₦airaland Forum

butterflylion:
Can we easily create water in large scales for all 7 billion of earths population?

7 billion people that somehow didn't need water until they got to that number then suddenly needed water...!!!!



This is where critical thinking came to be buried ...

butterflylion:
I know you are struggling to break out from the box at the moment.

Stop looking at the problems.... Look for the solutions.

I said on this earth of mine there is no rain, no condensation and evaporation, no seas and all water bodies. Plants do not need water to survive but only man does.

I could have easily said man needs water to survive but plants do not in this my earth but I said the opposite.

How would we be able to sustain ourselves as many as we are on this earth assuming we never evolved the way we are told.

I think you are the one struggling to clutch on to an already destroyed premise ... Anyway here is more mathematical problems for you

sonofluc1fer:
Assume only man needs x to survive.
Imagine x doesn't exist.
How will man create x?

Na wa. Critical thinking, nkita thinking.

butterflylion:
You are still confined to the box of evolution. Read my comments again.

butterflylion:
Again my question is based on an earth where we humans are the ones who have this need and also based on the assumption that we did not evolve from water sources yet need it.

Simple argumentative implications, how can you make statements without realising the implications of these statements on your own argument. The very statement that the assumption proposes man that did not evolve from water sources causes an implication that man evolved from non-water sources in this alternate reality

So try and understand argumentative positions and their implications because how ever you put it, your statement will invoke evolutionary process by implication - Well the bar is low, i would't expect you to understand any of this

butterflylion:
You are missing a vital point I made which is why your entire submission is invalid.

I said putting aside all we know about evolution.

In other words let's assume man did not evolve based on what evolution says but still needs water to survive.

I also asked "how can man create water to sustain the entire earth" and not the small way your video depicts.

Let me repeat. I AM NOT THINKING ALONG THE LINES OF WHAT WE KNOW ABOUT EVOLUTION AND MANS ALLEGED ORIGIN.

I am coming from another angle. This is so the truly critical minds can think outside the box.

If man needed water he had to have first evolved but I am not thinking in line with evolution but discarding that idea and working with a different idea.

Try again

Your alternate reality is a contradiction to itself: If man and every life on earth never needed water to survive, how then did it occur that out of the blue man needs water?

If man needed water then man must have evolved with water therefore the planet man evolved from must have water but if man didn't need water at all to survive in the first place the whole notion of a sudden need for water defeats your own implication of critical thinking since the question itself fails in this stead.

I could show you a way to step out of the problem this question creates for you if you ask nicely... lol..

Answer this very related question: What if now at this moment we all suddenly requires to breath in plutonium and not oxygen to survive?

Think about the relation and implication of such a paradoxical frog jump, i'm a patient person and i have faith you can figure that basic implication out

bennyann:
Would humans exist without water?

Maybe another set of species that can adapt to an earth without water.

This thread would be interesting

I wonder how how that is hard to understand. its just like asking "what if the whole earth had no atom of oxygen and humans evolved without oxygen but humans needs oxygen.

for the very fact that humans evolved without oxygens means they don't need it

butterflylion:
Allow me sir.

My question is valid! Let's say ONLY man has a need for water and putting what we know about evolution aside and man is the only being or thing in nature who holds this need, organisms do not, plants do not but man alone!

How can man have a need for water when he is in a planet without water?

LOL the question formed from the basis of that assumption is a paradox therefore totally invalidates itself.. If there is water on earth and man grew in such a world he would need water and every organism would also require water, if man and other organism on earth grew up in an earth without any water at all, none would require or need water.

You cannot need what you do not even know off in the first place.

How would we have been able to create water for our own survival based on world population?

refer to above

Also, the process of water creation is very complex and not as simple as you seem to think. This was why I asked that anyone who wishes to contribute needs to first read up on water creation. Water is not simply oxygen and hydrogen (look it up) .

I lack what it takes to munch over this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VmTZcNVzp7A

Again my question is based on an earth where we humans are the ones who have this need and also based on the assumption that we did not evolve from water sources yet need it.

which makes your question illogical and paradoxical. Organisms cannot need what they do not have available within their ecological system sparking their biological evolution.

If we evolved without water, we cannot need water, we cannot even know of water, what it feels like but if we need water then we must have known, felt, evolved with water therefore this paradox your own question creates of itself invalidates it.

your question is self defeating, for the very fact that you assume humans that evolved without water is same as saying humans who do not need water.

If man evolved without water it means he doesn't need water, if he needs water he cannot evolve without water

The question is quite nonsensical which is why i asked for a review.

Give it another try!

Think more before you ask a question, critical thinking is for all. Review your own question, i wonder where the critical thinking is needed in it

Ubenedictus:
Amen

my sentiments exactly

Ranchhoddas:
You talk now. Are you excluding yourself from the "critical thinkers"?

@OP
We will not exist if there's no water anywhere.
We are 70% water.
Water is existence.

It's quite a simple question, if we evolved in a planet without water [assuming that is possible as the OP suggests], there would be absolutely no need for water in the first place so manufacturing it becomes unnecessary, we would be ignorant of the existence of water and our biological compositions, process, formations and systems would be totally different from what it is now

analice107:
Hahahahahahahahana. they are peeping into the thread. Fear won't let them comment.

lol

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

All right nice assumption

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.

This is a contradiction sir, if there was no water on earth as you proposed above it means any organism on earth humans included would be ignorant of the existent of water [ the first problem should be how life could be without water thought i think this is not impossible]

for you to suggest an earth completely dry and humans on earth needing water is a contradiction of thought, if humans evolved on a world without water [as the post implies] then just like the plants they would have no need for water, we wouldn't even know there is such a thing as water and our biological calibration would be totally different from what we have today.

so this begs the question sir; How can humans in this your dry earth that evolved in a world without water then need water?

Now let's apply critical thinking.

we already are

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?

I am quite chauvinistic about life been dependent on water because that is the only type of life i know but per say going by this your assumption [earth without water yet have organism] this question becomes null and void since it should appeal to reason and logic that such beings that somehow evolved and thrived in such a world would not need water or know of water in the first place.

So manufacturing water becomes unnecessary

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).

Water is a mixture of hydrogen and oxygen, hydrogen and oxygen is one of the most common elements scattered in the whole cosmos so my good sir by the law of mathematical probability H₂O should be one of the commonest compound in the cosmos since it's making elements are quite common and actually it is common in the universe.

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

man needn't create water if he didn't know of water in the first place

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

There are processes far more complex than water creation, the universe is awash in unending causalities, distinct values in constant reactions i wonder how effects becomes a surprise my good sir

May the critical thinkers now show themselves

I do believe the question needs to be reviewed, it doesn't live up to the hype of critical thinking

walter315:
What if everyone was monetarily rich, What would we do differently?

I will like to know your answer to that curious question

Ubenedictus:
this happens to people who treat the bible like a history book... the Bible is not a history book and it does contradict itself sometimes, the bible isn't a book for archeology, history, or even geographical fact... it may contain such as accidentals but the Bible isn't primarily a history book or an archeological book or geography book it is a covenant book and it details the relationship between God and his people in whatever genre the writer is inspired to use.


now with that information maybe you can now go back and read Judith and see in it the expression of faith in God who saves mightily even through human instruments.

In other words the bible is more theological than historical

adepeter2027:
Wow. That's good. But 20gb of data to fix such a problem?

Yeah it got it done actually. downloaded another version OS X el capitan, reinstalled it and the system is now as good as new

adepeter2027:
Until you put snake picture or exposed cleavage else, lala will just hiss and pass

LOL its no longer much needed, got it solved myself this morning.. had to buy 20gb of data to be sure

Seun:
What process did you use to wipe it? What issues are you having with the reinstallation?

i finally got it reinstalled this money, thanks anyway for your help

Lalasticlala please come EPP me reach more people

Seun:
What process did you use to wipe it? What issues are you having with the reinstallation?

started lagging seriously, after too many deleted files the lagging persisted..

So I had it wiped, tried to reinstall, had about 2gb of data on my phone. After about almost 30 - 40 mins of reinstalling it failed and asked me to try again..

I recently wiped my Macbook pro and I'm finding it difficult to reinstall the OS. Please is there anyone around Enugu with a Mac Is disk or downloaded OS on the flash drive that can help reinstall it for me..?

butterflylion:
I never said I was prepared and neither am I being condescending. When one is confident in himself he can always speak the way I do. Hopefullandlord has always sounded "condescending" when he trolls Christians on Christian threads but I read that as being self confident in his assertions which was why I asked for this debate. He sounds confident and so do I so let's put it to test.

If he says he would not state the terms then we nominate moderators. If he says no moderators and he wishes to state the terms, either way I am cool with whatever.

Thanks my brother. Funny that I only had to mention you once before you responded but he has been running in every direction except towards me.

I carry gun Abi I carry bomb?

Anyway that's your business with him. Do know that he may chose to or not to oblige your clamor for debate

butterflylion:
Like I said, Since he is the one I am debating he states the terms and not me.

Let's say they get to be such a debate, even though I doubt for now.. None of you need to pick the terms, there will have to be a moderator or moderators for that.

Anyway you show a certain form of confidence that almost betrays a condescending approach.

Like I always say, none comes fully prepared my brother.

Goodluck though

dalaman:
A moderated debate will be a good idea, but definitely not btw the two of them.

Perhaps. I wi like to see something other than endless bickering at pointless things..

butterflylion:
This is pretty simple. Debates are not life or death issues and yes he also has the right to refuse but what harm would a simple debate cause right?

I gave him 2 simple terms

1. He should pick the topic of debate

2. He should state the terms and I would comply.

I gave him the advantage

Why would I want to turn a perfectly simple and interesting debate into lousy banter? Especially when he has been asked to state the terms.

His refusal to debate comes from the other 2 debates I was shown where he ran away from the debate when in the first one even before the debate began he suddenly got very emotional and said he was leaving Nairaland, that everything was pointless. He left and then suddenly returned charged up as if he was now actually going to have the debate only to hand over to you with no resistance (strange isn't it? For someone who insisted on actually having that debate).

The second one was not as similar but he ran away as well nevertheless.

Perhaps he had a phobia for debates but holds no such phobia when trolling Christian threads.

So for sake of clarity I offered him a debate with me with the conditions I already gave above.

Tell me how I would stand to benefit when I have clearly given him the advantage.

Ignoring me can be done by anyone but true character is shown when challenges are faced head on. I am his challenge!

No one wants to hammer and keep bickering at the same thing endlessly, so for clarity sake if you are obliged the debate you seek how long do you think is long enough?

hopefulLandlord:
I've been ignoring that guy for close to two months now while he's spent that time aggressively seeking my attention, he then pops up last week challenging me to a debate, spamming every thread and replies most of my posts with his challenge

I know there are many atheists on Nairaland that think he's worth their time and he can challenge anyone of them to a debate but he's fixated on the only person that don't want anything to do with him; so I won't even dignify his attention seeking spams with a reply, he's free to make his own conclusions based on that

perhaps he thinks if he spams it hard enough I would be obliged to pay him attention

never knew my attention is so valuable, maybe I should start charging people some cash for it

I believe Dalaman can explain further

I do think such attention begging won't end well, such debate will end in emotional banters. Well I support your move to hit the ignore button

realmindz:
The unseriouness of the comments from the people on this forum really show the lack of interest, enthusiasm and the celebrated ignorance in science related topics.

It's no wonder why many of them think and believe moronic things.. When you complain they will accuse you of being condescending

It's not funny but pitiable that an average white kid will speak smarter than these categories of people. Yet these are the same set of people that envy the space technological advancements of countries like Russia, USA, China.

And they will keep blaming these nations for their problems.. Knowledge is power, these nations are proof of it

Johnydon22, do you think this our generation of blacks can ever land a man on the moon, a supposed enlightened generation that uses their phones mainly for naijabet and celebrity news??

It breaks my heart brother, really does.

butterflylion:
When did I ask to debate with John? Tell super hopefullandlord to stop running and have this debate. Is he planning on being Usain bolts coach with the way he is running?

What would the debate be about, I could moderate such debate and bring out the rules, tell each person when they break these rule therefore invalidate the argument that does to keep it going..

GoodMuyis:
johnydon22 this story doesn't add up.

Josh did not claimed to be creator of Mary why should that be a threat.

If josh is a financial, shelter, material provider or supporter to Mary doesn't he have the right to withdrew such?

I do not think you understand what a threat and blackmail is... By all means Josh may be the financial, shelter and material provider but once he hinges the provisions of these to Mary's compliance to his demands then it's a blackmail.

You may try and read it again

Martinez19:
Don't debate with butterflylion. He is a certified block head. He will never address your arguments instead he keep going round in a circle to weary you and derail the argument.

Lol

butterflylion:
Ask hopefullandlord

I'm asking you though not him

butterflylion:
On key C

Oh come let us debate ooo
O come let us debate oooo
O come let us debate Mr hopeful landlord

debate about what?