My Raisin Bread Challenge

[AV1611VET]

Do you guys want to yak this thread to death, or do you want to answer the OP with a simple YES or NO?

(My guess is that you're too smart to.)

Mark 11:31 And they reasoned with themselves, saying, If we shall say, From heaven; he will say, Why then did ye not believe him?
Mark 11:32 But if we shall say, Of men; they feared the people: for all men counted John, that he was a prophet indeed.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Do you guys want to yak this thread to death, or do you want to answer the OP with a simple YES or NO?

(My guess is that you're too smart to.)

We already have - my answer was 'yes'. But this is a forum, we come here to talk about science and philosophy, religion and ethics. If you wanted a YES or NO, you should use the poll function.

I have a piece of string. Is it long? YES or NO - no discussion!

 

[AV1611VET]

We already have - my answer was 'yes'.

If this ...

Traditionally, but not necessarily.

... is your idea of a 'yes', then my point stands.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

If this ...

... is your idea of a 'yes', then my point stands.

Why? People are traditionally fertilised in wombs, but with the advent of IVF that isn't necessarily always the case. That doesn't make them any less of a person, nor does it make ex nihilo raisins any less raisin. The 'yes' is as solid as ever.

 

[AV1611VET]

Why? People are traditionally fertilised in wombs, but with the advent of IVF that isn't necessarily always the case. That doesn't make them any less of a person, nor does it make ex nihilo raisins any less raisin. The 'yes' is as solid as ever.

Well, it's certainly nice to know that someone has to appeal to in-vitro fertilization to tell me I'm 'traditionally, but not necessarily' being deceptive ... whatever that means.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

What is it with you people and your stupid challenges? First the banana challenge, then the peanut butter challenge, then the Christopher Hitchens challenge, and now this. What purpose does this serve, exactly?

 

[verysincere]

Why? People are traditionally fertilised in wombs, but with the advent of IVF that isn't necessarily always the case. That doesn't make them any less of a person, nor does it make ex nihilo raisins any less raisin. The 'yes' is as solid as ever.

AV invents definitions as needed so you will never get anywhere with him on this thread. (After all, he has proudly told us "Evidence can take a hike!" So reality doesn't matter to him.)

For deception to be involved in the OP, there must be a CONFLICT with some other statement or representation made by the party. Thus, when Jesus made wine at the wedding at Cana (not ex nihilo, by the way, because he made the wine from water), it was not a deception---because he never told anyone something like "I spent the last of my money solving your wine shortage" or even "This wine I brought for you aged for four years." If someone insists that the act of making wine from water was deceptive---because it SUGGESTED a natural process behind the scenes----then ALL miracles would automatically be defined as deceptions.

The reason it makes complete sense for critics of "embedded age creation" interpretations of Genesis to call that "invented doctrine" deceptive is because it would mean that God's Book of Creation and God's Book of Scriptures make contradictory statements about the age of the earth. (That is, if Genesis truly describes a YOUNG earth while the evidence throughout the universe points to an OLD earth, then theologians would declare that a contradiction between special revelation and general revelation, the long-standing terms for God's "two books.") AV1611VET doesn't understand that fact---and that is why he concocted this thread in an effort to defended his favorite traditions about Bible interpretation and his denial of the evidence seen throughout creation.

AV wants to us to believe that God's scriptures can be trusted (as long as we use his arbitrary favorite as superior, the King James of 1611) but that God's creation CANNOT be trusted----because the evidence from that creation "can take a hike." AV thinks we can trust God's Bible but not God's Creation. He will deny that and say, "No, I just don't trust man's interpretations of the created world." Yet, he wants us to trust the human interpretations of the Bible coming from a relatively small group of Christians, his King James Only faction which declares its Bible superior even to the original Hebrew and Greek texts of scripture! [I never promised that his view would make any logical sense so don't blame me.]

 

[AV1611VET]

What is it with you people and your stupid challenges? First the banana challenge, then the peanut butter challenge, then the Christopher Hitchens challenge, and now this. What purpose does this serve, exactly?

Don't forget my Apple Challenge, my Taj Mahal Challenge, my Mariana Trench Challenge, my Canoe Challenge and my Milliard Fillmore Challenge ... to name a few.

 

[Jro]

What is it with you people and your stupid challenges? First the banana challenge, then the peanut butter challenge, then the Christopher Hitchens challenge, and now this. What purpose does this serve, exactly?

NO ONE LIKES MY RAISINBREAD CHALLANGE

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

Don't forget my Apple Challenge, my Taj Mahal Challenge, my Mariana Trench Challenge, my Canoe Challenge and my Milliard Fillmore Challenge ... to name a few.

You're just supporting my point. After seeing all these challenges, the only conclusion I've come to is NEITHER SIDE CAN MAKE A PROPER CHALLENGE.

 

[verysincere]

Postscript:
Isn't it interesting: Many of the same people who deny the theory of evolution and the Big Bang Theory say that they object because "something can't come from nothing". Yet, what is their traditional view of Genesis 1? "Creation ex nihilo"=creation from nothing! So even when they THINK that a scientific theory says something that they would normally in other contexts teach as absolute fact (e.g., creation ex nihilo), they rant against science and say, "Creation from nothing is impossible!"

Even as a Christian myself I have always found that "contrarian" duplicity maddening. Even though the Big Bang Theory is NOT about "something from nothing" per se, many have decided to hate the theory passionately so logic plays no role in anything about it.

So remember: Many creationist Christian love the phrase "creation ex nihilo" --- until they think that they hear a scientist saying it!

 

[pgp_protector]

I create a loaf of raisin bread ex nihilo.

Am I being deceptive? if so, how?

John 8:6 This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.

 

[verysincere]

What is it with you people and your stupid challenges?

I didn't want to say it....but.....the people exhibiting that behavior which you describe are......well......"challenged." And some are "challenged" much more than others.

 

[Loudmouth]

I create a loaf of raisin bread ex nihilo.

Am I being deceptive? if so, how?

If you are using this analogy to describe the Earth, then you need to include 4.5 billion years worth of historical events into the raisin bread, including radioactive decay, meteor impacts, etc.

 

[AV1611VET]

If you are using this analogy to describe the Earth, then you need to include 4.5 billion years worth of historical events...

Starting with what, specifically? what was the very first historical event?

 

[Loudmouth]

Starting with what, specifically? what was the very first historical event?

We could point to the tektites created by the 65 million year old Chixulub meteor impact:

In addition to shocked quartz grains and high concentrations of iridium, the K-T impact produced tektites, which are small glass spherules that form from rock that is instantaneously melted by a large impact. The K-T tektites were ejected into the atmosphere and deposited some distance away. Tektites are easily recognizable and form in no other way, so the discovery of a sedimentary bed (the Beloc Formation) in Haiti that contained tektites and that, from fossil evidence, coincided with the K-T boundary provided an obvious candidate for dating. Scientists from the US Geological Survey were the first to obtain radiometric ages for the tektites and laboratories in Berkeley, Stanford, Canada, and France soon followed suit. The results from all of the laboratories were remarkably consistent with the measured ages ranging only from 64.4 to 65.1 Ma (Table 2). Similar tektites were also found in Mexico, and the Berkeley lab found that they were the same age as the Haiti tektites. But the story doesn’t end there.
Radiometeric Dating Does Work! | NCSE

​

So we have a 65 million year history of 40K decay (resulting in the measured argon) in these tektites, not to mention the multiple other methods used that also returned the same exact dates.

 

[Jamin4422]

Starting with what, specifically? what was the very first historical event?

The first event was: "God said".

 

[Loudmouth]

The first event was: "God said".

That was a very recent event that occurred when men wrote the Bible.

 

[CabVet]

Do you guys want to yak this thread to death, or do you want to answer the OP with a simple YES or NO?

I already answered, if it was created 5 minutes ago, looking like it was created 5 minutes ago and you said it was created 5 minutes ago, then YES, you are being honest.

 

[AV1611VET]

If you are using this analogy to describe the Earth, then you need to include 4.5 billion years worth of historical events into the raisin bread, including radioactive decay, meteor impacts, etc.

Starting with what, specifically? what was the very first historical event?

We could point to the tektites created by the 65 million year old Chixulub meteor impact:

... What happened to the first 4.435 billion years?

How do you have an impact on earth, when you don't even have an earth yet?

If you meant the tektites, instead of the impact, I asked for an event.