The Return of My Apple Challenge

[thaumaturgy]

UUN, if you want to link me back to your post, I'll be glad to justify my grade.

I went back to Page 26, and can't find it, and I really don't have time to search, as I'm on a very limited time budget here.

I believe he was referring to your response HERE (to the post that is embedded).

Your response was pretty vile and dismissive. It was indeed incredibly intellectually vacuous and, if I may say so, about as rude as I could imagine. I wouldn't be surprised if you were a nasty evil atheist, but since you are one with the loving God I was impressed at how you just blew off someone's actual and earnest response to your ridiculous non sequitur challenge.

So, indeed, you have convicted yourself of that which you find offensive in others.

Bravo.

I mean, really, bravo, AV. I actually expected a little better than that from you.

But again, you were backed into a corner and you hoped to be raptured out of it. Instead you were stuck there and that was how you responded.

Sorry to see that.

 

[AV1611VET]

I believe he was referring to your response HERE (to the post that is embedded).

Let's parse it then:

I am not talking about Genesis.

Neither am I.

I am taking your Apple Challenge where you create an apple from nothing in the palm of my hand.

Good.

The only reason that an apple, created from nothing, would have a stem, calyx, and vasculature is to give the apple a fake history of development.

If I create an apple ex nihilo into the palm of your hand, and you look up at me and say this, you get an F. To accuse me of faking history into the palm of your hand would be my justification.

Apples are not aged by the presence of a stem, calyx, or vasculature.

I didn't ask for a lecture on botany --- I asked what evidence you would provide to a third party for what I had done.

The only reason they are there is for the development of the apple from a flower and to give the apple sustinence as it grows. An apple created from nothing never went through these phases and therefore should not have these features for the same reason that Adam should not have had a bellybutton.

Again, I didn't ask for a lecture.

You have just stated that God would not give Adam a bellybutton because this would be giving Adam a fake history. Would you give your apple created from nothing a fake history?

I gave my apple what I gave it --- my grade stands.

 

[UnknownUsername]

UUN, if you want to link me back to your post, I'll be glad to justify my grade.

I went back to Page 26, and can't find it, and I really don't have time to search, as I'm on a very limited time budget here.

I never took your "challenge," because I find it horribly irrelevant. I just want to know how you get off completely dismissing valid arguments by 'grading' them as an F.

 

[thaumaturgy]

I gave my apple what I gave it --- my grade stands.

AV, that is sad. I am greatly disappointed. You came up with a challenge and when presented with a question related to the omphalos argument you responded that you did not believe Adam had a belly button (HERE).

So you glibbly dismiss this as a "botany lecture" completely missing the point that it is directly germane to your stands. Directly.

I find your attitudes towards others' responses to be abhorrent. I know you don't. You think you are free and clear. Just as you have previously claimed your prowess at chess, you seem to be claiming some clarity of thought here.

But sadly, you seem to be the only one with that opinion of your own thought process. And I find that pretty sad.

When someone comes up with a valid response that simply doesn't match your preconcieved desired response you freak out and just post "F".

I think you probably thought you had stumped everyone...but in reality it would only stump your nieces and nephews that you have so lauded in the past.

You seem to live in a sadly isolated world where you are able to bamboozle the staggering intellects of your niece and nephew and "eat atheists for breakfast" and are a great chess player, but you never ever show such skills in debates or contests with some of the pretty bright folks here.

I used to hold out hope that you were all that you claimed to be. But as in so many things predicated on faith, one can and usually is disappointed by what really is behind the curtain.

So please, go on and tell us all how you are a brilliant strategist and how you decimate "scientots" right and left.

Just don't mistake your own advertising for truth.

We haven't.

 

[monkeypsycho62]

I HAVE THE ANSWER!

We can't give a sufficient answer because AV doesn't want one. He wants to keep making rude posts towards others, while dismissing great questions and points with that red F.

 

[TheBear]

I create an apple ex nihilo into the palm of your hand.

What evidence would you use to convince your friend I did this?

Here's one better.

You're alone and walk into a room, and in the room is a person who was recently shot to death. A smoking gun magically appears in your hand just as the police walk in. What would you tell them to convince them it wasn't you who shot the victim?

 

[AV1611VET]

I think you probably thought you had stumped everyone...

Please tell me why IIDayo got an A+ in Post 7, then.

 

[Psudopod]

If I create an apple ex nihilo into the palm of your hand, and you look up at me and say this, you get an F. To accuse me of faking history into the palm of your hand would be my justification.
I didn't ask for a lecture on botany --- I asked what evidence you would provide to a third party for what I had done.

Yet again the point has sailed by you. If you create an apple with history, then it is indestinguishable from one that has been grown. In your setup, there is no way to tell the two apart. That's what you've been fishing for us to say.

However, it's a) deceptive, because you've given us one thing and told us it's another. If an ex-nihlio apple is exactly the same as a normal one, then it is anormal one, logically. However, you are telling us it's something completely different.

b) It's also pointless. Knowing that you pulled the apple out of nowhere will no teach us anything about apples, apple trees, digenstion, pollination, anything. We have to go back to the real thing if we want to learn.

The world may be exactly as you claim, created by God 6000 years ago, but made to appear to be something completely different. If this is true then God is deceptive and there is no point us knowing about it. We might as well carry on with what we can test for, and carry one growing what we know, because that is useful to the species and increases our knowledgebase.

Lying ex-nihilo creation does nothing for humanity.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Please tell me why IIDayo got an A+ in Post 7, then.

Actually I don't have to....whatever grade you gave ilDayo bears not at all on the F you gave to the post asking about the apple's botanical structure. It bore directly on your "Hypothesis" that Adam had no belly button. As such the hypothetical ex nihilo apple would presumably (if you were following the sum total of your own arguments) also be completely unlike any apple ever seen.

But let's go back to the A you gave to ilDayo:

So you are saying that nothing can be proved about your ex nihilo creation and that anyone who believed it would be doing so simply because some said so???

And that is somehow a good thing?

I can see why you eat atheists for breakfast! You were probably told they were cereal!

So, lemme get this straight, if someone tells you something you automatically believe it? Just because you were told that?

That's fantastic! Really, I'm happy for you. Well, in reality I'm happy for every slimy huckster who sends out spam because you must be the perfect customer!

 

[FishFace]

The world may be exactly as you claim, created by God 6000 years ago, but made to appear to be something completely different. If this is true then God is deceptive and there is no point us knowing about it. We might as well carry on with what we can test for, and carry one growing what we know, because that is useful to the species and increases our knowledgebase.

Lying ex-nihilo creation does nothing for humanity.

Are you a philosopher? You should be one. This is an excellent point, (that I should have thought of!) and succinctly put.

 

[FishFace]

Actually I don't have to....whatever grade you gave ilDayo bears not at all on the F you gave to the post asking about the apple's botanical structure. It bore directly on your "Hypothesis" that Adam had no belly button. As such the hypothetical ex nihilo apple would presumably (if you were following the sum total of your own arguments) also be completely unlike any apple ever seen.

But let's go back to the A you gave to ilDayo:

So you are saying that nothing can be proved about your ex nihilo creation and that anyone who believed it would be doing so simply because some said so???

And that is somehow a good thing?

I can see why you eat atheists for breakfast! You were probably told they were cereal!

So, lemme get this straight, if someone tells you something you automatically believe it? Just because you were told that?

That's fantastic! Really, I'm happy for you. Well, in reality I'm happy for every slimy huckster who sends out spam because you must be the perfect customer!

He will also be easily satisfied, since he'll believe whatever the marketing hype told him even if it flies in the face of observed evidence! He could lose inches and still be happy, safe in the knowledge that, well, I'm sure you know.

 

[Loudmouth]

If I create an apple ex nihilo into the palm of your hand, and you look up at me and say this, you get an F. To accuse me of faking history into the palm of your hand would be my justification.

If you give the EN apple a stem, scar where the stem enters the apple, vasculature, and a calyx completely with petals then you have given the apple evidence of a history that never occured. These features are equivalent to giving Adam a bellybutton. Since you have already stated that God would not give an EN human a bellybutton per the Omphalos argument then I would assume that you would not give your EN apple these features either. Therefore, the evidence I would present to a third party is the complete lack of features related to the development of the apple much like the lack of a bellybutton would be evidence of Adam's creation.

I didn't ask for a lecture on botany --- I asked what evidence you would provide to a third party for what I had done.

The anatomy of the apple created from nothing would have to be different from the anatomy of a naturally occuring apple. That is the evidence.

Again, I didn't ask for a lecture.

But you did put up a challenge, which I have answered. The lecture is there to explain my reasoning.

I gave my apple what I gave it --- my grade stands.

Did you give this apple a bellybutton?

 

[thaumaturgy]

Are you a philosopher? You should be one. This is an excellent point, (that I should have thought of!) and succinctly put.

Fish, I would think that the concept of "being a philosopher" and putting anything succinctly would be totally at odds with one another!

 

[FishFace]

Fish, I would think that the concept of "being a philosopher" and putting anything succinctly would be totally at odds with one another!

Muahaha, it's something we strive for, but frequently fail at. That, and succinctness is most definitely a relative term...

 

[MrGoodBytes]

Muahaha, it's something we strive for, but frequently fail at. That, and succinctness is most definitely a relative term...

"Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Relative Succinctness"

 

[tanzanos]

Please tell me why IIDayo got an A+ in Post 7, then.

F

 

[Nathan Poe]

Please tell me why IIDayo got an A+ in Post 7, then.

Because IIDayo gave the answer you wanted to hear.

Do you want students or sycophants?

 

[thaumaturgy]

Because IIDayo gave the answer you wanted to hear.

Do you want students or sycophants?

Nathan, I think it should be obvious. AV respects God and we all know what kind of followers God would really want.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Nathan, I think it should be obvious. AV respects God and we all know what kind of followers God would really want.

Ah, but I wasn't asking what God wants, I was asking what AV wants.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Ah, but I wasn't asking what God wants, I was asking what AV wants.

Is there a DIFFERENCE????