Paul Andrew King <paul@...> wrote:

>   Paul Andrew King <paul@...> wrote:
>
>  >
>>Your second proposition is not a precise proposition at all. The
>>absence of
>>evidence is not evidence of absence. Todd--your second proposition
>>you loose
>>before you begin.If you understood the nature of propositional logic
>>you would
>>recognize this.--I do apologize for saying you loose (that is Todd)
>>but the fact is that such a proposition leaves no room for
>>discussion because it is the only form in a conditional that proves
>>nothing.
>
>I find this comment from Gary "interesting".  The proposition in question is :
>
>>Proposition: Those who accept an old universe have no explanation for
>>the present existence of short-term comets.
>  >Gary here--It is not a wonder that Marion wearied of talking to
>you guys. Todd, listen and learn. Your proposition here converts
>to---"IF any man accepts an old universe then said man has no
>explanation for the present existence of short-term comets"

I can except that as a reconstruction although I would point out that
it is highly unlikely that the proposition was intended in the strict
meaning above.

>  This is a conditional that has an antecedent with a true truth
>value and a consequent with a false truth value.

In that case you are maintaining that there is an explanation for
short term comets that is consistent with an old universe (and in the
strict sense of your reconstruction that everyone who believes that
the universe is old has at least one such explanation).  If that is
so the proper procedure is not to attack the proposition but concede
that the proposition is false and refuse to affirm it.


>  This is the "only condition" in which a conditional is false. There
>are four possible conditions in which to evaluate such a statement.
>They are true-true, false--false, true--false--false--true. The only
>time a conditional proposition is false is when the antecedent is
>true and the consequent is false. And Todd, this is the exact form
>that you have presented. The first part of your proposition is
>positive, while the second has a negative. It is a meaningless
>proposition.

If it were meaningless you could not assign a truth value to it -
however you assert that it is false.  Therefore your claim that the
proposition is meaningless is a clear falsehood.

>  I will admit to one thing, the way that it is worded leaves no room
>for discussion, thus Todd could prevail since he is in the
>affirmative.

Todd is not in the affirmative on this one - and just as well since
affirming a proposition that is clearly false would be an instant
defeat.

>But I will let you guys take as many months as necessary to check
>your logic books to digest this post. It is futile to sign a
>proposition with a positive antecedent and a negative consequent.
>
>    Your proposition here takes on the form of A--->~B which
>transposes to B-->~A, thus nothing proven.

This is a non-sequitur. Somebody who writes so much about logic
without any real reason ought to see that.

>  Todd, the form you use is the only form that is unworkable in
>propositional logic. Why then debate something wherein there is not
>room for discussion. You desire to win without discussion? Is that
>what your saying? A strong indication that you are not willing to
>discuss anything accept something wherein there is not much
>disagreement.

If that is the case why not simply concede that there is indeed an
explanation for short term comets consistent with an old universe and
that any who use the existence of short term comets as an argument
against an old universe are incorrect.  Calling the proposition
"meaningless" when you mean that it is false seems to be an effort to
avoid clearly admitting that fact.

Perhaps that is why Marion Fox is getting tired of speaking to people
who disagree with him.  The circumlocutions needed to avoid admitting
the truth must be very wearing.


>  Now, again, are you unwilling to discuss the age of the earth and
>the geological impact of the Flood. Marion will be happy to do so.
>Out of all the men on this list and out of all the men you guys know
>there is not a man in the brotherhood that will debate Marion
>publicly on these things. You know it --I know it.

What I know Gary is that you are lying here.
--
--
"The T'ang emperors were strong believers in the pills of
immortality.  More emperors died of poisoning from ingesting minerals
in the T'ang than in any other dynasty" - Eva Wong _The Shambhala
Guide to Taoism_

Paul K.
Gary here:  Here we go with the name calling again. I will no longer elaborate this point. but I am aware that as of now no one has agreed to discuss the flood or the age of the earth. That of course is your choice. Instead of calling me a liar why not find someone to have a discussion with Marion. I have begged and used the metaphorical ox goad to no avail. Why not just find someone to discuss what I herein name. Todd will discuss the age of the universe but not the flood or the age of the earth. If Todd or someone desires a discussion on these issues I believe Marion is willing. And I doubt that Marion will resort to this name calling. He will simply discuss the issues.--------Gary

  Post message: creationism@yahoogroups.com
  Online: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/creationism

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.