My [playing card] Challenge

[AV1611VET]

So back to the OP then.
Do you believe them ?

No.

 

[pgp_protector]

No.

Now wasn't that so much easer than trying to add to the OP

 

[AV1611VET]

Now wasn't that so much easer than trying to add to the OP

Yes.

 

[Skaloop]

Why throw them into the incinerator then?

Showmanship.

 

[Skaloop]

av, if you look at the remaining cards you are otherwise determining the 5 cards dealt. As such it wouldn't work.

Well, I thought that too, but I think AV may be OK on checking the remaining cards. If the first remaining card he looked at was the ten of spades, which would indicate that an RFS was not dealt, but he would not be determining what any of the dealt cards were. Even if the other four dealt cards were right (Jack to Ace) he wouldn't know what the fifth was, therefore he hasn't determined anything about the dealt cards other than one of them is not the ten of spades. If he looked at all the remaining cards, yes, that would determine the five dealt. But if he just looks until he finds one of the necessary RFS cards, he hasn't determined anything (although he has narrowed it down a bit).

 

[[serious]]

Ok, so if we shouldn't believe in unverifiable poker hands why should we believe in unverifiable embedded age?

 

[MoonLancer]

That's cool --- no problem there. At one time the book existed, and without repetition, it's just a one-time unprovable stunt - (and a waste of cards).

Your funny because your a hypocrite.

You should treat other peoples challenges the same way you expect others to treat answers to your own challenges, OR from now on be more flexible with people who act like yourself when dealing with your own challenges.

you know, golden rule and all...


*edited for clarity of meaning*

 

[MoonLancer]

Ok, so if we shouldn't believe in unverifiable poker hands why should we believe in unverifiable embedded age?

we shouldn't. Unverifiable embedded age is a classic example of intellectual dishonestly.

 

[Athrond]

Well played

 

[[serious]]

bump for answer

 

[flameingcrouton]

A guy deals out 5 cards face down. He tells you that he knows it's a royal flush of spades. He then places the cards back in the deck and throws them into an incinerator. When asked how he knows, he says he read in a book that everytime 5 cards aren't looked at or otherwise determined, they are a royal flush of spades.

You realize there is no way to prove they are not.

Do you believe him?

If you wanna say that Christians use circular logic and base their belief system on subjective unrealistic claims than freaking say it. Stop using retarded analogies to try and trick Creationists into proving your point for you. Your cleverly crafted web is not clever. It's just annoying and eats up 45 seconds of my time reading some stupid hypothetical metaphor. Say what you're trying to say and stop wasting other peoples time.

 

[Soul Searcher]

My question is how did the guy who wrote the book determine this in the first place. As worded it says that it will always be the royal flush if the cards are not looked at or determined in anyway. That says to me that he just made it up and never actually witnessed such a thing at all.

As I see it the best evidence he could possess would be that he dealt the cards numerous times and when he looked at them it was never a royal flush in spades so he errantly assumed that it must be onyl if you do not look.

Again I would like to play poker with him and I would certianly call his hand almost every time, odds are I would take all his money in short order.

 

[pgp_protector]

My question is how did the guy who wrote the book determine this in the first place. As worded it says that it will always be the royal flush if the cards are not looked at or determined in anyway. That says to me that he just made it up and never actually witnessed such a thing at all.

As I see it the best evidence he could possess would be that he dealt the cards numerous times and when he looked at them it was never a royal flush in spades so he errantly assumed that it must be onyl if you do not look.

Again I would like to play poker with him and I would certianly call his hand almost every time, odds are I would take all his money in short order.

Let me deal & I just might have to take ya up on it

 

[AV1611VET]

Ok, so if we shouldn't believe in unverifiable poker hands why should we believe in unverifiable embedded age?

bump for answer

Your unverifiable poker hands were made to self-destruct at any attempts at scrutiny, whereas ex nihilo isn't. To draw a perfect parallel, you're saying as soon as someone verifies ex nihilo creation, we would all disappear.

There is a positive side to it, though:

Anyone putting faith in your book would be correct --- same with the Bible.

 

[[serious]]

"Your unverifiable poker hands were made to self-destruct at any attempts at scrutiny, whereas ex nihilo isn't. To draw a perfect parallel, you're saying as soon as someone verifies ex nihilo creation, we would all disappear.

There is a positive side to it, though:

Anyone putting faith in your book would be correct --- same with the Bible."

actually, the parallel I was getting at was every time anyone disproves young earth to you it's written off as "embedded age" or "pre fall was different"

People see all your "challenge" threads as just as silly as the spoofed ones like this.

 

[AV1611VET]

actually, the parallel I was getting at was every time anyone disproves young earth to you it's written off as "embedded age" or "pre fall was different"

Fair enough, then let's see you explain how a person can hold a rock in one hand that's 10 million years old, and a Bible in the other that shows this earth as having been in existence for only 6100.

I'll welcome any explanation that doesn't disrespect a literal interpretation of the Scriptures, and if you say that it's the literal interpretation that's the problem, then please have the courtesy to tell me that you would expect me to adhere to embedded-age creation. Wouldn't you, if you took the Bible literally?

People see all your "challenge" threads as just as silly as the spoofed ones like this.

That's fine --- I'm already on recording as saying I hate them myself (I think I used the word "hate"). It's too bad I have to use them at all. I should just be able to say I take Genesis 1 literally, and it should be understood what I'm talking about.

How about in the future, when asked how God created the earth, I just say He spake it into existence? Would that make it clearer to you than saying He created it ex nihilo?

 

[EnemyPartyII]

A guy deals out 5 cards face down. He tells you that he knows it's a royal flush of spades. He then places the cards back in the deck and throws them into an incinerator. When asked how he knows, he says he read in a book that everytime 5 cards aren't looked at or otherwise determined, they are a royal flush of spades.

You realize there is no way to prove they are not.

Do you believe him?

The KJV does not mention playing cards, therefore royal flushes of spades do not exist. If you continue to insist they exist, you are calling God a liar.

So... ARE you calling God a liar? Huh? Well are ya???

 

[Vene]

Fair enough, then let's see you explain how a person can hold a rock in one hand that's 10 million years old, and a Bible in the other that shows this earth as having been in existence for only 6100.

I'll welcome any explanation that doesn't disrespect a literal interpretation of the Scriptures, and if you say that it's the literal interpretation that's the problem, then please have the courtesy to tell me that you would expect me to adhere to embedded-age creation. Wouldn't you, if you took the Bible literally?

I respect the Bible as poetic. But I don't see it as something that can be taken literally. But, with the a prior assumption that the Bible is 100% literal truth, yes, you do have a major conflict. One of them is not right.

That's fine --- I'm already on recording as saying I hate them myself (I think I used the word "hate"). It's too bad I have to use them at all. I should just be able to say I take Genesis 1 literally, and it should be understood what I'm talking about.

How about in the future, when asked how God created the earth, I just say He spake it into existence? Would that make it clearer to you than saying He created it ex nihilo?

I don't think the problem is that we are unable to understand a literal reading, it's that many of us can't hold a literal reading along with accepting that the world is billions of years old.

 

[AV1611VET]

I don't think the problem is that we are unable to understand a literal reading, it's that many of us can't hold a literal reading along with accepting that the world is billions of years old.

I can, though --- it's a condition of being born again.

[bible]2 Corinthians 5:18[/bible]

And since I can expect that an unregenerate wouldn't understand ---

[bible]1 Corinthians 2:14[/bible]

--- you guys' reactions and lacks of understanding really shouldn't be bothering me this much - (but it's just that I've said it over and over so many times).

 

[Vene]

I can, though --- it's a condition of being born again.

[bible]2 Corinthians 5:18[/bible]

And since I can expect that an unregenerate wouldn't understand ---

[bible]1 Corinthians 2:14[/bible]

--- you guys' reactions and lacks of understanding really shouldn't be bothering me this much - (but it's just that I've said it over and over so many times).

You seem to assume that I was never faithful. Guess what, Genesis didn't make a bit of sense then either. And judging from some other Christians here it looks like there are many who can't accept the Bible as literal either.