Kylie's Pool Challenge

[Kylie]

Then he's not too bright, is he?

Breaking balls on a pool table, then walking away without even documenting what he did; leaving it up to us to play Sherlock Holmes and figure it out.

Fo shame, fo shame!

Yeah, what were those laws of nature thinking, huh? Why can't natural events write down what they did?

 

[AV1611VET]

Yeah, what were those laws of nature thinking, huh? Why can't natural events write down what they did?

If they can break on a pool table, they can write.

 

[Kylie]

If they can break on a pool table, they can write.

Tell me, AV, are you able to understand the concept of an ANALOGY? Or are you just trolling?

 

[AV1611VET]

Tell me, AV, are you able to understand the concept of an ANALOGY? Or are you just trolling?

To someone who averages 4 posts per day, I guess I would seem to be trolling, wouldn't I?

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Tell me, AV, are you able to understand the concept of an ANALOGY? Or are you just trolling?

Well, I'm inclined to accept AV's explanation, if Player 1 were an almighty creator of the universe for example, then I too believe Player 1 should be the one to supply the evidence (such as the evidence we see in the universe all around us), and not any Player 2's second hand account (as is the case everywhere there's religion that puts forth nonsense narratives that disagree with what the Universe tells us). If Player 1 made the play that leaves evidence, then on top of that documented it as well, then the documentation wouldn't differ whatsoever from what the evidence actually looks like - that's how we know AV is mistaken to believe all the nonsense he believes from Player 2's secondhand documents that don't match Player 1's evidence we can see for ourselves.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

From AV's Pool Challenge thread...

​

Now, I looked at this and thought that the situation wasn't taking into account everything it should have. So I presented an alternative situation...

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 refuses to consider any alternative, and claims, "The documentation says it, that settles it!"

Is the third person right?

It would be up to someone else to prove the documentation was in error, since the other person has no evidence to go on but the documentation.

For example, you see a universe already existing. Documentation tells you it was created and stretched out.

Your observations observe the past and present effects of stretching.

Do you then dismiss the documentation and assume it happened by random chance from a point singularity where all your laws of nature break down, and so you have no laws of nature in which to base any random probabilities on?

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

It would be up to someone else to prove the documentation was in error, since the other person has no evidence to go on but the documentation.

Incorrect, we would have the evidence from examining the table and billiard balls. If you could bring to bear any number of finely calibrated observational instruments that showed each and every ball's most recent action was for example, tell-tale signs it rolled to its current position for fine depressions leading to its locations and lack of fingerprints from being placed, most recently a chalked impact mark from the cue on the white ball and again, lack of fingerprints for placing it, etc.

For example, you see a universe already existing. Documentation tells you it was created and stretched out.

...yet the evidence says it was stretched out well before the document says earth was created...

Your observations observe the past and present effects of stretching.

...and a universe of stars and planets and galaxies well before earth existed...

Do you then dismiss the documentation and assume it happened by random chance from a point singularity where all your laws of nature break down, and so you have no laws of nature in which to base any random probabilities on?

False dichotomy - we could just note the observations don't match the documentation of any religious texts (not just yours) and we can say we don't yet know what happened... but we'll keep investigating.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

...yet the evidence says it was stretched out well before the document says earth was created...

In whose opinion? Those that mistranslate the original Hebrew word "hayah" in verse 2?

http://biblehub.com/hebrew/1961.htm

"hayah: to fall out, come to pass, become, be"

Notice that "was" is not even listed below as a possible meaning for the word at all.

So tell us all how the earth "became" desolate and waste if it already "was" desolate and waste? How darkness "became" upon the surface of the deep, if darkness "was" already on the surface?

That you want to agree with incorrect translations so you think you actually have a point, just shows you refuse to accept the true meaning of "hayah", because such would make your claims, well, pointless....

...and a universe of stars and planets and galaxies well before earth existed...

I do believe the heavens were made before the earth was made...... Again, another pointless incorrect claim on your part.

In beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

Please point to us the spot where it says the earth was created before the universe or even at the same time?

False dichotomy - we could just note the observations don't match the documentation of any religious texts (not just yours) and we can say we don't yet know what happened... but we'll keep investigating.

As long as you continue with your false beliefs of what the Bible says.

I'm hoping they do keep investigating. Perhaps one day they'll come to a realization of the truth....

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

In whose opinion? Those that mistranslate the original Hebrew word "hayah" in verse 2?

http://biblehub.com/hebrew/1961.htm

"hayah: to fall out, come to pass, become, be"

Notice that "was" is not even listed below as a possible meaning for the word at all.

So tell us all how the earth "became" desolate and waste if it already "was" desolate and waste? How darkness "became" upon the surface of the deep, if darkness "was" already on the surface?

That you want to agree with incorrect translations so you think you actually have a point, just shows you refuse to accept the true meaning of "hayah", because such would make your claims, well, pointless....

Sure, however your particular interpretation goes, I'm fine with that.

I do believe the heavens were made before the earth was made...... Again, another pointless incorrect claim on your part.

In beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

Please point to us the spot where it says the earth was created before the universe or even at the same time?

Well, we're going off your particular interpretation, so if you interpret it that way, then Great!

As long as you continue with your false beliefs of what the Bible says.

I'm hoping they do keep investigating. Perhaps one day they'll come to a realization of the truth....

Bible believers believe the widest variety of beliefs - it isn't clear cut at all, and whatever the actual truth is could literally be anyone's guess. I'll go with Science, thanks!

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Sure, however your particular interpretation goes, I'm fine with that.

Hey, it's their very own concordance, yet they cant seem to follow their own definition very well. They take after evolutionists there.

Well, we're going off your particular interpretation, so if you interpret it that way, then Great!

And yet you failed to point out how it fits the interpretation you wanted me to accept previously so that you thought you had an argument.

Bible believers believe the widest variety of beliefs - it isn't clear cut at all, and whatever the actual truth is could literally be anyone's guess. I'll go with Science, thanks!

Sort of like evolutionists. Is it punctured equilibrium, Lamarkism, Darwinism, Neo-Darwinism, synthetic evolution, or on and on and on?

Which one of the many interpretations fits your system of belief???? So whatever the actual truth is could be anyone's guess, correct????

Don't you just hate it when your own arguments turn and bite you?

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Hey, it's their very own concordance, yet they cant seem to follow their own definition very well. They take after evolutionists there.

Projection. "evolutionists" seem to be able to get a great many things done, unlike whiney creation apologists who contribute exactly ZERO to humanity and progress...

And yet you failed to point out how it fits the interpretation you wanted me to accept previously so that you thought you had an argument.

I pointed out that the general interpretation is of course the earth was formed first, and everything else afterwards (which I'm still not sure where & how you stand on it being otherwise), but like I said, it gets interpreted a thousand ways from Sunday, so I'm happy to work with you on your interpretation, if you can let us know what your interpretation looks like, so we can move on.

Sort of like evolutionists. Is it punctured equilibrium, Lamarkism, Darwinism, Neo-Darwinism, synthetic evolution, or on and on and on?

Which one of the many interpretations fits your system of belief???? So whatever the actual truth is could be anyone's guess, correct????

Nope! In order as mentioned, Part of the Theory of Evolution, Disproven, Original concept that led to the Theory of Evolution, These last two are pretty much the same thing, and are Part of the Theory of Evolution. See? Easy! Your protestations are quite unfounded in that all of these bar one are part of what we know as the Theory of Evolution, they're actually complementary points of observation and extrapolations which match real-world applications.

Don't you just hate it when your own arguments turn and bite you?

....are you talking to yourself here?? lol! for a sec there, I thought you were talking to me... and that would've been hilarious!

 

[Kylie]

To someone who averages 4 posts per day, I guess I would seem to be trolling, wouldn't I?

Are you bragging about your quantity over quality again? Please, it was a weak argument the first time you trotted it out, and it hasn't got any better.

 

[Kylie]

It would be up to someone else to prove the documentation was in error, since the other person has no evidence to go on but the documentation.

Why do you assume they can't study the table, as I described in post 170?

For example, you see a universe already existing. Documentation tells you it was created and stretched out.

Your observations observe the past and present effects of stretching.

Do you then dismiss the documentation and assume it happened by random chance from a point singularity where all your laws of nature break down, and so you have no laws of nature in which to base any random probabilities on?

No, I dismiss the documentation based on the fact that the universe is the best source of information about the universe.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Well, I'm inclined to accept AV's explanation, if Player 1 were an almighty creator of the universe for example, then I too believe Player 1 should be the one to supply the evidence (such as the evidence we see in the universe all around us), and not any Player 2's second hand account (as is the case everywhere there's religion that puts forth nonsense narratives that disagree with what the Universe tells us). If Player 1 made the play that leaves evidence, then on top of that documented it as well, then the documentation wouldn't differ whatsoever from what the evidence actually looks like - that's how we know AV is mistaken to believe all the nonsense he believes from Player 2's secondhand documents that don't match Player 1's evidence we can see for ourselves.

But the analogy is totally false on its face to begin with.

Because Player 1 breaks the balls, he then dictates to player 2 the state of the table and several changes that happened. Player 2 also never saw the original state. Player 3 then comes along and reads the documentation by player 2 dictated by player 1 and re-translates it into another language not his native language several thousand years later. Player 4 then comes along and notices a few minor discrepancies between the table, but realizes the table has also been disturbed and is no longer in the state it was just after breaking.

So does player 4 conclude player 1 lied, or player two was incorrect? Or does he realize player three may have gotten a few things wrong not fully understanding the original language between Player 1 and 2, and also notices clear evidence of change from the original state of the breakage?

If we are going to have analogies, lets at least make them realistic to what actually happened. Player 2 never saw the table during the break. He only sees it later while player one is dictating the break to him and the changes after the break.

 

[AV1611VET]

Are you bragging about your quantity over quality again?

No -- but I'll be more than happy to if you want to keep asking me if I'm trolling.

 

[Kylie]

But the analogy is totally false on its face to begin with.

Because Player 1 breaks the balls, he then dictates to player 2 the state of the table and several changes that happened. Player 2 also never saw the original state. Player 3 then comes along and reads the documentation by player 2 dictated by player 1 and re-translates it into another language not his native language several thousand years later. Player 4 then comes along and notices a few minor discrepancies between the table, but realizes the table has also been disturbed and is no longer in the state it was just after breaking.

So does player 4 conclude player 1 lied, or player two was incorrect? Or does he realize player three may have gotten a few things wrong not fully understanding the original language between Player 1 and 2, and also notices clear evidence of change from the original state of the breakage?

If we are going to have analogies, lets at least make them realistic to what actually happened. Player 2 never saw the table during the break. He only sees it later while player one is dictating the break to him and the changes after the break.

Except that we don't know that player 1 did that, all we have is player 2's claim that player 1 dictated it.

Also, you are assuming that Player 4 has no way of getting information about the previous state of the board by examining it.

 

[Kylie]

No -- but I'll be more than happy to if you want to keep asking me if I'm trolling.

So you respond to my suspicions about trolling by trolling?

 

[AV1611VET]

So you respond to my suspicions about trolling by trolling?

QV please and decide for yourself:

I do not believe AV1611VET can be a real person. I postulate that he is a chatbot (yecbot) program that has been running on the Christian Forums servers for the last several years just to keep us all amused. And to keep the number counting threads alive of course.

Now convince me otherwise.

 

[Kylie]

QV please and decide for yourself:

And what does this have to do with anything?

Real people can be trolls, y'know.

 

[AV1611VET]

Real people can be trolls, y'know.

Most of them aren't though?

Do you know of any trolls who are also site supporters of the site they are trolling?

(Other than myself, of course. )