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

Re: Testing a fundamental position - "Goliath of GRAS"!

Expand Messages
  • w_w_c_l
    Robert Baty may have left us, but Goliath stayed behind! ... I would like to post comments from one of the former leading lights within the churches of
    Message 1 of 10 , Nov 29, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      Robert Baty may have left us, but "Goliath" stayed behind!

      Here's one of Robert's posts from the archives:
      ----------------------------------------------------

      I would like to post comments from one of the former leading lights
      within the churches of Christ and its "young-earth, creation-science"
      movement. To date, no "young- earth, creation-science" promoter has
      dared to repudiate, deny or rebut the comments.

      I would also then like to give my "Goliath of GRAS" argument for any
      who may want to "come out" in response to its call and take up the
      public discussion as to the argument's validity, soundness and the
      proposed formal, in writing, for the record discussion on the
      evidence of age.

      The recommended propositions for the proposed discussion on the
      evidence of age follows the presentation of the "Goliath of GRAS".

      Here now to provide the context for considering my "Goliath of GRAS"
      are the comments from that leading light amongst the "young-earth,
      creation-science" movement within the churches of Christ:

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

      http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/1991

      THE YOUNG EARTH

      (excerpts)

      "(T)he most serious area of conflict between the biblical account and
      the evolutionary scenario is the chronological framework of history

      > in other words,
      > the age of the Earth.

      While a young Earth/Universe presents no problem for a creationist,
      it is the death knell to each variety of the evolutionary model.

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

      Much of the controversy today between creationists and evolutionists
      revolves around the age of the Earth.

      A large part of that controversy centers around the fact that there
      is no compromise that will permit the old-Earth/young-Earth scenarios
      to coexist; the gulf separating the biblical and evolutionary views
      on the topic of the age of the Earth is just too large

      (W)e must "query if vast time is indeed available."

      That is our purpose here.

      There is ample scientific evidence to indicate that such time is not
      available, and that the Earth is relatively young, not extremely old.

      That evidence needs to be examined and considered...

      There is good scientific evidence that the Earth...has an age of only
      a few thousand years, just as the Bible plainly indicates."

      (end excerpt)

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

      It is undisputed, as the above shows, that some folks believe that
      the Bible teaches that "nothing is more than a few thousand
      years old".

      The relevant question, when it comes to the fundamental "young-earth,
      creation-science" position on that point is whether or not the real
      world evidence really does support that interpretation or if that
      interpretation is subject to falsification based on the real world
      evidence.

      I've developed a simple, logically valid argument (i.e., "Goliath of
      GRAS") proposing that the real world interpretation of the text
      commonly associated with the "young-earth, creation-science"
      (i.e., "nothing is more than a few thousand years old) movement is
      subject to falsification with reference to the real world evidence.

      Here it is, 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 some thing is
      > actually much older than a few
      > thousand years, then the
      > interpretation of the text by
      > some is wrong.

      Minor premise:

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

      Conclusion:

      > The interpretation of the text
      > by some is wrong.

      You are welcome to try your hand at impeaching the validity of the
      argument, or simply accept it for what it is...a simple, logically
      valid statement of the real world falsification test for the
      fundamental real world claim commonly associated with the
      "young-earth, creation-science" movement.

      It is further proposed that the only disputed aspect of the above
      argument, in the context of the popular "young-earth, creation-
      science" movement, is the "evidence of age".

      In order to deal with that issue, a formal, in writing, for the record
      discussion is proposed with the following suggested propositions:

      Proposition #1:

      > The empirical evidence shows
      > that the Earth has been in
      > existence longer than one
      > hundred thousand (100,000)
      > years.

      > Affirm: Todd S. Greene
      > Deny: ???

      Proposition #2:

      > The empirical evidence shows
      > that the Universe has been in
      > existence longer than one
      > hundred thousand (100,000)
      > years.

      > Affirm: Todd S. Greene
      > Deny: ???

      Proposition #3:

      > The empirical evidence shows
      > that the Earth is less than one
      > hundred thousand (100,000)
      > years old

      > Affirm: ???
      > Deny: Todd S Greene

      Proposition #4:

      > The empirical evidence shows
      > that the Universe is less than
      > one hundred thousand
      > (100,000) years old.

      > Affirm: ???
      > Deny: Todd S. Greene

      To date, I have not been able to facilitate the proposed discussion.

      The invitation remains outstanding, with specific, logistical
      details to be worked out between the two agreeing to engage in the
      discussion.

      Typically, those desiring to see my "Goliath of GRAS" defeated
      have themselves retreated into the UNscientific position
      popularized by Dr. Fox and summarized as follows:

      > I've got my interpretation
      > of the text regarding the
      > real world and that trumps
      > any real world evidence
      > to the contrary.

      Dr. Fox's position effectively concedes that "young-earth,
      creation-science" cannot stand up to scrutiny as being "science"
      and that the real world evidence falsifies "young-earth, creation-
      science".

      That is a good thing to know.

      Sincerely,
      Robert Baty

      -------------------------------------------------
    • w_w_c_l
      I would like to post comments from one of the former leading lights within the churches of Christ and its young-earth, creation-science movement. To date, no
      Message 2 of 10 , Jan 8, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        I would like to post comments from one of the former leading lights
        within the churches of Christ and its "young-earth, creation-science"
        movement. To date, no "young- earth, creation-science" promoter has
        dared to repudiate, deny or rebut the comments.

        I would also then like to give my "Goliath of GRAS" argument for
        any who may want to "come out" in response to its call and take up
        the public discussion as to the argument's validity, soundness and
        the proposed formal, in writing, for the record discussion on the
        evidence of age.

        The recommended propositions for the proposed discussion on the
        evidence of age follows the presentation of the "Goliath of GRAS".

        Here now to provide the context for considering my "Goliath of GRAS"
        are the comments from that leading light amongst the "young-earth,
        creation-science" movement within the churches of Christ:

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

        http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/1991

        THE YOUNG EARTH

        (excerpts)

        "(T)he most serious area of conflict between the biblical account and
        the evolutionary scenario is the chronological framework of history

        > in other words,
        > the age of the Earth.

        While a young Earth/Universe presents no problem for a creationist,
        it is the death knell to each variety of the evolutionary model.

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

        Much of the controversy today between creationists and
        evolutionists revolves around the age of the Earth.

        A large part of that controversy centers around the fact that
        there is no compromise that will permit the old-Earth/young-Earth
        scenarios to coexist; the gulf separating the biblical and
        evolutionary views on the topic of the age of the Earth is just
        too large.

        (W)e must "query if vast time is indeed available."

        That is our purpose here.

        There is ample scientific evidence to indicate that such time
        is not available, and that the Earth is relatively young, not
        extremely old.

        That evidence needs to be examined and considered...

        There is good scientific evidence that the Earth...has an age
        of only a few thousand years, just as the Bible plainly indicates."

        (end excerpt)

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

        It is undisputed, as the above shows, that some folks believe
        that the Bible teaches that "nothing is more than a few thousand
        years old".

        The relevant question, when it comes to the fundamental
        "young-earth, creation-science" position on that point is
        whether or not the real world evidence really does support
        that interpretation or if that interpretation is subject to
        falsification based on the real world evidence.

        I've developed a simple, logically valid argument (i.e., "Goliath
        of GRAS") proposing that the real world interpretation of the text
        commonly associated with the "young-earth, creation-science"
        (i.e., "nothing is more than a few thousand years old) movement
        is subject to falsification with reference to the real world
        evidence.

        Here it is, 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 some thing is
        > actually much older than a few
        > thousand years, then the
        > interpretation of the text by
        > some is wrong.

        Minor premise:

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

        Conclusion:

        > The interpretation of the text
        > by some is wrong.

        You are welcome to try your hand at impeaching the validity
        of the argument, or simply accept it for what it is...a simple,
        logically valid statement of the real world falsification test
        for the fundamental real world claim commonly associated with
        the "young-earth, creation-science" movement.

        It is further proposed that the only disputed aspect of the
        above argument, in the context of the popular "young-earth,
        creation-science" movement, is the "evidence of age".

        In order to deal with that issue, a formal, in writing, for the
        record discussion is proposed with the following suggested
        propositions:

        Proposition #1:

        > The empirical evidence shows
        > that the Earth has been in
        > existence longer than one
        > hundred thousand (100,000)
        > years.

        > Affirm: Todd S. Greene
        > Deny: ???

        Proposition #2:

        > The empirical evidence shows
        > that the Universe has been in
        > existence longer than one
        > hundred thousand (100,000)
        > years.

        > Affirm: Todd S. Greene
        > Deny: ???

        Proposition #3:

        > The empirical evidence shows
        > that the Earth is less than one
        > hundred thousand (100,000)
        > years old

        > Affirm: ???
        > Deny: Todd S Greene

        Proposition #4:

        > The empirical evidence shows
        > that the Universe is less than
        > one hundred thousand
        > (100,000) years old.

        > Affirm: ???
        > Deny: Todd S. Greene

        To date, I have not been able to facilitate the proposed discussion.

        The invitation remains outstanding, with specific, logistical
        details to be worked out between the two agreeing to engage
        in the discussion.

        Typically, those desiring to see my "Goliath of GRAS" defeated
        have themselves retreated into the UNscientific position
        popularized by Dr. Fox and summarized as follows:

        > I've got my interpretation
        > of the text regarding the
        > real world and that trumps
        > any real world evidence
        > to the contrary.

        Dr. Fox's position effectively concedes that "young-earth,
        creation-science" cannot stand up to scrutiny as being
        "science" and that the real world evidence falsifies
        "young-earth, creation-science".

        In January of 2008, Jerry McDonald affirmed a more formal statement
        of the Dr. Fox's positions whereby Jerry McDonald affirmed as true
        the following proposition:

        > If God's word (the text) says that
        > everything was created in six days,
        > and if that is interpreted by some
        > to mean six literal 24 hour days no
        > more than 10,000 years ago, then
        > everything was created in six literal
        > 24 hour days no more than 10,000
        > years ago.

        The logic and error of the claim made by Dr. Fox and formalized by
        Jerry McDonald should be self-evident as the geocentric exercise of
        years gone by has taught us.

        That is a good thing to know.

        Don't agree?

        Can we talk about it?

        Maybe you are the one to convince us otherwise!

        Sincerely,
        Robert Baty

        --------------------
        --------------------
      • Todd S. Greene
        ... Take a look at this relevant excerpt from my post #12012 (Aug. 30, 2007): ... So, yes, Jerry has already openly admitted that he is going to believe his
        Message 3 of 10 , Jan 9, 2008
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In Maury_and_Baty were statements by Robert Baty as follows (post
          #13581):
          |[snip]
          > Typically, those desiring to see my "Goliath of GRAS"
          > defeated have themselves retreated into the
          > UNscientific position popularized by Dr. Fox and
          > summarized as follows:
          >
          >> I've got my interpretation of the text regarding the
          >> real world and that trumps any real world evidence
          >> to the contrary.
          >
          > Dr. Fox's position effectively concedes that "young-earth,
          > creation-science" cannot stand up to scrutiny as being
          > "science" and that the real world evidence falsifies
          > "young-earth, creation-science".
          >
          > In January of 2008, Jerry McDonald affirmed a more formal
          > statement of the Dr. Fox's positions whereby Jerry
          > McDonald affirmed as true the following proposition:
          >
          >> If God's word (the text) says that everything
          >> was created in six days, and if that is
          >> interpreted by some to mean six literal 24
          >> hour days no more than 10,000 years ago, then
          >> everything was created in six literal 24 hour
          >> days no more than 10,000 years ago.
          >
          > The logic and error of the claim made by Dr. Fox and
          > formalized by Jerry McDonald should be self-evident as
          > the geocentric exercise of years gone by has taught us.
          >
          > That is a good thing to know.
          |[snip]

          Take a look at this relevant excerpt from my post #12012 (Aug. 30, 2007):

          I wrote:

          | In post #11975 Jerry McDonald wrote, "The young earth
          | interpretation of the Bible is right. You cannot get any
          | other interpretation out of it. I would have to reject
          | the so-called real world evidence to the contrary of
          | Biblical evidence."
          |
          | Jerry, this looks to me like you are making an argument
          | like this, 'If the Bible teaches that the Universe and
          | the Earth did not exist more than 6,000 to 10,000 years
          | ago, then that's what I will believe regardless of what
          | the scientific evidence shows.'

          Jerry replied:

          | Todd, You have it right.

          So, yes, Jerry has already openly admitted that he is going to believe
          his religious dogma REGARDLESS OF WHAT THE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE SHOWS.
          (And in that post I thanked him for this open admission of his.)

          This is the young earth creationist mindset, deliberately
          closed-minded against the actual scientific evidence because it
          contradicts their religious dogma. This is what proves that young
          earth creationist is an irrational position that is unscientific in
          its very nature, as well as being a scientifically false idea.

          - Todd Greene
        • w_w_c_l
          Robert Baty wrote: Testing a fundamental position - Goliath of GRAS ! I would like to post comments from one of the former leading lights within the churches
          Message 4 of 10 , Jan 27, 2008
          • 0 Attachment
            Robert Baty wrote:

            Testing a fundamental position - "Goliath of GRAS"!



            I would like to post comments from one of the former leading lights
            within the churches of Christ and its "young-earth, creation-science"
            movement. To date, no "young- earth, creation-science" promoter has
            dared to repudiate, deny or rebut the comments.

            I would also then like to give my "Goliath of GRAS" argument for
            any who may want to "come out" in response to its call and take up
            the public discussion as to the argument's validity, soundness and
            the proposed formal, in writing, for the record discussion on the
            evidence of age.

            The recommended propositions for the proposed discussion on the
            evidence of age follows the presentation of the "Goliath of GRAS".

            Here now to provide the context for considering my "Goliath of GRAS"
            are the comments from that leading light amongst the "young-earth,
            creation-science" movement within the churches of Christ:

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

            http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/1991

            THE YOUNG EARTH

            (excerpts)

            "(T)he most serious area of conflict between the biblical account and
            the evolutionary scenario is the chronological framework of history

            > in other words,
            > the age of the Earth.

            While a young Earth/Universe presents no problem for a creationist,
            it is the death knell to each variety of the evolutionary model.

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

            Much of the controversy today between creationists and
            evolutionists revolves around the age of the Earth.

            A large part of that controversy centers around the fact that
            there is no compromise that will permit the old-Earth/young-Earth
            scenarios to coexist; the gulf separating the biblical and
            evolutionary views on the topic of the age of the Earth is just
            too large.

            (W)e must "query if vast time is indeed available."

            That is our purpose here.

            There is ample scientific evidence to indicate that such time
            is not available, and that the Earth is relatively young, not
            extremely old.

            That evidence needs to be examined and considered...

            There is good scientific evidence that the Earth...has an age
            of only a few thousand years, just as the Bible plainly indicates."

            (end excerpt)

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

            It is undisputed, as the above shows, that some folks believe
            that the Bible teaches that "nothing is more than a few thousand
            years old".

            The relevant question, when it comes to the fundamental
            "young-earth, creation-science" position on that point is
            whether or not the real world evidence really does support
            that interpretation or if that interpretation is subject to
            falsification based on the real world evidence.

            I've developed a simple, logically valid argument (i.e., "Goliath
            of GRAS") proposing that the real world interpretation of the text
            commonly associated with the "young-earth, creation-science"
            (i.e., "nothing is more than a few thousand years old) movement
            is subject to falsification with reference to the real world
            evidence.

            Here it is, 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 some thing is
            > actually much older than a few
            > thousand years, then the
            > interpretation of the text by
            > some is wrong.

            Minor premise:

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

            Conclusion:

            > The interpretation of the text
            > by some is wrong.

            You are welcome to try your hand at impeaching the validity
            of the argument, or simply accept it for what it is...a simple,
            logically valid statement of the real world falsification test
            for the fundamental real world claim commonly associated with
            the "young-earth, creation-science" movement.

            It is further proposed that the only disputed aspect of the
            above argument, in the context of the popular "young-earth,
            creation-science" movement, is the "evidence of age".

            In order to deal with that issue, a formal, in writing, for the
            record discussion is proposed with the following suggested
            propositions:

            Proposition #1:

            > The empirical evidence shows
            > that the Earth has been in
            > existence longer than one
            > hundred thousand (100,000)
            > years.

            > Affirm: Todd S. Greene
            > Deny: ???

            Proposition #2:

            > The empirical evidence shows
            > that the Universe has been in
            > existence longer than one
            > hundred thousand (100,000)
            > years.

            > Affirm: Todd S. Greene
            > Deny: ???

            Proposition #3:

            > The empirical evidence shows
            > that the Earth is less than one
            > hundred thousand (100,000)
            > years old

            > Affirm: ???
            > Deny: Todd S Greene

            Proposition #4:

            > The empirical evidence shows
            > that the Universe is less than
            > one hundred thousand
            > (100,000) years old.

            > Affirm: ???
            > Deny: Todd S. Greene

            To date, I have not been able to facilitate the proposed discussion.

            The invitation remains outstanding, with specific, logistical
            details to be worked out between the two agreeing to engage
            in the discussion.

            Typically, those desiring to see my "Goliath of GRAS" defeated
            have themselves retreated into the UNscientific position
            popularized by Dr. Fox and summarized as follows:

            > I've got my interpretation
            > of the text regarding the
            > real world and that trumps
            > any real world evidence
            > to the contrary.

            Dr. Fox's position effectively concedes that "young-earth,
            creation-science" cannot stand up to scrutiny as being
            "science" and that the real world evidence falsifies
            "young-earth, creation-science".

            In January of 2008, Jerry McDonald affirmed a more formal statement
            of the Dr. Fox's positions whereby Jerry McDonald affirmed as true
            the following proposition:

            > If God's word (the text) says that
            > everything was created in six days,
            > and if that is interpreted by some
            > to mean six literal 24 hour days no
            > more than 10,000 years ago, then
            > everything was created in six literal
            > 24 hour days no more than 10,000
            > years ago.

            The logic and error of the claim made by Dr. Fox and formalized by
            Jerry McDonald should be self-evident as the geocentric exercise of
            years gone by has taught us.

            That is a good thing to know.

            Don't agree?

            Can we talk about it?

            Maybe you are the one to convince us otherwise!

            Sincerely,
            Robert Baty

            --------------------
            --------------------
          • rlbaty50
            You would think it would be easy to find a bonafide young-earth, creation-science type to seriously come out to test the fundamental real world claim that
            Message 5 of 10 , Jan 28, 2008
            • 0 Attachment
              You would think it would be easy to find a bonafide "young-earth,
              creation-science" type to seriously "come out" to test the
              fundamental real world claim that "nothing is more than a few
              thousand years old" against the real world evidence, independent of
              any interpretation of religious texts.

              Alas, it has not been easy and we are still waiting for a
              bonafide "young-earth, creation-science" type to "come out" and
              engage in a formal, in writing, for the record discussion as to the
              real world evidence of age, independent of any interpretation of
              religious texts.

              I don't know what has become of Jerry McDonald and his third negative
              in our debate over the otherwise irrefutable truth of the major
              premise of the "Goliath of GRAS" argument.

              I do notice that Jerry McDonald has not yet published my third
              affirmative on his website where he has posted the first and second
              affirmatives and negatives.

              As I recall, Jerry was last observed, relative to the debate, making
              like he had some kind of formal agreement with me regarding the
              logistics of the debate. He was rebutted/rebuked for trying to make
              such a claim where the record appears to most clearly show that he
              never engaged in good faith negotiations for such an exercise.

              The record indicates that I simply, following Jerry's own course in
              an earlier debate, proceeded to beging with posting of my first
              affirmative and Jerry then followed with his first negative; followed
              by my second affirmative, Jerry's second negative, and my third
              affirmative and a draft of my fourth affirmative.

              We are still waiting to see if Jerry McDonald will submit a third
              negative.

              My preference, of course, is for Jerry McDonald to simply come to
              realize and admit the simple truth reflected in the major premise of
              my "Goliath of GRAS"; a simple truth determinable by the force of
              reason and the stipulated defintions.

              Otherwise, the invitation reposted by Rick Hartzog (see copy
              following my name below) remains outstanding.

              Sincerely,
              Robert Baty

              --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "w_w_c_l" <w_w_c_l@...> wrote:

              Robert Baty wrote:

              Testing a fundamental position - "Goliath of GRAS"!

              I would like to post comments from one of the former leading lights
              within the churches of Christ and its "young-earth, creation-science"
              movement. To date, no "young- earth, creation-science" promoter has
              dared to repudiate, deny or rebut the comments.

              I would also then like to give my "Goliath of GRAS" argument for
              any who may want to "come out" in response to its call and take up
              the public discussion as to the argument's validity, soundness and
              the proposed formal, in writing, for the record discussion on the
              evidence of age.

              The recommended propositions for the proposed discussion on the
              evidence of age follows the presentation of the "Goliath of GRAS".

              Here now to provide the context for considering my "Goliath of GRAS"
              are the comments from that leading light amongst the "young-earth,
              creation-science" movement within the churches of Christ:

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

              http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/1991

              THE YOUNG EARTH

              (excerpts)

              "(T)he most serious area of conflict between the biblical account and
              the evolutionary scenario is the chronological framework of history

              > in other words,
              > the age of the Earth.

              While a young Earth/Universe presents no problem for a creationist,
              it is the death knell to each variety of the evolutionary model.

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

              Much of the controversy today between creationists and
              evolutionists revolves around the age of the Earth.

              A large part of that controversy centers around the fact that
              there is no compromise that will permit the old-Earth/young-Earth
              scenarios to coexist; the gulf separating the biblical and
              evolutionary views on the topic of the age of the Earth is just
              too large.

              (W)e must "query if vast time is indeed available."

              That is our purpose here.

              There is ample scientific evidence to indicate that such time
              is not available, and that the Earth is relatively young, not
              extremely old.

              That evidence needs to be examined and considered...

              There is good scientific evidence that the Earth...has an age
              of only a few thousand years, just as the Bible plainly indicates."

              (end excerpt)

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

              It is undisputed, as the above shows, that some folks believe
              that the Bible teaches that "nothing is more than a few thousand
              years old".

              The relevant question, when it comes to the fundamental
              "young-earth, creation-science" position on that point is
              whether or not the real world evidence really does support
              that interpretation or if that interpretation is subject to
              falsification based on the real world evidence.

              I've developed a simple, logically valid argument (i.e., "Goliath
              of GRAS") proposing that the real world interpretation of the text
              commonly associated with the "young-earth, creation-science"
              (i.e., "nothing is more than a few thousand years old) movement
              is subject to falsification with reference to the real world
              evidence.

              Here it is, 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 some thing is
              > actually much older than a few
              > thousand years, then the
              > interpretation of the text by
              > some is wrong.

              Minor premise:

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

              Conclusion:

              > The interpretation of the text
              > by some is wrong.

              You are welcome to try your hand at impeaching the validity
              of the argument, or simply accept it for what it is...a simple,
              logically valid statement of the real world falsification test
              for the fundamental real world claim commonly associated with
              the "young-earth, creation-science" movement.

              It is further proposed that the only disputed aspect of the
              above argument, in the context of the popular "young-earth,
              creation-science" movement, is the "evidence of age".

              In order to deal with that issue, a formal, in writing, for the
              record discussion is proposed with the following suggested
              propositions:

              Proposition #1:

              > The empirical evidence shows
              > that the Earth has been in
              > existence longer than one
              > hundred thousand (100,000)
              > years.

              > Affirm: Todd S. Greene
              > Deny: ???

              Proposition #2:

              > The empirical evidence shows
              > that the Universe has been in
              > existence longer than one
              > hundred thousand (100,000)
              > years.

              > Affirm: Todd S. Greene
              > Deny: ???

              Proposition #3:

              > The empirical evidence shows
              > that the Earth is less than one
              > hundred thousand (100,000)
              > years old

              > Affirm: ???
              > Deny: Todd S Greene

              Proposition #4:

              > The empirical evidence shows
              > that the Universe is less than
              > one hundred thousand
              > (100,000) years old.

              > Affirm: ???
              > Deny: Todd S. Greene

              To date, I have not been able to facilitate the proposed discussion.

              The invitation remains outstanding, with specific, logistical
              details to be worked out between the two agreeing to engage
              in the discussion.

              Typically, those desiring to see my "Goliath of GRAS" defeated
              have themselves retreated into the UNscientific position
              popularized by Dr. Fox and summarized as follows:

              > I've got my interpretation
              > of the text regarding the
              > real world and that trumps
              > any real world evidence
              > to the contrary.

              Dr. Fox's position effectively concedes that "young-earth,
              creation-science" cannot stand up to scrutiny as being
              "science" and that the real world evidence falsifies
              "young-earth, creation-science".

              In January of 2008, Jerry McDonald affirmed a more formal statement
              of the Dr. Fox's positions whereby Jerry McDonald affirmed as true
              the following proposition:

              > If God's word (the text) says that
              > everything was created in six days,
              > and if that is interpreted by some
              > to mean six literal 24 hour days no
              > more than 10,000 years ago, then
              > everything was created in six literal
              > 24 hour days no more than 10,000
              > years ago.

              The logic and error of the claim made by Dr. Fox and formalized by
              Jerry McDonald should be self-evident as the geocentric exercise of
              years gone by has taught us.

              That is a good thing to know.

              Don't agree?

              Can we talk about it?

              Maybe you are the one to convince us otherwise!

              Sincerely,
              Robert Baty

              --------------------
              --------------------
            • w_w_c_l
              I would like to post comments from one of the former leading lights within the churches of Christ and its young-earth, creation-science movement. To date, no
              Message 6 of 10 , Apr 2, 2008
              • 0 Attachment
                I would like to post comments from one of the former leading lights
                within the churches of Christ and its "young-earth, creation-science"
                movement. To date, no "young- earth, creation-science" promoter has
                dared to repudiate, deny or rebut the comments.

                I would also then like to give my "Goliath of GRAS" argument for
                any who may want to "come out" in response to its call and take up
                the public discussion as to the argument's validity, soundness and
                the proposed formal, in writing, for the record discussion on the
                evidence of age.

                The recommended propositions for the proposed discussion on the
                evidence of age follows the presentation of the "Goliath of GRAS".

                Here now to provide the context for considering my "Goliath of GRAS"
                are the comments from that leading light amongst the "young-earth,
                creation-science" movement within the churches of Christ:

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

                http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/1991

                THE YOUNG EARTH

                (excerpts)

                "(T)he most serious area of conflict between the biblical account and
                the evolutionary scenario is the chronological framework of history

                > in other words,
                > the age of the Earth.

                While a young Earth/Universe presents no problem for a creationist,
                it is the death knell to each variety of the evolutionary model.

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

                Much of the controversy today between creationists and
                evolutionists revolves around the age of the Earth.

                A large part of that controversy centers around the fact that
                there is no compromise that will permit the old-Earth/young-Earth
                scenarios to coexist; the gulf separating the biblical and
                evolutionary views on the topic of the age of the Earth is just
                too large.

                (W)e must "query if vast time is indeed available."

                That is our purpose here.

                There is ample scientific evidence to indicate that such time
                is not available, and that the Earth is relatively young, not
                extremely old.

                That evidence needs to be examined and considered...

                There is good scientific evidence that the Earth...has an age
                of only a few thousand years, just as the Bible plainly indicates."

                (end excerpt)

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

                It is undisputed, as the above shows, that some folks believe
                that the Bible teaches that "nothing is more than a few thousand
                years old".

                The relevant question, when it comes to the fundamental
                "young-earth, creation-science" position on that point is
                whether or not the real world evidence really does support
                that interpretation or if that interpretation is subject to
                falsification based on the real world evidence.

                I've developed a simple, logically valid argument (i.e., "Goliath
                of GRAS") proposing that the real world interpretation of the text
                commonly associated with the "young-earth, creation-science"
                (i.e., "nothing is more than a few thousand years old) movement
                is subject to falsification with reference to the real world
                evidence.

                Here it is, 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 some thing is
                > actually much older than a few
                > thousand years, then the
                > interpretation of the text by
                > some is wrong.

                Minor premise:

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

                Conclusion:

                > The interpretation of the text
                > by some is wrong.

                You are welcome to try your hand at impeaching the validity
                of the argument, or simply accept it for what it is...a simple,
                logically valid statement of the real world falsification test
                for the fundamental real world claim commonly associated with
                the "young-earth, creation-science" movement.

                It is further proposed that the only disputed aspect of the
                above argument, in the context of the popular "young-earth,
                creation-science" movement, is the "evidence of age".

                In order to deal with that issue, a formal, in writing, for the
                record discussion is proposed with the following suggested
                propositions:

                Proposition #1:

                > The empirical evidence shows
                > that the Earth has been in
                > existence longer than one
                > hundred thousand (100,000)
                > years.

                > Affirm: Todd S. Greene
                > Deny: ???

                Proposition #2:

                > The empirical evidence shows
                > that the Universe has been in
                > existence longer than one
                > hundred thousand (100,000)
                > years.

                > Affirm: Todd S. Greene
                > Deny: ???

                Proposition #3:

                > The empirical evidence shows
                > that the Earth is less than one
                > hundred thousand (100,000)
                > years old

                > Affirm: ???
                > Deny: Todd S Greene

                Proposition #4:

                > The empirical evidence shows
                > that the Universe is less than
                > one hundred thousand
                > (100,000) years old.

                > Affirm: ???
                > Deny: Todd S. Greene

                To date, I have not been able to facilitate the proposed discussion.

                The invitation remains outstanding, with specific, logistical
                details to be worked out between the two agreeing to engage
                in the discussion.

                Typically, those desiring to see my "Goliath of GRAS" defeated
                have themselves retreated into the UNscientific position
                popularized by Dr. Fox and summarized as follows:

                > I've got my interpretation
                > of the text regarding the
                > real world and that trumps
                > any real world evidence
                > to the contrary.

                Dr. Fox's position effectively concedes that "young-earth,
                creation-science" cannot stand up to scrutiny as being
                "science" and that the real world evidence falsifies
                "young-earth, creation-science".

                That is a good thing to know.

                Sincerely,
                Robert Baty

                --------------------------
                --------------------------
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.