Ponderings of a Mad Man

[Death Dark]

If you're going to add something to this topic, be sure to note that I'm going to be extremely anti-spam and will quickly purge anything that doesn't seem productive or aimed at the topic's general direction.  If you can't tell what's going on, read a few and then you'll know.


     I propose that the Holocaust was not an evil event, and, in fact, was an act of God.

     If you go and take a look through the Old Testament of the Bible, you'll quickly find many stories about God smiting his chosen people because they have, yet again, turned from him and towards the evils of the world.  These smitings come in many flavors including, though not limited to, enslavement of their people, destruction of their lands, military defeat, plagues, and fire and brimstone raining down from Heaven.  Though I've never witnessed any of these things, I hear that they're pretty destructive, painful, and/or bad things to be going through.  Some of these punishments, however, require a third party (being neither God nor the Jews) to initiate.  Many great nations, such as Egypt, the Babylonians, the Persians, and Rome have been used in order to fulfill this requirement.

     If you can't tell where I'm going with this, then let me move on to the Holocaust.  The Holocaust was the mass killing of Jews by the German army during the time period in and around World War II.  As for whose fault in particular it may be, we can't say for certain due to mass brainwashing, hiding of the facts, and the fact that they have been painted as the bad-guys so nothing in favor of anyone over there should ever see the light of day (according to some).  Any which way it happened, there were a lot of Jews killed, and a great empire was the means to that end.  If we can blame this all on Hitler, then Hitler was thereby an agent of God himself to deliver His righteous punishment to the Jews, and the Americans and other forces who stopped them are evil for interfering with God's will.

     You ask, "But how can the killing of so many people be God's will?  How could such brutal suffering be what God wants?"  To this I respond, "You haven't read Revelation have you?"  Read that and the Old Testament and then try to tell me that God would never permit or promote the brutal killing of so many people.

     In closing, I would like you to remember that next time you hear the name "Hitler" to recognize that he is an agent of God, not an agent of Satan.

[Death Dark]

     Why is there more than one gender?  It makes no sense to me.

     If God was the producer of everything, couldn't he very well have just made one unisex that could reproduce with itself?  It could still require two of them to make a baby or something, but why go through the whole trouble of making two completely different types of the same being?  If we were all just one sex, there'd be no reason to argue over homosexuality as there would be no bother.

     If evolution was the producer of everything, wouldn't it be just as beneficial to maintain one gender and have it be able to reproduce with itself?  It would be evolutionarily superior since it would allow the specie to survive with any two members alive.  They'd still be able to pass on their genes and develop superior descendants as the survival of the fittest requires.  Even if we merely asexually reproduced we'd still be able to do so.

     If there were only one gender, there would be no gender based discrimination in the world.  There'd be no reason for one to be under another since there is only one.  Again, the disputes over homosexuality would be non-existent as everyone would be homosexual.  Truly this is a bit awkward for us now, as we would not understand how to address the situation of a single gender, but if the world developed in such a way we'd be used to it.

     In summary, this part of the world doesn't make sense to me.  And yes, my /d/eviations may have contributed to this pondering.

[Death Dark]

     There are many questions in this world.  There are some questions that hold far more weight than others, enough so that people are willing to die over the answers.  One of these such questions is of how we got here.  Unfortunately it may be that we will never know the answer to this question, and as such it is a futile effort to bother arguing over it.  Another, more important and answerable question is why are we here?

     This question is a bit tricky to answer as the answer changes depending on how we got here.  If God placed us here, then we may be here to perform his divine will.  We may, on the other hand, be here to be some test for a bigger project.  We may not be important at all, or all of us may be invaluable in our own right.  On the other hand, He may have made us all for the sake of a single person.

     If evolution placed us here, then we are here to reproduce and evolve into eternity.  This is a grim fate, and holds no true hope, no great end, no valiant light at the end of the tunnel.  However, if it is the truth, it must be followed.

     If you haven't noticed yet, I haven't answered the question.  I answered it how it's always answered, but I haven't answered the actual question at hand.  Why are we here?  Why create the universe?  Why create man?  To this I have an answer, but it's not elegant.  It's not elegant, not proper, not a good answer at all.  We were created because we exist.  It is by that we exist that we know we were created, and it was by that creation that we exist.  If for no other reason, we were created because we exist.  It's as simple as that.

[Death Dark]

     There is a barrier around this world of ours.  It is not a physical barrier, and it doesn't interfere with our day-to-day living.  In fact, most of us just go about our lives not knowing it exists.  In fact, it may not, but for the sake of interesting conversation, I will act as if it does, for I believe it does.  This barrier is what is called the Disreality Barrier or the Magic Barrier (here Magic meaning a force to defy the laws and standards of the universe).  It holds within it all of the supernatural powers and energies that exist.  The limitations, bounds, and extents of these powers are unknown, as they follow their own, unique rules.  It is only once these powers have been discovered can we discover their limits.

     The thing about this barrier is that it's not invincible.  It can be broken.  However, it would take someone of near superhuman ability or willpower to break it.  They must reach beyond the barrier, and pull through it what is only known as fiction in this world.  If done properly, there will remain a crack in the barrier.  Inspired by his example, others will follow, their willpower boosted by the knowledge that it can be done, and as more and more reach into the beyond, the barrier erodes and decays, exposing more magic and power unto the world.

     This may or may not be a good thing.  It would be greatly fantastic as the world would become that much more of an interesting place, and if it happens while I'm alive I intend to be one of the ones who breaks it, but there's no telling what the energy would do.  For every person who drains positive energy from it, negative energy must be drawn out of it as well.  In a sense, as the superheroes create themselves, the supervillains must rise up and resist or terrorize the world.  If the good are ineffective, the world will be thrown into chaos and destruction.

     Knowing the barrier has broken won't be easy at first.  It will represent itself in subtle ways that only those of us who are paying attention will see.  Things that were only thought to be fictional will become real in small ways at first, and then the world will quickly fall into some sort of major upheaval as the magic changes it for better or worse.  It is at that time that everyone will know that the barrier has been broken, whether they know of the barrier or not.

[Hobo]

I believe that the original creation of Adam and Eve was a pointless endeavor.

God created Adam and Eve in order to have someone to have a relationship and commune with. If that was the purpose of their creation, then why allow Satan to corrupt them? Also, why did God need to create Adam and Eve in the first place, since he is omnipotent, he could have simply altered the angels to serve this same purpose. Also, as God sees the past, present, and future all in the same, then why didn't he simply eliminate Satan in order to prevent the tainting of his creation? Doing this, he would have eliminated the need for Jesus to sacrifice himself on the cross and evil would be nonexistent in the world.

[Hobo]

    You ask, "But how can the killing of so many people be God's will?  How could such brutal suffering be what God wants?"  To this I respond, "You haven't read Revelation have you?"  Read that and the Old Testament and then try to tell me that God would never permit or promote the brutal killing of so many people.

You seem to misunderstand Revelation then. The people who were killed off in Revelation had the choice of remaining in their wicked ways, or turn to God. The people who were afflicted by the plagues were those who chose to remain in their wicked ways. I don't believe in any of the whole forcing millions of people into ghettos, camps, and then systematically eliminating them, that the Jewish people had a choice in any of that.

[Death Dark]

    You ask, "But how can the killing of so many people be God's will?  How could such brutal suffering be what God wants?"  To this I respond, "You haven't read Revelation have you?"  Read that and the Old Testament and then try to tell me that God would never permit or promote the brutal killing of so many people.

You seem to misunderstand Revelation then. The people who were killed off in Revelation had the choice of remaining in their wicked ways, or turn to God. The people who were afflicted by the plagues were those who chose to remain in their wicked ways. I don't believe in any of the whole forcing millions of people into ghettos, camps, and then systematically eliminating them, that the Jewish people had a choice in any of that.

     You seem to misunderstand the Old Testament.  God has done many things to the Jewish people, including making them slave dogs to the Egyptians and similar things with other empires.  In none of these events did the Jews choose to undergo the pain and torture, since if they were given the choice, it'd be obviously a stupid idea to allow someone to choose to be tortured or not.  Even still, it's not what people choose to do, it's the punishment for the actions they have taken.

[Death Dark]

     I have recently found something that piqued my interest.  By my meanderings of the internet due to temporary madness, I stumbled upon a new religion that seemed very interesting to me.

     Somniumism (from the Latin work Somnium, which means "dream") is a modern polytheistic religion that believes that there are many, countless universes created by the minds and spiritual energies of the Gods as essentially dreams.

     There are many beings known as Kazau that inhabit the objects, creatures, and people we see around us.  As Kazau learn and grow more conscious of the Great Dream around them, and is able to be reborn into higher level existences, eventually moving through objects to humans to people.  In its final stage, the Kazau becomes a Sap-Kazau (a God).  Those who seem to be abnormally talented, lucky, or have some sort of superhuman ability are merely those whose Kazau, their true form, has developed highly, yet not high enough to become Sap-Kazau.

     The power in Somniumism and/or Kazau is the power to gain power over dreams (namely the Great Dream).  Learning to control your own dreams is highly encouraged, as it is how the Gods control the Great Dream, and learning to do allows your Kazau to grow in power.

     Somniumism teaches that there are many, varying Gods, just as there are many varying people and objects.  They have a set of Gods they believe in, but they do not dismiss other Gods.  For example, the Christian God is just as likely to exist to them as Zeus.  In fact, they may all exist, and simply not speak of the other Gods.

     I thought this was all rather interesting, and I just wanted to share it.

Source:  http://religion.wikia.com/wiki/Somniumism

[Death Dark]

I am fine with gay people.  They like other guys/girls.  Fine; not my problem (not to mention I understand misunderstood fetishes).  However, I do have one major problem with one thing they say.  There is no such thing as being "born gay."  Homosexuality is a choice.

Instead of explaining why this is, let me explain something else, which will explain why.

I like little girls.  Not very little girls, but I find underage girls to be attractive.  Am I a pedophile?  No.  Because I choose not to enact on that attraction.

I may once in a while get the urge to kill someone.  Am I a murderer?  No.  Because I chose not to kill them.

A homosexual is a homosexual because they chose to be a homosexual.  Simple as that.  They may not have chosen the attraction, but they chose the lifestyle.  They could've very well chosen otherwise.  However, they chose what would make them happier.  And I can't dog them for that.

But that's my choice.

[Death Dark]

     Before I begin this next one, I'd like to correct myself.  In the second pondering, I claimed that asexual reproduction was a valid means of evolutionary development.  However, it has recently been brought to my attention that, contrary to what I stated, the lack of combining genetic material from multiple (2) sources creates an extremely poor evolutionary environment.  My other argument is still valid, however.


     I've touched on this topic already, but it seems I must visit it again.

     The more I think about it, the more it seems to me that, on a conceptual level, that science simply lacks the capability to explain where everything came from.  As I've said, we're here, ergo we know we must have been created.  Well, we don't actually know that we were created, but in the common human mind, it seems more rationally logical for there to have been a beginning, rather than a constant existence, which I'll get to in a moment.

     As mortal beings, humans are very familiar with a concept of beginning and ending.  Living and dying, creation and destruction, we see it all.  It is by this that we assume the universe had a beginning, and shall have an end.  It is at these extrema that the "supernatural" (or "magic," for my more familiar readers) has its greatest argument.  Sure, science has its arguments, too, but they break down under a simple philosophical pondering.  As a beginning, for science, there is what is known by some as Cosmic evolution or the Big Bang (leave your jokes elsewhere, unless you're obviously talking about the Greek/Roman gods).

     This theory claims that there was a mass of energy, including the four major forces (electromagnetism, strong nuclear forces, weak nuclear forces, and gravity), at one point.  That was the entirety of the universe.  Suddenly, it went boom, and expanded faster than the speed of light.  The problem with this part is nothing can go faster than the speed of light without warping (I'll save that for another time), but the claim is that the 4 major forces were one super-force at the time, allowing them to force the energy outwards.  In any case, the energy caused the universe to expand at an alarming rate.  Suddenly, gravity snapped off from the super-force, and slammed energy down into little atoms of Hydrogen and Helium.  Those familiar with the Laws of conservation of Mass and Energy can see the problem here.  Blah blah, stuff happens, and we get Hydrogen and Helium combining in the belly of suns and stars that then explode releasing larger molecules into the universe and other stuff happens, ergo us.

     Now, that sounds good an all, but let's ponder now.  Okay, there was this energy.  That's cool.  You know, energy's all over the place.  Yeah, it's nifty.  But, where did that energy come from?  Did it suddenly appear and just kind of chill there until it exploded?  What caused it to explode?  Ignoring my arguments made in my previous pondering on this subject, we aren't really provided with any answers.  There is no real scientific means to explain how it got there.  Some propose that it was the energy of the previous universe that suddenly compacted.  However, that's not a real source, as it explains what happened to the energy beforehand, not where it came from.  Science can't just up and claim that the energy just popped up out of nowhere, after all, that's not very scientific, which leaves them defenseless against this simple question.

     The same cannot be said for religions.  You see, no matter what religion you have, there's nothing wrong with a random God popping up out of nowhere and starting everything up.  Well, why is that?  Why can religion get away with this and science can't?  Well, it's simple.  You see, religion believes in the supernatural, it's what they depend on.  By way of that, they can claim anything and not have to back it up, after all, most of the time they couldn't even if it did happen.  Science, on the other hand, can only explain things through natural means, which gives them problems sometimes.  One of these areas happens to be chemical evolution, aka the origin of life.

     Life apparently started in early earth when the seas were a soup of just random chemicals floating around.  As the story goes, all the materials needed to create the first microorganism were floating around inside of a bubble when they were struck by lightning or somesuch.  This gave them the energy needed to organize and align, creating the first organism.  No matter how many times and ways this is explained to me, I cannot help but to see the holes in this.  Any given simple microorganism is an extremely complex little bugger.  Comprised of over thousands of atoms of assorted types, they are put together in a very particular fashion just so that everything will work correctly.  If this story of chemical evolution is true, the following all happened:

1)  All of the types of atoms and/or molecules needed were at the same place
2)  This place was a bubble
3)  This place had oxygen
4)  This place had no oxygen
5)  This bubble was given energy by an extreme source such as lightning
6)  Given this energy, the atoms and/or molecules aligned themselves perfectly in the short time that the energy lasted
7)  The structure created by these atoms/molecules created a single-celled organism
8)  Said organism could provide food and/or some source of energy to itself
9)  Said organism could survive the turbulent and violent environment
10)  Said organism could reproduce
11)  Said reproduced organisms were replicated with enough efficiency to have attributes 7-10 for themselves

     I apologize if I'm getting into the bashing flavor of things, but it irks me to no end how improbable this all is.  The chances of any given one of these 11 events occurring is highly unlikely, some wandering into the realm of impossible.  For explanation, oxygen is both necessary for life to exist, and yet is also corrosive and reacts violently to some other elements.  This given contradiction itself was given to me on accident by one such evolutionist who was trying to explain a general problem had when trying to replicate these aforementioned events (which failed, by the way).  Now, I'm not a betting man, but if I were, I would see that betting on the 1/[very, very, very ridiculously large number here] chances of this all happening isn't a good bet to place.  It's a lot more sensible if we make the assumption that a god exists, and he/she/it created life by their will.  This is a 1/1 chance by itself, thought the chances of a god existing are unable to be determined, as a constant system of measurement is unavailable.

     So, we see how Science has a problem with beginning.  That's cool and all, I guess, but I told you it'd just be a moment before I got to a highly bothersome concept of the Universe always having existed.  I will now address said concept.  One thing that's a bit hard to comprehend properly is the idea of no beginning.  There are many approaches that can be taken to this, so I'll start with a random one and work my way around from there.

     Let's ignore the universe as a whole.  What if humans have always existed here on earth?  Humanity has just been sitting around for years upon years upon years, and for whatever reason, we got reset once upon a time.  Maybe this happens every x billion years.  Well, there is no proof of a major prior civilization on this planet, but maybe that's how it was supposed to be.  Whatever the cause that did it to us, this is what happened.  There's just some Vault or fallout shelter now buried deep beneath centuries of amassing dirt and/or water that contains the remnants of what was once our past, the very same shelter that our predecessors came out of into the barren world that then existed, with no mark of their last lives upon the surface of the planet.  They began anew, and eked out an existence until it became what it is today.  Just as easily, some god or something could've snatched up a few, and hit the planet's reset button, and set the few back down and told them, "Have at."  Such ideas are usually considered merely a science-fiction type of concept, but are actually just as valid as everything else, though there are a few bugs bound to show up with any theorem.

     Now, let's consider the universe again.  What if it's always been here?  What if we're just specie #2X59B of sector #ARJ87 that some greater specie is monitoring or has some knowledge of?  What if, instead, we were created by some other method that other intelligent species have monitored and fully comprehend, but we're too dense to figure it out?  What if the Xel'Naga just need to stop creating so many races?  There are even more ideas towards this way of thinking, and most of them have Sci-Fi stories to go alongside them.

     Lastly, let's consider not the universe.  As previously mentioned, what if the last universe were broken down and created this one?  It doesn't explain much at all, and is a more beginning/end type of concept, but just as well, what if this has happened for forever?  What if we're one day going to face it, too?

     Though these concepts are good and all, there's still a fundamental flaw in the whole notion.  What if none of these have gone on forever?  What if, instead, they've just been going on for an unconceivably long time?  Then we're even more out of luck, as we can't even base our current situations off of the beginning, but merely the last conversion.

     Whatever way the wind blows, when we get down into thinking about all these things, these concepts, these possibilities, the whole science thing begins to break down, as they cannot explain away every theorem.  They cannot go back and collect empirical data on the past.  They cannot go forward and assure us our future.  They cannot venture to the edge of the Universe, and tell us what's beyond.  It is by way of things like this that I, a scientific mind, still believe in a magic to the world.

[Death Dark]

     I've touched on this topic already, but it seems I must visit it again.

Except now, I have to go back and right my wrongs.  As we grow, we learn and develop, and realize where our failings were.  The difference here is I can prevent others from making my own mistakes.

     The more I think about it, the more it seems to me that, on a conceptual level, that science simply lacks the capability to explain where everything came from.

That's what I get for thinking

As I've said, we're here, ergo we know we must have been created.  Well, we don't actually know that we were created, but in the common human mind, it seems more rationally logical for there to have been a beginning, rather than a constant existence, which I'll get to in a moment.

Depending on what's intuitive to determine what's true is a bad path.  Quantum mechanics and relativity are both unintuitive, but aren't wrong because of it.

     As mortal beings, humans are very familiar with a concept of beginning and ending.  Living and dying, creation and destruction, we see it all.  It is by this that we assume the universe had a beginning, and shall have an end.  It is at these extrema that the "supernatural" (or "magic," for my more familiar readers) has its greatest argument.  Sure, science has its arguments, too, but they break down under a simple philosophical pondering.  As a beginning, for science, there is what is known by some as Cosmic evolution or the Big Bang (leave your jokes elsewhere, unless you're obviously talking about the Greek/Roman gods).

As we observe the universe, we see the planets moving constantly away from each other.  If we mark these paths back, the universe collapses upon a singularity about 15 billion years ago.  The radiation from such an explosion is still detectable.

     This theory claims that there was a mass of energy, including the four major forces (electromagnetism, strong nuclear forces, weak nuclear forces, and gravity), at one point.  That was the entirety of the universe.  Suddenly, it went boom, and expanded faster than the speed of light.  The problem with this part is nothing can go faster than the speed of light without warping (I'll save that for another time), but the claim is that the 4 major forces were one super-force at the time, allowing them to force the energy outwards.  In any case, the energy caused the universe to expand at an alarming rate.  Suddenly, gravity snapped off from the super-force, and slammed energy down into little atoms of Hydrogen and Helium.  Those familiar with the Laws of conservation of Mass and Energy can see the problem here.  Blah blah, stuff happens, and we get Hydrogen and Helium combining in the belly of suns and stars that then explode releasing larger molecules into the universe and other stuff happens, ergo us.

Of course, what I was unfamiliar with here is that the laws of conservation of mass and energy aren't 100% applicable.  In nuclear explosions, the matter is converted to energy in a process called "annihilation."  The amount of energy released is given by E = mc².

     Now, that sounds good an all, but let's ponder now.  Okay, there was this energy.  That's cool.  You know, energy's all over the place.  Yeah, it's nifty.  But, where did that energy come from?  Did it suddenly appear and just kind of chill there until it exploded?  What caused it to explode?  Ignoring my arguments made in my previous pondering on this subject, we aren't really provided with any answers.  There is no real scientific means to explain how it got there.  Some propose that it was the energy of the previous universe that suddenly compacted.  However, that's not a real source, as it explains what happened to the energy beforehand, not where it came from.  Science can't just up and claim that the energy just popped up out of nowhere, after all, that's not very scientific, which leaves them defenseless against this simple question.

The actual scientific answer here is "I don't know."  And that's a wonderful answer.  It's intellectually honest, and leaves the scientist open for finding the reason.

     The same cannot be said for religions.  You see, no matter what religion you have, there's nothing wrong with a random God popping up out of nowhere and starting everything up.  Well, why is that?  Why can religion get away with this and science can't?  Well, it's simple.  You see, religion believes in the supernatural, it's what they depend on.  By way of that, they can claim anything and not have to back it up, after all, most of the time they couldn't even if it did happen.  Science, on the other hand, can only explain things through natural means, which gives them problems sometimes.  One of these areas happens to be chemical evolution, aka the origin of life.

Here, I've highlighted my error.  Please, never make this mistake.  If you're going to be convincing someone of an explanation, then you MUST back it up EVERY time NO MATTER what.

     Life apparently started in early earth when the seas were a soup of just random chemicals floating around.  As the story goes, all the materials needed to create the first microorganism were floating around inside of a bubble when they were struck by lightning or somesuch.  This gave them the energy needed to organize and align, creating the first organism.  No matter how many times and ways this is explained to me, I cannot help but to see the holes in this.  Any given simple microorganism is an extremely complex little bugger.  Comprised of over thousands of atoms of assorted types, they are put together in a very particular fashion just so that everything will work correctly.  If this story of chemical evolution is true, the following all happened:

This claim is based on an experiment that attempted to simulate early earth.  They were wrong.  Of course, since then, we've learnt much more about abiogenesis.  Here's the modified list.

1)  A few of the types of atoms and/or molecules needed were at the same place
2)  Said molecular cluster could survive the turbulent and violent environment
3)  Said molecular cluster could reproduce with variation
4)  Said molecular cluster could acquire other parts in time

It's known that RNA can quite easily replicate itself nearly independently, and that the lipids that create the cell wall of our cells wouldn't mind clustering around it to make a phospho-lipid mono-layer, as opposed to our phospho-lipid bi-layer.  It's also known that the mitochondria was originally a foreign body, and that the chloroplasts were as well.

     I apologize if I'm getting into the bashing flavor of things, but it irks me to no end how improbable this all is.

There's actually a type of rock that was in place at the time that has been noted to have most of the pieces to create early cells.

It's a lot more sensible if we make the assumption that a god exists, and he/she/it created life by their will.  This is a 1/1 chance by itself, thought the chances of a god existing are unable to be determined, as a constant system of measurement is unavailable.

It's easier, and more probable, assuming one such god exists.  What's true is important here, and the evidence pointing in a given direction carries us that way.

     Let's ignore the universe as a whole.  What if humans have always existed here on earth?

We couldn't have, as the universe obviously has a date to it.

     Now, let's consider the universe again.  What if it's always been here?

Nope.

What if we're just specie #2X59B of sector #ARJ87 that some greater specie is monitoring or has some knowledge of?  What if, instead, we were created by some other method that other intelligent species have monitored and fully comprehend, but we're too dense to figure it out?  What if the Xel'Naga just need to stop creating so many races?  There are even more ideas towards this way of thinking, and most of them have Sci-Fi stories to go alongside them.

Alien implants leading to our specie's origins aren't out of the question, however.  But, then the question is, where did they come from?

     Lastly, let's consider not the universe.  As previously mentioned, what if the last universe were broken down and created this one?  It doesn't explain much at all, and is a more beginning/end type of concept, but just as well, what if this has happened for forever?  What if we're one day going to face it, too?

It's known as the "Big Crunch," the opposition of the Big Bang.  Essentially, Gravity goes Super-Saiyan and pulls everything back together.

I'm not up to date on the likelihood of this happening.

     Whatever way the wind blows, when we get down into thinking about all these things, these concepts, these possibilities, the whole science thing begins to break down, as they cannot explain away every theorem.  They cannot go back and collect empirical data on the past.  They cannot go forward and assure us our future.  They cannot venture to the edge of the Universe, and tell us what's beyond.  It is by way of things like this that I, a scientific mind, still believe in a magic to the world.

However, we can simulate and project, and actually collect visual data from millions of years ago, due to the speed of light being finite.

Some sort of magic to the universe is still kind of cool, though.

[lern]

ive only roughly read most of it but it seems pretttyy interesting. at first i was all like 'you racist bastard, act of god my ass', being a jew and all. But after reading some more of it I understand you.

oh just an fyi

I believe that the original creation of Adam and Eve was a pointless endeavor.

God created Adam and Eve in order to have someone to have a relationship and commune with. If that was the purpose of their creation, then why allow Satan to corrupt them? Also, why did God need to create Adam and Eve in the first place, since he is omnipotent, he could have simply altered the angels to serve this same purpose. Also, as God sees the past, present, and future all in the same, then why didn't he simply eliminate Satan in order to prevent the tainting of his creation? Doing this, he would have eliminated the need for Jesus to sacrifice himself on the cross and evil would be nonexistent in the world.

according to the original testament, in hebrew anyways, the old one, of course, satan had nothing to do with it. He created Adam as a GARDENER of paradise/heaven/garden of Eden, and eve as his woman, so that he wouldn't be so lonely, and so that Adam could create children. the one who corrupted the human race (Bnei adam, in hebrew, alternatively Sons of Adam) was actually just a snake, who wished to explore the knowledge of the forbidden tree's fruits. He requested Eve eat one, and offered Adam one. When they ate it, they became self-aware, and were punished NOT for their actions, being curious, or anything of that sort- but for ignoring god. It was a test of sorts and they failed. As a punishment, he forced Adam and his children to have to slave and labor to create food, and made him mortal. Whereas his wife would pain during child birth.

As for the omnipotence/science thing, with him seeing the future and all that.
Seeing as we actually study all this crap here in Israel, I've questioned each and every one of my bible teachers, and they all said the same thing;

"God has given all his creations free will, and whilst he could see their undoing, he likes believing that they might change in the present."

and I always reply
'so you have no idea why, either, huh?'

it got me kicked out of the class twice but was worth it all 7 times.

Alternatively, it could be that he doesn't want to create a perfect world. Remember the tower of Babel? or however you guys spell it, I don't care for it enough. Either way, god smited the builders and punished them for trying to reach him. Think of it this way; If god created a perfect world, wouldnt it be like the tower of Babel? And in addition, why create a world at all if for that? God created a world, messed with it a bit, and then let it be as it chooses. The world has no purpose, it's here because god is bad ass. what reason has he to make a perfect world?

[MegaRock35]

I have a couple questions for you, but let me first state I'm not asking these to start some sort of debate, I just genuinely want to know what you have to say on these matters.

1.) I've been taught at a Christian school, meaning when they teach evolution, they also teach what's wrong with it. But obviously, it's biased, so I want to fact check a couple of things with you, as you seem pretty well versed on this subject.
  A.) The geological column:
    a.) Supposedly, it can't be found in it its entirety anywhere in the world. Besides the fact that we can't see a cross-section of the entire depth of the crust, is this true? If so, what are the theories/explanation for this?
    b.) They say that the Alps are actually reverse of the order that the geological column. Same questions as above.
  B.) The evolution of the horse:
    a.) Is there an evolutionary purpose for the seemingly random changes in its number of ribs and toes?
    b.) They say we've found modern day equus along with other members of its evolutionary family side-by-side, so to speak. Same deal: is this true and what is the explanation?
  C.) The coelacanth: Its lobed fins are thought to be one of the first steps into evolving arms/legs, yes? But coelacanth lives in very deep waters away from land, do they not? For what reason would it need to evolve arms/legs?
  D.) Early man:
    a.) I've been told that it has been discovered that the first neanderthal skeleton found, the one that created the most common depiction of cavemen had rickets, and that other skeletons found were closer to modern man. Is this true?
    b.) Several other cavemen depictions were based on very few bones. If I recall correctly, one was based solely on a tooth later identified to be from a modern pig, and one was only a partial skull and a thigh bone. These two cavemen are still taught accurate depictions of early man, I believe. Why is that? The first one I chalk up to the amount of time it takes for people to relearn something when it is disproven (i.e., all the people who still call Pluto a planet and who say light waves can't be bent), but why the second one? Can we really accurately extrapolate so much with so little to go one?
  E.) Onto the Universe:
    a.) You've touched on the Big Crunch and how it is only one explanation of the origin of the Big Bang. What are other explanations?
    b.) I personally think the Big Crunch sounds like a good, reasonable explanation of the Big Bang. But where did that Universe come from? Another Big Crunch? Where did the first universe come from, then?

Like I said, I just really want to know. So thanks for taking the time to answer these, and sorry if you have trouble trying to figure out what I'm asking, because I'm hot, tired, and a poor communicator.

[lern]

    b.) I personally think the Big Crunch sounds like a good, reasonable explanation of the Big Bang. But where did that Universe come from? Another Big Crunch? Where did the first universe come from, then?

made in china, perhaps?

[Death Dark]

  A.) The geological column:
    a.) Supposedly, it can't be found in it its entirety anywhere in the world. Besides the fact that we can't see a cross-section of the entire depth of the crust, is this true? If so, what are the theories/explanation for this?
    b.) They say that the Alps are actually reverse of the order that the geological column. Same questions as above.

"Geologic units from the same time but different parts of the world often look different and contain different fossils, so the same period was historically given different names in different locales."  Also, thanks to tectonic motion, these can get jumbled up.  However, the radiological dating still reads out the same.

I can neither support nor deny the accusation about the Alps.  However, even if it were true, it wouldn't undermine anything.

  B.) The evolution of the horse:
    a.) Is there an evolutionary purpose for the seemingly random changes in its number of ribs and toes?
    b.) They say we've found modern day equus along with other members of its evolutionary family side-by-side, so to speak. Same deal: is this true and what is the explanation?

Evolution has no "purpose."  Evolution is the side effect of those who are most fit for survival reproducing and passing their traits on.  It's like asking why the planets are organized how they are:  it just kind of happened due to the interaction of natural forces.  Mutation can also lead to odd effects like that.

As for b), I'm not sure what exactly you mean.  Side-by-side as in alive?

  C.) The coelacanth: Its lobed fins are thought to be one of the first steps into evolving arms/legs, yes? But coelacanth lives in very deep waters away from land, do they not? For what reason would it need to evolve arms/legs?

Trilobites lived in the sea, too, and they had legs.

  D.) Early man:
    a.) I've been told that it has been discovered that the first neanderthal skeleton found, the one that created the most common depiction of cavemen had rickets, and that other skeletons found were closer to modern man. Is this true?

The Neanderthals didn't later evolve into us.  They're a specie that branched off from humans as we evolved.  They died out, however.

    b.) Several other cavemen depictions were based on very few bones. If I recall correctly, one was based solely on a tooth later identified to be from a modern pig, and one was only a partial skull and a thigh bone. These two cavemen are still taught accurate depictions of early man, I believe. Why is that? The first one I chalk up to the amount of time it takes for people to relearn something when it is disproven (i.e., all the people who still call Pluto a planet and who say light waves can't be bent), but why the second one? Can we really accurately extrapolate so much with so little to go one?

We've found thousands of skulls and partial skulls giving almost a flawless line of evolution.  So many, in fact, we're still trying to sort out what skulls were ours, and what were things like Neanderthals.  The depictions are the same we use for forensic identification of the deceased, and using DNA when available.

  E.) Onto the Universe:
    a.) You've touched on the Big Crunch and how it is only one explanation of the origin of the Big Bang. What are other explanations?

The energy may have come from a black hole from a previous dimension; essentially our cosmic father.  However, both of these are speculations, and, as I've said, we're going to have a hard, if not impossible time, figuring it out.

    b.) I personally think the Big Crunch sounds like a good, reasonable explanation of the Big Bang. But where did that Universe come from? Another Big Crunch? Where did the first universe come from, then?

What if the universe has always existed and simply continues to collapse and expand?  An absolute beginning may not exist.

Like I said, I just really want to know. So thanks for taking the time to answer these, and sorry if you have trouble trying to figure out what I'm asking, because I'm hot, tired, and a poor communicator.

Keep asking more, if you want.  Knowing, etc.