|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1179 days) Posts: 583 From: Roraima Peak Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Return to Immortality -- There is no death by natural causes | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2322 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AnswersInGenitals Member (Idle past 178 days) Posts: 673 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Vacate Member (Idle past 4627 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
Please define:
Natural causesAppropriate fruits (give one example perhaps?)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2322 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
AnswersInGenitals writes:
Well, I'll try to break it down.
I'm a little confused on how you get that from his post... CD7 writes:
Here CD7 sets up the premise, that you can eat freely from fruits of "solid trees".
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. CD7 writes:
This is the effect of freely eating from the 'solid trees". You won't die of disease and natural causes, gaining effective immortality.
freely eat -- human body remains free from deseases and death by natural causes. CD7 writes:
The exception to the rule. Eating this will kill you. 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. At least, that's how I read it. -------------
AnswersInGenitals writes:
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.
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.
It was one after even the first post.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
goldenlightArchangel Member (Idle past 1179 days) Posts: 583 From: Roraima Peak Joined: |
-
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2322 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
CrazyDiamond7 writes:
Might I enquire as to how you came to calculate that number?
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. 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
100%, since they did, even if this nonsense were based on any fact.
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? 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8554 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
goldenlightArchangel Member (Idle past 1179 days) Posts: 583 From: Roraima Peak Joined: |
-
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2322 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
CrazyDiamond7 writes:
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.
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 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
goldenlightArchangel Member (Idle past 1179 days) Posts: 583 From: Roraima Peak Joined: |
-
Even the ponies and heifers know since birth that the unbridled come first before the bridled ones -
quote: -
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2322 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
I don't even know what you're tying to say here.
CrazyDiamond7 writes:
No matter how often you keep saying that, it still isn't true. Everything about evolution has been demonstrated using science. quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Vacate Member (Idle past 4627 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
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
Edited by Vacate, : Spelling, as usual
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2322 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Vacate writes:
My prophetic powers allow me to predict it will be C!
Now do you
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
adelpit346 Junior Member (Idle past 5126 days) Posts: 11 Joined: |
Spam
Edited by AdminSlev, : Edited by AdminSlev
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
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
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024