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

Testing a fundamental position - "Goliath of GRAS"!

Expand Messages
  • Robert Baty
    (Considering how David P. Brown and his boys allege that the Apologetics Press work is so important, you would think they could find at least one
    Message 1 of 10 , Aug 2, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      (Considering how David P. Brown and his boys allege that the Apologetics Press
      work is so important, you would think they could find at least one wannabe"David" to take this up formally, in writing, and for the record!

      They CAN'T!)

      I would like to again post comments from one of the former leading lights amongst the "young-earth, creation-science" movement amongst the churches of Christ; comments which no "young- earth, creation-science" promoter has dared to repudiate, deny or rebut.

      I would also then like to give my "Goliath of GRAS" for any who may want to "come out" in response to its call and take up the public discussion as to the merits of the argument as to its validity and/or soundness and the proposed formal, in writing, for the record discussion on the evidence of age.

      The recommended propositions for such discussion on the evidence of age will then follow the presentation of the "Goliath of GRAS".

      Here to provide the context for considering my "Goliath of GRAS" are the comments from that leading light amongst the "young-earth, creation-science" movement within the churches of Christ:

      ----------------

      http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/1991

      THE YOUNG EARTH

      (excerpts)

      "(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."

      (end excerpt)

      ------------------

      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".

      Keith Sisman even affirmed such a position recently, but he will not "come out" and "let us reason TOGETHER" regarding this important public issue

      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 or if that interpretation is subject to falsification based on the real world
      evidence.

      I've developed a simple, logically 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 is subject to falsification with reference to the real world
      evidence.

      Here it is, the "Goliath of GRAS", undefeated in all outings and
      still the one to beat:

      Major premise:

      > If God's word (the text) says
      > everything began over a period
      > of six days, is interpreted by
      > some to mean it was six 24-hour
      > days occurring a few thousand
      > years ago, and there is empirical
      > evidence that some thing is
      > actually much older than a few
      > thousand years, then the
      > interpretation of the text by
      > some is wrong.

      Minor premise:

      > God's word (the text) says
      > everything began over a period
      > of six days, is interpreted by
      > some to mean it was six 24-hour
      > days occurring a few thousand
      > years ago, and there is empirical
      > evidence that some thing is
      > actually much older than a few
      > thousand years.

      Conclusion:

      > The interpretation of the text
      > by some is wrong.

      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, in the context of the popular "young-earth, creation-science" movement, is the "evidence of age".

      In order to deal with that issue, a formal, in writing, for the record discussion is proposed with the following suggested
      propositions:

      Proposition #1:

      > The empirical evidence shows
      > that the Earth has been in
      > existence longer than one
      > hundred thousand (100,000)
      > years.

      > Affirm: Todd S. Greene
      > Deny: ???

      Proposition #2:

      > The empirical evidence shows
      > that the Universe has been in
      > existence longer than one
      > hundred thousand (100,000)
      > years.

      > Affirm: Todd S. Greene
      > Deny: ???

      Proposition #3:

      > The empirical evidence shows
      > that the Earth is less than one
      > hundred thousand (100,000)
      > years old

      > Affirm: ???
      > Deny: Todd S Greene

      Proposition #4:

      > The empirical evidence shows
      > that the Universe is less than
      > one hundred thousand
      > (100,000) years old.

      > Affirm: ???
      > Deny: Todd S. Greene

      To date, I have not been able to facilitate the proposed discussion.

      The invitation remains outstanding, with specific, logistical details to be worked out between the two agreeing to engage in the
      discussion.

      My "Goliath of GRAS"...still the one to beat!

      Typically, those desiring to see my "Goliath of GRAS" defeated have themselves retreated into the UNscientific position popularized by Dr. Fox and 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.

      Dr. Fox's position effectively concedes that "young-earth, creation-science" cannot stand up to scrutiny as being "science" and that the real world evidence falsifies "young-earth, creation-science".

      That is a good thing to know, a very good thing to know!

      My "Goliath of GRAS"...still the one to beat!

      Still no "David"!

      Sincerely,
      Robert Baty




      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Robert Baty
      I would like to post comments from one of the former leading lights within the churches of Christ and its young-earth, creation-science movement. To date,
      Message 2 of 10 , Aug 10, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        I would like to post comments from one of the former leading lights within the churches of Christ and its "young-earth, creation-science" movement. To date, no "young- earth, creation-science" promoter has dared to repudiate, deny or rebut the comments.

        I would also then like to 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 validity, soundness and the proposed formal, in writing, for the record discussion on the evidence of age.

        The recommended propositions for the proposed discussion on the evidence of age follows the presentation of the "Goliath of GRAS".

        Here now to provide the context for considering my "Goliath of GRAS" are the comments from that leading light amongst the "young-earth, creation-science" movement within the churches of Christ:

        ----------------

        http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/1991

        THE YOUNG EARTH

        (excerpts)

        "(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."

        (end excerpt)

        ------------------

        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 or if that interpretation is subject to falsification based on the real world
        evidence.

        I've developed a simple, logically valid argument (i.e., "Goliath of GRAS") proposing that the real world interpretation of the text commonly associated with the "young-earth, creation-science" (i.e., "nothing is more than a few thousand years old) movement is subject to falsification with reference to the real world
        evidence.

        Here it is, the "Goliath of GRAS":

        Major premise:

        > If God's word (the text) says
        > everything began over a period
        > of six days, is interpreted by
        > some to mean it was six 24-hour
        > days occurring a few thousand
        > years ago, and there is empirical
        > evidence that some thing is
        > actually much older than a few
        > thousand years, then the
        > interpretation of the text by
        > some is wrong.

        Minor premise:

        > God's word (the text) says
        > everything began over a period
        > of six days, is interpreted by
        > some to mean it was six 24-hour
        > days occurring a few thousand
        > years ago, and there is empirical
        > evidence that some thing is
        > actually much older than a few
        > thousand years.

        Conclusion:

        > The interpretation of the text
        > by some is wrong.

        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, in the context of the popular "young-earth, creation-science" movement, is the "evidence of age".

        In order to deal with that issue, a formal, in writing, for the record discussion is proposed with the following suggested
        propositions:

        Proposition #1:

        > The empirical evidence shows
        > that the Earth has been in
        > existence longer than one
        > hundred thousand (100,000)
        > years.

        > Affirm: Todd S. Greene
        > Deny: ???

        Proposition #2:

        > The empirical evidence shows
        > that the Universe has been in
        > existence longer than one
        > hundred thousand (100,000)
        > years.

        > Affirm: Todd S. Greene
        > Deny: ???

        Proposition #3:

        > The empirical evidence shows
        > that the Earth is less than one
        > hundred thousand (100,000)
        > years old

        > Affirm: ???
        > Deny: Todd S Greene

        Proposition #4:

        > The empirical evidence shows
        > that the Universe is less than
        > one hundred thousand
        > (100,000) years old.

        > Affirm: ???
        > Deny: Todd S. Greene

        To date, I have not been able to facilitate the proposed discussion.

        The invitation remains outstanding, with specific, logistical details to be worked out between the two agreeing to engage in the
        discussion.

        Typically, those desiring to see my "Goliath of GRAS" defeated have themselves retreated into the UNscientific position popularized by Dr. Fox and 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.

        Dr. Fox's position effectively concedes that "young-earth, creation-science" cannot stand up to scrutiny as being "science" and that the real world evidence falsifies "young-earth, creation-science".

        That is a good thing to know.

        Sincerely,
        Robert Baty



        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Robert Baty
        I would like to again post comments from one of the former leading lights amongst the young-earth, creation-science movement amongst the churches of Christ;
        Message 3 of 10 , Aug 29, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          I would like to again post comments from one of the former leading lights amongst the "young-earth, creation-science" movement amongst the churches of Christ; comments which no "young- earth, creation-science" promoter has dared to repudiate, deny or rebut.

          I would also then like to give my "Goliath of GRAS" for any who may want to "come out" in response to its call and take up the public discussion as to the merits of the argument as to its validity and/or soundness and the proposed formal, in writing (or oral, in person), for the record discussion on the evidence of age.

          The recommended propositions for such discussion on the evidence of age will then follow the presentation of the "Goliath of GRAS".

          Here to provide the context for considering my "Goliath of GRAS" are the comments from that leading light amongst the "young-earth, creation-science" movement within the churches of Christ:

          ----------------

          http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/1991

          THE YOUNG EARTH

          (excerpts)

          "(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."

          (end excerpt)

          ------------------

          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".

          Keith Sisman even affirmed such a position recently, but he will not "come out" and "let us reason TOGETHER" regarding this important public issue

          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 or if that interpretation is subject to falsification based on the real world
          evidence.

          I've developed a simple, logically 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 is subject to falsification with reference to the real world
          evidence.

          Here it is, the "Goliath of GRAS", undefeated in all outings and
          still the one to beat:

          Major premise:

          > If God's word (the text) says
          > everything began over a period
          > of six days, is interpreted by
          > some to mean it was six 24-hour
          > days occurring a few thousand
          > years ago, and there is empirical
          > evidence that some thing is
          > actually much older than a few
          > thousand years, then the
          > interpretation of the text by
          > some is wrong.

          Minor premise:

          > God's word (the text) says
          > everything began over a period
          > of six days, is interpreted by
          > some to mean it was six 24-hour
          > days occurring a few thousand
          > years ago, and there is empirical
          > evidence that some thing is
          > actually much older than a few
          > thousand years.

          Conclusion:

          > The interpretation of the text
          > by some is wrong.

          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, in the context of the popular "young-earth, creation-science" movement, is the "evidence of age".

          In order to deal with that issue, a formal, in writing, for the record discussion is proposed with the following suggested
          propositions:

          Proposition #1:

          > The empirical evidence shows
          > that the Earth has been in
          > existence longer than one
          > hundred thousand (100,000)
          > years.

          > Affirm: Todd S. Greene
          > Deny: ???

          Proposition #2:

          > The empirical evidence shows
          > that the Universe has been in
          > existence longer than one
          > hundred thousand (100,000)
          > years.

          > Affirm: Todd S. Greene
          > Deny: ???

          Proposition #3:

          > The empirical evidence shows
          > that the Earth is less than one
          > hundred thousand (100,000)
          > years old

          > Affirm: ???
          > Deny: Todd S Greene

          Proposition #4:

          > The empirical evidence shows
          > that the Universe is less than
          > one hundred thousand
          > (100,000) years old.

          > Affirm: ???
          > Deny: Todd S. Greene

          To date, I have not been able to facilitate the proposed discussion.

          The invitation remains outstanding, with specific, logistical details to be worked out between the two agreeing to engage in the
          discussion.

          My "Goliath of GRAS"...still the one to beat!

          Typically, those desiring to see my "Goliath of GRAS" defeated have themselves retreated into the UNscientific position popularized by Dr. Fox and 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.

          Dr. Fox's position effectively concedes that "young-earth, creation-science" cannot stand up to scrutiny as being "science" and that the real world evidence falsifies "young-earth, creation-science".

          That is a good thing to know, a very good thing to know!

          My "Goliath of GRAS"...still the one to beat!

          Still no "David"!

          Sincerely,
          Robert Baty



          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Robert Baty
          I would like to post comments from one of the former leading lights within the churches of Christ and its young-earth, creation-science movement. To date, no
          Message 4 of 10 , Sep 29, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            I would like to post comments from one of the former leading lights within the churches of Christ and its "young-earth, creation-science" movement. To date, no "young- earth, creation-science" promoter has dared to repudiate, deny or rebut the comments.

            I would also then like to 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 validity, soundness and the proposed formal, in writing, for the record discussion on the evidence of age.

            The recommended propositions for the proposed discussion on the evidence of age follows the presentation of the "Goliath of GRAS".

            Here now to provide the context for considering my "Goliath of GRAS" are the comments from that leading light amongst the "young-earth, creation-science" movement within the churches of Christ:

            ----------------

            http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/1991

            THE YOUNG EARTH

            (excerpts)

            "(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."

            (end excerpt)

            ------------------

            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 or if that interpretation is subject to falsification based on the real world
            evidence.

            I've developed a simple, logically valid argument (i.e., "Goliath of GRAS") proposing that the real world interpretation of the text commonly associated with the "young-earth, creation-science" (i.e., "nothing is more than a few thousand years old) movement is subject to falsification with reference to the real world
            evidence.

            Here it is, the "Goliath of GRAS":

            Major premise:

            > If God's word (the text) says
            > everything began over a period
            > of six days, is interpreted by
            > some to mean it was six 24-hour
            > days occurring a few thousand
            > years ago, and there is empirical
            > evidence that some thing is
            > actually much older than a few
            > thousand years, then the
            > interpretation of the text by
            > some is wrong.

            Minor premise:

            > God's word (the text) says
            > everything began over a period
            > of six days, is interpreted by
            > some to mean it was six 24-hour
            > days occurring a few thousand
            > years ago, and there is empirical
            > evidence that some thing is
            > actually much older than a few
            > thousand years.

            Conclusion:

            > The interpretation of the text
            > by some is wrong.

            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, in the context of the popular "young-earth, creation-science" movement, is the "evidence of age".

            In order to deal with that issue, a formal, in writing, for the record discussion is proposed with the following suggested
            propositions:

            Proposition #1:

            > The empirical evidence shows
            > that the Earth has been in
            > existence longer than one
            > hundred thousand (100,000)
            > years.

            > Affirm: Todd S. Greene
            > Deny: ???

            Proposition #2:

            > The empirical evidence shows
            > that the Universe has been in
            > existence longer than one
            > hundred thousand (100,000)
            > years.

            > Affirm: Todd S. Greene
            > Deny: ???

            Proposition #3:

            > The empirical evidence shows
            > that the Earth is less than one
            > hundred thousand (100,000)
            > years old

            > Affirm: ???
            > Deny: Todd S Greene

            Proposition #4:

            > The empirical evidence shows
            > that the Universe is less than
            > one hundred thousand
            > (100,000) years old.

            > Affirm: ???
            > Deny: Todd S. Greene

            To date, I have not been able to facilitate the proposed discussion.

            The invitation remains outstanding, with specific, logistical details to be worked out between the two agreeing to engage in the
            discussion.

            Typically, those desiring to see my "Goliath of GRAS" defeated have themselves retreated into the UNscientific position popularized by Dr. Fox and 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.

            Dr. Fox's position effectively concedes that "young-earth, creation-science" cannot stand up to scrutiny as being "science" and that the real world evidence falsifies "young-earth, creation-science".

            That is a good thing to know.

            Sincerely,
            Robert Baty





            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • w_w_c_l
            Robert Baty may have left us, but Goliath stayed behind! ... I would like to post comments from one of the former leading lights within the churches of
            Message 5 of 10 , Nov 29, 2007
            • 0 Attachment
              Robert Baty may have left us, but "Goliath" stayed behind!

              Here's one of Robert's posts from the archives:
              ----------------------------------------------------

              I would like to post comments from one of the former leading lights
              within the churches of Christ and its "young-earth, creation-science"
              movement. To date, no "young- earth, creation-science" promoter has
              dared to repudiate, deny or rebut the comments.

              I would also then like to 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 validity, soundness and the
              proposed formal, in writing, for the record discussion on the
              evidence of age.

              The recommended propositions for the proposed discussion on the
              evidence of age follows the presentation of the "Goliath of GRAS".

              Here now to provide the context for considering my "Goliath of GRAS"
              are the comments from that leading light amongst the "young-earth,
              creation-science" movement within the churches of Christ:

              ----------------

              http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/1991

              THE YOUNG EARTH

              (excerpts)

              "(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."

              (end excerpt)

              ------------------

              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 or if that
              interpretation is subject to falsification based on the real world
              evidence.

              I've developed a simple, logically valid argument (i.e., "Goliath of
              GRAS") proposing that the real world interpretation of the text
              commonly associated with the "young-earth, creation-science"
              (i.e., "nothing is more than a few thousand years old) movement is
              subject to falsification with reference to the real world evidence.

              Here it is, the "Goliath of GRAS":

              Major premise:

              > If God's word (the text) says
              > everything began over a period
              > of six days, is interpreted by
              > some to mean it was six 24-hour
              > days occurring a few thousand
              > years ago, and there is empirical
              > evidence that some thing is
              > actually much older than a few
              > thousand years, then the
              > interpretation of the text by
              > some is wrong.

              Minor premise:

              > God's word (the text) says
              > everything began over a period
              > of six days, is interpreted by
              > some to mean it was six 24-hour
              > days occurring a few thousand
              > years ago, and there is empirical
              > evidence that some thing is
              > actually much older than a few
              > thousand years.

              Conclusion:

              > The interpretation of the text
              > by some is wrong.

              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, in the context of the popular "young-earth, creation-
              science" movement, is the "evidence of age".

              In order to deal with that issue, a formal, in writing, for the record
              discussion is proposed with the following suggested propositions:

              Proposition #1:

              > The empirical evidence shows
              > that the Earth has been in
              > existence longer than one
              > hundred thousand (100,000)
              > years.

              > Affirm: Todd S. Greene
              > Deny: ???

              Proposition #2:

              > The empirical evidence shows
              > that the Universe has been in
              > existence longer than one
              > hundred thousand (100,000)
              > years.

              > Affirm: Todd S. Greene
              > Deny: ???

              Proposition #3:

              > The empirical evidence shows
              > that the Earth is less than one
              > hundred thousand (100,000)
              > years old

              > Affirm: ???
              > Deny: Todd S Greene

              Proposition #4:

              > The empirical evidence shows
              > that the Universe is less than
              > one hundred thousand
              > (100,000) years old.

              > Affirm: ???
              > Deny: Todd S. Greene

              To date, I have not been able to facilitate the proposed discussion.

              The invitation remains outstanding, with specific, logistical
              details to be worked out between the two agreeing to engage in the
              discussion.

              Typically, those desiring to see my "Goliath of GRAS" defeated
              have themselves retreated into the UNscientific position
              popularized by Dr. Fox and 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.

              Dr. Fox's position effectively concedes that "young-earth,
              creation-science" cannot stand up to scrutiny as being "science"
              and that the real world evidence falsifies "young-earth, creation-
              science".

              That is a good thing to know.

              Sincerely,
              Robert Baty

              -------------------------------------------------
            • w_w_c_l
              I would like to post comments from one of the former leading lights within the churches of Christ and its young-earth, creation-science movement. To date, no
              Message 6 of 10 , Jan 8, 2008
              • 0 Attachment
                I would like to post comments from one of the former leading lights
                within the churches of Christ and its "young-earth, creation-science"
                movement. To date, no "young- earth, creation-science" promoter has
                dared to repudiate, deny or rebut the comments.

                I would also then like to 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 validity, soundness and
                the proposed formal, in writing, for the record discussion on the
                evidence of age.

                The recommended propositions for the proposed discussion on the
                evidence of age follows the presentation of the "Goliath of GRAS".

                Here now to provide the context for considering my "Goliath of GRAS"
                are the comments from that leading light amongst the "young-earth,
                creation-science" movement within the churches of Christ:

                ----------------

                http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/1991

                THE YOUNG EARTH

                (excerpts)

                "(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."

                (end excerpt)

                ------------------

                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 or if that interpretation is subject to
                falsification based on the real world evidence.

                I've developed a simple, logically valid argument (i.e., "Goliath
                of GRAS") proposing that the real world interpretation of the text
                commonly associated with the "young-earth, creation-science"
                (i.e., "nothing is more than a few thousand years old) movement
                is subject to falsification with reference to the real world
                evidence.

                Here it is, the "Goliath of GRAS":

                Major premise:

                > If God's word (the text) says
                > everything began over a period
                > of six days, is interpreted by
                > some to mean it was six 24-hour
                > days occurring a few thousand
                > years ago, and there is empirical
                > evidence that some thing is
                > actually much older than a few
                > thousand years, then the
                > interpretation of the text by
                > some is wrong.

                Minor premise:

                > God's word (the text) says
                > everything began over a period
                > of six days, is interpreted by
                > some to mean it was six 24-hour
                > days occurring a few thousand
                > years ago, and there is empirical
                > evidence that some thing is
                > actually much older than a few
                > thousand years.

                Conclusion:

                > The interpretation of the text
                > by some is wrong.

                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, in the context of the popular "young-earth,
                creation-science" movement, is the "evidence of age".

                In order to deal with that issue, a formal, in writing, for the
                record discussion is proposed with the following suggested
                propositions:

                Proposition #1:

                > The empirical evidence shows
                > that the Earth has been in
                > existence longer than one
                > hundred thousand (100,000)
                > years.

                > Affirm: Todd S. Greene
                > Deny: ???

                Proposition #2:

                > The empirical evidence shows
                > that the Universe has been in
                > existence longer than one
                > hundred thousand (100,000)
                > years.

                > Affirm: Todd S. Greene
                > Deny: ???

                Proposition #3:

                > The empirical evidence shows
                > that the Earth is less than one
                > hundred thousand (100,000)
                > years old

                > Affirm: ???
                > Deny: Todd S Greene

                Proposition #4:

                > The empirical evidence shows
                > that the Universe is less than
                > one hundred thousand
                > (100,000) years old.

                > Affirm: ???
                > Deny: Todd S. Greene

                To date, I have not been able to facilitate the proposed discussion.

                The invitation remains outstanding, with specific, logistical
                details to be worked out between the two agreeing to engage
                in the discussion.

                Typically, those desiring to see my "Goliath of GRAS" defeated
                have themselves retreated into the UNscientific position
                popularized by Dr. Fox and 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.

                Dr. Fox's position effectively concedes that "young-earth,
                creation-science" cannot stand up to scrutiny as being
                "science" and that the real world evidence falsifies
                "young-earth, creation-science".

                In January of 2008, Jerry McDonald affirmed a more formal statement
                of the Dr. Fox's positions whereby Jerry McDonald affirmed as true
                the following proposition:

                > If God's word (the text) says that
                > everything was created in six days,
                > and if that is interpreted by some
                > to mean six literal 24 hour days no
                > more than 10,000 years ago, then
                > everything was created in six literal
                > 24 hour days no more than 10,000
                > years ago.

                The logic and error of the claim made by Dr. Fox and formalized by
                Jerry McDonald should be self-evident as the geocentric exercise of
                years gone by has taught us.

                That is a good thing to know.

                Don't agree?

                Can we talk about it?

                Maybe you are the one to convince us otherwise!

                Sincerely,
                Robert Baty

                --------------------
                --------------------
              • Todd S. Greene
                ... Take a look at this relevant excerpt from my post #12012 (Aug. 30, 2007): ... So, yes, Jerry has already openly admitted that he is going to believe his
                Message 7 of 10 , Jan 9, 2008
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- In Maury_and_Baty were statements by Robert Baty as follows (post
                  #13581):
                  |[snip]
                  > Typically, those desiring to see my "Goliath of GRAS"
                  > defeated have themselves retreated into the
                  > UNscientific position popularized by Dr. Fox and
                  > 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.
                  >
                  > Dr. Fox's position effectively concedes that "young-earth,
                  > creation-science" cannot stand up to scrutiny as being
                  > "science" and that the real world evidence falsifies
                  > "young-earth, creation-science".
                  >
                  > In January of 2008, Jerry McDonald affirmed a more formal
                  > statement of the Dr. Fox's positions whereby Jerry
                  > McDonald affirmed as true the following proposition:
                  >
                  >> If God's word (the text) says that everything
                  >> was created in six days, and if that is
                  >> interpreted by some to mean six literal 24
                  >> hour days no more than 10,000 years ago, then
                  >> everything was created in six literal 24 hour
                  >> days no more than 10,000 years ago.
                  >
                  > The logic and error of the claim made by Dr. Fox and
                  > formalized by Jerry McDonald should be self-evident as
                  > the geocentric exercise of years gone by has taught us.
                  >
                  > That is a good thing to know.
                  |[snip]

                  Take a look at this relevant excerpt from my post #12012 (Aug. 30, 2007):

                  I wrote:

                  | In post #11975 Jerry McDonald wrote, "The young earth
                  | interpretation of the Bible is right. You cannot get any
                  | other interpretation out of it. I would have to reject
                  | the so-called real world evidence to the contrary of
                  | Biblical evidence."
                  |
                  | Jerry, this looks to me like you are making an argument
                  | like this, 'If the Bible teaches that the Universe and
                  | the Earth did not exist more than 6,000 to 10,000 years
                  | ago, then that's what I will believe regardless of what
                  | the scientific evidence shows.'

                  Jerry replied:

                  | Todd, You have it right.

                  So, yes, Jerry has already openly admitted that he is going to believe
                  his religious dogma REGARDLESS OF WHAT THE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE SHOWS.
                  (And in that post I thanked him for this open admission of his.)

                  This is the young earth creationist mindset, deliberately
                  closed-minded against the actual scientific evidence because it
                  contradicts their religious dogma. This is what proves that young
                  earth creationist is an irrational position that is unscientific in
                  its very nature, as well as being a scientifically false idea.

                  - Todd Greene
                • w_w_c_l
                  Robert Baty wrote: Testing a fundamental position - Goliath of GRAS ! I would like to post comments from one of the former leading lights within the churches
                  Message 8 of 10 , Jan 27, 2008
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Robert Baty wrote:

                    Testing a fundamental position - "Goliath of GRAS"!



                    I would like to post comments from one of the former leading lights
                    within the churches of Christ and its "young-earth, creation-science"
                    movement. To date, no "young- earth, creation-science" promoter has
                    dared to repudiate, deny or rebut the comments.

                    I would also then like to 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 validity, soundness and
                    the proposed formal, in writing, for the record discussion on the
                    evidence of age.

                    The recommended propositions for the proposed discussion on the
                    evidence of age follows the presentation of the "Goliath of GRAS".

                    Here now to provide the context for considering my "Goliath of GRAS"
                    are the comments from that leading light amongst the "young-earth,
                    creation-science" movement within the churches of Christ:

                    ----------------

                    http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/1991

                    THE YOUNG EARTH

                    (excerpts)

                    "(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."

                    (end excerpt)

                    ------------------

                    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 or if that interpretation is subject to
                    falsification based on the real world evidence.

                    I've developed a simple, logically valid argument (i.e., "Goliath
                    of GRAS") proposing that the real world interpretation of the text
                    commonly associated with the "young-earth, creation-science"
                    (i.e., "nothing is more than a few thousand years old) movement
                    is subject to falsification with reference to the real world
                    evidence.

                    Here it is, the "Goliath of GRAS":

                    Major premise:

                    > If God's word (the text) says
                    > everything began over a period
                    > of six days, is interpreted by
                    > some to mean it was six 24-hour
                    > days occurring a few thousand
                    > years ago, and there is empirical
                    > evidence that some thing is
                    > actually much older than a few
                    > thousand years, then the
                    > interpretation of the text by
                    > some is wrong.

                    Minor premise:

                    > God's word (the text) says
                    > everything began over a period
                    > of six days, is interpreted by
                    > some to mean it was six 24-hour
                    > days occurring a few thousand
                    > years ago, and there is empirical
                    > evidence that some thing is
                    > actually much older than a few
                    > thousand years.

                    Conclusion:

                    > The interpretation of the text
                    > by some is wrong.

                    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, in the context of the popular "young-earth,
                    creation-science" movement, is the "evidence of age".

                    In order to deal with that issue, a formal, in writing, for the
                    record discussion is proposed with the following suggested
                    propositions:

                    Proposition #1:

                    > The empirical evidence shows
                    > that the Earth has been in
                    > existence longer than one
                    > hundred thousand (100,000)
                    > years.

                    > Affirm: Todd S. Greene
                    > Deny: ???

                    Proposition #2:

                    > The empirical evidence shows
                    > that the Universe has been in
                    > existence longer than one
                    > hundred thousand (100,000)
                    > years.

                    > Affirm: Todd S. Greene
                    > Deny: ???

                    Proposition #3:

                    > The empirical evidence shows
                    > that the Earth is less than one
                    > hundred thousand (100,000)
                    > years old

                    > Affirm: ???
                    > Deny: Todd S Greene

                    Proposition #4:

                    > The empirical evidence shows
                    > that the Universe is less than
                    > one hundred thousand
                    > (100,000) years old.

                    > Affirm: ???
                    > Deny: Todd S. Greene

                    To date, I have not been able to facilitate the proposed discussion.

                    The invitation remains outstanding, with specific, logistical
                    details to be worked out between the two agreeing to engage
                    in the discussion.

                    Typically, those desiring to see my "Goliath of GRAS" defeated
                    have themselves retreated into the UNscientific position
                    popularized by Dr. Fox and 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.

                    Dr. Fox's position effectively concedes that "young-earth,
                    creation-science" cannot stand up to scrutiny as being
                    "science" and that the real world evidence falsifies
                    "young-earth, creation-science".

                    In January of 2008, Jerry McDonald affirmed a more formal statement
                    of the Dr. Fox's positions whereby Jerry McDonald affirmed as true
                    the following proposition:

                    > If God's word (the text) says that
                    > everything was created in six days,
                    > and if that is interpreted by some
                    > to mean six literal 24 hour days no
                    > more than 10,000 years ago, then
                    > everything was created in six literal
                    > 24 hour days no more than 10,000
                    > years ago.

                    The logic and error of the claim made by Dr. Fox and formalized by
                    Jerry McDonald should be self-evident as the geocentric exercise of
                    years gone by has taught us.

                    That is a good thing to know.

                    Don't agree?

                    Can we talk about it?

                    Maybe you are the one to convince us otherwise!

                    Sincerely,
                    Robert Baty

                    --------------------
                    --------------------
                  • rlbaty50
                    You would think it would be easy to find a bonafide young-earth, creation-science type to seriously come out to test the fundamental real world claim that
                    Message 9 of 10 , Jan 28, 2008
                    • 0 Attachment
                      You would think it would be easy to find a bonafide "young-earth,
                      creation-science" type to seriously "come out" to test the
                      fundamental real world claim that "nothing is more than a few
                      thousand years old" against the real world evidence, independent of
                      any interpretation of religious texts.

                      Alas, it has not been easy and we are still waiting for a
                      bonafide "young-earth, creation-science" type to "come out" and
                      engage in a formal, in writing, for the record discussion as to the
                      real world evidence of age, independent of any interpretation of
                      religious texts.

                      I don't know what has become of Jerry McDonald and his third negative
                      in our debate over the otherwise irrefutable truth of the major
                      premise of the "Goliath of GRAS" argument.

                      I do notice that Jerry McDonald has not yet published my third
                      affirmative on his website where he has posted the first and second
                      affirmatives and negatives.

                      As I recall, Jerry was last observed, relative to the debate, making
                      like he had some kind of formal agreement with me regarding the
                      logistics of the debate. He was rebutted/rebuked for trying to make
                      such a claim where the record appears to most clearly show that he
                      never engaged in good faith negotiations for such an exercise.

                      The record indicates that I simply, following Jerry's own course in
                      an earlier debate, proceeded to beging with posting of my first
                      affirmative and Jerry then followed with his first negative; followed
                      by my second affirmative, Jerry's second negative, and my third
                      affirmative and a draft of my fourth affirmative.

                      We are still waiting to see if Jerry McDonald will submit a third
                      negative.

                      My preference, of course, is for Jerry McDonald to simply come to
                      realize and admit the simple truth reflected in the major premise of
                      my "Goliath of GRAS"; a simple truth determinable by the force of
                      reason and the stipulated defintions.

                      Otherwise, the invitation reposted by Rick Hartzog (see copy
                      following my name below) remains outstanding.

                      Sincerely,
                      Robert Baty

                      --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "w_w_c_l" <w_w_c_l@...> wrote:

                      Robert Baty wrote:

                      Testing a fundamental position - "Goliath of GRAS"!

                      I would like to post comments from one of the former leading lights
                      within the churches of Christ and its "young-earth, creation-science"
                      movement. To date, no "young- earth, creation-science" promoter has
                      dared to repudiate, deny or rebut the comments.

                      I would also then like to 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 validity, soundness and
                      the proposed formal, in writing, for the record discussion on the
                      evidence of age.

                      The recommended propositions for the proposed discussion on the
                      evidence of age follows the presentation of the "Goliath of GRAS".

                      Here now to provide the context for considering my "Goliath of GRAS"
                      are the comments from that leading light amongst the "young-earth,
                      creation-science" movement within the churches of Christ:

                      ----------------

                      http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/1991

                      THE YOUNG EARTH

                      (excerpts)

                      "(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."

                      (end excerpt)

                      ------------------

                      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 or if that interpretation is subject to
                      falsification based on the real world evidence.

                      I've developed a simple, logically valid argument (i.e., "Goliath
                      of GRAS") proposing that the real world interpretation of the text
                      commonly associated with the "young-earth, creation-science"
                      (i.e., "nothing is more than a few thousand years old) movement
                      is subject to falsification with reference to the real world
                      evidence.

                      Here it is, the "Goliath of GRAS":

                      Major premise:

                      > If God's word (the text) says
                      > everything began over a period
                      > of six days, is interpreted by
                      > some to mean it was six 24-hour
                      > days occurring a few thousand
                      > years ago, and there is empirical
                      > evidence that some thing is
                      > actually much older than a few
                      > thousand years, then the
                      > interpretation of the text by
                      > some is wrong.

                      Minor premise:

                      > God's word (the text) says
                      > everything began over a period
                      > of six days, is interpreted by
                      > some to mean it was six 24-hour
                      > days occurring a few thousand
                      > years ago, and there is empirical
                      > evidence that some thing is
                      > actually much older than a few
                      > thousand years.

                      Conclusion:

                      > The interpretation of the text
                      > by some is wrong.

                      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, in the context of the popular "young-earth,
                      creation-science" movement, is the "evidence of age".

                      In order to deal with that issue, a formal, in writing, for the
                      record discussion is proposed with the following suggested
                      propositions:

                      Proposition #1:

                      > The empirical evidence shows
                      > that the Earth has been in
                      > existence longer than one
                      > hundred thousand (100,000)
                      > years.

                      > Affirm: Todd S. Greene
                      > Deny: ???

                      Proposition #2:

                      > The empirical evidence shows
                      > that the Universe has been in
                      > existence longer than one
                      > hundred thousand (100,000)
                      > years.

                      > Affirm: Todd S. Greene
                      > Deny: ???

                      Proposition #3:

                      > The empirical evidence shows
                      > that the Earth is less than one
                      > hundred thousand (100,000)
                      > years old

                      > Affirm: ???
                      > Deny: Todd S Greene

                      Proposition #4:

                      > The empirical evidence shows
                      > that the Universe is less than
                      > one hundred thousand
                      > (100,000) years old.

                      > Affirm: ???
                      > Deny: Todd S. Greene

                      To date, I have not been able to facilitate the proposed discussion.

                      The invitation remains outstanding, with specific, logistical
                      details to be worked out between the two agreeing to engage
                      in the discussion.

                      Typically, those desiring to see my "Goliath of GRAS" defeated
                      have themselves retreated into the UNscientific position
                      popularized by Dr. Fox and 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.

                      Dr. Fox's position effectively concedes that "young-earth,
                      creation-science" cannot stand up to scrutiny as being
                      "science" and that the real world evidence falsifies
                      "young-earth, creation-science".

                      In January of 2008, Jerry McDonald affirmed a more formal statement
                      of the Dr. Fox's positions whereby Jerry McDonald affirmed as true
                      the following proposition:

                      > If God's word (the text) says that
                      > everything was created in six days,
                      > and if that is interpreted by some
                      > to mean six literal 24 hour days no
                      > more than 10,000 years ago, then
                      > everything was created in six literal
                      > 24 hour days no more than 10,000
                      > years ago.

                      The logic and error of the claim made by Dr. Fox and formalized by
                      Jerry McDonald should be self-evident as the geocentric exercise of
                      years gone by has taught us.

                      That is a good thing to know.

                      Don't agree?

                      Can we talk about it?

                      Maybe you are the one to convince us otherwise!

                      Sincerely,
                      Robert Baty

                      --------------------
                      --------------------
                    • w_w_c_l
                      I would like to post comments from one of the former leading lights within the churches of Christ and its young-earth, creation-science movement. To date, no
                      Message 10 of 10 , Apr 2, 2008
                      • 0 Attachment
                        I would like to post comments from one of the former leading lights
                        within the churches of Christ and its "young-earth, creation-science"
                        movement. To date, no "young- earth, creation-science" promoter has
                        dared to repudiate, deny or rebut the comments.

                        I would also then like to 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 validity, soundness and
                        the proposed formal, in writing, for the record discussion on the
                        evidence of age.

                        The recommended propositions for the proposed discussion on the
                        evidence of age follows the presentation of the "Goliath of GRAS".

                        Here now to provide the context for considering my "Goliath of GRAS"
                        are the comments from that leading light amongst the "young-earth,
                        creation-science" movement within the churches of Christ:

                        ----------------

                        http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/1991

                        THE YOUNG EARTH

                        (excerpts)

                        "(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."

                        (end excerpt)

                        ------------------

                        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 or if that interpretation is subject to
                        falsification based on the real world evidence.

                        I've developed a simple, logically valid argument (i.e., "Goliath
                        of GRAS") proposing that the real world interpretation of the text
                        commonly associated with the "young-earth, creation-science"
                        (i.e., "nothing is more than a few thousand years old) movement
                        is subject to falsification with reference to the real world
                        evidence.

                        Here it is, the "Goliath of GRAS":

                        Major premise:

                        > If God's word (the text) says
                        > everything began over a period
                        > of six days, is interpreted by
                        > some to mean it was six 24-hour
                        > days occurring a few thousand
                        > years ago, and there is empirical
                        > evidence that some thing is
                        > actually much older than a few
                        > thousand years, then the
                        > interpretation of the text by
                        > some is wrong.

                        Minor premise:

                        > God's word (the text) says
                        > everything began over a period
                        > of six days, is interpreted by
                        > some to mean it was six 24-hour
                        > days occurring a few thousand
                        > years ago, and there is empirical
                        > evidence that some thing is
                        > actually much older than a few
                        > thousand years.

                        Conclusion:

                        > The interpretation of the text
                        > by some is wrong.

                        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, in the context of the popular "young-earth,
                        creation-science" movement, is the "evidence of age".

                        In order to deal with that issue, a formal, in writing, for the
                        record discussion is proposed with the following suggested
                        propositions:

                        Proposition #1:

                        > The empirical evidence shows
                        > that the Earth has been in
                        > existence longer than one
                        > hundred thousand (100,000)
                        > years.

                        > Affirm: Todd S. Greene
                        > Deny: ???

                        Proposition #2:

                        > The empirical evidence shows
                        > that the Universe has been in
                        > existence longer than one
                        > hundred thousand (100,000)
                        > years.

                        > Affirm: Todd S. Greene
                        > Deny: ???

                        Proposition #3:

                        > The empirical evidence shows
                        > that the Earth is less than one
                        > hundred thousand (100,000)
                        > years old

                        > Affirm: ???
                        > Deny: Todd S Greene

                        Proposition #4:

                        > The empirical evidence shows
                        > that the Universe is less than
                        > one hundred thousand
                        > (100,000) years old.

                        > Affirm: ???
                        > Deny: Todd S. Greene

                        To date, I have not been able to facilitate the proposed discussion.

                        The invitation remains outstanding, with specific, logistical
                        details to be worked out between the two agreeing to engage
                        in the discussion.

                        Typically, those desiring to see my "Goliath of GRAS" defeated
                        have themselves retreated into the UNscientific position
                        popularized by Dr. Fox and 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.

                        Dr. Fox's position effectively concedes that "young-earth,
                        creation-science" cannot stand up to scrutiny as being
                        "science" and that the real world evidence falsifies
                        "young-earth, creation-science".

                        That is a good thing to know.

                        Sincerely,
                        Robert Baty

                        --------------------------
                        --------------------------
                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.