The Return of My Apple Challenge

[Soul Searcher]

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

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

If it were me, first you would have to convince me that it was not some kind of magic trick. If you were successful in convincing me then my testimony would be the evidence I would use.

My friends know me and know that I would not make up such a story and would therefore be likely to at least try to believe that it did happen.

 

[Tiberius]

The trouble is that his challenge requires us to assume he did it, just as he assumes that God created the universe. He's assuming what he wants to prove, and he's trying to force us to do the same.

Actually do it, AV, or admit that your little story is a fiction just like the Bible.

 

[LeeC]

I don't believe you did it in the first place, so you have to think of a way to prove it to me first.

Maybe start by explaining how you think you could do it/did do it.

I have seen magicians do many tricks... I believe I have seen many such things done before. It is all done with mirrors or quick moment of the hand.

But to answer your question, I would point you to the Randi foundation, they offer $1,000,000 for something like this – prove it to them under scientific conditions, and you have yourself a million dollar apple.

Call me a bit of a doubter if you like.

If you want me to describe some scientific conditions I will – just ask.

Lee

AV has asked me again to come to this thread - but I have already been here?

So has any evidence been provided for how this magic trick could have been done?
Then I will doubt it ever happened, merely a trick.

Lee

 

[AV1611VET]

If you created an apple in my hand, my word alone is useless.

But what evidence would you use?

 

[AV1611VET]

If it were me, first you would have to convince me that it was not some kind of magic trick. If you were successful in convincing me then my testimony would be the evidence I would use.

My friends know me and know that I would not make up such a story and would therefore be likely to at least try to believe that it did happen.

Kudos, my friend!

I think you're about as close as I'm going to get to someone admitting there is no evidence.

(However, there is! It can be done --- but I'm not going to get into that right now, as I'm trying to get someone to admit there isn't any, so they'll quit asking us Christians for it.)

 

[AV1611VET]

The trouble is that his challenge requires us to assume he did it, just as he assumes that God created the universe.

So then assume it, please; so you can answer it.

He's assuming what he wants to prove, and he's trying to force us to do the same.

No --- I'm giving you guys the chance to tell me. If you can't, then I believe you can correctly assume we can't, either.

Actually do it, AV, or admit that your little story is a fiction just like the Bible.

I already have done it --- but I'm not going to do it again --- just yet.

I just want to hear a "scientists" admit those two magic words: no evidence.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

So then assume it, please; so you can answer it.



No --- I'm giving you guys the chance to tell me. If you can't, then I believe you can correctly assume we can't, either.



I already have done it --- but I'm not going to do it again --- just yet.

I just want to hear a "scientists" admit those two magic words: no evidence.

What do you mean, "admit"? We know that there is no evidence. Nobody here has ever claimed anything to the contrary. There is no evidence for creation, therefore we don't believe the story, it's as simple as that. Only you in your limitless irrationality could make up a hypothetical scenario in which there is no evidence for something that really happened, then use that scenario to prove that something in the real world happened because we don't have evidence for it.

 

[AV1611VET]

What do you mean, "admit"? We know that there is no evidence.

You're wrong --- and wrong scientifically too --- (but on a technicality).

There is no evidence for creation, therefore we don't believe the story, it's as simple as that.

Then why do you (plural) ask for it?

 

[MrGoodBytes]

You're wrong --- and wrong scientifically too --- (but on a technicality).

Which technicality would that be?

Then why do you (plural) ask for it?

Most of your fellow creationists disagree with your notion that there is no evidence for creation. They think this evidence exists, they are convinced it can be found and that we haven't found it yet only because there are powerful atheist conspiracies suppressing it.

Just ask your brother in faith and KJVonlyism FoeHammer, or Inan3, or IamRedeemed over at GA, who will quite happily tell you that scientists recently uncovered tons of evidence for the Christian creation story, yet is completely incapable of providing an example of what they supposedly found.

It's really those people I think pose a danger. Unlike you, they think creationism is a valid scientific alternative and should therefore be taught in school science classes - something you, AFAIK, do not support. That's the main reason I ask for evidence. If they have it, they can teach it. If not, creationism cannot be called science and must not be treated like it was.

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

You're wrong --- and wrong scientifically too --- (but on a technicality).



Then why do you (plural) ask for it?

To ask for evidence is quite correct, and to use this evidence to formulate ideas is also correct, these ideas may themselves be wrong, and as new relevant evidence is gleaned the ideas change.

All evidence up to this point in time, points to no supernatural power at work in the universe. You’re hypothetical question can only be answered by a hypothetical answer, now I am all for hypothetical ideas, even Albert Einstein loved thought experiments, but if his though experiments made sense he would then look for evidence to support his notions.

If you could do it, I would be quite impressed and start a new field in science, we could call it “spontaneous solid science”.

 

[AV1611VET]

Which technicality would that be?

Omniscience --- but more on that later - (maybe).

Most of your fellow creationists disagree with your notion that there is no evidence for creation.

Then they need to take my Apple Challenge, don't they?

Have you referred them to it; or do you just try to answer the divine with the scientific?

 

[AV1611VET]

You’re hypothetical question can only be answered by a hypothetical answer..

You are quite wrong.

 

[Split Rock]

Omniscience --- but more on that later - (maybe).



Then they need to take my Apple Challenge, don't they?

Have you referred them to it; or do you just try to answer the divine with the scientific?

You are missing the point. They are the ones answering the divine with the scientific, because they want the teaching of evolution in science classes suppressed/balanced with "Creation Science" (an oxymoron if there ever was one). If such was not the case, AVET, there would not be this "controversy" in the first place and this forum would not even exist.

 

[AV1611VET]

You are missing the point. They are the ones answering the divine with the scientific, because they want the teaching of evolution in science classes suppressed/balanced with "Creation Science" (an oxymoron if there ever was one). If such was not the case, AVET, there would not be this "controversy" in the first place and this forum would not even exist.

Then simply refer them to my Apple Challenge thread.

Or, as I suspect, would you guys rather laugh and make jokes?

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

You are quite wrong.

No I am quite right.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

That the (non-cognitive IMO) "supernatural" or "divine" supposedly do not go too well together with the scientific ways to find out stuff is really not our* problem.


* us atheists, agnostics, naturalists etc. pp

 

[MrGoodBytes]

Omniscience --- but more on that later - (maybe).

Okay.

Then they need to take my Apple Challenge, don't they?

That is for them to decide.

Have you referred them to it; or do you just try to answer the divine with the scientific?

Creationists were the ones to answer religious questions with science, with the expectedly disastrous results. No scientist here ever said that we could put the Pope's blood sample through a mass spectrometer and isolate the Holy Spirit.

 

[FishFace]

Kudos, my friend!

I think you're about as close as I'm going to get to someone admitting there is no evidence.

(However, there is! It can be done --- but I'm not going to get into that right now, as I'm trying to get someone to admit there isn't any, so they'll quit asking us Christians for it.)

We've all tacitly admitted that by taking on the problems with your analogy, except for Loudmouth, who is talking about the signs embedded in the apple whose only raison d'être is due to history.

But ultimately, it's all moot. Because you didn't create the apple ex nihilo in front of us, and nor did God create the universe in front of us. If I pick an apple out from a market stall and tell you I created it ex nihilo in the box, what evidence would you use to conclude that I was/wasn't telling the truth?

That's the problem. You're assuming that which you wish to prove - that the apple was created. But you don't know that, so it's not that we need to convince our friend - it's that you need to convince us.

 

[FishFace]

Then why do you (plural) ask for it?

You want us to believe it? You provide the evidence.

 

[Split Rock]

Then simply refer them to my Apple Challenge thread.

They are more likely to listen to you then us. Yet (as far as I remember) none of them have posted here. They have ignored my Nasal Ruby Challenge as well...

Or, as I suspect, would you guys rather laugh and make jokes?

LOL! Are you referring to my infamous Nasal Ruby Challenge? How is my Nasal Ruby Challenge any different from your Apple Challenge? If you consider my Nasal Ruby Challenge to be a joke, why don't you consider your Apple Challenge to be a joke as well??