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.
Whoa, chief! Let's not hijack a good thread with someone's obsession about fossils, k?Here is another question for you.
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...Whoa, chief! Let's not hijack a good thread with someone's obsession about fossils, k?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?
Luke 24:5b Why seek ye the living among the dead?
Guess!??Let's guess again.
Ah this thread is about whether you can put pool balls on a table at randem.Guess!??
It's in the title to this thread.
I even posted a picture of it.
Science must be myopicer than I thought!
Let's say someone set these balls down this way.
Later, someone looking at it says, "Nice break."
Was he wrong?
No, it is not.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.
Yes ... creationism.Were you trying to make a point about anything other than pool balls?
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.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.
Merle, the pool table is a picture of creationism.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.
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?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?
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.
Just wondering if, someone came along and said, "Nice break," he would be wrong.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?
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?
If I do all that, then will you admit the guy in the OP who said "nice break" was wrong?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 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.)
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.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.
Only on paper.That is what we have in the world.
Made-up events: like asteroid strikes and whatnot.doubtingmerle said:We have abundant evidence that the world got here through a series of events.
23 October 4004 BCdoubtingmerle said:It was not simply created last Tuesday, or whenever it is you think it was created.
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?