My Yigo Challenge

[AirPo]

Correctamundo!

You're slipping. This necro is only 3 1/2 years old.

 

[Belk]

Obviously your reasoning skills have prevented you from answering a simple question.

Simplistic is not the same as simple.

 

[AV1611VET]

Simplistic is not the same as simple.

Something like that.

 

[TLK Valentine]

You're slipping. This necro is only 3 1/2 years old.

And why would he necro a challenge thread that he himself already failed... twice?

 

[AirPo]

And why would he necro a challenge thread that he himself already failed... twice?

I think the renecro record is 4.

 

[JustMeSee]

In your opinion, who is more apt to find Yigo:

1. Someone who believes Yigo exists.
2. Someone who believes Yigo doesn't exist.

As an added bonus, who is more apt to pronounce Yigo correctly?

It has nothing to do with belief.

 

[AV1611VET]

It has nothing to do with belief.

What has nothing to do with belief?

Finding it? or more apt to find it?

 

[JustMeSee]

What has nothing to do with belief?

Finding it? or more apt to find it?

Both. The likelihood of finding it has nothing to do with believing it exists. If it exists, you will find it either way. If it doesn't exist, it won't be found. The default position is ignorance; neither belief or disbelief. Somehow you become aware of this word place. hdfhxdxfjtrddjtttttttttttttttjrt

 

[AV1611VET]

Both. The likelihood of finding it has nothing to do with believing it exists.

I disagree.

I think someone who believes it exists will be more apt to find it than someone who doesn't believe it exists.

And while they'll both eventually find Yigo (it does exist, BTW), the one who believes it exists is more apt to find it.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I disagree.

I think someone who believes it exists will be more apt to find it than someone who doesn't believe it exists.

...and we demonstrated the flaw in your belief.

And while they'll both eventually find Yigo (it does exist, BTW), the one who believes it exists is more apt to find it.

Wrong. The one who puts in more effort to find something is more apt to find it.

 

[AV1611VET]

Wrong. The one who puts in more effort to find something is more apt to find it.

Mmmmm ... I'm gonna go 50/50 on that one.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Mmmmm ... I'm gonna go 50/50 on that one.

Not if you use yourself as an example.

Consider: you believe in a literal Noah's Flood, but you lack both the desire and the ability to commit even the slightest bit of effort to look for evidence.

Consequently, just about anyone, regardless of their personal beliefs, would be more apt to find such evidence.

Historically speaking, the early geologists, who did believe in such a flood, did not believe in any evidence to the contrary. Yet they were the first to find it.

 

[AV1611VET]

Not if you use yourself as an example.

Okay ... let's use me as an example.

Consider: you believe in a literal Noah's Flood, but you lack both the desire and the ability to commit even the slightest bit of effort to look for evidence.

Except for white cliffs and meandering rivers, that is correct.

Consequently, just about anyone, regardless of their personal beliefs, would be more apt to find such evidence.

The evidence for a global flood is there, but unbelievers can't see it.

Historically speaking, the early geologists, who did believe in such a flood, did not believe in any evidence to the contrary. Yet they were the first to find it.

I disagree.

If they indeed believed in a literal global flood, then they walked right past the evidence and claimed otherwise for some reason.

What would these "early geologists" say, if I asked them about the white cliffs and meandering rivers?

 

[HitchSlap]

I think someone who believes it exists will be more apt to find it than someone who doesn't believe it exists.

They may also be more apt to assert they've found it, when they haven't.

Proof, the "Ark" has never been found by anyone who doesn't believe it exists.

 

[Kylie]

Except for white cliffs and meandering rivers, that is correct.

But those are not evidences for a global flood. In fact, meandering rivers result from SLOW moving water, not torrents that would come as that much water is moved around...

The evidence for a global flood is there, but unbelievers can't see it.

We see it. But people who know a lot more about it than you claim that you are wrong when you say it is evidence for a global flood.

I disagree.

And you'd still be wrong.

If they indeed believed in a literal global flood, then they walked right past the evidence and claimed otherwise for some reason.

Maybe, because unlike some people, they knew enough to know that reality trumps their opinions.

What would these "early geologists" say, if I asked them about the white cliffs and meandering rivers?

That meandering rivers don't form in fast moving water, only slow.

 

[AV1611VET]

But those are not evidences for a global flood.

Oh, of course not.

In fact, meandering rivers result from SLOW moving water, not torrents that would come as that much water is moved around...

Are you telling me that fast-moving water cannot etch into the earth's surface?

We see it. But people who know a lot more about it than you claim that you are wrong when you say it is evidence for a global flood.

Are these the same people who would agree that Egypt existed before the Flood, and that Pluto was once our ninth planet, and that Thalidomide was once a pre-natal wonder drug, and that Jesus was born in 4 BC, and ... ?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Okay ... let's use me as an example.

Except for white cliffs and meandering rivers, that is correct.

Except you put absolutely zero effort into finding those cliffs or meandering rivers, determining their composition or history, or examining your fancy concerning their origin. You waited for others to do the heavy lifting, and tacked on nothing of value except your own self-serving sophistry -- that is to say, absolutely nothing of value.

The evidence for a global flood is there, but unbelievers can't see it.

And fools couldn't see that the Emperor's robes were made of the finest silks -- again, you lack the ability and desire to work at anything.

I disagree.

Still zero effort on your part.

If they indeed believed in a literal global flood, then they walked right past the evidence and claimed otherwise for some reason.

Or the evidence wasn't there -- personally, I'm willing to trust their ability and desire to work far more than your inability and lack of motivation.

What would these "early geologists" say, if I asked them about the white cliffs and meandering rivers?

The same thing they said when they discovered those white cliffs and meandering rivers... long before you stole credit for them.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Oh, of course not.

Zero effort.

Are you telling me that fast-moving water cannot etch into the earth's surface?

Are you telling us that slow-moving water cannot?

Are these the same people who would agree that Egypt existed before the Flood, and that Pluto was once our ninth planet, and that Thalidomide was once a pre-natal wonder drug, and that Jesus was born in 4 BC, and ... ?

Yep... all people who actually put in effort. Unlike you.

 

[AV1611VET]

Except you put absolutely zero effort into finding those cliffs or meandering rivers, determining their composition or history, or examining your fancy concerning their origin.

Ain't my job. God gifted others to do that.

I don't need to know the molecular formula for aspirin before I take one; nor the pH of the ground that a potato was grown in before I eat it; do I?

 

[AV1611VET]

Zero effort.

Does Magnus Carlsen stand on the shoulders of his predecessors?

Are you telling us that slow-moving water cannot?

I'm telling you slow-moving water did not. I don't believe in deep time.

Yep... all people who actually put in effort. Unlike you.

Ain't my bag.