My Evidence Challenge

[AV1611VET]

If you believe in a literal six-day creation, please give me one piece of evidence that meets the following criteria:

1. Has no letters on it.
2. Can be placed in a museum.

 

[Davian]

While we wait...

[youtube]A9peZ5WOtL0[/youtube]

 

[Tiberius]

There is no evidence, AV.

We know there is no evidence because it never happened.

You claim that God left no evidence because he was a good boy and cleaned up after himself, despite the fact that you have absolutely NO Biblical support for this claim (unless you want to count stretched interpretations of vague passages which could mean anything).

So now that I have answered your challenge, here's one for you:

If it was so important that God tell us the truth about what really happened and that's why he put it in the Bible, why did he go to such efforts to make an investigation of reality lead to the wrong conclusion? After all, I'm sure God could have cleaned up in such a way that investigations of reality still lead to the truth.

 

[AV1611VET]

You claim that God left no evidence because he was a good boy and cleaned up after himself,

I have never claimed that; in fact, I claim the opposite:

Here is a straightforward answer to the OP:

No evidence was generated.

That means that no evidence was left behind, cleaned up, hidden, or anything else.

We call those things "miracles."

Let me comment on these:

1. Outside of the Bible --- no.
2. No evidence was generated* --- therefore none erased.
3. n/a
4. Yes, the God of Creation exists.

* Which is the point of my Apple Challenge.

Believe me, Sigma, you're preaching to the choir here.

I'm one of the ones in the forefront here claiming zero evidence for the creation event.

In fact, I have a challenge that adequately demonstrates it: 1 .

Creatio ex nihilo does not leave an audit trail of evidence.

No evidence was generated (see My Apple Challenge), thus no evidence exists.

It's called "faith".

Then by all means, if you feel there is evidence for the Creation Event -- or should be -- let's see it.

Let's see you answer this challenge, while you're at it: 1.

The only reason I say there's no evidence for the Creation Event is because you guys say it, and I agree with you.

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

If the earth was created on the order of 6,000 years ago the geologists and physicists would find that number with radiometric dating and other techniques. There would be nothing older than that.

You add special rules because obviously the earth is not measured to be 6,000 years old. You claim that everything was created to look, by all physical examination, to be older than it is; this is utter nonsense and if true, it would make it impossible to know anything.

 

[AV1611VET]

If the earth was created on the order of 6,000 years ago the geologists and physicists would find that number with radiometric dating and other techniques. There would be nothing older than that.

You add special rules because obviously the earth is not measured to be 6,000 years old. You claim that everything was created to look, by all physical examination, to be older than it is; this is utter nonsense and if true, it would make it impossible to know anything.

And we're right back to Square One, aren't we?

You haven't learned a thing about Embedded Age, have you?

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

And we're right back to Square One, aren't we?

You haven't learned a thing about Embedded Age, have you?

You've never been able to explain why God did it without him looking deceptive. If God created this wonderful place with such intricate innerworkings that invite our curious minds to explore it, why would he make that exploration self-defeating? Why would he make it so easy for us to go in the opposite direction of the truth?

IF the evidence pointed towards a 6,000 year old earth, you'd be touting it around and praising the heavens. It's only because you have no evidence that you deem evidence as worthless.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

And we're right back to Square One, aren't we?

You haven't learned a thing about Embedded Age, have you?

No, but I think we're finding out a fair bit about embedded agers.

 

[AV1611VET]

You've never been able to explain why God did it without him looking deceptive.

Look deceptive to whom? you?

Why is it you educatees are the only ones who have an issue with it?

If God created this wonderful place with such intricate innerworkings that invite our curious minds to explore it, why would he make that exploration self-defeating?

Why do you think He gave us the Creation Manual to go with it?

Why would he make it so easy for us to go in the opposite direction of the truth?

Please don't refuse to take Genesis 1 literally, then project 'deception' on to the Creator.

IF the evidence pointed towards a 6,000 year old earth, you'd be touting it around and praising the heavens.

Yes, I sure would.

And IF the evidence pointed towards a 10,000[sup]10000[/sup] year old earth, I'd be touting it around and praising the heavens.

You see, I don't have a problem with how old this earth is physically, like you do.

It's only because you have no evidence that you deem evidence as worthless.

Evidence of what? creation, or the age of the earth?

In any event, that's cute how you worded that.

Whichever way you meant, try it this way:

It's only because no evidence exists that you deem evidence as non-existent.

Unless you were talking about evidence for the age of the earth, in which case I agree with you on how old it is.

Try making sense in your next post, please.

 

[[serious]]

If you believe in a literal six-day creation, please give me one piece of evidence that meets the following criteria:

1. Has no letters on it.
2. Can be placed in a museum.

Not sure how long it would last in a museum though.

 

[Split Rock]

And we're right back to Square One, aren't we?

You haven't learned a thing about Embedded Age, have you?

Ironically, neither have you...

 

[AV1611VET]

Not sure how long it would last in a museum though.

 

[AV1611VET]

Ironically, neither have you...

If velocity = 60, what is the acceleration?

 

[Split Rock]

If velocity = 60, what is the acceleration?

Blue.

 

[Tiberius]

I have never claimed that; in fact, I claim the opposite:

I stand corrected.

However, we still have a situation where you claim that God created the world in a way that left absolutely no evidence of the way he really did it.

And it seems that an investigation of that world he created seems to lead to the conclusion that the way is came into being was very different to what God actually did!

So tell me, why did God do this? Why did God create the world so that it looks like it came about via one process when it really was created by an entirely different process?

 

[Skaloop]

I stand corrected.

However, we still have a situation where you claim that God created the world in a way that left absolutely no evidence of the way he really did it.

And it seems that an investigation of that world he created seems to lead to the conclusion that the way is came into being was very different to what God actually did!

So tell me, why did God do this? Why did God create the world so that it looks like it came about via one process when it really was created by an entirely different process?

Stock answer: He told us how He did it in the Bible, so we'd know how He did it.

 

[AV1611VET]

However, we still have a situation where you claim that God created the world in a way that left absolutely no evidence of the way he really did it.

He claims it too -- in Writing.

(Actually, He tells us what He did, when He did it, where He did it, how long it took Him to do it, what order He did it in, and who the eyewitnesses were; but I can't get you guys to admit He left no evidence, even with my apple challenge -- that's because you guys know better than to answer it, or you would be admitting it too.)

And it seems that an investigation of that world he created seems to lead to the conclusion that the way is came into being was very different to what God actually did!

And which side of the bread do you think I'm going to say is buttered, Tiberius?

Even if the entire world's population said otherwise, God would have something to say about it:

Romans 3:4a God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar;

So tell me, why did God do this?

For anthropic reasons.

Why did God create the world so that it looks like it came about via one process when it really was created by an entirely different process?

Looks like it to whom? you?

The only ones who seem to have trouble with it are the ones who have been ... educated otherwise.

 

[AV1611VET]

Stock answer: He told us how He did it in the Bible, so we'd know how He did it.

That's right.

The Bible says it -- that settles it.

 

[NailsII]

Firstly, I don't believe in an ex nihilo creation, no matter how long it was supposed to have taken.

An example of early egyptian glyphs, circa 3400-3200BC.

Source: Earliest Egyptian Glyphs

Note with interest that this would have been made when Methusela was just a young man of 100, long before Noah was born, around a thousand years before humans were apparently forced by a loving god to speak different languages.
It is also older than the earliest biblical texts found so far, and they were in a language which can only be described as proto-hebrew (or more accurately proto-caananite).

 

[AV1611VET]

An example of early egyptian glyphs, circa 3400-3200BC.

You're going to take the word of Egypt over the word of God?

In Bible typology, Egypt is a type of the world.

Consider that the Bible calls Egypt 'the iron furnace'.

Consider the fact that Moses refused to be associated with the Egyptians.

Consider the fact that God placed Egypt off-limits to Old Testament saints.

Consider the fact that Egypt came from Mizraim, Noah's grandson.

QV please: The Sixteen Grandsons of Noah