zeo

Fingerprinting a Bullet the Bond Way Tsunami Just the Beginning of Earthquake Supercycle, Say Scientists Why Is Harry Potter In The Science Museum? Moon’s Future Lies in Frontier Homesteading, Not Collective Ownership Our Universe May Have Been Recycled from an Earlier Universe The Jellyfish Are Coming Exhibit Explores the Real Science Between Mythical Monsters The Man Who Hanged Himself 12 Times for Science Bomb Victim Fitted With Cyborg Arm That Fuses With Her Own Skin and Bone

Six-Legged Robot Chair Makes a Statement in the Office Digital Window Gives Non-Distorted 180º Real Time Panoramas I've Got Two Kuka Robot Arms and a Microphone Dubai Hotelier Hasn't Heard of Flip-Flops, Plans to Refrigerate Entire Beach Sony's SR1 High Definition Cameras Can't Hack It In Microgravity Foolproof Black & Decker LI4000 SmartDriver Screws Perfectly Every Time NanoBrewMaster Home Brew Station Will Be the End of Me Ninja Blowgun and Knife Combo is a Pocket-Sized Assassination Kit Chuck E. Cheese Arcade: A Place Where Moms Punch Dads In the Face Toilet Paper Shovel Provides Easy Outdoor Relief

Everyone has their own idea of what the multiples of man power means. Like going by average the average healthy male can lift around 200 pounds. But generally speaking when multiples of man power are referred to it is basically referring to multiples of peak human potential. Just like horse power refers to a specific ideal potential, so too does multiples of man power. So that leaves what you may think peak human potential is, for many it's has been set to the ability to lift a mass over one's head with arms full extended for a mass of up to 800 pounds, or 0.4 ton. Meaning if someone is rated with the strength of 5 men then that person can lift up to 2 tons, 10 men then equal 4 tons, 25 men equals 10 tons, 100 men equals 40 tons and so forth. Of course there are other factors, the human body for example doesn't use 100% of its muscle mass all the time. Instead we only use about 1/5 of our muscles at any one time. Even a pro-athlete may only use no more than 1/3. While the only time we do use 100% is during life and death situations and is why a mother for example could suddenly have the strength to lift a car to save her child, etc. Real life example, This is because it is more efficient and safe for our body to limit itself. Like if you notice if you try to lift something that looks light but is really heavy then the first time you try it won't budge but once your brain realizes the true weight then the second time you do lift it. Conversely if the object is lighter than it looks then you could apply too much force the first time you try. All because your brain and body are set to use minimum effort as possible to both conserve energy and prevent over straining your body. Zoanoids though probably use 100% of their muscle mass since they do not demonstrate any variance in there stated strength levels. Also unless the ratio between bone and muscles are off then you'd need around 100% to risk tearing your own body apart like Zoaniods sometimes do. Like the test of strength shown between Gregole (15 men) and Malmut (10 men) would normally have forced Malmut to his knees before risking breaking of his forearms but instead Gregole snapped his forearms while both were still standing. This compared to the test of strength shown in the original OAV series between the out of control G1 and G3, which forced G3 to his knee before G1 finally woke up. Despite any possible strength difference in defense mode, which most likely allows use of 100% of the muscles mass, G3 was not in any immediate risk of having his forearms snapped. This however illustrates that like regular humans Guyvers may not use their full strength potential all the time, though most likely they do use closer to 100% than regular humans do or at least are capable of calling upon that potential on command. Like the battle with Zerebubuth vs G1, Zerebubuth's impact absorbing armor rendered G1's punches and kicks useless but G1 was able to penetrate Zerebubuth's armor using his peak strength and both legs slamming down hard on Zerebubuth's back and penetrating its armor. Keep in mind though Guyver strength isn't actually stated, instead it has only been insinuated that the power of the host has been increased 100 fold, though "fold" generally does mean peak potential when referring to strength and this seems to be born out by how the different Guyvers have compared to each other. For example, though Sho is clearly the weakest of the three he still holds his own as a Guyver. If the Guyver brings the host to peak potential then this would act like an equalizing factor and explains why G2 couldn't handle G1 as easily as an adult military trained male would handle a young teenager boy. If the units only amplified the host existing strength then G1 shouldn't have been able to really block any of G2's blows, every punch should have sent G1 flying whether he blocked it or not. G1 shouldn't even have been able to jump the same distances as G2. But we know from the data files that the Guyver Unit instantly remodels the host body, regressing non-essential organs like the stomach since Guyvers don't need to eat, and replacing and augmenting other organs, while the bones and muscles are merged with the organism and infused with energy. This is thus what we know about the Guyver. Zoalords on the other hand are more of a mystery, they possess immense power but most of this seems to stem from their Zoacrystals. While their battle form grants them specific abilities much like Hyper Zoanoids. All we really know is they appear to have Guyver level strength in human form and a large range of abilities like the ability to produce barrier shields and fly. But even that may not be all equal. Shin for example once demonstrated he could fly at about mach 4 but except for Alkanphel and Imakarum it does not appear the others are capable of this sort of speed.

Well consider Elera is a descendant of the Ancients, who are basically the original Zoalords created by the Creators (based on the WG fan-fic timeline). As such, even though she is not a full-blood Zoalord, she still has the DNA of her ancestors and thus the dormant potential of a full Zoalord. She is also still a young girl, who hasn't fully developed her powers yet. So the powers she has demonstrated to date may not be her full potential. This combined with the ability of the Guyver Unit to unleash the full potential of the host means she could easily be as powerful as the GWOTG proto-Zoalord Murikami Guyver Zoalord, who I believe was a 50x character for comparison. Even normal Guyvers however have a limited HSL system. The Bio-Boost itself draws its power from the Boost Dimension and the Gravity Control Orb provides a continuous trickle of energy that helps keep the Guyver topped off. But the rate of energy drawn in this method is limited and thus it takes time for the Guyver to recover from high energy usage such as firing the Mega Smashers. So Guyver Elera would benefit from this and have a much higher stamina than she possesses in the WG fan fic.

NASA Computer Used to Ruin a Businessman's Credit Nissan NV2500 Concept Wireless Workstation Is Both Futuristic And Comfy Unleash Your Inner Voyeur With a Super-Secret Spy Lens The RadioShack Catalog Archive, 1939-Present Giz Tech Tip: Share the Karaoke Mic Or People Will Stab You Intricate Steampunk Mouse Might Have Gone A Bit Far With the Whole 'Actual Mouse Spine' Thing Zero Electricity Fridge Freezes With Fire Survival Bracelet Made of Paracord For Emergency Rappeling Anytime, Anywhere The Slimmest Houses On Earth Are Made In Japan Mercedes to Debut Splitview Command Display this Summer Smart Speed Bump Flattens When You're Driving Slow

It Could be Possible to Stop Hurricanes with Supersonic Jets Hubble May Find Signs of Possible Extraterrestrial Life Lasers, Cameras and Mirrors Turn You Into a Pool Shark New Technology Could Display Your Dreams On Screen Photos Show What 10 Megajoules Worth of Damage To the LHC Looks Like Jollbot Jumps Like a Grasshopper, Rolls Like a Ball Automotive X Prize Contestant To Build Hover DeLorean Sony Hana Akari Lamps Are Actually Un-Ugly Solar Chargers First Teddie Bear Astronauts Conquer Space No Neanderthal Ancestors for Modern Humans Brain Surgeons Give Mute Man Second Chance to Speak

NASA Computer Used to Ruin a Businessman's Credit Nissan NV2500 Concept Wireless Workstation Is Both Futuristic And Comfy Unleash Your Inner Voyeur With a Super-Secret Spy Lens The RadioShack Catalog Archive, 1939-Present Giz Tech Tip: Share the Karaoke Mic Or People Will Stab You Intricate Steampunk Mouse Might Have Gone A Bit Far With the Whole 'Actual Mouse Spine' Thing Zero Electricity Fridge Freezes With Fire Survival Bracelet Made of Paracord For Emergency Rappeling Anytime, Anywhere The Slimmest Houses On Earth Are Made In Japan Mercedes to Debut Splitview Command Display this Summer Smart Speed Bump Flattens When You're Driving Slow

Fujitsu Amilo GraphicBooster External GPU Actually Looks Like a Great Idea Windows Vista SP2 Features and Fixes Unveiled, Beta Announced Windows 7 Multitouch Media Transfer Makes Our Hands Tired Why You Should Stop Buying Your Computers Fully Loaded Buffalo LinkStation Mini: 240GB Ninja SSD Nvidia GeForce GTX 295 Graphics Card Is Insane: Two GTX 260s Bolted Together Giz Explains: Everything You Need to Know About Hard Drives Fusion-io ioDrive Is The Fastest Storage Device in the World Apple Working on Physics-Based 3D User Interface Ericsson and Intel Developing Laptop Remote Kill Switch How To Send SMS Text Messages With Gmail's Chat

How To Buy the Cool-Running Xbox 360 'Jasper' Logitech G18 Gaming Keyboard Rocks Your Face With Full-Blown LCD Display, Apocalypse Paint Job Nintendo: New Wii Disk Drives Render Modchips Useless NES Controller Security System Only Admits Nerds Drinking Straw + Nintendo DSi + Korg DS-10 = Peter Frampton Talk Box TN Games HTX Helmet Delivers Virtual Headshots, Lawsuits With Force Feedback The Lego PlayStation: Branding That Should Have Happened SimCraft Apex Racing Simulator Offers Vomit-Covered Thrills PS Home Hacked, But the Door Was Wide Open

It Could be Possible to Stop Hurricanes with Supersonic Jets Hubble May Find Signs of Possible Extraterrestrial Life Lasers, Cameras and Mirrors Turn You Into a Pool Shark New Technology Could Display Your Dreams On Screen Photos Show What 10 Megajoules Worth of Damage To the LHC Looks Like Jollbot Jumps Like a Grasshopper, Rolls Like a Ball Automotive X Prize Contestant To Build Hover DeLorean Sony Hana Akari Lamps Are Actually Un-Ugly Solar Chargers

No but it is under development, along with actual exo-armor... US to Deploy Drone Aircraft Along Canadian Border to Prevent Bacon Smuggling F-18 Crashes In San Diego, Kills Two Video of Multiple Kill Vehicle Test Scares Me Silly The Curious Origin of NORAD's Santa Tracking The F-22 Raptor May Be Replaced By...Sniper Blimps? Ripsaw MS1 Remote Gun Tank Races at 60MPH Party-Pooping FDA Says Palm Pistol Definitely Not a 'Medical Device' RC Helicopter Modded 45 Caliber Handgun Will Probably End In Disaster

Primarily it takes time for the unit to fully adapt to its host and before such a massive power can become stable. And though Warrior Units allow for the host to quickly learn what they are capable of the immense power takes time to control properly.

No Comment!

Well let's see, Zerebubuth started out as basically an entry level hyper zoanoid. Physical Strength of 45 men, impact absorbing armor that made it impervious to all but the Guyver's most powerful blows. The head beam was useless against it and it's Bio-Lasers were all 4 times more powerful than a Vamore's. The three head horns discharged a powerful corrive acid capable of multing through most materials and could even damage the Guyver Bio-Armor. The Powered Zerebubuth is a creation from the Novel's that wasn't in the Manga and only showed up in the new anime series. Essentially reprocessed after being defeated by G1 this encarnation was augmented with vibrational tri-claws, the heat wave cannon on its left arm combined firepower to produce a infrared laser energy blast 80 times more powerful than a Vamore's. While the body spikes could now generate a vibrational energy field that produced a protective field capable of shielding it from both the sonic buster and pressure cannon. The Powered Zerebubuth's one weakness was the lack of energy reserves to support it's significanly increased powers. Derzerb though was one of the elite Hyper Zoanoids of Team Five. With the Strength of 60 men it was a physical powerhouse of immense strength. The body armor was like concrete and made it impervious to small to medium arms fire, even the anti-zoanoid buster gun Murikami used in the anime and OAV was useless against it. In terms of heat resistance Derzerb is literally fire proof. In fact Aptom, after absorbing Elegan, hit Darzerb was an enhanced Vamore type laser blast and even enhanced it did little but knock Derzerb back a bit. Derzerb's own napalm breath was capable of generating temperatures up to 3900 degrees and Derzerb could also radiate heat energy and used that ability to blast away Aptom when he tried to land on him to absorb him, of course Aptom eventually tricked him and absorbed him anyway. In the WG fan fic we use bio-energy potential as the main factor to determining a Guyver's power level, which is why Guyver Zoanoid is a 2x character instead of a 5x character for example.

The evolution is part of how the True W'Kar Unit was repairing itself back towards its original state, remember originally the unit was so powerful it turned a Creator into a 50x character. But the Creator host couldn't handle that power so it pretty much exploded and the unit took on the form of a G-Unit as it tried to repair itself, which is why when it originally bonded to Greg it functioned like a regular Guyver unit. But as it slowly repairs itself the unit and host evolve. Since Greg died in the Universe that Jarrod came from, the W'Kar unit bonded to Jarrod because as Greg's brother he was genetically similar enough to trick the unit into thinking it was him and in its continuing attempt to repair itself it bonded to him. But the combination of everything, including the Mark II upgrade, halted the ability of the unit to continue to evolve and so Fighter Guyver II remained at his power level while W'Kar Greg was seen to continue to evolve. Of course for awhile Jarrod was more powerful, but eventually Greg evolved into a more powerful form. Essentially Mark II tech upgrade isn't always a good thing, at least for non-standard units like the W'Kar or even XT, who has been altered significantly from his original form.

Mark II is basically GWOTG universe tech upgrade, but it effects all units differently. A regular unit would not see much of a change, except for minor things like being able to reverse the angle of their swords, etc. (Check GWOTG for examples) Fighter Guyver II is a W'Kar, his unit is from a parallel world in which Greg died and the damaged unit bonded to his brother (The present Greg and his brother are not from the same universe). He was given the Mark II upgrade, which made him more powerful but stopped his unit from evolving like Greg's Unit continues to do. Basically the modifications a unit can expect depend on the power level and genetic matrix of that particular unit. For WG units, since they are naturally more powerful they can take advantage of more of the Mark II tech. But we are talking about different technology from two different universes. So the Praetorian Units (what we call the WG Mark II upgraded units) would each produce its own unique mutation according to the type of host it bonds to. So don't expect all of them to have tendrils or even the same types of augmentations.

Sorry your're right, got mixed up, meant how time as we think of it basically wasn't started until the 7th day of rest that signifies the completion of creation and the world. I usually get into scholarly debates and different religions have different orders of how things came to be. But most scholars would agree the let there be light is often associated with the concept of the beginning of the universe, aka Big Bang as we would now call it. So day one was the creation of the universe, but this still goes into the concept of a day for a god. The world was not created on the first day so day and night did not yet exist in the cyclic sense, god created order from chaos and the void. You need a rotating planet to get cyclic days as we now measure them first. Like how do you tell time in space? You have day and night all over but not the cycles that we call days. Day-Age Creationism Remember on day 2 he created the heavens and divined the separation between the sea and heaven. Then day three he created the dry land and sea, only now does Earth get mentioned that combined with Day 4 in which god creates light in the heavens gives us the first mention of day time on the planet but we have been working on terms days since the beginning which still puts the concept of days under what is a day for god and not us mortals on Earth. Like day 5 is credited with the creation of life in the sea, do we assume this happened in one of our 24 hour days or one of god's equivalent days? Then day 6 and the creation of land animals and finally Adam. Remember this story is mainly an allegory, just like Adam represent mankind each of the days are an allegory for the phases of creation. Also since day 6 god told all his creations to be fruitfull and multiply. So we can conclude Adam and Eve have been at it since the Sixth day of creation. We then move forward to the seventh day and the day god rested. Put this in the light of how long we know it took the planet Earth to form, for the universe to cool down since the big bang, the part in which day light in the sky wasn't mentioned until day 4 all add up to my point that the days mentioned in genesis aren't representative of the days we go through here on Earth. Like in the later part in which they give more detail on day 6, god brought every living creature to man for him to name. Considering how many animal species there are this would have taken a very long time, never mind where Adam would have gotten the knowledge to name them all without eating from the tree of knowledge first, and yet it is still mentioned within a day. Man was also created to work the garden of Eden and Eve was created to be his mate and helper, but god put Adam to deep sleep for this to take one of his ribs. Another event that should have taken time from the day. The inconsistant part is the marriage of Adam and Eve because it is mentioned that, "Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh." The problem with that line though is the mention of father and mother if Adam was the first man then he would not have these, even Eve was basically cloned from Adam, but this in turn supports that Adam is just an allegory. Even the sequence of events is in question, with the first part showing Adam and Eve being one of the last creations but the later part that goes into more detail on Adam shows instead plants being created after man. In most respects genesis is an upbeat version of the original belief. Since before Judaism it was believed mankind was created to be the servants of the gods, genesis takes many of the same elements and even names of that original Ancient Near East belief and reformated it into the opposite in which we started out good and went downhill from there. So even the old testament ultimately saw god as being good, at least compared to the selfish nature of the previous pagan gods. Other historical anomalies, in the traditional hebrew interpretation of certain words are different from the Christian. For example when the spirit of god is mentioned in Christian version it is meant Wind in the original Hebrew. The difference being the Christian version wanted to associate it more directly with god because of the concept of the holy trinity, etc. They get away with this because the original hebrew words in the old testament often had multiple meanings depending on usage, which is why I like to look at how the jews interpret the old testament versus the Christians to get a better sense of original intent. For example the number 7 is a very important number in hebrew traditions and religion. The author of genesis for example cleverly put the act of Creation into 7 parts, showing yet another reason to see this as an allegory instead of being literal. Even the number of times god and earth were mentioned can be divided into multiples of 7. The very first line of genesis is composed of 7 hebrew words and the next line is 14. Symbolism is thus imbedded throughout it and is ulimately my point, the events stated in Genesis are primarily topical and not chronological. P.S.> I just want to emphasis that this is mainly just my view on things and in no way is anything I've said intended to infringe on other people's beliefs.

Then you would have to ignore the tree of life! Those who eat from the tree of life don't age or die! And it wasn't until they ate from the tree of knowledge that they lost access to the tree of life and thus started to age and die. It's like the part about god creating the universe in 7 days, yet only on the seventh day was day and night created. So how then was time measured before Day or Night considering Adam was created on the sixth day? What is a day to an immortal being like god? The fact Adam is an allegory for mankind only adds to how much time we are really talking about, as then the concept expands to generations as time then becomes measured by the age of the species and not of just an individual. To show the different aspects of what the story represents. On one side you got the tree of life, which represents not only life but eternity. On the other you got the tree of knowledge, which not only represent knowledge but also change and not until they ate from the tree of knowledge was time really introduced into the story. Yet obviously time did pass, it just wasn't measured. But since Adam and Eve were allegories of the human race, then you just have to ask how long did it take for the human race to develop? The story itself is an allegory, it's not meant to be literal. But for a full analysis I debated both aspects of the story from both what is said and what is meant. As representatives of the human race Adam and Eve are not just individuals but a representative of all humans and how we came to be. But it is all wrapped in a story with a moral lesson as its goal and that is why it leaves so many logic holes since the story is suppose to be moral and not a literal proof of our beginnings. Except you never went anywhere with that argument, you pointed out the story had elements that showed it was an allegory but did not show how that applied to your argument. After all an allegory is not a proof but rather a tale with a intended message. Perhaps but you're leaving a lot out if this was your intent. Your arguments to date have seemed to only add to the notion you put forth at the beginning and do not seem to be non-partisan, so to speak. For example you have not, as far as I've perceived, separated from what is said from any possible intent. Your argument has been primarily that the literal interpretation supports your contention. But I've pointed out that mention of god in these stories are applied very liberally and aspects of personality are accredited to god but do not literally mean god took control. The very point of good and evil is choice, despite all your arguments you have not address this one overriding point. Without choice there can't be good or evil, as you can't be either if you don't have the choice. You suggest free will is limited, I'm not arguing that it's not. Free will like any right is only as free as you can excersize it. What I have argued is that it is always present and can never be fully taken away. You may have to balance it against the free will of others, the good of the many versus the good of the one or the few for example. But you always have a choice and that is why responsibility and good and evil apply to us. Without free will good and evil, responsibility, would all be meaningless. Old testament only, because these are derived from early Judaism. But these aren't laws as we consider laws now, unless you know any laws based on allegories and moral tales? Really, any time allegories are used then intent overrides the exact wording. Even the stories that based on actual historical events are often coloured by interpretation of the writer of the story. Unlike modern laws which the exact wording can be more important than intent. The people who wrote the bible weren't lawyers! Sorry but I think this illustrates why I'm having problems with your interpretation, the story of Samuel says nothing about god saving David from Saul. Aside from delaying him as he took time for prophecy and there is nothing to say this wasn't Saul's choice. After all many people at that time relied on such events to make decisions. Like Remember the tale of the Spartans against the Persians, the Greeks had to seek the approval from the seers before they could declare war. Similarly kings have been noted to seek the advice of prophets and seers throughout history. Saul was no exception, except he was his own seer/prophet. But ultimately he only heard what he wanted to hear. Since as you pointed out he never stopped wanting to kill David. In any case there is nothing in the story that suggest Saul ever changed his mind and thus his free will was never interferred with. The only one who really saved David was Saul's son Jonathon, who remained loyal to David throughout the story and confirmed to David his father's intent to kill him. David wasn't around for Saul to kill at that point, after the first failed attempt he had fled after talking with Jonathon who went to confirm his father's intent. The only one in danger then was Jonathon if his father had ever found out what he had done. Again, your interpretation. I won't argue that the church hasn't twisted many concepts because it has. But the Church doesn't argue that free will is without restrictions, it argues that free will is what makes us responsible for our actions. It's taking the extreme to say free will is absolute, when in fact free will has to be balanced against the free will of all people. This is another reason why I think you have taken a modern interpretation, since many modern people have ideas like thinking rights should be absolute and any restrictions would invalidate them but rights have always had limits, even the freedom of speach is limited whenever it starts to interfere with the rights of others. It doesn't change the value of the rights that they have limits but those rights are always there. Free will is like the ability to think, you can't limit how a person thinks. You can only limit how they express what they think, the ability is alwasy there though. Similarly no matter how limited your options may be you'll always have a choice of some kind. The Church for example never blocked the concept of an act of god, like a natural disasters or other events out of our control. If they had really preached free will as absolute then they would have to say all events were our fault, whether we had control over them or not. The very point of purgatory is an acceptance that not all things are in our control, otherwise we would hold full responsibility and have to have the full punishment. And in the old testament Jews had many different and often conflicting concepts on what happened to their souls. Many for example don't believe in resurrection yet the Bible states Christ was resurrected. But there are old testament references to Purgatory, barring a long conversation of meaninglessness of time and space to god, in the old testament god was often associated with fire or burning illumination. Like the burning bush through which he spoke to Moses for example. Purgatory then was in the old testament a purging of sins by the all purifying light of god. Many believe that since god transcends our concept of time that Christ's sacrifice effects all before and after his death and resurrection. It's not all just one strict interpretation.

Yes, interesting research they're getting into. Here are some other related links. . . The Artificial Brain An Artificial Brain with 20 Billion Neurons Artificial brain falls for optical illusions Sci/Tech: Best brain boosts artificial life POPSCI: An Artificial Brain Artificial Brain Parts Growing a Brain in Switzerland

Don't Eat the Glowing Mushrooms Astronomy Students Find New Galaxy Their First Time Out Denmark's Kinder, Gentler System of Eugenics Discover The Future Of Medical Science The Universe Literally Smiles on Australia Invisibility: Just One Facet of the Wide, Wild World of Optical Illusions World’s Oldest Pot Stash Offered an Afterlife High First Teddie Bear Astronauts Conquer Space No Neanderthal Ancestors for Modern Humans Brain Surgeons Give Mute Man Second Chance to Speak

The Same Chip With Fewer Transistors; HP's Memristor Changes Everything v-Pod: Beer and TV, Together At Last The Simpsons Gets 20 Years of Apple Jokes Out of the Way at Once Michelin Develops Revolutionary Active Wheel for Electric Cars Calling All Wannabe Dr. Evil's: Super Secret London Tunnel Lair For Sale Set Up Your Mad Science Lair on the Most Remote Islands on Earth Man Abandons Son For Batman Mom Finds Scorpion In Bananas Can You Finish The 50 Pound Burger And Win $1,000? Old Beijing Subway Trains Get Second Life As Homeless Shelters

Netgear Digital Entertainer Elite: HTPC In a Set Top Box Super Dexterous Japanese Motoman Robot Chef Makes Okonomiyaki Good OS Launches A Cloud-centric Version of Their Linux OS called...Cloud Apple's Mini DisplayPort Might Not Be BS Proprietary Port After All People Buying Used PCs for Salvage Copies of Windows XP Fujitsu's Laptop4Life Scheme Gets You A New Laptop Every 3 Years 'Til You Die Windows 7 Will Run Fully Accelerated Graphics From Your CPU MSI U110, U115 Netbooks To Pack Draft-N Wi-Fi, Faster Processors Duo Wireless Penmouse Adds Touchscreen Tablet Tech to Laptops Cheaply Landport Cubes Squeeze Powered Speakers In Just 1-Inch

xfool that was awesome

True, but that's when we have to separate the story telling from the facts... Many of the stories in the Bible are actually allegories. Like Adam's name we can reason that since it means Mankind that his character is an allegory for Mankind, we aren't really suppose to take it literally yet we often do. That's the problem when a allegory being interpreted literally, we often run into situations where the story fails to meet all logical analysis. It would for example have taken a fleet of over 30 Arks to just carry two of each of the million of species on this world and that's not counting provisions for the trip and whatever measures would have been needed to prevent them from eating each other as they would in the wild during the long trip... Factually there isn't even enough water on the planet to completely flood the entire surface of the planet. Yet we do know there was a great flood about 8000 years ago when the ice sheets from the last ice age melted and raised sea levels world wide, it just only flooded the coastal areas but effected civilizations all over the world. There was also a local massive flood according to babylonian tablets unearthed in Iraq for about 5000 years ago that match archeological findings in the middle east area. In both those cases there are stories of real life characters that could have inspired the story of Noah. So in a world that sought to think of such events in the moral light and acts of god then comes the story we now know as Noah and the Ark. Like the Story of King Arthur, there is some basis in fact but the story had elements added and changed to provide specific moral messages over time. The story of Genesis for example has been analyzed by experts to be a composite of at least 11 separate stories that were combined. Yet many consider it an actual literal story, for example, some people actually take the part about Adam giving up a rib for god to create Eve as being literal and even extend it to all men. A medical teacher even published an article in Scientific America once about the trouble he went through to have some of his students convince themselves that men don't have one fewer ribs than women. Though of course this is not representative of all his students it happened often enough that he created a method so they convince themselves and thus he would never have to confront their religious beliefs. Thus the problem with trying to argue details for stories that ultimately were only intended for moral messages using allegory methods. We can go back and forth with the details, but a person who wrote the story thousand of years ago would not have thought of every possible logic hole in the story and thus we have conflicting details. But this ignores the intended moral of the stories, which is the main point we should pay attention to. What we have discussed so far has been thus the different levels of details of each story. Analyzing both within the story details and the meaning of the story. The problem being while some stories are heavily allegorized others are essentially based on historical events, like the walls of Jericho did fall, just such stories were either glamorized or heavily interpreted through a religious viewpoint. Telling the difference isn't easy but in all cases I think we must remember the intended moral message is the one common factor and the only one the authors really intended. For those more religious than myself please don't take offense in this analysis, like I said before I'm not a believer in religion even though I do believe in god. I tend to favor what we know to be true versus what is said, but I also seek to be fair and to view the intended message from religion in the light that reason tells me was intended and try to avoid modern biases as much as possible.

Didn't have to, mortality should be self explanatory in my opinion. Only if you assume they didn't already start to have kids while in Eden, simply because it wasn't mentioned didn't mean it wasn't happening. For example if Cain and Abel were the first children then who the hell did Cain marry? Remember Eve was created to be Adam's wife, and Adam literally means mankind. The tree of knowledge only gave them the capacity for shame. But like any other animal such human emotions aren't needed for mating. And clearly god wasn't preventing the animals from multiplying as otherwise the first animals that Adam and Eve killed to eat or sacrifice would have been the last as well. All this besides the original origins of the story of Cain and Abel, which is another story with name meaning and was created from previous stories. Basically the problem I'm having with your arguments is you take them from a very literal interpretation when any enlightened cleric would tell you the bible is primarily a collection of moral tales and not a law book on religious facts. Samuel 20:30 for example was not a tale of god's intervention. Saul did not spare David, 20:30 specifically was the scene between Saul and his son Jonathon, in which Jonathon stood up for David and Saul became enraged. The closest to god interfering is Samuel 19 where Saul was overcome by prophecy, but that only suggests Saul was both very religious and also a prophet, which would explain why they thought he was given the god given right to be king. Rather it was David that spared Saul twice but his reasons were moral. The key to the confusion is how people in those days viewed god, as most of the old testament shows god was viewed as the source of everything, which includes good and evil. And since man was created in god's image that man also manifested the spirit of god. Ergo our nature/soul. Just like god was seen being responsible for the weather, etc. It doesn't mean god literally did anything, just was given credit for it. Also remember Samuel was during a very war like time for the jews, practices like one family taking over leadership from another for example usually entaled killing all in the displaced family that could lay claim to the leadership. This was emphasized when David promised Jonathon that he would not do that if he became king. Similarly to Saul David spoke to god and thus was much like a prophet as well, which is probably part of the reason why he was considered ordained to replace Saul over Saul's own son. I however agree on the note of self responsibility, in fact this is why I so strongly argue free will as that is what bestows that responsibility unto us.