My Apple Challenge

Split Rock · Apr 29, 2010

AV1611VET said:
This sounds much like a story I read -- but I'd like to leave the Bible out of this thread, so I'm not going to comment any further.

How about this then. Can we assume the apple is not made in a deceptive manner? If that is the case, I would examine the tissues and cells of the apple under a microscope. I would look to see if the cells of any particular tissue were exactly the same in size and shape. I would look for any anomalies, which one will always find in a real apple that grew on a tree. If the cells and tissues were all exactly the same and ordered perfectly, and there were no anomalies, then this would be evidence that the apple was created ex nihilo.

AV1611VET · Apr 29, 2010

Split Rock said:
Can we assume the apple is not made in a deceptive manner?

Creatio ex nihilo is not deception -- it is an act -- something done.

Split Rock said:
If that is the case, I would examine the tissues and cells of the apple under a microscope. I would look to see if the cells of any particular tissue were exactly the same in size and shape. I would look for any anomalies, which one will always find in a real apple that grew on a tree. If the cells and tissues were all exactly the same and ordered perfectly, and there were no anomalies, then this would be evidence that the apple was created ex nihilo.

Split Rock -- just to make my point here -- nothing else -- let's suppose the apple has a worm in it, is bruised, has a sticker that says GROWN IN JAPAN on it, squirts lemon juice when you squeeze it, and is purple.

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

(I really don't think you guys understand what I'm asking, do you?)

tanzanos · Apr 29, 2010

AV1611VET said:
(I really don't think you guys understand what I'm asking, do you?)

I feel for you brother! It seems you are surrounded by ignorant amateurs

Let me put it this way! Since all life is made up of non living chemicals then suffice it to say that life can come from non living things. Now since science has a very good explanation of how the non living things are created then the only question that begs to be answered is: What happened before the big bang!

AV! and DAD are allowed to use: "God did it case closed"; all other theists better come up with a good explanation.

Freodin · Apr 29, 2010

AV1611VET said:
Creatio ex nihilo is not deception -- it is an act -- something done.

Split Rock -- just to make my point here -- nothing else -- let's suppose the apple has a worm in it, is bruised, has a sticker that says GROWN IN JAPAN on it, squirts lemon juice when you squeeze it, and is purple.

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

(I really don't think you guys understand what I'm asking, do you?)

I don´t think you understand what you are asking.

Split Rock · Apr 29, 2010

AV1611VET said:
Creatio ex nihilo is not deception -- it is an act -- something done.

Split Rock -- just to make my point here -- nothing else -- let's suppose the apple has a worm in it, is bruised, has a sticker that says GROWN IN JAPAN on it, squirts lemon juice when you squeeze it, and is purple.

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

(I really don't think you guys understand what I'm asking, do you?)

So, you don't really want this to relate on any practical level to the question of the creation of the universe? Fine. There is no evidence. There. Now my question is: So What?

Split Rock · Apr 29, 2010

Freodin said:
I don´t think you understand what you are asking.

AVET understands very well what he is asking... The problem is he is trying to have it both ways, or as we say "Have your cake and eat it too." On the one hand he claims the question has nothing to do with God's creation, yet on the other hand relating it to God's creation is exactly his ultimate goal.

pgp_protector · Apr 29, 2010

I don't know why people bother with AV's I created something threads when he already answered it himself.

AV1611VET said:
Freodin said:

Ok, written documentation follows:

"Today, I created ex nihilo a 200 year old coin."

Click to expand...

No, you didn't:

[bible]Genesis 2:1-2[/bible]

So to AV's OP Question,
No, you didn't

Genesis 2:1-2 said:
1Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.

2And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.

MoonLancer · Apr 29, 2010

AV1611VET said:
Whatever it is, do you have an answer to it?

if you admit that this is not a science question, and that you dont want talk of god or theology why is it in this section of the forums. It should be removed.

can a mod please remove this thread

AV1611VET · Apr 29, 2010

Split Rock said:
Now my question is: So What?

I just want to point out that creatio ex nihilo generates no [known] evidence.

That's all I want from this thread.

Thank you for your honest answer.

AV1611VET · Apr 29, 2010

Split Rock said:
AVET understands very well what he is asking... The problem is he is trying to have it both ways, or as we say "Have your cake and eat it too." On the one hand he claims the question has nothing to do with God's creation, yet on the other hand relating it to God's creation is exactly his ultimate goal.

You know exactly what I'm going to do with this thread, don't you?

[shining up my q & v buttons ]

MoonLancer · Apr 29, 2010

AV1611VET said:
Creatio ex nihilo is not deception -- it is an act -- something done.

Click to expand...

deception is also something done. the act itself can be deceptive or not deceptive. It depends on the context. How the depending on the apple it could be a deceptive action or not. Does the apple have a stem?

Split Rock -- just to make my point here -- nothing else -- let's suppose the apple has a worm in it, is bruised, has a sticker that says GROWN IN JAPAN on it, squirts lemon juice when you squeeze it, and is purple.

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

(I really don't think you guys understand what I'm asking, do you?)

Click to expand...

You dont understand the consequences of your question. You clearly have not thought about it yourself.

MoonLancer · Apr 29, 2010

Split Rock said:
AVET understands very well what he is asking... The problem is he is trying to have it both ways, or as we say "Have your cake and eat it too." On the one hand he claims the question has nothing to do with God's creation, yet on the other hand relating it to God's creation is exactly his ultimate goal.

talk about deceptive.

AV1611VET · Apr 29, 2010

MoonLancer said:
the act itself can be deceptive or not deceptive.

I disagree -- the act itself is morally & ethically neutral.

MoonLancer said:
It depends on the context.

Now you have a point -- but it's not for this thread.

MoonLancer · Apr 29, 2010

AV1611VET said:
Creatio ex nihilo is not deception -- it is an act -- something done.

so what do i see when i look at the apple in a microscope? Without understanding the apple and avoiding this part of the discussion how can you hope to have anyone answer the actual question? How could i convince a friend? i donno? maybe i should find more about the apple first. It could help in understanding it and thus help with the convincing.

Your question relies things your not willing to answer it seems.

AV1611VET · Apr 29, 2010

MoonLancer said:
talk about deceptive.

Not here -- k?

Freodin · Apr 29, 2010

AV1611VET said:
I just want to point out that creatio ex nihilo generates no [known] evidence.

That's all I want from this thread.

Thank you for your honest answer.

But that is an incorrect answer.

We all - you included - don´t have the slightest clue what kind of evidence creatio ex nihilo would generate.

You assume that it wouldn´t generate evidence - you even presuppose that it wouldn´t generate evidence... but as this is only a hypothetical question, you (and others) can assert what you like, it doesn´t make it correct.

All you could do is to ammend your hypothetical OP: you create an apple by a method that leaves no evidence. Now ask what evidence would be used to show the method of creation... and bask in the glory of getting the tautological answer: well, none at all.

See, I am right: you don´t understand what you are asking.

AV1611VET · Apr 29, 2010

MoonLancer said:
so what do i see when i look at the apple in a microscope?

What you see in a microscope has nothing to do with creatio ex nihilo itself.

In fact, the more bizarre things you see under the scope, the more solidly it points to the apple being ex nihilo -- or at least, different.

What if you looked at a cross-section of it under a microscope, and saw yourself looking back?

or saw an episode of Mr. Ed being broadcast?

If you rushed that to your friend and showed him/her that -- would that convince him/her that the apple was created ex nihilo?

(I doubt it -- but, who knows -- it might.)

AV1611VET · Apr 29, 2010

Freodin said:
We all - you included - don´t have the slightest clue what kind of evidence creatio ex nihilo would generate.

In my opinion: none.

Yours?

Skavau · Apr 29, 2010

AV, No-one could produce any evidence for it. You know that. Come clean and tell us what exactly you're trying to demonstrate.

AV1611VET · Apr 29, 2010

Skavau said:
AV, No-one could produce any evidence for it. You know that. Come clean and tell us what exactly you're trying to demonstrate.

92

My Apple Challenge

Conflation of Blathers

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

tanzanos

Guest

Devout believer in a theologically different God

Conflation of Blathers

Conflation of Blathers

Noted strange person

The Moon is a reflection of the MorningStar

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

The Moon is a reflection of the MorningStar

The Moon is a reflection of the MorningStar

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

The Moon is a reflection of the MorningStar

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Devout believer in a theologically different God

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Ode to the Forgotten Few

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency