Once again, CREATIONISTS!

[Danyc]

Is He now? A deceiver wouldn't document what He did, when He did it, and how He did it, would He?

Sorry, but God did NOT document how he did it. He just says that he did it. There is no explanation, except for Ex Nihilo. Which is pretty much impossible. You cannot create something out of nothing. So Ex Nihilo is pretty much a lost cause. Your hypothetical Apple Challenge is just that, Hypothetical. It's simply a what if scenario, meaning it holds no substance in the real world.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

q.v.

you can protest all you want that you are not a YEC promoting the Omphalos hypothesis but we all know that if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, swims like a duck, looks like a duck and flies like a duck it is not a chicken no matter how you try to dress it up.

 

[AV1611VET]

1. you can't create an apple.

Do you know what a hypothetical is?

How's come MrGoodBytes treated it as such (i.e. with respect)?

Truth of the matter is, you know better than to try and answer it.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Is He now? A deceiver wouldn't document what He did, when He did it, and how He did it, would He?

God didn't document it. People did.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Do you know what a hypothetical is?

I notice you totally ignored most of my post including my second point about your goofy "Apple Challenge".

How's come MrGoodBytes treated it as such (i.e. with respect)?

It was commendable of MrGoodbytes and several others to treat your bogus analogy with respect rather than the derision it so richly deserves.

Truth of the matter is, you know better than to try and answer it.

I know that several people have already answered it even though it is totally absurd. Do you just keep bringing up this stupid analogy because you hope to distract attention from the fact that you are totally unable to support your mythology with any evidence?

Now since you have admitted that you have no evidence for creationism why do you keep posting on a thread asking for evidence of creationism?

 

[Vene]

Now since you have admitted that you have no evidence for creationism why do you keep posting on a thread asking for evidence of creationism?

Because there is no evidence.

And AV, I've read through that thread before. It didn't clear it up to me. Since we're already off topic maybe you could say how you can have age without history. From what I've seen they go together.

 

[Deadbolt]

Because there is no evidence.

And AV, I've read through that thread before. It didn't clear it up to me. Since we're already off topic maybe you could say how you can have age without history. From what I've seen they go together.

The way I understand it, he's saying it was made to LOOK old and all, without actually being such. The argument against him is that if this is so, then the god of the bible is a rather caddish sort. Of course, his argument could be true. God could be real and he just likes to play jokes on incredulous people so he can burn them later...But Ockham's Razor does a cruel number on that sort of tortured logic.

 

[AV1611VET]

Because there is no evidence.

And AV, I've read through that thread before. It didn't clear it up to me. Since we're already off topic maybe you could say how you can have age without history. From what I've seen they go together.

For that, q.v. this thread.

 

[AV1611VET]

Now since you have admitted that you have no evidence for creationism why do you keep posting on a thread asking for evidence of creationism?

That thread got you (plural) to admit there's no evidence for ex nihilo creation.

Thus why would there be a thread asking for it?

 

[Psudopod]

Thus why would there be a thread asking for it?

Because, for us to consider 6000 year ex-nihilo creation, there must be evidence. We must be able to study it and learn from it. If there is not (either becuase it didn't happen that way, or God has gone to extraordinary lengths to make sure it doesn't look like it happened that way), then there is no point considering it. As I pointed out above, (and you neatly skipped over), your version of creationism is useless.

Other creationist say there is evidence for creation, but so far they seem to be keeping it to themselves.

 

[AV1611VET]

Because, for us to consider 6000 year ex-nihilo creation, there must be evidence.

By all means, feel free to take a freshly-created (not 6000 years ago) apple, and show me the evidence that I did this.

You've seen it with your own eyes, now just convince someone of it.

I even videotaped it a second time for MrGoodBytes, and still showed it's impossible.

We must be able to study it and learn from it.

Before you do though, please show it to a friend, and tell me what evidence you would use to convince your friend I did this.

If there is not (either becuase it didn't happen that way, or God has gone to extraordinary lengths to make sure it doesn't look like it happened that way), then there is no point considering it.

I'm not God, I'm just someone who created an apple into the palm of your hand ex nihilo. And although God can do this, remember, it's just a hypothetical.

As I pointed out above, (and you neatly skipped over), your version of creationism is useless.

Why? Because you can't provide evidence for it, even though it did happen?

You're going to stand in front of your friend with an apple and say, "Nevermind, this apple is useless."

Then walk away saying to yourself, "Ex nihilo creation doesn't happen"?

Other creationist say there is evidence for creation, but so far they seem to be keeping it to themselves.

My Apple Challenge is open to all, Christians and non-Christians alike.

 

[TheOutsider]

That thread got you (plural) to admit there's no evidence for ex nihilo creation.

Thus why would there be a thread asking for it?

Why would anyone want to believe in something that there is absolutely no evidence for? Creationism is completely useless as a model then.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

If there can be no evidence of ex nihilo creation, thats fine, but it CANT be a scientific theory

 

[Patashu]

Here's my answer to the apple challenge:

It depends apon the circumstances you create the apple ex nihilo in. If you do it in my kitchen just after we've brought apples, I can present little to no proof. However, if we just took a trek out into a desert after being inspected all over, naked, and even with x-rays to ensure we have no hidden apples or apple-making devices, created an apple ex nihilo and then showed it to the helicopter that comes overhead to pick it up, the hypothesis that it was created ex nihilo is much stronger, but still not certain (Perhaps my friend can configure molecules from his own body into apples, or from the air or from the sand, or perhaps he can warp space and take particles from somewhere else, or warp time and take an apple from somewhere in the past, or perhaps there's a naturalistic process by which matter can be created...)

In other words, if God created the universe ex nihilo and wanted it to be indistinguishable from a naturalistic origin of the universe and is unwilling to reperform the feat, then no evidence can be presented to prove that the universe was created ex nihilo. But this raises a more important question; namely, why would he?

 

[AV1611VET]

Why would anyone want to believe in something that there is absolutely no evidence for?

Because we Christians accept the Bible as a valid replacement for evidence.

Creationism is completely useless as a model then.

So be it --- models are made to be broken.

So is Jesus walking on water, healing the sick, raising the dead, the sun going dark for three hours, the Ten Plagues, the parting of the Red Sea, and the Great Flood.

Not to mention the feeding of the 5000 and Jesus' resurrection.

All scientifically unverifiable.

 

[AV1611VET]

If there can be no evidence of ex nihilo creation, thats fine, but it CANT be a scientific theory

It never was.

 

[TheOutsider]

Because we Christians accept the Bible as a valid replacement for evidence.

Not all Christians agree with you on this.

So be it --- models are made to be broken.

All models are approximations.

If there can be no evidence of ex nihilo creation, thats fine, but it CANT be a scientific theory

It never was.

Please tell that to your fellow Creationists who keep trying to sneak it into our school system.

 

[AV1611VET]

(Perhaps my friend can configure molecules from his own body into apples, or from the air or from the sand, or perhaps he can warp space and take particles from somewhere else, or warp time and take an apple from somewhere in the past, or perhaps there's a naturalistic process by which matter can be created...)

But then it wouldn't be ex nihilo, would it?

Ex nihilo is a Latin term meaning "out of nothing". It is often used in conjunction with the term creation, as in creatio ex nihilo, meaning "creation out of nothing". Due to the nature of this term, it is often used in philosophical or creationistic arguments, as many Christians, Muslims and Jews believe that God created the universe from nothing. This contrasts with "creatio ex materia," which is creation out of eternally preexistent matter, and "creatio ex deo," which is creation out of the being of God.

I'd like to see creatio ex nihilo address; not creatio ex materia.

 

[AV1611VET]

Not all Christians agree with you on this.

All models are approximations.

Please tell that to your fellow Creationists who keep trying to sneak it into our school system.

But I'm not talking to my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ. I'm addressing you guys who harp on demonstration, scientifically repeatable experimentation, falsifiable evidence, paradigms, and whatever else you harp on.

Specifically, I'm addressing those who ask for evidence of Creation.

As I said before, I plan to direct anyone I see asking for evidence of Creation to my Apple Challenge, and see if they are willing to take it.

 

[TheOutsider]

Specifically, I'm addressing those who ask for evidence of Creation.

As I said before, I plan to direct anyone I see asking for evidence of Creation to my Apple Challenge, and see if they are willing to take it.

I'll ask you again: Why would anyone bother believing in a model that has no evidence and makes absolutely no predictions? You have made Creationism into a useless story.