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

Re: So is "Goliath" really sound? / Exodus 20:9-11

Expand Messages
  • w_w_c_l
    ... On the other hand, Jerry, why are you abandoning our discussion where we were already talking about Exodus 20:9-11? We were also trying to establish that
    Message 1 of 41 , Oct 31, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "rlbaty50"
      <rlbaty@...> wrote (in another thread, in part):
      >
      > Jerry, you wrote:
      >
      > > If my interpretation is what is at
      > > stake, then pray tell me what the
      > > proper interpretation of Exodus
      > > 20:9-11 is?
      >
      > Jerry, from what has been posted, your interpretation
      > of the text is being accepted by Todd. If you fail
      > to make your case that, according to the real world
      > evidence, nothing is more than a few thousand years
      > old, then it isn't going to be your interpretation
      > that is to be considered falsified. You've already
      > made it clear that your position is that the Bible is
      > simply wrong if some thing really is more than a few
      > thousand years old.

      On the other hand, Jerry, why are you abandoning our
      discussion where we were already talking about
      Exodus 20:9-11? We were also trying to establish that
      Robert's argument is sound, remember?

      That's what you were wanting to talk about, remember?



      Rick Hartzog
      Worldwide Church of Latitudinarianism



      --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "w_w_c_l"
      <w_w_c_l@...> wrote:
      >
      >
      > --- In ChallengeII@yahoogroups.com, Jerry McDonald
      > ( http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ChallengeII/message/224 )
      > <jerry@> wrote:
      > >
      > > You are the one who said creation is still taking place,
      > > so it is your responsibility to show that it is still
      > > taking place.
      >
      > > > And you're the one who says it isn't, so it is your
      > > > responsibility to produce some evidence to that effect.
      >
      > McDonald
      > > You know, we can go at this all day.
      >
      > From our recent experience discussing logical validity I
      > would guess we can go at it for months on end.
      >
      >
      > > As the rebutting writer all I have to do is to show that
      > > what you have argued isn't valid. So far you haven't argued
      > > anything other than to simply say that creation is still
      > > taking place.
      >
      > First off, let's keep in mind exactly what it is you are
      > supposed to be "rebutting" here:
      >
      > You are supposed to be showing that at least one of the
      > premises of Robert's argument is false, i.e., either the
      > evidence for an ancient Earth does not exist; or, the
      > evidence exists but that does not mean that the young-earth
      > interpretation is wrong.
      >
      > I suggest that the fact that Creation is still taking place
      > is just one of the things that shows the young-earth
      > interpretation is wrong. Even if you should be able to
      > successfully argue that Creation is not still taking place,
      > you will still not have made any progress in showing the
      > argument's premises are false.
      >
      > However:
      >
      > I have given you examples from the Creation itself that
      > show God's acts of creation are still taking place, and I
      > have asked you some questions about certain verses of
      > Scripture as well.
      >
      > Your response in this message is to simply deny that the
      > evidence exists, and you make no mention at all of the
      > creation events in Scripture that take place after Eden.
      >
      > So you denying that something exists, when we can observe
      > it, is not an effective argument. All it accomplishes is
      > showing that you are in fact denying reality.
      >
      >
      > > Your twist on Exodus 20:9-11 is absurd. How can Moses have
      > > set the Jewish work week and instructed them to remember
      > > the sabbath to keep it holy if God has not yet rested?
      >
      > I think the excerpt from the Epistle of Barnabas that I gave
      > you shows that pretty well.
      > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/13078
      >
      > For you to just say that something is "absurd" is not a
      > rebuttal, Jerry. I say the "sabbath" Israel was commanded
      > to observe is symbolic for the "rest" after God gets finished
      > with Creation. What is so absurd about that?
      >
      >
      > Rick
      >
      > > > Of what I have offered you so far, you have been largely
      > > > unresponsive.
      >
      > McDonald
      >
      > > You must be blind, because I have answered what you said.
      > > My quotations from Col. 2:16,17 and Gal. 5:4 showed that
      > > the Old Law (of Moses--which included keeping the Sabbath)
      > > was done away as this law was a shadow of the law to come --
      > > the law of Christ.
      >
      > The Law of Moses being done away with does not negate
      > the fact of the six "day" Creation, followed by the
      > Sabbath. Your selected verses don't change that.
      >
      >
      > > As far as my quoting the Bible I will most certainly
      > > continue that.
      >
      > Rick
      > > > But you telling me what it says in Genesis is not going
      > > > to help you. I know what it says in Genesis. And I say
      > > > it is an allegorical account. I say that you, Jerry,
      > > > cannot get past the 3rd chapter of Genesis before you
      > > > yourself start talking about "figurative" language.
      >
      > McDonald
      > > Why would Moses use literal language to set the Jewish
      > > work week for by using an example of something that had
      > > not yet come to pass.
      >
      > Because they were literally supposed to cease labor every
      > seventh day, and rest. You don't think that means God takes
      > a day off every seventh day, do you?
      >
      >
      > > Please tell me how I have to go to figurative language
      > > when I get past Gen. chapter 3!
      >
      > I said *before* you get past Genesis 3.
      >
      > Genesis 2:17 for example. Literal "death", or literal
      > "day"? According to you it must be both. When Adam ate
      > the forbidden fruit, according to your hermeneutic he
      > should have been literally dead within 24 literal hours.
      >
      > And when you start contradicting yourself to fix that
      > part of the story, you build a contradiction into certain
      > New Testament verses that you will have to deal with later.
      >
      >
      > > What I believe the Bible to teach is what is on trial
      > > here and since it is I have the right to quote it.
      >
      > Rick
      > > > The point is that you telling us what your interpretation
      > > > *is* does not give any evidence that your interpretation
      > > > is correct. I know what your interpretation is. I say
      > > > it is wrong.
      >
      > McDonald
      > > Take the Bible and prove that it is wrong!
      >
      > See Genesis 2:17.
      >
      >
      > > I hold to the Bible as the inspired and inerrant word of
      > > almighty God.
      >
      > Rick
      > > > As long as there is nothing over 10,000 years old, right?
      > > >
      > > > You say if something is over 10,000 years old, then the
      > > > Bible is not the word of God, don't you?
      > > >
      > > > So what you're *really* saying, Jerry, is that it is *your
      > > > interpretation* that is the inspired and inerrant Word of
      > > > God, because you say if *your interpretation* is wrong, then
      > > > the word of God is wrong.
      >
      > McDonald
      > > The Bible teaches that in the beginning God created the
      > > heavens and the earth (Gen. 1:1). Jesus taught that in the
      > > beginning God made male and female (Mat. 19:4). Mark 10:6
      > > says that this "from the beginning of creation."
      >
      > Jesus asked, "Have ye not read?" He was teaching a spiritual
      > lesson, not a history lesson. He was not teaching the Creation
      > account, he was applying the Creation account to spiritual
      > principles related to divorce.
      >
      > But you didn't answer my question.
      >
      >
      > > 1 Cor. 15:45 teach that Adam was the first man on this earth,
      > > and the geneaologies of Luke chapter three goes all the way
      > > back to Adam and these genealogies cannot be stretched any
      > > further than 10,000 years ago.
      >
      > HOW can they POSSIBLY be "stretched" to 10,000 years? And why
      > are you *wanting* to stretch them to 10,000 years?
      >
      > 1 Corinthians 15:45, by your standard, teaches that Christ
      > was the *last* man on this Earth.
      >
      > Read those verses again. It talks of only two persons, the
      > man of the flesh and the man of the Spirit.
      >
      > And Paul told you not to give too much heed to endless
      > genealogies.
      >
      > But anyway, I agree that man departed from God only about
      > 10,000 years ago or so. But man wasn't created until the
      > sixth "day". So none of this is really relevant to knowing
      > how long those "days" were before "Adam" disobeyed God.
      >
      >
      > > So I will go to the Bible for my proof. If you think my
      > > "interpretation" is in error, then it is your responsibility
      > > to show that it is in error.
      >
      > Properly understood, the Bible does not teach false ideas
      > about the world.
      >
      > Your literal interpretation does teach false ideas about
      > the world.
      >
      > Therefore, your interpretation is in error.
      >
      > And as an example of just how badly in error your interpretation
      > of Scripture can be, whether through your lack of understanding
      > or your willingness to claim Scripture means whatever you want
      > it to mean, we don't have to talk about the age of the Earth at
      > all. Your argument about Ahaziah's age is quite sufficient:
      >
      > In attempting to prove your "co-reign" theory, you use this
      > verse from Exodus:
      >
      > "And it came to pass, that at midnight the Lord smote all the
      > firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharoah
      > that sitteth upon his throne unto the firstborn of the captive
      > that was in the dungeon; and all the firstborn of the cattle."
      > (Exodus 12:29)
      > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ChallengeII/message/221
      >
      > You claim that verse shows a co-reign; that it was Pharoah's
      > firstborn who was sitting on the throne. That is how bad you
      > are at properly interpreting the Scriptures. I suppose it
      > was the firstborn of the captive that was sitting in the dungeon,
      > too, rather than the captive himself?
      >
      > So not only does your interpretation of the Scriptures teach
      > false ideas about the world, your method of interpretation
      > teaches false ideas about the very Scriptures.
      >
      >
      > > I hold to the view that God created everything within
      > > six literal 24 hour days somewhere between 6 and 10
      > > thousand years ago.
      >
      > Rick
      > > > Why such a huge variation? There is no way for you to get
      > > > 10,000 years out of your reading. Where do you get the
      > > > 10,000 years, Jerry? It isn't from the Bible. Where does
      > > > it come from?
      >
      > McDonald
      > > Due to the fact that men lived longer you could possibly
      > > get 10,000 years. That is by liberal estimates. Conservative
      > > estimates put it at 6,000. 10,000 years is the longest.
      >
      > I'm not asking you for "estimates". Where do you get the
      > idea there is any room for "estimates"? How long, Jerry,
      > according to your literal interpretation of the Scriptures,
      > has it been since Adam was created? Hasn't it been about
      > 6,011 years now, according to Ussher?
      >
      >
      > > I will continue to hold to that view until someone shows
      > > me reasonable scriptures in the Bible that shows that
      > > these six days were long eons of time.
      >
      > Rick
      > > > Does the Bible tell you to ask the Creation? Do you
      > > > think the Creation is not "divinely inspired"? Do you
      > > > think the psalmist was wrong when he said "The heavens
      > > > declare the glory of God"?
      >
      > McDonald
      > > How could the heavens declare the glory of God if they
      > > aren't even finished yet?
      >
      > Why don't you answer questions, Jerry? Does the Bible tell
      > you that the Creation itself bears honest testimony of its
      > Creator?
      >
      > Don't you think that as magnificent as everything is now,
      > when it gets finished it will be "perfect" instead of
      > just "very good"?
      >
      >
      > Rick
      > > > Do you think the Creation is lying to us?
      >
      > McDonald
      > > No, creation is not lying to us. Creation is complete
      > > and because it is complete it declares the glory of God
      > > by showing that there is a creator and that he did
      > > create all things.
      >
      > If creation is complete, why is it still changing every
      > day?
      >
      >
      > > In a recent debate that I viewed I saw Kent Hovind take on
      > > three atheistic professors at once. He asked them if
      > > evolution was changing from one kind to another today.
      >
      > Rick
      > > > I don't know if you're aware of this, Jerry, but I consider
      > > > Kent Hovind a criminal, a fraud, and a crackpot. He doesn't
      > > > have a shred of scientific credibility. He doesn't even have
      > > > an undergraduate degree in anything to do with science.
      >
      > McDonald
      > > I am well aware of Kent's problems with the IRS, and I am
      > > aware that he doesn't have a degree in science, but I am
      > > also aware that three university professors of science could
      > > not give intelligent responses to the arguments he made.
      >
      > If you think that saying 10,000 years is not long enough for
      > macro-evolution to take place is not the correct answer, you
      > are wrong.
      >
      > You are being snowed by an incorrect argument.
      >
      >
      > > Whether you think he is a ciminal, fraud or crackpot or not
      > > is not the issue. I saw him decimate three univeristy
      > > science professors; well one was an engineering professor.
      >
      > I have taken some of Hovind's articles apart myself, and
      > showed where he was mistaken, and outright lying, about his
      > claims. Maybe you can point me to a place where he, in
      > writing, actually deals in facts instead of showmanship.
      >
      > But then again, maybe not.
      >
      >
      > Rick
      > > > Every time you bring up Kent Hovind I'm going to laugh
      > > > in your face.
      >
      > McDoald
      >
      > > Everytime you laugh in my face I am going to remind you
      > > that as ignorant as he was, three university professors
      > > couldn't respond to him in any intelligent way.
      >
      > Don't you think it is more probable that you were unable to
      > understand the response, or notice the fallacious structure
      > of Hovind's argument?
      >
      >
      > > They all answered "No" because their wasn't enough time for
      > > evolution to happen today.
      >
      > Rick
      > > > Be careful what you say, and how far afield you equivocate
      > > > on your terms. I am going to insist on strict definitions.
      >
      > McDonald
      > > They didn't give strict definitions. Hovine asked them if
      > > macro-evolution could have happened in 10,000 years and they
      > > all three said "No" because there wasn't enough time for that
      > > to have taken place.
      >
      > And that is true, for the most part (depends on how you use
      > the term; but I won't bog this down with technicalities). So
      > how does that help your argument any? Do you think if "big"
      > changes don't happen in 10,000 years that "big" changes can't
      > happen in a million years? A million is a hundred times longer
      > than 10,000, and even the changes over a million years aren't
      > all that "dramatic".
      >
      > The animals from the end of the Pleistocene, 10 - 12 thousand
      > years ago, weren't much different than the animals of today.
      > But the farther back in time you go, the greater the differences
      > are.
      >
      >
      > > Show me where "maco-evolution" is happening today...
      >
      > Rick
      > > > Define macro-evolution according to standard biological
      > > > use, and tell me how long biologists say it takes for
      > > > "macro-evolution" to occur.
      >
      > McDonald
      > > You have got to be kidding me! Look and learn:
      > >
      > > "2.1 Evidence of Change through Time.
      > > One of the central tenets of the Theory of Special Creation
      > > is that the species, once created are immutable. This claim
      > > is challenged by several lines of evidence that support the
      > > alternative hypothesis that poplulations of organisms change
      > > through time. The data we review here come from living species
      > > as well as from extinct forms preserved in the fossil record.
      > > Evidence from Ligin species.
      > > The living evidence for change through time comes in two forms.
      > > First by monitoring natural populations, we can directly observe
      > > small scale changes, or MICROEVOLUTION. Second, if we examine
      > > the bodies of living organisms, we can find evidence of dramtic
      > > change, or MACROEVOLUTION" (Evolutionary Analysis, Scott Freeman,
      > > Jon C. Herron, published by Prentice Hall, p. 36).
      > >
      > >
      > > Is that a good enough definition for you?
      >
      > No, not even close. "Dramatic" can mean all sorts of things,
      > and you have made no mention of the time scale evolutionary
      > biologists propose for these "dramatic" changes.
      >
      > Maybe you need to turn over several pages in that book to
      > get to the place where "macro-evolution" is discussed, and
      > tell me how that compares with the way creationists present
      > macro-evolution. This is the same thing you did with your
      > definition of logical validity, I will point out. You are
      > giving me a quote from p. 36 -- introductory material.
      >
      > Give me something from the the chapter(s) of the book where
      > macro-evolution is actually discussed.
      >
      > You wrongly suggest that you should be able to see
      > macro-evolution taking place over some arbitrarily defined
      > timeframe. That is just wrong. What happens, happens in its
      > own sweet time. Now, let me ask you again, how long does it
      > take, according to evolutionary biology, for "macro-evolution"
      > to occur? And please be specific about what you mean by
      > macro-evolution.
      >
      > For example, how long, roughly, in millions of years, did it take
      > from the first proto-birds to real birds? Or look up the
      > evolution of elephants -- they're interesting. Or bears or
      > something. You are going to be looking at *millions* of years,
      > not thousands.
      >
      >
      > Rick
      > > > Let's compare the biological definition, which the scientists
      > > > use, with the non-scientific definition that creationists
      > > > try to tack to that word. Do you think the scientists
      > > > should use the creationists' definition, when the
      > > > creationists know absolutely nothing about the subject?
      > > >
      > > > Wouldn't you agree that when the creationist uses the
      > > > term "macro-evolution" he should use it according to
      > > > its standard scientific uses, and not try to make it
      > > > mean something that it doesn't?
      >
      > McDonald
      > > No creationist wrote the book I just quoted.
      >
      > That does not even pretend to answer the questions or address
      > the points in the above paragraph. Should creationists use
      > an *incorrect* portrayal of what macro-evolution is, to say
      > that the *correct* definition of "macro-evolution" is false?
      >
      > Isn't that exactly what you are *attempting* to do here?
      > You're not going to get away with it, I'll tell you that
      > right now.
      >
      >
      > Rick
      > > > Your trying to make some kind of distinction between
      > > > macro-evolution and micro-evolution is going to get you
      > > > in trouble.
      >
      > McDonald
      > > No, the book I just quoted said that there was a difference
      > > in micro-evolution and macro-evolution. Microevolution is
      > > small changes, while macroevolution is dramatic changes.
      >
      > And HOW LONG do the biologists say that it takes these "small
      > changes over time" to add up to "dramatic" changes?
      >
      > HOW LONG, Jerry?
      >
      > Not according to your and Hovind's misleading characterizations;
      > but according to the actual scientists who know what they're
      > talking about.
      >
      > > However, microevolution never crosses kinds. It always
      > > stays within its own kind. Macroevolution crosses kinds.
      > > In other words according to macroevolution a reptile
      > > changed into a mammal.
      >
      > And how long did it take for true mammals to arise from
      > "reptiles"?
      >
      >
      > > Microevolution never teaches any such thing.
      >
      > Microevolution is not generally defined as a reptile turning
      > into a mammal, no. But microevolution may include speciation.
      >
      >
      > Rick
      > > > Here's a hint: give me the definition of a "kind".
      > > > I want a good, non-equivocal, testable definition for
      > > > that term.
      >
      > McDonald
      > > A kind is defined as follows: A horse gives birth to a
      > > horse. Now it may be of a different breed of horse, but
      > > it is still a horse.
      >
      > So a "horse" is a "kind"? Is a zebra a "kind", or is it a
      > kind of horse? Or is a horse a kind of zebra? Or are they
      > both members of another type of kind? Is a mule a "horse"
      > kind? Why can't mules bring forth after their own kind?
      >
      > > A horse never gives birth to a cat or a dog.
      >
      > Of course not. There is nothing in biological evolution
      > that suggests anything like that EVER happens. Horses,
      > cats, and dogs are all mammals. They are descended from
      > early mammals that are now extinct. They don't descend from
      > each other. Please don't make foolish arguments like that.
      >
      >
      > > A horse is one kind, a cat is another kind, a dog is
      > > another kind.
      >
      > Is a wolf a kind? What about a hyena? Is a lion a kind?
      > What about a tiger? Is a housecat the same "kind" as a
      > cheetah?
      >
      >
      > > As the book I quoted from says, "Special creation teaches
      > > that once a kind is created it is immutable." Macroevolution
      > > does not teach that. Macroevolution teaches that kinds are
      > > not immutable, in fact they can and do change from one kind
      > > to another. Is that specific enough?
      >
      > Not nearlybout. You have to tell me what a "kind" is, to
      > start with.
      >
      >
      > > or show me where God is still actively creating things
      > > today.
      >
      > Rick
      > > > Use your search engine to look for "star-forming regions"
      > > > and look at new stars to your heart's content.
      > > >
      > > > Here's one of a "newborn" star that's only about 100,000
      > > > years old:
      > > > http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap010220.html
      > > >
      > > > Here's one where the stars haven't come out of their
      > > > "coccoons" yet:
      > > > http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/2001/21
      >
      > McDonald
      > > Thanks, I'll be more than happy to use them in the debate,
      > > but I won't comment on them now. We are talking about my
      > > interpretation of the Bible now.
      >
      > Your interpretation of the Bible says that we should not be
      > able to watch stars coming into existence, Jerry. But there
      > they are. Do you think Todd doesn't know about them?
      >
      > And do you think your excuse for not commenting about this is
      > supposed to somehow negate these new stars as evidence that
      > creation is still taking place? No, that won't work.
      >
      >
      > Rick
      > > > Astronomy shows us all the stages of stars, from
      > > > pre-formation to "death" and after. What is your
      > > > explanation for that?
      > > >
      > > > Did God create dead stars?
      >
      > McDonald
      > > Yes he did.
      >
      > Where in the Bible do you get your justification for making
      > such a statement? You said earlier the Creation is not lying
      > to us, and now you turn right around and contradict yourself.
      >
      > Jerry, tell us: how is science supposed to distinguish between
      > a star that got old and died and one that was created dead with
      > all the appearance of having lived a long and productive life?
      >
      > I already mentioned, at the very beginning of this discussion,
      > that "creation-science" and "apparent age" are mutually
      > exclusive. If you are going to try to mix the two I am going
      > to insist that you clearly define for us the boundary, both
      > in what we see in space and the geological record here on
      > Earth, between what is "real" and what is just "illusion".
      >
      > So show us that line of demarcation, please.
      >
      >
      > Rick
      > > > What is your explanation for the heavens still being
      > > > stretched forth?
      >
      > McDonald
      > > If you are talking about the expansion theory, there
      > > is no evidence for that.
      >
      > Oh, but Jerry, you are oh so very WRONG!
      >
      > And just saying that you refuse to believe the Universe is
      > expanding is not going to suffice. Astronomical observations
      > and cosmological equations both show the Universe IS expanding.
      > Jerry McDonald claims there is no evidence for any such thing.
      >
      > Hmmm....
      >
      > Jerry is not telling the truth.
      >
      > How are we going to get anywhere in this discussion if you
      > are just going to make stuff up?
      >
      >
      > Rick
      > > > Where are your answers about whether God created Israel
      > > > or not, and if so, which "day" it was when He did it?
      >
      > McDonald
      >
      > > God didn't create Israel. He chose the children of Israel
      > > as his people. He created man on the sixth day.
      >
      > Read Isaiah 43. It clearly says that God created Israel.
      > And this would have had to have been sometime between Eden
      > and Exodus, and Israel would have been part of "the heavens,
      > the Earth, the seas, and ALL that in them is" when God gave
      > the Law to the children of Israel. So which "day" was it
      > when God created Israel?
      >
      >
      > > You are the one who made the statement, the burden of
      > > proof is on your back.
      >
      > Rick
      > > > I've made several statements -- for which I am patiently
      > > > awaiting a response.
      >
      > McDonald
      >
      > > Wait no longer.
      >
      > I'm not sure how I should "interpret" that. Is it supposed
      > to mean that you think you have responded to me in any
      > meaningful way in this message; or is it supposed to mean
      > that I can quit waiting, because you aren't going to do it?
      >
      > Let's see what we have so far: I said the heavens are still
      > being stretched forth and you denied it, said there was no
      > evidence that was the case, which is false. I said there are
      > still stars being created and you said "No comment". I said
      > that biological evolution is still taking place and you gave
      > me some irrelevant clutter from Kent Hovind and a quote from
      > the preface of some book that doesn't even approach what I asked
      > for. I said God created Israel and you said no He didn't, in
      > spite of what it very plainly states in the Bible. So we need
      > to get all of these things resolved still, plus that non-equivocal,
      > testable, working definition of "kinds" figured out.
      >
      > And don't lose sight of what your *real* goal is supposed to
      > be in all of this: we are talking about whether Robert's
      > argument is sound or not, and you are going to have to prove
      > that at least one of the premises is false.
      >
      >
      >
      > Rick Hartzog
      > Worldwide Church of Latitudinarianism
      >
    • w_w_c_l
      ... I am discussing the soundness. Just above, I have already shown that two of the three elements of the conjunctive minor premise (the antecedent of the
      Message 41 of 41 , Jan 6, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "Jerry D. McDonald"
        <jerry@...> wrote:
        >
        >
        > --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "w_w_c_l"
        > <w_w_c_l@> wrote:
        > >
        > >
        > > Jerry McDonald asked:
        > >
        > > > Now can we get to the soundness of the argument?
        > >
        > >
        > > Well, let's see... where were we? Oh yeah...
        > >
        > > If p, then q.
        > >
        > > (T & I & E) => W
        > >
        > > When it comes to discussing whether "Goliath" is sound or not,
        > > I think most all of us know what the Biblical Text says and
        > > how it is Interpreted by "some", so in my opinion we can just
        > > take those two variables out right from the start, leaving:
        > >
        > > E => W
        > >
        > > that is,
        > >
        > > the Evidence implies the young-earth interpretation is Wrong.


        > McDonald
        > We are not talking about validity now, we are talking about
        > soundness. In discussing soundness you have to show relevance
        > between the conclusion and the premise. In classical logic you
        > don't have to do that with validity, but even with classical
        > logic you must show relevance between the premise (antecedent)
        > and the conclusion (consequent).

        I am discussing the soundness. Just above, I have already shown
        that two of the three elements of the conjunctive minor premise
        (the antecedent of the major premise) are true: the text does say
        six days and that is interpreted by "some" to mean six 24-hour
        days a few thousand years ago.

        That leaves us with something like:

        "If the Bible is true, and the Earth is ancient, then the Bible
        does not teach that the Earth is only a few thousand years old."

        Looks relevant to me! If some thing is more than a few thousand
        years old, then the Bible does not teach that no thing is more
        than a few thousand years old.


        > Robert's argument says this:
        >
        > 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: Therefore the interpretation of the text by some is
        > wrong."
        >
        > Now you cannot just take the Bible out of it because the Bible is
        > part of the argument just like empirical evidence is part of the
        > argument. I can no more take "empirical evidence" out of the
        > argument than he can take "God's word" out and leave it out. I am
        > sure that Rick would love to leave the Bible out of this
        > discussion, but he can't do it. It is an intergal part of
        > Robert's argument.

        If you will follow this thread on through from where it began,
        you will see that I did not leave the Bible out of it at all --
        in fact, I gave Jerry McDonald several examples of acts of
        creation that take place long after Genesis. Jerry apparently
        was unable to answer those points.

        My position is simply this: we are still in the Sixth Day of
        Creation and God has not yet rested. Jerry McDonald will not
        be able to overcome that argument.


        > Now what Robert (or Rick who obviously is taking Robert's place)
        > needs to do is to show (1) just because he thinks he has found
        > empirical evidence of old age, that this means that those who hold
        > to the Bible as teaching that everything was created a few
        > thousand years ago, hold erroneous interpretations. (2) He needs
        > to show what the proper interpretation would be, and (3) He needs
        > to show that there is empirical evidence that the earth HAS BEEN
        > HERE LONGER THAN A FEW THOUSAND YEARS. To say it is old, is
        > different than saying it has been here a long time.

        That last sentence doesn't even make any sense, at least not to me.

        As to point (1), as I said above, if the Bible is true and the
        Earth is ancient, then the young-earth interpretation is wrong.

        I take that truth to be self-evident, but I will concede a point,
        here: "Goliath" is sound only so far as one holds to the idea
        that "God's word (the text)" is true. Robert has pointed this
        out numerous times: "Goliath" does not place the veracity of the
        text at risk -- no matter what the outcome, "God's word" is still
        true at the end.

        The record will show, though, that Jerry McDonald has sided with
        the atheist (Todd) against a "faithful brother in Christ" on this
        issue, and has declared that if some things are much much older
        than a few thousand years, then the Bible is not the word of God.
        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/13024

        And Robert rightly noted that "Goliath" may not be the appropriate
        argument for Jerry McDonald and Todd to use in hashing out the
        age of the Earth.

        As to point (2): No, it is not necessary to show what the proper
        interpretation is to show what it *isn't*. This has been pointed
        out to Jerry, and others, before now.

        But I don't mind:

        The proper interpretation is that when God gets through
        creating everything, He will rest, and those who are His servants
        will enter into that rest with Him. The six days cover the
        entire time span of the Universe, and after that is "the new heaven
        and the new earth".

        (3) The empirical evidence that the Earth has been here longer
        than a few thousand years is overwhelming. For Jerry McDonald
        to deny that it exists, or for him to fail to offer an alternate
        explanation for it, is not going to make it go away. For McDonald
        to say that I need to show that there is empirical evidence that
        the Earth has been here longer than a few thousand years is like
        walking along on the beach and McDonald asking me to show him that
        there is a such thing as sand.

        If this discussion gets very far along at all, you will see
        McDonald start attempting to redefine what "empirical evidence"
        is -- even what science itself is. (By the way, Jerry, I did
        notice in your "Hartzog's Fantasies 2" article that you seem to
        have left a significant chunk out of your quote about how
        scientific investigation proceeds, and just replaced it with "..."
        Nice try, but, sorry, I won't accept that NON-description of
        "science".)


        > Rick
        > > In modus ponens form, that looks like:
        > >
        > >
        > > Major premise: E => W
        > >
        > > Minor premise: E
        > >
        > > Conclusion: Therefore, W
        > >
        > >
        > > Now, because of the subject and the way various apologists
        > > have approached the evidence, this brings up an interesting
        > > situation, because there are some who think the evidence
        > > for an ancient Earth does not exist -- that when the evidence
        > > is "properly interpreted" it will show the Earth is only a
        > > few thousand years old -- and there are others who think that
        > > although the evidence does exist, it is only "apparent".
        >
        > McDonald
        > "Apparent" is not the right word to use in this case. When God
        > made Adam, he made him "fully grown." He was apparent age, he
        > was made at whatever age he was made. If God made him a 35 year
        > old man, he would have been a 35 year old man, not an apparent
        > 35 year old man. If God made the first tree at 60 years old,
        > the tree would have all the growth rings of a 60 year old tree.
        > When God made the earth, he didn't make it to where it would
        > appear to be old, he made it old. It was whatever age God made
        > it to be.

        The Bible says the plants grew out of the ground, not that God
        made fully-formed trees.

        When God creates the new heavens and the new earth, He says,
        "Behold, I make all things *new*" -- not "old", and not "new but
        just looks old".

        If the Genesis creation account is not literal but allegorical,
        there is no need of trying to pinpoint how old "Adam" -- man --
        was when God made him out of the "ground" -- the same "ground"
        that all the other animals were made from. If God brought
        Man up from the ground through several stages over millions
        of years, isn't that the same as "sped up Time"? (see below)


        > Rick
        > >
        > > Therefore, those who hold to the "young-earth creation-science"
        > > view can be expected to attempt to show the minor premise is
        > > false, and those who hold to the "apparent age" view can be
        > > expected to deny the major premise, i.e., although the evidence
        > > exists it does not imply the young-earth interpretation is wrong
        > > because the evidence is only "apparent".
        > >
        > > What is amusing to me is when someone can't make up their mind
        > > whether they want to cling to creation science or apparent age
        > > and they try to flip-flop from one to the other, because when
        > > you really get down to the business the two are mutually
        > > exclusive. If you don't understand that right off, think about
        > > it for a little while and it'll come to you -- either the
        > > physical world can be considered a source of reliable evidence
        > > about itself or it cannot.
        >
        > McDonald
        > There is no contradiction between the earth being made fully grown
        > and creation science. If Rick knew anything about "creation
        > science" he would know that. However, his ignorance of the subject
        > will not deny the fact that those who believe in "creation science"
        > believe that God made everything in a fully grown state. When I
        > first became associated with the "creation science" group (during
        > my debate with Robert Baty which is located at my challenge website
        > at http://www.challenge2.org) I knew nothing of what they were or
        > what they believed. After having been associated with them now for
        > the last several months, I have found that (while there may be some
        > minor disagreements over how God aged everything) they all believe
        > that when God made the universe he made it fully grown.

        Believe? BELIEVE??? I don't care WHAT they *believe* -- if they
        don't have evidence for it it is not science and cannot pretend
        to be science! A "belief", to science, is a hypothesis, and subject
        to testing to see whether that belief will hold up. The "beliefs"
        of these "scientists" do not hold up to the test!

        No contradiction between a "fully-grown" Earth and "creation-
        science"? Of course there is! And the contradiction is
        ungetoverable! I already told McDonald how amusing it is when
        someone can't make up their mind and they want to flip-flop back
        and forth between "creation science" and "apparent age".

        Oh, no no no, Jerry; that just isn't going to work!

        You might have noticed that none of these young-earth "scientists"
        have submitted anything about what they "believe" to any scientific
        journals. Heck, they won't even "come out" away from the safety
        of their little creation-science talk group and try to defend
        what they "believe" in a public forum!

        "Minor disagreements"?

        Let me clue you in on a little secret: they can't use empirical
        science to determine *which* side of the disagreement is the
        right one, because as soon as they do, the whole carnival will
        come crashing down around them!

        Now, Jerry, in this same thread, in the last message I posted,
        which you never answered, message # 13094, I asked you to please
        show us the line of demarcation between what is really old and
        what just "looks" old. Where, on this Earth and in this Universe,
        does what really is as it appears to be stop, and what is just
        illusion begin?

        In our discussion of SN 1987A, which you seem to be forgetting
        about for the present time, I said something about a "space-time
        continuum". Now you are going to have to show me the time and
        place in the space-time continuum beyond which everything is just
        "apparent".

        Is it last Thursday? Is it five minutes ago? Is my newspaper
        real? How do I know?


        > Dr. Russell Humphreys uses "white hole cosmology"
        > and "gravitational time-dilation" to explain why distant stars
        > are older, and others have yet other theories. However, they
        > all unanimously agree that those stars haven't been there for
        > billions of years. Even with Dr. Humphreys "time dilation"
        > theory (in which he says that God aged these stars billions
        > of years in the time that it took 24 hours to pass on this
        > earth) he still argues that this happened in 24 earth hours.

        But that is not science. That is fantasy, Jerry. There is no
        evidence for it, and a whole Universe full of evidence that
        contradicts it. And, by the way, distant stars are not "older".

        They "all unanimously agree that those stars haven't been there
        for billions of years"? Well of course they do! They're young-
        earth creationists! Like, duh! Trouble is, they don't have any
        evidence whatsoever to justify their "agreement", other than
        that they have "agreed" to insist on a literalistic, narrow-minded
        reading of Scripture that is falsified by all the real-world
        evidence! That is ALL the evidence they have, their own
        *interpretation* of the Bible. They have NO scientific evidence
        whatsoever that the Earth is only a few thousand years old.

        NONE!


        > I don't think any of the ones on the list I am on call it "apparent
        > age." They all admit that the stars are old, not just appear to be
        > old; they are old. However, they haven't been there for billions of
        > years; not as years measured on earth. If God sped up time in the
        > distant universe to age stars billions of years, then they are
        > billions of years old just like Adam would be 35 years old.
        > However, they haven't been there for billions of years just like
        > Adam hadn't been there for the 35 years.

        WHAT 35 years?

        Trouble is, God "apparently" "sped up Time" right here on the Earth,
        so that it would correlate with the amount of Time that had been
        sped up in the rest of the Universe.

        So while this "sped up Time" was taking place, stars were growing
        old and dying, billions of years worth of radioactive decay was
        taking place in the Earth's rocks, billions of years of rotation
        of our solar system was leading to the orbits we now empirically
        observe, and assembling such features as the Kuiper Belt and the
        moons around the planets. Are the fossils real, Jerry, or are
        they just fake? Did these unusual creatures, some of which "appear"
        to be transitional forms between reptiles and early mammals, ever
        really exist?


        > Rick
        > >
        > > Neither of those choices, apparent age or creation science,
        > > seems sustainable to me -- on the one hand creation science is
        > > wholly unable to withstand real science in a head-to-head
        > > confrontation, and on the other hand apparent age brings up
        > > questions about just what sort of God we're dealing with here.
        > >
        > > But when it comes to proving that "Goliath" is a sound
        > > argument, the major premise will be more difficult to prove
        > > true than the minor premise -- for all practical purposes the
        > > truth of the minor premise is proved already and all that is
        > > required is for some "young-earth creation-science" type to
        > > entertain us for a while with his silly presentations of
        > > pseudoscience until Todd starts smacking him around.
        > >
        > > But that major premise, that the Evidence implies the
        > > interpretation is Wrong, well, that's something else entirely.
        > > That is where there may be room for all sorts of interesting
        > > dialogue and philosophical discourse and debate.
        > >
        > > It should be mentioned that the person who truly supports the
        > > idea of apparent age should be just as opposed to the
        > > deliberate deceit of the "creation scientists" as all of us
        > > are. That means they should absolutely not support such
        > > shyster outfits as the Institute for Creation Research,
        > > Answers in Genesis, Apologetics Press and the Creation Science
        > > Research Quarterly; things that are perceived by the public
        > > as a wart on the nose of Christianity. Neither can the
        > > apparent age advocate rationally make any disparaging comments
        > > about what science discovers -- they already live in the
        > > midst of a whole Universe of illusion made by a Creator who is
        > > not averse to planting fake fossils in rocks or sending artificial
        > > beams of light hundreds of thousands of light-years across the
        > > Universe from events that never happened; what's a few more
        > > fossil hominid bones here and there?
        > >
        > > Either way, as Robert has noted on numerous occasions, attempting
        > > to show that "Goliath" is unsound results, at least in theory, in
        > > the downfall of "young-earth creation-science". And "apparently",
        > > even those who hold to the idea of "apparent age" have no real
        > > desire to see that happen, nor have they ever made a sustained
        > > effort to defend their own paradigm, that the whole Universe is
        > > just illusion. It seems to me that the apparent age advocate,
        > > in defending the literal truth of Genesis, would root up all
        > > of what we know of God from the rest of the Scriptures in the
        > > attempt.
        > >
        > >
        > > So is "Goliath" really sound? Yes, in mind and body as far as
        > > I know; no one has ever come close to defeating it. There have
        > > been several to make some very brash claims, but as the archives
        > > of this list show, those reports have been "greatly exaggerated".
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > Rick Hartzog
        > > Worldwide Church of Latitudinarianism

        > McDonald
        > If Rick is going to talk about Creation Science or "Apparent
        > Age" he needs to learn what he is talking about. He obviously
        > doesn't and his ignorance shows.
        >
        > In Christ Jesus
        > Jerry D. McDonald


        Ha ha ha. That's very funny.

        Now, Jerry, if you are going to try to say that part of the
        physical Universe is real, and therefore capable of being
        examined using scientific methodology, and part of it is only
        illusion, and is therfore *not* capable of being examined using
        empirical, scientific procedure, I am going to INSIST that you
        tell us which is which.

        If you are going to talk about "creation-science" out of one
        side of your mouth, and "apparent age" out of the other side,
        it is inevitable that you will contradict yourself, with your
        own words, again and again and again.



        Rick Hartzog
        Worldwide Church of Latitudinarianism
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.