Kylie's Pool Challenge, Mark II

[Kylie]

Following on from the earlier version of my Pool Challenge, found HERE...

Joe walks into a bar and sees a pool table. There are balls on the table, and it appears that the game has just begin, for most of the balls are still on the table. There's a document sitting on the edge of the table, and Joe picks it up and reads it. The document claims that the game had just begin, but nobody actually broke. Rather, claims the document, the balls were manually placed by hand in their current locations. However, Joe carefully checks the positions of the balls, and they are positioned in a way which is entirely consistent with having been broken in the regular way without being manually placed.

Question: Is Joe justified in claiming the documentation is correct?

***

Extra credit: There are two people nearby. Neither of these people were there to watch how the balls got into position, but they have both looked at the positions of the balls and read the document. Alfred says the document says the balls were placed manually, and that settles it. Bruce says that he has examined the table and found evidence the balls rolled into their current position, consistent with a regular break. Alfred disagrees, saying that evidence could have been caused by lots of things, and besides, it might not even be real. And, says Alfred, most people in the bar share Alfred's point of view, while only a few agree with Bruce.

Who should Joe listen to?

 

[SelfSim]

i) Did Joe follow the scientific (objective) process?

ii) Did Bruce follow the scientific (objective) process?

 

[AV1611VET]

Question: Is Joe justified in claiming the documentation is correct?

Yes.

Who should Joe listen to?

Alfred.

 

[Kylie]

Yes.

Why?

Alfred.

Why?

 

[Kylie]

i) Did Joe follow the scientific (objective) process?

Yes, I stated that he made an examination of the table.

ii) Did Bruce follow the scientific (objective) process?

You can assume so.

 

[Hammster]

Following on from the earlier version of my Pool Challenge, found HERE...

Joe walks into a bar and sees a pool table. There are balls on the table, and it appears that the game has just begin, for most of the balls are still on the table. There's a document sitting on the edge of the table, and Joe picks it up and reads it. The document claims that the game had just begin, but nobody actually broke. Rather, claims the document, the balls were manually placed by hand in their current locations. However, Joe carefully checks the positions of the balls, and they are positioned in a way which is entirely consistent with having been broken in the regular way without being manually placed.

Question: Is Joe justified in claiming the documentation is correct?

***

Extra credit: There are two people nearby. Neither of these people were there to watch how the balls got into position, but they have both looked at the positions of the balls and read the document. Alfred says the document says the balls were placed manually, and that settles it. Bruce says that he has examined the table and found evidence the balls rolled into their current position, consistent with a regular break. Alfred disagrees, saying that evidence could have been caused by lots of things, and besides, it might not even be real. And, says Alfred, most people in the bar share Alfred's point of view, while only a few agree with Bruce.

Who should Joe listen to?

Just so I’m clear, are you alluding to the creation account in the Bible, and the appearance of age?

 

[Kylie]

Just so I’m clear, are you alluding to the creation account in the Bible, and the appearance of age?

I'm using the analogy to discuss whether we can be justified in accepting a text that claims certain details about an event even if a scientific investigation of the real-world evidence of that event does not show the same results. It applies to the Bible, yes, but it would apply to just about any creation account from just about any religion.

 

[BobRyan]

Following on from the earlier version of my Pool Challenge, found HERE...

Joe walks into a bar and sees a pool table. There are balls on the table, and it appears that the game has just begin, for most of the balls are still on the table. There's a document sitting on the edge of the table, and Joe picks it up and reads it. The document claims that the game had just begin, but nobody actually broke. Rather, claims the document, the balls were manually placed by hand in their current locations. However, Joe carefully checks the positions of the balls, and they are positioned in a way which is entirely consistent with having been broken in the regular way without being manually placed.

Question: Is Joe justified in claiming the documentation is correct?

***

Extra credit: There are two people nearby. Neither of these people were there to watch how the balls got into position, but they have both looked at the positions of the balls and read the document. Alfred says the document says the balls were placed manually, and that settles it. Bruce says that he has examined the table and found evidence the balls rolled into their current position, consistent with a regular break. Alfred disagrees, saying that evidence could have been caused by lots of things, and besides, it might not even be real. And, says Alfred, most people in the bar share Alfred's point of view, while only a few agree with Bruce.

Who should Joe listen to?

Joe walks into a bar and sees a pool table -- the balls on the table are lined up in fibinocci order and there is an extra 1 so then --> cue, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13

If one of the balls is out of order or missing the Pool table self-corrects the list by adding the missing billiard ball when needed and placing it at the right location.

Billiard tables of this type can reproduce themselves but the humans can't actually make one. All they can do is dump piles of wood and ceramic on the floor.

So then it is "sorta like" the vastly more complex system of regulation that happens in the cell to produce the needed proteins when needed, and cell division.

There is a document at the bar that claims that the game had just begin, but nobody actually broke. Rather, claims the document, the balls were found in their current locations and states that this is because an infinitely wise inventor built that feature into the table.

Extra credit: There are two people nearby. Neither of these people were there to watch how the balls got into position, but they have both looked at the positions of the balls and what happens if one is missing.

Creationist - observes what is going on with the pool table and says "well THAT certainly is not the result of highly unlikely random events all the way up mount improbable" -- turns to see a dust ball on the floor and says "ok.. well that IS a result of random events".

The other person "nearby" differs because after seeing the situation with the pool table he concludes "well that is EXACTLY what I would expect of a sequence of random events all the way up mount improbable"

Who should Joe listen to?

===================== DARWIN's blunder

Darwin tried to over-simplify the cell calling it all just "so much blob of protoplasm" in the cell so that a trivial event is all that might be needed to have them pop out of rocks and primordial soup and so the magic of protoplasm is what is at the core that gets everything to move along the path that evolution needs. given a cell "with protoplasm" to guide it and natural events of competition , random chance, survival of the fittest - that protoplasm based biosphere would generate rabbits, horses, humans, space ships given enough time and just-so random events.

================================

I'm using the analogy to discuss whether we can be justified in accepting a text that claims certain details about an event even if a scientific investigation of the real-world evidence of that event does not show the same results. It applies to the Bible, yes, but it would apply to just about any creation account from just about any religion.

as well you should.

If indeed in that scenario every carpenter shop all up and down the street were able to produce said pool table with the observed Fibonacci effect then one could easily conclude that the table is one of the many that humans make... because in the lab the scientist just does the same as the carpenter and shows how easily the tables can be assembled.

Or a bit more true to life - if without any carpenters or shops - the scientists go into the lab and show that a pile of wood and ceramic will over time assemble into such a table no carpentry needed, they have at least a counter explanation.

because a scientific investigation of the real-world evidence of the basic elements assembling themselves to give the same results - shows that this is the other way it could well have happened where that ever to happen in all of time.

The reality is - wishful thinking of that sort results in "decline' when all it amounts to is 'wishful thinking'.
The kind of decline mentioned here - Tuesday at 9:52 PM #149
by outside observers seeing certain groups having growth-rate shrink over time

 

[Hammster]

I'm using the analogy to discuss whether we can be justified in accepting a text that claims certain details about an event even if a scientific investigation of the real-world evidence of that event does not show the same results. It applies to the Bible, yes, but it would apply to just about any creation account from just about any religion.

Since this is CF, and I’m a Christian, we can trust the biblical account because it was given by God Himself.


For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day and made it holy.
— Exodus 20:11

 

[Speedwell]

Following on from the earlier version of my Pool Challenge, found HERE...

Joe walks into a bar and sees a pool table. There are balls on the table, and it appears that the game has just begin, for most of the balls are still on the table. There's a document sitting on the edge of the table, and Joe picks it up and reads it. The document claims that the game had just begin, but nobody actually broke. Rather, claims the document, the balls were manually placed by hand in their current locations. However, Joe carefully checks the positions of the balls, and they are positioned in a way which is entirely consistent with having been broken in the regular way without being manually placed.

Question: Is Joe justified in claiming the documentation is correct?

***

Extra credit: There are two people nearby. Neither of these people were there to watch how the balls got into position, but they have both looked at the positions of the balls and read the document. Alfred says the document says the balls were placed manually, and that settles it. Bruce says that he has examined the table and found evidence the balls rolled into their current position, consistent with a regular break. Alfred disagrees, saying that evidence could have been caused by lots of things, and besides, it might not even be real. And, says Alfred, most people in the bar share Alfred's point of view, while only a few agree with Bruce.

Who should Joe listen to?

You left out the condition that the document is written in a rather obscure literary form, has been translated from another language at least once and there is reasonable disagreement among the bystanders as to what it actually says.

 

[AV1611VET]

... and there is reasonable disagreement among the bystanders as to what it actually says.

From the OP:

And, says Alfred, most people in the bar share Alfred's point of view, while only a few agree with Bruce.

 

[SelfSim]

Almost needless to say .. but I'll say it anyway:

Question: Is Joe justified in claiming the documentation is correct?

No.

Who should Joe listen to?

Bruce.

 

[SelfSim]

.. and there is reasonable disagreement among the bystanders as to what it actually says.

From the OP:

And, says Alfred, most people in the bar share Alfred's point of view, while only a few agree with Bruce.

Bruce wasn't popular(!)
.. (But he was an assumed scientist)

 

[SelfSim]

Rather, claims the document, the balls were found in their current locations and states that this is because an infinitely wise inventor built that feature into the table.

It doesn't define 'an infintely wise creator' in a way that's objectively testable, then?

Its a belief then .. and every logical argument following on from that, (at best), can only ever return that exact same truth value of 'a belief'. Logic can present no further useful information in that case .. but Bruce's (and Joe's) testing can .. and does.

 

[BobRyan]

It doesn't define 'an infintely wise creator' in a way that's objectively testable, then?
.

you mean - that if God really does exist then he must get inside a test tube and allow himself to be shipped to the lab or else the virgin birth, the resurrection, the miracles of Christ "never happened in nature"?

Or do you mean that when God does something "in nature" in real life and does not hand us the science text book so we too can do what God does - it is still a historic fact, literal and reliably true... just not given in the form of "a lab experiment"??

 

[BobRyan]

I have heard it said that " a bacteria will sure enough turn into a horse given enough time and chance" -- but that too is not a science observation in the lab.

Its a belief then .. and every logical argument following on from that, (at best), can only ever return that exact same truth value of 'a belief'.

hmmm.

All major branches of science founded by Christians. Turns out NaCl is still "salt" even if God created the world in 7 days.

 

[SelfSim]

you mean - that if God really does exist then he must get inside a test tube and allow himself to be shipped to the lab or else the virgin birth, the resurrection, the miracles of Christ "never happened in nature"?

No, rather: all we have 'exist' mean in that sentence, is by way of belief .. and not by way of the objective testing process. That belief does not become part of science's objective reality because it is untestable.

'Nature' is defined in science, so it can be objectively testable .. and thus; things which can't be tested for as being part of nature, are treated as beliefs, (and are thus justified on that basis as being ignorable).

Or do you mean that when God does something "in nature" in real life and does not hand us the science text book so we too can do what God does - it is still a historic fact, literal and reliably true... just not given in the form of "a lab experiment"??

I really don't get all this .. Aren't scientists believed as having been created in God's image? If that is so, then why is the scientific objective testing process being completely shoved aside here?

Is your belief being so tightly held, that it completely excludes that highly visible and demonstrable process?

 

[BobRyan]

'Nature' is defined in science, so it can be objectively testable ..

God created Nature
God created Trees

God caused the virgin birth - the incarnation of the Son of God

But God did not give us lab text books for how we too can do things that God can do.

It does not mean that the virgin birth did not happen. It is a real event in real history... even without a lab book to reproduce it.

It does not mean that the bodily resurrection of Christ is not a real event in real history.

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said:
Or do you mean that when God does something "in nature" in real life and does not hand us the science text book so we too can do what God does - it is still a historic fact, literal and reliably true... just not given in the form of "a lab experiment"??

get all this .. Aren't scientists believed as having been created in God's image? If that is so, then why is the scientific objective testing process being completely shoved aside here?

My claim is that creationism is fully compatible with scientific fact - observed reality. Where does "scientific objective testing process completely shoved aside" come from ?

I simply point out that a more realistic illustration of the problem that is faced is the one I posted with the fibonacci pool table example - an adaptation of your example to illustrate what the problem is.

 

[SelfSim]

I have heard it said that " a bacteria will sure enough turn into a horse given enough time and chance" -- but that too is not a science observation in the lab.

Well that's a straw-man as far as I'm concerned.
(Ya don't wanna believe everything ya hear y'know .. )

All major branches of science founded by Christians. Turns out NaCl is still "salt" even if God created the world in 7 days.

Just goes to show how their Christian beliefs had absolutely zip to do with them progressing human knowledge by their following the scientific process.

The model which 'NaCl' denotes, was derived in its entirety, (as every other 'thing' in science was), from operational (objectively) testable definitions. That God created the world in 7 days, isn't .. so its a belief.