The Return of My Apple Challenge

[Nathan Poe]

Sure ---

Specifically:

[bible]Matthew 28:19-20[/bible]

We call that the Great Commission.

I call it a paperweight.

 

[AV1611VET]

You'd have to show that it's possible first.

That's implied in the first sentence.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Here's what happened: I created an apple ex nihilo into the palm of your hand.

Impossible.

And we both know it: I, because I did it; you, because you were there and saw it.

I don't know it, because there's no magic apple in my hand -- unless those drugs I took in college are having an effect.

 

[Bakin]

That's implied in the first sentence.

All of human experience shows that it is not possible for a human to produce an apple from nothing. Thus, as a human, it is not possible for you to do so. Thus, it is a moot point.

You are arguing from ignorance. You think that if something cannot be proven wrong, it must be right.

 

[AV1611VET]

I call it a paperweight.

And a pretty heavy One to boot ---

[bible]Luke 20:18[/bible]

 

[Nathan Poe]

And a pretty heavy One to boot ---

[bible]Luke 20:18[/bible]

Luke was referring to the Bible?

Well then, it's hardly useful as a paperweight -- perhaps a millstone?

 

[FishFace]

I don't feel obligated to reply to any post that changes my analogy in any way.

Your analogy is flawed, period. That's why you don't want to listen to people who change it - because when you remove the flaws, it stops working.

It goes something like this.

"Just like a drunkard, you spout nonsense."
"If I were a drunkard, I would also show other signs of inebriation. So I mustn't be very drunk, and therefore not spouting much nonsense."
"F. I'm ignoring you because you changed my analogy. Lalalalala."

In addition, I don't feel obligated to reply to any post, posted by someone who doesn't answer my question first - (as I asked it).

Suppose a young child comes up to you and asks you a very odd question. Except it's not odd, because you know it's a question where, if you answer, they will sing a mildly amusing and insulting rhyme and run away giggling.

You could, A) answer, or B) not answer, knowing that answering would cause irritating giggling.

Answering you would cause unnecessary and unfounded smugness. I find it more efficient and more honest to attack at the heart of the problem - the flawed analogy. If it offends you that I am calling you out on dishonest debate tactics, then tough.

The question stands as I asked it, and if you can't answer it (or don't want to), fine --- admit it --- but don't try to make the person who asked it look bad.

You look bad of your own accord because you deliberately used a flawed analogy.

Here's what happened: I created an apple ex nihilo into the palm of your hand.

And we both know it: I, because I did it; you, because you were there and saw it.

How much simpler can I make this?

My post again:

Not everything that happens can be evidenced.

What has happened, and how do you know it has happened without evidence? Why haven't you replied to my post, or have you been too busy?

You implied that something has happened. What, and how do you know, if there wasn't any evidence?

You also haven't responded to my challenge directly to you. At the moment, you're scoring a U.

 

[JamesDaJust]

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

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

Personal experience.
Would and can this be used?

 

[TemperateSeaIsland]

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

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

What colour was the apple?

 

[JamesDaJust]

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

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

How about a reverse outline.
If you didn't create the apple ex nihilo, who did?

 

[JamesDaJust]

What colour was the apple?

Are you colour blind?

 

[peteos]

I read the first sentence, then when I saw "let's further the analogy" in the second sentence --- that was it.

I believe the point of your analogy was that if something was created ex nihilio, there might not be any evidence that it was. I agree with this.

However, there IS evidence for how God created. Might I suggest that you don't actually know what that evidence is?

 

[Skaloop]

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

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

To stick with your sparse analogy, as you have requested, my answer would be that I couldn't prove to my friend that you created an apple ex nihilo in my hand.

That being said, if there were evidence that you pulled that apple out of your pocket and placed it in my hand while I was looking in the other direction, well, I could probably convince him of that.

 

[AV1611VET]

To stick with your sparse analogy, as you have requested, my answer would be that I couldn't prove to my friend that you created an apple ex nihilo in my hand.

Did I ask you to prove it? Read the question, please.

F

 

[AV1611VET]

However, there IS evidence for how God created.

No kidding! ---

Might I suggest that you don't actually know what that evidence is?

Go right ahead --- (get in line, though).

 

[Split Rock]

No kidding! ---





Go right ahead --- (get in line, though).

Hey AVET... Are you brave enough to accept my Nasal Ruby Challenge? http://foru.ms/t5969654-my-nasal-ruby-challenge.html

It was inspired by you!

 

[Skaloop]

Did I ask you to prove it? Read the question, please.

F

Fine. I couldn't convince him, either.

 

[llDayo]

No kidding! ---

But you weren't there when it was written. How do you know God was responsible?

 

[birdan]

No kidding! ---





Go right ahead --- (get in line, though).

I create a bible ex nihilo into the palm of your hand, which includes text stating explicitly that it wasn't created ex nihilo.

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

 

[peteos]

Go right ahead --- (get in line, though).

So maybe since you arn't familar with the actual evidence that suggests common descent is a reality, it would be helpful for you to learn what it is. If it is then your goal to evagelize the lost you could actually interact with the evidence that convinced them, instead of using analogies that do not reflect actual historical data and therefor will not convince them.

Might I suggest
http://www.freethoughtdebater.com/FEvolutionCase.htm
It is short (only about 12 pages), lucid, and I think fairly presents the evidence that evolution has taken place. Perhaps if you find it unconvicing you could come and discuss why you thinks the points the author makes are not valid, or perhaps demonstrate that the genetic, or morphological, or fossil, or biogeographical observations or measurments are actually not as described.

In return, I will read anything you wish (perhaps any12 pages of the KJV) as you desire.