and humans cells together.
Therefore, there is the very first person, and he can only be one. And if so, then he did not have a wife. And without a wife, he could not give birth to any of us. Therefore, there must have been God who gave him a wife. As you can see, there is no need to include Darwin's Theory of Evolution in this scheme. There are no monkeys in our ancestors' line [nor a common ancestor with monkeys] and cannot be.
The human genome has a lot of homologous (similar) genes: with a monkey - 98%, a mouse - 95%, a banana - 40%. For example, a healthy bird has two legs and one head, a healthy human has one head and two legs. The similarity is due to a Creator's common plan for creating, and because we are unable to digest the banana if the latter has 0.0001 % similarity with our body cells. Such a banana is poison for our genetic structure, not a banana.
On the question: "Who has created God?"
The question is meaningless if it is not proven that God exists.
The question also does not make sense, because God is not an idol: by the definition, God can not be created, designed, imagined, invented.
God is the objective fact, not a human construct.
And the believer loves God so much that he does not ask Him stupid questions. Therefore, the whole task of Theological Research is to demonstrate the existence of God to a disbeliever, and then he will not ask this question. He will be afraid of hell, and to pre-edit his speech: "But I tell you that men will give an account on the day of judgment for every careless word they have spoken." Matthew 12:37. For example, God does not magic, but does wonders; policemen do no murder dangerous criminals, but policemen do execute them.
Do atheists know that there is "no God"? Science doesn't know. Thus, some sectarians do not know. Because there were 99.999% theists in the past, then today about 30% of people are theistic sectarians, theistic heretics.
Math-proof: Is Our World an Intelligent Simulation?, viXra.org e-Print archive, viXra:2104.0152
I read this, this morning, but had no time to really make anything of it. I still can't make anything of it, but it is interesting.Where are no monkeys, fish, reptiles, and the Big Bang in Biblical account of human ancestors: "Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God." Luke 3:38.
No one expects humans to give birth to other organisms. That would be evidence against the theory of evolution if that were to take place.Humanity is a collection of creatures that are linked by conception. Every time a person conceives a person, not a bird.
I have no idea what you intend to support with this.
This includes cases of in vitro fertilization, but not the genetic manipulation to put animals and humans cells together.
The logic of this is both internally and externally inconsistent.Therefore, there is the very first person, and he can only be one. And if so, then he did not have a wife. And without a wife, he could not give birth to any of us. Therefore, there must have been God who gave him a wife. As you can see, there is no need to include Darwin's Theory of Evolution in this scheme. There are no monkeys in our ancestors' line [nor a common ancestor with monkeys] and cannot be.
We could literally eat the meat off our own hands and digest and survive on it. There is no inability to eat food that is closely related to us. But you are correct a banana as you describe would not be a banana. It might still be edible. Not sure what you are going for here. I suppose since you are incorrect it does not matter.The human genome has a lot of homologous (similar) genes: with a monkey - 98%, a mouse - 95%, a banana - 40%. For example, a healthy bird has two legs and one head, a healthy human has one head and two legs. The similarity is due to a Creator's common plan for creating, and because we are unable to digest the banana if the latter has 0.0001 % similarity with our body cells. Such a banana is poison for our genetic structure, not a banana.
The existence of God is believed on faith and not an objective fact. The rest is meandering that makes little sense.On the question: "Who has created God?"
The question is meaningless if it is not proven that God exists.
The question also does not make sense, because God is not an idol: by the definition, God can not be created, designed, imagined, invented.
God is the objective fact, not a human construct.
What does love of God and asking stupid questions have to do with each other? People that ask stupid questions can love God. People that ask incredibly good questions can deny God's existence.\
And the believer loves God so much that he does not ask Him stupid questions. Therefore, the whole task of Theological Research is to demonstrate the existence of God to a disbeliever, and then he will not ask this question. He will be afraid of hell, and to pre-edit his speech: "But I tell you that men will give an account on the day of judgment for every careless word they have spoken." Matthew 12:37. For example, God does not magic, but does wonders; policemen do no murder dangerous criminals, but policemen do execute them.
Your statistics are invalid. You have no way to show 99.999% historical theists. It all sounds like nonsense.
Do atheists know that there is "no God"? Science doesn't know. Thus, some sectarians do not know. Because there were 99.999% theists in the past, then today about 30% of people are theistic sectarians, theistic heretics.
Good luck with all that. I wouldn't, with any seriousness, count this as a publication if it were my work.
They may be thinking about it now.I wonder if Eastern European universities ever rescind the degrees they grant?
So none.My CV and principles of living:
Science and Psycho
Billy Idol?Well, please define:
1. God,
2. Idol.
I sometimes wonder if they are on any thread.There are creationists and evolution sceptics on here who can be completely reasonable people.
They are not on this thread.
you not to make a fool of yourself
There are creationists and evolution sceptics on here who can be completely reasonable people.
They are not on this thread.
I still can't make anything of it, but it is interesting.
I suppose since you are incorrect it does not matter.
you do not even bother to support in any rational way.
It all sounds like nonsense.
I wouldn't, with any seriousness, count this as a publication if it were my work.
They may be thinking about it now.
That's an unusual way of describing the Law of Identity
Do you at least understand that posting a YouTube link to a song is not a valid display of credentials, nor does it help your case in any way? Do you understand this? I am not quite sure that you do, to be honest.
Why does not the bible mention DNA, Covid, starfish, gila monsters, Mars, angler fish, the Grand Canyon, etc.?Where are no monkeys, fish, reptiles, and the Big Bang in Biblical account of human ancestors: "Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God." Luke 3:38.
I can not detect a malfunction in my logic chain.
That doesn't follow. At all.
You're failing at logic again.
Logic is another thing creationists are horrible at.
Why does not the bible mention DNA, Covid