Look, I'll make this real easy on you. You're saying that you won't die of natural causes when you only eat certain fruits yes? IS there any other way to besides natural causes and artificial causes then? Because if there isn't, we're effectively immortal if we eat only those certain fruits. In other words, the only way to die then would be by either an accident, or being killed by something else, but not from let's say, a heart attack, or a liver failure, or something like that.
Re: Why many will not be willing to make the experiment
Ok, then why haven't you done the tests yet? I assume you believe in an intelligent designer. What is stopping you from only eating fruits from specific trees? Report back in 250 years or so, then we'll have the proof we need for your crazy idea.
I'm a little confused on how you get that from his post...
Well, I'll try to break it down.
From the fruits of the solid trees you can freely eat - The term solid tree is used in the translation to make distinction between actual trees --e.g. avocado tree-- and plants that are palm-trees or of soft trunk.
Here CD7 sets up the premise, that you can eat freely from fruits of "solid trees".
freely eat -- human body remains free from deseases and death by natural causes.
This is the effect of freely eating from the 'solid trees". You won't die of disease and natural causes, gaining effective immortality.
except one -- the fruit that gives a type of knowledge that is good and evil; the fruit of the olive tree; the only solid tree whose fruit was made specifically for regular food or every food that gives the desire to keep on knowing it.
The exception to the rule. Eating this will kill you.
At least, that's how I read it.
The principle still applies. Many fruits support specialist insect, worm, or other parasites. If CD7 would give us a list of immortalizing fruits, we'll find a vermin to test his theory on.
Yep, I agree. Should not be so hard to demonstrate, should it. I mean, most insects don't live very long (from a human perspective), so let's set a limit of say, 50 times their normal average age. That should at least point to him being on to something. Of course the fact that all of these insects have an average life expectancy that isn't very long should already point to the fact that he is wrong. Or what about fruit bats? They eat these fruits, they're certainly not immortal.
That should be a no-brainer, which is pretty much the way this thread is going.
Re: Evolution view becomes obsolete after Multiplication Chronology
In regards to the origin of the Human body,
this is about the last of two evidences, Multiplication precisely in the last chance of a 12-Shot Roulette, demonstrating that the chances of the Human body being a product of natural selection are the same of spinning the cylinder of a 12-shot revolver and then expect that the shot will occur only in the 12th time one pulls the trigger, in the last of twelve.
Might I enquire as to how you came to calculate that number?
I - The book of Genesis was written about 1450 - 1410 BC.
II - Chronology of the book of Genesis as originally written clears up that there was no multiplication of the human beings before this time of 7,000 years ago.
This makes me doubt your calculations above regarding the chances of the human body. From today till 1450 BC are 3460 years, not 7000. Also, it's trivially proven wrong that humans didn't multiply before 1450 BC, who built the pyramids then, just adam and eve?
III - If one multiplies 7,000 times 12 and then divide 84,000 years total into 12 clusters of 7,000 years
What are the chances of the human beings population reaching 7 billion persons only in the last of the 12 clusters?
100%, since they did, even if this nonsense were based on any fact.
The chances are the same of spinning the cylinder of a 12-shot revolver and then expect that the shot will occur only in the 12th time one pulls the trigger. Given the sheer number of people on this earth, that if there were humans prior to Genesis then the population would be so much more than what it is.
No it wouldn't. It's not unbridled procreation from that point on. What about wars, famine, disease? Population growth doesn't work like that, because if it did, we'd be drowning in bacteria by now.
Is it not too much coincidence that the multiplication of the human beings happened precisely during last of the 12 clusters of 7,000 years, in the time predicted by the book of Genesis as originally written?
It would be if it were true.
Are you sure you're not on something? You are by far the weirdest poster I've seen here in a long time.
Re: What leads the Evolution doctrine to become obsolete
So it could not become bridled during any of the first 11 clusters of 7,000 years, for reasons that the doctrine or evolution theory does not demonstrate with science--verified truth of the facts
Here's a shocker for you, evolution isn't about population growth, it's about population change. Further, everything about evolution has been demonstrated with science.
The point remains independently of whether the book of Genesis existed or not,
I never said it didn't. It obviously exists, I asked you for evidence it existed back then. Also, it's your ability to do simple arithmetic that I question, since you said that from 1450 BC till today is 7000 years. It clearly isn't.
It is the omission and indifference coming from the doctrine of evolution that causes it to become obsolete.
What omission? Will you go on complaining next tht the theory of gravity is so indifferent? Of course it is, it's a theory, and theories can't be not-indiffernt, you know, lackingemotions and all.
It's not unbridled procreation from that point on.
So it could not become bridled during any of the first 11 clusters of 7,000 years, for reasons that the doctrine or evolution theory does not demonstrate with science--verified truth of the facts.
No matter how often you keep saying that, it still isn't true. Everything about evolution has been demonstrated using science.
Perhaps you misunderstood "unbridled" here. It means without limit in this use. We can't procreate without limit, because the available resources to sustain this would soon run out. If we allow for limitless reproducrion, we would have drowned in bacteria long ago, the fact we haven't shows your notion is incorrect.
Re: How is the evolution doctrine indifferent to the Truth
To state that the size of the Human brain is a product of natural selection implies that the Human beings would have been multiplying for a time much longer than 98,000 years.
That's nice, cause they were.
However, If it is true that the Human beings had been multiplying and filling the earth for over 98,000 years or 7 seasons of 14,000 years prior to Genesis chronology,
What are the probabilities that the population would have reached 6 billion persons during each of the seasons of 14,000 years that precede the recent 7,000 years?
0, since they didn't. Also, again, population growth is dependant on the resources available, before the advent of modern agriculture, resources would never have been enough to support such a population. Heck, we have trouble feeding everybody right now.
Experiment: Eat only the compatible fruits from the solid trees Estimate time for reduction of intragastric acidity: 3 and a half weeks. Approximate time to complete the purpose of the nervous system: 49 days
Ok, nice. You try that, and report back in 150 years, that should prove your ideas.
The info is given not to tell you to try anything, but to let you know that there is an experiment available; an option rather than dying by natural causes or death by Old age.
Yes, and in order to prove that silly idea, I proposed a method to you. You go live like that, and report back here in 150 years. I guarantee you you will be believed.
In regards to the Human body, it is not proper for man to be told what to do by the man, much less by a doctrine or evolution theory which is worth less than a man.
Great. Evolution doesn't say anything about what a man should do with this body. Go evolution!
If you search some men that speak in the name of the evolution theory you find many and they speak in the name of a dead-living thing which is worth less than a man,
I'm sorry what? Are you saying evolution theory isn't alive? What next? Gravity is evil because it doesn't live!?
- it is not a Human being
Absolutely correct. Neither is a duck. Or a horse. Or gravity. Or an atom. What's your point exactly?
- It is not the Intelligent Designer that made the Human body
And true again. Wow, this is probably the most right you've been so far. But again, what is your point?
And if a doctrine or theory speaks not in the name of a specific Human being then a beast is the type of living being that best illustrates the doctrinal image of a theory that is worth less than a Human being.
Quite right! Down with Christianity I say! Oh wait, that's not what you meant, is it?
And when speaking in the name of that doctrinal image or theory, many have the bizarre habit of not speaking in the name of themselves so that they might seem to be speaking in the name of something immortal.
Right on brother! Destroy religion... Wait I did something wrong again, didn't I?
Final conclusion -- Would you speak in the name of something allegedly immortal but that you know for sure is worth less than a Human being?
There are also many other websites that bring up those same figures.
And all of them are wrong, since the growth of a population is dependant on far more than the amount of people around. If we allowed for your model to appplied to bacteria, we'd all be drowning in them in a matter of weeks.
Population growth depends on things such as food available, general health, wars being waged, etc.