God is the answer to all your problems

no i think i'm pretty clear on 'if this, then this', there's not much to it really.

what i'm saying is that the question 'if' is completely conditional. if/when you find an answer to that one question, another 'if' question similar to the first won't possess the same answer. it's 'similar' not 'same'. since it's conditional, you can go through trillions of conditions and be no closer to an all-encompassing answer.

so what i was suggesting is that asking 'if' means absolutely every facet of an answer is up in the air. there's no grounding at all. everything's gotta be deduced. whereas when, for a moment, you actually pick a side to be grounded on to ask a question.

'if black is dark, then what is white?' -> this is to not have any clue on what black really is, while attempting to answer what white is.

'since black is dark, then what is white?' -> we definitively know for this moment that black really is dark, we can answer confidently what white is.

i'm notsomuch critiquing your brain. i'm talking about asking the right questions that'll get you somewhere. not a perpetual state of disarray that will only leave you frustrated and speaking for/against things you don't have a solid stance on. not to understand it better, you are speaking for/against, not 'about'.

missali you recognize the atrocities of the catholic church yet you still say you have a firm belief of following the church and call yourself catholic?

you are right in saying you were going to propose contradictions.

since you don't believe in your religion then why continue partaking of it? you 'snort' at others but do you understand your own smugness? you intertwine heavenly-miracles with someone being givin a couple bucks for a dope fix.

i think for someone to tout themselves so highly on understanding a religion [that you think is atrocious but still follow] then you ought to at least understand what you're talking about. i don't mean discussion, you are clearly taking the leadership role and dare i say to your folly?

don't confuse 'terrorism' with the current affairs of today. ever since fear existed there has been someone exploiting it...'terror'.

you might find it easy to laugh at others. how much easier for them to laugh at you!

It seems to me that someone doesn't wish to see both sides of the argument and is just arguing and pick apart things for arguments sake. After all I haven't seen any so call proof.

For example, believing the bible would then mean that Noah's Ark should then be on one of the highest points on earth, meaning it would be on a tall mountain and should be easy to find. Plus given that it had 2 of 'every' animal it would have been a massive construction so why has is not been found? Furthermore if it had 2 of 'every animal' why were no dinosaurs included on the Ark?

hello arbie wun i would like to say that there are more than just two sides and though i do my best to see as many as i can it is downright impossible to view them all.

i ask that you not be mistaken that i don't see your point. the only reason i'm saying anything tonight is because i've asked the same questions in the past and i will probably ask them in the future. if there's anything i've picked up from asking questions it's to ask appropriate ones.

ones like the ark you asked. to me a lot more can be answered with a question like that as opposed to the ones i referenced previously tonight.

i don't exactly disagree about picking arguments for argument's sake but i'm not doing it out of boredom. after all something usually comes out of an argument, regardless of the reason it occured in the first place.

i've asked a lot about noah's ark myself and personally am not entirely satisfied that i asked enough. i honestly don't have a problem answering biblical questions but i'm unsure if you want to be receptive to answers or if you're interested in asking questions. i was thinking the latter which is why i brought up asking right questions not circular ones.

in regards to mountain ranges, the himalayas weren't always mountains. the appalachian mountains used to be taller than the rockies. i would also like to know the time period of adam and eve, nimrod, noah, but i just don't know them. i want to say it was ten thousand bc proved a significant era for our race but i can't tell ya if that's the same alignment or not. i think it was tenthousand bc when the last big ice age ended, and around that same time when the saraha turned into a desert. i don't have many strong suits, and geologic history isn't one of them.

don't get me wrong, the more scriptures i read the more questions i got. there's nothing wrong with questions. i couldn't tell ya if dinosaurs were wiped out long before noah or in noah's time. i couldn't tell ya if 'every' was referring to a certain selection though my first guess is no. but honestly i can only imagine noah's ark not being disintegrated via rotting if it was petrified before rotting. i don't know how long wood takes to rot when exposed.

just because you ask questions doesn't mean ya need to settle on an answer immediately. if you're interested in discussing more questions that is okay with me but i don't have every answer. also questions in themselves don't really prove or disprove or legitimize or illegitimize something.

my focus tonight was asking legitimate questions ultimately. arbie wun you are certainly capable of thought and i think those efforts should be put to the best use possible is all.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-14406818

ill just drop this off here....

Arbie Wun wrote:It seems to me that someone doesn't wish to see both sides of the argument and is just arguing and pick apart things for arguments sake. After all I haven't seen any so call proof.

For example, believing the bible would then mean that Noah's Ark should then be on one of the highest points on earth, meaning it would be on a tall mountain and should be easy to find. Plus given that it had 2 of 'every' animal it would have been a massive construction so why has is not been found? Furthermore if it had 2 of 'every animal' why were no dinosaurs included on the Ark?

Plus having two of any species (including humans ie Adam and Eve) is not a sufficiently diverse gene pool needed to create a healthy population of any size. Those two parents' offspring would have to in-breed in order to create the third generation. That in-breeding leads to massive disease and disfunction and the population would never survive. It just isn't possible and cannot be done.

Plus why would Noah save cockroaches?

hello son i am also glad that you posted this and i hope we can come to a clearer understanding.

i want to first state i have no statistical analysis regarding geneology on what makes a population succeed or not.

having said that, i think there's a few things that you haven't included in your statements. along with genetic mutations that result from inbreeding, do they not bring about their own genetic diversity?

scriptures indicate there was inbreeding. history indicates there was inbreeding. maybe with your expertise in geneology you can tell me how many generations of inbreeding are necessary to produce fatal consequences to the birthed. so, where do you start from to start counting generations to produce accurate data? we at least know about the egyptians seeing these results. ya aren't gonna start counting with them are ya?

you posit a good question with cockroaches.

i hope you can answer a few questions. could you tell me the relations between humans and any other species? how did any of them start? were they themselves offspring of cross-species breeding? or genetic mutations significant enough to be considered another species? who did they breed with?

we might as well toss the concept of 'family tree' out the window. what is a network without branches? ya know, the more i think about it, the easier it is to digest that every species magically started out with a healthy population of 1,000 (or whatever arbitrary number you decide is ok) to prevent genetic malformations that supposedly even just one will kill everything off.

but ya know, even the lactose intolerant need calcium.

hello again son believe it or not i'm ecstatic i can talk to a geneticist and since this realm requires knowledge i'm severly lacking in you can help shed some light.

i've entertained and will likely continue entertaining the different thoughts behind our existence and i'm sure many others have/will. but the thoughts of asexual reproduction and the beginnings of species is what i'm referencing here.

is it just a bunch of cell-replication that eventually binds with other cells that eventually form a blob such as ourselves? is this the only path to a species coming about?

the sentiment i agree with most is things coming about from dust and then returning to dust.

plausibility is a lot easier to digest than possibility. at least for me, and getting anywhere involves properly using the tools available.

when it comes to the sustaining of our population, well isn't it written about that the consequences of adam and eve's actions would be far reaching?

cell-duplication is out of my league so i hope you can help here. on why people were given a substantial-sized population that wouldn't possibly have any chance of inbreeding to ensure this length of propogation.

ocular_razor wrote:hello son i am also glad that you posted this and i hope we can come to a clearer understanding.

i want to first state i have no statistical analysis regarding geneology on what makes a population succeed or not.

having said that, i think there's a few things that you haven't included in your statements. along with genetic mutations that result from inbreeding, do they not bring about their own genetic diversity?

scriptures indicate there was inbreeding. history indicates there was inbreeding. maybe with your expertise in geneology you can tell me how many generations of inbreeding are necessary to produce fatal consequences to the birthed. so, where do you start from to start counting generations to produce accurate data? we at least know about the egyptians seeing these results. ya aren't gonna start counting with them are ya?

you posit a good question with cockroaches.

i hope you can answer a few questions. could you tell me the relations between humans and any other species? how did any of them start? were they themselves offspring of cross-species breeding? or genetic mutations significant enough to be considered another species? who did they breed with?

we might as well toss the concept of 'family tree' out the window. what is a network without branches? ya know, the more i think about it, the easier it is to digest that every species magically started out with a healthy population of 1,000 (or whatever arbitrary number you decide is ok) to prevent genetic malformations that supposedly even just one will kill everything off.

but ya know, even the lactose intolerant need calcium.

first off i will state that my evolutionary divergent/convergent examples are not correct. I am not exactly sure how frogs and humans are related on the family tree, they are jsut examples. I dont feel like looking up specific details back to the first cells created by abiogenesis, when frog and human get the point made jsut as easy.

genetic mutation from inbreeding is not always negative. Its actually not that big of a number. However it is more likely that you and your sister will have a deformed baby that you and your neighbor. Its all probability. Luck of the draw. So early life was a giant luck draw on deformed babies dieing, and the non deforming living increasing the genetic pool. eventually enough survived to have diversity to the point it wasnt to big of an issue.

first off. can you fathom the time of 500,000,000 million years? this is the most commonly misconceived area of evolution. People think a fish randomly turned into a human. Thats not how it happened. Try to figure out how many generation are in 500 million years, x the number of offspring on average, and you will realize how many genetic mutations occured in 500 million years. its a big number. given this huge number you can now see how a fish eventually could turn into a human.

natural selection only allows the 'genetically fit' to survive. So if your a gazelle and your slow, you die. Only the fast lived. eventually there were only fast gazelle. Only the fast cheetah could catch a fast gazelle. the slow died, and teh fast lived. Over time, gazelle got faster, this meant only the fast cheetah survived. the result? the fast of the fast of the fast of the fast are the only living descendants today. Put a cheetah back severla hundred thousand years and he/she would walk up to gazelle in comparison to the speed a gazelle would be today. The members of said species that are the most compatible to surviving in their environment survive. Thats why you only see snow colored rabbits in snowy areas and not black rabbits. the black rabbits all got eaten quite fast. evolution is a "how can i outsmart,outwit, or outfit my predators." is a sense. Theres no thinking involved. It is simply a side effect of life.

as for differentiations in species. geography is to blame. Im sure you have wondered why Asians, Africans and Europeans look the way they do? Geography. evolution is a change, that is all it is. computers evolve. in the sense of life, genetic evolution.mutation results in changing life. Cancer is an example of genetic mutation. Cells copy their DNA/RNA and put it in a newly created cell. as with anything that is copied, it is never 100% the same as the original. sometimes the ability to control regrowth gets messed up in the copy process and the result are tumors/cancer.the result is mutation/evolution.

two species dont develop over night. its takes thousands, hundred of thousands, if not millions of years for those two species to diverge from the common ancestor. think of it as million of millions of genetic mutations to diverge these two species. it wasnt a random frog pooped out a tiger.

The changes from generation to generation are minuscule. But over the course of 500 million years, they add up quick.

it is a family tree. The first organic molecules eventually developed as a single celled organism. That is the base of your tree. Everything after that eventually branches off as geography and genetic mutation take over and change things. Your distantly related to a coachroach. you may have to go back millions of years to find your common ancestor before the divergent split, but its there. Humans may be on a branch on the far left, while frogs are on the far right. You may have to go back to the base of the tree to find a common ancestor or you may simply go back a few branches. It all depends when certain kingdoms,genie, species etc split away from the other.

ocular_razor wrote:hello again son believe it or not i'm ecstatic i can talk to a geneticist and since this realm requires knowledge i'm severly lacking in you can help shed some light.

i've entertained and will likely continue entertaining the different thoughts behind our existence and i'm sure many others have/will. but the thoughts of asexual reproduction and the beginnings of species is what i'm referencing here.

is it just a bunch of cell-replication that eventually binds with other cells that eventually form a blob such as ourselves? is this the only path to a species coming about?

partially, eventually cells clumped, and eventually cells started specializing. this specializing led to photo-sensitive cells that eventually evolved into the multicellular photosensitive structure of the eye. The start of life, yes this was. species, no. at the base of our family tree was one organic compound bonded together(all creatures in the animal kingdom have the same kind of cell roughly,protest, fungi, plants they all share the same cellular makeup. one tree has the same cellular make up as another(cell walls, chloroplast, mitocondria etc). the difference is in the DNA.). after that, the different kingdoms split off and the rest is history.

the sentiment i agree with most is things coming about from dust and then returning to dust.

IF we wish to go far enough back, yes that is correct. Basically the only way to create carbon naturally is in the heart of a star. after these stars expired and errupted, they blew this hydrogen,helium, lithium, beryllium, and boron out into space. Now a much more massive star(red supergiant) have higher temperature and pressures and thus can create heavier elements up to iron. Once enough iron is reached this said star dies. these bigger stars instead of blowing apart, collapse in on themselves, pushing the heat and pressure way up and creates heavier elements(liek gold). Only when a star collpases can gold be created. after this collapse the star explodes blowing these elements into the universe.

So in essense, we are the result of a star dieing and are made up of its 'dust'
Entropy wishes for everything into nothingness. SO yes, eventually millions or billions of years from now, the earth and our solar system will become dust.


plausibility is a lot easier to digest than possibility. at least for me, and getting anywhere involves properly using the tools available.

evolution is the plausible reasoning for how life is.

when it comes to the sustaining of our population, well isn't it written about that the consequences of adam and eve's actions would be far reaching?

im not sure which specific far reaching results their actions had. but IMO, our population issue is a result of an inability to use condoms and our scientific advancements making people live far to long. weve gone from 20-40 year expectancy to over 60-70 year expectancy.

cell-duplication is out of my league so i hope you can help here. on why people were given a substantial-sized population that wouldn't possibly have any chance of inbreeding to ensure this length of propogation.

That is the ultimate reason for death. We die so that our offspring have enough resources to survive themselves. imagine if noone died. We would have run out of food and water a loooooooooon time ago. Our death insures the survival of our offpsring. We simply are bangin out babies, and living longer than our death cycle goes. The bigger the gene pool, the more you can choose from. such a variety of genetics means we have lower probablity of genetic mutations leading to deformity.