- May 11, 2015
- 17,420
- 3,593
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
We have a space camera to avoid the distortion we would have trying to photograph though our atmosphere.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
We have a space camera to avoid the distortion we would have trying to photograph though our atmosphere.In space the accuracy would improve.
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.
Yes, she was wrong.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.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?
Of course.
The Koran is a good example.
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.
Your respect and candid reply are refreshing.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.
Thank you! On my way!
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.
Why would the third person claim they were just like that on their own?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?
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.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.
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.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?
And according to the OP, we would be wrong, wouldn't we?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.
Agreed, he would be wrong.And according to the OP, we would be wrong, wouldn't we?
Normally illustrations are given to illustrate a point. What is your point?Let's say someone set these balls down this way.
Later, someone looking at it says, "Nice break."
Was he wrong?
Either that, or history began flowing from that configuration.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.
Yes ... only He didn't.Ah, so the fossil record could have been made by somebody that "set the table"?
The cleanup of all the dead animals after the flood occurred instantly?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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?