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

Bringing 'em on, James? NOT!

Expand Messages
  • rlbaty@webtv.net
    ... Bringing him forward or not is your business, James. Just don t place any extra value in his secret witness. You, like Rudy and his statue claim, have
    Message 1 of 7 , May 30, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      James, you wrote (intending now to run):

      > I won't bring him forward because
      > I wish to spare him from you
      > Robert. I myself see how you go
      > on and on about something like
      > this even though you are wrong
      > and you are told you are wrong
      > repeatedly. What think ye of a
      > man who, as a Ph. D., is quite
      > busier than I am, being a preacher
      > and a professor in a college???

      Bringing him forward or not is your business, James. Just don't place
      any extra value in his secret witness.

      You, like Rudy and his statue claim, have kept telling me I am wrong.
      Rudy turned out to the one in error. James, you are as well. You,
      Rudy, and Bert; what a trio of misguided fellows who have the uncanny
      ability to act like you are not entirely honest in dealing with your
      blunders.

      At least you are now on board as admitting that the "GRAS" is valid. I
      anticipated that many would claim it unsound, you just have an odd and
      misguided way of doing so.

      I suspect your expert would be a little embarassed to find out the truth
      about "GRAS" and how you misled him.

      That the text is interpreted by some to mean that the six 24-hour days
      was a few thousand years ago is one premise and a rather simple
      statement of what most know is true about the YEC position.

      I, James, have repeatedly explained this to you and yet you
      misrepresented it over and over and even to your expert.

      Shame, shame. If I were him, I wouldn't want you putting me up in your
      defense either.

      In any case, "GRAS" is a valid argument.

      Maybe another champion will be put forth with a name and some real
      qualifications that will actually discuss the matter.

      Thanks for trying James. Your effort has really been helpful in
      understanding more of just how you folk work.

      Sincerely,
      Robert Baty
    • James Murphy
      ... I m saving the man from you Robert, isn t that enough? ;-) ... And I told you I would be vindicated by merely sending off your argument and I was correct.
      Message 2 of 7 , May 31, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        On Saturday, May 31, 2003, at 12:03 AM, rlbaty@... wrote:

        >
        > James, you wrote (intending now to run):
        >
        >> I won't bring him forward because
        >> I wish to spare him from you
        >> Robert. I myself see how you go
        >> on and on about something like
        >> this even though you are wrong
        >> and you are told you are wrong
        >> repeatedly. What think ye of a
        >> man who, as a Ph. D., is quite
        >> busier than I am, being a preacher
        >> and a professor in a college???
        >
        > Bringing him forward or not is your business, James. Just don't place
        > any extra value in his secret witness.

        I'm saving the man from you Robert, isn't that enough? ;-)

        >
        > You, like Rudy and his statue claim, have kept telling me I am wrong.

        And I told you I would be vindicated by merely sending off your
        argument and I was correct. I urged you to do the same, yet you
        would not. And I know why you hadn't done so.

        > Rudy turned out to the one in error. James, you are as well. You,
        > Rudy, and Bert; what a trio of misguided fellows who have the uncanny
        > ability to act like you are not entirely honest in dealing with your
        > blunders.
        >

        Blunders? I did not design "GRAS."

        > At least you are now on board as admitting that the "GRAS" is valid. I
        > anticipated that many would claim it unsound, you just have an odd and
        > misguided way of doing so.

        Valid? Valid only means the form is right, not that any of the premises
        are right. Again, the moon made of green cheese argument is valid,
        since the form is correct, but it is NOT SOUND.

        >
        > I suspect your expert would be a little embarassed to find out the
        > truth
        > about "GRAS" and how you misled him.

        Misled him? I posted what you posted on your website, and to the
        list. How did I manage to mislead the man by what YOU posted
        Robert?

        >
        > That the text is interpreted by some to mean that the six 24-hour days
        > was a few thousand years ago is one premise and a rather simple
        > statement of what most know is true about the YEC position.

        the "few thousand years ago" is IMPRECISE, and this is what you
        continue to ignore. You and I both know there are YEC advocates
        that take Ussher's position (6k years ago) and there are those that
        push it around 10k or so, again, this is imprecise. This is what you
        are unwilling to understand.

        >
        > I, James, have repeatedly explained this to you and yet you
        > misrepresented it over and over and even to your expert.

        My "expert" read what you wrote. He is under no obligation to
        critique what I SAID, he was asked to critique YOUR ARGUMENT.

        >
        > Shame, shame. If I were him, I wouldn't want you putting me up in your
        > defense either.

        Robert, again I ask you, I plead with you, SEND IT TO ANY UNIVERSITY
        THAT YOU CAN FIND. Just tell us the results!

        >
        > In any case, "GRAS" is a valid argument.

        So is this:
        (A) All women that wear red hats are prostitutes.
        (B) Judy has on a red hat.
        (C) Therefore Judy is a prostitute.

        The form is right, the argument is valid.

        THIS ARGUMENT IS NOT SOUND.

        The argument is not sound because one of its premises is not true,
        that is that all women that wear red hats ARE NOT prostitutes.

        Robert, it seems as if you have no championed "This argument is
        valid! This argument is valid!" and will continue to repeat such even
        though you seem to be unable to understand what this means. It DOES
        NOT mean the argument is sound.

        Robert, would you support this VALID ARGUMENT as SOUND???
        (A) The Holy Ghost descended upon the people after the gospel was
        preached.
        (B) I am preaching tomorrow.
        (C) The Holy Ghost will descend upon the people after I preach.

        Robert, the argument is valid, its form is good, WILL YOU SUPPORT THIS
        AS A SOUND ARGUMENT????

        >
        > Maybe another champion will be put forth with a name and some real
        > qualifications that will actually discuss the matter.

        Indeed, I think nothing sort of God manifest in the flesh can convince
        you Robert, and I mean that sincerely.

        >
        > Thanks for trying James. Your effort has really been helpful in
        > understanding more of just how you folk work.

        Indeed, prove all things, hold fast that which is good. . .

        >
        > Sincerely,
        > Robert Baty
        >

        James B. Murphy


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Todd S. Greene
        Hi, James. Golly, is the IMPRECISION of a few thousand years what all the bellyaching is about?!? Then why all of the pages of gobbledygook? We can dispatch
        Message 3 of 7 , May 31, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          Hi, James.

          Golly, is the IMPRECISION of a few thousand years what all the
          bellyaching is about?!?

          Then why all of the pages of gobbledygook?

          We can dispatch this very quickly. *If* the dispute between the YEC
          religious doctrine and what we have learned about the real world was
          merely a matter of worrying about differences in thousands of years,
          then the imprecision of the phrase "few thousand years" would the
          argument an ambiguous argument. However, the fact is that the
          difference we are talking about is a few orders of magnitude. We
          aren't talking about thousands of years, but millions (even billions)
          of years. THUS, since the IMPRECISION falls WELL BELOW the difference
          that is the matter of dispute, the IMPRECISION IS IRRELEVANT and DOES
          NOT MAKE THE ARGUMENT AMBIGUOUS with respect to the actual case of
          discussion.

          You completely neglected to take these additional factors into
          account. Now how unwilling are you to understand this? Try again.

          And James, don't neglect my analogy concerning the road that we know
          is longer than 32 miles even if we don't have a clue how long the
          road is. We can use it here. You are merely quibbling because Robert
          didn't happen to specify "1 mile" or "1.2 miles" or "1.5 miles" but
          instead said something like "Well, it's around a mile or so." If we
          found that the road was 1.7 miles and were merely disputing whether
          or not Robert's statement was applicable (and thus whether or not we
          could say that the statement incorrect) THEN there WOULD be some
          legitimacy to your complaint. But that's not what the discussion is
          about at all. If we found out that the road was at least 1,000 miles
          long (even while not knowing just how long it was beyond this), then
          DESPITE the imprecision of Robert's statement WE CAN STILL SAY
          UNEQUIVOCALLY that the statement "around a mile or so" is false,
          BECAUSE THE DEGREE OF THE DIFFERENCE TOTALLY SWAMPS the level of
          imprecision.

          Regards,
          Todd S. Greene
          http://www.creationism.cc/


          --- In Maury_and_Baty, James Murphy wrote (post #1269):
          [snip all the gobbledygook]
          > the "few thousand years ago" is IMPRECISE, and this is what you
          > continue to ignore. You and I both know there are YEC advocates
          > that take Ussher's position (6k years ago) and there are those that
          > push it around 10k or so, again, this is imprecise. This is what you
          > are unwilling to understand.
          [snip all the gobbledygook]
        • mathewmaury
          ... Sorry, but this argument is not valid. The conclusion does not follow the premises. David brought five stones... James better get a bazooka to go up
          Message 4 of 7 , May 31, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            --- James Murphy <jmurphy@u...> wrote:
            > Robert, would you support this VALID ARGUMENT as SOUND???
            > (A) The Holy Ghost descended upon the people after the gospel was
            > preached.
            > (B) I am preaching tomorrow.
            > (C) The Holy Ghost will descend upon the people after I preach.
            >
            > Robert, the argument is valid, its form is good,
            > WILL YOU SUPPORT THIS AS A SOUND ARGUMENT????

            Sorry, but this argument is not valid. The conclusion does not follow
            the premises. David brought five stones... James better get a bazooka
            to go up against the Goliath of GRAS.

            I am rooting for you, James, but reading a bit of the recent flurry
            has me patting myself on the back for remaining in my tent.
          • James Murphy
            ... Todd, logic operates that way friend. Since when were we able to cast impecision to the wind and just accept things??? ... Todd, I suggest you consider
            Message 5 of 7 , May 31, 2003
            • 0 Attachment
              On Saturday, May 31, 2003, at 04:19 AM, Todd S. Greene wrote:

              > Hi, James.
              >
              > Golly, is the IMPRECISION of a few thousand years what all the
              > bellyaching is about?!?

              Todd, logic operates that way friend.

              Since when were we able to cast impecision to the wind and just
              accept things???

              >
              > Then why all of the pages of gobbledygook?
              >
              > We can dispatch this very quickly. *If* the dispute between the YEC
              > religious doctrine and what we have learned about the real world was
              > merely a matter of worrying about differences in thousands of years,
              > then the imprecision of the phrase "few thousand years" would the
              > argument an ambiguous argument. However, the fact is that the
              > difference we are talking about is a few orders of magnitude. We
              > aren't talking about thousands of years, but millions (even billions)
              > of years. THUS, since the IMPRECISION falls WELL BELOW the difference
              > that is the matter of dispute, the IMPRECISION IS IRRELEVANT and DOES
              > NOT MAKE THE ARGUMENT AMBIGUOUS with respect to the actual case of
              > discussion.

              Todd, I suggest you consider logic as well, as logic does not work
              with such imprecisely defined statements.

              >
              > You completely neglected to take these additional factors into
              > account. Now how unwilling are you to understand this? Try again.

              Me? The Professor I submitted "GRAS" to came to the same conclusions,
              and yet you two persist?

              >
              > And James, don't neglect my analogy concerning the road that we know
              > is longer than 32 miles even if we don't have a clue how long the
              > road is. We can use it here. You are merely quibbling because Robert
              > didn't happen to specify "1 mile" or "1.2 miles" or "1.5 miles" but
              > instead said something like "Well, it's around a mile or so." If we
              > found that the road was 1.7 miles and were merely disputing whether
              > or not Robert's statement was applicable (and thus whether or not we
              > could say that the statement incorrect) THEN there WOULD be some
              > legitimacy to your complaint. But that's not what the discussion is
              > about at all. If we found out that the road was at least 1,000 miles
              > long (even while not knowing just how long it was beyond this), then
              > DESPITE the imprecision of Robert's statement WE CAN STILL SAY
              > UNEQUIVOCALLY that the statement "around a mile or so" is false,
              > BECAUSE THE DEGREE OF THE DIFFERENCE TOTALLY SWAMPS the level of
              > imprecision.

              Part of this problem is the "I KNOW that this is the case," when therein
              lies the difficulties. There are various reasons why the premise is not
              precise. It could be due to the fact that error does not allow you to be
              precise. It could be due to the fact that the methods being used are
              not always consistent, and don't give us precise results.

              Logic just doesn't operate under the conditions you would like it to
              Todd.

              And part of the problem with your analogy is an observed, traveled
              distance, as compared to something that we are all speculating about,
              which has not been observed, nor lived through, and involves ambiguity.

              >
              > Regards,
              > Todd S. Greene
              > http://www.creationism.cc/
              >

              James B. Murphy

              >
              > --- In Maury_and_Baty, James Murphy wrote (post #1269):
              > [snip all the gobbledygook]
              >> the "few thousand years ago" is IMPRECISE, and this is what you
              >> continue to ignore. You and I both know there are YEC advocates
              >> that take Ussher's position (6k years ago) and there are those that
              >> push it around 10k or so, again, this is imprecise. This is what you
              >> are unwilling to understand.
              > [snip all the gobbledygook]
              >
              >
              >
              > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
              > ---------------------~-->
              > Get A Free Psychic Reading! Your Online Answer To Life's Important
              > Questions.
              > http://us.click.yahoo.com/Lj3uPC/Me7FAA/ySSFAA/J2VolB/TM
              > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
              > ~->
              >
              > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
              > Maury_and_Baty-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
              >
              >
              >
              > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
              > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
              >
              >


              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • James Murphy
              ... Mathew I have no idea who you are, but the argument is valid (which merely means that its form is correct and the conclusion would follow). The problem is
              Message 6 of 7 , May 31, 2003
              • 0 Attachment
                On Saturday, May 31, 2003, at 09:49 AM, mathewmaury wrote:

                > --- James Murphy <jmurphy@u...> wrote:
                >> Robert, would you support this VALID ARGUMENT as SOUND???
                >> (A) The Holy Ghost descended upon the people after the gospel was
                >> preached.
                >> (B) I am preaching tomorrow.
                >> (C) The Holy Ghost will descend upon the people after I preach.
                >>
                >> Robert, the argument is valid, its form is good,
                >> WILL YOU SUPPORT THIS AS A SOUND ARGUMENT????
                >
                > Sorry, but this argument is not valid. The conclusion does not follow
                > the premises. David brought five stones... James better get a bazooka
                > to go up against the Goliath of GRAS.

                Mathew I have no idea who you are, but the argument is valid (which
                merely means that its form is correct and the conclusion would follow).

                The problem is that it is NOT SOUND. I think you are confusing
                definitions.

                It is not sound because the premise (A) is not defined clearly enough,
                as well as the fact that it is demonstrated elsewhere that such an
                occurrence as the Holy Spirit descending was for a certain purpose,
                and not for all times.

                >
                > I am rooting for you, James, but reading a bit of the recent flurry
                > has me patting myself on the back for remaining in my tent.
                >

                Please, remain in your tent then, at least until you can recognize the
                difference between a valid, unsound argument and a valid, sound
                argument ;-)

                James B. Murphy


                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • Todd S. Greene
                ... Hi, James. All I can tell you is that your world of logic is far too small, my friend. If you don t understand how to use the meanings of the concepts that
                Message 7 of 7 , Jun 1, 2003
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- In Maury_and_Baty, James Murphy <jmurphy@u...> wrote (post #1280):
                  > On Saturday, May 31, 2003, at 04:19 AM, Todd S. Greene wrote:
                  >
                  >> Hi, James.
                  >>
                  >> Golly, is the IMPRECISION of a few thousand years what all the
                  >> bellyaching is about?!?
                  >
                  > Todd, logic operates that way friend.
                  >
                  > Since when were we able to cast impecision to the wind and just
                  > accept things???

                  Hi, James.

                  All I can tell you is that your world of logic is far too small, my
                  friend. If you don't understand how to use the meanings of the
                  concepts that are used in logical statements, then you shouldn't be
                  trying to teach me about logic. It isn't the logic that was
                  imprecise. And what I pointed out to you is that the concept was
                  quite precise enough (defined enough, distinct enough) for the
                  purpose for which it is intended.

                  I have already explained why your criticism is faulty. You have
                  certainly not corrected your error. Based on your remarks, it is your
                  task to demonstrate that the imprecise "few thousand years" is the
                  same thing as "at least several million years." The fact that you
                  can't tell the difference does not indicate to me that I should pay
                  much attention to your attempt to tutor me in logic.

                  >
                  >>
                  >> Then why all of the pages of gobbledygook?
                  >>
                  >> We can dispatch this very quickly. *If* the dispute between the
                  >> YEC religious doctrine and what we have learned about the real
                  >> world was merely a matter of worrying about differences in
                  >> thousands of years, then the imprecision of the phrase "few
                  >> thousand years" would the argument an ambiguous argument.
                  >> However, the fact is that the difference we are talking about is
                  >> a few orders of magnitude. We aren't talking about thousands of
                  >> years, but millions (even billions) of years. THUS, since the
                  >> IMPRECISION falls WELL BELOW the difference that is the matter of
                  >> dispute, the IMPRECISION IS IRRELEVANT and DOES NOT MAKE THE
                  >> ARGUMENT AMBIGUOUS with respect to the actual case of discussion.
                  >
                  > Todd, I suggest you consider logic as well, as logic does not work
                  > with such imprecisely defined statements.
                  >
                  >>
                  >> You completely neglected to take these additional factors into
                  >> account. Now how unwilling are you to understand this? Try again.
                  >
                  > Me? The Professor I submitted "GRAS" to came to the same
                  > conclusions, and yet you two persist?

                  Not surprised. Marion isn't so good with his logic either. Great
                  form, bad on substance.

                  >
                  >>
                  >> And James, don't neglect my analogy concerning the road that we
                  >> know is longer than 32 miles even if we don't have a clue how
                  >> long the road is. We can use it here. You are merely quibbling
                  >> because Robert didn't happen to specify "1 mile" or "1.2 miles"
                  >> or "1.5 miles" but instead said something like "Well, it's
                  >> around a mile or so." If we found that the road was 1.7 miles
                  >> and were merely disputing whether or not Robert's statement was
                  >> applicable (and thus whether or not we could say that the
                  >> statement incorrect) THEN there WOULD be some legitimacy to your
                  >> complaint. But that's not what the discussion is about at all.
                  >> If we found out that the road was at least 1,000 miles long
                  >> (even while not knowing just how long it was beyond this), then
                  >> DESPITE the imprecision of Robert's statement WE CAN STILL SAY
                  >> UNEQUIVOCALLY that the statement "around a mile or so" is false,
                  >> BECAUSE THE DEGREE OF THE DIFFERENCE TOTALLY SWAMPS the level of
                  >> imprecision.
                  >
                  > Part of this problem is the "I KNOW that this is the case," when
                  > therein lies the difficulties. There are various reasons why the
                  > premise is not precise. It could be due to the fact that error
                  > does not allow you to be precise. It could be due to the fact
                  > that the methods being used are not always consistent, and don't
                  > give us precise results.
                  >
                  > Logic just doesn't operate under the conditions you would like it
                  > to Todd.

                  Says you. But you can't tell the difference between a "few thousand
                  years" and "at least several million years," so I can see why you
                  have problems with logic.

                  >
                  > And part of the problem with your analogy is an observed,
                  > traveled distance, as compared to something that we are all
                  > speculating about, which has not been observed, nor lived
                  > through, and involves ambiguity.

                  Now this is really funny! You, James, just like Rudy and Michael,
                  completely ignore the case of SN1987A that I have pointed out to all
                  of you as a specific example of the fact that we DO observe this
                  distant past that you guys are, just like every young earth
                  creationist, pretending we don't really know exists. I have pointed
                  out to you a specific example of where we *have* observed this
                  distant past, and yet you guys just keep making statements as if
                  nothing has been pointed out to you at all. What is this "I will
                  ignore the facts" attitude all about anyway? Do you think you could
                  explain to us why you have purposely chosen to ignore the facts that
                  contradict your position?

                  Three monkeys.

                  Regard,
                  Todd S. Greene
                  http://www.creationism.cc/
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.