The Return of My Apple Challenge

[AV1611VET]

Oh, I know, I've played this game before. I just though I'd spell it out to anyone watching, as you know Avet is going to claim that no one could answer his challenge.

q.v. Post 7

If you would like to address my OP with respect, feel free to do so.

 

[peteos]

I think this was missed so I'll repost it.

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.

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

q.v. Post 7

If you would like to address my OP with respect, feel free to do so.

I have answered your apple question several times, but each time you ignore it. Perhaps this is a hypothetical response; I suppose no answer is as good as any other answer in a metaphorical world.

 

[FishFace]

That "credulous oaf", if he believed it, would be right, wouldn't he?

It's the ones that refused to believe the note (and your eyewitness testimony) that would be wrong.

OK, I pick an apple off a tree, write a note saying "I created this apple ex nihilo" (making sure to italicise the latin, because that makes all the difference) and give it to the same credulous oaf.

Since everything that he can see is exactly the same, he presumably makes the same decision, that the apple is created ex nihilo (in italics.) Now, of course, he's wrong wrong wrong.

And, since most apples actually grow on trees, he's going to be more wrong than right, so basing your beliefs about the origins of apples on notes written by the supposed creator is not a good idea.

 

[FishFace]

No --- I'm forcing you to admit you can't evidence Creation.

Uh, not really - you've just tricked yourself into admitting you can't evidence creation. I don't have a problem with being unable to find evidence for something that didn't happen.

And I disagree --- it's you guys that can't explain anything --- not us.

We can explain everything that is observed. We cannot, and don't really have any need or wish to, explain how things that didn't happen, happened. Saying that science can't explain ex nihilo creation is like saying that science can't explain how the moon came to made of cheese - true, but irrelevant.

 

[TheOutsider]

I'm disappointed that I didn't get an F.

 

[SpyridonOCA]

Granted, but where does it say that it cannot be repeated?

On the seventh day, He rested.

 

[SpyridonOCA]

If one were to create an apple out of nothing, it would have the apparent history of having been grown on an apple tree.

 

[TheOutsider]

If one were to create an apple out of nothing, it would have the apparent history of having been grown on an apple tree.

As I said earlier, that means that Creationism explains nothing and has no scientific evidence. Therefore it is completely worthless as anything other than a bedtime story.

 

[AV1611VET]

Uh, not really - you've just tricked yourself into admitting you can't evidence creation.

I'm already on record as saying creation cannot be evidenced --- more than once.

(There is a way though --- but it requires a measure of omniscience.)

 

[thaumaturgy]

I'm already on record as saying creation cannot be evidenced --- more than once.

(There is a way though --- but it requires a measure of omniscience.)

OOooh, special pleading.

That's the bestest way to debate this topic.

Eating atheists for breakfast causes you to throw up this in way of argument?

I suggest you eat better atheists.

 

[nvxplorer]

I'm already on record as saying creation cannot be evidenced --- more than once.

(There is a way though --- but it requires a measure of omniscience.)

A measure of omniscience? LOL! My "a little bit pregnant" wife is cracking up, as she usually always does...sometimes.

 

[FishFace]

I'm already on record as saying creation cannot be evidenced --- more than once.

Fine, whatever. Don't expect anyone to listen to you, then - at least, noone with their head screwed on the right way. See, if we can just believe in stuff without evidence, we can believe in anything.

That's known as an epistemological nuclear bomb - you just destroyed the entire way in which we collect knowledge.

You, of course, didn't reply to the problem with Poe's credulous friend. He's wrong more often than he is right.

 

[SpyridonOCA]

As I said earlier, that means that Creationism explains nothing and has no scientific evidence. Therefore it is completely worthless as anything other than a bedtime story.

Who said that the question of origins must have a scientific answer?

 

[TheOutsider]

Who said that the question of origins must have a scientific answer?

That might very well be the most silly and inane question I have ever heard in my life. I'm not even sure what you are asking here.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

On the seventh day, He rested.

So what? Why does "rest" imply "cannot be repeated"?

 

[Psudopod]

If you would like to address my OP with respect, feel free to do so.

Okay. With respect, your analogy is invalid when compared with reality as I have shown. The earth may have been created ex-nihilo, 6000 years ago, but if it was, it was created with 4.6 billion years of history against the backdrop of a 13.7 billion year universe. Since we have evidence of how the earth was formed, and we never see any new ex-nihilo creations, and assuming creation teaches us nothing useful, why should we accept it as a valid option?

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

Who said that the question of origins must have a scientific answer?

We only have two options, either a scientific view of the universe or a mystical view of the universe.

The mystical view puts us centre of all things, quite at impressive place to be for an ill designed, semi intelligent, egocentric ape.

The scientific view puts us on an inconspicuous rock, orbiting an inconspicuous sun in an inconspicuous galaxy in what may be an inconspicuous universe.

In short science indicates we are nothing special, just the product of 3.5 billion years of biological evolution, 4.5 billion years geological evolution and ~14 billion years of galaxy and star evolution.

The question to ask is what else has this evolution produced in the universe.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Okay. With respect, your analogy is invalid when compared with reality as I have shown. The earth may have been created ex-nihilo, 6000 years ago, but if it was, it was created with 4.6 billion years of history against the backdrop of a 13.7 billion year universe. Since we have evidence of how the earth was formed, and we never see any new ex-nihilo creations, and assuming creation teaches us nothing useful, why should we accept it as a valid option?

Bravo!

I wish this cannard would be put to bed. If the only thing we can experience is a "reality" in which the earth has a given age regardless of how old it is (oh AV, I shake my fist at you for making me type that sentence), then how on earth can ANYONE say it is other than what it is experienced to be?

I know AV will shoot back with a statement about how God left a "written record" of what he did, but that really doesn't hold since he didn't leave any proof that He wrote said record. And even so, why in his holy name would he make something one way other than what it is and tell us about it? Is god somehow constrained? Obviously the laws of logic don't apply to him, but was he in a "time-crunch" too?

 

[AV1611VET]

Okay. With respect, your analogy is invalid when compared with reality as I have shown. The earth may have been created ex-nihilo, 6000 years ago, but if it was, it was created with 4.6 billion years of history against the backdrop of a 13.7 billion year universe. Since we have evidence of how the earth was formed, and we never see any new ex-nihilo creations, and assuming creation teaches us nothing useful, why should we accept it as a valid option?

The earth, created 6000 years ago with 4.6 billion years of history, is called the Omphalos Hypothesis; which I don't subscribe to.

I contend that the earth was created 6000 years ago with 4.6 billion years of age.