My New Apple Challenge

[Loudmouth]

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.

I see that you can't address anything from my post.

 

[crazyforgod1212]

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

Or did he have to check with you first?

Atheists seems to think God is answerable to them, not the other way around.

 

[Loudmouth]

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

Or did he have to check with you first?

Why would you embed a history into an apple that never happened, if not to fool people into thinking that the apple had a history?

 

[Loudmouth]

Atheists seems to think God is answerable to them, not the other way around.

The writers of posts on this forum are answerable to us. When God starts posting, you may have a point.

 

[Belk]

Atheists seems to think God is answerable to them, not the other way around.

Never meet your god, but I have run into many of his followers who presume to speak in his name with his authority. I reject said assumption of authority on their part.

 

[crazyforgod1212]

Why would you embed a history into an apple that never happened, if not to fool people into thinking that the apple had a history?

His ways are not your ways. Your arrogance is sickening.

When God starts posting, you may have a point.

He already posted. He did it in a little book you might have heard of...

I reject said assumption of authority on their part.

Rejecting reality doesn't make it go away.

 

[Loudmouth]

His ways are not your ways. Your arrogance is sickening.

Says who? You?

Is God answerable to you? Are you saying that God can not embed a fake history that is indistinguishable from a real history because you say so?

He already posted. He did it in a little book you might have heard of...

No, that was written by humans, just as your posts are.

Rejecting reality doesn't make it go away.

Rejecting what reality? All you have given us is beliefs.

 

[Belk]

His ways are not your ways. Your arrogance is sickening.



He already posted. He did it in a little book you might have heard of...



Rejecting reality doesn't make it go away.

You are not God. You do not speak in God's place. That is reality.

 

[crazyforgod1212]

Are you saying that God can not embed a fake history that is indistinguishable from a real history because you say so?

Because the Bible clearly states God is not a liar. You're the one saying he is.

No, that was written by humans, just as your posts are.

I'm writing this on a keyboard, using it as a medium. Is my computer posting, or am I?

Rejecting what reality?

The one in front of your face!

 

[Loudmouth]

Because the Bible clearly states God is not a liar. You're the one saying he is.

Men wrote the Bible. Why would God be answerable to the writings of men?

I am saying that God can do whatever God wants to do, including creating a false history meant to fool us.

I'm writing this on a keyboard, using it as a medium. Is my computer posting, or am I?

Can you point to the posts where God used a computer?

The one in front of your face!

You mean the one with an Earth that has a 4.5 billion year history?

 

[crazyforgod1212]

Men wrote the Bible

God wrote through men!

Can you point to the posts where God used a computer?

It's an analogy. I thought you would have appreciated it, atheists like you tend to love them when they change the subject.

You mean the one with an Earth that has a 4.5 billion year history?

What do you base that on? Assumptions?

 

[PsychoSarah]

It isn't assumed, certainly not to the extent that the bible being written by god through men is an assumption.

 

[crazyforgod1212]

It isn't assumed, certainly not to the extent that the bible being written by god through men is an assumption.

Once again, trying to change the subject.

Show the Earth is 4.5 billion years old without using assumptions.

 

[Loudmouth]

God wrote through men!

According to who? Men?

It's an analogy. I thought you would have appreciated it, atheists like you tend to love them when they change the subject.

Your analogy fails because humans can write all on their own.

What do you base that on? Assumptions?

We base it on observations.

If you think I am wrong, the please tell me what features a real 4.5 billion year history would produce, and how the Earth is lacking those features.

Can you tell us what uranium radiohaloes would look like if they were really produced over millions of years, and how the uranium radiohaloes we do see lack these features?
Creation Science Book Review, Thousands...Not Billions, Chapter 5: Radiohalos in Granite

 

[Loudmouth]

Once again, trying to change the subject.

Show the Earth is 4.5 billion years old without using assumptions.

We find that planet formation started 4.5 billion years ago in our solar system by radiometric dating of meteors. These are based on observations, not assumptions. We can observe how isotopes are incorporated or excluded when rock forms. We can observe the rate of decay for isotopes. We can observe those same consistent laws are in effect in distant astronomical bodies. All of this is observed.

 

[crazyforgod1212]

We find that planet formation started 4.5 billion years ago in our solar system by radiometric dating of meteors. These are based on observations, not assumptions. We can observe how isotopes are incorporated or excluded when rock forms. We can observe the rate of decay for isotopes. We can observe those same consistent laws are in effect in distant astronomical bodies. All of this is observed.

You assume you can do all these things.

Were you there?

 

[PsychoSarah]

You assume you can do all these things.

Were you there?

4.5 billion years ago? No, but were you there when god created the universe in a week? This argument is useless.

 

[Loudmouth]

You assume you can do all these things.

I assume no such thing. The decay rates of isotopes are directly observed in the lab.

The chemistry of zircon formation has been confirmed in the lab. When a zircon forms, it excludes Pb and includes U.

We have also confirmed decay rates in history. It is not assumed. Two examples are supernovae 1987a and the Oklo reactors.

Supernova 1987a

CF210: Constancy of Radioactive Decay Rates

Were you there?

The rocks were there, and the tell us the history of our solar system.

 

[crazyforgod1212]

4.5 billion years ago? No, but were you there when god created the universe in a week? This argument is useless.

There's this book...

 

[Loudmouth]

There's this book...

Were you there for the writing of the book?