Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

21685Re: Testing a fundamental position: Genesis!

Expand Messages
  • Terry
    Dec 18, 2010
      Robert is a whiner who has been beaten so many times it has become a joke that he is a broken record with one issue that he lives for, and he has never done very well with that one issue, so people now think of him as a mental retard. See the yahoogroups GAGDebate for the ongoing games and run-around you always get when trying to get straight answers from this goof-ball, Robert Baty. He lives to agitate, agravate, and avoid legitimate debate, while being a puppet for atheists and naturalists, while pretending to believe in God and the Bible. If you want to waste time with this guys' ongoing games, good luck!

      Terry W. Benton

      --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Baty" <rlbaty60@...> wrote:
      >
      > I am going to post comments from Jerry D. McDonald, preacher, and Ken Ham (Answers In Genesis), Bert Thompson (Apologetics Press) and Kent Hovind (Creation Science Evangelism), three of the leading lights of the young-earth creation-science movement, which provide a context for setting up, in simple, logically valid form, the fundamental issue facing bonafide young-earth creation-science promoters and their claim that
      >
      > > "nothing is more than a few thousand years old".
      >
      > At the end of this message, you will also find the affirmative admission from DBWillis, preacher, as to the real position held by those attempting to justify their theological claim that
      >
      > > "nothing is more than a few thousand years"
      >
      > old based on scientific grounds.
      >
      > To date, no bonafide young-earth creation-science promoter has dared to repudiate, deny and/or rebut the comments; though Terry W. Benton, the NI Pine Lane church preacher,
      > http://www.pinelanechurchofchrist.com ,
      > has recently tried.
      >
      > (See archives of this list for full details.)
      >
      > I will then give my "Goliath of GRAS" argument for any who may want to "come out" in response to its call and take up the public discussion as to the argument's logical validity (i.e., if its premises are true the conclusion will follow as true) and soundness (i.e., logically valid with true premises).
      >
      > Many have tried and failed (see list archives for details); most recently certain anonymous whiners at the Christian Post website, the NI Pine Lane church preacher Terry W. Benton, http://www.pinelanechurchofchrist.com ,
      > and previously such as Terry Hightower, David B. Willis, Jerry McDonald, David P. Brown & his "boys" of the CFTF, Gil Yoder of the OABS, and Goldsmith.
      >
      > In order to respond to the "call", one need only utilize the "post" and/or"reply" features of this list, membership not being necessary to post, or simply address an e-mail to:
      >
      > > Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com .
      >
      > Here now to provide the context for considering my "Goliath of GRAS" are the comments from those leading lights amongst the young-earth creation-science movement and the preacher Jerry D. McDonald:
      >
      > -------------------------------------------
      > (1)
      >
      > http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/1991
      >
      > THE YOUNG EARTH
      > by Bert Thompson
      >
      > (T)he most serious area of conflict between the biblical account and the evolutionary scenario is the chronological framework of history
      >
      > > in other words,
      > > the age of the Earth..
      >
      > While a young Earth/Universe presents no problem for a creationist, it is the death knell to each variety of the evolutionary model.
      >
      > A simple, straightforward reading of the biblical record indicates that the Cosmos was created in six days only a few thousand years ago.
      >
      > Much of the controversy today between creationists and evolutionists revolves around the age of the Earth.
      >
      > A large part of that controversy centers around the fact that there is no compromise that will permit the old-Earth/young-Earth scenarios to coexist; the gulf separating the biblical and evolutionary views on the topic of the age of the Earth is just too large......
      >
      > (W)e must 'query if vast time is indeed available.'
      >
      > That is our purpose here.
      >
      > There is ample scientific evidence to indicate that such time is not available, and that the Earth is relatively young, not
      > extremely old.
      >
      > That evidence needs to be examined and considered...
      >
      > There is good scientific evidence that the Earth...has an age of only a few thousand years, just as the Bible plainly indicates.
      >
      > (2)
      >
      > http://www.apologeticspress.org/modules.php?name=Read&cat=1&itemid=457
      >
      > The Bible and the Age of the Earth [Part II]
      > by Bert Thompson
      >
      > Genesis 1:1 is...a record of God's action which produced an Earth ready for man's use.
      >
      > Exodus 20:11...explicitly affirms that everything that was made by God was completed within the six days of the initial week.
      >
      > (3)
      >
      > http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/could-god-have-created-in-six-days
      >
      > Could God Really Have Created Everything in Six Days?
      > by Ken Ham
      >
      > Taking Genesis 1...at face value,
      > without doubt it SAYS
      >
      > > that God created the universe,
      > > the earth,
      > > the sun,
      > > moon and stars,
      > > plants and animals,
      > > and the first two people (within 6 days)
      >
      > Luther and Calvin were...adamant that
      > Genesis 1 taught six ordinary days of
      > creation—only thousands of years ago.
      >
      > Some have argued that "the heavens
      > and the earth" is just earth and perhaps
      > the solar system, not the whole universe.
      >
      > However, this verse clearly SAYS that
      >
      > > God made everything in six days—six
      > > consecutive ordinary days...
      >
      > (T)he age of the universe is only about
      > six thousand years.
      >
      > (4)
      >
      > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/19562
      >
      > From: Jerry D. McDonald
      > To: Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com
      > Date: Thursday, July 15, 2010
      > Subject: Re: Jerry D. McDonald v. Terry W. Benton!
      >
      > > Question:
      > >
      > > 1.
      > >
      > > Do you, like Ken Ham, believe
      > > that God's word "says" everything
      > > was made during the six days?
      >
      > Answer:
      >
      > 1. Yes.
      >
      > Jerry D. McDonald
      >
      > (5)
      >
      > http://www.drdino.com/about-cse/dr-kent-hovind/
      >
      > I can say with all certainty that
      > the Bible is the infallible, inspired,
      > inerrant Word of the living God.
      >
      > The universe was created in 6 literal
      > 24 hour days about 6,000 years ago
      > (Matthew 19:4; Exodus 20:11;
      > Genesis 1 & 5).
      >
      > Kent Hovind
      >
      > ------------------------------------------
      > ------------------------------------------
      >
      > It is undisputed, as the above shows, that some folks believe that
      >
      > > the Bible teaches that
      > > "nothing is more than a
      > > few thousand years old".
      >
      > The relevant question, when it comes to the fundamental young-earth
      > creation-science position on that point is whether or not the real world evidence really does support that interpretation and/or if that interpretation is subject to falsification based on the real world evidence.
      >
      > I've developed a simple, logical, deductively valid argument (i.e., "Goliath of GRAS") proposing that the real world interpretation of the text commonly associated with the young-earth creation-science movement (i.e., "nothing is more than a few thousand years old") is subject to falsification with reference
      > to the real world evidence.
      >
      > Here it is, the "Goliath of GRAS":
      >
      > Major premise:
      >
      > > If (A) God's word (the text) says
      > > everything began over a period
      > > of six days, and
      >
      > > if (B) God's word is interpreted
      > > by some to mean it was six 24-hour
      > > days occurring a few thousand
      > > years ago, and
      >
      > > if (c) there is empirical
      > > evidence that some thing is
      > > older than a few thousand
      > > years,
      >
      > > then (D) the interpretation of
      > > the text by some is wrong.
      >
      > Minor premise:
      >
      > > (A) God's word (the text) says
      > > everything began over a period
      > > of six days, and
      >
      > > (B) God's word is interpreted by
      > > some to mean it was six 24-hour
      > > days occurring a few thousand
      > > years ago, and
      >
      > > (C) there is empirical evidence
      > > that some thing is older than a
      > > few thousand years.
      >
      > Conclusion:
      >
      > > (D) The interpretation of the
      > > text by some is wrong.
      >
      > Stipulated Meanings:
      >
      > God's word - special revelation from
      > God in words that cannot be wrong.
      >
      > Interpreted to mean... - what some
      > think the text means and which
      > thinking may be wrong.
      >
      > Emprical evidence that... - some
      > thing is more than a few
      > thousand years old and we can
      > so determine from the evidence
      > independent of the text.
      >
      > You are welcome to try your hand at impeaching the validity of the argument, or simply accept it for what it is...a simple, logically valid statement of the real world falsification test for the
      > fundamental real world claim commonly associated with the young-earth
      > creation-science movement.
      >
      > It is further proposed that the only disputed aspect of the above argument is, in the context of the popular young-earth
      > creation-science movement, the "evidence of age"; though many critics have vainly tried to deny the deductive validity of the argument and the truth of its major premise.
      >
      > Typically, those desiring to see my "Goliath of GRAS" defeated have themselves retreated into the UNscientific position summarized as follows:
      >
      > > I've got my interpretation
      > > of the text regarding the
      > > real world and that trumps
      > > any real world evidence
      > > to the contrary; the
      > > contrary evidence simply
      > > indicating God can make
      > > things look older than
      > > they are.
      >
      > See:
      >
      > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/19693
      >
      > > I would affirm that!
      > >
      > >> DBWillis, NI preacher
      >
      > The above position effectively concedes that young-earth creation-science cannot stand up to scrutiny as being "science" and that the real world evidence falsifies the fundamental young-earth creation-science claim that "nothing is more than a few thousand years old".
      >
      > That is a good thing to know.
      >
      > Sincerely,
      > Robert Baty
      >
    • Show all 9 messages in this topic