Adam and Eve

[Freodin]

Nope.

Remember Solomon? The man who had apes imported?Remember his conclusion?Notice also, the reference to evolution being an 'invention' --- not a 'discovery'?

Ups, sorry, I forgot that I was talking to a literalist - and context can take a hike! As can content.

As can you.

 

[godsmission]

Like you guys did Pluto?

That was then, this is happening today, now.

 

[Freodin]

AV has already ignored the main point of my post (nothing unusual), but I don´t want to let it pass without having emphazised its importance: it basically counters one of his most beloved claims - that ex-nihilo-creation does not leave evidence.

But here it does! The object created ex-nihilo is different from the one created "by birth".

 

[AV1611VET]

...but they don't, they just nod and lap it all up.

Like you guys did Pluto?

That was then, this is happening today, now.

Ya --- no kidding.

You guys here just "lapped it up" --- 100% --- no questions asked.

Well, fyi, there are still scientists in the IAU* who refuse to "just nod and lap it all up."

* Not to mention California, New Mexico, and Illinois.

Remember: Every time you point a finger at creationists, there are three fingers pointing back ---

 

[AV1611VET]

But here it does! The object created ex-nihilo is different from the one created "by birth".

Um ... Adam and Eve were not created ex nihilo.

 

[Freodin]

Like you guys did Pluto?

Perhaps one day you will understand it: there has nothing changed about Pluto, there has nothing changed about the observable facts about Pluto, there has nothing changed about the way astronomers regard Pluto... all that has changed is its categorization.

 

[AV1611VET]

Perhaps one day you will understand it: there has nothing changed about Pluto, there has nothing changed about the observable facts about Pluto, there has nothing changed about the way astronomers regard Pluto... all that has changed is its categorization.

You're the one who doesn't get it, Freodin.

It's not really about the [ex] planet itself.

It's about the reaction to the vote.

100% agreement, with no questions asked.

 

[Freodin]

Um ... Adam and Eve were not created ex nihilo.

The principle stays the same.

The apple that you create ex-nihilo in your challenge... does it have a stem?

 

[Freodin]

You're the one who doesn't get it, Freodin.

It's not really about the [ex] planet itself.

It's about the reaction to the vote.

100% agreement, with no questions asked.

And again it shows that you don´t have the slightest idea what you are talking about. It is not about the vote - it is about the problem that was voted on.

 

[AV1611VET]

The apple that you create ex-nihilo in your challenge... does it have a stem?

Yes.

 

[Freodin]

Yes.

Why?

 

[AV1611VET]

Why?

I chose to put it there in your hand.

And, by the way, I've "upgraded" my Apple Challenge to a new, more realistic, one.

QV please: 1.

 

[Freodin]

I chose to put it there in your hand.

And, by the way, I've "upgraded" my Apple Challenge to a new, more realistic, one.

QV please: 1.

Sorry for the delay, I fell from my chair laughing. "more realistic" my... behind!

But I want to stay with the apple. You didn´t answer my question: why does that apple have a stem?

 

[AV1611VET]

But I want to stay with the apple. You didn´t answer my question: why does that apple have a stem?

It's an apple --- an omphalos apple.

 

[Freodin]

It's an apple --- an omphalos apple.

And apples have stems?

So humans have belly buttons!

You have to notice that this concept is not limited to these obvious signs of "birth". As I said in my (ignored) post: the things are the way they are, because of how they came to be.

 

[Skaloop]

You're the one who doesn't get it, Freodin.

It's not really about the [ex] planet itself.

It's about the reaction to the vote.

100% agreement, with no questions asked.

But there wasn't 100% agreement, and there were plenty of questions asked. During the debates and after.

And remember, the vote was not even about Pluto; it was about the definition of "planet". Pluto's status in the solar system just happened to be affected by it.

Once the vote established the definition, then yes, pretty much everyone had to stop calling Pluto a planet (officially, anyway. Most regular Joes would probably not) because that is the result of the voted definition.

(Warning, top-of-my-head analogy to follow; please do not extend it too far)

When Obama was elected president, many people didn't vote for him. Many people vehemently disagreed with the results of the election. But he is, nonetheless, the president. No matter how one feels about him, 100% of people agree with no questions asked (birth-certificate-demanding whackos excepted) that right now, Barrack Obama is the acting president of the United States. "President" used to be 'defined' as George W. Bush. Then there was a vote to change the definition to Barrack Obama. That's the result of the vote, so that's the new definition. Calling the president something else, or calling something else the president, would be ludicrous. Saying "President John McCain" would be wrong, even if you felt that John McCain should be president.

 

[AV1611VET]

And apples have stems?

So humans have belly buttons!

You have to notice that this concept is not limited to these obvious signs of "birth". As I said in my (ignored) post: the things are the way they are, because of how they came to be.

I understand the concepts --- you don't understand the exceptions.

 

[Freodin]

I understand the concepts --- you don't understand the exceptions.

Oh, I understand the exceptions quite well... "Whatever I say".

Usually, this is called "special pleading"... with you, it surely is called "basic doctrine".

 

[Tiberius]

What does age have to do with scarring?

It shows that things happened in the past. If the Earth has the scars of the ancient past, such as meteor craters, scars that show of past events that never actually took place, why shouldn't Adam and Eve have similar scars of events that never took place?

I understand the concepts --- you don't understand the exceptions.

Perhaps we'd understand if you explain how you determine which bits are excepted for what reason.

 

[Mike Elphick]

Evolution is Omphalos, in that the first man and woman would have belly buttons.

Ignoring the suggestion that evolution posits a singular first human male and singular first human female, you've got it all muddled up!

Philip Gosse (ht*p://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Gosse) is probably the best known proponent of the Ompahalos hypothesis in his book of the same name. He attempts to reconcile the huge geological ages proposed by by Charles Lyell with the creation account in Genesis.

Omphalos: An Attempt to Untie the Geological Knot is a book by Philip Gosse, written in 1857 (two years before Darwin's On the Origin of Species), in which he argues that the fossil record is not evidence of evolution, but rather that it is an act of creation inevitably made so that the world would appear to be older than it is. The reasoning parallels the reasoning that Gosse chose to explain why Adam (who would have had no mother) had a navel: Though Adam would have had no need of a navel, God gave him one anyway to give him the appearance of having a human ancestry. Thus, the name of the book, Omphalos, which means 'navel' in Greek.

Gosse's argument was that since living things had a cycle of reproduction and development, God must have created them in the act of developing, with trees having rings, and animals having skin, blood, and bones all making them appear older than they were. From any examination of a post-creation world, the world would appear to have been created in the cycle of normal processes, and would look old. No element of deception by God would be inherent in this.
ht*p://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omphalos_(book)

So evolution is NOT Omphalos as there is absolutely no attempt to make things older than they appear.

Whereas the Adam and Eve of the Bible would not, and that fact would be a testimony to their progeny.

See? You've got it the wrong way round, AV! If the idea of Omphalos applies to the earth being created in the act of developing, with trees having rings etc., the same would certainly apply to Adam and Eve and therefore they would have been born with navels.