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

Martinez19:
If there is no water at, survival would be impossible except there are chemical means to produce water or we evolve to scrap out our dependence on water. If both ways are not possible, we would die out because you are alive if the environmental conditions supports or else you die out. Butterflylion you have a reply, anything else?

Apart from replies such as mine(which speaks on and contribute to the survival of aerobic life or other lifeforms in absence of water), I don't see the purpose of your thread. Or I that the only purpose.

adepeter2027:
I dont even understand the op sef...

butterflylion:


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

bennyann:
Would humans exist without water?

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

This thread would be interesting

johnydon22:


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

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.

Martinez19:
if you remove evolution, survival will be impossible except there are chemical means to produce water. In absence of any chemical means to produce water, we would all die out.

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:



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.

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.

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

Na wa. Critical thinking, nkita thinking.

johnydon22:



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:



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

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?

AgentOfAllah:

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:



You are still confined to evolution when I have repeatedly said PUTTING ASIDE ALL WE KNOW ABOUT EVOLUTION.

I Am not coming from the angle of evolution my dear. Break free from that for a moment maybe then you would level out.

AgentOfAllah:


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.

johnydon22:
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:



my universe does not follow the laws you know. My universe does not subscribe to mans evolutionary process as declared scientifically (that is the foundation of my Question) I have been emphasising on putting evolution aside. Can nobody here reason outside their confined boxes?

AgentOfAllah:


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:



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

johnydon22:


perfectly suitable reply to this is this one

butterflylion:


I have asked that you look away from the problems. You keep doing that by default.

Look at the solutions. It's not about the number or how they got to that but the fact that they are there and need this which they cannot give themselves in the quantity they would need to thrive.

Look away from the problem

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 set on auto pilot I can see. So I will stop asking that you look away from the problem.

butterflylion:

my universe does not follow the laws you know.

butterflylion:

My universe does not subscribe to mans evolutionary process as declared scientifically (that is the foundation of my Question) I have been emphasising on putting evolution aside.

butterflylion:

Can nobody here reason outside their confined boxes?

johnydon22:
now you have agreed there was a problem with your question which then leads back to my first reply the problems are paradoxical therefore invalidates the premise of the argument thus the need for you to review your question and please critically think about the question you wish to ask next time.

you are asking for critical thinking for questions that doesn't measure up to critical thinking .. haaaaaaaa!!!

So let's hear what next you've got

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.

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.

obinna58:


Another set of species in God's image u mean
Simply say God will make it possible for human to survive without water

johnydon22:
gbosaaaa the question has a problem you have agreed.. my work is done, i'm glad you did yourself.


well done bro, well done!!!

johnydon22:
now you have agreed there was a problem with your question which then leads back to my first reply the problems are paradoxical therefore invalidates the premise of the argument thus the need for you to review your question and please critically think about the question you wish to ask next time.

you are asking for critical thinking for questions that doesn't measure up to critical thinking .. haaaaaaaa!!!

So let's hear what next you've got