My Pool Challenge

[AV1611VET]

Here is another question for you.

Whoa, chief! Let's not hijack a good thread with someone's obsession about fossils, k?

Luke 24:5b Why seek ye the living among the dead?

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

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?

Whoa, chief! Let's not hijack a good thread with someone's obsession about fossils, k?

Yeah, @doubtingmerle , what's with all these 'facts', and 'evidence(s)' - it ain't helping to justify his blinkered narrative with all this 'rational thinking' and 'logical conclusion' going on around here...

 

[doubtingmerle]

Whoa, chief! Let's not hijack a good thread with someone's obsession about fossils, k?

Luke 24:5b Why seek ye the living among the dead?

A thread cannot be a good thread until it is clear what point is being discussed.

I thought you were discussing that fossils could have been created recently, and not millions of years ago as it appears to us. So this thread is not about fossils?

Let's guess again. This thread might be about the starlight being created enroute without being a record of history. This also is bogus, for the starlight shows things like supernova explosions, which are the clear signature of historical events. Do you agree that the explosions we see in the sky that measure to have happened over 100,000 years ago really happened?

 

[AV1611VET]

Let's guess again.

Guess!??

It's in the title to this thread.

I even posted a picture of it.

Science must be myopicer than I thought!

 

[doubtingmerle]

Guess!??

It's in the title to this thread.

I even posted a picture of it.

Science must be myopicer than I thought!

Ah this thread is about whether you can put pool balls on a table at randem.

Yes, you can.

 

[AV1611VET]

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

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

Was he wrong?

Ah this thread is about whether you can put pool balls on a table at randem.

No, it is not.

It is about the guy that comes along later and says, "Nice break."

There are two people in this challenge.

The challenge is about the second person, not the first.

 

[doubtingmerle]

No, it is not.

It is about the guy that comes along later and says, "Nice break."

There are two people in this challenge.

The challenge is about the second person, not the first.

Ah, so that is all you are getting at. If pool balls are found on a table, they might not have gotten there in a break.

Were you trying to make a point about anything other than pool balls?

 

[AV1611VET]

Were you trying to make a point about anything other than pool balls?

Yes ... creationism.

In creationism, there was no "break".

A break takes time, with balls moving around here and there.

The break represents the Big Bang.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Yes ... creationism.

In creationism, there was no "break".

A break takes time, with balls moving around here and there.

The break represents the Big Bang.

I see. In your example you know of no direct evidence of how the balls got there. Therefore you conclude there is no evidence of whether a Big Bang occurred.

your reasoning is faulty in many ways. First, the fact that there is no evidence for this break is irrelevant of whether there is evidence of a big bang. Second, how do you know there is no evidence for this break? Perhaps there was a surveillance camera or perhaps an eyewitness saw you break the balls and can verify that you didn't cheat.

 

[AV1611VET]

I see. In your example you know of no direct evidence of how the balls got there. Therefore you conclude there is no evidence of whether a Big Bang occurred.

Merle, the pool table is a picture of creationism.

The balls were placed there in a moment of time.

I made that clear, when I said: "Let's say someone set these balls down this way."

But someone comes along later (evolutionists), and says: "Nice break."

I made that clear, when I said: "Later, someone looking at it says, 'Nice break.'"

Then I asked the question: "Was he wrong?"

The obvious answer, based on my statement, "someone set these balls down," is: "Yes, he was wrong."

The balls were not broken and rolled around the table and ended up like the picture in my OP.

Instead, the balls were placed on the table from someone leaning over the railing.

 

[doubtingmerle]

The balls were placed there in a moment of time.

I made that clear, when I said: "Let's say someone set these balls down this way."

But someone comes along later (evolutionists), and says: "Nice break."

I made that clear, when I said: "Later, someone looking at it says, 'Nice break.'"

Then I asked the question: "Was he wrong?"

The obvious answer, based on my statement, "someone set these balls down," is: "Yes, he was wrong."

The balls were not broken and rolled around the table and ended up like the picture in my OP.

Instead, the balls were placed on the table from someone leaning over the railing.

In other words, if the balls did not get there by a break, then they did not get there by a break. I agree. How is that a profound conclusion worth a thread of discussion?

 

[AV1611VET]

In other words, if the balls did not get there by a break, then they did not get there by a break. I agree. How is that a profound conclusion worth a thread of discussion?

 

[doubtingmerle]

Ok, so you don't care to explain to us why you would start a thread to show that, if there was no break of the pool balls, then there was no break of the pool balls.

 

[AV1611VET]

In other words, if the balls did not get there by a break, then they did not get there by a break. I agree. How is that a profound conclusion worth a thread of discussion?

Just wondering if, someone came along and said, "Nice break," he would be wrong.

In your opinion.

(This isn't rocket science, you know.)

 

[Phred]

Are you still at this? Even after all these years you're still trying to score Jesus points with ridiculous, biased challenges.

First, please provide evidence that a god exists. Not inference, but actual evidence. If you can provide evidence that a god exists then please provide evidence that this deity is YOUR god. So it doesn't do any good to show that a god created the world if you can't show that YOUR god created the world. Once you've done that THEN and only THEN can you have conversations about whether or not a deity could have created the earth with apparent age.

You always manage to skip a few steps.

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?

 

[AV1611VET]

First, please provide evidence that a god exists. Not inference, but actual evidence. If you can provide evidence that a god exists then please provide evidence that this deity is YOUR god. So it doesn't do any good to show that a god created the world if you can't show that YOUR god created the world. Once you've done that THEN and only THEN can you have conversations about whether or not a deity could have created the earth with apparent age.

If I do all that, then will you admit the guy in the OP who said "nice break" was wrong?

 

[doubtingmerle]

Just wondering if, someone came along and said, "Nice break," he would be wrong.

In your opinion.

(This isn't rocket science, you know.)

If the balls did not get there by a break, then they did not get there by a break. I agree. How is that a profound conclusion worth a thread of discussion?

 

[AV1611VET]

If the balls did not get there by a break, then they did not get there by a break. I agree. How is that a profound conclusion worth a thread of discussion?

Because people learn in life to look at a pool table and assume the balls were configured according to the rules (and physics) of billiards.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Because people learn in life to look at a pool table and assume the balls were configured according to the rules (and physics) of billiards.

Ah, but what if there was abundant evidence that the balls were indeed broken? What if there is a whole series of pictures on the security camera showing the balls being broken and moving into position? And what if microscopic analysis shows where the balls hit each other to make this break?

That is what we have in the world. We have abundant evidence that the world got here through a series of events. It was not simply created last Tuesday, or whenever it is you think it was created.

 

[AV1611VET]

That is what we have in the world.

Only on paper.

We have abundant evidence that the world got here through a series of events.

Made-up events: like asteroid strikes and whatnot.

And while I applaud your concatenation skills, your history is full of more holes than Clyde Barrow.

It was not simply created last Tuesday, or whenever it is you think it was created.

23 October 4004 BC