Christians: Your Thoughts
- Thread starter Warrior61
- Start date
That's deep.
And I like the way you capitalized religious.
I could be a woman, M*W.
But I certainly agree, if it weren't for woman, man, and favourable environs, we all weouln't be here.
Let's thanks the object that created the Chixculub crater too.
I could be a woman, M*W.
But I certainly agree, if it weren't for woman, man, and favourable environs, we all weouln't be here.
Let's thanks the object that created the Chixculub crater too.
*************
M*W: Whether you're a man, woman or hermaphrodite, you'd still need a woman to gestate and birth you.
Aren't craters created by meteors?
Yes, we should thank all "cave mothers."
Fine, fine, fine M*W, I agree. I worry that man is becoming an "unneeded" species. All the selfish women want to do is "milk" them
Well, meteors never reach the ground (shooting stars), meteorites do... but they're what're left of "objects" like an asteroid or comet that enter the atmosphere, get crushed and baked, and hit the ground in spectacular fashion, or just a loud *plop*.
And no, I will not agree that meteors are female, I will not.
Last edited:
If the mother's died though? No women. What would have happened? Also just out of curiosity, please explain this to me. If we came from cell's they had to produce A sexually right? Or just replicate? How can something go from reproducing a sexually and move to creating sexually? (i hope this question makes sense) Also how did weather come about? Especially precipitation? Note that I would be an exception to reading only Biblical things. Teach me.
Thank you,
His son,
><>Warrior61<><
*************
M*W; At least you're asking, my dear. That, in itself, is an accomplishment.
I want to clear up the confusion presented by the Alpha and the Omega. I want to clear up the differences between the first and the last. There are so many more subjects than what I am able to define for you here, I shall go with this and continue on with more biblical writings as I find them.
*************
M*W: Patience, patience! I'm only one person here. I don't have a room full of M*Ws to answer all the questions! I'll get to yours eventually!
If there were no women, humans as a species would die out because we reproduce sexually. So do many plants. On the other hand, it would be possible to continue the species with only females, there is a species of lizard that does this.
It is thought that sex evolved in order to allow rare beneficial mutations to be shared throughout the population (that is, populations that swapped genes would have a higher proportion of well-adapted individuals who happened to have more than one of the beneficial mutations that had occurred in that population's past. Mutations and sex don't have foresight about what will be useful).
Asexuals tend to go extinct faster than sexuals, but they are usually the descendents of successful species, so they don't immediately go extinct.
Weather doesn't necessarily depend on lifeforms, although there would be no oxygen in our atmosphere without them.
*************
M*W: Well, you may be on the right track, evolutionarily speaking. Before the male species came to be, possibly from a mutation, there were only females. Now, I'm not talking feminist crap here. All humans start out female. I really don't know about other animals and plants, but the human being is conceived as a female, but her sexual identity either stays the same or it changes about the 10th week of gestation. The mother only has XX chromosomes, but the father has XY, which can go either way. His X chromosome can create a female or his Y chromosome can turn that female embryo into a male. That is, depending on if there is a toxic environment, the mother's hormone surges, the food our mother's consume (food additives, hormones, antibiotics, prescription and OTC medications, pesticides, etc.). Then there is also the possible environmental toxin of ultrasonic waves in the womb during prenatal ultrasound. So, there are many factors which could influence sexual determination. I'm sure you know all about human reproduction, but I included this here for those who don't.
My point in all this is to say that more female babies are born than male babies (worldwide). Male babies don't thrive as well as do female babies. That means there is statistically going to be more females than males reproduced who thrive. Male babies have a higher incidence, for example, of SIDS (sudden infant death syndrome). More male babies are born with defects than females, although this precludes sex specific syndromes.
Since there are more females than males as they grow up, females must work harder to get their male, since there's more competition among females than there is among males. Therefore, a woman must use whatever ammunition she can to catch her man. And, yes, there are selfish women out there. Bottom-line instinct is that we're all out there for the survival of our species (whether we realize it or not).
I also understand how you feel about men "not being needed." Women have become stronger and more independent. We didn't do it just to get back at men, we did it for our survivability. We haven't reached the point where we're taking all men's jobs, so there is none left for them, (we'll leave that to the illegal aliens), because we're still not getting paid what you guys get paid to do the same job. But, we still have to keep our species going, and you all haven't been able to get impregated, to gestate or to give birth yet, so our survivability is crucial to the species. Unfortunately for some, medical science has perfected reproduction to the point that we really don't need you guys as much as we did in aeons past, thanks to those wonderful folks down at the local sperm bank and the in vitro labs.
Behavioral studies were done years ago with mice which concluded that population overcrowding leads to homosexuality (just like those hormones, food additives, antibiotics, prescription and OTC medications, pesticides, and other environmental toxins, etc.). As our population increased, we have noticed an increase in the numbers of homosexual and lesbian and even bi-sexual people. Therefore, it is my emphatic belief that alternate sexual identity is caused by many things or combinations of things that may cause an inborn error in sexual identity. I'm not saying that I believe same-sex attraction is wrong or immoral. I am definitely NOT saying that. What I am saying is that I believe it is an inborn error in the embryonic development of the human species, just like the inborn error that gave us those wonderful guys (you know who you are) whom all started out life as a female.
I suppose for all those unfortunate guys who get "milked" or "bilked" and "jilted" by selfish women, that, too, is an inborn error of attraction. What exactly is it that attracts us to another person (regardless of sexual identity)? That is something in our psychological make-up. Maybe it had something to do with environmental toxins. Maybe it was the way we were raised. I think a lot of it has to do with our own self-esteem (or lack thereof). Bottom-line is, we are innately attracted to a partner that can ensure our own basic survival, to feed and clothe us, to put a roof over our heads, to give us children, etc., etc., etc.. But... when we're attracted to another person for some reason other than for our basic survival, it usually isn't destined to last. People can be attracted to another for physical reasons, emotional reasons, spiritual reasons, or intellectual reasons. Even a combination of these four factors cannot ensure a lasting relationship, but at least it's a start. I personally believe that to find a healthy relationship, we need to find someone we are compatible with in all four areas, some more, some less. In other words, I believe a relationship has greater survivability when two people are comfortable with each other in all four areas.
I elaborated, and I apologize. I sensed you had some questions in these areas, and I wanted to give you some insight.
All I can say is that as long as garbage needs to be taken out and lawns need to be mowed, turkeys need to be carved, and champagne bottles need to be opened, most women will always need most men. So, there is hope.
I was told one time that there are two personalities in each of us. The one who appears on the outside that the world sees, and the one on the inside that only we can see. If we are attracted to the one we SEE with our eyes, we could be sadly mistaken. But, if the person on our inside is attracted to the other person on their inside, then there's a match made in... well... not heaven... but at least on earth! There is hope, and I hope you find the perfect person for you. Just look on the inside...
Last edited:
*************
M*W: Sorry, I'm not following...
*************
M*W: We, humans, came from the immersion of gametes or human sex cells. Although extremely rare, parthogenesis essentially means asexual reproduction, and it happens so rarely in human life, I don't know of any studies of it off-hand. I've heard of it, it's been discussed, but it is so extremely rare that I don't know any details.
"Replication," on the other hand, refers more to cloning than to asexual or sexual reproduction. Genes can "replicate," as in natural reproduction, but genes can also "replicate" in cloning. We're talking ACTG, here. In cloning, what we get is very close to, but not exactly identical, to the host. In other words, what we get by cloning is something closer to a twin than to the exact duplicate of the host. I mentioned ACTG above. Those are the genes on the DNA spiral. In cloning, ACTG can pair-up with ACGT, AGCT, or AGTC, if you see what I mean. Or, it can pair up with TGCA or TACG. There are many numbers of combinations that are possible. This is a simple way of describing it, but I would refer you to a genetics textbook. In reality, there is essentially no parthenogenesis that has been recorded (as far as I know), not even including the virgin birth. I've heard about it, I believe it could happen, but so infrequently that we cannot study it. Parthenogenesis is essentially asexual reproduction or human reproduction not requiring a male/female sexual act.
I really don't know how we went from reproducing asexually to producing sexually unless it was by mutation. Statistics say that about every 30 years or so, we have a new mutation in our species.
There have been some studies conducted recently in Germany with asexually, and I hear that they were successful. In other words, if you're a gambling person, the odds are that if you take a human sperm and try to clone him, you'll come up empty handed. But, if you were to take a female ovum and clone it, you would have an in vitro fertilized ovum. Of course, it would only become female, so we wouldn't even have to ask!
*************
M*W: Well, thanks for asking, but I'm not a meteorologist! But, I'll take a stab at your question anyhow. Weather, oh the weather! Where does one begin?
Precipitation? Have you read about the water cycle? Rain basically comes from the oceans on earth. It's absorbed and evaporated into the clouds, and then it falls somewhere as rain. You'd be better off to ask someone like IceAgeCivilizations, or god forbid, Garry Denke.
M*W says, unofficially, that rain comes from the gravitational effort from the rotation of the earth which pulls water from the oceans to the upper extremes of the atmosphere, holds it in clouds which become dark with all that dirt that it's pulled, and lets it pour down on us when the atmospheric conditions are right.
Thank you, my dear, for asking. I'm not a meteorologist, and I'm not an evolutionary biologist. I do have common sense, and I understand female reproduction and the male mind. Let's face it. I can't be all things to all people, even though I've tried. I want to give truthful information to everyone who asks. I want to be sympathetic and caring to those who ask. I want to teach those who wish to learn. I want to make a difference in the world. I want to be just me.
If I've helped you, please let me know. If I've consoled you, please let me know. If I've offended you, I know you'll let me know. If I have helped you, I want to know.
So is it that the embryo materialises with an X which changes to a Y? Of course not, but that seems to be what you're saying. The embryo is borne with either XX (female) or Xy (male) sex pair.
True, down to the limits of what we can observe right now, we're all the same at the early stages, i.e. "hermaphrodites" but the X presence effects chemical/hormonal changes which makes estrogen (female) the dominant hormone, or the Y presence does the same to make testosterone (male) the dominant hormone. When things deviate from the common occurence, you may get hermaphrodites.
I'm also sure that most females greatly appreciate (sooner or later, maybe save for the Nuns and those who just die too soon) the feelings they get from that "vestigial penis" (clitoris) they have.
I have a very close companion who is a medical professional - gives me mini lectures all the time - I'll check up on this with that person.
I actually was looking at it simply from the "men don't get pregnant" and "there are lots of lesbians" perspective. The only women who don't appreciate male companionship are some lesbians I guess? I guess gay guys will soon be pushing for "egg and womb clinics"
Don't like the use of the term "error"; best to say "trigger".
Same goes for the significantly greater number of women who get treated like that by those selfish men.
Well I thank you for your concern, but just like you misread that IceAgeCivilizations/MarAC/Vindicator link, here you're doing the same. My very close companion will answer every single question I have, I assure you. If you have any I'll ask for you.
I am sorry, but is this correct?
You're not saying that A can pair with any of A,T,C or G... and the same for the rest, are you?
I seem to recall [A]denosine pairing with [T]hymine only, and [G]uanine with [C]ytosine only - hence the double helical structure of DNA?
Please, correct me if I'm wrong... of course I'll check with my companion.