The Return of My Apple Challenge

[Loudmouth]

AV,

Did Adam have a bellybutton?

 

[thaumaturgy]

You wanna see a miracle in the Rock record? Here ya go:

​

[bible]1 Corinthians 10:4[/bible]​

Oh my. Was I unclear or were you unable to understand the question?

Is that a photograph of the actual Crucifiction on Calvary? Really?

What is so hard to understand about my simple simple request? I can only assume you are attempting to hide from your work.

Seems maybe you need to firm up your end of the deal before you demand everyone else do your work for you.

Try again.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Expressed scientifically this way: ^S[sub]universe[/sub]>0

(I think that's how the formula goes.)

Bravo for trying to express this scientifically. But I'll point out that deltaS>0 says NOTHING about a starting point. So indeed the second law says absolutely nothing about the "Fall".

If you are able to derive some potential "discontinuity" in the equation indicating a starting point, I would like to see your actual work on the problem.

As they say in math class, you can get partial credit if you show your work!

 

[FishFace]

Superstitious and uneducated? Want to tell us how Aborigines were able to create an aerodynamic device that returns to its sender?

Want to tell us how being able to create a boomerang is the same as being un-superstitious and well-educated? A crow is able to use tools, but it is not educated.

Going back further, want to explain why there were metalurgists mentioned in Genesis 4?

Ignoring your irrelevant quote, want to actually provide some kind of argument for Bible-writers being educated? Being able to work metal does not require a good education. (Especially not an education involving critical thinking, which is specifically what I was referring to)

 

[FishFace]

As they say in math class, you can get partial credit if you show your work!

Pity, since AV hasn't done any work. He expects us to do it all for him.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Want to tell us how being able to create a boomerang is the same as being un-superstitious and well-educated? A crow is able to use tools, but it is not educated.

Fish, are you really going to tell me that Crows are unable to make boomerangs out of alloyed metals?

​

 

[monkeypsycho62]

Fish, are you really going to tell me that Crows are unable to make boomerangs out of alloyed metals?

​

MST3000 ftw!

 

[monkeypsycho62]

You wanna see a miracle in the Rock record? Here ya go:

​

[bible]1 Corinthians 10:4[/bible]​

 

[Loudmouth]

Because AV has a limited time on this forum each day I will move forward with my argument. AV has intimated elsewhere that God would not create Adam with a navel. IOW, he disagrees with the Omphalos argument (btw, omphalos is latin for bellybutton).

So, in kind, we would not expect an apple that was created ex nihilo (EN) to have marks from a development process it never went through. So let's look at the anatomy of an apple.

There are several features in the apple that speak to a developmental history. First, an EN apple would obviously not have a stem in the same way that Adam never had an umbilical cord. Even more, in the absence of a stem there would not even be a spot where the stem enters the apple. Second, there would be no need for vascular structures (the veiny looking things) because the apple never recieved nutrients from the stem and subsequently doesn't need a system to spread those nutrients around. Third, the apple would completely lack a calyx. Like the umbilical cord, this is a remnant of the flower which gives rise to the apple. Since an EN apple was never a flower it should not have leftovers from a flower just as Adam would not have leftovers from an umbilical cord (ie a bellybutton).

So an EN non-Omphalos apple would look quite different from an apple that naturally developed. The only reason that an EN apple would have these features would be to fool the person into thinking that the apple went through a false history of development.

I give myself an A-.

 

[FishFace]

Fish, are you really going to tell me that Crows are unable to make boomerangs out of alloyed metals?

​

Yes, yes I am.

However, I didn't mention anything about...

THE PIGEONS.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Because AV has a limited time on this forum each day I will move forward with my argument. AV has intimated elsewhere that God would not create Adam with a navel. IOW, he disagrees with the Omphalos argument (btw, omphalos is latin for bellybutton).

So, in kind, we would not expect an apple that was created ex nihilo (EN) to have marks from a development process it never went through. So let's look at the anatomy of an apple.

There are several features in the apple that speak to a developmental history. First, an EN apple would obviously not have a stem in the same way that Adam never had an umbilical cord. Even more, in the absence of a stem there would not even be a spot where the stem enters the apple. Second, there would be no need for vascular structures (the veiny looking things) because the apple never recieved nutrients from the stem and subsequently doesn't need a system to spread those nutrients around. Third, the apple would completely lack a calyx. Like the umbilical cord, this is a remnant of the flower which gives rise to the apple. Since an EN apple was never a flower it should not have leftovers from a flower just as Adam would not have leftovers from an umbilical cord (ie a bellybutton).

So an EN non-Omphalos apple would look quite different from an apple that naturally developed. The only reason that an EN apple would have these features would be to fool the person into thinking that the apple went through a false history of development.

I give myself an A-.

Loudmouth, I suspect, that based on your detailed analysis an "Ex Nihilo Apple" would look a lot like THIS:

​

Behold, THE APPLE (Crown of Creation).​

 

[TheOutsider]

Thread over. LoudMouth wins. Let's all go home now.

 

[monkeypsycho62]

Because AV has a limited time on this forum each day I will move forward with my argument. AV has intimated elsewhere that God would not create Adam with a navel. IOW, he disagrees with the Omphalos argument (btw, omphalos is latin for bellybutton).

So, in kind, we would not expect an apple that was created ex nihilo (EN) to have marks from a development process it never went through. So let's look at the anatomy of an apple.

There are several features in the apple that speak to a developmental history. First, an EN apple would obviously not have a stem in the same way that Adam never had an umbilical cord. Even more, in the absence of a stem there would not even be a spot where the stem enters the apple. Second, there would be no need for vascular structures (the veiny looking things) because the apple never recieved nutrients from the stem and subsequently doesn't need a system to spread those nutrients around. Third, the apple would completely lack a calyx. Like the umbilical cord, this is a remnant of the flower which gives rise to the apple. Since an EN apple was never a flower it should not have leftovers from a flower just as Adam would not have leftovers from an umbilical cord (ie a bellybutton).

So an EN non-Omphalos apple would look quite different from an apple that naturally developed. The only reason that an EN apple would have these features would be to fool the person into thinking that the apple went through a false history of development.

I give myself an A-.

So if I saw an apple that was perfectly round with no imperfections or signs of useless structures, I could assume that it was created ex nihilo?

I would believe it. Too bad nothing like that has, or ever will, happen.

I give you an A+

 

[theFijian]

The year my mother was born was always disputed. The fact that she didn't instictively know what year she was born does not mean she was "psychologically and mentally immature".

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. Your mum wouldn't have known when she was born because we don't remember much from when we are newborn babies. But I thought Adam was not like this in this respect. I thought Adam was fully functioning and so would have been well aware of the timefrance since his creation. ie If one week after he was created we could have had the chance to ask Adam how old he was he would have been able to tell us, "One week". After all he mastered zoology and animal husbandry on day one.

But not in Genesis 1, where things were much different. The plants and animals certainly weren't immature.

So not only did they have embedded age, but they had embedded maturity also?

One question about your apple too: is it ripe, or unripe?

 

[KomissarSteve]

You wanna see a miracle in the Rock record? Here ya go:

​

[bible]1 Corinthians 10:4[/bible]​

This literal reading of a metaphor used by Paul in that verse earns you an F.

 

[MoonLancer]

Because AV has a limited time on this forum each day I will move forward with my argument. AV has intimated elsewhere that God would not create Adam with a navel. IOW, he disagrees with the Omphalos argument (btw, omphalos is latin for bellybutton).

So, in kind, we would not expect an apple that was created ex nihilo (EN) to have marks from a development process it never went through. So let's look at the anatomy of an apple.

There are several features in the apple that speak to a developmental history. First, an EN apple would obviously not have a stem in the same way that Adam never had an umbilical cord. Even more, in the absence of a stem there would not even be a spot where the stem enters the apple. Second, there would be no need for vascular structures (the veiny looking things) because the apple never recieved nutrients from the stem and subsequently doesn't need a system to spread those nutrients around. Third, the apple would completely lack a calyx. Like the umbilical cord, this is a remnant of the flower which gives rise to the apple. Since an EN apple was never a flower it should not have leftovers from a flower just as Adam would not have leftovers from an umbilical cord (ie a bellybutton).

So an EN non-Omphalos apple would look quite different from an apple that naturally developed. The only reason that an EN apple would have these features would be to fool the person into thinking that the apple went through a false history of development.

I give myself an A-.

A-? your too modest.

you would have made the great minds of reason and logic proud.

 

[Nathan Poe]

This literal reading of a metaphor used by Paul in that verse earns you an F.

And an immediate transfer to the remedial class. Even an F student would recognize a metaphor.

 

[tanzanos]

(btw, omphalos is latin for bellybutton).

Omphalos is not Latin; It is Greek.

 

[AV1611VET]

AV,

Did Adam have a bellybutton?

IMO --- no.

 

[AV1611VET]

Bravo for trying to express this scientifically. But I'll point out that deltaS>0 says NOTHING about a starting point.

Should it? Or should it let it's Author speak for it?

You are a traffic cop who arrives at the scene of an accident. The driver starts to explain what happened.

Would you reply: Excuse me, I'll determine what happened based on what I see here?

So indeed the second law says absolutely nothing about the "Fall".

Ah, but the [Author of the] Fall says much about the 2nd Law:

[bible]Genesis 3:17-19[/bible][bible]Romans 8:21[/bible]

Note: bondage of corruption = entropy.

If you are able to derive some potential "discontinuity" in the equation indicating a starting point, I would like to see your actual work on the problem.

I'm not sure what you mean by a "starting point", but Genesis 3 comes to mind.