The Return of My Apple Challenge

[Phred]

Loudmouth, I don't mean to be rude, and I know you probably don't want to hear this, but I'm not going to sit here and respond to any lectures from the viewpoint of raw science. I couldn't care less if this earth has 10 times the meteor strikes, with 10 times the "scientific evidence" of 10 times the age that this earth is calculated as having. It means, and believe me, I cannot stress this emphatically enough, absolutely nothing to me whatsoever. Nada. Zip. Zero. I can promise you with all the veracity I can muster that science makes no dent at all in what I believe. None. And as far as I'm concerned, you can take your science and go convince those babes in Christ who don't know their Bibles that well that they should believe in some form of Theistic Evolution, as they call it; but you're not going to even make a dent in me. [shrugs shoulders] It ain't gonna happen.

What IS won't change what you BELIEVE.

You're the kind of person that causes inquisitions and concentration camps. Oh... you don't mean to. You only mean the best for people. Of course, the best based upon what you BELIEVE.

Reason my friend... reason and science make for much better bedfellows than blind belief and faith. It's a shame you can temper your belief with a little sanity.

 

[corvus_corax]

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

No

Only God can do what you are saying you did.

You lose by your own statement


Only God, hence not you, hence according to your own statement about ex nihilo creation, your entire apple "challenge" falls apart.

Thankee

 

[dad]

Namaste AV,

thank you for the post.



please demonstrate that you can do this or i shall have to consider your motives in quite a negative light. it would seem that you are lying but i am willing to suspend this view until such time that you can make said apple.

But if it was a one time creation, you can't expect recreations at the drop of a hat.

 

[NailsII]

But if it was a one time creation, you can't expect recreations at the drop of a hat.

but if it was a one-time creation, why the imbedded age/history bit?
Now, it makes sense to have made mature plants that are ready to eat - because everything needs to eat something - , and maybe you could go as far as creating mature animals that were ready to reproduce (did god create already pregnant animals ex nihlo?) - but the imbedded history bit makes no sense whatsoever.
Making the rocks look millions and billions of years older than they are is futile, and of no relevance whatsoever.
It's like making a 10 year old dog and grinding his teeth down to simulate the excessive wear and tear that the animal has not endured. Why not add arthritis and a few scars as well?

 

[Nathan Poe]

But if it was a one time creation, you can't expect recreations at the drop of a hat.

Wouldn't expect recreations if it never happened in the first place, either.

 

[RobotHouse]

I'd create laser beams ex nihilo from my eyes and shoot the apple.

 

[arnoldedward]

How can you take anything AV says seriously when he has said such wonderful things as - "If your original Hebrew disagrees with my original King James --- your original Hebrew is wrong. If your original Hebrew agrees with my original King James, your original Hebrew is right. "

 

[faster_jackrabbit]

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

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

Since there is no possible evidence I can present, I would do what christianity does: tell the friend that he will receive an eternal reward if he has "faith" the apple was created, and will suffer eternal torture if he doesn't. Sort of a Pascal's Wager for apples.

 

[quatona]

What about "Sure, I can´t prove it was created ex nihilo, but neither can you prove it wasn´t."
or
"Sure it makes no sense, but since it´s alogical it needn´t make sense in the first place."

 

[RedAndy]

How can you take anything AV says seriously when he has said such wonderful things as - "If your original Hebrew disagrees with my original King James --- your original Hebrew is wrong. If your original Hebrew agrees with my original King James, your original Hebrew is right. "

Unfortunately we are compelled to take him seriously, because it is transparently obvious that he actually believes everything he says.

 

[Tiberius]

But if it was a one time creation, you can't expect recreations at the drop of a hat.

Why is it a one time creation? Why can it only be done once?

 

[dad]

but if it was a one-time creation, why the imbedded age/history bit?
Now, it makes sense to have made mature plants that are ready to eat - because everything needs to eat something - , and maybe you could go as far as creating mature animals that were ready to reproduce (did god create already pregnant animals ex nihlo?) - but the imbedded history bit makes no sense whatsoever.
Making the rocks look millions and billions of years older than they are is futile, and of no relevance whatsoever.
It's like making a 10 year old dog and grinding his teeth down to simulate the excessive wear and tear that the animal has not endured. Why not add arthritis and a few scars as well?

Because the age is only in the perceptions of man, not real time. As for mature plants, if they could grow in days back then, that is no problem.

 

[dad]

Why is it a one time creation? Why can it only be done once?

Because once it is done, and lasting forever, it can't not exist any more. Forever is forever. Man is forever. The earth and sun are forever. Don't be fooled by the current state.

 

[ReverendDG]

Because, as I have said before, we hold science up to a higher Standard; and again, for the record, if it doesn't contradict the Scriptures, I have no problem with it. That's why I'll take your word that the earth is 4.57 billion years old - it doesn't contradict a literal reading of Genesis.

yes if you just twist it to make it not, somehow the genealogy seems to contradict the 4.57 billion years science says.
and that is were your nonsense breaks down

As I have just stated, as long as it doesn't contradict the Bible, I'm okay with it.

the bible contradicts itself, i think you mean "as long as science doesn't contradict my half-ass theology"

I've clearly explained this paradox using definitions, examples, and challenges. I even, in a rare moment, showed how it's very easy to do scientifically, using only a second dimension of time - (although I personally don't subscribe to that interpretation)

well obviously it doesn't make sense to anyone but you. that honestly doesn't tell you anything? i mean if no one can understand what you are saying, maybe theres something wrong with what you are trying to argue.
the thing is, its not a paradox, its a semantic argument, with a bunch of trying to redefine words and ending up with stupid contradictions that shouldn't exist.

if you have to redefine a word to make your nonsense work, its a load of crap
oh and if you have to invent another dimension of time, YOU FAIL

It's called embedding age.

which you can't explain without redefining words or twisting how you use them.
age: The length of time that one has existed; duration of life
existence:1. The fact or state of existing; being.
exist:1. To have actual being; be real.
old:a. Having lived or existed for a relatively long time; far advanced in years or life.
2. Made long ago; in existence for many years:
the fact is you try to claim that something can be old or have a long age and exist for a short period of time
but by the way we use the words we use that is impossible!
being old mean you have existed for a long time, you can't be old and exist for only a few years.
its a contradiction
btw this is not a paradox, you haven't shown that what you are saying is even possible, from the many threads you posted, you don't even understand your own argument

 

[ReverendDG]

Because the age is only in the perceptions of man, not real time. As for mature plants, if they could grow in days back then, that is no problem.

ok explain the difference between "real time" and our perception of time?
the only thing you've shown here dad, is creationism is not a good way to learn about the universe or even god
if you have to throw out a bunch of add-hoc answers, creationism is worthless

 

[craigerNY]

ok explain the difference between "real time" and our perception of time?
the only thing you've shown here dad, is creationism is not a good way to learn about the universe or even god
if you have to throw out a bunch of add-hoc answers, creationism is worthless

Good luck sorting out the explanation. Especially if it contradicts these two already contradicting useages of it.

Because the age is only in the perceptions of man, not real time. As for mature plants, if they could grow in days back then, that is no problem.

Man can not percieve time.

Because once it is done, and lasting forever, it can't not exist any more. Forever is forever. Man is forever. The earth and sun are forever. Don't be fooled by the current state.

A man's perception of time. Same poster.........

 

[Soul Searcher]

Because once it is done, and lasting forever, it can't not exist any more. Forever is forever. Man is forever. The earth and sun are forever. Don't be fooled by the current state.

I thought I had heard it all

How do you come up with such nonsense as this? The earth had a begining and it will have an end, as does the others you have mentioned.

Even a literal read of the bible shows that all these things had a begining and that all have an end. What I see from you is a statement that is neither biblical nor in accordance with reality. I wonder what it must be like to just make it up as you go.

 

[ReverendDG]

Good luck sorting out the explanation. Especially if it contradicts these two already contradicting useages of it.



Man can not percieve time.



A man's perception of time. Same poster.........

yeah i know, i should really know better than to try to get an answer out of dad
just call me a glutton for punishment

 

[dad]

ok explain the difference between "real time" and our perception of time?
the only thing you've shown here dad, is creationism is not a good way to learn about the universe or even god
if you have to throw out a bunch of add-hoc answers, creationism is worthless

Well, your perception of age is based no on how it looks to the eye, but a set of assumptions used to so called date it.

 

[dad]

Man can not percieve time.

Not in reality, no, but science thinks and perceives that things are a certain age.