The Flood

[thaumaturgy]

Incidentally, Thaumaturgy, q.v. POST 126 where I told Chordatest Legacy that I actually can show ex-nihilo creation (of anything) mathematically.

(But it's on such a technicality, that it's just easier to say it can't be done.)

No, please I beg you back that up.

Please.

Honestly this is extremely important.

 

[thaumaturgy]

No kidding! What do you think my APPLE CHALLENGE is all about?

I cannot prove ex nihilo Creation of even a simple apple, and neither can anyone else.

Well, then, I suppose proof of any claim is out the window.

Just make something up! Yay!

Yet it happened.

sez you.

I did not ask you to DISPROVE it --- I asked you what evidence you would use to show it happened.

Did you not follow something there? If no one can provide proof of this event then you can't say it happened any moreso than we say it didn't.

Faith dictates I respond accordingly:

1. Adam.
2. Moses.
3. Not true.
4. To clarify --- not cloud --- the Creation account.
5. Ultimately the Holy Spirit.
6. Ultimately the Holy Spirit.
7. No --- no --- but it doesn't matter if Genghis Khan translated it; the Holy Ghost superintended the work.

Prove Adam or Moses existed. Prove they wrote the Pentateuch. Explain Moses' writing about his own death or tell us exactly who wrote that part and why it isn't broken away from the rest of the narrative in a fashion that would indicate it was written by a different author.

As for 5,6 and 7, well, considering you can't actually provide any proof and you can't even tell us which sub-committee of the KJV Translators was directly responsible for Genesis, then I think we know exactly how useful your response is.

I know you don't care much about history, so it doesn't bother you that you can't tell us who was directly responsible for translating Genesis. You just have the magical KJV AV1611 in front of you and it is just all you need.

No --- that's what my APPLE CHALLENGE is all about.

To prove you can't support most of the claims you make?

Or to prove you don't care if the Bible is right or not?

Or to prove that facts are meaningless when they run up against your wishes for what the Bible is or isn't?

Any of these? Or All of These?

 

[AV1611VET]

[/list]Do you have any actual evidence for those answers?

Can anyone spot the evidence I gave in my answer?

I'll rep the first person who can --- and backs it up with a Bible verse.

 

[TheOutsider]

Wait a second... How could Adam have not only written about his death (Gen 5:5) but the several hundred years of history after his death? This makes no sense at all...

 

[Loudmouth]

No kidding! What do you think my APPLE CHALLENGE is all about?

Your apple challenge is all about supporting an Omphalos type argument for the creation of the universe.

Faith dictates I respond accordingly:

What are you, an automaton?

 

[AV1611VET]

No, please I beg you back that up.

Please.

Honestly this is extremely important.

Fair enough --- I actually showed Fish[what's his name] this some time ago:

As I said before, it would require a technicality in the form of omniscience --- but here's how it's done:

• Take the amount of mass/energy in the universe before I created the apple, and compare it to the amount of mass/energy in the universe after I created the apple.
• If the difference is the same (or nearly the same) as the amount of mass/energy in the apple, your friend would have no choice but to conclude that the apple came into existence ex nihilo.

 

[AV1611VET]

Wait a second... How could Adam have not only written about his death (Gen 5:5) but the several hundred years of history after his death? This makes no sense at all...

It's basically laid out like this:

• Adam wrote Genesis 1-5.
• Noah wrote Genesis 6-9.
• Shem (?) wrote Genesis 10-11.
• Abraham wrote Genesis 12-25.
• etc.

The "seams" in the writings (change of authors) are the lists of genealogies found in Genesis 5, Genesis 10, Genesis 11, Genesis 25, etc. --- called "colophons."

Moses edited [all of] Genesis.

 

[thaumaturgy]

...

 

[AV1611VET]

Your apple challenge is all about supporting an Omphalos type argument for the creation of the universe.

No, it's not; Omphalos is embedded history --- not embedded age.

What are you, an automaton?

Cute.

 

[Loudmouth]

No, it's not; Omphalos is embedded history --- not embedded age.

This would mean that an apple, created from nothing, would look very different from an apple that developed naturally on a tree. Therefore, if the Universe was created ex nihilo then it should not have any evidence of a development which never occurred. However, the Universe is filled with a rich history of development which spans the last 13 billion years.

 

[thaumaturgy]

This would mean that an apple, created from nothing, would look very different from an apple that developed naturally on a tree. Therefore, if the Universe was created ex nihilo then it should not have any evidence of a development which never occurred. However, the Universe is filled with a rich history of development which spans the last 13 billion years.

The only reason one would suggest the "embedded age" stuff is if one wishes to studiously avoid the more reasonable direct model of "if it looks old, it is old".

And the only reason AV probably wants to do that is so that he can cling to a literal interpretation of Genesis.

And neither AV nor Inan have suggested any real reason why Genesis can't be allegorical despite Inan's indication that the "wording" of Genesis somehow doesn't allow it to be an allegory.

So we are stuck with people who want to propose an "anti-Ockham's Razor" type hypothesis to support a stance that they can't even justify to outsiders.

Did I miss anything?

 

[AV1611VET]

The only reason one would suggest the "embedded age" stuff is if one wishes to studiously avoid the more reasonable direct model of "if it looks old, it is old".

How many times have you seen me post: "It looks old, because it is old?"

And neither AV nor Inan have suggested any real reason why Genesis can't be allegorical despite Inan's indication that the "wording" of Genesis somehow doesn't allow it to be an allegory.

Yup --- you want us to be just like the Serpent, don't you?

"Thou shalt not die, Eve. Don't you know, He was only speaking allegorically?"

 

[Nathan Poe]

How many times have you seen me post: "It looks old, because it is old?"

And how many times have we told you your definition of "old" is meaningless tripe?

Yup --- you want us to be just like the Serpent, don't you?

"Thou shalt not die, Eve. Don't you know, He was only speaking allegorically?"

Considering that Eve didn't die, I'd say the allegorical explanation works a whole lot better than the uberliteral one.

 

[thaumaturgy]

How many times have you seen me post: "It looks old, because it is old?"

Sorry, I meant that it got old without having gone through the requisite aging process. I have difficulty remembering your unique version of the English language and logic.

Sorry, again, my apologies.

Yup --- you want us to be just like the Serpent, don't you?

No I suspect the serpent could use a dictionary or could reasonably be expected to defend his own stances. Even before God took away his legs.

"Thou shalt not die, Eve. Don't you know, He was only speaking allegorically?"

Gosh, what could I have been thinking? Could it have been that I was stupidly thinking that this was an allegory for the loss of innocence exploited by just about every literary tradition of every society known to humanity?

Geez, you must love Hemmingway. But I bet you have a tough time with just about any other author. Life is so dull when metaphor and allegory are stripped away.

I'm glad I don't live in that bland, steel-grey sad little shoebox world (and by "shoebox" I'm saying it metaphorically, I don't actually believe you live in a shoebox. Just so ya know.

 

[AV1611VET]

And how many times have we told you your definition of "old" is meaningless tripe?

My definition of "old" is "mature." If that's meaningless tripe to you, try experiencing it.

Considering that Eve didn't die, I'd say the allegorical explanation works a whole lot better than the uberliteral one.

Either that, or she did die spiritually.

(But that thought wouldn't cross a scientist's mind, would it? Since they interpret their "documentation" "uberliterally" as well?)

You want to interpret your data literally --- then pout when we do the same thing.

As Inan3 says, Beware the mirror.

 

[Nathan Poe]

My definition of "old" is "mature." If that's meaningless tripe to you, try experiencing it.

I'd need someone to demonstrate it for me -- never had much luck with that as a Christian.

Either that, or she did die spiritually.

(But that thought wouldn't cross a scientist's mind, would it? Since they interpret their "documentation" "uberliterally" as well?)

You want to interpret your data literally --- then pout when we do the same thing.

Spiritual death? What a wonderful allegory!

 

[AV1611VET]

Gosh, what could I have been thinking? Could it have been that I was stupidly thinking that this was an allegory for the loss of innocence exploited by just about every literary tradition of every society known to humanity?

Ya --- you probably were.

And even though it ended the dispensation of Innocence, something a lot more than innocence was lost --- viz., their spiritual lives.

Allegory my foot.

 

[AV1611VET]

Spiritual death? What a wonderful allegory!

That's said, Nathan; that's very sad. But I have to admit, I was in your shoes --- once.

 

[NailsII]

Fair enough --- I actually showed Fish[what's his name] this some time ago:

As I said before, it would require a technicality in the form of omniscience --- but here's how it's done:

• Take the amount of mass/energy in the universe before I created the apple, and compare it to the amount of mass/energy in the universe after I created the apple.
• If the difference is the same (or nearly the same) as the amount of mass/energy in the apple, your friend would have no choice but to conclude that the apple came into existence ex nihilo.

Woah there, cowboy!!
An apple is but a blip in the energy/mass found in the universe, it is impossible to measure something of that small a change and derive any significance form it.
But supposing you could....
How could you be sure that your magic apple was responcible, it could've been a proper god making one on the other side of the universe....

No I suspect the serpent could use a dictionary or could reasonably be expected to defend his own stances. Even before God took away his legs.

And he didn't even do a good job of this, either.
With no collar bones or shoulders, it is impossible for a snake to have front legs.
But they can still have back legs...

 

[AV1611VET]

How could you be sure that your magic apple was responcible, it could've been a proper god making one on the other side of the universe....

Nails, I'm showing how it could be done, barring anything else to the contrary.

With your logic, we could add to the scenario ad infinitum, and never get the answer.

When giving the answer to the question, "What are 1 plus 1?", you don't say "2, unless something else gets added."

I'm sure Thaumaturgy understood me.