My Pool Challenge

[joshua 1 9]

In space the accuracy would improve.

We have a space camera to avoid the distortion we would have trying to photograph though our atmosphere.

 

[VirOptimus]

I don't call these challenge threads for nothing.

One of the challenges is to respect the OP as it is written.

And believe me, respect is a challenge.

Your OP:s mostly get the respect they deserve.

 

[durangodawood]

Let's say someone set these balls down this way.

Later, someone looking at it says, "Nice break."

Was he wrong?

Yes, she was wrong.



Its a terrible break!

 

[PsychoSarah]

Take a look at this picture:

Let's say someone set these balls down this way.

Later, someone looking at it says, "Nice break."

Was he wrong?

He was incorrect, however, the incorrect conclusion is derived from the fact that setting the balls this way and doing so by "breaking" them is indistinguishable. Heck, it's such a random configuration that even if a person told me they did this, I'd definitely ask them the reason why. It's not a good enough break to justify just wanting to start the game this way. So, without a person claiming they set the balls this way, the logical conclusion would be that this is the result of a partially played game of pool, and with a person claiming that they set it this way, it becomes a far more unusual and questionable situation just because of the strangeness of the action.

 

[Kylie]

Of course.

The Koran is a good example.

Or the Bible.

I really wish you would start your own thread on this, instead of hijacking mine, but to answer your question, the person who broke should have documented it.

Okie Dokie...

Kylie's Pool Challenge

Love your input over there AV...

 

[AV1611VET]

He was incorrect, however, the incorrect conclusion is derived from the fact that setting the balls this way and doing so by "breaking" them is indistinguishable. Heck, it's such a random configuration that even if a person told me they did this, I'd definitely ask them the reason why. It's not a good enough break to justify just wanting to start the game this way. So, without a person claiming they set the balls this way, the logical conclusion would be that this is the result of a partially played game of pool, and with a person claiming that they set it this way, it becomes a far more unusual and questionable situation just because of the strangeness of the action.

Your respect and candid reply are refreshing.

 

[AV1611VET]

Okie Dokie...

Kylie's Pool Challenge

Love your input over there AV...

Thank you! On my way!

 

[Kenny'sID]

Let's say someone broke, and then a second person wrote down a statement claiming that he had not broken, but had simply placed the balls in this position. Later, a third person comes in, reads the documentation and concludes that the documentation MUST be right, and anyone who says the balls reached this position as a result of regular play is terribly wrong.

The third person would have to be the 4th while the actual 3rd person would claim they were just like that on their own and no one did anything to make it happen. Then the 4th could decide who is correct, the second or third persons claim?

 

[Speedwell]

The third person would have to be the 4th while the actual 3rd person would claim they were just like that on their own and no one did anything to make it happen. Then the 4th could decide who is correct, the second or third persons claim?

Why would the third person claim they were just like that on their own?

 

[Kenny'sID]

Why would the third person claim they were just like that on their own?

Why not?

Why would a second person write down a statement claiming that he had not broken?

Just adding to the scenario, if that's OK.

 

[Speedwell]

Why not?

Why would a second person write down a statement claiming that he had not broken?

Just adding to the scenario, if that's OK.

OK, I'll add too. Suppose the second person saw the balls on the table and--not caring how they actually got there--decided to write a story about a man placing balls on the table, with a moral to it about cheating at pool.

 

[Ancient of Days]

I would say neither, they weren't wrong or right. Since a conclusion cannot be established based on a lack of evidence. The only logical conclusion to come to is "I don't know what happened" and hence no statement can be made for any argument, either way. The only real fact that exists is that there are balls on the table.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Take a look at this picture:

Let's say someone set these balls down this way.

Later, someone looking at it says, "Nice break."

Was he wrong?

Depends - if there's a way by which we can tell if they got to these positions from a 'break' (i.e. very fine tracks across the billiard table we can detect using finely tuned instruments and know-how), then he wasn't wrong. Even if we didn't have such an ability, then we can still say a tentative 'not wrong' with very high conviction given the normality of how gameplay results in such configurations.

Question though, what if someone (say, an Alien from another world) had never seen this game before, didn't know what the parts were, nor how it's played, no way to investigate how these pieces got there and only had this one example. Would someone who cares about being accurate then be justified in agreeing with some random that says "Nice break"?

 

[AV1611VET]

Even if we didn't have such an ability, then we can still say a tentative 'not wrong' with very high conviction given the normality of how gameplay results in such configurations.

And according to the OP, we would be wrong, wouldn't we?

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

And according to the OP, we would be wrong, wouldn't we?

Agreed, he would be wrong.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Let's say someone set these balls down this way.

Later, someone looking at it says, "Nice break."

Was he wrong?

Normally illustrations are given to illustrate a point. What is your point?

If your point is that the world may have been made Last Thursday with everything all in place at creation looking like there had been a history, we can explain once again why it is not likely the world was made last Thursday. Is that your point?

 

[AV1611VET]

Normally illustrations are given to illustrate a point. What is your point?

If your point is that the world may have been made Last Thursday with everything all in place at creation looking like there had been a history, we can explain once again why it is not likely the world was made last Thursday. Is that your point?

Either that, or history began flowing from that configuration.

Which came first? history, or the universe that produces it?

If it was the universe first, then the universe existed at some point w/o a history.

Its configuration at the time, whether a dot of ylem or a fully-functional creation, is what's being demonstrated.

My challenge shows how a configured pool table can be made to look like it was configured by physics, when in reality, its configuration came into existence that way.

Your Beelzebang Theory requires a cue stick.

Genesis 1 creation requires a person setting the table.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Either that, or history began flowing from that configuration.

Which came first? history, or the universe that produces it?

If it was the universe first, then the universe existed at some point w/o a history.

Its configuration at the time, whether a dot of ylem or a fully-functional creation, is what's being demonstrated.

My challenge shows how a configured pool table can be made to look like it was configured by physics, when in reality, its configuration came into existence that way.

Your Beelzebang Theory requires a cue stick.

Genesis 1 creation requires a person setting the table.

Ah, so the fossil record could have been made by somebody that "set the table"?

This is the concept we have been discussing in other threads. As far as I can tell, you agree the fossil record could not have been made in creation week, and apparently even agree it was not made in Noah's flood. Instead, you have come up with the novel proposal that God took all the dead animals after the flood and cleaned up by burying them, some miles deep. We have already explained why this is not likely, for the fossils down there line up in an order consistent with evolution, and not with what one would expect from a general cleanup effort.

Now that you are back on the topic, I will throw in another reason: Throughout the record we find the rocks have radiometric ages consistent with these rocks having accumulated there over time. If this was all made in a cleanup effort after the flood, why did God put in the precise amounts of Rb, Sr, Pb, etc. in all those rocks so they date consistent with evolution?

 

[AV1611VET]

Ah, so the fossil record could have been made by somebody that "set the table"?

Yes ... only He didn't.

And to be theologically correct, it would be "a fossil record," not "the fossil record," since "the fossil record" was made by processes not in existence in Genesis 1.

"A fossil record" would not require a process of time.

"The fossil record," as currently documented, would.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Yes ... only He didn't.

And to be theologically correct, it would be "a fossil record," not "the fossil record," since "the fossil record" was made by processes not in existence in Genesis 1.

"A fossil record" would not require a process of time.

"The fossil record," as currently documented, would.

The cleanup of all the dead animals after the flood occurred instantly?

Here is another question for you. Why is it, that fossils show signs that the body died, the meat was eaten off, and the bones were scattered by scavengers. We find the bones scattered about an area, rather than looking like they were part of a single carcass. Why did God break the animals up into individual bones and scatter them on the same layer in a way that looked like scavengers had torn the carcasses apart?