-
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:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Mickiel's proof of God.
- Thread starter mickiel
- Start date
- Status
DarkSun
:eltiT
Mickiel, let's say the date was 200,000BC, and let's just assume people were still alive, but in primitive conditions. Ignore whatever the Bible says, this is just a hypothetical situation.
Now, let's say you had three male children: one grew to be tall and muscular, the second grew to be slightly stocky and hairy, and the third was small but agile. Furthermore, it would be fair to say that these children would not be exact replicas of you, right?
This is because of variation within a species. Every life form on the planet is going to have children with slightly different traits to them (but let's not go into why, okay?). Because of this fact, there is variation in a species.
Now let's say it suddenly became cold, and food became scarce. Now let's say, hypothetically, your tall and muscular child was able to survive because his longer limbs enabled him to conserve energy, so he didn't need to eat as much, despite the lack of food. At the same time, your slightly hairy and stocky child was better equipped to stay warm, despite the cold. But. Let's say the small and agile child died in the cold because he didn't have these advantageous traits.
This is called natural selection. The small and agile child did not have the traits required to survive in the environment, so he died, leaving this other two children to survive. This is an example of one of the basic postulates of evolution: that because organisms within a species will have slightly different characteristics, the organism with the best traits suited to help it survive will live on, while the people with the inferior traits will die.
Now let's say that your first son died younger than normal because of heart failure, leaving your second son to live on (the hairy and stocky one). And let's say your hairy and stocky child had children, two who were short, hairy and stocky, and one who was slightly taller. Now let's say that the one who was slightly taller died in the cold environment, and that the remaining two children had kids: one who was the same size as their parents, the second who was even smaller and slightly stockier, and the third who was even stockier than his parents, but about the same height. Let's say only the third child survived. Let's say he had kids. All of whom resembled him to an extent, but each with their own traits.
In comparison, you, the father, look like you do now.
This is how evolution works. It does not say that people "magically transform". It says that because of differences in your offspring, and because some of those differences are beneficial for life, the child with the best genes suited to survive, will survive, and pass on those genes. In all, evolution is the net sum of all inheritable adaptations.
So. In summary:
1. There is variation of traits within a species.
2. This variation of traits are because of differences in genes (DNA).
3. Species will compete for limited resources in a brutal world.
4. The species who is most successfully able to reproduce will do so, and carry on their genes.
5. Natural selection: the organism within a species who has the traits best suited for survival, will carry on their traits, while the organism with inferior traits will die out. As generations progress, only the beneficial traits come to exist, and species gradually change.
6. Proof of this lies in all of the different races of people on Earth. The theory of evolution explains why every race has slightly different traits.
Here is some more evidence, not just with people:
Now, let's say you had three male children: one grew to be tall and muscular, the second grew to be slightly stocky and hairy, and the third was small but agile. Furthermore, it would be fair to say that these children would not be exact replicas of you, right?
This is because of variation within a species. Every life form on the planet is going to have children with slightly different traits to them (but let's not go into why, okay?). Because of this fact, there is variation in a species.
Now let's say it suddenly became cold, and food became scarce. Now let's say, hypothetically, your tall and muscular child was able to survive because his longer limbs enabled him to conserve energy, so he didn't need to eat as much, despite the lack of food. At the same time, your slightly hairy and stocky child was better equipped to stay warm, despite the cold. But. Let's say the small and agile child died in the cold because he didn't have these advantageous traits.
This is called natural selection. The small and agile child did not have the traits required to survive in the environment, so he died, leaving this other two children to survive. This is an example of one of the basic postulates of evolution: that because organisms within a species will have slightly different characteristics, the organism with the best traits suited to help it survive will live on, while the people with the inferior traits will die.
Now let's say that your first son died younger than normal because of heart failure, leaving your second son to live on (the hairy and stocky one). And let's say your hairy and stocky child had children, two who were short, hairy and stocky, and one who was slightly taller. Now let's say that the one who was slightly taller died in the cold environment, and that the remaining two children had kids: one who was the same size as their parents, the second who was even smaller and slightly stockier, and the third who was even stockier than his parents, but about the same height. Let's say only the third child survived. Let's say he had kids. All of whom resembled him to an extent, but each with their own traits.
In comparison, you, the father, look like you do now.
This is how evolution works. It does not say that people "magically transform". It says that because of differences in your offspring, and because some of those differences are beneficial for life, the child with the best genes suited to survive, will survive, and pass on those genes. In all, evolution is the net sum of all inheritable adaptations.
So. In summary:
1. There is variation of traits within a species.
2. This variation of traits are because of differences in genes (DNA).
3. Species will compete for limited resources in a brutal world.
4. The species who is most successfully able to reproduce will do so, and carry on their genes.
5. Natural selection: the organism within a species who has the traits best suited for survival, will carry on their traits, while the organism with inferior traits will die out. As generations progress, only the beneficial traits come to exist, and species gradually change.
6. Proof of this lies in all of the different races of people on Earth. The theory of evolution explains why every race has slightly different traits.
Here is some more evidence, not just with people:
Last edited:
The Neo Nerd
Well-Known Member
If all this is just for you then why post it here when you could just talk to yourself. The conversation could go something like this:
Mickiel - hey mickiel
Mickiel - yes mickiel
Mickiel - might I say how handsome you are
Mickiel - thankyou and might I say how smart you are
Mickiel - thankyou hey mickiel did you know that since god made everything that everything is proof of god
Mickiel - why yes I did you are so smart mickiel
Mickiel - and you are so handsome
Mickiel - hey I have an idea let's go get some of our bottom ribs removed
Mickiel - what great idea let's do it
I think The above conversation and the fact that you don't have it instead of destroying our brain cells with your posts is proof of your lies.
And lies make baby Jesus cry
I hope you're happy now
Peace
-Q
Tiberius
Well-Known Member
You do not post to explain your views. You post to start a discussion about it, because you post in a debate forum and you claim you have "proof" when all you have is "opinion".
So, you are being dishonest, and no one who brings the word of God should ever be dishonest.
And that proves that your God doesn't exist.
And I want to go into that.
Morse
To Extinguish
I never said I wasn't a girl. I was simply wondering what led you to that conclusion. It is entirely possible that I just have an appreciation for the female face/body. Or that could be a photograph of me.
I keep my gender undisclosed because it doesn't matter. If my gender will ever play a role in a discussion, I will disclose it.
I keep my gender undisclosed because it doesn't matter. If my gender will ever play a role in a discussion, I will disclose it.
rojse
RF Addict
Oh, I agree with you that Petra exists. But that is not proof that the Bible is a non-fictional work, in the same way that the fact that Kansas exists does not prove "The Wizard of Oz" is a non-fictional work.
mickiel
Well-Known Member
ragordon168
Active Member
proof?
so because cavemen didnt have mobile phones and google they didnt have consciousness?
ragordon168
Active Member
but this just means the cities were real not the stories that happened there according to the bible.
for a high school english project i wrote a story in which the 9/11 planes carried nukes which destroyed NY and DC and crippled the US.
now last i checked these cities were still standing and america is a major power. but im on the other side of the atlantic so if anyones closer can you give us a sit. rep?
ragordon168
Active Member
am i the only one who thinks this is an insult?
Azakel
Liebe ist für alle da
Wow, just wow. I mean Elune forbid that when someone writes down made makes a religious book that they use land mark of there time.
The Vedas talk about land makes one can find in India, so then that must be proof of the Hindu god.
And, if I would to write my own holy book right now and talk about some major landmarks and place, then 1000+ years later those place are mostly gone but people that have read my book find those landmarks that means there is proof of my religion and everything about it?
The Vedas talk about land makes one can find in India, so then that must be proof of the Hindu god.
And, if I would to write my own holy book right now and talk about some major landmarks and place, then 1000+ years later those place are mostly gone but people that have read my book find those landmarks that means there is proof of my religion and everything about it?
Azakel
Liebe ist für alle da
I do think he means it at an insult. But I don't think any Atheist would think that. Though Mestemia has he religion in as Apathetic Agnostic, I don't know if he sit more to the theist or atheist side(I can speak for him).
Though I think that mickiel thinks everyone who doesn't agree with him is an Atheist.
ragordon168
Active Member
1. theories cannot give 100% proof it can never happen. the best they can do is bury all doubt under the evidence, which surprise surprise ToE, gravity and every other theory creationists have trouble with does. if they didnt science wouldnt use them.
2. so a lack of a universal theory means there must be a god as we havent found that he doesnt exist yet? so does that mean that god existed more, 100 years ago as we didnt know as much?
3. we dont desire him to be false, if we found 'god' we would spend time studying him to learn everything we could instead of just following blindly.
thats why atheists dont get to heaven - we would poke and prod god measuring every sngle detail until he went insane.
Hi Mickiel
Earlier you said:
However you already know God, you say it here:
I have no disagrement with this.
Earlier you said:
However you already know God, you say it here:
I have no disagrement with this.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
I also agree.
Yep, so do I!
In fact I don't for a minute see why your proofs shouldn't be sufficient for you, or why atheist arguments should be bothersome.
It was on a different subject that Doctor Johnson famously said the public are the judges, and if they are pleased then it is well, but if they are not pleased then there is little use in telling them why they ought to be. So nobody can tell you what you shouldn't believe, but neither can the sceptic be told he must believe in what there isn't. But there is a world of difference between proselytizing and debate. The former is coercive, insidious and dogmatic, while the latter provides for a meeting of minds and an insight into both camps.
- Status