World's oldest temple found in Turkey

[Athrond]

Well, I imagine, if I believed in creationism I could devote some time into finding evidence for the apple being created out of nothing. It's not as if I have no data ne?

I'm not saying I could provide the evidence because I'm a non-physicist, but that someone could.

green sun:
And sure there are som substances that would react chemicaly to being exposed to green light, that could be evidence for the "green light hypothetis".

My point: Everything, creation included, leaves data. And that data can be used as evidence.

 

[AV1611VET]

why would it have a core if it wasn't actually grown?

Okie-doke, MoonLancer, I'll assume you don't want to answer my challenge; and since we're off-topic anyway, it's probably best we drop it.

 

[AV1611VET]

Well, I imagine, if I believed in creationism I could devote some time into finding evidence for the apple being created out of nothing.

Whether you believe in creationism or not, I created an apple ex nihilo into the palm of your hand. Let's leave the Bible and God out of this and talk pure [albeit hypothetical] science. I don't care if you think the apple is Embedded Age, Gap, Last Thursday, or Omphalos. I don't care if you think I did it to trick you, or to simply give you a nice, fresh, juicy apple to eat. I don't care if the apple is Green, Red, Jonathan, Golden Delicious, comes with a price tag on it, is bruised, has a worm in it, has MADE IN JAPAN written on it, or whatever. The question is: what evidence would you present to a third-party that I did this?

If you have none, please just don't bother to respond.

 

[Freodin]

Did you see the point I made in another thread that science today can't prove the Spanish Armada was defeated in 1588, let along prove the armada itself ever existed?

I guess this in one of the points why I think your apple challenge fails in its intent.

So you say that there exist no evidence for the defeat of the Spanish Armada or its existence?

Well, you are wrong. There is a large number of pieces of evidence, from tales to solid remains of the involved ships. But... you may not have known that. Or ignore it. Or don´t accept it as evidence.

But the real difference between evidence - accepted or not, conclusive or not - on the Armada and your apple: the evidence for the Armanda is there to be tested. Regardless of wether you know what to look for... you can look for evidence.

But in your apple challenge, there is no evidence, because you arbitrarily define the method as leaving no evidence.

So even if I - or anyone else - does not have an idea of what evidence there might be... it is up to you to present us with an ex-nihilo created apple, so that we can study it.

 

[AV1611VET]

I guess this in one of the points why I think your apple challenge fails in its intent.

So you say that there exist no evidence for the defeat of the Spanish Armada or its existence?

Well, you are wrong. There is a large number of pieces of evidence...

Okay, I stopped reading right here.

I did not say there was no evidence for the defeat of the Spanish Armada.

 

[Athrond]

The Return of My Apple Challenge

I create an apple ex nihilo into the palm of your hand.

What evidence would you use to convince your friend I did this?

The answer is: I'd use any actual evidence I could find.

 

[Freodin]

Okay, I stopped reading right here.

I´ll guess I´ll return this courtesy. I stopp reading right where your name comes up.

 

[MoonLancer]

Okie-doke, MoonLancer, I'll assume you don't want to answer my challenge; and since we're off-topic anyway, it's probably best we drop it.

you should keep reading what i wrote then, because i dissect your challenge, its meaning and intention. Anyway i think its best if you diden't bring up the topic in the first place, as it doesn't really answer anything about science. maybe you should spend the time and take the courtesy when you feel the need to post one of your challenge, is to instead answer the post directly and informatively, rather then playing a semantic divisive game. its like answering people question with voicemail that was intended for another product.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Just because something is created ex nihilo, does that nessasarily mean that no evidence can be found by studying the createt thingy?

Yep.

Am I missing something philosophical mumbo jumbo here? feel free to educate me

An apple created ex nihilo could look exactly like an apple 'created' the mundane way (i.e., grown). In that case, you could provide on evidence for or against the notion that the apple in the AV's hand was created ex nihilo: it looks exactly like an ordinary apple.

 

[TheBear]

An 11,000-year-old structure, possibly a temple, was found in Turkey recently. It consisted of various limestone megaliths arranged in circles, carved and arranged by people with stone tool. Quite impressive if you ask me.

Yet more evidence that the 6,000-year-old Earth propounded by YECs is nonsense.

[link]

That's awesome!

Thanks for the article.

 

[AV1611VET]

An apple created ex nihilo could look exactly like an apple 'created' the mundane way (i.e., grown). In that case, you could provide on evidence for or against the notion that the apple in the AV's hand was created ex nihilo: it looks exactly like an ordinary apple.

The scientific answer to my Apple Challenge requires a measure of omniscience to answer, but it can be answered scientifically --- and has been.

Here's how I would answer it - (for the fifth time):

• I would show my friend (if I could) the amount of mass/energy of the universe before the apple was created, and then show him the amount of mass/energy of the universe after the apple was created, and then the amount of mass/energy in the apple itself, which should correspond to the difference in the mass/energy after the apple was created. Put another way, the amount of mass/enery in the universe should increase in accordance with the apple.

 

[MoonLancer]

The scientific answer to my Apple Challenge requires a measure of omniscience to answer, but it can be answered scientifically --- and has been.

Here's how I would answer it - (for the fifth time):

what do you think the ratio is of posting the challenge vs the amount of times answering the challenge. you don't really except people to read such a large embarrassing thread do you?

 

[Nathan Poe]

The scientific answer to my Apple Challenge requires a measure of omniscience to answer, but it can be answered scientifically --- and has been.

Here's how I would answer it - (for the fifth time):

• I would show my friend (if I could) the amount of mass/energy of the universe before the apple was created, and then show him the amount of mass/energy of the universe after the apple was created, and then the amount of mass/energy in the apple itself, which should correspond to the difference in the mass/energy after the apple was created. Put another way, the amount of mass/enery in the universe should increase in accordance with the apple.

So, not only can your Apple fiasco only be performed by God, it can only be proven by God.

Av, you've accomplished no easy feat here -- you've made your "challenge" even more meaningless than it was before.

 

[AV1611VET]

what do you think the ratio is of posting the challenge vs the amount of times answering the challenge. you don't really except people to read such a large embarrassing thread do you?

Number 1, the thread wouldn't be so "large and embarrassing" if the atheists would have realized from the start that my Apple Challenge actually agrees with them that there is no evidence for the Creation that can be ascertained by today's science.

As in most of my other challenges (if not all of them), the first ones to respond are the ones that don't know anything, and shouldn't have responded in the first place. (I think it's called SPAMMING.) You guys are very quick at showing us what you don't know --- it's showing us what you do know that takes forever. My Taj Mahal Challenge is an excellent example of people responding that should have just kept quiet.

I don't know how many times I've asked myself, "Why did that person even respond, if they don't know the answer?", but I'll also admit that I'm guilty of that too. I'll reply with a whole paragraph that says, in effect, "I don't know."

Number 2, I didn't answer the challenge four other times in that thread alone. They are scattered over other threads as well.

 

[tanzanos]

The scientific answer to my Apple Challenge requires a measure of omniscience to answer, but it can be answered scientifically --- and has been.

Here's how I would answer it - (for the fifth time):

• I would show my friend (if I could) the amount of mass/energy of the universe before the apple was created, and then show him the amount of mass/energy of the universe after the apple was created, and then the amount of mass/energy in the apple itself, which should correspond to the difference in the mass/energy after the apple was created. Put another way, the amount of mass/enery in the universe should increase in accordance with the apple.

You seem to confuse philosophy with science. If I create an ice cube with some of the water in a glass; all I have done is to transform some of the already existing water into a solid form. The total mass has not changed. Likewise an apple created in an already existing universe; All that you would have done is transformed some of the energy in existence into mass. Energy transforms into mass and mass transforms into energy. Physics is actually getting pretty close into explaining the birth of this finite universe. Give it time. After all with time science showed us that lightning is not a god but a natural phenomenon of electrical discharge.

Everything is energy

 

[Gracchus]

The scientific answer to my Apple Challenge requires a measure of omniscience to answer, but it can be answered scientifically --- and has been.

Here's how I would answer it - (for the fifth time):

• I would show my friend (if I could) the amount of mass/energy of the universe before the apple was created, and then show him the amount of mass/energy of the universe after the apple was created, and then the amount of mass/energy in the apple itself, which should correspond to the difference in the mass/energy after the apple was created. Put another way, the amount of mass/enery in the universe should increase in accordance with the apple.

And how would you determine the total mass/energy of the universe before and after this supposed "ex nihilo" creation? I suspect that the confidence limits and the margin of error would make your evidence unreliable. Reality trumps sophistry every time.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

You seem to confuse philosophy with science. If I create an ice cube with some of the water in a glass; all I have done is to transform some of the already existing water into a solid form. The total mass has not changed. Likewise an apple created in an already existing universe; All that you would have done is transformed some of the energy in existence into mass. Energy transforms into mass and mass transforms into energy. Physics is actually getting pretty close into explaining the birth of this finite universe. Give it time. After all with time science showed us that lightning is not a god but a natural phenomenon of electrical discharge.

Everything is energy

And so if we figure out the total energy in the universe, and then figure it out again after the alleged 'apple ex nihilo' event, the energy in the universe should have increased by one apple-sized amount, yes?

 

[AV1611VET]

You seem to confuse philosophy with science. If I create an ice cube with some of the water in a glass; all I have done is to transform some of the already existing water into a solid form. The total mass has not changed. Likewise an apple created in an already existing universe; All that you would have done is transformed some of the energy in existence into mass. Energy transforms into mass and mass transforms into energy. Physics is actually getting pretty close into explaining the birth of this finite universe. Give it time. After all with time science showed us that lightning is not a god but a natural phenomenon of electrical discharge.

Everything is energy

You seem to confuse creatio ex materia with creatio ex nihilo.

The Latin phrase ex nihilo means "out of nothing". It often appears in conjunction with the concept of creation, as in creatio ex nihilo, meaning "creation out of nothing". Due to the connotations of the phrase creatio ex nihilo, it often occurs 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 (creation out of eternally preexistent matter) and with creatio ex deo (creation out of the being of God).

 

[AV1611VET]

And how would you determine the total mass/energy of the universe before and after this supposed "ex nihilo" creation? I suspect that the confidence limits and the margin of error would make your evidence unreliable. Reality trumps sophistry every time.

Need we go over this again?

The scientific answer to my Apple Challenge requires a measure of omniscience to answer...

Reality can take a hike.

 

[Psudopod]

The scientific answer to my Apple Challenge requires a measure of omniscience to answer, but it can be answered scientifically --- and has been.

Here's how I would answer it - (for the fifth time):

• I would show my friend (if I could) the amount of mass/energy of the universe before the apple was created, and then show him the amount of mass/energy of the universe after the apple was created, and then the amount of mass/energy in the apple itself, which should correspond to the difference in the mass/energy after the apple was created. Put another way, the amount of mass/enery in the universe should increase in accordance with the apple.

AV is absolutely right in the context of his challenge. The problem is that he has not demonstrated that his challenge is a sufficient anolgy to reality.