Once again, CREATIONISTS!

[MrGoodBytes]

Okay --- I'll go that route for a moment --- even though it wasn't a "trick."

You get a camera. I comply and put a second apple into the palm of your hand, this time in front of the camera. You take it to your friend, show him the video, and he believes you --- for that apple.

What evidence would you show him though, that I created the first apple ex nihilo?

Well, he now knows that you are indeed able to create apples ex nihilo - why shouldn't he? If a complete stranger shows me the result of a very difficult task he claims to be able to perform, I'd believe that he really did it if he lets me watch him do it a second time.

And he would be wrong in not believing you, wouldn't he?

Yes, he would.

 

[AV1611VET]

Well, he now knows that you are indeed able to create apples ex nihilo - why shouldn't he? If a complete stranger shows me the result of a very difficult task he claims to be able to perform, I'd believe that he really did it if he lets me watch him do it a second time.

IOW --- none --- right? It would be a matter of faith, would it not?

 

[MrGoodBytes]

IOW --- none --- right? It would be a matter of faith, would it not?

No, it would be a matter of evidence. Evidence that you can indeed do what you claim to do. If you create an apple in front of me, it would be reasonable to believe you when you show me a second apple and claim you created that one too.

 

[Loudmouth]

click here

I pwned your apple challenge here.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Meanwhile NO evidence for creationism has been presented.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, it would be a matter of evidence. Evidence that you can indeed do what you claim to do. If you create an apple in front of me, it would be reasonable to believe you when you show me a second apple and claim you created that one too.

Didn't you just tell me that you would take that video of me creating the second apple, and use it as evidence that I created the first apple?

In other words, your friend would accept the first apple's creation by faith --- not by sight.

[bible]Hebrews 11:3[/bible]

 

[MrGoodBytes]

Didn't you just tell me that you would take that video of me creating the second apple, and use it as evidence that I created the first apple?

In other words, your friend would accept the first apple's creation by faith --- not by sight.

He saw you doing what you claimed you were able to do. That is not faith by any definition.

 

[AV1611VET]

I pwned your apple challenge here.

You didn't do diddly with that.

 

[AV1611VET]

He saw you doing what you claimed you were able to do. That is not faith by any definition.

He saw me create the second apple, not the first; and if he ends up believing in the first apple, then it's on faith, not sight.

In fact, he wouldn't even know the first apple was ex nihilo, if you hadn't of told him.

So I contend that even if we had a video of God creating, say, Mars ex nihilo, it wouldn't make any difference to you armchair scientists.

You'd just be saying, "Show me He created Earth, ex nihilo; then I'll believe it."

 

[TheOutsider]

Meanwhile NO evidence for creationism has been presented.

I wouldn't hold my breath if I was you.

You didn't do diddly with that.

I think that he did a pretty good job of pwning it. We could bring it to a vote if you'd like.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

He saw me create the second apple, not the first; and if he ends up believing in the first apple, then it's on faith, not sight.

In fact, he wouldn't even know the first apple was ex nihilo, if you hadn't of told him.

So I contend that even if we had a video of God creating, say, Mars ex nihilo, it wouldn't make any difference to you armchair scientists.

You'd just be saying, "Show me He created Earth, ex nihilo; then I'll believe it."

It is not just that there is no evidence that God created the earth ex nihilo 6,000 years ago, there is massive evidence that the earth has been around for far more than 6,000 years.

Your version of the Omphalos hypothesis may be unfalsifiable if God is a deceiver who deliberately made an earth with 4.5 billion years of apparent history and then not only covered up all evidence of the global flood he created but also created massive evidence that no such flood occured but it has all the philosophical problems of the orginal Omphalos hypothesis.

Now since you have admited that there is no evidence for creationism why don't go away and let some other YEC have a try (and you are a YEC whether you admit it or not, remember if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck etc. ) Or do you just want to keep distracting attention from the fact that there is no evidence for creationism?

 

[LittleNipper]

It is not just that there is no evidence that God created the earth ex nihilo 6,000 years ago, there is massive evidence that the earth has been around for far more than 6,000 years.

Your version of the Omphalos hypothesis may be unfalsifiable if God is a deceiver who deliberately made an earth with 4.5 billion years of apparent history and then not only covered up all evidence of the global flood he created but also created massive evidence that no such flood occured but it has all the philosophical problems of the orginal Omphalos hypothesis.

Now since you have admited that there is no evidence for creationism why don't go away and let some other YEC have a try (and you are a YEC whether you admit it or not, remember if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck etc. ) Or do you just want to keep distracting attention from the fact that there is no evidence for creationism?

God made Adam a perfect 30 year old man. If ignorance is going to insist that 2 billion years is necessary to establish an environmentally stable world, then there is nothing GOD is going to do to dissuade that religious logic outside of a salvation revelation/awakening.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

God made Adam a perfect 30 year old man. If ignorance is going to insist that 2 billion years is necessary to establish an environmentally stable world, then there is nothing GOD is going to do to dissuade that religious logic outside of a salvation revelation/awakening.

A belief that the world is only 6,000 years old requires either ignorance or ignore-ance of geology and many other aspects of science so please don't call those who know far more than you about these topics ignorant. Now are you invoking the deceptive God of the Omphalos Hypothesis. OK but that still leaves you with no evidence for creationism.

 

[Loudmouth]

You didn't do diddly with that.

Then go back to that thread and refute my argument. This is my Apple Challenge. Are you brave enough to attempt it?

 

[Loudmouth]

God made Adam a perfect 30 year old man.

Did God create Adam with a belly button?

Did you create your Apple with a calyx, stem, and internal vasculature that denote a development period that the Apple never went through?

 

[Loudmouth]

Oh, for Pete's sake --- I stopped right here, Phred.

No offense, if you don't want to take the challenge, don't; but don't try to unnecessarily convolute this to the point where the point I'm making can't be made.

Phred did take the challenge, and he won the challenge. Phred distinctly demonstrates that an apple created ex nihilo would necessarily lack features that a naturally occuring apple would have, such as a stem (as well as a calyx and internal vasculature). That is the evidence that the apple was created EN, because it could not have come about naturally.

 

[Deadbolt]

Still on this apple business? AV1 really is a one trick pony ain't he?

 

[Danyc]

Alright, AVI, just answer me this:

What's your point? What do you hope to prove by asking this question? Then I'll answer it.

 

[AV1611VET]

Alright, AVI, just answer me this:

What's your point? What do you hope to prove by asking this question? Then I'll answer it.

What question? Have we talked before? Maybe you're getting me mixed up with AV1611, who also posts here?

 

[AV1611VET]

Sorry, Deadbolt, you should have never started it --- as much as I've referenced people to my Apple Challenge.

(To tell you the truth, I'm waiting for Thaumaturgy to come on here and answer it in his own words. If he doesn't, I'll answer it, myself; unless someone comes up with the answer.)

Okay --- as promised --- here's the answer to my Apple Challenge:

You subtract the amount of mass/energy in the universe before I created the apple, from the amount of mass/energy in the universe after I created the apple, and the difference should be the amount of mass/energy of the apple.

This would serve as convincing evidence that the apple was created ex nihilo.

It's that simple --- but remember --- I said it required an amount of omniscience.