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, but that might explain why my grant proposal was rejected, though I think it might have more to do with my pricing in a long term rental on an Italian villa. 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. That should be a no-brainer, which is pretty much the way this thread is going.
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.
Please define: Natural causes Appropriate fruits (give one example perhaps?)
Since you are obviously not going to answer my questions I instead will just ask you a different one. I had hoped to figure it out myself once you had provided the definitions I requested.
How do you explain the death of babies? The babies that I am speaking about have never consumed any food, be it appropriate or inappropriate, and their deaths have been ruled as a natural death. I can waste a few minutes providing examples if you wish but I would hope that you can agree this type of situation has indeed happened.
Now do you
A - Ignore the post
B - Answer my previous post with some bizarre definition that supports your point but ignores the death of babies.
C- Roll on down the thread making absurd claims about math and evolution.
D- Admit your wrong about death by natural causes.