Once again, CREATIONISTS!

[AV1611VET]

Well, see that is the real difference between real christians and those who assume a role. I'd love for you and everyone else to find CHRIST and be all together in heaven. I don't wish to see anyone miss the boat.

Seconded ---

 

[Allister]

Like I said, Allister, if an apple is too hard to comprehend, use a fork, a rope, a car --- replace it with anything.

All I'm asking is what evidence would you use to convince your friend I did this?

I contend that the correct answer this side of omniscience is, "none."

And that answer should satisfy the OP.

No, AV, an apple is not too hard to comprehend. No matter what object you use, a fork, car, rope, whatever, it will be created as a copy of the original, and will therefore contain the same properties, design, history, age, whatever you want, flaws and all. The universe, however, when created by God, which, I assume, wasn't a copy, should not have any sign of embedded age, history, or whatever, if it was created ex nihilo. If the universe does contain history and embedded age, which it clearly does, we must ask why. The only answer i can think of is that God wished to show age therefore deceiving us.

 

[AV1611VET]

The universe, however, when created by God...

Allister, let's leave God out of my Apple Challenge, okay? In fact, let's focus on only four things here:

• you
• me
• an apple
• your friend

Anything else is just unnecessarily convoluting the hypothetical.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

I think we are all talking past each other here.

AV1611VET says that there is no evidence supporting creationism, everybody else says that there is no evidence supporting creationism - albeit for different reasons.

Can't we all just get along?

 

[FishFace]

Until that rook appears suddenly next to your king. Where did it come from? Ex Nihilo!

More like ex manuleus!

 

[FishFace]

The answer is simply this: No --- not outside of the Bible.

So why should we believe you?
You may answer the question, "why should we believe the Bible" and that'd do.

But if you say, because it makes and fulfills X predictions you are both going to have to justify your value of X and more importantly justify why we should believe a book because it writes that its own predictions were fulfilled.

 

[Loudmouth]

Like I said, Allister, if an apple is too hard to comprehend, use a fork, a rope, a car --- replace it with anything.

All I'm asking is what evidence would you use to convince your friend I did this?

I contend that the correct answer this side of omniscience is, "none."

And that answer should satisfy the OP.

Using a myth to explain a myth is not getting us anywhere.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

So why should we believe you?
You may answer the question, "why should we believe the Bible" and that'd do.

But if you say, because it makes and fulfills X predictions you are both going to have to justify your value of X and more importantly justify why we should believe a book because it writes that its own predictions were fulfilled.

The OP asked for evidence outside of scripture and PRATTS. No such evidence exists. Most creationists won't acknowledge that but AV uses his version of the Omphalos Hypothesis to try to explain why there is no evidence.

 

[Patashu]

You didn't take if from the kitchen though, did you? I (that's me) put it in your hand myself, right? Please focus on the scenario, or you'll confuse yourself.

The point I'm making is, if you make an apple ex nihilo then give it to me and then my mother comes in, she'll be unlikely to believe my claims that the apple appeared ex nihilo as I could have grabbed one from the fruit bowl, from the corner store, etc
If we did the same thing in the middle of a desert after the strip search and everything, the chance is now more likely as there are less non-supernatural avenues by which you could have given me an apple.

 

[Allister]

Allister, let's leave God out of my Apple Challenge, okay? In fact, let's focus on only four things here:

• you
• me
• an apple
• your friend

Anything else is just unnecessarily convoluting the hypothetical.

I'm not taking your apple challenge. I don't think there is a way to test if it was created ex nihilo or not. It is completely irrelevant if it was or was not, what matters is the world we find ourselves in and the abundant evidences in favour of an ancient universe.

Now. back to my statement...

The universe, however, when created by God, which, I assume, wasn't a copy, should not have any sign of embedded age, history, or whatever, if it was created ex nihilo. If the universe does contain history and embedded age, which it clearly does, we must ask why. The only answer i can think of is that God wished to show age therefore deceiving us.

 

[AV1611VET]

So why should we believe you?
You may answer the question, "why should we believe the Bible" and that'd do.

But if you say, because it makes and fulfills X predictions you are both going to have to justify your value of X and more importantly justify why we should believe a book because it writes that its own predictions were fulfilled.

What does this have to do with the OP?

 

[AV1611VET]

Using a myth to explain a myth is not getting us anywhere.

MrGoodBytes gets it.

 

[AV1611VET]

The point I'm making is, if you make an apple ex nihilo then give it to me and then my mother comes in, she'll be unlikely to believe my claims that the apple appeared ex nihilo as I could have grabbed one from the fruit bowl, from the corner store, etc

And she would be wrong not to believe your claims, wouldn't she?

 

[LittleNipper]

Have you already forgotten what the topic of this thread is already? If you want evidence for evolution, Google is just a click away.
Must... resist urge.. to post.. wrestling video....

If you want evidence for creationism, simply read your Bible (if you have one) and visit the numerous creation sites across the Internet.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

If you want evidence for creationism, simply read your Bible (if you have one) and visit the numerous creation sites across the Internet.

The OP asked for evidence outside of the various creationist interpretations of scripture and the numerous creation sites are loaded with PRATTS and examples of logical fallacies particularly hasty generalization the false dichotomy..

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm not taking your apple challenge.

That's your prerogative.

I don't think there is a way to test if it was created ex nihilo or not.

All you have to do is humor me. Just pretend I did it. It's nothing more than a hypothetical. Don't worry about testing it; just tell me what evidence you would use to convince your friend I did this.

It is completely irrelevant if it was or was not...

Au contraire --- we're talking about "creation science" here --- and the only science behind it is a one-time act of God called ex nihilo creation that left no trail behind.

Now. back to my statement...

Wow --- you aren't going to answer me --- but you want me to answer you. Okay, I'll show who's willing and who's not.

The universe, however, when created by God, which, I assume, wasn't a copy, should not have any sign of embedded age, history, or whatever, if it was created ex nihilo.

What on earth [pardon the pun] is a "sign of embedded age?" Age is age; and embedded age, as I have defined it here, is maturity without history.

If the universe does contain history and embedded age, which it clearly does, we must ask why.

In Genesis 1, the universe either contained history or embedded age, not both. It's one or the other.

The only answer i can think of is that God wished to show age therefore deceiving us.

I totally disagree.

 

[AV1611VET]

If you want evidence for creationism, simply read your Bible (if you have one) and visit the numerous creation sites across the Internet.

I'm starting to think a better term for it is Omnipotent Creation and just stick with the ex-nihilo explanation as God's method of choice; but watch, the very next post is going to say: That's equally mythical.

I'm going to go change my profile.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

MrGoodBytes gets it.

I get it only as far as I recognize that you and we both accept the facts: there is no evidence for creation.

The conclusion you draw, however, is utterly irrational. You invented an analogy where a real event A leaves no evidence, and conclude that since we have no evidence for another event B in the real world, this event B actually happened. That's so very wrong that I'm not sure if there is even a name for this type of fallacy.

 

[LittleNipper]

The OP asked for evidence outside of the various creationist interpretations of scripture and the numerous creation sites are loaded with PRATTS and examples of logical fallacies particularly hasty generalization the flase dichotomy..

And I ask for evidence outside evolutionist circles and get none. And numbers do not count. In pagan Rome the majority of people living were pagans. That did not make Christians turn from Christianity. The lions didn't even change their minds, it would seem. So were the pagans right because that is what their society expected? It would appear not.

 

[AV1611VET]

I get it only as far as I recognize that you and we both accept the facts: there is no evidence for creation.

The conclusion you draw, however, is utterly irrational. You invented an analogy where a real event A leaves no evidence, and conclude that since we have no evidence for another event B in the real world, this event B actually happened. That's so very wrong that I'm not sure if there is even a name for this type of fallacy.

Event A = creatio ex nihilo = no evidence.
Event B = creatio ex nihilo = no evidence.

What don't you understand?

If I read your post right, you're saying I'm saying it this way:

Event A = creatio ex nihilo = no evidence.
Event B = no evidence - therefore = creatio ex nihilo.

Correct me please if I'm wrong.