Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-25-2019 4:46 PM
35 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 854,736 Year: 9,772/19,786 Month: 2,194/2,119 Week: 230/724 Day: 69/93 Hour: 7/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
34567Next
Author Topic:   Return to Immortality -- There is no death by natural causes
Huntard
Member (Idle past 467 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 16 of 100 (554047)
04-06-2010 7:46 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by celestialGyoud
04-05-2010 3:45 PM


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.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by celestialGyoud, posted 04-05-2010 3:45 PM celestialGyoud has not yet responded

  
AnswersInGenitals
Member
Posts: 509
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 17 of 100 (554135)
04-06-2010 3:37 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Huntard
04-06-2010 7:42 AM


Re: This theory has bugs.
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.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Huntard, posted 04-06-2010 7:42 AM Huntard has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Huntard, posted 04-07-2010 5:20 AM AnswersInGenitals has not yet responded

Vacate
Member (Idle past 2772 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 10-01-2006


Message 18 of 100 (554284)
04-07-2010 5:05 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by celestialGyoud
03-29-2010 4:59 PM


Define
Please define:

Natural causes
Appropriate fruits (give one example perhaps?)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by celestialGyoud, posted 03-29-2010 4:59 PM celestialGyoud has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by celestialGyoud, posted 06-30-2010 2:41 PM Vacate has not yet responded

Huntard
Member (Idle past 467 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 19 of 100 (554286)
04-07-2010 5:20 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by AnswersInGenitals
04-06-2010 3:37 PM


Re: This theory has bugs.
AnswersInGenitals writes:

I'm a little confused on how you get that from his post...


Well, I'll try to break it down.

CD7 writes:

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".

CD7 writes:

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.

CD7 writes:

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.

-------------

AnswersInGenitals writes:

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.

It was one after even the first post.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by AnswersInGenitals, posted 04-06-2010 3:37 PM AnswersInGenitals has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by celestialGyoud, posted 05-18-2010 4:59 PM Huntard has responded

  
celestialGyoud
Member
Posts: 559
From: Roraima Peak
Joined: 02-11-2004


Message 20 of 100 (554339)
04-07-2010 2:57 PM


coincidences
-

Too much coincidence that the multiplication of the Human beings took place precisely during the last of the 12 clusters of 7,000 years.

-

Edited by CrazyDiamond7, : update

Edited by CrazyDiamond7, : update

Edited by CrazyDiamond7, : update


Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Huntard, posted 04-07-2010 4:01 PM celestialGyoud has responded
 Message 22 by AZPaul3, posted 04-07-2010 7:05 PM celestialGyoud has not yet responded

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 467 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 21 of 100 (554344)
04-07-2010 4:01 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by celestialGyoud
04-07-2010 2:57 PM


Re: Evolution view becomes obsolete after Multiplication Chronology
CrazyDiamond7 writes:

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.

Evidence?

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by celestialGyoud, posted 04-07-2010 2:57 PM celestialGyoud has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by celestialGyoud, posted 04-08-2010 10:28 AM Huntard has responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 4136
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 22 of 100 (554356)
04-07-2010 7:05 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by celestialGyoud
04-07-2010 2:57 PM


Re: Evolution view becomes obsolete after Multiplication Chronology
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

But your reading of the chronology of Genesis, like Bishop Usher's, is wrong. The correct chronology is not 7000 years but 8500 years.

II - If one multiplies 7,000 times 12
and then divide 84,000 years total into 12 clusters of 7,000 years

No,no, my friend. Your factor is inconsistent.

First we must divide 25 by the correct factor of 5. Thus 25 divided by 5 is 5.

So now if we multiply 5 times 5 we get 25.

25 times 8500 years is 212,500 years.

Conclusive proof, Crazy, that the propagation of Humans has been happening for 212,500 years.

Second, the olive is not the forbidden fruit. The olive fruit is not one that can be eaten off the tree. It must be prepared in brine for several weeks before it is palatable to humans.

The forbidden fruit is the pomegranate. This is the fruit that draws you to it again and again for the knowledge.

I do not know where you are getting all your (I must say, sloppy) information, but you need to do more careful research and give more careful thought before continuing. They are watching you.

Edited by AZPaul3, : punc errors


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by celestialGyoud, posted 04-07-2010 2:57 PM celestialGyoud has not yet responded

celestialGyoud
Member
Posts: 559
From: Roraima Peak
Joined: 02-11-2004


Message 23 of 100 (554445)
04-08-2010 10:28 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by Huntard
04-07-2010 4:01 PM


Unbridled Vs Bridled
-

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.

-

Edited by CrazyDiamond7, : update


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Huntard, posted 04-07-2010 4:01 PM Huntard has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Huntard, posted 04-08-2010 10:54 AM celestialGyoud has not yet responded
 Message 27 by Vacate, posted 04-09-2010 4:21 AM celestialGyoud has responded

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 467 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 24 of 100 (554447)
04-08-2010 10:54 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by celestialGyoud
04-08-2010 10:28 AM


Re: What leads the Evolution doctrine to become obsolete
CrazyDiamond7 writes:

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.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by celestialGyoud, posted 04-08-2010 10:28 AM celestialGyoud has not yet responded

  
celestialGyoud
Member
Posts: 559
From: Roraima Peak
Joined: 02-11-2004


Message 25 of 100 (554498)
04-08-2010 3:32 PM


Unbridled Versus Bridled
-

Even the ponies and heifers know since birth that the unbridled come first before the bridled ones

-

quote:

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.


-


Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Huntard, posted 04-09-2010 4:15 AM celestialGyoud has not yet responded

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 467 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 26 of 100 (554579)
04-09-2010 4:15 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by celestialGyoud
04-08-2010 3:32 PM


Re: Unbridled Versus Bridled
I don't even know what you're tying to say here.

CrazyDiamond7 writes:

quote:

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by celestialGyoud, posted 04-08-2010 3:32 PM celestialGyoud has not yet responded

  
Vacate
Member (Idle past 2772 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 10-01-2006


Message 27 of 100 (554580)
04-09-2010 4:21 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by celestialGyoud
04-08-2010 10:28 AM


Define: Dead Baby
Vacate writes:

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.

    Edited by Vacate, : Spelling, as usual


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 23 by celestialGyoud, posted 04-08-2010 10:28 AM celestialGyoud has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 28 by Huntard, posted 04-09-2010 4:49 AM Vacate has not yet responded
     Message 31 by celestialGyoud, posted 04-13-2010 4:53 PM Vacate has responded

  • Huntard
    Member (Idle past 467 days)
    Posts: 2870
    From: Limburg, The Netherlands
    Joined: 09-02-2008


    Message 28 of 100 (554582)
    04-09-2010 4:49 AM
    Reply to: Message 27 by Vacate
    04-09-2010 4:21 AM


    Re: Define: Dead Baby
    Vacate writes:

    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.

  • My prophetic powers allow me to predict it will be C!
    This message is a reply to:
     Message 27 by Vacate, posted 04-09-2010 4:21 AM Vacate has not yet responded

      
    adelpit346
    Junior Member (Idle past 3271 days)
    Posts: 11
    Joined: 04-05-2010


    Message 29 of 100 (554760)
    04-09-2010 11:01 PM
    Reply to: Message 2 by Admin
    03-30-2010 9:28 AM


    Spam

    Edited by AdminSlev, : Edited by AdminSlev


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 2 by Admin, posted 03-30-2010 9:28 AM Admin has not yet responded

      
    Jon
    Inactive Member


    Message 30 of 100 (554960)
    04-11-2010 1:36 AM
    Reply to: Message 3 by celestialGyoud
    03-30-2010 4:51 PM


    Re: Death is a choice
    to state the contrary is the same as trying to invalidate, without evidence,
    the first instruction of Genesis as originally written that says:

    From the fruits of the solid trees you can freely eat *except one

    Except there is plenty of evidence against that ridiculous claim. Jeesh. Spammer.


    "Can we say the chair on the cat, for example? Or the basket in the person? No, we can't..." - Harriet J. Ottenheimer
    This message is a reply to:
     Message 3 by celestialGyoud, posted 03-30-2010 4:51 PM celestialGyoud has not yet responded

    Prev1
    2
    34567Next
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.0 Beta
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019