The Return of My Apple Challenge

[BananaSlug]

I enjoy all of this extra-biblical interpretation. Take the Genesis flood and add your own personal opinion on glacial movement based on zero biblical verses to support your view.

 

[AV1611VET]

I enjoy all of this extra-biblical interpretation. Take the Genesis flood and add your own personal opinion on glacial movement based on zero biblical verses to support your view.

No matter what view I took, I couldn't support it with the Bible --- thus your point?

 

[BananaSlug]

The point is making up these claims to try and support your view of the Bible. YEC's believe that the ice age did not occur until after the flood. Geologic evidence shows we have had at least 7 ice ages during earth's history. The latest ice age ended around 10,000 years ago and we can see evidence of glaciation on earth's surface.

YEC's also claim that the sediment stirred up from the flood is what buried all of the fossils, coal, and oil within 1 years time. The latest ice age is above the so-called flood sediment layers because the ice age did not happen until after the flood (according to YEC's).

However, we have evidence of glaciation below the so-called flood layers from as far back as 600mya. When I asked you about this you claimed "God pushed the ice under the flood waters." That is making up things to try to explain away evidence that contradicts your religious worldview.

 

[AV1611VET]

The point is making up these claims to try and support your view of the Bible. YEC's believe that the ice age did not occur until after the flood. Geologic evidence shows we have had at least 7 ice ages during earth's history. The latest ice age ended around 10,000 years ago and we can see evidence of glaciation on earth's surface.

Were you there, BS, and saw all seven of those ice ages occur?

If not, this means you have to rely on evidence, do you not?

And do you know what evidence of things not seen is called --- according to the Bible?

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Are you getting the point here?

You're walking by faith as well --- as my Mariana Trench thread used to show.

YEC's also claim that the sediment stirred up from the flood is what buried all of the fossils, coal, and oil within 1 years time.

Fossils, coal, and oil were, in my opinion, put where they were for future use --- viz. the Millennial Kingdom.

The latest ice age is above the so-called flood sediment layers because the ice age did not happen until after the flood (according to YEC's).

Any ice age came after the Flood.

An ice age before the Flood would have been scientifically impossible.

However, we have evidence of glaciation below the so-called flood layers from as far back as 600mya. When I asked you about this you claimed "God pushed the ice under the flood waters." That is making up things to try to explain away evidence that contradicts your religious worldview.

So you have --- or you have not --- identified the Flood layer?

 

[BananaSlug]

Were you there, BS, and saw all seven of those ice ages occur?

If not, this means you have to rely on evidence, do you not?

And do you know what evidence of things not seen is called --- according to the Bible?Are you getting the point here?

You're walking by faith as well --- as my Mariana Trench thread used to show.Fossils, coal, and oil were, in my opinion, put where they were for future use --- viz. the Millennial Kingdom.Any ice age came after the Flood.

By that logic, most murder cases should be thrown out because no one else was there. Who cares if the perpetrator's fingerprints are on the handle of the knife and the victim's blood was on the blade? No one else was there. All the evidence showing the person murdered another does not count because no one was there. Are you getting the point here?

I'm not walking by faith, I'm walking by reason.

If any ice age came after the flood then it should be on the surface rather than under the "flood" layers.

An ice age before the Flood would have been scientifically impossible.So you have --- or you have not --- identified the Flood layer?

I'm assuming a flood layer is any layer below the last ice age.

 

[AV1611VET]

By that logic, most murder cases should be thrown out because no one else was there.

Either that, or they should convict him on faith in the evidence.

That's what Jesus wants you to do, convict Him on faith in the [documented] Evidence.

He left a Note saying He did it --- where, when, how, why, in what order, and even who the eyewitnesses were.

What more do you want?

 

[Nathan Poe]

Either that, or they should convict him on faith in the evidence.

That's what Jesus wants you to do, convict Him on faith in the [documented] Evidence.

Too bad the [documented] evidence is unreliable.

He left a Note saying He did it --- where, when, how, why, in what order, and even who the eyewitnesses were.

What more do you want?

Would've been nice if it were his own note -- not a load of secondhand legends.

 

[AV1611VET]

Too bad the [documented] evidence is unreliable.

That's why you're not the Judge ---

 

[Nathan Poe]

That's why you're not the Judge ---

Neither are you.

 

[TheOutsider]

Why is this thread still going? Someone needs to kill it with fire!!!

 

[ranmaonehalf]

I create an ex-nilo Squirrel in the palm of my hand.. Aint it cute...

It will consume your soul...

 

[Hespera]

Why is this thread still going? Someone needs to kill it with fire!!!

Dont you hate zombie threads?

 

[dawiyd]

Good to see the asinine threads are still about.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Good to see the asinine threads are still about.

I had most of the pages of the original thread "My Bicycle Challenge" archived that was on the GA board, then I noticed the new owner of CF completely obliterated the GA archives.....ACKKK!!!

It was one of the most entertaining threads on that board in my view.......here was the original OP:

My Bicycle Challenge

You buy a deck of cards, open them, and place them on the table; then you go away for an hour. Upon returning, you notice there's a note underneath the deck that reads as follows:

• I had to shuffle these.

Looking at the order of the cards, you see that they are in the same order as when you left them an hour ago and no fingerprints anywhere.

Question: Is it possible to conclude that the note is correct?

 

[pgp_protector]

...snip...

My Bicycle Challenge

You buy a deck of cards, open them, and place them on the table; then you go away for an hour. Upon returning, you notice there's a note underneath the deck that reads as follows:

• I had to shuffle these.

Looking at the order of the cards, you see that they are in the same order as when you left them an hour ago and no fingerprints anywhere.

Question: Is it possible to conclude that the note is correct?

Yes, Gloves & 8 perfect out-shuffles, will have the deck looking like it wasn't shuffled.

 

[Tiberius]

My Bicycle Challenge

You buy a deck of cards, open them, and place them on the table; then you go away for an hour. Upon returning, you notice there's a note underneath the deck that reads as follows:

• I had to shuffle these.

Looking at the order of the cards, you see that they are in the same order as when you left them an hour ago and no fingerprints anywhere.

Question: Is it possible to conclude that the note is correct?

A more important question is....

If the note is the only thing saying that the cards have been touched, what difference does it make?

 

[AV1611VET]

A more important question is....

If the note is the only thing saying that the cards have been touched, what difference does it make?

One, it shows someone was there in your absence.

Two, it shows someone was there and picked up the deck of cards.

Three, it would be wrong to later tell someone that no one was ever there in your absence because there's no proof.

Four, as to whether or not the cards were shuffled, you would have to either believe they were (in respect to the note), or believe they were not (in spite of the note).

Five, if everyone else who looks at the cards don't believe they were shuffled (since they are in the order they were when they came from the store), they may think you are being facetious if you claim they were shuffled, even though you show them the note.

Six, anyone who believes the cards weren't shuffled is wrong; anyone who believes the cards were shuffled, is right.

 

[gaara4158]

One, it shows someone was there in your absence.

Two, it shows someone was there and picked up the deck of cards.

Three, it would be wrong to later tell someone that no one was ever there in your absence because there's no proof.

Four, as to whether or not the cards were shuffled, you would have to either believe they were (in respect to the note), or believe they were not (in spite of the note).

Five, if everyone else who looks at the cards don't believe they were shuffled (since they are in the order they were when they came from the store), they may think you are being facetious if you claim they were shuffled, even though you show them the note.

Six, anyone who believes the cards weren't shuffled is wrong; anyone who believes the cards were shuffled, is right.

But what are the consequences of being wrong, in this case? Does it matter at all? What's the moral of the story here?

 

[Tiberius]

One, it shows someone was there in your absence.

Someone being there in my absence makes no difference to me.

Two, it shows someone was there and picked up the deck of cards.

Someone picking up the cards and shuffling them in such a way that it is imposible to tell makes no difference to me.

Three, it would be wrong to later tell someone that no one was ever there in your absence because there's no proof.

Assuming the note is telling the truth.

Four, as to whether or not the cards were shuffled, you would have to either believe they were (in respect to the note), or believe they were not (in spite of the note).

Assuming the note is telling the truth.

Five, if everyone else who looks at the cards don't believe they were shuffled (since they are in the order they were when they came from the store), they may think you are being facetious if you claim they were shuffled, even though you show them the note.

They would think I'd be an idiot to believe the note MUST be true when it is perfectly possible for the note to be a lie.

Six, anyone who believes the cards weren't shuffled is wrong; anyone who believes the cards were shuffled, is right.

Assuming the note is telling the truth.

Now, here's a question for you.

You and I are sitting at a table. On the table is a deck of cards. You leave the room to get a drink. When you get back, I tell you that in your absence I have shuffled the cards. You examine the deck and can find no sign that I have touched the cards. They are in the same order as before, in exactly the same position on the table as they were before, and there are no fingerprints or such on the cards.

Is it reasonable to beleive my claim that I shuffled the cards or not? Why is it or is it not reasonable?

 

[BananaSlug]

Easiest way to answer the Apple "Challenge":

Quote two verses from the Bible:
Matthew 17:20 And Jesus said to them, Because of your unbelief: for truly I say to you, If you have faith as a grain of mustard seed, you shall say to this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible to you.
John 14:14 If you shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it.

Now tell them to pray to Jesus really hard and if they have enough faith, he should create an apple ex nihilo. If they can't, either their faith isn't strong enough, God is just ignoring them, or God doesn't exist.