My Apple Challenge

[ReverendDG]

It's a prepositional issue?

I must be more fun to talk about, than to talk to?

a prepositional issue? what? why is it hard for you to talk like a normal person? do you have aspergers by chance? or autism? i'm asking because statements like that are not really normal.

the issue isn't a "prepositional issue"(whatever that means), its a productive issue.
your stances, arguments and issues are not all that productive, they are all side issues, irrelevant things or a total lack of knowledge on your part.

a good example is your issue with dinosaurs in the bible, you point out birds are technically dinosaurs and this somehow "pwns" evolutionists. the problem is the debate isn't over avian dinosaurs, which both sides call birds, but the non-avian types that died out 65 million years ago, an idea YECS reject.

i point this out and you never bother to learn about the issue, you just keep harping on this irrelevant point about birds, missing the debate by a mile.

that is a productivity issue, thus why debate someone who is so intellectually lazy, that they can't even look up the debate? people who do are just tilting at windmills;you admit you are proud to be so intellectually devoid, whats the point then? i'd rather debate things you do understand, but they are mostly things with sandy foundations so whats the point in that either?

so mostly i don't debate you at all, or just point out factual errors, you seem to retreat from those though.

 

[tanzanos]

After serious deliberation and consideration; I have come to the conclusion based on the arguments presented to me by AV that:

1. This particular apple created by the ex-nihilo process is in violation of the international patent laws. The patent for the creation of apples is presently held by Nature.

2. The creator of the Ex-nihilo apple shall pay compensation in the form of:

a) He must accept Evolution as the proprietary process belonging to Nature which is the sole holder of the above patent for creating apples.

b) He must apologise for having caused such a disturbance in CF to many posters for many months. (some posters even experience nightmares at the mere mention of AV's "Apple challenge")

c) He must destroy the ex-nihilo apple without destroying the planet.


Failure to do so will result in the apple challenge becoming null and void.

 

[corvus_corax]

i think we have a bit of a sadomasochistic issue, we like to beat our heads against the wall of AV's impervious ignorance.

Overall the best response I have read so far
Would that everyone else admit to such

then again i attempt not to debate him on anything without evidence, its speculation and a waste of time.
rather call on the things that have substance, much more productive, well sometimes.

Unlike many, who invoke theology, religious speculation and philosophy in a forum where such things do not really belong.

Thank you RDG, for being honest and not trying to put up a false front of trying to argue theology with actual evidence (like many have tried to do with AV)
To wit- one cannot cannot cannot debate "deity" or ex nihilo or any other such paradigms with actual scientific evidence when another is basing their entire paradigm upon "zero evidence".

So, again, to my fellow forumites (minus RDG) why do you even BOTHER to flagrantly fill AV1611VETs threads with responses? Why do you follow his rabbit holes on threads created by other forumites?
Why, especially considering the fact that his specific "arguments" have been directly addressed time and again, do you guys and gals continue to address them?

To use RDG's analogy, why do you keep applying the brick wall to your collective heads?


Seriously, just curious, especially since this specific ~ahem~ "challenge" has already been directly (and correctly) answered more than once.

 

[AV1611VET]

Failure to do so will result in the apple challenge becoming null and void.

-- And I thought I was doing so well with it!

 

[AV1611VET]

To use RDG's analogy, why do you keep applying the brick wall to your collective heads?

Don't act so innocent, Corvus -- you've made your contributions as well.

 

[tanzanos]

-- And I thought I was doing so well with it!

Take heart my friend; Any good lawyer will tell you that every law has a loophole. Perhaps this is an opportunity to challenge the nullification of the apple challenge? Oh no! This means that all you have to do is continue with your apple challenge!!! MERCY!!!!!!!!!!

 

[MarkT]

he is, but i don't find his claim anymore persuasive than any other religious claim, none of them set themselves apart from each other, for that you need evidence.

These forums exist to trap the godless. We look at their writings; the things they write against God will be used as evidence against them. God doesn't need to prove himself to you. You need to prove yourself to him.

 

[Nathan Poe]

These forums exist to trap the godless. We look at their writings; the things they write against God will be used as evidence against them. God doesn't need to prove himself to you. You need to prove yourself to him.

To whom?

 

[Nathan Poe]

The very idea of a god is ludicrous in the extreme, a brain needs to be completely void to even come close to accepting a foolish concept such as a god, you would be better off believing in talking clouds at least you can see clouds.
People who pass on the idea of gods and other myths have a lot to answer for.

I wouldn't go that far -- the brain doesn't start out void, but once you accept a God concept that will punish you for even considering alternatives, it tends to clear out space in short order.

 

[AV1611VET]

The very idea of a god is ludicrous in the extreme, a brain needs to be completely void to even come close to accepting a foolish concept such as a god, you would be better off believing in talking clouds at least you can see clouds.
People who pass on the idea of gods and other myths have a lot to answer for.

I wouldn't go that far -- the brain doesn't start out void, but once you accept a God concept that will punish you for even considering alternatives, it tends to clear out space in short order.

In my younger days, I always thought the Bible calling atheists "fools" was a bit strong; but now I fully understand.

 

[Freodin]

In my younger days, I always thought the Bible calling atheists "fools" was a bit strong; but now I fully understand.

If you can´t convince them, dehumanize them and tell yourself that everything that happens to them is their own fault and "just".

Works perfectly as long as you stay within your "myoptic" worldview... though it might give you a guilty conscience if you manage to expand your horizon.

 

[AV1611VET]

If you can´t convince them, dehumanize them...

Oh, my -- irony meter, meet mr pot & mr kettle:

That remark was solid aurum.

 

[Nathan Poe]

In my younger days, I always thought the Bible calling atheists "fools" was a bit strong; but now I fully understand.

It's not so much that you understand -- it's that you need it to be so to maintain your own self-image.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Works perfectly as long as you stay within your "myoptic" worldview... though it might give you a guilty conscience if you manage to expand your horizon.

Conscience is usually the first thing to be discarded in a religious worldview.

"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities" -- Voltaire

 

[SithDoughnut]

Oh, my -- irony meter, meet mr pot & mr kettle:

That remark was solid aurum.

That is a visual representation of humanity and what it is. This picture is the opposite of dehumanisation - instead it defines who we are.

Not that I'm saying you shouldn't point out irony. However, you'd be better off doing it when there is actually irony to point out.

 

[AV1611VET]

It's not so much that you understand -- it's that you need it to be so to maintain your own self-image.

You're stooping too low with your comments, Nathan, and making yourself come across as ... well ... younger.

 

[Nathan Poe]

You're stooping too low with your comments, Nathan, and making yourself come across as ... well ... younger.

Tell me about it, AV -- I wouldn't be going slumming if it weren't necessary.

 

[Split Rock]

In my younger days, I always thought the Bible calling atheists "fools" was a bit strong; but now I fully understand.

You're stooping too low with your comments, Nathan, and making yourself come across as ... well ... younger.

You should really look to your own house first, AVET....

 

[LightSeaker]

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

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

Because you would be unable to do said trick, I would not try to convince my friend that you created the apple ex nihilo. Why lie?

.

 

[sandwiches]

Because you would be unable to do said trick, I would not try to convince my friend that you created the apple ex nihilo. Why lie?

.

These are hypothetical situations. The point of the exercise is to accept the initial proposition and see how you'd deal with the situation.

Personally, I'd tell my friend and I'm sure I'd be excited and more than a bit out of breath. However, I would not think it unreasonable for my friend to not believe me despite my excitement and emotional retelling. After all, I would not believe him, if the situation were reversed.