Once again, CREATIONISTS!

[Split Rock]

Did you see my answer how it can be done --- with omniscience?

Do you not see that anything can be done via omniscience?

 

[Phred]

The point of my Apple Challenge is to show that there is no evidence for ex nihilo Creation this side of omniscience.

Thus, only an all-powerful Creator God can do it; and not only that, He would have to document it.

But there would be evidence. HOW did he do it? If you'd read past my first sentence you'd realize the proof isn't in the apple but in the few moments before the apple appears. There's TONS of evidence that only the creator could know. And what do we get? A book that looks like it was written by desert nomads.

Explain to me how you arrange the matter after you create it... then I'll be willing to listen to the matter-creation part.

 

[tanzanos]

I really would like to hear from creationists on the following:

How do they explain using the computer over the internet when such is not possible under the creation standards of not accepting science in any form?

I challenge creationists (this goes for you too AV1) to answer the above question. "God does it" or "is behind it" is NOT an answer.

 

[Deadbolt]

I've been thinking about AV1's apple silliness and it occurs to me just how silly it really is.
We are presented with a phenomena, that of an apple appearing from thing air in our hand. Knowing full well it has been proven that matter cannot be created or destroyed, why do we accept that this is precisely what has occurred? It certainly appears to be a paranormal event but this does not mean that it has been created on the spot, even if it is lacking a a stem and the aforementioned structures
It could have been teleported from another location. It could be an illusion affecting all five senses or it could have been assembled from preexisting molecules. All amazing occurrences which are currently held to be impossible, but nowhere near actually creating matter from nothing. Therefore AV1's apple challenge is utterly flawed and ought to be abandoned post haste before he makes (more of) an ass of himself.

 

[Psudopod]

Did you see my answer how it can be done --- with omniscience?

You've missed my point. Humans aren't omniscient. If that's the only way to tell, we can never tell. However, we can use a human senses and come up with models for the universe, that give testable, repeatable results. We can learn about the world around us and get useful information out of it. This is science.

Even if the world was created 6000 years ago, nothing useful comes of knowing this, becuase it doesn't fit with what we see. You've gone out of your way with your example to show we cannot tell the differnce between a natural apple and a created one, so you can't disagree with this.

Thus even if 6000 creation is true, it is useless as a theory. People believe in God just fine without it, it doesn't help us understand the world and gives us no beneficial results.

 

[Loudmouth]

While you're laughing, keep in mind that in the hypothetical, I created the apple ex nihilo, not God.

My apple is simply an apple --- stem and all --- ripe and ready for eating.

Why would it have a stem if it was never attached to a tree? What you have done is given your created apple a false history, and Omphalos type creation.

Your stem is completely homologous to a belly button. The belly button is evidence that a person was once attached to a placenta by an umbilical cord. The stem is analogous to an umbilical cord.

As I told those who think this stem and calyx thing is a pwn to my challenge (Loudmouth, I think), I'm not even sure there were apples in the Garden, as God created "kinds" back then, and "kinds" also refer to the flora as well.

We are talking about your apple challenge. Why did you give your apple evidence of a non-existent history?

Either way, I'm sure no one was "fooled" by anything.

I think we all know who the fool is.

 

[LittleNipper]

[/i]

You've missed my point. Humans aren't omniscient. If that's the only way to tell, we can never tell. However, we can use a human senses and come up with models for the universe, that give testable, repeatable results. We can learn about the world around us and get useful information out of it. This is science.

Even if the world was created 6000 years ago, nothing useful comes of knowing this, becuase it doesn't fit with what we see. You've gone out of your way with your example to show we cannot tell the differnce between a natural apple and a created one, so you can't disagree with this.

Thus even if 6000 creation is true, it is useless as a theory. People believe in God just fine without it, it doesn't help us understand the world and gives us no beneficial results.

As far as I know, no human has created a universe or brought about an additional universe (even in miniature) by splitting an atom. Explosions only cause chaos and that reality is repeatable and not your theory.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

As far as I know, no human has created a universe or brought about an additional universe (even in miniature) by splitting an atom. Explosions only cause chaos and that reality is repeatable and not your theory.

Nobody ever claimed that split atoms or explosions create new universes.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

88 posts on this thread prior to this one and still no evidence for creationism has been presented. Just vain attempts to distract attention from the fact that there is no evidence beyond a literal interpretation of a 2500+ year old book of Jewish origin stories which is no evidence at all.

 

[Split Rock]

I really would like to hear from creationists on the following:

How do they explain using the computer over the internet when such is not possible under the creation standards of not accepting science in any form?

I challenge creationists (this goes for you too AV1) to answer the above question. "God does it" or "is behind it" is NOT an answer.

oh no... now you've done it. AVET will respond by quoting from the Book of Job, where it clearly predicts the coming of the internet.

 

[AV1611VET]

88 posts on this thread prior to this one and still no evidence for creationism has been presented.

In my opinion we'll go another 88 pages w/o evidence being presented, either.

 

[Phred]

In my opinion we'll go another 88 pages w/o evidence being presented, either.

But there would BE evidence to be presented. Only you refuse to read past the first sentence. You have but to tell us HOW your god created and there is the evidence of creation. Instead we get fairy tales and nonsense such as Genesis. Stupidity such as your apple challenge, which has been thoroughly dispatched here.

HOW AV... HOW? When you can tell us that, then you'll have your evidence, as will we all. Until then, there is no creation science and no valid creationism. Not because there can be no evidence, but because there is no evidence of an event that never took place.

To use your words... pwned!

 

[AV1611VET]

But there would BE evidence to be presented.

No there wouldn't --- as I have said before --- so shall I say again --- there is no evidence for ex nihilo creation outside of the Bible --- I double-challenge you to find it.

You have but to tell us HOW your god created and there is the evidence of creation.

Ex nihilo --- that's how.

Ex nihilo is a Latin term meaning "out of nothing". It is often used in conjunction with the term creation, as in creatio ex nihilo, meaning "creation out of nothing". Due to the nature of this term, it is often used in philosophical or creationistic arugments, as many Christians, Muslims and Jews believe that God created the universe from nothing. This contrasts with "creatio ex materia," which is creation out of eternally preexistent matter, and "creatio ex deo," which is creation out of the being of God.

Instead we get fairy tales and nonsense such as Genesis.

Jesus quoted from both Genesis 1 and 2, and I think I will too.

Stupidity such as your apple challenge, which has been thoroughly dispatched here.

No one has dispatched my Apple Challenge --- it is a valid question with a valid, scientific answer.

HOW AV... HOW?

Ex nihilo --- learn it --- because if you can't get past Genesis 1, you're in for a doosey of a ride, as it only gets harder from there.

When you can tell us that, then you'll have your evidence, as will we all.

No you won't --- I promise you, you won't. Now I triple-dawg-dare you to take my challenge and prove your point.

Until then, there is no creation science and no valid creationism.

You're half right --- creation science doesn't exist, unless you're willing to count ex nihilo as scientific. (I have no problem with that.)

Not because there can be no evidence, but because there is no evidence of an event that never took place.

Take the en off that word, and we're on the same page.

Lack of evidence is not a valid reason for saying it didn't happen.

 

[Loudmouth]

No one has dispatched my Apple Challenge --- it is a valid question with a valid, scientific answer.

I think it is time that you fess up and call it the Omphalos Apple Challenge. Your idea of creationism is no different than Last Thursdayism.

 

[AV1611VET]

I think it is time that you fess up and call it the Omphalos Apple Challenge. Your idea of creationism is no different than Last Thursdayism.

You'd love me too, wouldn't you? Then those who call me YEC would pout I'm Omphalos.

Anything to get away from embedded age, right?

 

[Loudmouth]

You'd love me too, wouldn't you? Then those who call me YEC would pout I'm Omphalos.

Anything to get away from embedded age, right?

No pouting, just pointing it out. Your creator is a deceiver.

And it is embedded history, not embedded age. The stem on the apple implies a history of sap moving between the apple and the tree, a history that never occured. The age of an apple is not determined by the presence or absence of a stem.

 

[Vene]

You'd love me too, wouldn't you? Then those who call me YEC would pout I'm Omphalos.

Anything to get away from embedded age, right?

I'm still not clear how embedded age is different from embedded history.

 

[AV1611VET]

No pouting, just pointing it out. Your creator is a deceiver.

Is He now? A deceiver wouldn't document what He did, when He did it, and how He did it, would He?

And like I've pointed out before, your choice of words (deceiver) is a little more than coincidental, in light of:

[bible]Matthew 27:63[/bible]

I have a feeling you guys who claim God is a deceiver would fit right in.

And it is embedded history, not embedded age. The stem on the apple implies a history of sap moving between the apple and the tree, a history that never occured. The age of an apple is not determined by the presence or absence of a stem.

Well, if I created an apple into the palm of your hand ex nihilo, and you started whinning that it's an Oomphalos apple, then I'd have to find someone else to offer the million dollars to, wouldn't I?

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm still not clear how embedded age is different from embedded history.

q.v.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Is He now? A deceiver wouldn't document what He did, when He did it, and how He did it, would He?

Only a deceiver would document a story of a young earth with a global flood while creating a universe and earth with massive evidence that both existed for billions of years and massive evidence that there had never been a global flood.

And like I've pointed out before, your choice of words (deceiver) is a little more than coincidental, in light of:

[bible]Matthew 27:63[/bible]

I have a feeling you guys who claim God is a deceiver would fit right in.

We are not the ones claiming God is a deceiver. You are. You are just too clueless to realize it.

Well, if I created an apple into the palm of your hand ex nihilo, and you started whinning that it's an Oomphalos apple, then I'd have to find someone else to offer the million dollars to, wouldn't I?

1. you can't create an apple. 2. If you claimed to have created an apple with a stem and some bruises and maybe a wormhole or two we would say that was an apple that certainly looked like it grew in nature and suspect that you had pulled some trick on us.