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

Debate

Expand Messages
  • Jerry D. McDonald
    Todd, are you going to debate me in a four night debate on Biblical ethics vs. Humanistic ethics or not? jdm
    Message 1 of 26 , Aug 24, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      Todd, are you going to debate me in a four night debate on Biblical
      ethics vs. Humanistic ethics or not?
      jdm
    • w_w_c_l
      ... While this is not really much of my business, I will point out that it is a pretty tacky maneuver to challenge someone to a personal debate (when it could
      Message 2 of 26 , Aug 24, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "Jerry D. McDonald"
        <jerry@...> wrote:
        >
        > Todd, are you going to debate me in a four night debate
        > on Biblical ethics vs. Humanistic ethics or not?
        > jdm

        While this is not really much of my business, I will point
        out that it is a pretty tacky maneuver to challenge someone
        to a personal debate (when it could be taken care of right
        here in front of the whole world) at a location chosen by
        the debate challenger (Robert and I have been hoping any
        personal debate would take place over in the Tellicoe area
        of Tennessee, for a number of reasons!), on propositions he
        has arrived at on his own, for a duration which he himself
        has set.

        We have seen this a number of times, Jerry. If Todd balks
        in any way on any of these points, you go off pretending
        that he was afraid to face you, just as David P. Brown is
        doing to Todd now and just as Daniel "Me Too" Denham did
        with me over Keith Sisman's plagiarism. Then you have
        your own made-up excuse, just as we see David P. Brown
        trying to employ now in so cowardly a fashion, and just as
        we have seen out of Daniel "Me Too" Denham previously.

        A written debate here in public, in front of the whole
        wide world, for the perpetual public record, at no expense
        to the public or to ourselves, is what is called for in
        these matters of such import to the course of world history.

        Oral debates, though they may later be presented in written
        form, are subject to having crucial considerations overlooked
        or avoided and including unverifiable assertions. There is
        no use in trying to pretend that an oral debate later converted
        to writing and a written debate are the same thing. We want to
        get to the real truth of the matter, insofar as possible, not
        a subjective judgment of public speaking skills and a "truth"
        arrived at by being manipulated by rhetorical games and the
        boos and hisses and hearty amens from the audience, do we not?

        Do we not? We *do* want the discussion to lead to the
        truth, do we not? Isn't that the primary concern? It is,
        isn't it?

        So how 'bout we quit playing these evasive games and get
        down to business?



        Rick Hartzog
        Worldwide Church of Latitudinarianism
      • Todd S. Greene
        ... Hi Jerry, First of all, young earth creationists don t have any credible ethics, by the sheer fact that they are young earth creationists. Just so you
        Message 3 of 26 , Aug 24, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In Maury_and_Baty, Jerry McDonald wrote (post #11772):
          > Todd, are you going to debate me in a four night debate
          > on Biblical ethics vs. Humanistic ethics or not?
          > jdm

          Hi Jerry,

          First of all, young earth creationists don't have any credible
          ethics, by the sheer fact that they are young earth creationists.

          Just so you know.

          Second, I have no interest in the subject, it's not a subject I've
          studied or am interested in studying. I do know that "humanist
          ethics" condemns both slavery and the slaughter of innocent men,
          women, and children, while "biblical ethics" endorses both of those,
          so I'm not all that concerned about such serious cognitive dissonance
          problems on my end.

          What I do know for a fact is that young earth creationism is
          empirically false. This is a subject I'm interested in and have
          studied, and have discussed at length with young earth creationists,
          and that I will debate you on, both in writing or in a public
          speaking engagement, and about which I have challenged other young
          earth creationists.

          Here are my standard proposition that I offer for your consideration:

          | 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: Jerry McDonald?
          |
          | 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: Jerry McDonald?
          |
          | Proposition #3:
          | The empirical evidence shows that the Earth is
          | less than one hundred thousand (100,000) years
          | old.
          |
          | Affirm: Jerry McDonald?
          | Deny: Todd S Greene
          |
          | Proposition #4:
          | The empirical evidence shows that the Universe
          | is less than one hundred thousand (100,000)
          | years old.
          |
          | Affirm: Jerry McDonald?
          | Deny: Todd S. Greene

          Jerry, are you going to debate me on this subject, in writing or in a
          public speaking engagement? If you're serious, instead of just
          engaging in the typical rhetorical bluffing bluster as practiced by
          such guys as Daniel Denham, David P. Brown, Skip Francis, Keith
          Sisman, Don DeLong, and the like, then you should also take a look at
          practical issues that I've already mentioned in this post:

          http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/10938

          - Todd Greene
        • Todd S. Greene
          Hi Rick, Actually, I do appreciate the fact that Jerry did not start right off by deliberately misrepresenting my position with a proposition that he writes
          Message 4 of 26 , Aug 24, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            Hi Rick,

            Actually, I do appreciate the fact that Jerry did not start right off
            by deliberately misrepresenting my position with a proposition that
            he writes that allegedly represents my position but which I would
            refuse to affirm since it's actually a misrepresentation. So that
            already puts him one step ahead of the Denham/Brown/Francis/DeLong
            rigged debate challenge buddyhood.

            - Todd Greene


            --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "w_w_c_l" <w_w_c_l@...> wrote:
            >
            > --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "Jerry D. McDonald"
            > <jerry@> wrote:
            > >
            > > Todd, are you going to debate me in a four night debate
            > > on Biblical ethics vs. Humanistic ethics or not?
            > > jdm
            >
            > While this is not really much of my business, I will point
            > out that it is a pretty tacky maneuver to challenge someone
            > to a personal debate (when it could be taken care of right
            > here in front of the whole world) at a location chosen by
            > the debate challenger (Robert and I have been hoping any
            > personal debate would take place over in the Tellicoe area
            > of Tennessee, for a number of reasons!), on propositions he
            > has arrived at on his own, for a duration which he himself
            > has set.
            >
            > We have seen this a number of times, Jerry. If Todd balks
            > in any way on any of these points, you go off pretending
            > that he was afraid to face you, just as David P. Brown is
            > doing to Todd now and just as Daniel "Me Too" Denham did
            > with me over Keith Sisman's plagiarism. Then you have
            > your own made-up excuse, just as we see David P. Brown
            > trying to employ now in so cowardly a fashion, and just as
            > we have seen out of Daniel "Me Too" Denham previously.
            >
            > A written debate here in public, in front of the whole
            > wide world, for the perpetual public record, at no expense
            > to the public or to ourselves, is what is called for in
            > these matters of such import to the course of world history.
            >
            > Oral debates, though they may later be presented in written
            > form, are subject to having crucial considerations overlooked
            > or avoided and including unverifiable assertions. There is
            > no use in trying to pretend that an oral debate later converted
            > to writing and a written debate are the same thing. We want to
            > get to the real truth of the matter, insofar as possible, not
            > a subjective judgment of public speaking skills and a "truth"
            > arrived at by being manipulated by rhetorical games and the
            > boos and hisses and hearty amens from the audience, do we not?
            >
            > Do we not? We *do* want the discussion to lead to the
            > truth, do we not? Isn't that the primary concern? It is,
            > isn't it?
            >
            > So how 'bout we quit playing these evasive games and get
            > down to business?
            >
            >
            >
            > Rick Hartzog
            > Worldwide Church of Latitudinarianism
            >
          • Robert Baty
            OK, Jerry McDonald, Todd S. Greene is out , where are you and David P. Brown? You may notice that Todd s proposed issues for debate, which happen to go right
            Message 5 of 26 , Aug 24, 2007
            • 0 Attachment
              OK, Jerry McDonald, Todd S. Greene is "out", where are you and David P. Brown?

              You may notice that Todd's proposed issues for debate, which happen to go right to the heart of the important public issues under consideration, are what makes or breaks my "Goliath of GRAS" and David P. Brown's own arguments as to the existence of the "young-earth, creation-science" God.

              It was David P. Brown who was "begging" for a debate on the existence of God and is now in retreat, but maybe, Jerry, your influence will bring him out.

              While Todd may have a different opinion in the matter, it is my opinion that the discussion of Todd's propositions would be more meaningful if the disputants could come to an agreement as to how the decision one makes on those issues affects one's approach to the relevant theology.

              So, here again are my "Goliath of GRAS" and David P. Brown's arguments that simply, and with precise logical validity, provide purpose and consequence to such a discussion as Todd is proposing, including Brown's preference for a debate involving the existence of God.

              OK, Jerry, so you currently refuse to actually take up one of the arguments or show where there is any alternative argument.

              It may be sufficient, even without agreement, for it to be pointed out that the arguments really do provide purpose and consequence as to the position one takes on Todd's propositions and such consequence depends on whether one wants to simply risk an interpretation or risk giving up on God.

              Here are the arguments again for ready reference:

              - - - - - - - - - -

              David P. Brown's Argument #1

              Major Premise:

              > If some thing really is more
              > than a few thousand years
              > old, then the God David P.
              > Brown and his boys believe
              > in, as represented in the
              > Bible, does not exist.

              Minor Premise:

              > Some thing really
              > is more than a few
              > thousand years old.

              Conclusion:

              > Therefore, the God David
              > P. Brown and his boys
              > believe in, as represented
              > in the Bible, does not exist.

              - - - - - - - - - -

              David P. Brown's Argument #2

              Major Premise:

              > If some thing really is more
              > than a few thousand years
              > old, then the God we believe
              > in, as represented in the
              > Bible, does not exist.

              Minor Premise:

              > The God we believe in,
              > as represented in the
              > Bible, does exist.

              Conclusion:

              > Therefore, nothing is
              > more than a few
              > thousand years old.

              - - - - - - - - - -

              Robert Baty's Argument #3

              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.

              - - - - - - - - - -

              Sincerely,
              Robert Baty




              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Jerry D. McDonald
              Todd, weren t you the one who said that you loved the creationists because of the objective morality view and that it makes you laugh and laugh? This is what
              Message 6 of 26 , Aug 24, 2007
              • 0 Attachment
                Todd, weren't you the one who said that you loved the creationists
                because of the "objective morality" view and that it makes you laugh
                and laugh?
                This is what I was going on.

                Robert and I are already having an unofficial debate on the challenge
                list on the age of the earth. If Robert wants to defer to you, that
                is fine with me. My proposition, however, will be written by me, not
                you.
                jdm
                --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "Todd S. Greene"
                <greeneto@...> wrote:
                >
                > --- In Maury_and_Baty, Jerry McDonald wrote (post #11772):
                > > Todd, are you going to debate me in a four night debate
                > > on Biblical ethics vs. Humanistic ethics or not?
                > > jdm
                >
                > Hi Jerry,
                >
                > First of all, young earth creationists don't have any credible
                > ethics, by the sheer fact that they are young earth creationists.
                >
                > Just so you know.
                >
                > Second, I have no interest in the subject, it's not a subject I've
                > studied or am interested in studying. I do know that "humanist
                > ethics" condemns both slavery and the slaughter of innocent men,
                > women, and children, while "biblical ethics" endorses both of
                those,
                > so I'm not all that concerned about such serious cognitive
                dissonance
                > problems on my end.
                >
                > What I do know for a fact is that young earth creationism is
                > empirically false. This is a subject I'm interested in and have
                > studied, and have discussed at length with young earth
                creationists,
                > and that I will debate you on, both in writing or in a public
                > speaking engagement, and about which I have challenged other young
                > earth creationists.
                >
                > Here are my standard proposition that I offer for your
                consideration:
                >
                > | 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: Jerry McDonald?
                > |
                > | 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: Jerry McDonald?
                > |
                > | Proposition #3:
                > | The empirical evidence shows that the Earth is
                > | less than one hundred thousand (100,000) years
                > | old.
                > |
                > | Affirm: Jerry McDonald?
                > | Deny: Todd S Greene
                > |
                > | Proposition #4:
                > | The empirical evidence shows that the Universe
                > | is less than one hundred thousand (100,000)
                > | years old.
                > |
                > | Affirm: Jerry McDonald?
                > | Deny: Todd S. Greene
                >
                > Jerry, are you going to debate me on this subject, in writing or in
                a
                > public speaking engagement? If you're serious, instead of just
                > engaging in the typical rhetorical bluffing bluster as practiced by
                > such guys as Daniel Denham, David P. Brown, Skip Francis, Keith
                > Sisman, Don DeLong, and the like, then you should also take a look
                at
                > practical issues that I've already mentioned in this post:
                >
                > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/10938
                >
                > - Todd Greene
                >
              • Jerry D. McDonald
                (Moderator s Note: Jerry, did you decide to pass on your opportunity to try and bring David P. Brown out ? I m like a broken record like some preachers are
                Message 7 of 26 , Aug 24, 2007
                • 0 Attachment
                  (Moderator's Note: Jerry, did you decide to pass on your opportunity to try and bring David P. Brown "out"? I'm like a broken record like some preachers are like broken records. I've got the truth and I'm sticking with it. Jerry, you are welcome to try and prove me wrong, but I think I've seen your arguments. Like you say though, I can deal with them. Todd can do as he wishes and may have somewhat to say about them as well. - RLBaty)


                  You (Robert Baty) are like a broken record aren't you Robert?

                  When I get my article done, you will see what arguments I make.

                  You can then deal with them.

                  That is, unless of course, you would rather defer to Todd
                  Greene.

                  jdm (Jerry McDonald)
                  Preacher
                  Belle Church of Christ
                • Todd S. Greene
                  ... You re right, Jerry. I did. It s the ironic nature of young earth creationist hypocrisy that I find so amusing. Here is what I wrote:
                  Message 8 of 26 , Aug 25, 2007
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- In Maury_and_Baty, Jerry McDonald wrote (post #11792):
                    > Todd, weren't you the one who said that you loved the
                    > creationists because of the "objective morality" view
                    > and that it makes you laugh and laugh? This is what I
                    > was going on.

                    You're right, Jerry. I did. It's the ironic nature of young earth
                    creationist hypocrisy that I find so amusing. Here is what I wrote:

                    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/11712

                    | The general principle
                    | about this is (1) you need to get your facts straight, and
                    | (2) if you are not capable of getting your facts straight
                    | then you should simply shut up and try to restrain
                    | yourself from promoting falsehoods. The general lesson
                    | about this is that, due to some sort of fundamental
                    | failure that is inherent to your particular ideology you
                    | not only will deliberately ignore (1) and (2), even while
                    | your ideology requires you to falsely tell people all the
                    | time that you adhere to (1) and (2). This sort of blatant
                    | hypocrisy is thus apparently a fundamental component of
                    | your ideology. (This same problem of being
                    | "honesty-challenged" was brought out in the 2005
                    | Creationism Trial in Pennsylvania, and was strongly
                    | criticized by Judge John E. Jones in his published
                    | decision.) This is one of the reasons why when Christians
                    | like you try to get in discussions with me about
                    | "objective morality" I just laugh and laugh and laugh.

                    So which part of that did you not understand?

                    By the very fact of their being young earth creationists, young earth
                    creationists demonstrate that there is something fundamentally flawed
                    with whatever moral standard they purport to have. Why would I waste
                    any time on a time-consuming discussion of such a subject with people
                    who have less than zero credibility on it, whose moral judgement is
                    already known to possess critical flaws? Lying for Jesus is not
                    moral. The fact that "Jesus" is used in that statement is completely
                    irrelevant. The deceitful nature of The Young Earth Creationist Way
                    is not moral. It's a cliche, but this is most appropriate in this
                    context: "Actions speak louder than words."

                    > Robert and I are already having an unofficial debate on
                    > the challenge list on the age of the earth. If Robert
                    > wants to defer to you, that is fine with me.

                    Currently I don't know where that discussion group is located.
                    Additionally, I was under the distinct impression that I was not only
                    not welcome to participate in discussion of creationism in that
                    group, but that I would either not be allowed to join if I tried to
                    do so, or that I would be quickly banned were I to join. I already
                    know for a fact that getting involved in any discussion group run by
                    you is a bad idea because you oppose open discussion and will just up
                    and ban people who disagree with you and point out your errors.
                    (You've already done this to me. You yourself are one reason I
                    started the "creationism" discussion group in the first place.) So I
                    just don't see the point of it. This "Maury_and_Baty" discussion
                    group is an open discussion group. My own "creationism" discussion
                    group is an open discussion group. There are other open discussion
                    groups. You are welcome and indeed invited to discuss the issues in
                    any such open discussion groups. So I see no need to get involved in
                    any group run by you, and see reason to refrain from doing so.

                    > My proposition, however, will be written by me, not you.

                    And I did not say otherwise. I clearly wrote "Here are my standard
                    proposition that I offer for your consideration." Perhaps you missed
                    that part. You should feel free to discuss the wording of the
                    propositions, especially regarding what you would be affirming.
                    (However, I note here that you did not happen to state what problem
                    there might be, if any, with the wording of the propositions that I
                    wrote. I'm very curious to see you explain what problem, if any, you
                    think there might be.)

                    I'm not like the deceitful David P. Brown, Daniel Denham, Keith
                    Sisman, and others, who deliberately misrepresent my position, write
                    a proposition that deliberately misrepresents my position, and then
                    lie to people that I will not debate them simply because I will not
                    affirm a proposition that THEY wrote that does not represent my
                    position (and they lie like this, knowing that I have already written
                    my own proposition that does represent my position that I have told
                    them I will debate). This is how deceitful these men are.

                    Jerry, since you apparently recognize the fact that other people
                    should not be writing misrepresentative propositions and expecting
                    you to sign on to them as representing your position, I shall look
                    forward to you pointing out the lying ways of David P. Brown and
                    others in his "buddyhood" who have emulated those lying ways on this.

                    Unless, of course, you're just another hypocrite like them.

                    - Todd Greene


                    > --- In Maury_and_Baty, Todd Greene wrote (post #11792):
                    >> --- In Maury_and_Baty, Jerry McDonald wrote (post #11772):
                    >>> Todd, are you going to debate me in a four night debate
                    >>> on Biblical ethics vs. Humanistic ethics or not?
                    >>> jdm
                    >>
                    >> Hi Jerry,
                    >>
                    >> First of all, young earth creationists don't have any
                    >> credible ethics, by the sheer fact that they are young
                    >> earth creationists.
                    >>
                    >> Just so you know.
                    >>
                    >> Second, I have no interest in the subject, it's not a
                    >> subject I've studied or am interested in studying. I do
                    >> know that "humanist ethics" condemns both slavery and the
                    >> slaughter of innocent men, women, and children, while
                    >> "biblical ethics" endorses both of those, so I'm not all
                    >> that concerned about such serious cognitive dissonance
                    >> problems on my end.
                    >>
                    >> What I do know for a fact is that young earth creationism is
                    >> empirically false. This is a subject I'm interested in and
                    >> have studied, and have discussed at length with young earth
                    >> creationists, and that I will debate you on, both in writing
                    >> or in a public speaking engagement, and about which I have
                    >> challenged other young earth creationists.
                    >>
                    >> Here are my standard proposition that I offer for your
                    >> consideration:
                    >>
                    >>| 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: Jerry McDonald?
                    >>|
                    >>| 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: Jerry McDonald?
                    >>|
                    >>| Proposition #3:
                    >>| The empirical evidence shows that the Earth is
                    >>| less than one hundred thousand (100,000) years
                    >>| old.
                    >>|
                    >>| Affirm: Jerry McDonald?
                    >>| Deny: Todd S Greene
                    >>|
                    >>| Proposition #4:
                    >>| The empirical evidence shows that the Universe
                    >>| is less than one hundred thousand (100,000)
                    >>| years old.
                    >>|
                    >>| Affirm: Jerry McDonald?
                    >>| Deny: Todd S. Greene
                    >>
                    >> Jerry, are you going to debate me on this subject, in
                    >> writing or in a public speaking engagement? If you're
                    >> serious, instead of just engaging in the typical
                    >> rhetorical bluffing bluster as practiced by such guys
                    >> as Daniel Denham, David P. Brown, Skip Francis, Keith
                    >> Sisman, Don DeLong, and the like, then you should also
                    >> take a look at practical issues that I've already
                    >> mentioned in this post:
                    >>
                    >> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/10938
                    >>
                    >> - Todd Greene
                  • Jerry McDonald
                    (Moderator s Note: I don t know. How would I know? In any case, there is insufficient information to support a good reason why the issue has not been
                    Message 9 of 26 , Aug 28, 2007
                    • 0 Attachment
                      (Moderator's Note: I don't know. How would I know? In any case, there is insufficient information to support a "good reason" why the issue has not been addressed. Jerry, CFTF is a discussion list and the members are not, have not been discussing it. Also, you do not explain what happened to Jason, the moderator. What is up with him? - RLBaty)


                      Robert, as you probably know by now there is a good reason for CFTF not responding to my request.

                      One of the list owner's wife has passed away and the other is on vacation.

                      So you will just have to wait for your answer.

                      In Christ,
                      Jerry McDonald
                    • Jerry McDonald
                      Robert, I don t know what happened to Jason. I only became aware, today, that Jason was the moderator. I don t really know much about that list. jdm Jerry
                      Message 10 of 26 , Aug 28, 2007
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Robert, I don't know what happened to Jason. I only became aware, today, that Jason was the moderator. I don't really know much about that list.
                        jdm


                        Jerry McDonald <jerry@...> wrote:
                        (Moderator's Note: I don't know. How would I know? In any case, there is insufficient information to support a "good reason" why the issue has not been addressed. Jerry, CFTF is a discussion list and the members are not, have not been discussing it. Also, you do not explain what happened to Jason, the moderator. What is up with him? - RLBaty)

                        Robert, as you probably know by now there is a good reason for CFTF not responding to my request.

                        One of the list owner's wife has passed away and the other is on vacation.

                        So you will just have to wait for your answer.

                        In Christ,
                        Jerry McDonald






                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      • Jerry McDonald
                        Robert Baty wrote: Objective observers will note here that Jerry McDonald, in further demonstration of his bad faith, hasn t begun to deal with his problems
                        Message 11 of 26 , Jan 7, 2008
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Robert Baty wrote:

                          Objective observers will note here that Jerry McDonald, in further demonstration of his bad faith, hasn't begun to deal with his problems which need to be dealt with in order to be able to make further progress regarding the important public issues behind our efforts to help him with his problems in understanding basic rules of logic and sound reasoning.

                          Again, Jerry didn't explain which proposition he has reference to above.

                          McDonald

                          I did explain which proposition that I have will affirm, Robert just doesn't know how to read plain English. Again, Robert, my proposition (and it is the only one I will affirm) reads:

                          Resolved: The Bible teaches that everything was created in six literal 24 hour days, and this happened no longer than 10,000 years ago.

                          Now if you cannot understand that I am sorry. That is about as clear as I can get it.

                          My argument will be my "David Of God" argument which you say is a pretender of your Goliath of GRAS argument. However, the major premise of my argument is not the same as my proposition. Don't you even understand the basics of debating or are you that ignorant. If you are that ignorant, I have no time to waste with you.

                          Baty

                          Jerry McDonald first affirmed the following:

                          > 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.

                          McDonald
                          THIS IS NOT A PROPOSITION! THIS IS A MAJOR PREMISE OF AN ARGUMENT!

                          Baty

                          Jerry McDonald is welcome to that proposition and I would welcome a further opportunity to discuss it with him, or Dick Sztanyo his champion, in writing, and for the record.

                          In fact, I have already discussed it here and am waiting for Jerry and/or Dick to deal with their problem concerning it. Jerry has run off from it as far as I can tell.

                          McDonald
                          I have already told you that Dick Sztanyo is not even involved. I am not even sending him emails on this and he knows absolutely nothing about it. WHAT PART OF THAT DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND? If you deal with someone, DEAL WITH ME! But make sure you are up to the task, because your pitiful excuse for rebuttals in our written debate show that you aren't up to it.

                          Baty

                          Here's an additional tidbit that might help readers understand why Jerry McDonald has run off from his own, original proposition:

                          Jerry McDonald's proposition is the major premise of an argument that, I propose, is a logical formulation of what has been called the Dr. Fox position which is more briefly summarized as follows:

                          > I, Jerry McDonald, have my
                          > interpretation of the text
                          > regarding the real world and
                          > that trumps any real world
                          > evidence to the contrary.

                          McDonald
                          Whatever, Robert, you can say whatever you want. I won't be able to stop you anyway. As far as I am concerned you are just one step away from a full-blown infidel. Why don't you just embrace atheism and take yourself out of the church's misery?

                          Baty
                          In other words, despite all the effort to convince folks otherwise, Jerry McDonald, typical of "young-earth, creation-science" promoters, doesn't really believe that their fundamental real world claim that "nothing is more than a few thousand years old" is subject to falsification with reference to the real world evidence.

                          How so very geocentric of Jerry, et al.

                          They are, of course, welcome to that point of view.

                          However, it just ain't science. And that's where the rub comes in.

                          Jerry McDonald, after running off from his original argument and proposition, has tried to substitute the following:

                          > "Resolved: The Bible teaches
                          > that God created all things
                          > within six literal 24 hour days
                          > and this happened not more
                          > than 10,000 years ago."

                          As I have said before, I am willing to discuss that with Jerry in the context of helping him deal with my "Goliath of GRAS", in due course, and once we get Jerry McDonald to agree to some basic rules of logic and negotiate in good faith for what he has already gone on record as preferring in such situation; a written discussion.

                          The fact is, in order to properly deal with the "young-earth, creation-science" claim that "nothing is more than a few thousand years old", based on the real world evidence, and how my "Goliath of GRAS" fits into that important public issue, it is not necessary that Jerry McDonald put on his unseemly demonstration regarding what proposition he wants to discuss.

                          As I have already clearly and unequivocably demonstrated, there is no foolishness in my decision to affirm and argue the truth of the major premise of my "Goliath of GRAS".

                          For present purposes, that is the only proposition that need be discussed and both Jerry McDonald and I are primed for a serious, for the record, in writing, formal discussion of the truth thereof.

                          I have affirmed it repeatedly, and Jerry McDonald is making it quite clear that he denies it.

                          McDonald
                          If you are stupid enough to make your major premise your proposition: be my guest.

                          Baty
                          So, as far as I am concerned, there is no good reason for Jerry McDonald to do anything but work out the details for our formal, one on one, in writing, for the record discussion regarding the truth of the major premise of my "Goliath of GRAS".

                          If we can get Jerry McDonald past that problem he's having, and his other problems with basic logic, then we can proceed, maybe, to move to the next level of the discussion regarding the real world falsification test for the fundamental real world claim associated with the "young-earth, creation-science" movement; that being that "nothing is more than a few thousand years old".

                          McDonald
                          I have no problems with logic or anything else. Stop talking and show me some action. You talk too much to be much of a threat.

                          Baty

                          Here's the proposition again with the affirmative and negative positions indicated following:

                          > "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."

                          > Affirm: Robert Baty
                          > Deny: Jerry McDonald

                          Jerry can run off if he wishes, but he, so far, leaves undone his responsibilities and obligations to deal with such clear errors as have been most recently pointed out to him.

                          McDonald
                          I'll deny that proposition if that is what you want for your proposition. I have already said that four times. How many more ways do you want me to say it? I am beginning to feel like Oliver North here.

                          Baty
                          The "good faith" course is before him as well as the "bad faith" course. Jerry McDonald has been pursuing the "bad faith" course in these exchanges.

                          I hope that he will now stop, seriously consider his situation, and choose to pursue in "good faith" a further discussion of these important matters, and proceed accordingly.

                          We anxiously await Jerry McDonald's decision and exhibition on the course he will take regarding these important public issues.

                          Sincerely,
                          Robert Baty

                          McDonald
                          You can hope anything you want Robert, that doesn't mean you are going to change me. Will you debate the propositions that you said you will affirm and that I have said I will affirm or not? Put up or shut up!

                          In Christ Jesus
                          Jerry D. McDonald






                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        • w_w_c_l
                          From: Robert Baty To: jerry@..., w_w_c_l@... Subject: The good faith and good sense of Jerry McDonald! Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2008 01:46:38 GMT This is going to
                          Message 12 of 26 , Jan 7, 2008
                          • 0 Attachment
                            From: "Robert Baty"
                            To: jerry@..., w_w_c_l@...
                            Subject: The good faith and good sense of Jerry McDonald!
                            Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2008 01:46:38 GMT


                            This is going to be real simple, but pay close attention so that
                            there be no confusion and no more dispute over this most fundamental
                            rule of logic such as we have been discussing.

                            This is being submitted as an incentive to allow Jerry McDonald to
                            demonstrate the extent to which he is possessed of good faith and
                            good sense regarding one of those fundamental problems he's been
                            demonstrating and in consideration of our efforts to bring about the
                            written debate Jerry McDonald effectively initiated when, after most
                            explicitly advising me to "leave him alone", he returned not only to
                            engage me in private chat but also to put on a public demonstration
                            of his interest in a written, public debate over my "Goliath of
                            GRAS", by posting messages to the Maury_and Baty YAHOO! discussion
                            list and elsewhere, as if he really had a basis for publicly, in
                            writing, contesting the claims made for my "Goliath of GRAS".

                            One of the undisputed, authoritative claims regarding what a
                            proposition is was recently noted by me and Jerry McDonald has done
                            everything but deal with it and his error regarding his opposing
                            claim.

                            Here's my claim from Jerry McDonald's own referenced, respected, pre-
                            eminent logic authority:

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

                            > We begin by examining propositions,
                            > the building blocks of every argument.

                            > A proposition is something that may
                            > be asserted or denied.

                            > Only propositions assert that something
                            > is (or is not) the case, and therefore
                            > only they can be true or false.

                            > Moreover, every proposition is
                            > either true or false-although
                            > we may not know the truth or
                            > falsity of some given proposition.

                            > ...in compound propositions that
                            > are hypothetical (or conditional),
                            > such as:

                            >> If God did not exist, it would
                            >> be necessary to invent him. (3)

                            > ...neither of the components is
                            > asserted. The proposition that "God
                            > does not exist" is not asserted here;
                            > nor is the proposition that "it is
                            > necessary to invent him". Only the
                            > "if-then" proposition is asserted by
                            > the hypothetical or conditional
                            > statement, and that conditional
                            > statement might be true even though
                            > both of its components were false.

                            >> (3)
                            >> Abraham Lincoln, annual message
                            >> to Congress, 3 December 1861

                            > "Introduction to Logic"
                            > Eleventh Edition
                            > Irving M. Copi
                            > Carl Cohen
                            > pages 4 & 6

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

                            My further comments:

                            Despite the above being now repeated a number of times, without any
                            rebuttal from Jerry McDonald, Jerry McDonald now most recently writes
                            regarding the major premise of my "Goliath of GRAS" argument(which
                            Jerry McDonald explictly denies as being false) as shown below:

                            My proposition affirmed:

                            > "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."

                            > Affirmed: Robert Baty

                            Jerry McDonald's allegation:

                            > THIS IS NOT A PROPOSITION!
                            > THIS IS A MAJOR PREMISE OF
                            > AN ARGUMENT!

                            > Signed: Jerry McDonald

                            Jerry McDonald would do well, in demonstration of his good faith and
                            good will, to either admit, explain and correct his error as to
                            whether or not my "proposition" above is a "proposition", or provide
                            a "logical argument", with requisite authority(ies), as to why
                            my "proposition" should not be considered a "proposition".

                            That is not all that Jerry McDonald needs to do to show his good
                            faith and good sense, but it would be a good start.

                            Sincerely,
                            Robert Baty



                            --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, Jerry McDonald
                            <jerry@...> wrote:
                            >
                            > Robert Baty wrote:
                            >
                            > Objective observers will note here that Jerry McDonald, in
                            further demonstration of his bad faith, hasn't begun to deal with his
                            problems which need to be dealt with in order to be able to make
                            further progress regarding the important public issues behind our
                            efforts to help him with his problems in understanding basic rules of
                            logic and sound reasoning.
                            >
                            > Again, Jerry didn't explain which proposition he has reference to
                            above.
                            >
                            > McDonald
                            >
                            > I did explain which proposition that I have will affirm, Robert
                            just doesn't know how to read plain English. Again, Robert, my
                            proposition (and it is the only one I will affirm) reads:
                            >
                            > Resolved: The Bible teaches that everything was created in six
                            literal 24 hour days, and this happened no longer than 10,000 years
                            ago.
                            >
                            > Now if you cannot understand that I am sorry. That is about as
                            clear as I can get it.
                            >
                            > My argument will be my "David Of God" argument which you say is a
                            pretender of your Goliath of GRAS argument. However, the major
                            premise of my argument is not the same as my proposition. Don't you
                            even understand the basics of debating or are you that ignorant. If
                            you are that ignorant, I have no time to waste with you.
                            >
                            > Baty
                            >
                            > Jerry McDonald first affirmed the following:
                            >
                            > > 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.
                            >
                            > McDonald
                            > THIS IS NOT A PROPOSITION! THIS IS A MAJOR PREMISE OF AN
                            ARGUMENT!
                            >
                            > Baty
                            >
                            > Jerry McDonald is welcome to that proposition and I would welcome a
                            further opportunity to discuss it with him, or Dick Sztanyo his
                            champion, in writing, and for the record.
                            >
                            > In fact, I have already discussed it here and am waiting for Jerry
                            and/or Dick to deal with their problem concerning it. Jerry has run
                            off from it as far as I can tell.
                            >
                            > McDonald
                            > I have already told you that Dick Sztanyo is not even involved.
                            I am not even sending him emails on this and he knows absolutely
                            nothing about it. WHAT PART OF THAT DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND? If you
                            deal with someone, DEAL WITH ME! But make sure you are up to the
                            task, because your pitiful excuse for rebuttals in our written debate
                            show that you aren't up to it.
                            >
                            > Baty
                            >
                            > Here's an additional tidbit that might help readers understand why
                            Jerry McDonald has run off from his own, original proposition:
                            >
                            > Jerry McDonald's proposition is the major premise of an argument
                            that, I propose, is a logical formulation of what has been called the
                            Dr. Fox position which is more briefly summarized as follows:
                            >
                            > > I, Jerry McDonald, have my
                            > > interpretation of the text
                            > > regarding the real world and
                            > > that trumps any real world
                            > > evidence to the contrary.
                            >
                            > McDonald
                            > Whatever, Robert, you can say whatever you want. I won't be able
                            to stop you anyway. As far as I am concerned you are just one step
                            away from a full-blown infidel. Why don't you just embrace atheism
                            and take yourself out of the church's misery?
                            >
                            > Baty
                            > In other words, despite all the effort to convince folks otherwise,
                            Jerry McDonald, typical of "young-earth, creation-science" promoters,
                            doesn't really believe that their fundamental real world claim
                            that "nothing is more than a few thousand years old" is subject to
                            falsification with reference to the real world evidence.
                            >
                            > How so very geocentric of Jerry, et al.
                            >
                            > They are, of course, welcome to that point of view.
                            >
                            > However, it just ain't science. And that's where the rub comes in.
                            >
                            > Jerry McDonald, after running off from his original argument and
                            proposition, has tried to substitute the following:
                            >
                            > > "Resolved: The Bible teaches
                            > > that God created all things
                            > > within six literal 24 hour days
                            > > and this happened not more
                            > > than 10,000 years ago."
                            >
                            > As I have said before, I am willing to discuss that with Jerry in
                            the context of helping him deal with my "Goliath of GRAS", in due
                            course, and once we get Jerry McDonald to agree to some basic rules
                            of logic and negotiate in good faith for what he has already gone on
                            record as preferring in such situation; a written discussion.
                            >
                            > The fact is, in order to properly deal with the "young-earth,
                            creation-science" claim that "nothing is more than a few thousand
                            years old", based on the real world evidence, and how my "Goliath of
                            GRAS" fits into that important public issue, it is not necessary that
                            Jerry McDonald put on his unseemly demonstration regarding what
                            proposition he wants to discuss.
                            >
                            > As I have already clearly and unequivocably demonstrated, there is
                            no foolishness in my decision to affirm and argue the truth of the
                            major premise of my "Goliath of GRAS".
                            >
                            > For present purposes, that is the only proposition that need be
                            discussed and both Jerry McDonald and I are primed for a serious, for
                            the record, in writing, formal discussion of the truth thereof.
                            >
                            > I have affirmed it repeatedly, and Jerry McDonald is making it
                            quite clear that he denies it.
                            >
                            > McDonald
                            > If you are stupid enough to make your major premise your
                            proposition: be my guest.
                            >
                            > Baty
                            > So, as far as I am concerned, there is no good reason for Jerry
                            McDonald to do anything but work out the details for our formal, one
                            on one, in writing, for the record discussion regarding the truth of
                            the major premise of my "Goliath of GRAS".
                            >
                            > If we can get Jerry McDonald past that problem he's having, and his
                            other problems with basic logic, then we can proceed, maybe, to move
                            to the next level of the discussion regarding the real world
                            falsification test for the fundamental real world claim associated
                            with the "young-earth, creation-science" movement; that being
                            that "nothing is more than a few thousand years old".
                            >
                            > McDonald
                            > I have no problems with logic or anything else. Stop talking and
                            show me some action. You talk too much to be much of a threat.
                            >
                            > Baty
                            >
                            > Here's the proposition again with the affirmative and negative
                            positions indicated following:
                            >
                            > > "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."
                            >
                            > > Affirm: Robert Baty
                            > > Deny: Jerry McDonald
                            >
                            > Jerry can run off if he wishes, but he, so far, leaves undone his
                            responsibilities and obligations to deal with such clear errors as
                            have been most recently pointed out to him.
                            >
                            > McDonald
                            > I'll deny that proposition if that is what you want for your
                            proposition. I have already said that four times. How many more
                            ways do you want me to say it? I am beginning to feel like Oliver
                            North here.
                            >
                            > Baty
                            > The "good faith" course is before him as well as the "bad faith"
                            course. Jerry McDonald has been pursuing the "bad faith" course in
                            these exchanges.
                            >
                            > I hope that he will now stop, seriously consider his situation, and
                            choose to pursue in "good faith" a further discussion of these
                            important matters, and proceed accordingly.
                            >
                            > We anxiously await Jerry McDonald's decision and exhibition on the
                            course he will take regarding these important public issues.
                            >
                            > Sincerely,
                            > Robert Baty
                            >
                            > McDonald
                            > You can hope anything you want Robert, that doesn't mean you are
                            going to change me. Will you debate the propositions that you said
                            you will affirm and that I have said I will affirm or not? Put up or
                            shut up!
                            >
                            > In Christ Jesus
                            > Jerry D. McDonald
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                            >
                          • Jerry D. McDonald
                            I had not said a word to Robert until he dropped my name to Professor Cohen as one who was misusing Cohen s works. That is when all this started. Robert
                            Message 13 of 26 , Jan 7, 2008
                            • 0 Attachment
                              I had not said a word to Robert until he dropped my name to Professor
                              Cohen as one who was misusing Cohen's works. That is when all this
                              started. Robert knows this, Rick knows this and so does Todd. I
                              will have no further contact with Robert because he doesn't know how
                              to tell the truth.

                              In Christ Jesus
                              Jerry D. McDonald
                              --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "w_w_c_l" <w_w_c_l@...> wrote:
                              >
                              >
                              > From: "Robert Baty"
                              > To: jerry@, w_w_c_l@
                              > Subject: The good faith and good sense of Jerry McDonald!
                              > Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2008 01:46:38 GMT
                              >
                              >
                              > This is going to be real simple, but pay close attention so
                              that
                              > there be no confusion and no more dispute over this most
                              fundamental
                              > rule of logic such as we have been discussing.
                              >
                              > This is being submitted as an incentive to allow Jerry McDonald to
                              > demonstrate the extent to which he is possessed of good faith and
                              > good sense regarding one of those fundamental problems he's been
                              > demonstrating and in consideration of our efforts to bring about
                              the
                              > written debate Jerry McDonald effectively initiated when, after
                              most
                              > explicitly advising me to "leave him alone", he returned not only
                              to
                              > engage me in private chat but also to put on a public demonstration
                              > of his interest in a written, public debate over my "Goliath of
                              > GRAS", by posting messages to the Maury_and Baty YAHOO! discussion
                              > list and elsewhere, as if he really had a basis for publicly, in
                              > writing, contesting the claims made for my "Goliath of GRAS".
                              >
                              > One of the undisputed, authoritative claims regarding what a
                              > proposition is was recently noted by me and Jerry McDonald has done
                              > everything but deal with it and his error regarding his opposing
                              > claim.
                              >
                              > Here's my claim from Jerry McDonald's own referenced, respected,
                              pre-
                              > eminent logic authority:
                              >
                              > ------------------------------------
                              >
                              > > We begin by examining propositions,
                              > > the building blocks of every argument.
                              >
                              > > A proposition is something that may
                              > > be asserted or denied.
                              >
                              > > Only propositions assert that something
                              > > is (or is not) the case, and therefore
                              > > only they can be true or false.
                              >
                              > > Moreover, every proposition is
                              > > either true or false-although
                              > > we may not know the truth or
                              > > falsity of some given proposition.
                              >
                              > > ...in compound propositions that
                              > > are hypothetical (or conditional),
                              > > such as:
                              >
                              > >> If God did not exist, it would
                              > >> be necessary to invent him. (3)
                              >
                              > > ...neither of the components is
                              > > asserted. The proposition that "God
                              > > does not exist" is not asserted here;
                              > > nor is the proposition that "it is
                              > > necessary to invent him". Only the
                              > > "if-then" proposition is asserted by
                              > > the hypothetical or conditional
                              > > statement, and that conditional
                              > > statement might be true even though
                              > > both of its components were false.
                              >
                              > >> (3)
                              > >> Abraham Lincoln, annual message
                              > >> to Congress, 3 December 1861
                              >
                              > > "Introduction to Logic"
                              > > Eleventh Edition
                              > > Irving M. Copi
                              > > Carl Cohen
                              > > pages 4 & 6
                              >
                              > ------------------------------
                              > ------------------------------
                              >
                              > My further comments:
                              >
                              > Despite the above being now repeated a number of times, without any
                              > rebuttal from Jerry McDonald, Jerry McDonald now most recently
                              writes
                              > regarding the major premise of my "Goliath of GRAS" argument(which
                              > Jerry McDonald explictly denies as being false) as shown below:
                              >
                              > My proposition affirmed:
                              >
                              > > "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."
                              >
                              > > Affirmed: Robert Baty
                              >
                              > Jerry McDonald's allegation:
                              >
                              > > THIS IS NOT A PROPOSITION!
                              > > THIS IS A MAJOR PREMISE OF
                              > > AN ARGUMENT!
                              >
                              > > Signed: Jerry McDonald
                              >
                              > Jerry McDonald would do well, in demonstration of his good faith
                              and
                              > good will, to either admit, explain and correct his error as to
                              > whether or not my "proposition" above is a "proposition", or
                              provide
                              > a "logical argument", with requisite authority(ies), as to why
                              > my "proposition" should not be considered a "proposition".
                              >
                              > That is not all that Jerry McDonald needs to do to show his good
                              > faith and good sense, but it would be a good start.
                              >
                              > Sincerely,
                              > Robert Baty
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, Jerry McDonald
                              > <jerry@> wrote:
                              > >
                              > > Robert Baty wrote:
                              > >
                              > > Objective observers will note here that Jerry McDonald, in
                              > further demonstration of his bad faith, hasn't begun to deal with
                              his
                              > problems which need to be dealt with in order to be able to make
                              > further progress regarding the important public issues behind our
                              > efforts to help him with his problems in understanding basic rules
                              of
                              > logic and sound reasoning.
                              > >
                              > > Again, Jerry didn't explain which proposition he has reference to
                              > above.
                              > >
                              > > McDonald
                              > >
                              > > I did explain which proposition that I have will affirm, Robert
                              > just doesn't know how to read plain English. Again, Robert, my
                              > proposition (and it is the only one I will affirm) reads:
                              > >
                              > > Resolved: The Bible teaches that everything was created in six
                              > literal 24 hour days, and this happened no longer than 10,000 years
                              > ago.
                              > >
                              > > Now if you cannot understand that I am sorry. That is about as
                              > clear as I can get it.
                              > >
                              > > My argument will be my "David Of God" argument which you say is
                              a
                              > pretender of your Goliath of GRAS argument. However, the major
                              > premise of my argument is not the same as my proposition. Don't
                              you
                              > even understand the basics of debating or are you that ignorant.
                              If
                              > you are that ignorant, I have no time to waste with you.
                              > >
                              > > Baty
                              > >
                              > > Jerry McDonald first affirmed the following:
                              > >
                              > > > 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.
                              > >
                              > > McDonald
                              > > THIS IS NOT A PROPOSITION! THIS IS A MAJOR PREMISE OF AN
                              > ARGUMENT!
                              > >
                              > > Baty
                              > >
                              > > Jerry McDonald is welcome to that proposition and I would welcome
                              a
                              > further opportunity to discuss it with him, or Dick Sztanyo his
                              > champion, in writing, and for the record.
                              > >
                              > > In fact, I have already discussed it here and am waiting for
                              Jerry
                              > and/or Dick to deal with their problem concerning it. Jerry has
                              run
                              > off from it as far as I can tell.
                              > >
                              > > McDonald
                              > > I have already told you that Dick Sztanyo is not even
                              involved.
                              > I am not even sending him emails on this and he knows absolutely
                              > nothing about it. WHAT PART OF THAT DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND? If you
                              > deal with someone, DEAL WITH ME! But make sure you are up to the
                              > task, because your pitiful excuse for rebuttals in our written
                              debate
                              > show that you aren't up to it.
                              > >
                              > > Baty
                              > >
                              > > Here's an additional tidbit that might help readers understand
                              why
                              > Jerry McDonald has run off from his own, original proposition:
                              > >
                              > > Jerry McDonald's proposition is the major premise of an argument
                              > that, I propose, is a logical formulation of what has been called
                              the
                              > Dr. Fox position which is more briefly summarized as follows:
                              > >
                              > > > I, Jerry McDonald, have my
                              > > > interpretation of the text
                              > > > regarding the real world and
                              > > > that trumps any real world
                              > > > evidence to the contrary.
                              > >
                              > > McDonald
                              > > Whatever, Robert, you can say whatever you want. I won't be
                              able
                              > to stop you anyway. As far as I am concerned you are just one step
                              > away from a full-blown infidel. Why don't you just embrace atheism
                              > and take yourself out of the church's misery?
                              > >
                              > > Baty
                              > > In other words, despite all the effort to convince folks
                              otherwise,
                              > Jerry McDonald, typical of "young-earth, creation-science"
                              promoters,
                              > doesn't really believe that their fundamental real world claim
                              > that "nothing is more than a few thousand years old" is subject to
                              > falsification with reference to the real world evidence.
                              > >
                              > > How so very geocentric of Jerry, et al.
                              > >
                              > > They are, of course, welcome to that point of view.
                              > >
                              > > However, it just ain't science. And that's where the rub comes
                              in.
                              > >
                              > > Jerry McDonald, after running off from his original argument and
                              > proposition, has tried to substitute the following:
                              > >
                              > > > "Resolved: The Bible teaches
                              > > > that God created all things
                              > > > within six literal 24 hour days
                              > > > and this happened not more
                              > > > than 10,000 years ago."
                              > >
                              > > As I have said before, I am willing to discuss that with Jerry in
                              > the context of helping him deal with my "Goliath of GRAS", in due
                              > course, and once we get Jerry McDonald to agree to some basic rules
                              > of logic and negotiate in good faith for what he has already gone
                              on
                              > record as preferring in such situation; a written discussion.
                              > >
                              > > The fact is, in order to properly deal with the "young-earth,
                              > creation-science" claim that "nothing is more than a few thousand
                              > years old", based on the real world evidence, and how my "Goliath
                              of
                              > GRAS" fits into that important public issue, it is not necessary
                              that
                              > Jerry McDonald put on his unseemly demonstration regarding what
                              > proposition he wants to discuss.
                              > >
                              > > As I have already clearly and unequivocably demonstrated, there
                              is
                              > no foolishness in my decision to affirm and argue the truth of the
                              > major premise of my "Goliath of GRAS".
                              > >
                              > > For present purposes, that is the only proposition that need be
                              > discussed and both Jerry McDonald and I are primed for a serious,
                              for
                              > the record, in writing, formal discussion of the truth thereof.
                              > >
                              > > I have affirmed it repeatedly, and Jerry McDonald is making it
                              > quite clear that he denies it.
                              > >
                              > > McDonald
                              > > If you are stupid enough to make your major premise your
                              > proposition: be my guest.
                              > >
                              > > Baty
                              > > So, as far as I am concerned, there is no good reason for Jerry
                              > McDonald to do anything but work out the details for our formal,
                              one
                              > on one, in writing, for the record discussion regarding the truth
                              of
                              > the major premise of my "Goliath of GRAS".
                              > >
                              > > If we can get Jerry McDonald past that problem he's having, and
                              his
                              > other problems with basic logic, then we can proceed, maybe, to
                              move
                              > to the next level of the discussion regarding the real world
                              > falsification test for the fundamental real world claim associated
                              > with the "young-earth, creation-science" movement; that being
                              > that "nothing is more than a few thousand years old".
                              > >
                              > > McDonald
                              > > I have no problems with logic or anything else. Stop talking
                              and
                              > show me some action. You talk too much to be much of a threat.
                              > >
                              > > Baty
                              > >
                              > > Here's the proposition again with the affirmative and negative
                              > positions indicated following:
                              > >
                              > > > "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."
                              > >
                              > > > Affirm: Robert Baty
                              > > > Deny: Jerry McDonald
                              > >
                              > > Jerry can run off if he wishes, but he, so far, leaves undone his
                              > responsibilities and obligations to deal with such clear errors as
                              > have been most recently pointed out to him.
                              > >
                              > > McDonald
                              > > I'll deny that proposition if that is what you want for your
                              > proposition. I have already said that four times. How many more
                              > ways do you want me to say it? I am beginning to feel like Oliver
                              > North here.
                              > >
                              > > Baty
                              > > The "good faith" course is before him as well as the "bad faith"
                              > course. Jerry McDonald has been pursuing the "bad faith" course in
                              > these exchanges.
                              > >
                              > > I hope that he will now stop, seriously consider his situation,
                              and
                              > choose to pursue in "good faith" a further discussion of these
                              > important matters, and proceed accordingly.
                              > >
                              > > We anxiously await Jerry McDonald's decision and exhibition on
                              the
                              > course he will take regarding these important public issues.
                              > >
                              > > Sincerely,
                              > > Robert Baty
                              > >
                              > > McDonald
                              > > You can hope anything you want Robert, that doesn't mean you
                              are
                              > going to change me. Will you debate the propositions that you said
                              > you will affirm and that I have said I will affirm or not? Put up
                              or
                              > shut up!
                              > >
                              > > In Christ Jesus
                              > > Jerry D. McDonald
                              > >
                              > >
                              > >
                              > >
                              > >
                              > >
                              > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                              > >
                              >
                            • w_w_c_l
                              ... Jerry, You seem to have a very selective memory. As I recall, several weeks ago you posted to your website an article titled Hartzog s Fantasies 1 , in
                              Message 14 of 26 , Jan 7, 2008
                              • 0 Attachment
                                --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "Jerry D. McDonald"
                                <jerry@...> wrote:
                                >
                                > I had not said a word to Robert until he dropped my name
                                > to Professor Cohen as one who was misusing Cohen's works.
                                > That is when all this started.

                                Jerry,

                                You seem to have a very selective memory. As I recall,
                                several weeks ago you posted to your website an article
                                titled "Hartzog's Fantasies 1", in which you made several
                                false statements about what Robert and I had said about
                                logical validity, as well as false statements about what
                                Copi's book has to to say about logical validity.

                                Robert went to the library and checked out a copy of the
                                11th edition of Copi's *Introduction to Logic* and
                                provided us with the quotes that you had falsely claimed
                                that you had already given us "time and again".

                                I posted those long-awaited quotes to the Maury_and_Baty
                                list.

                                Robert found Cohen's e-mail address in the book he had
                                borrowed and wrote to him, providing him with the relevant
                                quotes and a link to your "Hartzog's Fantasies 1" article.

                                Cohen wrote back to Robert, and I posted his reply to the
                                list.

                                Then you wrote to Cohen, telling him that Robert wasn't
                                telling him the whole story. You also told Cohen that if
                                he heard anything from Todd or me, that we had not given
                                him all the information he needed to answer the question --
                                as if showing him the argument and asking him if it was
                                valid wasn't all the information he needed!

                                Cohen wrote back to you, politely trying to clear up your
                                misconceptions, sending a copy of that message to Robert
                                also.

                                You wrote back, demonstrating that your misconceptions
                                remained quite un-cleared-up.

                                Cohen wrote you again, and you wrote back, and he wrote
                                you again, still patiently trying to explain to you your
                                errors. As far as I know I have all the exchanges between
                                you and Cohen, between Cohen and Robert, and between Robert
                                and you, though I have not posted it.

                                I posted message #13472, documenting, along with the proofs,
                                just *some* of the many lies you have been telling, not only
                                about logical validity.

                                When Robert urged you to publicly acknowledge your error,
                                not only about logical validity but also about your false
                                and misleading reports concerning him and what we have come
                                to call "the Colorado situation", you told Robert, "Leave
                                me alone," that you would continue to "withdraw fellowship"
                                from him and that you were blocking his messages from then
                                on -- until he "repents".

                                Then you came here to the Maury_and_Baty list with your
                                bogus apology, the "Admission and Confession of Error",
                                and the rest, as they say, is a matter of public record.

                                You *had* been misusing and misrepresenting *Introduction
                                to Logic*, and then you came here misrepresenting what
                                Cohen himself had just gotten through telling you, and
                                the evidence of that is inescapable.


                                > Robert knows this, Rick knows this and so does Todd.
                                > I will have no further contact with Robert because he
                                > doesn't know how to tell the truth.

                                I'm not sure how much of the history over the last couple
                                of weeks Todd knows, but I have every message right here,
                                many of which have not been posted to the list. Jerry,
                                it is obvious which one it is who doesn't know how to
                                tell the truth -- who I wonder if he even knows what truth
                                is. You evidently think that whatever you want to make up
                                is "the truth", whether it is true or not. You evidently
                                think you can get away with making any untrue claim you
                                want to make, even though we all know, and the public
                                record munificently attests, that it's just another lie
                                from the keyboard of Jerry D. McDonald.

                                Why you do this, I don't know, but it isn't:

                                > In Christ Jesus
                                > Jerry D. McDonald

                                Quit lying, Jerry.


                                Rick Hartzog
                                Worldwide Church of Latitudinarianism
                              • w_w_c_l
                                From: Robert Baty To: w_w_c_l@... Subject: Jerry McDonald can t handle the truth! Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2008 03:28:05 GMT ... And it is the
                                Message 15 of 26 , Jan 7, 2008
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  From: "Robert Baty" <rlbaty@...>
                                  To: w_w_c_l@...
                                  Subject: Jerry McDonald can't handle the truth!
                                  Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2008 03:28:05 GMT


                                  Jerry McDonald most recently, and quite publicly, writes:

                                  > I had not said a word to Robert
                                  > until he dropped my name to
                                  > Professor Cohen as one who
                                  > was misusing Cohen's works.

                                  And it is the absolute, ungetoverable, well-documented, supported by
                                  Cohen's own direct testimony truth of the matter that Jerry McDonald
                                  was, and from all indications still is, misusing and misrepresenting
                                  the positions espoused by Irving M. Copi and Carl Cohen in their pre-
                                  eminent work "Introduction to Logic".

                                  Jerry McDonald continued:

                                  > I will have no further contact
                                  > with Robert because he doesn't
                                  > know how to tell the truth.

                                  That, I propose, is quite clearly and unequivocally false!

                                  The public record of these recent discussions most clearly and
                                  unequivocally reveal that it is because I have told the truth, in
                                  contrast to the erroneous claims of Jerry McDonald, that Jerry
                                  McDonald is now trying to run off, which he may well do, from his
                                  public responsibilities and obligations regarding the important
                                  public issues he has brought to me and various public forums,
                                  thinking he had somewhat to offer in opposition to my "Goliath of
                                  GRAS".

                                  Now it appears, having been shown to be quite clearly in error on the
                                  fundamentals of logic and sound reasoning, that Jerry McDonald wants
                                  to do anything but deal with his lame, most recent efforts to impeach
                                  the validity of my "Goliath of GRAS" and the truth of its major
                                  premise, my "proposition" for debate.

                                  Jerry McDonald came to me as if he had somewhat against my "Goliath
                                  of GRAS".

                                  Now he is making like he's going to run off from his obligation and
                                  responsibilities to deal with his clearly erroneous claims and just
                                  try, just try to rebut my simple supporting argument for the truth of
                                  the major premise of my "Goliath of GRAS".

                                  No wonder!

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

                                  Still no "David"!

                                  Sincerely,
                                  Robert Baty


                                  --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "Jerry D. McDonald"
                                  <jerry@...> wrote:
                                  >
                                  > I had not said a word to Robert until he dropped my name
                                  > to Professor Cohen as one who was misusing Cohen's works.
                                  > That is when all this started. Robert knows this, Rick
                                  > knows this and so does Todd. I will have no further
                                  > contact with Robert because he doesn't know how to tell
                                  > the truth.
                                  >
                                  > In Christ Jesus
                                  > Jerry D. McDonald
                                  >
                                  > --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "w_w_c_l" <w_w_c_l@> wrote:
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > > From: "Robert Baty"
                                  > > To: jerry@, w_w_c_l@
                                  > > Subject: The good faith and good sense of Jerry McDonald!
                                  > > Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2008 01:46:38 GMT
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > > This is going to be real simple, but pay close attention so
                                  > that
                                  > > there be no confusion and no more dispute over this most
                                  > fundamental
                                  > > rule of logic such as we have been discussing.
                                  > >
                                  > > This is being submitted as an incentive to allow Jerry McDonald
                                  to
                                  > > demonstrate the extent to which he is possessed of good faith and
                                  > > good sense regarding one of those fundamental problems he's been
                                  > > demonstrating and in consideration of our efforts to bring about
                                  > the
                                  > > written debate Jerry McDonald effectively initiated when, after
                                  > most
                                  > > explicitly advising me to "leave him alone", he returned not only
                                  > to
                                  > > engage me in private chat but also to put on a public
                                  demonstration
                                  > > of his interest in a written, public debate over my "Goliath of
                                  > > GRAS", by posting messages to the Maury_and Baty YAHOO!
                                  discussion
                                  > > list and elsewhere, as if he really had a basis for publicly, in
                                  > > writing, contesting the claims made for my "Goliath of GRAS".
                                  > >
                                  > > One of the undisputed, authoritative claims regarding what a
                                  > > proposition is was recently noted by me and Jerry McDonald has
                                  done
                                  > > everything but deal with it and his error regarding his opposing
                                  > > claim.
                                  > >
                                  > > Here's my claim from Jerry McDonald's own referenced, respected,
                                  > pre-
                                  > > eminent logic authority:
                                  > >
                                  > > ------------------------------------
                                  > >
                                  > > > We begin by examining propositions,
                                  > > > the building blocks of every argument.
                                  > >
                                  > > > A proposition is something that may
                                  > > > be asserted or denied.
                                  > >
                                  > > > Only propositions assert that something
                                  > > > is (or is not) the case, and therefore
                                  > > > only they can be true or false.
                                  > >
                                  > > > Moreover, every proposition is
                                  > > > either true or false-although
                                  > > > we may not know the truth or
                                  > > > falsity of some given proposition.
                                  > >
                                  > > > ...in compound propositions that
                                  > > > are hypothetical (or conditional),
                                  > > > such as:
                                  > >
                                  > > >> If God did not exist, it would
                                  > > >> be necessary to invent him. (3)
                                  > >
                                  > > > ...neither of the components is
                                  > > > asserted. The proposition that "God
                                  > > > does not exist" is not asserted here;
                                  > > > nor is the proposition that "it is
                                  > > > necessary to invent him". Only the
                                  > > > "if-then" proposition is asserted by
                                  > > > the hypothetical or conditional
                                  > > > statement, and that conditional
                                  > > > statement might be true even though
                                  > > > both of its components were false.
                                  > >
                                  > > >> (3)
                                  > > >> Abraham Lincoln, annual message
                                  > > >> to Congress, 3 December 1861
                                  > >
                                  > > > "Introduction to Logic"
                                  > > > Eleventh Edition
                                  > > > Irving M. Copi
                                  > > > Carl Cohen
                                  > > > pages 4 & 6
                                  > >
                                  > > ------------------------------
                                  > > ------------------------------
                                  > >
                                  > > My further comments:
                                  > >
                                  > > Despite the above being now repeated a number of times, without
                                  any
                                  > > rebuttal from Jerry McDonald, Jerry McDonald now most recently
                                  > writes
                                  > > regarding the major premise of my "Goliath of GRAS" argument
                                  (which
                                  > > Jerry McDonald explictly denies as being false) as shown below:
                                  > >
                                  > > My proposition affirmed:
                                  > >
                                  > > > "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."
                                  > >
                                  > > > Affirmed: Robert Baty
                                  > >
                                  > > Jerry McDonald's allegation:
                                  > >
                                  > > > THIS IS NOT A PROPOSITION!
                                  > > > THIS IS A MAJOR PREMISE OF
                                  > > > AN ARGUMENT!
                                  > >
                                  > > > Signed: Jerry McDonald
                                  > >
                                  > > Jerry McDonald would do well, in demonstration of his good faith
                                  > and
                                  > > good will, to either admit, explain and correct his error as to
                                  > > whether or not my "proposition" above is a "proposition", or
                                  > provide
                                  > > a "logical argument", with requisite authority(ies), as to why
                                  > > my "proposition" should not be considered a "proposition".
                                  > >
                                  > > That is not all that Jerry McDonald needs to do to show his good
                                  > > faith and good sense, but it would be a good start.
                                  > >
                                  > > Sincerely,
                                  > > Robert Baty
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > > --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, Jerry McDonald
                                  > > <jerry@> wrote:
                                  > > >
                                  > > > Robert Baty wrote:
                                  > > >
                                  > > > Objective observers will note here that Jerry McDonald, in
                                  > > further demonstration of his bad faith, hasn't begun to deal with
                                  > his
                                  > > problems which need to be dealt with in order to be able to make
                                  > > further progress regarding the important public issues behind our
                                  > > efforts to help him with his problems in understanding basic
                                  rules
                                  > of
                                  > > logic and sound reasoning.
                                  > > >
                                  > > > Again, Jerry didn't explain which proposition he has reference
                                  to
                                  > > above.
                                  > > >
                                  > > > McDonald
                                  > > >
                                  > > > I did explain which proposition that I have will affirm,
                                  Robert
                                  > > just doesn't know how to read plain English. Again, Robert, my
                                  > > proposition (and it is the only one I will affirm) reads:
                                  > > >
                                  > > > Resolved: The Bible teaches that everything was created in
                                  six
                                  > > literal 24 hour days, and this happened no longer than 10,000
                                  years
                                  > > ago.
                                  > > >
                                  > > > Now if you cannot understand that I am sorry. That is about
                                  as
                                  > > clear as I can get it.
                                  > > >
                                  > > > My argument will be my "David Of God" argument which you say
                                  is
                                  > a
                                  > > pretender of your Goliath of GRAS argument. However, the major
                                  > > premise of my argument is not the same as my proposition. Don't
                                  > you
                                  > > even understand the basics of debating or are you that ignorant.
                                  > If
                                  > > you are that ignorant, I have no time to waste with you.
                                  > > >
                                  > > > Baty
                                  > > >
                                  > > > Jerry McDonald first affirmed the following:
                                  > > >
                                  > > > > 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.
                                  > > >
                                  > > > McDonald
                                  > > > THIS IS NOT A PROPOSITION! THIS IS A MAJOR PREMISE OF AN
                                  > > ARGUMENT!
                                  > > >
                                  > > > Baty
                                  > > >
                                  > > > Jerry McDonald is welcome to that proposition and I would
                                  welcome
                                  > a
                                  > > further opportunity to discuss it with him, or Dick Sztanyo his
                                  > > champion, in writing, and for the record.
                                  > > >
                                  > > > In fact, I have already discussed it here and am waiting for
                                  > Jerry
                                  > > and/or Dick to deal with their problem concerning it. Jerry has
                                  > run
                                  > > off from it as far as I can tell.
                                  > > >
                                  > > > McDonald
                                  > > > I have already told you that Dick Sztanyo is not even
                                  > involved.
                                  > > I am not even sending him emails on this and he knows absolutely
                                  > > nothing about it. WHAT PART OF THAT DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND? If
                                  you
                                  > > deal with someone, DEAL WITH ME! But make sure you are up to the
                                  > > task, because your pitiful excuse for rebuttals in our written
                                  > debate
                                  > > show that you aren't up to it.
                                  > > >
                                  > > > Baty
                                  > > >
                                  > > > Here's an additional tidbit that might help readers understand
                                  > why
                                  > > Jerry McDonald has run off from his own, original proposition:
                                  > > >
                                  > > > Jerry McDonald's proposition is the major premise of an
                                  argument
                                  > > that, I propose, is a logical formulation of what has been called
                                  > the
                                  > > Dr. Fox position which is more briefly summarized as follows:
                                  > > >
                                  > > > > I, Jerry McDonald, have my
                                  > > > > interpretation of the text
                                  > > > > regarding the real world and
                                  > > > > that trumps any real world
                                  > > > > evidence to the contrary.
                                  > > >
                                  > > > McDonald
                                  > > > Whatever, Robert, you can say whatever you want. I won't be
                                  > able
                                  > > to stop you anyway. As far as I am concerned you are just one
                                  step
                                  > > away from a full-blown infidel. Why don't you just embrace
                                  atheism
                                  > > and take yourself out of the church's misery?
                                  > > >
                                  > > > Baty
                                  > > > In other words, despite all the effort to convince folks
                                  > otherwise,
                                  > > Jerry McDonald, typical of "young-earth, creation-science"
                                  > promoters,
                                  > > doesn't really believe that their fundamental real world claim
                                  > > that "nothing is more than a few thousand years old" is subject
                                  to
                                  > > falsification with reference to the real world evidence.
                                  > > >
                                  > > > How so very geocentric of Jerry, et al.
                                  > > >
                                  > > > They are, of course, welcome to that point of view.
                                  > > >
                                  > > > However, it just ain't science. And that's where the rub comes
                                  > in.
                                  > > >
                                  > > > Jerry McDonald, after running off from his original argument
                                  and
                                  > > proposition, has tried to substitute the following:
                                  > > >
                                  > > > > "Resolved: The Bible teaches
                                  > > > > that God created all things
                                  > > > > within six literal 24 hour days
                                  > > > > and this happened not more
                                  > > > > than 10,000 years ago."
                                  > > >
                                  > > > As I have said before, I am willing to discuss that with Jerry
                                  in
                                  > > the context of helping him deal with my "Goliath of GRAS", in due
                                  > > course, and once we get Jerry McDonald to agree to some basic
                                  rules
                                  > > of logic and negotiate in good faith for what he has already gone
                                  > on
                                  > > record as preferring in such situation; a written discussion.
                                  > > >
                                  > > > The fact is, in order to properly deal with the "young-earth,
                                  > > creation-science" claim that "nothing is more than a few thousand
                                  > > years old", based on the real world evidence, and how my "Goliath
                                  > of
                                  > > GRAS" fits into that important public issue, it is not necessary
                                  > that
                                  > > Jerry McDonald put on his unseemly demonstration regarding what
                                  > > proposition he wants to discuss.
                                  > > >
                                  > > > As I have already clearly and unequivocably demonstrated, there
                                  > is
                                  > > no foolishness in my decision to affirm and argue the truth of
                                  the
                                  > > major premise of my "Goliath of GRAS".
                                  > > >
                                  > > > For present purposes, that is the only proposition that need be
                                  > > discussed and both Jerry McDonald and I are primed for a serious,
                                  > for
                                  > > the record, in writing, formal discussion of the truth thereof.
                                  > > >
                                  > > > I have affirmed it repeatedly, and Jerry McDonald is making it
                                  > > quite clear that he denies it.
                                  > > >
                                  > > > McDonald
                                  > > > If you are stupid enough to make your major premise your
                                  > > proposition: be my guest.
                                  > > >
                                  > > > Baty
                                  > > > So, as far as I am concerned, there is no good reason for Jerry
                                  > > McDonald to do anything but work out the details for our formal,
                                  > one
                                  > > on one, in writing, for the record discussion regarding the truth
                                  > of
                                  > > the major premise of my "Goliath of GRAS".
                                  > > >
                                  > > > If we can get Jerry McDonald past that problem he's having, and
                                  > his
                                  > > other problems with basic logic, then we can proceed, maybe, to
                                  > move
                                  > > to the next level of the discussion regarding the real world
                                  > > falsification test for the fundamental real world claim
                                  associated
                                  > > with the "young-earth, creation-science" movement; that being
                                  > > that "nothing is more than a few thousand years old".
                                  > > >
                                  > > > McDonald
                                  > > > I have no problems with logic or anything else. Stop talking
                                  > and
                                  > > show me some action. You talk too much to be much of a threat.
                                  > > >
                                  > > > Baty
                                  > > >
                                  > > > Here's the proposition again with the affirmative and negative
                                  > > positions indicated following:
                                  > > >
                                  > > > > "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."
                                  > > >
                                  > > > > Affirm: Robert Baty
                                  > > > > Deny: Jerry McDonald
                                  > > >
                                  > > > Jerry can run off if he wishes, but he, so far, leaves undone
                                  his
                                  > > responsibilities and obligations to deal with such clear errors
                                  as
                                  > > have been most recently pointed out to him.
                                  > > >
                                  > > > McDonald
                                  > > > I'll deny that proposition if that is what you want for your
                                  > > proposition. I have already said that four times. How many more
                                  > > ways do you want me to say it? I am beginning to feel like
                                  Oliver
                                  > > North here.
                                  > > >
                                  > > > Baty
                                  > > > The "good faith" course is before him as well as the "bad
                                  faith"
                                  > > course. Jerry McDonald has been pursuing the "bad faith" course
                                  in
                                  > > these exchanges.
                                  > > >
                                  > > > I hope that he will now stop, seriously consider his situation,
                                  > and
                                  > > choose to pursue in "good faith" a further discussion of these
                                  > > important matters, and proceed accordingly.
                                  > > >
                                  > > > We anxiously await Jerry McDonald's decision and exhibition on
                                  > the
                                  > > course he will take regarding these important public issues.
                                  > > >
                                  > > > Sincerely,
                                  > > > Robert Baty
                                  > > >
                                  > > > McDonald
                                  > > > You can hope anything you want Robert, that doesn't mean you
                                  > are
                                  > > going to change me. Will you debate the propositions that you
                                  said
                                  > > you will affirm and that I have said I will affirm or not? Put
                                  up
                                  > or
                                  > > shut up!
                                  > > >
                                  > > > In Christ Jesus
                                  > > > Jerry D. McDonald
                                  > > >
                                  > > >
                                  > > >
                                  > > >
                                  > > >
                                  > > >
                                  > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                  > > >
                                  > >
                                  >
                                • Jerry McDonald
                                  Robert, are you willing to meet me in a four night debate in Ft. Collins, CO at a location that Marty and I find, or not? Yes, or no! It isn t that hard a
                                  Message 16 of 26 , Feb 23, 2008
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    Robert, are you willing to meet me in a four night debate in Ft. Collins, CO at a location that Marty and I find, or not? Yes, or no! It isn't that hard a question to answer. It is really very simple, so simple that even you can answer it. Let me know.

                                    jdm




                                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                  • w_w_c_l
                                    ... Jerry, please advise the list as to whether you have been receiving private messages at your e-mail address which is jerry[at]challenge2.org . If you
                                    Message 17 of 26 , Feb 23, 2008
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, Jerry McDonald
                                      <jerry@...> wrote:
                                      >
                                      > Robert, are you willing to meet me in a four night
                                      > debate in Ft. Collins, CO at a location that Marty
                                      > and I find, or not? Yes, or no! It isn't that hard
                                      > a question to answer. It is really very simple, so
                                      > simple that even you can answer it. Let me know.

                                      Jerry, please advise the list as to whether you have
                                      been receiving private messages at your e-mail address
                                      which is "jerry[at]challenge2.org". If you are, then
                                      why are you still asking this question?

                                      Robert, if you can't get through to Jerry by his own
                                      e-mail, I have addresses for Thomas and Andrea if you
                                      want to try them.


                                      Rick
                                    • Jerry McDonald
                                      No, I have not received anything from Robert. And just where did you get Andrea s email address? jdm ... Jerry, please advise the list as to whether you have
                                      Message 18 of 26 , Feb 23, 2008
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        No, I have not received anything from Robert. And just where did you get Andrea's email address?

                                        jdm

                                        w_w_c_l <w_w_c_l@...> wrote:
                                        --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, Jerry McDonald
                                        <jerry@...> wrote:
                                        >
                                        > Robert, are you willing to meet me in a four night
                                        > debate in Ft. Collins, CO at a location that Marty
                                        > and I find, or not? Yes, or no! It isn't that hard
                                        > a question to answer. It is really very simple, so
                                        > simple that even you can answer it. Let me know.

                                        Jerry, please advise the list as to whether you have
                                        been receiving private messages at your e-mail address
                                        which is "jerry[at]challenge2.org". If you are, then
                                        why are you still asking this question?

                                        Robert, if you can't get through to Jerry by his own
                                        e-mail, I have addresses for Thomas and Andrea if you
                                        want to try them.

                                        Rick








                                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                      • w_w_c_l
                                        ... Well, maybe you better be figuring out why not before you go making any more of your unfounded accusations. At any rate, the latest revision of the debate
                                        Message 19 of 26 , Feb 23, 2008
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, Jerry McDonald
                                          <jerry@...> wrote:
                                          >
                                          > No, I have not received anything from Robert.

                                          Well, maybe you better be figuring out why not before
                                          you go making any more of your unfounded accusations.

                                          At any rate, the latest revision of the "debate status"
                                          thus far has been posted.




                                          > w_w_c_l <w_w_c_l@...> wrote:
                                          >--- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, Jerry McDonald
                                          > <jerry@> wrote:
                                          > >
                                          > > Robert, are you willing to meet me in a four night
                                          > > debate in Ft. Collins, CO at a location that Marty
                                          > > and I find, or not? Yes, or no! It isn't that hard
                                          > > a question to answer. It is really very simple, so
                                          > > simple that even you can answer it. Let me know.
                                          >
                                          > Jerry, please advise the list as to whether you have
                                          > been receiving private messages at your e-mail address
                                          > which is "jerry[at]challenge2.org". If you are, then
                                          > why are you still asking this question?
                                          >
                                          > Robert, if you can't get through to Jerry by his own
                                          > e-mail, I have addresses for Thomas and Andrea if you
                                          > want to try them.
                                          >
                                          > Rick
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                          >
                                        • Jerry McDonald
                                          You better start coughing up some answers on where you got hold of Andrea s email address, mister. If I have to I ll take this to her supervisor. The only
                                          Message 20 of 26 , Feb 23, 2008
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            You better start coughing up some answers on where you got hold of Andrea's email address, mister. If I have to I'll take this to her supervisor. The only way you could have got her email address is to have hacked into her computer at work. She operates a government program which could put you in a pretty good mess.
                                            jdm

                                            Jerry McDonald <jerry@...> wrote:
                                            No, I have not received anything from Robert. And just where did you get Andrea's email address?

                                            jdm

                                            w_w_c_l <w_w_c_l@...> wrote:
                                            --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, Jerry McDonald
                                            <jerry@...> wrote:
                                            >
                                            > Robert, are you willing to meet me in a four night
                                            > debate in Ft. Collins, CO at a location that Marty
                                            > and I find, or not? Yes, or no! It isn't that hard
                                            > a question to answer. It is really very simple, so
                                            > simple that even you can answer it. Let me know.

                                            Jerry, please advise the list as to whether you have
                                            been receiving private messages at your e-mail address
                                            which is "jerry[at]challenge2.org". If you are, then
                                            why are you still asking this question?

                                            Robert, if you can't get through to Jerry by his own
                                            e-mail, I have addresses for Thomas and Andrea if you
                                            want to try them.

                                            Rick

                                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]








                                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                          • Jerry McDonald
                                            I do believe that it is called computer theft, and people have been known to go to prison for that. jdm Jerry McDonald wrote: You
                                            Message 21 of 26 , Feb 23, 2008
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              I do believe that it is called "computer theft," and people have been known to go to prison for that.
                                              jdm

                                              Jerry McDonald <jerry@...> wrote:
                                              You better start coughing up some answers on where you got hold of Andrea's email address, mister. If I have to I'll take this to her supervisor. The only way you could have got her email address is to have hacked into her computer at work. She operates a government program which could put you in a pretty good mess.
                                              jdm

                                              Jerry McDonald <jerry@...> wrote:
                                              No, I have not received anything from Robert. And just where did you get Andrea's email address?

                                              jdm

                                              w_w_c_l <w_w_c_l@...> wrote:
                                              --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, Jerry McDonald
                                              <jerry@...> wrote:
                                              >
                                              > Robert, are you willing to meet me in a four night
                                              > debate in Ft. Collins, CO at a location that Marty
                                              > and I find, or not? Yes, or no! It isn't that hard
                                              > a question to answer. It is really very simple, so
                                              > simple that even you can answer it. Let me know.

                                              Jerry, please advise the list as to whether you have
                                              been receiving private messages at your e-mail address
                                              which is "jerry[at]challenge2.org". If you are, then
                                              why are you still asking this question?

                                              Robert, if you can't get through to Jerry by his own
                                              e-mail, I have addresses for Thomas and Andrea if you
                                              want to try them.

                                              Rick

                                              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

                                              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]








                                              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                            • Jerry McDonald
                                              I am glad to see that you accept the view that you are an atheist. I will debate you on your proposition. ... In Christ Jesus Jerry D. McDonald P.S. Now that
                                              Message 22 of 26 , Feb 25, 2008
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                I am glad to see that you accept the view that you are an atheist. I will debate you on your proposition.


                                                Robert Baty's Proposition:

                                                > I f the Bible is God's word (the text)
                                                > and 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 i s actually much
                                                > older than a few thousand years,
                                                > then the in terpretation of the text
                                                > by some is wrong.

                                                > Affirm: Robert Baty
                                                > Deny: Jerry D. McDonald

                                                In Christ Jesus
                                                Jerry D. McDonald

                                                P.S. Now that we have the proposition, when do we debate it?








                                                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                              • w_w_c_l
                                                ... An atheist being, as Jerry McDonald has apparently agreed to define it, anyone who disagrees with Jerry McDonald as to how the Bible should be
                                                Message 23 of 26 , Feb 25, 2008
                                                • 0 Attachment
                                                  --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, Jerry McDonald
                                                  <jerry@...> wrote:
                                                  >
                                                  > I am glad to see that you accept the view that you
                                                  > are an atheist.

                                                  An "atheist" being, as Jerry McDonald has apparently
                                                  agreed to define it, "anyone who disagrees with Jerry
                                                  McDonald as to how the Bible should be interpreted."

                                                  If McDonald had replied to the thread where this comment
                                                  belongs, that would have been readily apparent to the
                                                  reader:
                                                  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/14180

                                                  But you know how Jerry D. McDonald is -- anything he
                                                  can twist around to deliberately misrepresent someone,
                                                  he's going to do it.


                                                  > I will debate you on your proposition.
                                                  >
                                                  >
                                                  > Robert Baty's Proposition:
                                                  >
                                                  > > If the Bible is God's word (the text)
                                                  > > and 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.
                                                  >
                                                  > > Affirm: Robert Baty
                                                  > > Deny: Jerry D. McDonald
                                                  >
                                                  > In Christ Jesus
                                                  > Jerry D. McDonald
                                                  >
                                                  > P.S. Now that we have the proposition, when do we debate it?

                                                  Take note, please, that Robert has specifically included
                                                  a direct reference to "the Bible" in his adapted version
                                                  of the proposition which he will affirm, and which Jerry
                                                  D. McDonald has agreed to deny.

                                                  Those who wish to see what happens next can follow this
                                                  link back to the proper thread:
                                                  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/14185



                                                  Rick Hartzog
                                                  Worldwide Church of Latitudinarianism
                                                • w_w_c_l
                                                  ... Those who wish to see how this drama eventually played out may review the messages in the part of the thread that starts here:
                                                  Message 24 of 26 , Feb 25, 2008
                                                  • 0 Attachment
                                                    --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, Jerry McDonald
                                                    <jerry@...> wrote:
                                                    >
                                                    > I do believe that it is called "computer theft," and
                                                    > people have been known to go to prison for that.

                                                    Those who wish to see how this drama eventually played
                                                    out may review the messages in the part of the thread
                                                    that starts here:
                                                    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/14141

                                                    Recommended reading!


                                                    Rick



                                                    > Jerry McDonald <jerry@...> wrote:
                                                    > You better start coughing up some answers on where you
                                                    got hold of Andrea's email address, mister. If I have to I'll take
                                                    this to her supervisor. The only way you could have got her email
                                                    address is to have hacked into her computer at work. She operates a
                                                    government program which could put you in a pretty good mess.
                                                    > jdm
                                                    >
                                                    > Jerry McDonald <jerry@...> wrote:
                                                    > No, I have not received anything from Robert. And just where did
                                                    you get Andrea's email address?
                                                    >
                                                    > jdm
                                                    >
                                                    > w_w_c_l <w_w_c_l@...> wrote:
                                                    > --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, Jerry McDonald
                                                    > <jerry@> wrote:
                                                    > >
                                                    > > Robert, are you willing to meet me in a four night
                                                    > > debate in Ft. Collins, CO at a location that Marty
                                                    > > and I find, or not? Yes, or no! It isn't that hard
                                                    > > a question to answer. It is really very simple, so
                                                    > > simple that even you can answer it. Let me know.
                                                    >
                                                    > Jerry, please advise the list as to whether you have
                                                    > been receiving private messages at your e-mail address
                                                    > which is "jerry[at]challenge2.org". If you are, then
                                                    > why are you still asking this question?
                                                    >
                                                    > Robert, if you can't get through to Jerry by his own
                                                    > e-mail, I have addresses for Thomas and Andrea if you
                                                    > want to try them.
                                                    >
                                                    > Rick
                                                    >
                                                    > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                                    >
                                                    > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                                    >
                                                  • Todd S. Greene
                                                    I see Rick beat me to it! Note that I wrote my post about Jerry s atheist nonsense before reading this post by Rick. - Todd Greene ... [snip]
                                                    Message 25 of 26 , Feb 26, 2008
                                                    • 0 Attachment
                                                      I see Rick beat me to it! Note that I wrote my post about Jerry's
                                                      "atheist" nonsense before reading this post by Rick.

                                                      - Todd Greene


                                                      --- In Maury_and_Baty, Rick Hartzog wrote (post #14194):
                                                      > --- In Maury_and_Baty, Jerry McDonald wrote:
                                                      >> I am glad to see that you accept the view that you
                                                      >> are an atheist.
                                                      >
                                                      > An "atheist" being, as Jerry McDonald has apparently
                                                      > agreed to define it, "anyone who disagrees with Jerry
                                                      > McDonald as to how the Bible should be interpreted."
                                                      >
                                                      > If McDonald had replied to the thread where this comment
                                                      > belongs, that would have been readily apparent to the
                                                      > reader:
                                                      > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/14180
                                                      >
                                                      > But you know how Jerry D. McDonald is -- anything he
                                                      > can twist around to deliberately misrepresent someone,
                                                      > he's going to do it.
                                                      [snip]
                                                    • w_w_c_l
                                                      Todd, Did you notice that Jerry McDonald seems to be breaking ranks with the CFTF anti-OABS authorized definition of an atheist as someone who KNOWS that
                                                      Message 26 of 26 , Feb 26, 2008
                                                      • 0 Attachment
                                                        Todd,

                                                        Did you notice that Jerry McDonald seems to be
                                                        breaking ranks with the CFTF anti-OABS "authorized"
                                                        definition of an "atheist" as "someone who KNOWS that
                                                        God does not exist", as they insisted that you affirm
                                                        in that diversionary "debate proposition"?

                                                        You remember the one -- where you challenged the
                                                        Brown "boys" to debate the age of the Earth and
                                                        David P. Brown changed the subject to the existence
                                                        of God?

                                                        According to Jerry's definition, I think he might be
                                                        calling the entire CFTF anti-OABS crowd a bunch of
                                                        "atheists"!


                                                        Rick



                                                        --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "Todd S. Greene"
                                                        <greeneto@...> wrote:
                                                        >
                                                        > I see Rick beat me to it! Note that I wrote my post
                                                        > about Jerry's "atheist" nonsense before reading this
                                                        > post by Rick.
                                                        >
                                                        > - Todd Greene
                                                        >
                                                        >
                                                        > --- In Maury_and_Baty, Rick Hartzog wrote (post #14194):
                                                        > > --- In Maury_and_Baty, Jerry McDonald wrote:
                                                        > >> I am glad to see that you accept the view that you
                                                        > >> are an atheist.
                                                        > >
                                                        > > An "atheist" being, as Jerry McDonald has apparently
                                                        > > agreed to define it, "anyone who disagrees with Jerry
                                                        > > McDonald as to how the Bible should be interpreted."
                                                        > >
                                                        > > If McDonald had replied to the thread where this comment
                                                        > > belongs, that would have been readily apparent to the
                                                        > > reader:
                                                        > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/14180
                                                        > >
                                                        > > But you know how Jerry D. McDonald is -- anything he
                                                        > > can twist around to deliberately misrepresent someone,
                                                        > > he's going to do it.
                                                        > [snip]
                                                        >
                                                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.