My New Apple Challenge

[AV1611VET]

Loki = evil destroyer trickster. Doesn't mean that the Christian ideal of god can't do stuff on a whim.

Are we done now?

 

[PsychoSarah]

Are we done now?

Done comparing the Christian god to Norse gods/ice giants? I sure hope so, they are highly dissimilar to the point of not being great to compare to each other.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by PsychoSarah

Loki = evil destroyer trickster. Doesn't mean that the Christian ideal of god can't do stuff on a whim.
​

God ≠ Loki

LLoJ once again heads for Wiki!

Strong's Concordance with Hebrew and Greek Lexicon

Search Wikipedia Encyclopedia:

Loki - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In Norse mythology, Loki, Loptr, or Hveðrungr is a god or jötunn (or both). Loki is the son of Fárbauti and Laufey, and the brother of Helblindi and Býleistr.
By the jötunn Angrboða, Loki is the father of Hel, the wolf Fenrir, and the world serpent Jörmungandr. By his wife Sigyn, Loki is the father of Narfi and/or Nari. By the stallion Svaðilfari, Loki is the mother—giving birth in the form of a mare—to the eight-legged horse Sleipnir.
In addition, Loki is referred to as the father of Váli in the Prose Edda................

Loki's origins and role in Norse mythology have been much debated by scholars.
In 1835, Jacob Grimm was first to produce a major theory about Loki, in which he advanced the notion of Loki as a "god of fire".
In 1889, Sophus Bugge theorized Loki to be variant of Lucifer of Christian mythology, an element of Bugge's larger effort to find a basis of Christianity in Norse mythology. After World War II, four scholarly theories dominated

The first of the four theories is that of Folke Ström, who in 1956 concluded that Loki is a hypostasis of the god Odin.
In 1959, Jan de Vries theorized that Loki is a typical example of a trickster figure.
In 1961, by way of excluding all non-Scandinavian mythological parallels in her analysis, Anna Birgitta Rooth concluded that Loki was originally a spider.
Anne Holtsmark, writing in 1962, concluded that no conclusion could be made about Loki.[59]



.

 

[EternalDragon]

And we still don't know what good it does to "embed" age into anything.

Well, for one thing creating a "young" sun would do the earth and us
no good. Also you wouldn't be able to tell a perfectly good, working
sun made in one day to one made naturally, over millions of years. (If that were even possible.)

The same with the apples. If God made an apple in one second and put
it beside another apple, they would be identical as far as age.

Since God told us how long he took to make things in perfect, good,
working order, there is no deception at all.

 

[Belk]

Well, for one thing creating a "young" sun would do the earth and us
no good. Also you wouldn't be able to tell a perfectly good, working
sun made in one day to one made naturally, over millions of years. (If that were even possible.)

The same with the apples. If God made an apple in one second and put
it beside another apple, they would be identical as far as age.

Since God told us how long he took to make things in perfect, good,
working order, there is no deception at all.

Funny thing, if he made an apple and embedded 5 million years into it with no history it would be identical to one that had one second in it.

 

[lasthero]

Well, for one thing creating a "young" sun would do the earth and us
no good.

Couldn't God just make it so that stars can sustain life even if they're very young? Why fix it so that stars need millions upon millions of years to reach that point?

If God made an apple in one second and put
it beside another apple, they would be identical as far as age.

Not really. An apple that's has any amount of age on it is going to have things like abrasions on it, cuts, et cetera. Apples, like everything else, tend to change as they age. An apple that's brand new is different from one that's a day old. The changes might be minor, but they're there.

Your analogy fails, because the earth doesn't just have the appearance of age - it has history. It isn't like God making an apple brand new, it's like God making an apple with a bite mark already in it.

Since God told us how long he took to make things in perfect, good,
working order,

But he's God. Any way he'd done it would have been in perfect working order...because he's God.

 

[lasthero]

It also occurs to me that apples have stems, which - and someone can correct me on this if I'm wrong, I'm not an apple expert or anything - are part of the tree. So if God made an apple out of thin air and it had a stem, it would be a stem from a tree that never existed, which would give any reasonable person the idea that it had grown naturally.

 

[AV1611VET]

It also occurs to me that apples have stems, which - and someone can correct me on this if I'm wrong, I'm not an apple expert or anything - are part of the tree. So if God made an apple out of thin air and it had a stem, it would be a stem from a tree that never existed, which would give any reasonable person the idea that it had grown naturally.

So a stem, even though it was created ex materia, would mislead you, because your mind would immediately think, "tree" ... right?

 

[EternalDragon]

Couldn't God just make it so that stars can sustain life even if they're very young? Why fix it so that stars need millions upon millions of years to reach that point?

Do you know how a star works?

Not really. An apple that's has any amount of age on it is going to have things like abrasions on it, cuts, et cetera. Apples, like everything else, tend to change as they age. An apple that's brand new is different from one that's a day old. The changes might be minor, but they're there.

You still wouldn't be able to tell if the apple grew for months on a tree or was just created that second.

Your analogy fails, because the earth doesn't just have the appearance of age - it has history. It isn't like God making an apple brand new, it's like God making an apple with a bite mark already in it.

Of course it has history. It's been ravaged by a flood, tectonic plate movements, continents slamming into each other and it has been around for awhile.

But he's God. Any way he'd done it would have been in perfect working order...because he's God.

Not "any way". He has to work within the natural laws he set up. Time, matter and space.

 

[Split Rock]

First of all, you're talking as if it is still going on -- and it isn't.

Second of all, embedded age is "maturity without history." Are you seriously telling me you don't know what good it does to give something maturity?

When asked to define "maturity," I defined it as "possessing the qualities needed to perform what was expected."

And this thread clearly showed that maturity does not require embedding age... just that you happen to believe God embedded age to make things mature.. apparently for no good reason.

 

[Split Rock]

Well, for one thing creating a "young" sun would do the earth and us
no good. Also you wouldn't be able to tell a perfectly good, working
sun made in one day to one made naturally, over millions of years. (If that were even possible.)

The same with the apples. If God made an apple in one second and put
it beside another apple, they would be identical as far as age.

Since God told us how long he took to make things in perfect, good,
working order, there is no deception at all.

Since AVET can't explain, could you explain why it was necessary to "embed" age into anything to make it mature? In my example I made a mature apple without embedding age into it. Is there a reason God couldn't do that?

 

[AV1611VET]

And this thread clearly showed that maturity does not require embedding age...

I could have told you that.

Maturity today comes from ... well ... maturing; a process that takes time.

So while maturity does not require embedding age, embedding age is embedding maturity without history.

just that you happen to believe God embedded age to make things mature.. apparently for no good reason.

Cute.

It appears that God created every thing, not only perfect as it respects its nature, but also in a state of maturity, so that every vegetable production appeared at once in full growth; and this was necessary that man, when he came into being, might find every thing ready for his use.

 

[AV1611VET]

Since AVET can't explain, could you explain why it was necessary to "embed" age into anything to make it mature?

Oh, now that's just golden ... like golden apples.

(More like FeS[sub]2[/sub] though.)

 

[Loudmouth]

Well, for one thing creating a "young" sun would do the earth and us no good.

What good do uranium radiohaloes do us?

What function do specific ratios of K/Ar, U/Pb, and Rb/Sr play in meteors as a function of our solar system?

Would we be able to survive if the Greenland icecap did not have hundreds of thousands of layers marked by fluctuations in oxygen isotopes, and decreasing 14C content as you move down those layers?

If you are going to argue that the apparent age is there for a specific function, then you need to tell us what these functions are as they related to actual methods used for dating our universe, life, and planets.

 

[Loudmouth]

Do you know how a star works?

Do you know how radiometric dating works?

Why do all meteors need the same ratio of K/Ar, all of which are consistent with 4.5 billion years of radioactive decay? Why do those K/Ar ratios also need to match U/Pb and Rb/Sr ratios that are also consistent with 4.5 billion years of decay?

Why would the function of our solar system require us to see galaxies billions of light years away?

You still wouldn't be able to tell if the apple grew for months on a tree or was just created that second.

If the apple was created this second . . .

Would the apple have healed wormholes from past infestations?

Would the apple have healed scars on the outside from birds pecking at it?

Would the apple have left over petals at the bottom, even though it was never a flower?

Of course it has history. It's been ravaged by a flood, tectonic plate movements, continents slamming into each other and it has been around for awhile.

Evidence for a global flood, please.

 

[Loudmouth]

So a stem, even though it was created ex materia, would mislead you, because your mind would immediately think, "tree" ... right?

Would an apple created this second ex materia have healed scars from birds pecking at it? Would it have wormholes, but no worms? Would it have petals at the bottom from a flower stage it never went through? Would it have DNA that matched specifically to the trees around it, even though it did not descend from those trees?

 

[lasthero]

Do you know how a star works?

Yes. Do you?

You still wouldn't be able to tell if the apple grew for months on a tree or was just created that second.

If an apple's been growing for months, it's probably going to take some damage just from being in the environment. A newly made apple wouldn't have that. I wager you'd be able to tell the difference upon examination.

It's been ravaged by a flood, tectonic plate movements, continents slamming into each other and it has been around for awhile.

You've yet to demonstrate the global flood actually happened, but there's more to it than just that. There are things on this planet that simply do not make sense if the world is a young as you think it is. We have evidence of volcanic eruptions that, if what you say is true, happened when there wasn't even a planet around. We have multiple impact craters from meteors that would have been catastrophic to life on Earth if they happened within a small time period, and are not mentioned in any history anywhere. And as much you might not like it, we can date things through a number of ways, and they all agree that the Earth is far older than 6,000 years.

Not "any way". He has to work within the natural laws he set up.

He doesn't 'have' to do anything. And since he decides what those laws are, he can't be limited by them.

 

[Loudmouth]

Here is an illustration of the features in an apple.

If an apple was created this second, would it have the leftovers of sepals, styles, and stamens? These serve no function in a mature apple that grew on a tree. They are simply a leftovers from the time when the apple was a flower. So why would an apple that did not grow from a fertilized flower have leftover sepals, stamens, and styles?

 

[AV1611VET]

Would an apple created this second ex materia have healed scars from birds pecking at it? Would it have wormholes, but no worms? Would it have petals at the bottom from a flower stage it never went through? Would it have DNA that matched specifically to the trees around it, even though it did not descend from those trees?

An apple created this second could be blue, squirt lemon juice, and have GROWN IN CALIFORNIA on it.

Ex materia is ex materia, and the object being materialized can be anything at all.

 

[AV1611VET]

If an apple was created this second, would it have the leftovers of sepals, styles, and stamens? These serve no function in a mature apple that grew on a tree. They are simply a leftovers from the time when the apple was a flower. So why would an apple that did not grow from a fertilized flower have leftover sepals, stamens, and styles?

Because the OP, who created the apple, chose to put them there?

Or did he have to check with you first?