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

What YECs believe! (aka, the silliness of Michael and James)

Expand Messages
  • Todd S. Greene
    Hi, everyone. There has been considerable quibbling by Michael and James Murphy concerning the six or ten thousand years that Robert Baty and I have
    Message 1 of 24 , Jun 2, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi, everyone.

      There has been considerable quibbling by Michael and James Murphy
      concerning the "six or ten thousand years" that Robert Baty and I
      have mentioned in connection with young earth creationism. It is
      almost as if (or maybe just "as if") Michael and James are seriously
      trying to pretend that the young earth creationist position is being
      misrepresented.

      The fact is that this particular range "six to ten thousand" years
      ago comes from the people involved in the young earth creationist
      movement itself. It certainly is NOT something that Robert or I just
      made up because we wanted to make up some kind of straw man
      misrepresentation of young earth creationists in order to make them
      look silly.

      The YEC literature is replete with making arguments about science
      based on this six to ten thousand year assumption. Barry
      Setterfield's lightspeed decay idea talks about the speed of light
      rising exponentially to almost infinity several thousand years ago.
      Thomas Barnes magnetic field decay argument is couched in terms of
      extrapolating the earth's magnetic field energy into the power of a
      magnetic star less than ten thousand years ago.

      What follows are various quotes from the writings of young earth
      creationists themselves. I have simply provided the quotes and will
      not comment on them here. I would like to point out to Michael in
      particular though that his claim earlier that Henry Morris did not
      advocate the six to ten thousand year timeframe is flatly incorrect.
      It is a matter of fact that Henry Morris has advocated the six to ten
      thousand year timeframe since at least the early 1940s (when he
      walked out of the American Scientific Affiliation after J. Laurence
      Kulp explained a number of critical flaws in the George McCready
      Price YEC "geology" that Morris followed at the time and then went on
      to advocate in the book *The Genesis Flood*).

      Gee, isn't the internet wonderful!

      Since this particular aspect of the YEC position has been pretty
      clear to virtually everyone anyway, one wonders what the purpose of
      Michael's and Jame's rambling on about this has been. Can you
      spell "D-I-S-T-R-A-C-T-I-O-N"?

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

      ================================================================

      "The only way we can determine the true age of the earth is for God
      to tell us what it is. And since he has told us, very plainly, in the
      Holy Scriptures that it is several thousand years of age, and no
      more, that ought to settle all basic questions of terrestrial
      chronology."

      [*The Remarkable Birth of Planet Earth*, by Henry Morris, 1972, p. 94]

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

      "...the earth almost certainly was created less than 10,000 years
      ago."

      [*The Scientific Case for Creationism*, by Henry Morris, 1977]

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

      "...the Biblical chronology is about a million times shorter than the
      evolutionary chronology. A million-fold mistake is no small matter,
      and Biblical scholars surely need to give primary attention to
      resolving this tremendous discrepancy right at the very foundation of
      our entire Biblical cosmology. This is not a peripheral issue that
      can be dismissed with some exegetical twist, but is central to the
      very integrity of scriptural theology."

      [*The Biblical Basis for Modern Science* by Henry Morris, 1984, p.
      115]

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

      "The proponents of this model [young earth creationism] for
      interpreting geological history believe that the correct
      interpretation of Genesis requires acceptance of a creation spanning
      six 24-hour days. Furthermore, the genealogies listed in Genesis and
      elsewhere in the Bible, it is believed, would restrict the time of
      creation to somewhere between six thousand and about ten thousand
      years ago."

      [*Evolution? The Fossils Say No!*, General Edition, by Duane Gish,
      1972, p. 60]

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

      http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/frank_zindler/
      morris-zindler.html
      (note line-wrapping of link)

      FRANK ZINDLER: That means that that hunk of time was at least six
      million years in duration. And that wipes out not only Noah's flood,
      but the whole mythology of the Bible and creation. The earth was
      created 4004 B.C. if you add up all the "begats" in the Bible.

      DICK WOLFSIE: Are you comfortable with that date? 4004 B.C.?

      JOHN MORRIS: I would say, between six and ten thousand years...

      [John Morris, Henry Morris' son, is current head of the Institute for
      Creation Research (ICR)]

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

      "Both evolutionists and creationists believe evolution is an
      impossibility if the universe is only a few thousand years old. There
      probably is no statement that could be made on the topic of origins
      which would meet with so much agreement from both sides. Setting
      aside the question of whether vast time is competent to propel
      evolution, we must query if vast time is indeed available."

      [*The Creation-Evolution Controversy*, by R. L. Wysong, 1976, p. 144]

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

      http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/docs/
      date_of_creation.asp
      (note line-wrapping of link)
      by young earth creationist and AiG writer Don Batten

      "AiG [Answers in Genesis] takes the stand that the creation is
      thousands of years old, based on straight-forward acceptance of the
      chronology in Genesis."

      This AiG page goes on to state that "None of [the genealogical
      chronology studies] give a date of Creation of more than 9,000 years
      ago."

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

      http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/39/39_1/GeoMag.htm
      (Creation Research Society - CRS)
      by young earth creationist D. Russell Humphreys

      "...the creationist model: the [earth's magnetic] field has rapidly
      and continuously lost energy ever since God created it about 6,000
      years ago."

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

      http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/rr1999/r&r9908a.htm

      by young earth creationist and COC member Bert Thompson

      "There is one thing, however, on which creationists and evolutionists
      do agree: evolution is impossible if the Earth is young (with an age
      measured in thousands, not billions, of years)."

      "A simple, straightforward reading of the biblical record indicates
      that the Cosmos was created in six days only a few thousand years
      ago."

      "'Does the Bible address the age of the Earth?' Yes, it does."

      "The truth of the matter is that the Bible, being a book grounded in
      history, is filled with chronological data that may be used to
      establish a relative age for the Earth. It is not 'silent' on this
      topic, and thus there is no need to 'wait and see' or to 'reserve
      judgment.'"

      "...the Bible gives a chronological framework that establishes a
      relative age for the Earth—an age confined to a span of only a few
      thousand years."

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

      http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/rr1999/r&r9909a.htm

      "While it may be true on the one hand to say that an exact age of the
      Earth is unobtainable from the information contained within the
      genealogies, at the same time it is important to note that—using the
      best information available to us from Scripture—the genealogies
      hardly can be extended to anything much beyond 6,000 to 7,000 years."

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

      http://www.arky.org/newsltr/articles/gty/90-212.htm

      Young earth creationist John MacArthur writes:

      "When did God create? He created in six days about 6000 years ago,
      maybe a little more than that, but something certainly under ten
      thousand and closer to six thousand."

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

      http://www.grandrivermuseum.org/Creation%20Science.htm

      In the section "How Old is Earth?":

      Would it surprise you know that [hundreds of scientists] believe God
      created this universe in six 24 hour days about six to ten thousand
      years ago?

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

      http://www.csama.org/199707NL.HTM

      Young earth creationist Glenn Kailer states that Michael Behe is not
      a "biblical creationist" because Behe does not believe "in an earth
      formed only about ten thousand years ago."

      Also note that this page contains some discussion by the young earth
      creationist and geocentrist Tom Willis, who was instrumental in some
      political machinations in Kansas a few years ago regarding science
      curriculum standards.

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

      http://home.kc.rr.com/hightech/creation/creation203.html

      Quotes young earth creationist Walter Lang as writing (*Creation
      Scientists At Work*, 1982): "[Creationists] are demonstrating from
      comets, from cosmic dust, and from the way galaxies spin around, that
      the universe cannot be billions of years old as has been assumed. For
      example, the dust on the moon indicates that the moon is less than
      ten thousand years old."

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

      http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c026.html

      "Is the age of the Earth a 'trivial' doctrinal point?"

      [...]

      "Thousands of years old or billions, what does it matter? This is not
      a trivial point for the Christian faith. Although many Christians
      miss the connection at first glance, this issue is inseparably linked
      to the Gospel and the inerrancy of Scripture. Many Christians have
      thus been misled into believing that the young-Earth debate is a side
      issue and not relevant to everyday Christian life or the salvation
      message."

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

      http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/
      7438_issue_07_volume_3_number_1__1_1_1982.asp
      (note line-wrapping of link)

      "*Origins: Two Models* by Richard Bliss and *Scientific Creationism*
      edited by Henry Morris...argue for an earth and universe that are
      only ten thousand years in age."

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

      http://home.wnm.net/~derekg/forum/creationism_survey.html

      Here you see a clear breakdown between young earth creationists and
      others. Note that one YEC is willing to go as much as 20,000 years!
    • rlbaty50
      Todd, thanks for posting those quotes. I recall you mentioned you were going to do that and I was wondering if there was just too much going on to get it done.
      Message 2 of 24 , Jun 2, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        Todd, thanks for posting those quotes. I recall you mentioned you
        were going to do that and I was wondering if there was just too much
        going on to get it done.

        A couple caught my particular attention:

        > http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/rr1999/r&r9908a.htm
        > by young earth creationist and COC member Bert Thompson
        >
        > "A simple, straightforward reading of the biblical
        > record indicates that the Cosmos was created in six
        > days only a few thousand years ago."

        I was not using that for purposes of formulating the "GRAS", but it
        is nice that at least Bert and I do not seem to have any trouble
        understanding the "preciseness" of the term "few thousand years".

        The "GRAS" reads, in relevant part, just as Bert Thompson, Ph.D.
        would, and does, have it:

        > 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.

        The other one that caught my attention was, in relevant part:

        > http://home.kc.rr.com/hightech/creation/creation203.html
        > Quotes young earth creationist Walter Lang as
        > writing (*Creation Scientists At Work*, 1982):

        > For example, the dust on the moon indicates that
        > the moon is less than ten thousand years old."

        Michael didn't want to take me up on discussing that topic recently,
        and, as noted, we observe there has been a secret editing of that
        article by Bert Thompson, Ph.D. in recent days so as to simply
        eliminate his erroneous claim regarding the moon-dust claims he
        helped popularize over the last 20 years or so.

        Can we expect James and his secret expert to continue the discussions
        and work on cleaning up the mess they have created for themselves? I
        hope they haven't just resolved to secretly (Bert-like) change their
        ways and leave us to our speculations about them, their positions and
        behavior in these important public matters.

        Sincerely,
        Robert Baty
      • Todd S. Greene
        ... Hi, Robert. Yeah, just trying to find the time! I do have to say that it irks me to waste my time simply pointing out the OBVIOUS. I do NOT appreciate it.
        Message 3 of 24 , Jun 2, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In Maury_and_Baty, Robert Baty wrote (post #1337):
          > Todd, thanks for posting those quotes. I recall you mentioned you
          > were going to do that and I was wondering if there was just too
          > much going on to get it done.

          Hi, Robert.

          Yeah, just trying to find the time!

          I do have to say that it irks me to waste my time simply pointing out
          the OBVIOUS. I do NOT appreciate it. It's why I hate the SILLY
          RHETORICAL GAMES!

          >
          > A couple caught my particular attention:
          >
          >> http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/rr1999/r&r9908a.htm
          >> by young earth creationist and COC member Bert Thompson
          >>
          >> "A simple, straightforward reading of the biblical
          >> record indicates that the Cosmos was created in six
          >> days only a few thousand years ago."
          >
          > I was not using that for purposes of formulating the "GRAS", but
          > it is nice that at least Bert and I do not seem to have any
          > trouble understanding the "preciseness" of the term "few thousand
          > years".
          [snip]

          I thought that was interesting, too, since even I have never used the
          phrase "few thousand years" but have stuck with six thousand or ten
          thousand or "several thousand" years.

          Regards,
          Todd Greene
        • Michael
          [I would like to point out to Michael in particular though that his claim earlier that Henry Morris did not advocate the six to ten thousand year timeframe is
          Message 4 of 24 , Jun 2, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            [I would like to point out to Michael in
            particular though that his claim earlier that Henry Morris did not
            advocate the six to ten thousand year timeframe is flatly incorrect.
            It is a matter of fact that Henry Morris has advocated the six to ten
            thousand year timeframe since at least the early 1940s (when he
            walked out of the American Scientific Affiliation after J. Laurence
            Kulp explained a number of critical flaws in the George McCready
            Price YEC "geology" that Morris followed at the time and then went on
            to advocate in the book *The Genesis Flood*).]

            He also points out in his books that origins cannot be proven by either
            side. Are you saying that because one entertains a theoretical model and
            tests his hypothesis, this is inherently evil just because you think your
            evidence is stronger than his (regardless whether it is or not)?

            Now, since in the outset he states that the age of the earth cannot be
            scientifically proven for either side, he seems to be more honest with the
            facts that what I am reading. You seem to affirm that there is definite
            facts that prove the mile is at least this long. What I have read of Mr.
            Morris, he has been about presenting the theoretical model, while at the
            same time bolding telling you that this is not fact and cannot be
            scientifically proven. That is dealing with the evidence with more
            integrity than what I see in science text books that boldly tell us that
            such and such a rock is over 4 billion years old as if it were gospel truth
            and fact.

            V/r

            Michael
          • rlbaty50
            ... From my casual observations over time, it seems to me that what you are talking about, Michael, is the common ploy by the YEC movement leaders to suggest
            Message 5 of 24 , Jun 3, 2003
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "Michael" <dokimadzo@c...>
              wrote, in part:

              > He (Morris) also points out in his books
              > that origins cannot be proven by either
              > side. Are you saying that. . . this is
              > inherently evil just because you think your
              > evidence is stronger than his (regardless
              > whether it is or not)?
              >
              > Now, since in the outset he states that the
              > age of the earth cannot be scientifically
              > proven for either side, he seems to be more
              > honest with the facts. . .

              From my casual observations over time, it seems to me that what you
              are talking about, Michael, is the common ploy by the YEC movement
              leaders to suggest that because science is such as it is that the YEC
              claims are on equal footing.

              That origins cannot be "proven" by either side, or that the age of
              the earth cannot be "proven" down to the year, month, day, hour,
              minute and second is no basis upon which to give the YEC claims equal
              standing with legitimate science.

              It is not a matter of thinking the YEC claims have been falsified
              (the evidence from legitimate science is actually stronger), it has
              been falsified.

              If you are now wanting to move from your billion year age down to
              500,000, that's OK with me. You are not going to be in the class of
              folk commonly known as YEC to whom the GRAS is addressed.

              I think we noted earlier the need for a glossary here because of the
              tendency of some to use the same terms as others but with different
              meanings. I guess we need to add "YEC" to the list so that folks
              will know when you use the term and apply it to yourself you are
              talking about something different from that class of folks popularly
              known as "YEC".

              So far, we've got you down as agreeing with the GRAS as both valid
              and sound! If not, you really should come up with some for-real YEC
              evidence to talk about (I suggested the moon-dust promotion as
              popularized by Bert Thompson, Ph.D., Henry Morris, et al) or
              something substantive to convince us you don't really believe the
              empirical evidence is sufficient to falsify the YEC claims.

              Sincerely,
              Robert Baty
            • lipscombgene
              ... of ... Gene: If he s willing to allow the earth to be 500,000 years old, then he s really wasting everyone s time with all these arguments, because since
              Message 6 of 24 , Jun 3, 2003
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "rlbaty50" <rlbaty@w...> wrote:
                > If you are now wanting to move from your billion year age down to
                > 500,000, that's OK with me. You are not going to be in the class
                of
                > folk commonly known as YEC to whom the GRAS is addressed.

                Gene: If he's willing to allow the earth to be 500,000 years old,
                then he's really wasting everyone's time with all these arguments,
                because since every YEC I've ever met will not allow the genealogies
                of Genesis to be stretched enough to allow Adam/Eve to be longer than
                6000-10000 years ago.

                If you allow the earth to be much more than 10000 years old, then
                welcome to the Old Earth Creationist club. You're a member, because
                the YEC club will throw you out.

                You can't be a member of the YEC club if you don't hold to the 6000-
                10000 year old earth/universe.

                Period.

                All discussions of whether the earth is 500,000 or 4.6 billion years
                old are simply discussions among "friends" over how to measure the
                age, and are not YEC vs. everyone else.

                Unless, of course, you are REALLY trying to do nothing other than
                play extreme word games like our erstwhile friend Matt likes to do.

                That is a terrible time waster in itself.

                Gene
              • rlbaty50
                ... Take it easy on Matt now! I am hopeful we will hear more about his efforts with James on the logic issues. I am hopeful that the two of them are down to
                Message 7 of 24 , Jun 3, 2003
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "lipscombgene"
                  <genewright143@h...> wrote, in part:

                  > Unless, of course, you (Michael) are REALLY
                  > trying to do nothing other than play extreme
                  > word games like our erstwhile friend Matt
                  > likes to do.

                  Take it easy on Matt now! I am hopeful we will hear more about his
                  efforts with James on the logic issues. I am hopeful that the two of
                  them are down to all seriousness and no word games in their efforts
                  to resolve James' logic problems and the problem with that stunt
                  involving the secret witness.

                  Sincerely,
                  Robert Baty
                • mathewmaury
                  ... I feel affined to my colleague James. His drive and passion would enhance the quality of the interlocution here. Even if he does not discuss with Todd or
                  Message 8 of 24 , Jun 4, 2003
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- Robert reported that James wrote:
                    > I no longer discuss this with either
                    > of you (Todd & Robert).

                    I feel affined to my colleague James. His drive and passion
                    would enhance the quality of the interlocution here. Even if
                    he does not discuss with Todd or Robert, there are others
                    here whom he might find interesting! But as drive is often
                    antipodean to patience, Robert's quote above leads me to
                    conclude that his patience may be gone and he will be
                    driving elsewhere.

                    James and I did correspond privately. Any who wish private
                    correspondence with me may find my email address at the link
                    below:

                    http://profiles.yahoo.com/mathewmaury

                    There has been published speculation about my leaving this
                    list. My social conscience would likely require announcing
                    this myself were that to occur. I have no current plans to
                    leave voluntarily before this list is removed by the
                    authorities. But as elife sometimes conflicts with other
                    obligations and I may remain quiescent for extended periods.
                  • rlbaty50
                    ... I would hope that neither you or James would leave this little place, whether or not your engage in further discussions. It may be that others will take
                    Message 9 of 24 , Jun 4, 2003
                    • 0 Attachment
                      --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "mathewmaury"
                      <sqi7o0hh02@s...> wrote, in part:

                      > James and I did correspond privately. Any who
                      > wish private correspondence with me may find my
                      > email address at the link below:

                      > There has been published speculation about my leaving this
                      > list.

                      I would hope that neither you or James would leave this little place,
                      whether or not your engage in further discussions. It may be that
                      others will take up the "debate" over the "GRAS", though I have
                      noticed that James' recommended Religiousdebates list has yet to post
                      my note over there. My past experience with that list suggests they
                      may not like James' suggestion and observations. We will continue to
                      monitor that site for the interest that James indicated may be there.

                      In as much as you mentioned your private efforts with James to the
                      list, I figured that it would be nice to get you or James to offer a
                      follow-up on the details of that.

                      I can understand why you may not want to do so under the
                      circumstances. I can understand why James may not want to do so.
                      The inference I draw is that James comes down on the wrong side of
                      the issues under consideration and because of that you do not want to
                      add to his problems by discussing your failure to help him in your
                      private efforts.

                      Sincerely,
                      Robert Baty
                    • mathewmaury
                      ... The private correspondence between James and myself was quite felicitous for both parties. That I publish no summary here is not meant to imply anything
                      Message 10 of 24 , Jun 4, 2003
                      • 0 Attachment
                        --- rlbaty50 wrote:

                        > The inference I draw ...

                        The private correspondence between James and myself was quite
                        felicitous
                        for both parties. That I publish no summary here is not meant to imply
                        anything other than a respect for privacy.
                      • rlbaty50
                        ... I can imagine that was, indeed, the case. However, we might still opine the reasons for James failure to himself disclose the assistance you provided or
                        Message 11 of 24 , Jun 4, 2003
                        • 0 Attachment
                          --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "mathewmaury"
                          <sqi7o0hh02@s...> wrote:

                          > The private correspondence between James and
                          > myself was quite felicitous for both parties.

                          I can imagine that was, indeed, the case.

                          However, we might still opine the reasons for James' failure to
                          himself disclose the assistance you provided or otherwise meet his
                          public obligations regarding the logic issues raised by him in these
                          discussions. (After all, he does keep telling folks how he knows why
                          I am not bugging academics for input on the "GRAS")

                          In any case, it would be nice to hear your take on the various logic
                          issues which I have sought to address, other than that "preciseness"
                          ruse that grieved poor James so much.

                          I did good on all that, right? Right!

                          I've even got my own secret expert witness (though folks observant
                          will recognize the source as one I have given in other discussions of
                          such things). Like, James simply ran away from trying to match his
                          secret witness to my own.

                          Sincerely,
                          Robert Baty
                        • mathewmaury
                          ... The recent logic discussions on this list have been a worthwhile exercise in whetting thinking skills. Both sides of the discussion have benefitted from
                          Message 12 of 24 , Jun 4, 2003
                          • 0 Attachment
                            --- rlbaty wrote:
                            > In any case, it would be nice to hear your take on the
                            > various logic issues which I have sought to address, other
                            > than that "preciseness" ruse that grieved poor James so
                            > much.

                            The recent logic discussions on this list have been a
                            worthwhile exercise in whetting thinking skills. Both sides
                            of the discussion have benefitted from this. GRAS is a
                            worthy battlefield.

                            Is the argument superbly formed and precise enough to pass
                            muster by professors in formal logic? Maybe not. But Robert
                            likes it. It expresses his belief. It is nice and short. It
                            has a formidible reputation. It has a catchy name. I did not
                            care for the argument much at first, but it kind of grows on
                            a fellow.

                            What good is it to pick on the form when the argument itself
                            is understandable by all parties? I paraphrase the essential
                            kernel roughly as 'Things appear old, so they are old.' In
                            no way does my paraphrase have the grace of GRAS, but it
                            gleans the gist.

                            Any evidence (of age in this case) must be interpreted and
                            must be reconciled with other evidence. Rules of
                            interpretation must be developed. Where assumptions are
                            made, they should be openly stated. Theories and hypotheses
                            must be formed and tested where possible. The evidence
                            should be qualified.

                            Strict religionists may say 'no fair using science'. Those
                            of the scientific faith may say 'no fair considering
                            miracles'. It is difficult to agree on the conclusion when
                            the rules for each side are different.

                            The so-called creation scientists are more vulnerable. They
                            say 'science proves the miracles'. They are an easy target.
                            When an minor example of their science is demonstrated as
                            flawed (e.g. moondust) then their whole paradigm is held to
                            ridicule. They must overcome a higher standard in the
                            public's eye because they dare meddle in the realm of 'real
                            science'.

                            Argumentation is a funny thing. One person may lose an
                            argument and still be right. Another may win an argument and
                            still be wrong. Arguments do not determine right or wrong.
                            They are a means to discover truth. God is real. The
                            universe is real. We are real. The truth is out there.

                            Does GRAS reveal unknown truth? I do not believe it is meant
                            to do so. It is an argument meant to change minds and
                            persuade those who may be wavering on the issue. Is it
                            effective? I hope not.
                          • rlbaty@webtv.net
                            I appreciate the sentiments, mathewmaury . ... I rather like to think of it as a way of reducing what Tom Warren (Ph.D. - Philosophy) has repeatedly referred
                            Message 13 of 24 , Jun 4, 2003
                            • 0 Attachment
                              I appreciate the sentiments, "mathewmaury".

                              I thought only for now to comment on this that you said:

                              > It (GRAS) is an argument meant
                              > to change minds and persuade
                              > those who may be wavering on
                              > the issue.

                              > Is it effective?

                              > I hope not.

                              I rather like to think of it as a way of reducing what Tom Warren (Ph.D.
                              - Philosophy) has repeatedly referred to as being able to reduce 400
                              pages of what might easily confuse the very elect down to a 3-line
                              syllogism that everybody can understand (my paraphrase).

                              I don't know if it will change anybody's mind.

                              Rather, I think it a place to refer to often in order to see more
                              clearly what the issue is all about.

                              I think you put your finger on it rather well in your commentary. If
                              only we could get James and his secret witness to admit to the same.

                              Sincerely,
                              Robert Baty
                            • rlbaty50
                              ... Well, we are still waiting for the GRAS to officially pass muster on that score. The Goliath of GRAS paces back and forth here, awaiting the davidic
                              Message 14 of 24 , Jun 5, 2003
                              • 0 Attachment
                                --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "mathewmaury"
                                <sqi7o0hh02@s...> wrote, in part:
                                >
                                > Is the argument superbly formed and precise
                                > enough to pass muster by professors in formal
                                > logic? Maybe not.

                                Well, we are still waiting for the "GRAS" to officially pass muster
                                on that score. The "Goliath of GRAS" paces back and forth here,
                                awaiting the davidic professors to come out and take their best
                                shots, or to join his merry little band.

                                The thought occurred to me that Chad (our member here) is on campus
                                at one of the prestigious universities in Abilene.

                                It may be that he will eventually take James up on his suggestion and
                                get one or more of the professors down there to comment and/or
                                discuss the validity of the "GRAS" in its proper historical context.

                                How about that prospect, Chad?

                                I've copied the "GRAS" following my name below for quick reference.

                                Sincerely,
                                Robert Baty

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

                                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.
                              • Chad Longley
                                ... ...snip... Probably not at this time. Frankly, I think the Math Department (the obvious place to find an individual highly versed in logic) is tired of
                                Message 15 of 24 , Jun 5, 2003
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  ...snip...

                                  > The thought occurred to me that Chad (our member here) is on campus
                                  > at one of the prestigious universities in Abilene.
                                  >
                                  > It may be that he will eventually take James up on his suggestion and
                                  > get one or more of the professors down there to comment and/or
                                  > discuss the validity of the "GRAS" in its proper historical context.
                                  >
                                  > How about that prospect, Chad?
                                  >

                                  ...snip...


                                  Probably not at this time. Frankly, I think the Math Department (the
                                  obvious place to find an individual highly versed in logic) is tired of
                                  seeing me around. I am trying to graduate from that department and I would
                                  just assume not pester anyone at this time. :-)

                                  For what it's worth, I have studied a bit on formal logic. I like the fact
                                  that GRAS is short and to the point, and I respect its meaning. However, I
                                  do see where James is having a problem with point 'c'. It is crystal clear
                                  to me; I understand that the 6k-10k idea comes from following genealogies.
                                  Back in my YEC days I did similar calculations myself, bought the Apparent
                                  Age concept, and swept all disagreeing data under the rug.

                                  Anyway, James is wanting to play word games with point 'c'. If it were
                                  written in there somehow where the 6k-10k interpretation comes from, I don't
                                  think James or anyone else could have grounds to complain -- except that
                                  they don't like it. Concerning the conclusion, I would agree that it is
                                  vague, but it is not required to be otherwise. A logical proof often shows
                                  what something *is not* (i.e.: interpretation is incorrect) instead of
                                  stating precisely what something *is*.

                                  I have no professional credentials or letters following my name making my
                                  opinion "gospel truth," but thems me thoughts.


                                  -- Chad Longley


                                  BTW: As soon as I finish up some end-of-the-fiscal-year stuff, I plan to dig
                                  around a bit into the tax-exempt housing allowance thing. I have a few
                                  questions first that I will ask at a later time.
                                • rlbaty50
                                  ... That is the beauty of GRAS ! Common-sense doesn t require any credentials or letters following ones name. It is short, sweet, and to the point that all
                                  Message 16 of 24 , Jun 5, 2003
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, Chad Longley <mcl98e@a...>
                                    wrote, in part:

                                    > I have no professional credentials or letters
                                    > following my name, but thems me thoughts.

                                    > BTW: As soon as I finish up some end-of-the-
                                    > fiscal-year stuff, I plan to dig around a bit
                                    > into the tax-exempt housing allowance thing.
                                    > I have a few questions first that I will ask
                                    > at a later time.

                                    That is the beauty of "GRAS"! Common-sense doesn't require any
                                    credentials or letters following ones name. It is short, sweet, and
                                    to the point that all can see what the fuss is about; James' efforts
                                    notwithstanding.

                                    As to the "BTW", I look forward to your further consideration of the
                                    matter. I'll be glad to tell you what I know about whatever
                                    questions you may have; when you get around to asking them.

                                    Sincerely,
                                    Robert Baty
                                  • Todd S. Greene
                                    Hi, Michael. This is a simple matter. When it comes to religious proclamations, Henry Morris has strongly advocated six to ten thousand years. When it comes to
                                    Message 17 of 24 , Jun 6, 2003
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      Hi, Michael.

                                      This is a simple matter. When it comes to religious proclamations,
                                      Henry Morris has strongly advocated six to ten thousand years. When
                                      it comes to making public statements concerning their "scientific"
                                      position, he (and other young earth creationists) came up with this
                                      rhetorical front about models and not being able to prove either side
                                      for gaming purposes in the public, and political, forum. (This is
                                      why, for example, there was a standard edition of the book
                                      *Scientific Creationism*, complete with scriptural references, and
                                      then a public edition with scriptural references removed. YECs love
                                      to play games!) By the way, this rhetorical front has already been
                                      presented, and rejected, in a court of law, namely the Arkansas case
                                      in the early 1980s.

                                      The fact remains that GRAS represents the YEC position accurately.

                                      Tell you what, Michael, you produce statements by Henry Morris saying
                                      that a Christian believing in the antiquity of the world is
                                      compatible with the Bible, and I shall immediately acknowledge my
                                      error and correct it. However, I will point out here that I know and
                                      you know that you can't produce any such statements, because Henry
                                      Morris has always argued strongly to the contrary of this, for
                                      decades.

                                      You mention dealing with the evidence with integrity. In the 1940s in
                                      the American Scientific Affiliation, J. Laurence Kulp explained to
                                      Morris some specific errors of George McCready Price's ideas
                                      concerning geology (who Morris got his ideas from). Morris ignored
                                      these errors, walked out of the ASA, and continued to promote these
                                      erroneous ideas. It is by this kind of behavior (obstinately refusing
                                      to acknowledge and correct error, and then obstinately promoted these
                                      erroneous ideas) that people demonstrate their lack of integrity.

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


                                      --- In Maury_and_Baty, Michael <dokimadzo@c...> wrote (post #1348):
                                      >> I would like to point out to Michael in
                                      >> particular though that his claim earlier that Henry Morris did
                                      >> not advocate the six to ten thousand year timeframe is flatly
                                      >> incorrect. It is a matter of fact that Henry Morris has
                                      >> advocated the six to ten thousand year timeframe since at least
                                      >> the early 1940s (when he walked out of the American Scientific
                                      >> Affiliation after J. Laurence Kulp explained a number of
                                      >> critical flaws in the George McCready Price YEC "geology" that
                                      >> Morris followed at the time and then went on to advocate in the
                                      >> book *The Genesis Flood*).
                                      >
                                      > He also points out in his books that origins cannot be proven by
                                      > either side. Are you saying that because one entertains a
                                      > theoretical model and tests his hypothesis, this is inherently
                                      > evil just because you think your evidence is stronger than his
                                      > (regardless whether it is or not)?
                                      >
                                      > Now, since in the outset he states that the age of the earth
                                      > cannot be scientifically proven for either side, he seems to be
                                      > more honest with the facts that what I am reading. You seem to
                                      > affirm that there is definite facts that prove the mile is at
                                      > least this long. What I have read of Mr. Morris, he has been
                                      > about presenting the theoretical model, while at the same time
                                      > bolding telling you that this is not fact and cannot be
                                      > scientifically proven. That is dealing with the evidence with
                                      > more integrity than what I see in science text books that boldly
                                      > tell us that such and such a rock is over 4 billion years old as
                                      > if it were gospel truth and fact.
                                    • rlbaty50
                                      ... For those who may have missed it, here is the GRAS, or as it is becoming more popularly known as, the Goliath of GRAS : ############################ Major
                                      Message 18 of 24 , Jun 6, 2003
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "Todd S. Greene"
                                        <greeneto@y...> wrote, in part:
                                        >
                                        > The fact remains that GRAS represents the YEC
                                        > position accurately.

                                        For those who may have missed it, here is the GRAS, or as it is
                                        becoming more popularly known as, the "Goliath of GRAS":

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

                                        Major premise:

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

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

                                        Sincerely,
                                        Robert Baty
                                      • Michael
                                        Now, I wonder if you have
                                        Message 19 of 24 , Jun 7, 2003
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          <<This is a simple matter. When it comes to religious proclamations,
                                          Henry Morris has strongly advocated six to ten thousand years.>>


                                          Now, I wonder if you have qualified this the same in the past. Have you?
                                          Be honest.

                                          Mr. Morris has advocated this position, but not based upon science, and I
                                          guess that is your point of gras.

                                          NAME JUST ONE SCIENTIST THAT HAS GOTTEN everything CORRECT! Will you?

                                          (This is not to say Mr. Morris is wrong)


                                          Your argument, it seems, that since he has said "so and so" is proven to be
                                          false, all he said must be along the same line!!!!

                                          Is that truly your argument?????

                                          V/r

                                          Michael
                                        • Todd S. Greene
                                          ... Hi, Michael. What are you talking about? Here is the link to my post that you are responding to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/1379
                                          Message 20 of 24 , Jun 8, 2003
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            --- In Maury_and_Baty, Michael <dokimadzo@c...> wrote (post #1388):
                                            >> This is a simple matter. When it comes to religious
                                            >> proclamations, Henry Morris has strongly advocated six to ten
                                            >> thousand years.
                                            >
                                            > Now, I wonder if you have qualified this the same in the past.
                                            > Have you? Be honest.

                                            Hi, Michael.

                                            What are you talking about? Here is the link to my post that you are
                                            responding to:

                                            http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/1379

                                            I really don't like being taken out of context. This horse has been
                                            quite killed, and we are wasting our time continuing to beat it. You
                                            have pointed out absolutely nothing that controverts what I pointed
                                            out to you in that post.

                                            I told you in that post: "you produce statements by Henry Morris
                                            saying that a Christian believing in the antiquity of the world is
                                            compatible with the Bible, and I shall immediately acknowledge my
                                            error and correct it. However, I will point out here that I know and
                                            you know that you can't produce any such statements, because Henry
                                            Morris has always argued strongly to the contrary of this, for
                                            decades."

                                            Produce the Morris statements, or give it up.

                                            Regards,
                                            Todd Greene


                                            >
                                            > Mr. Morris has advocated this position, but not based upon
                                            > science, and I guess that is your point of gras.
                                            >
                                            > NAME JUST ONE SCIENTIST THAT HAS GOTTEN everything CORRECT! Will
                                            > you?
                                            >
                                            > (This is not to say Mr. Morris is wrong)
                                            >
                                            > Your argument, it seems, that since he has said "so and so" is
                                            > proven to be false, all he said must be along the same line!!!!
                                            >
                                            > Is that truly your argument?????
                                          • Michael
                                            Mr. Greene, Can you quote Mr. Morris arguments where his beliefs are scientific? Huh? Or, is it based on
                                            Message 21 of 24 , Jun 8, 2003
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              <<Produce the Morris statements, or give it up.>>

                                              Mr. Greene,

                                              Can you quote Mr. Morris' arguments where his beliefs are "scientific?"
                                              Huh? Or, is it based on what the Bible teaches?

                                              How can you say that scientific evidence proves that the earth is over
                                              100K years, or 4 billion years, or whatever? That is the issue between
                                              us. See?

                                              V/r

                                              Michael
                                            • Todd S. Greene
                                              ... [Todd Greene wrote,] Produce the Morris statements, or give it up. ... Hi, Michael. Gee, let s see, I already quoted Henry Morris (among many other YECs)
                                              Message 22 of 24 , Jun 10, 2003
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                --- In Maury_and_Baty, Michael <dokimadzo@c...> wrote (post #1402):
                                                [Todd Greene wrote,] "Produce the Morris statements, or give it up."
                                                >
                                                > Mr. Greene,
                                                >
                                                > Can you quote Mr. Morris' arguments where his beliefs are
                                                > "scientific?" Huh? Or, is it based on what the Bible teaches?
                                                >
                                                > How can you say that scientific evidence proves that the earth is
                                                > over 100K years, or 4 billion years, or whatever? That is the
                                                > issue between us. See?

                                                Hi, Michael.

                                                Gee, let's see, I already quoted Henry Morris (among many other YECs)
                                                in this post:

                                                http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/1335

                                                I realize you don't like to have your argument against GRAS be so
                                                thoroughly thrashed as that, but there you go.

                                                Again, in post #1379 I told you: "you produce statements by Henry
                                                Morris saying that a Christian believing in the antiquity of the
                                                world is compatible with the Bible, and I shall immediately
                                                acknowledge my error and correct it. However, I will point out here
                                                that I know and you know that you can't produce any such statements,
                                                because Henry Morris has always argued strongly to the contrary of
                                                this, for decades."

                                                My statement is correct, and that statement is substantiated by
                                                quotes of Morris himself. You, on the other hand, haven't quoted
                                                Morris about anything at all. We can't get you to substantiate any of
                                                your claims, even after much repetition in asking you to do so.

                                                The GRAS correctly represents the YEC position, with was the context
                                                of this being brought up in the first place, and Morris is simply one
                                                leading example of the YEC position, and his statements that I quoted
                                                thoroughly substantiate what is represented in the GRAS.

                                                This horse is quite dead, Michael. How much longer are you going to
                                                keep beating it?

                                                Regards,
                                                Todd S. Greene
                                                http://www.creationism.cc/
                                              • Michael
                                                In like manner, I also would like to see proof that GRAS, or, err
                                                Message 23 of 24 , Jun 14, 2003
                                                • 0 Attachment
                                                  <<Well, we are still waiting for the "GRAS" to officially pass muster
                                                  on that score.>>

                                                  In like manner, I also would like to see "proof" that GRAS, or, err grasssss
                                                  does, indeed, pass the official mustard.

                                                  The math is still in Q. anyone care to join?
                                                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.