₦airaland Forum

Samsimple:
op claim to know more than everybody thats why he just disgraced himself...end of story

I must have missed his claim then.

Samsimple:
#fact..but mr op level of ignorance is out of this world

You say fact, but you're still shaming his ignorance. If we compare what we know to what we don't, I frankly doubt any of us is significantly less ignorant than the OP. So knowing a little more about a niche area of knowledge shouldn't be licence to shame people

Hier:
Do you consider the fact that the female possess the perfect ovaries to fertilize the male's s*men an accident?

Have you established any distinction between ovaries that are "perfect" and ones that are "just adequate"?

Note, the man evolve as a man, the woman evolve as a woman. The two live independent

The emboldened claim is demonstrably false. Your question, itself, implies as much. Both genders are dependent on each other for reproduction.

so if they evolve, each unit (male and female) evolve without influencing the other gender mode of evolution.

Your premise is incorrect, so too is your conclusion. Your progeny are bound to carry half of your biological traits and half of your mating partner's, so if you choose mama Christina for a particular biological trait, say massive babylons, you have invariably influenced the gender traits of Christina and her granddaughters. Now, imagine there are some traits that are universally advantageous in men, like long dongles, perhaps for more efficient reproduction (proximity to women's ovaries and all), then, at some point, most of the future men would invariably be born with such a trait, then it could be said that the ovaries of women have selectively bred men with dangling dongles. So you see, both genders influence each others mode of evolution.

I believe it was designed by someone, that someone is who I term God.

Having shown your conclusion to be based on an inaccurate premise, I hope you are willing to reevaluate this belief.

If you disagree, prove otherwise

The onus of this challenge is now on you.

Samsimple:
op i warned u but u still want to humilliate ur sef...dis is what i mean wen i say u are ignorant

And what is wrong with being ignorant? Ignorance should not be shamed, and no one should feel or be humiliated for exposing their ignorance. There's not a single soul that isn't ignorant about almost everything.

thehomer:
That person still exists.

Haha! Good to know!

johnydon22:
lucifer is a title, satan is a person.

Lucifer in latin means "bringer of light' "morning sun" and so on

I believe lucifer is more accurately the "morning star", a title given to Venus because it's usually the brightest "star" in the early hours of the morning.

chemystery:
Well, CoolUsername & hopefulLandlord have done justice to whatever there is to say. In addition to that, doesn't this scenario look absurd to you? Picture this:

God saw what would happen to the sexton, God could stop it but God be like:

"Well, ​I know what you all want already but I just want to hear you beg!​"

The congregation now begged and god be like:

"Alright sexton, congregation don beg on your behalf. Oya, chop this small wound!"

Meaning if no one had prayed, god, knowing what would happen to the sexton will be like:

"Hehehe, i expected them to beg but no one begged for you sexton, so you can go to hell for all I care"

Too egocentric and anthropomorphic for a god in the first place

Exactly my thoughts! Think motive: The only way prophesies make any sense is if god were some second rate spirit who spies on heavenly schemes for a profit (human adulation, perhaps). The alternative is that this all powerful god doesn't much care about its worshippers, and would sacrifice their wellbeing just to make itself more popular. The veritable trait of a homicidal megalomaniacal lunatic!

It makes better sense to worship a second rate spirit than worship such a cruel god.

Oh wow! koolJ1, shaybebaby and ModusOperandi, I am flattered beyond self-recognition to be so recognised by yous! Still, I enjoy engaging with brilliant minds such as yourselves. I have to admit though, I wouldn't say I'm always on point, as I do make lots of mistakes.

In categories, my picks are:
Philosophical depth: PastorAIO, thehomer (if this person still exists) and DeepSight

Witty ripostes: sonofluc1fer

Poignant allegories: Johnydon22 and dalaman

butterflylion:
Goodmorning. You see one of the things i try to do when arguing with anyone is to be as honest as possible but you seem to have fallen short of this.

You start off by asking that i look up what the diference is between a hypothesis and a theory but consider this quote of yours earlier

I don't know why you try. It's not particularly difficult to be honest.

First of all the Clovis comet nonsense has been disproved and thrown to the trash and is now regarded as a hypothesis and here you were above using its alleged after effects to defend how dinosaurs went extinct. Would there be after effects if such never happened?

You can read

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/03/0309_040309_chicxulubdinos.html

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/09/130910-comet-impact-mammoths-climate-younger-dryas-quebec-science/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvarez_hypothesis

https://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=114648

http://blog.smu.edu/research/2014/05/12/dating-of-supposed-extraterrestrial-impact-indicators-unreliable-fails-to-prove-comet-sparked-climate-change-at-the-end-of-the-ice-age-or-killed-clovis-people/

What has Clovis comet hypothesis got to do with the K-Pg extinction event? These two things address incidents that are separated by 66 million years. So, yeah! Welcome to the party, you're only millions of years late!

On the other hand, you did list two articles about a 2009 paper by Gerta Keller, which presents an alternative hypothesis on the cause of the mass extinction. Indeed, Keller's findings suggest that other environmental factors, caused especially by Deccan volcanoes, contributed significantly to the K-Pg mass extinction. I have also now read her subsequent (2014) paper, titled: "Deccan volcanism, the Chicxulub impact, and the end-Cretaceous mass extinction: Coincidence? Cause and effect?", and her argument is compelling enough to make me reassess my original supposition, so I agree that the Deccan volcanoes may very well have contributed far more significantly to the mass extinction than the asteroid impact. I should have been more thorough with my facts.

Why would you use a hypothesis in an argument then turn around and accuse me of doing so then asking that i go find out the difference between a hypothesis and a theory? So can you say you are up to date with your science and you know how science works since you are doing exactly what you accuse me of?

Note that the operative point in the text you quoted wasn't about the cause of mass extinction, I made that remark just as a side note justifying why you shouldn't wish to witness an asteroid impact event on earth. Nevertheless, the point I really wished to make there is that asteroid impacts are not hypothetical. They are real, and the Yucatan crater is evidence of this, among several others.

You also lied when you said you NEVER and CAN NEVER make such a "DUMB" remark as "CHEMISTRY CAN EXPLAIN WHY WATER IS SUITED TO LIFE ON EARTH. Well again you lied. Here is your comment below



Are those not your words? Did i fabricate them? You say you cannot deny your words but here you are denying them so brazenly and lying too. Stop being all over the place and stay honest.

What I claim I said:

AgentOfAllah:
You are wrong! Chemistry certainly can explain why water is suited for life

What you claimed I said:

butterflylion:
... chemistry can explain why water is suited for the earth?

I don't think those two sentences carry the same meaning, so one of us is clearly lying, and I know it's not me!

Remember you claimed the earth was formed through the bombardment of asteroids (which in itself is immense energy as much as 50 or 100 suns which would explain the energy angle)

Wait! What do you mean by energy as much as 50 or 100 suns?

so why is it hard for you to believe that the origin of life also came here carried by these same asteroids in the water they delivered here to earth since nucleobases have been found and you also said they brought water here and life as science claims began in water, in what is known as the primordial soup?

Why do you deny the same science you present?

Understand this: I consider every proposition about the origins of life on earth as poorly supported hypotheses. Again, I insist that there is a non-trivial distinction between a theory and a hypothesis in science. If you feel my knowledge is not up to date, please refer me to a peer-reviewed scientific article that substantiates this asteroid panspermia hypothesis, and I will be happy to update myself.

You have yet to answer the questions I asked:

(1) Why do you think water has any purpose?

(2) What's the purpose of the water that exists in comets and asteroids?

butterflylion:
You are obviously the one not up to date if you say that my comment about the evolutionary fragments arriving earth via asteroid is not tenable.

The theory holds that either very simple forms of life or the materials necessary for it to form are carried to Earth on comets or fragments of asteroids. These survive their journey through the atmosphere and ultimately evolve into the species we see around us today including the very scientists hypothesising about their origins.

Certain amino acids the “building blocks” of life, necessary to build proteins ­­have been found by NASA on comets, and analysis of some meteorites has suggested that amino acids and other organic compounds may have formed in space, rather than being present as a result of contamination of the samples. You need to read up on the Rosettas comet.

You seem not to understand how science works, so instead of engaging you in a futile ping-pong match about the origins of life on earth, I would encourage you to investigate the distinctions between a scientific hypothesis and a scientific theory. It is not trivial, yet you flippantly conflate one with the other.

This now takes me back to the same stroke of luck issue which you so badly wish to dismiss so let me reiterate.

Oh, FFS!!!

You say chemistry can explain why water is suited for the earth? Wow! So water came factory fitted for life sustainability on earth by pure stroke of luck?

You lie! I could never make such a dumb remark.

You have to note that water was here first before evolution began (according to science)

Peer reviewed article, please?

so water could not have been adapted to by the creators that evolved from it if those creatures cannot influence the forming of ice or the condensation and evaporation of water or the temperature control quality it holds then it means reverse was the case. Water actually did come factory fitted for the earth.

Huh

Now you ask what then is the function of water on other planets? I thought in your previous post you said perhaps there could be life on other planets. One minute you say this below which was your direct response to my comment about water being on other planets.

Where did I ask that? More of your lies! I asked you what the purpose of water is on comets and asteroids?

The very next minute you say this below

Yes please, my questions weren't intended to be rhetorical, please answer:
(1) Why do you think water has any purpose?

(2) What's the purpose of the water that exists in comets and asteroids?

Why now contradicting yourself? Are you no longer hopeful of life being found elsewhere? Why now talk down on water just to garner points when the same presence of water on other planetary bodies made you have hope that life could be found on those planets?

Stop this vain attempt at hoping from one comment to a directly opposite comment the next second it Shows you are desperate to appear right when all you have been doing has been simply throwing yourself all over the place.

Yet another lie! I do not know where I expressed such a hope to you. I merely questioned whether you have evidence that life doesn't exist on other planets because you made the claim. Again, I reiterate that you don't know how science works. So maybe you should stop grasping desperately at straws and educate yourself. I would normally suggest topics which you should prioritise, in this case, Burden of Proof and Argument from Ignorance, with particular emphasis on the Absence of Evidence section. However, I do think your misconceptions run deeper, so yeah, I encourage you to study Scientific method in general.

Can you deny your own words? If you could quickly change your words with the very next comment then it's disappointing really.

No, I can't deny my words, nor do I intend to. What I can deny, however, are your shameful fabrications, and I've done just that!

butterflylion:
The end of your entire comment says it all.

"so I'd be careful about making hasty conclusions about things of which we are still ignorant". Yet you hastily assumed that the first asteroid must have been much older than the one known (without proof) yet you also were hasty to assume that the earth was a product of asteroids (also without proof)

That star orbiting planets are formed by asteroids and other stardust debris is a generally accepted concept in astrophysics and it was not arrived at hastily! There are, in fact, images of new stars which show planets forming as a result of accretion (as in the image below). You're apparently not up to date with Astrophysics concepts, and that's fine. It is however crass to project your ignorance on me, rather than seek clarification.
https://i67.tinypic.com/otke2a.jpg
HL Tauri and its baby planets. Taken with the ALMA radio telescope.

So in essence by another stroke of luck asteroids formed the earth and asteroids also brought water to earth. This water which the asteroids brought also contained the very foundation of evolutionary birth. The strokes of luck are piling up bro. Those asteroids must either be beyond lucky or they were simply on a mission

I never made the emboldened claim, stop trying to foist imaginary arguments on me. Apart from that, it is not clear why you keep insisting that there was any "stroke of luck" involved anywhere. Can you just take a step back and consider the facts?
(1) Water is a fairly common substance carried by asteroids, comets and other space debris.
(2) These debris do interact with the gravitational field of other objects nearby, enabling accretion of said debris
(3) If this were true, we are likely to find water - steam, liquid or ice - on most things formed by these debris. So, there is nothing particularly special about water existing on any planet or moon, or comet, or asteroid. In fact, it is pretty mundane to find water on such things. See Water on Comet 67P, detected by Rosetta, Water in the Orion nebula, detected by spectroscopy, Water discovered in astroid. You also previously mentioned a few other places bodies with water detected in them.

Chemistry can explain why ice behaves the way it does but it does not explain why it had to also by coincidence be suited to life on earth? How come this water came already prepared for this purpose on earth? How come it came with these properties already established in it for sustaining life on earth? Another coincidence? Another stroke of luck?

You are wrong! Chemistry certainly can explain why water is suited for life: It is a polar (due to its electronic configuration) solvent that is inert towards non-polar hydrocarbon molecules which make up life.
It is not clear why you think the "purpose" of water is to sustain life on earth, or why water has any purpose for that matter? What's the purpose of the water that exists in comets and asteroids?

Like I said, I can itemise the strokes of luck so far

Stop this childish ad nauseam argument. It's making conversing with you difficult, to put it mildly!

butterflylion:
So you say asteroids came to earth via gravity? Can you tell me what on earth is standing in the way of this phenomenon repeating itself?

Nothing! It can, and probably will still happen. Of course, when our solar system was still young, there were far more asteroids floating around, so the probability of impact events was higher then than it is now.

Back to your talk about dinosaurs and how they got wiped off by some stroke of luck laser guided asteroid that pinpointed their location how come we are yet to experience no such fluke stroke of luck again?

It was certainly not the impact itself that wiped them out. The impact had atmospheric as well as terrestrial implications. Please read on [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cretaceous%E2%80%93Paleogene_extinction_event#Effects_of_impact]effects of the impact here[/url]. You asked how come we have yet to experience such an event. When solid things experience gravitational collapse, they tend to stay bound to their host. The effect is a reduction in density of floating objects as time progresses. We are lucky to live in an epoch where the density of cosmic objects around us has significantly reduced due to said collapse. Make no mistake though, there are still many asteroids that cross our orbit, and will one day, collide with earth. This collision course may even be hastened through their interactions with the gravitational fields of other massive bodies. Some agencies are active in tracking these Near Earth Astroids (NEAs). So don't get too comfortable.

From your link the first known asteroid impact was 2 billion years ago. The earth is 4.5billion years old and evolution is said to have begun about 4billion years ago.

You weren't paying attention. The article I linked lists the biggest asteroid impact sites known. "Known" is the operative word here. There are definitely older impact sites. One was discovered in Greenland, and dates as far back as 3 billion years ago. But yes, the earth itself, was formed by asteroids so technically, the first impact must be as old as the earth itself.

This is odd because most liquids become denser when they freeze. Water, however, expands as it changes to ice. And the result? When lakes freeze, ice does not gather at the bottom, but at the top, trapping a layer of warmer water underneath. This is a very happy "fluke" of nature because it gives fish and other living things a chance to survive.

This property isn't unique to water. It happens to a handful of other materials too and it is no fluke! Liquid materials tend to form ordered crystal lattices as they freeze (phase change). In the case of water, the lattice arrangement is hexagonal with tetrahedral bonding angles strictly due to polar (electrostatic) repulsion of the orbiting electrons.This energy minimising tetrahedral bond causes the closely packed liquid molecules to expand due to increased interatomic distance of the constituent atoms in the crystal lattice. You can easily look up these things on google man.
https://www.crankshift.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/liquid-water-and-ice-300x165.png
L- Liquid H₂O, R - Crystal (ice) H₂O

Did water also evolve in order to suit life on earth?

I don't understand this question. The physical properties of water molecules are pretty simple to grasp. If it is not H₂O, it's not water.

butterflylion:
While waiting for your response AgentOfAllah I would also require your response to this.

I do know that all uncontrolled objects coming in from outer space to the earth such as meteors, asteroids, debris etc experience aerodynamic heating from the karman line which is 330,000 feet above sea level and is the boundary between our atmosphere and outer space and since the earths atmospheric conditions were not definitely what we have today 4.5 billion years ago, how did the ice on this asteroid make it through when even rocks (which are not aerodynamic in nature) get broken into pieces when in such a situation? Except it was also by some fluke of luck that an aerodynamic asteroid was the vehicle that brought this ice in

I can itemise all the strokes of luck we have identified so far if you like

The sort of asteroids and comets that disintegrate when they approach our atmosphere are small (the size of cars, more or less). If they are massive (>1 km in diameter) and/or dense, they would certainly make it through the atmosphere before they fully burnout. Many such objects still land on earth, even till this day. No one says the water must necessarily be ice. It could also be liquid trapped inside solid structures.

butterflylion:
Also AgentOfAllah since science arguably claims asteroids brought water to the earth and since they also claim that since life began in this alien water brought in from these asteroids where then did the asteroids bring the ice from?

As regards the emboldened, no such scientific claim exists. There are hypotheses and speculations, but no claim. The source of life on earth is still unknown.

Surely these asteroids would have delivered this same water to other planets and this same water would have also contained the origins of evolutionary life. In fact scientists claim that water is found in 23 places in our solar system. Namely:

Europa, Enceladus, Ganymede, Callisto, Ceres, Mars, Dione, Pluto, Charon, Titan, Mimas, Triton, Titania, Oberon, Umbriel, Tethys, Rhea, Lapetus, The Kuiper Belt, Mercury, The moon, Neptune, Uranus

Let's narrow it down to the moon which scientists also say has water and I believe these asteroids also brought water to the moon and this water contained the origins of evolutionary life same as earth so how is it that the moon which is 4.47 billion years old has no life on it and the earth which is 4.5 billion years old has complete and well balanced life on it?

I am just thinking out loud

Do you have evidence that life does not exist on other planets or cosmic objects? Just because we haven't found life elsewhere doesn't mean it doesn't exist there. Even the moon which is one of the most explored objects outside of the earth, we've probably covered far less that 0.01% of its total volume. So I'd be careful about making hasty conclusions about things of which we are still ignorant.

butterflylion:
Okay now lets look at the reason for my thread. I did ask a specific question regarding how water would be created by man but like i said that was simply a throw off question as i wanted everyone to go back to the beginning as i hinted Bennyann so lets look at the beginning.

To be clear, in discussions that evoke critical thinking, the purpose of questions is to seek/provide clarity, not to throw people off. It's only during a magic trick - where participants are expected to suspend all critical faculties - that a performer may be forgiven for asking "throw off" questions. If I recall correctly though, the purpose of this thread was not to dazzle participants with the magic of equivocation. In fact, you specifically appealed to people's intelligence and critical thinking on several occasions. So, the way I see it, there are three possibilities:

(1) You came up with this poorly conceived excuse of "throw off" as an afterthought, to wriggle yourself out of an equally poorly conceived question, or

(2) You don't understand the import of questions in critical thought processes, or

(3) You deliberately intended to troll people using deception.

Whichever it is, this is solely on you, as it was your responsibility to clarify what the exact purpose of your thread was, but you never did. Instead, you kept making vague remarks like "it's in the beginning", when prodded for clarification. Ergo, I don't think it is fair or honest to blame the people who rightly called you out on your BS, as you are wont to do.

I kept a tab on this thread however, because you promised you'd provide an answer, and I wanted to know if your answer may yet redeem you, and I will come to that immediately. Firstly, I want to quickly point out that ignoring your previous mention was deliberate. It seemed you mistook my persistence on this thread as a desire to partaker in your theist/atheist wankfest (as Sarassin put it). It may have been 2 or 3 years ago, but that's not my style anymore, so please take note.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, since you have provided an "answer" to a question which you admit is a pointless "throw off", there is no longer any need to discuss your followup in context of the question. I however, still wish to take you up on your followup if you are willing. before we proceed, I want to see if we can establish a common ground on the origins of water in the universe. I see that you posted a scientific discussion from the Smithsonian about the origins of water on earth. The first part of this discussion touches upon the origins of water in the universe. Do you agree with that part or not? If not can you please mention, specifically, where your disagreement lies?

butterflylion:
did water send itself here? If it did we should have experienced at least once another asteroid slamming into the earth and enabling us to witness first hand what is assumed to be the origin of water. Would you say that is truly its origin when you have not experienced it and may never do? No wonder science still argues this till today.

As for your question about whether water sent itself here. The answer is a resounding no! It was brought here by gravity. Believe me though, you do not want to witness asteroids or any such sizable cosmic bodies impact the earth first hand. As a direct consequence of impact events, the last terrestrial species that dominated the earth didn't fare very well. Anyway, there is ample evidence that the earth was severally impacted by asteroids. There is also ample evidence that asteroids carry insane quantities of water with them.

mrwonlasewonie:
but that is the fact.the definition of faith was written in Hebrews chapter 11 vs 1-for now FAITH IS THE SUBSTANCE OF THINGS HOPED FOR,THE EVIDENCE OF THINGS NOT SEEN.

in American standard Bible version which is more clear said- FAITH IS THE CONFIDENCE THAT WHAT WE HOPE FOR WILL ACTUALLY HAPPEN.IT GIVES US ASSURANCE OF THINGS WE CANNOT SEE.

IN VERSE 3 IT SAID BY FAITH WE UNDERSTAND THAT THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE WAS FORMED AT GOD'S COMMAND, THAT WHAT WE NOW SEE DID NOT COME FROM ANYTHING THAT CAN BE SEEN.

do you understand the point now?

Your honesty is a rare thing. I don't consider blind faith a virtue as you do, but I still respect your honesty!

dalaman:
But that's true. Faith indeed is blind belief if you are to follow it to the core. The bible clearly tells them that they are to throw away their wisdom and reasoning abilities and accept what ever it teaches them by saying that God will confuse the wise and that the best wisdom of men is foolishness unto God. Faith blind belief indeed.

Yeah. It's just weird to see someone extoll it as a virtue. Most believers would swear to their last atom that they came to accept their religious position by way of reason, not blind faith. At least, this one is honest!

DeSepiero:
Funny enough thats true; I'd give her the benefit of the doubt then.

Giving people the benefit of doubt is good virtue! I pray it's worth your while.

mrwonlasewonie:
..but when you come before God you come in humility and reverence before him.with God you need to put logic, facts,principles ,evidences, predictions and calculation aside and walk with him in FAITH. For he said in the Bible WITHOUT FAITH IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO PLEASE HIM.faith and logical reasoning cannot work together. Faith is blind belief

Jesus!!! I mean, I've always known this to be true, just never heard it so blatantly extolled as if it's a virtue. My word!

DeSepiero:
Assuming your response above determines who a Christian is, how can you demonstrate that the Poster here has not experienced the power of what he or she professes and is dead and alive for you to safely conclude that he was not a Christian at first?

Here's where you're headed sir..just saving you some time with my chicken scribbles.

https://i67.tinypic.com/2nqeeyq.jpg

Seems therapeutic!

PastorAIO:
Sir, I'm a bit fascinated by your use of terms here. I've never heard such a metaphor as "prism sight". I spent a while trying to make sense of it. I imagine it's supposed to. E derogatory but I don't see how. A prism divides light into its component colours. Much like the the word that is 'quick and active , sharper than a two edge sword separating even soul from spirit'.

I don't see what is wrong with refraction o. Abeg explain.

I work with light...a lot...and there's never been a scenario where dividing it into its respective component wavelengths has negative implications. In fact, the sharper and thinner your spectra, the better, because you can then reconstruct the light as accurately and as detailed as you wish, without losing information. Rejoice! For your prism sight is something I'd kill for!

https://i.pinimg.com/736x/42/80/5b/42805bd12b0ba19334a4eb8e50a24f1c.jpg

The wheel of cognitive dissonance is in motion Jode, let it run its course. Experience tells me that if you don't fight it, you will quickly get to a point of reconciliation, whatever that may be. If you fight it, you will still get to that point; but, just as friction causes a lot of heat and wear, it'll leave you mentally weary. As new truths begin to unfold, embrace them quickly and enjoy their collateral consequences. Your life is about to get a hell of a whole lot interesting!

Ayo199:
I notice anytime there is a thread on miracles lyk raising of the dead,blind revieving their sight and so on,people are quick to jump into conclusion dat d story needs investigation and dat it might jst b staged.i am nt ignorant of d fact that such has become rampant in churches today as most "pastors" are always looking for ways to arouse der members and lift der faith or to probably increase in population,But that does nt change d fact that God is a miracle working God..and miracle as of old still happens today..believe me,i have witnesed so many...d most annoying part is most people that indulge in d "thomasic "attitude proclaim to b "christians",how can you claim to b a christian and yet you doubt d potency and efficacy of d power of God??so are you saying miracles arent real??are you saying God is not capable of raising d dead again??

What is wrong with you? Asking for further investigation is NOT jumping into conclusion, it's the exact opposite of that!

I have 2 questions for you:

(1) Can you define miracle?

(2) Can you distinguish a miracle from a staged performance? If so, how?

dalaman:
OP has since realized his folly but just wants to keep trolling. When everybody on a thread tells you that your are saying nonsense you just have to acknowledge and move along, but OP just wants to keep trolling.

Which is probably why he should be ignored until he presents his "intelligent solution" to the problems in his imaginary universe. It's not like I'm holding out hope that we'd get one. The 9-legged prince that was promised will grow a 10th leg before that happens.

butterflylion:
So none who have tried so far can actually think outside their confined spaces?

None whatsoever! At this point we're just waiting for the mind-shattering, outside-the-box, intellectual reveal that makes your dry, magical world go round.

johnydon22:
i nearly fall comot my chair for here...had it been my laptop fell off sonofluc1fer would have paid for it the guy nearly murder me with laugh

Hahaha. He made me a believer again...for like 10 seconds!

sonofluc1fer:
Indeed. It follows no laws. Critical thinking requires a few rules and guidelines.


We have. The problem is you put thinking aside too.


We can. The problem is your box looks like a coffin.


A coffin for all that logic holds dear.

Blood of Jesus!!! This guy, you're savage!

butterflylion:
please stick to the thread. I created scenarios and an enabling environment for out of the box reasoning.

Asking about legs and flying donkeys and eliminating same environment or scenario is derailing this thread.

It's unfortunate you think I am eliminating an "enabling environment for out of the box reasoning". Is it possible to eliminate something that is non-existent?

The only thing you've succeeded in doing is create a scenario that disables any kind of reasoning, irrespective of which side of the box such a reasoning is intended to take place. My hypothetical was supposed to demonstrate as much! If you can't give an intelligent answer to it, how is it you expect people to give intelligent answers to problems within an imagined universe you've created whose laws are as nebulous as those of a universe that allows 10-legged-boy-eating flying donkeys to exist.

butterflylion:
Your question is not for this thread.

I promise you, it is...you just don't see the connection yet. I will fully clarify the connection when you answer it...intelligently, please!

butterflylion:
you are still behind with the updated information I provided so saying stylishly that I am not intelligent is welcome.

Put all you know about evolution aside.

Man being made up of 50% water does not mean we must need water (follow my train of thought)

Even if we do need water but we came to the scene not via evolution ( according to my angle on this thread). So how would we sustain ourselves without any water source on earth?

Can you please answer my hypothetical?

AgentOfAllah:
There is a flying donkey that exists in the world. This donkey eats boys with less than 10 legs. There is a boy with 9 legs. He is the prince that was promised, so he should not be eaten by this flying donkey. How should the boy grow his 10th leg so he is not eaten by the flying donkey? I expect you to use your intelligence to answer this question!

I'm not intelligent, so my impulse was to avoid this thread...that was before I read the post. Upon reading it though, it is evident that very little intelligence has been invested in the formulation of this discussion, and I can see that with my limited intelligence, so I'm just going to save intelligent people a lot of time by...well, by wasting mine.

butterflylion:
Let's assume there is no water anywhere on earth. No streams, rivers, lakes, ponds, seas and oceans.

Let's assume rain does not fall and we never experience evaporation and Condensation and plants do not need water to thrive but humans do.

The average human is made up of 50 - 70% water, so if there is no water anywhere on earth, then in what form do the humans who supposedly thrive on water exist? And if they have existed thus far without water, why do they suddenly need it?

Now let's apply critical thinking.

How would the whole world be able to survive without water? Are we or science capable of manufacturing water on a large scale, the kind that would sustain the entire world?

What does your question mean? You've just said above that water does not exist and plants do not require water to survive; so in your hypothetical universe, the whole world seems to be surviving just fine without water. You're essentially creating an imaginary problem and beseeching others to figure out its solution. Such a universe is your creation, and seems to defy the known laws of physics, so the onus is on you to explain just how the world survives in this imaginary universe of yours.

If water was not already available and by pure "coincidence" as science often alludes is able to always be available even though the process of water creation is extremely complex and volatile yet nature somehow was able to achieve this feat unaided (according to science).

Really? Science makes this claim? Do you have a peer-reviewed reference that supports this assertion?

How would man be able to manufacture (create) water for the entire world?

Hint: before you make your comment please read up on water creation first.

May the critical thinkers now show themselves

I have a hypothetical of mine, which I want you to answer:

There is a flying donkey that exists in the world. This donkey eats boys with less than 10 legs. There is a boy with 9 legs. He is the prince that was promised, so he should not be eaten by this flying donkey. How should the boy grow his 10th leg so he is not eaten by the flying donkey? I expect you to use your intelligence to answer this question!

shaybebaby:
I did, feel renewed with a purposefulness to go back to bed.
Just kidding, but thanks for asking.

Wonderful! Although, I wouldn't judge if you weren't kidding. I've certainly had my fair share of days when my life's calling was to cling to my bed.

Is there a way of changing circles completely? I'm very much a live and let live person. So if people don't respect (note I didn't say accept) my choices, I distance myself completely. So couldn't you do the same? Kinda like agree to disagree.

Oh, these individuals aren't in my circle any longer, yet I still must accommodate them as neighbours and distant relatives. To be honest, I don't even know what they are capable of. I just don't wish to find out any time soon.

Could I request that include bending time and space in your research? I've got someone bugging me about travelling to the moon and beyond and I'm starting to get desperate.

Would that it were so easy!