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

"Goliath of GRAS" v. C.D. Healy!

Expand Messages
  • Robert Baty
    Daniel Denham appears to be interested in renewing interest in his failure to come out and face up to his failed effort in putting up C.D. Healy as his
    Message 1 of 1 , Sep 2, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      Daniel Denham appears to be interested in renewing interest in his failure to "come out" and face up to his failed effort in putting up C.D. Healy as his champion against my "Goliath of GRAS".

      In addition to the extensive, recent additional material that shows, irrefutably, that, by definition, the "Goliath of GRAS" is a simply, logically valid argument setting forth the fundamental real world falsification test for the fundamental real world claim commonly associated with the "young-earth, creation-science" movement, the following is the previously posted rebuttal to C.D. Healy's false claim that the "Goliath of GRAS" is plagued by an "equivocation fallacy":

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

      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/7374

      Maury_and_Baty
      Message 7374

      From: Robert Baty
      Date: December 8, 2005

      Subject: Re: Am I (CDHealy) "David"?


      "Goliath of GRAS"

      Major premise:

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

      Conclusion:

      The interpretation of the text by
      some is wrong.

      ###########################

      The desperately reeling CDHealy really demonstrates his desperation in denying
      the reality of the fact that his own authority (Layman) is against him.

      Here is the applicable example of alleged equivocation in modus ponens form:

      > If Andre is a good (skilled) tennis player,
      > then Andre is good (morally).

      > Andre is a good (skilled) tennis player.

      > Therefore, Andre is good (morally).

      The definitions supplied parenthetically show where the alleged equivocation
      appears.

      The authorities indicate that equivocation is an "error in reasoning" that makes
      an valid argument appear sound.

      If one is allowed to equivocate with the term "good" as to Andre, then the valid
      argument would appear to be sound.

      But, what if you elimnate the equivocation necessary to make the argument appear
      sound.

      CDHealy's own authority (Layman) addresses this question. Here ye Layman:

      #####################

      From: Layman, Steve
      Subject: RE: Your equivocation position(s)?
      Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2005

      (excerpts for relevance)

      Robert,

      Of course, modus ponens is always valid.

      When someone is accused of equivocation, he may deny it.

      That is, he may claim the relevant word (or phrase) is used in only one sense.
      Then we can ask,

      > "What do you mean by
      > the term in question?"

      (I)f the charge of equivocation is denied, the problem may reappear as a false
      or doubtful premise.

      I hope this is of some use.

      --Steve

      #######################

      My further comments:

      In the case of Andre, a valid (modus ponens) unequivocal argument can be
      demonstrated by simply providing the the parenthetical definition of terms. The
      argument itself remains unchanged as to its wording and validity.

      > If Andre is a good (skilled) tennis player,
      > then Andre is good (morally).

      > Andre is a good (skilled) tennis player.

      > Therefore, Andre is good (morally).

      You'll notice that the above Andre argument is consistent in its two different
      uses of the term "good". In valid modus ponens form it reduces down to:

      > If A, then B
      > A
      > Therefore, B

      That's just the way CDHealy's authority (Layman) explained it.

      But, that being the case, what did Layman say would be the problem in such a
      case?

      That's right! He said:

      > (I)f the charge of equivocation
      > is denied, the problem may
      > reappear as a false or doubtful
      > premise.

      That's it! Without the equivocation, the major premise of the Andre argument is
      false and the argument is unsound, while remaining valid.

      If you leave the equivocation in the argument, it remains valid and only appears
      sound as a result of the fallacy of equivocation.

      You'll note that in neither case is the argument changed; only explained.

      "Goliath of GRAS", of course, has no apparent or real equivocation, its terms
      having previously been explained in unequivocal and undisputed (excerpt in the
      imaginative mind of CDHealy) terms.

      It remains a logically valid (modus ponens) statement of the real world
      falsification test of the fundamental real world position of the YEC/YECS
      movement.

      CDHealy's real problem, as previously explained and which he has repeatedly
      admitted (explicitly or implicitly) is simply that he doesn't believe there is
      any real world falsification test for the YEC/YECS position (i.e., joining Dr.
      Fox in his corner).

      That is why he is so desperately trying (unsuccessfully) to defeat any argument
      on technical grounds to avoid actually having to deal with the evidence of age
      issue and its consequences.

      If you put these discussions in that context, it is much easier to see where
      CDHealy and YEC/YECS promoters really stand (i.e., you can't falsify the
      YEC/YECS or geocentric position based on the interpretation of the text with
      real world evidence to the contrary). Knowing that saves a lot of time and
      trouble for those of us who don't have the time, talent or interest to sort out
      what it is they are getting at.

      Yep, I think I'll be able to keep CDHealy's own authority (Layman) on my side as
      to the validity of my "Goliath of GRAS".

      Now we know a little more about why CDHealy is so resistent to putting his false
      charges against my "Goliath" into a format that matches up with the "Andre"
      argument and the exposition of his own authority (Layman) on the matter.

      "Goliath of GRAS" - still the one to beat!

      CDHealy - still no "David"!

      Sincerely,
      Robert Baty

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



      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.