Raisin Bread

[MoonLancer]

Um ... MoonLancer ... the focus should actually be on the raisins, not the bread.

The raisins represent old things found in the earth; and just like dry* grapes enhance the bread, old things enhance the earth.

* Notice I am avoiding the use of the word 'dried', since the grapes came into existence already dried -- thus no passage of time necessitated.

If god created fossil bread with different layers and at the bottom of the bread there was simple life and at the top of the bread there was complex life and on the surface there was us living on the bread, that would be pretty darn deceptive i think. It would be deceptive if all the evidence points to one thing, and a bronze age manuscript pointed to another and he expect us to believe the manuscript and not all the variable empirical evidence, that would be deceptive.

 

[Split Rock]

That's why He admitted to what He did -- in Writing.

The Bible replaces any evidence He would have had to manufacture to convince us empirically.

In short, He convinces us through the heart, not through the empirical senses -- inside out, so to speak.

1. God didn't write the Bible and You Know It!
2. Your interpretation of The Bible is deeply Flawed.

 

[AV1611VET]

If it isn't silly, then go ahead and answer my questions.

No, thanks -- this thread is a poll; and I've done enough talking already.

And to be frank, I find you guys' reluctance to answer it typical of a lot of my questions.

You guys are scared to, in my opinion (and again, I'm just being frank).

Just like my 'antichrist poll'.

Read the comments; it's like a bunch of kids standing around the pool scared to jump in because they're afraid the water is too cold.

Even one poster starts out his comment with, "I smell..."

 

[Split Rock]

No, thanks -- this thread is a poll; and I've done enough talking already.

And to be frank, I find you guys' reluctance to answer it typical of a lot of my questions.

You guys are scared to, in my opinion (and again, I'm just being frank).

Just like my last poll.

Read the comments; it's like a bunch of guys standing around the pool scared to jump in because they're afraid the water is too cold.

Even one poster starts out one of his comments with, "I smell..."

I can't speak for anyone else, but the reason I didn't answer the question is because the question makes no sense. If it did, you would be able to answer the questions I asked you, which were all directly pertinent to the O.P. Why won't you answer them... are you scared to? Is the water too cold for you, AVET?

 

[MoonLancer]

What makes you so special that you can demand a one-on-one with God for the purpose of clarifying Genesis 1, when Christians are praying and asking God why their loved ones are lying in hospitals dying of cancer and whatnot?

doesn't god via bible (sake of argument) say we are all deserving of him?


That's a good qustion though. Why doesent god show up when "Christians are praying and asking God why their loved ones are lying in hospitals dying of cancer and whatnot?". I know why, do you?

I have a feeling that should God decide to grant you your demand and show up, the last thing on earth you would want to do is keep your appointment.

oh? seems a creature outside of time would have all the time in the world to answer questions like these.

 

[MoonLancer]

No, thanks -- this thread is a poll; and I've done enough talking already.

And to be frank, I find you guys' reluctance to answer it typical of a lot of my questions.

You guys are scared to, in my opinion (and again, I'm just being frank).

Just like my 'antichrist poll'.

Read the comments; it's like a bunch of kids standing around the pool scared to jump in because they're afraid the water is too cold.

Even one poster starts out his comment with, "I smell..."

Your metaphorical questions are deeply flawed. we point them out and you complain. big surprise.

 

[USincognito]

I'll take some ex nihlo banana bread.

At least that way I'll know Ray Comfort didn't molest the bananas.

 

[Mike Elphick]

but instead you find that a loaf of bread is quite complex and there are questions which you simply cannot answer in regard to this act of creation.

Um ... MoonLancer ... the focus should actually be on the raisins, not the bread.

And with that, you've destroyed your own argument, for anything containing ingredients cannot be the product of Creatio ex nihilo. And why's that? Because the ingredients have to be in existence beforehand.

Your magic bread could only have been made after its constituent ingredients became available, so God could not have made the raisin bread until day 6 of the Genesis creation account. Raisins come from grapes and butter, eggs and milk from animals, and the Bible tells us that vegetation was created before animals, so there is written evidence that he could just have made a raisin bread on day 3, but it would lack the butter, eggs and milk. Therefore, even in a biblical context, Creatio-ex-nihilo-raisin-bread contains history.

Some of the ingredients, like the flour and butter, are processed foods. If the bread were to be examined in detail and there is evidence that the flour had been ground from grain, then God is being deceptive because an 'instant' loaf cannot be made from pre-processed materials. If yeast cells are found in the loaf, it means either it was set to rise, in which case it can't be 'instant', or God made it appear it was left to rise and therefore was being deceptive in adding cells that were not actually required in its making.

If no ingredients show evidence of processing — the cow was not milked, the butter was not churned, the flour was not ground, the eggs had not been broken, the raisins had not been dried from grapes — then God is again being deceptive in making what might look like a raisin loaf, but which was actually a synthetic imitation more like a plastic model in a bakery shop window and probably having a ghastly taste.

The raisins represent old things found in the earth; and just like dry* grapes enhance the bread, old things enhance the earth.

* Notice I am avoiding the use of the word 'dried', since the grapes came into existence already dried -- thus no passage of time necessitated.

That just proves my point above. I don't know why I participate in such silly threads!

 

[AV1611VET]

And with that, you've destroyed your own argument, for anything containing ingredients cannot be the product of Creatio ex nihilo. And why's that? Because the ingredients have to be in existence beforehand.

You're confusing creatio ex nihilo with creatio ex materia.

When Jesus turned the water into wine @ Cana, does your argument apply?

When Jesus multiplied the bread and fish to feed the 5000, does your argument apply?

 

[Mike Elphick]

You're confusing creatio ex nihilo with creatio ex materia.

No, you are. A raisin is a dried (or 'dry', if you insist) grape, an INGREDIENT in other words. Therefore anything containing an INGREDIENT cannot be the product of your version of creatio ex nihilo — it has to be creatio ex materia.

When Jesus turned the water into wine @ Cana, does your argument apply?

When Jesus multiplied the bread and fish to feed the 5000, does your argument apply?

Attributing impossibilities to people is an age-old technique of elevating them into some higher domain. I don't believe Jesus did (and he had no need to) perform such 'miracles'.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, you are. A raisin is a dried (or 'dry', if you insist) grape, an INGREDIENT in other words. Therefore anything containing an INGREDIENT cannot be the product of your version of creatio ex nihilo — it has to be creatio ex materia.

Mike, first of all, I made it clear that these raisins are 'dry' raisins, not 'dried' raisins.

Don't overlook the difference between the two -- ('dry' is an adjective; 'dried' is a participle).

Second, the bread could not have been created ex nihilo, if it contained 'dried' raisins, since 'dried' involves a passage of time.

That's like saying Adam was created a grown man.

He wasn't -- he was created a mature man.

 

[Nabobalis]

If God created a loaf of raisin bread ex nihilo tomorrow, would you accuse Him of deception?

Yes since god put a date of birth on that raisin bread that was before the day he created it ex nihilo.

 

[Mike Elphick]

No, you are [confused about the difference between creation out of nothing and creation out of existing material]. A raisin is a dried (or 'dry', if you insist) grape, an INGREDIENT in other words. Therefore anything containing an INGREDIENT cannot be the product of your version of creatio ex nihilo — it has to be creatio ex materia.

Mike, first of all, I made it clear that these raisins are 'dry' raisins, not 'dried' raisins.

Don't overlook the difference between the two -- ('dry' is an adjective; 'dried' is a participle).

You're not going to pull semantic wool over my eyes with that! Was the raisin loaf made out of raisins or not? And are not dry raisins derived from grapes by the process of drying?

Second, the bread could not have been created ex nihilo, if it contained 'dried' raisins, since 'dried' involves a passage of time.

It's because you don't want any 'time' or 'history' to be involved, that you insisted on describing the raisins as dry rather than dried — that's your particular spin and cop-out.

Look, if the loaf contained raisins, it was made from raisins and could not have been created out of nothing. I'm surprised you can't see how ridiculous all this is. It's like you are claiming:-

The milk came before the cow
The eggs came before the chicken
The eggs were beaten before being laid
The butter came before it was churned
The flour came before any wheat had grown
The flour appeared before the wheat was ground
The grapes appeared before the vines were planted
The raisins were dry before being picked as grapes

These are the ingredients of a raisin loaf. The most omnipotent and omnificent raisin-loaf-creator-god could either make the ingredients instantly with the loaf and then decide, perhaps in the very same instant (but that goes against Genesis day-history) to create the sources of his materials (cows, vines, wheat etc., as in the list above) so as to cover up his deed — but that would be gross deception — OR the ingredients were already at hand, in which case it is creatio ex materia. That neither of these options would be acceptable to you demonstrates that your creatio ex nihilo raisin hypothesis is full of holes.

That's like saying Adam was created a grown man.

He wasn't -- he was created a mature man.

Embedded age there had to be, and that is a major headache for a literal interpretation of the Bible — a problem that you heroically attempt to solve with (flawed) inventions such as "maturity without history". You're quite brave since other YECists completely avoid mentioning this very thorny subject .

 

[Zalasta]

I don't understand the confusion about this, AV has explained adequately in later posts.

1. God creates a loaf of bread which contains no evidence of his creation method.
2. God could have made the bread so as to contain evidence it was created using said method.

He *chose* deliberately to make bread that would contain no evidence of the manner in which he created it. If that isn't deception, I don't know what is, can't get much clearer than that.


Of course if this were not a hypothetical situation, we would not know we were deceived, we would think it a real bread, made in the normal fashion, except for those people he would have 'let in' on the deception of course. But that is a rather evil trait.

In find that paints a rather curious picture of the proposed God, either he is a deceiver and has rather evil traits... or... that particular version of God does not exist. I find option B to be infinitely more likely.

 

[USincognito]

I don't understand the confusion about this, AV has explained adequately in later posts.

Really? That's what you don't understand? I'm still trying to work my way past why people respond to him at all after all these years.

He'll find another litter box to poop in if no one bothers scooping his contributions to this one.

 

[Cabal]

No, thanks -- this thread is a poll; and I've done enough talking already.

And to be frank, I find you guys' reluctance to answer it typical of a lot of my questions.

You guys are scared to, in my opinion (and again, I'm just being frank).

Then I'll be frank also, AV: ever consider that no-one trusts you when you post one of these things anymore, AV? That you play so fast and loose with the meanings of words, such as trying to redefine everyone as a creationist, arguing that terminology is equivalent to observation, saying that you consider scientist gifts while calling them fools, carelessly generalising your TE brethren into the same condemnations you dish out to atheists, and repeatedly trying to oversimplify complex situations in order to score points against science purely because you dislike that it disagrees with your personal opinion on origins.

Do you think that, perhaps, just perhaps, that kind of behaviour might be making people suspect of what reasoning goes into these challenge threads?

Just like my 'antichrist poll'.

Read the comments; it's like a bunch of kids standing around the pool scared to jump in because they're afraid the water is too cold.

Even one poster starts out his comment with, "I smell..."

Yeah, it would of course have nothing to do with the fact that you made a post either earlier that day or the day before saying that scientists would welcome the coming of the antiChrist.

Sorry, but I don't trust that thread or your motives for posting it one iota so hot on the heels of that post.

 

[AV1611VET]

... saying that you consider scientist gifts while calling them fools ...

Link please?

 

[Cabal]

Link please?

Not at the same time, obviously.

Doesn't mean the two statements match up.

 

[Zalasta]

Really? That's what you don't understand? I'm still trying to work my way past why people respond to him at all after all these years.

He'll find another litter box to poop in if no one bothers scooping his contributions to this one.

That actually made me laugh, I've always found AV to be a huge source of entertainment. I still haven't figured out if he's genuine or if he gets a kick out of riling people up, either could be true, but it doesn't matter much to me.

Even if AV's purpose is disingenuous, I commend him for his sheer creativity in trying to hide the logical paradoxes within the world-view he presents.

You do have a point when other threads are derailed, but this is one he started, I see no problems with it.

 

[driewerf]

Earlier, in another thread:

If God created a loaf of raisin bread tomorrow -- either ex nihilo or ex materia -- would that constitute deception?

(This is not a trick question, so just a YES or NO please, without the standard, "Depends on..." or paragraphs of rhetoric that could either be a YES or a NO, depending on which way my monitor is facing. It's a very simple question.)

What if, while that starving child was eating a slice, a scientist came along and said to him, "You know that bread was created by a deceptive God, don't you? It has raisins embedded in it. Do you know how long it takes for a grape to be dried?"

You do realize that you are ridiculing an example that can help you understand, don't you?

I don't believe God went the TE route, but I don't say it is 'silly'.

The point of this thread is that God cannot create a simple thing as a loaf of raisin bread without incurring the charge of 'deception', let alone a whole universe.

And while I don't believe in Omphalism, it's not because it is 'silly' or 'deceptive'.

I want to take the challenge here.

Look, let's for a while step into your nonsens and admit creation ex nihilo.
(Emphasizing: just for a while!)
Yes a loaf of bread would have embedded age. The raisins needed to look dried etc. Idem ditto (because that is what you 're aiming at): Adam had to bee mature. Otherwise he coulded function.

But.
The Earth and the Universe show so much unnecessary age and history.
There was no need for the thousands of extincted fossil species. There was no need for sedimentary rock layers, there was no need for traces of at least for major Ice Ages.
There was no need for glace layers extending to 160 000 years.
There was no need for magnetic strips on the floor of the Atlantic showing a spread of the ocean from at least 180 million years.

When we look at astronomy we see even more old features that are "unnecessary" for a non-deceptive creator.
We see white dwarfs, neutron stars and other very old stars. We see supernovas exploding - proof of stellar evolution and aging.
What is the purpose to create neutron stars which we can only detect wirth radio telescopes? What other prupose would they have except to be deceptive.

You will have to explain all this examples (and many others to come) before claiming yor god is not deceptive. Because all these features shout an old age. Say loud and clear Genesis is wrong.

But also above all: you are deceptive by claiming your fictious loaf of bread on equallity with all the observed features in the Universe. These features have all been observed. Your loaf of bread has not.