The Return of My Apple Challenge

[nvxplorer]

You are quite wrong.

No, he's not.

 

[Loudmouth]

But what evidence would you use?

One line of evidence would be the absence of structures needed for the development of the apple. This would include a stem, a scar where the stem enters the apple, a calyx complete with flower petals, and internal vasculature. Uless the creator of the ex nihilo apple purposefully included features to make it look like the apple went through stages that the apple never went through, the ex nihilo apple would look very different from their ex natura counterparts.

 

[FishFace]

You are quite wrong.

No, he's quite right. If you, hypothetically, produced an apple from thin air, then, equally hypothetically, I wouldn't have evidence to convince someone else of its magical creation.

However, all you've established is "if P then Q." Unless and until you demonstrate that P is even within the bounds of possibility, we don't have any obligation to consider the logical connection, "if P then Q," as being any kind of problem.

If I turned you into a rabbit, but you still appeared to your friends as a human being, would you be able to convince them of your transformation? Probably not, but you don't give one because you haven't been turned into a rabbit, and you've got no good reason to believe anyone else has, either.

So, now you've got our "admission," what do you actually want to say? Are you going to try and convince us that the earth was created or not? You were convinced, apparently, so surely there must be some good reason you've got tucked away.

 

[quatona]

(However, there is! It can be done --- but I'm not going to get into that right now,

ROTF. I would have evidence that I have seen someone create an apple. But I am 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.)

That makes things easier. We don´t need to ask any more, but can now say right away that you have no evidence.
Thanks!

 

[LeeC]

This debate has not moved on has it?

Having seen many magic tricks in my time I will question my observation.
Without evidence for it being anything else but a magic trick - I cannot believe otherwise it until it is repeated under scientific conditions.

If it cannot be repeated... then it tends to confirm my first answer - a magic trick, sleight of hand and all that - so many apples in the store could be bought for just a trick.

Lee

 

[LeeC]

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.

Are you sure on this?

I suppose the key phrase is "convince me that it was not some kind of magic trick"

I might believe you that you would not make this story up, but you might have been fooled. A good conman could do this to the best of us.

So just because I could be convinced (or you in this case) should NOT be enough to convince me or my friends.

I might have been "tricked" into thinking it was not a trick so to speak. I would want a 2nd (and 3rd) opinion.

My training/education is of a science nature, but this does not mean I cannot be tricked or fooled (I'm sure I can). The smarter we think we are, more the trickster has to play with.

So for something that has such a great claim, I would want more people to investigate the observation - "experts" if they could be found. This will include scientists, engineers and magicians (they know something about tricks) under as close scientific conditions as possible.

So no disrespect to anyone - I could not accept a single person's observation or testimony.

Just look at all those claims of alien landings! They each believe them to be true. They are each fooled for some reason – the lack of evidence is against them.

Now if the James Randi foundation confirmed the event was true and handed over their $1,000,000 to the apple maker – this would be enough for me. It will not be a single person making the observation or the decision on whether is was valid and true.

Lee

 

[quatona]

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.

If my friends reacted that way I would consider them gullible and biased.
Sure, I would appreciate it if they wouldn´t call me a liar or insinuate disingenious motives on my part, but to abandon reasonable skepticism towards unevidenced exceptional claims just because their friend makes them? That would make me question their intellectual integrity. I guess I would encourage them to be more skeptical.

 

[quatona]

I find this "challenge" still confusing. It appears to be the attempt of the OP to make us help him hold his gun while he aims at his own foot.
I just don´t get it.

 

[monkeypsycho62]

I find this "challenge" still confusing. It appears to be the attempt of the OP to make us help him hold his gun while he aims at his own foot.
I just don´t get it.

AV doesn't really have a reputation for making a lick of sense........

 

[Lord Emsworth]

I find this "challenge" still confusing. It appears to be the attempt of the OP to make us help him hold his gun while he aims at his own foot.
I just don´t get it.

His point is that science cannot be used to prove his POV, i.e. a created earth, universe with the appearance of age.

Or something.

 

[quatona]

His point is that science cannot be used to prove his POV, i.e. a created earth, universe with the appearance of age.

But - hasn´t that been our point originally?

 

[Psudopod]

Originally Posted by Lord Emsworth
His point is that science cannot be used to prove his POV, i.e. a created earth, universe with the appearance of age.

Which is true, but:

a) it makes God a liar because he's gone out of his way to make it seem like one thing happened when something else did;

and
b)It makes creationism utterly useless becuase we will never know about the way God really did it, so we might as well ignore it and carry on the way we always have.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

But - hasn´t that been our point originally?

Sorry, my original wording was a liitle careless. I think that his point is also that science cannot be used to disprove anything that he just feels like making up on the spot (be there a remote connection to Genesis, or not).

 

[AV1611VET]

Which is true, but:

a) it makes God a liar because he's gone out of his way to make it seem like one thing happened when something else did;

That's why He documented what He did --- not to cloud the issue --- but to clarify it.

 

[Psudopod]

Then why go to all the effort of changing reality so it doesn't tie in with what was written? How on earth is that clarifying the issue? It's like saying the sky is orange, when everyone can look out and see it is blue!

 

[Lord Emsworth]

That's why He documented what He did --- not to cloud the issue --- but to clarify it.

And that is your problem. The documentation speaks about something that does not exist as it is described.

 

[AV1611VET]

Then why go to all the effort of changing reality so it doesn't tie in with what was written?

I'm not sure what you meant by "changing reality"; but He couldn't let the universe go on in its glorified state, He had to intervene and do something.

Envision God saying this:

• Okay, Lucifer. You want to be like Me? Go for it. Since My creation now is in your possession, you sustain it.

Now envision this --- much later:

• How you doing with My creation, Satan? Oh, my! What's this I see? Looks like My creation is winding down! Can't you keep it going??? Looks like you're not as powerful as you think you are!

 

[AV1611VET]

And that is your problem. The documentation speaks about something that does not exist as it is described.

It did at one time --- for about a year.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

It did at one time --- for about a year.

That is just too narrow a focus. I presume that you are talking about the flood as the end point of that one year? If so, chalk one up for the things that do not exist.

Furthermore the flood did not destroy everything that is said to have been created in the first creation story. Night and day (1), the skydome (2), the earth (3), in short the whole form of the Hebrew cosmos remained pretty much unscathed. As did the rulers of the day and the night (4). The only part of creation that got destroyed are the inhabitants of the land (6), and presumably those of the sky and the seas (5).


ETA:
Not to forget that which did the destroying to begin with: the waters of the deep

 

[AV1611VET]

That is just too narrow a focus. I presume that you are talking about the flood as the end point of that one year? If so, chalk one up for the things that do not exist.

I'm talking about the Creation --- from Genesis 1 to Genesis 3 --- a timespan of about one year.