The Return of My Apple Challenge

[AV1611VET]

He seems to have you pegged, AV. Don't act like it takes all that much time and/or effort to figure you out.

Um ... excuse me ... but don't think you're not a newbie, either. In fact, you're worse. After almost two years of constant explaining, you still haven't figured out what I'm saying.

 

[Psudopod]

Um ... excuse me ... but don't think you're not a newbie, either. In fact, you're worse. After almost two years of constant explaining, you still haven't figured out what I'm saying.

Pretty much everyone here has figured out what you are saying. We know there is no evidence for your version of creationism. We know. We don't need to run circles round the apple tree to accept this. I've said before and I'll say it again, the world might be 6000 years old made to look 4.6billion years, and there may have been a global flood that no one noticed and no evidence remains for.

However, if it is true, then god has created a created a self consistant reality that has all the evidence pointing to completely different things happening. This means that god is deceptive, because he has gone to extraordinary lengths to make it look like he didn't do what he said he did. This doesn't in its own right invalidate your theory, but it is something to eb aware of.

The other point to be aware of is that even if the world is 6000 years old, knowing that is useless. God has done such a good job of making it out to be 4.6billion years old that if you put the 6000 year assumption in, it won't tie up with anything you can actually see. If we went with your assumptions about the earth, all our physics, chemistry, biology would end up being useless, because we'd never be able to make any valid predictions.

So all your challenge proves is how mentally bankrupt your version of creation is, because it shows that just like you can't learn anything about apples from assuming it is created ex-nihilo, you can't learn anything about the earth by assuming the same.

 

[AV1611VET]

Pretty much everyone here has figured out what you are saying.

They have?

Tell me, Psudopod, am I YEC, Omphalos, or what?

 

[milkyway]

Um ... excuse me ... but don't think you're not a newbie, either. In fact, you're worse. After almost two years of constant explaining, you still haven't figured out what I'm saying.

We all know what you're saying.

It's the why that's unfathomable.

 

[happydance]

Um ... excuse me ... but don't think you're not a newbie, either. In fact, you're worse. After almost two years of constant explaining, you still haven't figured out what I'm saying.

Sounds like something Dr. Cox from Scrubs would say.

... Sorry, I will go back to lurking.

 

[AV1611VET]

We all know what you're saying.

Then tell me, what am I? Omphalos? YEC? Something else? Most everyone else that "knows what I'm saying," says I'm Omphalos.

What say you?

 

[arnoldedward]

lalalalalala, I think he is losing.

 

[Vene]

Then tell me, what am I? Omphalos? YEC? Something else? Most everyone else that "knows what I'm saying," says I'm Omphalos.

What say you?

You think that the universe is approximately 6000 years old, but with an age near 13.7 billion years.

Now, for how that is possible, I haven't a clue.

 

[milkyway]

Then tell me, what am I? Omphalos? YEC? Something else? Most everyone else that "knows what I'm saying," says I'm Omphalos.

What say you?

You believe in the literal truth of the bible, and that the Earth was created 6,100 years ago but embedded with age to make it look 4.5 billion years old.

 

[Split Rock]

After almost two years of constant explaining, you still haven't figured out what I'm saying.

After two years of constant explaining, you still haven't figured out what you're saying. This is why it still confuses the rest of us.

They have?

Tell me, Psudopod, am I YEC, Omphalos, or what?

According to you, you are neither. Yet, you still believe the earth was created about 6,000 yrs ago (YEC) with "embedded" age to make it mature (Omphalos).

Then tell me, what am I? Omphalos? YEC? Something else? Most everyone else that "knows what I'm saying," says I'm Omphalos.

If it quacks like Omphalos, walks like Omphalos and looks like Omphalos, it is probably Omphalos.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

Then tell me, what am I? Omphalos? YEC? Something else? Most everyone else that "knows what I'm saying," says I'm Omphalos.

What say you?

You are nothing at all. You are a card-carrying communist proclaiming the virtues of free markets and private property. You are a wussy pacifist and a Navy SEAL with a nuke in the basement. You are a YEC who believes that this planet is 4.5 billion years old.

 

[theFijian]

You are nothing at all. You are a card-carrying communist proclaiming the virtues of free markets and private property. You are a wussy pacifist and a Navy SEAL with a nuke in the basement. You are a YEC who believes that this planet is 4.5 billion years old.

ie. confused

 

[Psudopod]

Tell me, Psudopod, am I YEC, Omphalos, or what?

Doesn't matter what label anyone sticks on you, it's what you say. You believe the earth has gone round the sun 6000 times, which the YECs would agree with, but you are happy to accpt the dating of 4.6 billion years old, which they won't. You agree with the concept of god making a mature world and Adam being a fertile adult from day one, which is the idea of omphalous, but you disagree with the idea that Adam and Eve had navels.

So neither lable quite sticks or rubs off. How in anyway does this refute what I actually wrote?

 

[ReverendDG]

They have?

Tell me, Psudopod, am I YEC, Omphalos, or what?

i just think you are really confused, i've often wondered why you even claim the earth is somehow 4.5billion years old but its not.
you dismiss what science says enough of the time, why do you bother with trying to fit the date that science has discovered if you don't even care about anything else science says?

i really do think you are a philosophical contradiction, somehow you can believe 2 completely contradictory things. yet claim they agree with each other, yet it makes no sense to anyone else

how does that work?

 

[AV1611VET]

We all know what you're saying.

No you don't --- need proof?

You think that the universe is approximately 6000 years old, but with an age near 13.7 billion years.

Now, for how that is possible, I haven't a clue.

After two years of constant explaining, you still haven't figured out what you're saying. This is why it still confuses the rest of us.



According to you, you are neither. Yet, you still believe the earth was created about 6,000 yrs ago (YEC) with "embedded" age to make it mature (Omphalos).



If it quacks like Omphalos, walks like Omphalos and looks like Omphalos, it is probably Omphalos.

You are nothing at all. You are a card-carrying communist proclaiming the virtues of free markets and private property. You are a wussy pacifist and a Navy SEAL with a nuke in the basement. You are a YEC who believes that this planet is 4.5 billion years old.

Doesn't matter what label anyone sticks on you, it's what you say. You believe the earth has gone round the sun 6000 times, which the YECs would agree with, but you are happy to accpt the dating of 4.6 billion years old, which they won't. You agree with the concept of god making a mature world and Adam being a fertile adult from day one, which is the idea of omphalous, but you disagree with the idea that Adam and Eve had navels.

So neither lable quite sticks or rubs off. How in anyway does this refute what I actually wrote?

i just think you are really confused, i've often wondered why you even claim the earth is somehow 4.5billion years old but its not.
you dismiss what science says enough of the time, why do you bother with trying to fit the date that science has discovered if you don't even care about anything else science says?

i really do think you are a philosophical contradiction, somehow you can believe 2 completely contradictory things. yet claim they agree with each other, yet it makes no sense to anyone else

how does that work?

 

[AV1611VET]

i just think you are really confused, i've often wondered why you even claim the earth is somehow 4.5billion years old but its not.

Because, as I have said before, we hold science up to a higher Standard; and again, for the record, if it doesn't contradict the Scriptures, I have no problem with it. That's why I'll take your word that the earth is 4.57 billion years old - it doesn't contradict a literal reading of Genesis.

you dismiss what science says enough of the time, why do you bother with trying to fit the date that science has discovered if you don't even care about anything else science says?

As I have just stated, as long as it doesn't contradict the Bible, I'm okay with it.

i really do think you are a philosophical contradiction, somehow you can believe 2 completely contradictory things. yet claim they agree with each other, yet it makes no sense to anyone else

I've clearly explained this paradox using definitions, examples, and challenges. I even, in a rare moment, showed how it's very easy to do scientifically, using only a second dimension of time - (although I personally don't subscribe to that interpretation).

how does that work?

It's called embedding age.

 

[Skaloop]

Because, as I have said before, we hold science up to a higher Standard; and again, for the record, if it doesn't contradict the Scriptures, I have no problem with it. That's why I'll take your word that the earth is 4.57 billion years old - it doesn't contradict a literal reading of Genesis.

And, as I have said before, we hold the Bible up to a higher standard; and again, for the record, if it doesn't contradict reality, I have no problem with it.

 

[ranmaonehalf]

wow this apple challange is pretty old and rotten dont you think.

 

[Psudopod]

No you don't --- need proof?

That big ol block of quotes there doesn't demonstrate how we wrong. Clearly if we've misunderstood that badly, you're going to actualy want to explain yourself, or we'll keep doing it.

Because, as I have said before, we hold science up to a higher Standard;

No you don't because your science is incosistant. You can't explain why a principle that works for something you are happy with suddenly doesn't work for something you don't like. Science is all about being self consistnat. You want bits of it to be wrong, but you can never show why; you just state they are and expect us to believe you. And you're doing a lousy job of convincing people of all faiths.

It's called embedding age.

You' still haven't address my two points about embedded age.
1) - Embedded history is decptive. This is a theological issue, not a science one as embedded anything is unfalsifyable, but it's something you'll want to address. You can protest aboutt he history all you like, but again, you never show that it's wrong.

2)Even if you are right, it doesn't help us at all.

 

[AV1611VET]

You' still haven't address my two points about embedded age.

I get that a lot.

1) - Embedded history is decptive.

Agreed --- unless there was a good reason for it.

This is a theological issue, not a science one as embedded anything is unfalsifyable, but it's something you'll want to address.

I don't know why we're talking embedded history (omphalos) now. I believe in embedded age (ex nihilo).

You can protest aboutt he history all you like, but again, you never show that it's wrong.

I usually don't comment on embedded history, except to say that in my opinion it would indeed be deceptive.