You're describing cladogenesis at the very least, but more likely anagenesis. That's what isn't open to debate. That's why our evolution doesn't allow for 900 year old human beings. The mutations required to push us there by any means we are capable of proposing would leave us decidedly different than what we currently are. The mutations that we could not envision would be even more radical (what with the ones we could envision already having such a profound effect on our biology). In either case, we'd be renaming ourselves.

The mammalian metabolism is a massive stumbling block on the road to longevity, our endothermic/homeothermic biology depends upon it and it supports one of our most important organs -between your ears-. Live fast, die young. Ectotherms, reptilian metabolisms, regenerative survival strategies, "biological immortality"- these are not the roads that mammalian evolution went down, though we do see them expressed here on earth. In many cases, these things are mutually exclusive. Give us a few billion years and who knows, but whatever it is, it won't be human (and in all likelihood, still won't be living 900 years by any natural means).

What would be open for debate would be the likelihood of this sort of mutation (or more aptly, the likelihood of all of the mutations required and what that would mean for us). I don't think we'd be willing to wait quite that long personally, (nor do I think it's a very likely path for us to take-but what I think is likely and what life may do aren't equivalent are they). We could always just tinker with ourselves, little bit of this, little bit of that.

But by all means, continue.

Here's a fun question, why would a "trait" for longevity be selected for? The longevity we see in thigs like tortoises appears to be a side effect, not a "goal". Just how long is it going to take you to have kids anyway? 899years?

(May 7, 2012 at 6:41 am)RaphielDrake Wrote:

(May 7, 2012 at 5:11 am)DeeTee Wrote: Well that is your choice ut remember you are attracted to science because it leaves you in charge and doesn't require you to humble yourself and be a servant.

Translation: "Ooooo, beware Minimaliiiist... woe and despair be upon the person who thinks for themseeeeelves.
Be afraid Minimaliiist, be very afraaaaaaid.
MWAHAHAHAHA!"

Superstitious nonsense, save it for Halloween.
(P.S. Please quote people properly.)

Are you thinking for yourself or merely following the evolutionary crowd? i do not see you or any evolutionist as any different than what you accuse christians or religious folk of doing.

All you have done is exchange one ideology for another and both have their preachers which dispense information to the 'lesser' people. are you sure you are thinking for yourself? i don't think so.

(May 7, 2012 at 5:11 am)DeeTee Wrote:

(May 6, 2012 at 12:11 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: You're avoiding the question by asserting that Gen is literal while accepting other parts as symbolic. Please explain how you learned that distinction and why you think Gen in particular is a materialist explanation of physical event.

Context, ramifications, lessons taught, sentence structure, other passages of scripture and on it goes.

We have creation being addressed as literal throughout the subsequent books of the Bible. Jesus spoke on it as literal as well. You do not find that with symbolic passages if you can find any. Though I should ask for a list of symbolic ones you have found and I would bet many of the ones you choose will not be symbolic.

Quote:Neither are bible thumping idiots. I'll go with science, thank you. At least they make an effort.

Well that is your choice ut remember you are attracted to science because it leaves you in charge and doesn't require you to humble yourself and be a servant.

Hey Arch, remember when I told you that one of the joys of this board was when two jesus-freaks started arguing about whose pile of shit smells better and you asked me to let you know the next time it happened.

THIS is one of those times, ole buddy!

Just for additional points of interest, altering the rate at which our cells burn out, divide and die wouldn't exactly add centuries to our lives. It's a small component of the overall aging picture that provides a baseline. We'd also need to be immune to oxidative stress and glycation (in addition to eliminating risk factors associated with chronological age which increase by orders of magnitude the older you become) - somehow. These things are part and parcel to the evolutionary pathway that led us here as well.

Tegh,

I'm not sure I followed that. Is that saying Adam lived to be 930 weeks old (i.e., 18 years old)? Or that some ancient Near Eastern text had Adam living to be several thousand weeks old, which the Priestly source converted to 930 years? Or maybe a better question would be, "What is this Price podcast, so that I may listen to it?" I find what you were describing quite fascinating and want to find more information.

Rhythm,

Thank you... for debating what you said is not debatable. What you said was meaty and I need time to chew on it, which I do not have at the moment. I'll try and engage it later. But, again, thank you.

Something in either post led you to believe that the subject was debatable? When you do find the time to chew on that maybe you could pinpoint exactly what it was. I don't like to leave the door open on fundamentals, it would be a failure on my part to adequately explain the subject in question.

@Ryft

No, according to the theory as I loosely remember it, the Hebrew writers (whoever penned the story) really thought Adam lived 930 years old. I think the process worked
1. Hebrew scribes take pagan chronology thinking it's in weeks when it's really years
2. They sum up the life spans to get a total in weeks
3. Then they convert it to years (weeks / 54), which gets you the total 4000 year long chronology you find in the Bible
4. They divide up this span of years for their historical figures.

Some of the lifespans of the Bible characters have obvious symbolic meaning too I heard.

I'm not sure what episode I heard it in but Bible Geek can be heard here
The Bible Geek: http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/biblegeek.php

Also, Price does a lighter version of the show here:
The Human Bible: http://www.thehumanbible.net/

(May 7, 2012 at 5:49 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Hey Arch, remember when I told you that one of the joys of this board was when two jesus-freaks started arguing about whose pile of shit smells better and you asked me to let you know the next time it happened.

THIS is one of those times, ole buddy!

Ooo... Awkward moment.

(May 7, 2012 at 5:05 pm)DeeTee Wrote:

(May 7, 2012 at 6:41 am)RaphielDrake Wrote: Translation: "Ooooo, beware Minimaliiiist... woe and despair be upon the person who thinks for themseeeeelves.
Be afraid Minimaliiist, be very afraaaaaaid.
MWAHAHAHAHA!"

Superstitious nonsense, save it for Halloween.
(P.S. Please quote people properly.)

Are you thinking for yourself or merely following the evolutionary crowd? i do not see you or any evolutionist as any different than what you accuse christians or religious folk of doing.

All you have done is exchange one ideology for another and both have their preachers which dispense information to the 'lesser' people. are you sure you are thinking for yourself? i don't think so.

I think for myself as demonstrated by the debates I've had on here, thanks.

You know, that really hurts my feelings DeeTee that you would say that. I mean I respect you so much for your meticulous research on... well... er... ok well how about that incredible point you made in that deba- oh... hm...
Well you have a nice picture I guess? Plus the sheer will power it must take for someone to believe the utter shite you do *must* be worth some respe- nah, actually I think I'll respect the people who don't talk out of their rectal cavities.
K? K.

The reason I don't engage you in a serious debate is because you are not a *challenge* and it probably wouldn't penetrate that tremendously thick, rotund, cro magnon skull of yours. Your particular brand of batshit craziness is so generic it *bores* me. Its far more entertaining to simply mock you. I'm perfectly happy to let others tend to the lost cause that is your utterly broken mind.

Does this answer your questions? :-)

Quote:I think for myself as demonstrated by the debates I've had on here, thanks

I just put this here so I had a reference point to address. if your post was meant to insult, it didn't work. You forget that with God, there is no debate. You have choice-- accept or reject His words.

The truth is NOT going to change no matter how well you debate and raise arguments against it. I am merely presenting the correct truthful side and leaving you to choose.

If that makes me a bad debater I do not care. if it makes me no challenge, I do not care. I am not here to challenge but to give you the truth and if you do not want it, I am not going to force it on you but I will keep presenting it so you know that you erred greatly.

---

Quote:Hey Arch, remember when I told you that one of the joys of this board was when two jesus-freaks started arguing about whose pile of shit smells better and you asked me to let you know the next time it happened.

THIS is one of those times, ole buddy

Who says we are fighting? aI have answered his question and left it at that.