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

Is this funny, or what?

Expand Messages
  • rlbaty@webtv.net
    The right answer, of course, is: IT IS FUNNY. We are laughing at James, and we re waiting for him to join in so he can laugh with us and we can laugh with him;
    Message 1 of 3 , Jun 5, 2003
      The right answer, of course, is:

      IT IS FUNNY.

      We are laughing at James, and we're waiting for him to join in so he can
      laugh with us and we can laugh with him; about his failed exploits
      against the "Goliath of GRAS".

      This must be what David Mathews was hoping for; something to lighten us
      up.

      James wrote earlier today (repeating his misguided claims as if he might
      eventually convince others):

      > This is labeled wrong. Robert has
      > been repeatedly told this, yet he is
      > either ignorant of the fact, or simply
      > does not care, especially since it is
      > his hobby he is riding, and he can be
      > as wrong as he wants to be!

      Before I spoil it with an explanation, those of that see the problem can
      have a little laugh here: LOL! LOL! LOL!

      I have a little book by a Ph.D. out of Vanderbilt by the name of Thomas
      B. Warren. As part of his doctoral effort, he considered whether or not
      atheists had proved there was a God.

      If you have his little book on that, turn to page 13 (my version) and
      follow along. He wrote:

      > Put into the form of a hypothetical
      > syllogism, Mackie's argument looks
      > like this:

      > 1. If evil exists, then God does not exist.

      > 2. Evil exists.

      > 3. Therefore, God does not exist.

      Looks just like the form of the "GRAS", doesn't it: if - then.

      Now watch as Tom evaluates the argument:

      > Since the antecedent of the major
      > premise is affirmed, the syllogism
      > is unquestionably valid.

      Did you catch that! Our Ph.D. and logic wizard calls "1." above a
      "MAJOR PREMISE".

      Tom continued:

      > Mackie makes no real effort to prove
      > the minor premise (evil exists).

      Did you catch that! Our Ph.D. and logic wizard calls "2." above a
      "MINOR PREMISE".

      Now most of realize that my dead guy (Tom Warren), who can't talk,
      outclasses James and his live guy that won't talk by more the difference
      in the age between the YEC's and OEC's.

      I think I'll stick with my proposition that Thomas B. Warren, Ph.D. is
      on my side of the issue involving James' problem and that of his secret
      witness.

      LOL! LOL! LOL!

      I would hope James would not keep pulling the "Rudy Maneuver" and just
      comes straight out and apologizes for his misguided effort in quibbling
      over how I labeled the "Goliath of GRAS".

      It might be a good start on his way to recovery.

      Then again, he may know of some in his secret society that are "foaming
      at the mouth" to get at Thomas B. Warren, Ph.D.

      If so, James, just let us know where they are going to go after him for
      his labeling of the Mackie argument using "major premise" and "minor
      premise".

      I'd like to see that one! I just wonder if I missed the inspired Word
      of God that convinces those guys that Warren was wrong on the labeling
      of Mackie's argument.

      LOL! LOL! LOL!

      Sincerely,
      Robert Baty

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

      "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.
    • rlbaty@webtv.net
      Did you happen to check that Thomas B. Warren, Ph.D. reference I gave. Here is another quote a little further down the page and ... Warren was talking about
      Message 2 of 3 , Jun 5, 2003
        Did you happen to check that Thomas B. Warren, Ph.D. reference I gave.
        Here is another quote a little further down the page and
        on to the next page (emphasis added):

        > Since I grant that the MINOR PREMISE
        > is true. . .the point of controversy is the
        > claimed proof of the MAJOR PREMISE.

        > My effort in this series of lectures is
        > designed to show Mackie has not
        > proved the MAJOR PREMISE.

        Warren was talking about Mackie's argument that he said looked like
        this:

        > 1. If evil exists, then God does not exist.
        > 2. Evil exists.
        > 3. Therefore, God does not exist.

        That compares rather well with the "Goliath of GRAS" form which looks
        something like this:

        > Major premise:

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

        We wait with baited breath to see if James Murphy will return once again
        with his quibble about my use of the terms "major premise" and "minor
        premise".

        More importantly, we will look closely for any support he may bring to
        bear on his effort. We already know his stated position on that, but,
        with the proper use of ad hominem, haven't we shown his testimony is
        pretty much shot full of holes. It isn't slander, or even libel (as he
        has tried to suggest) to point out the problems with James' testimony.
        It is just a little problem James has made for himself in convincing us
        he's simply "incredible".

        Better he just do the right thing and be a real man about this stuff.
        He's got a lot of cleaning up to do.

        Sincerely,
        Robert Baty
      • rlbaty50
        ... Well, I did happen to find another on-line reference that might also help James come to grips with his problem. Here it is: ##############################
        Message 3 of 3 , Jun 6, 2003
          --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, rlbaty@w... wrote:

          > James wrote earlier today (repeating his misguided
          > claims as if he might eventually convince others):
          >
          > > This is labeled wrong. Robert has
          > > been repeatedly told this, yet he is
          > > either ignorant of the fact, or simply
          > > does not care, especially since it is
          > > his hobby he is riding, and he can be
          > > as wrong as he wants to be!

          Well, I did happen to find another on-line reference that might also
          help James come to grips with his problem. Here it is:

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

          http://www.jcu.edu/math/vignettes/logic.htm
          (an excerpt)

          Vignette 17
          Logic, Truth and Language

          But nonetheless, an understanding of at least the basics of logic is
          essential both in mathematics and in everyday life.

          Modus Ponens

          In this type of argument, there are two premises, If P, then Q
          (called the major premise) and P (called the minor premise) and one
          conclusion, namely Q.

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

          Now, James seems to have been real concerned about the labels that
          were put on those thingys that make up the GRAS. Of course, he has
          found no support for his claims (or maybe they are secret like his
          witness).

          I gave support for the labels in earlier posts. The above is just an
          added note. The only one who seems to have been confused on this
          appears to be James. It seems so easy a problem to fix, one can only
          wonder (as James has been doing about me and my activities) why James
          has not already fixed his problems with the labeling of GRAS.

          Now, what was it James was saying about repeating an error often in
          order to try and confuse folks and get them to believe the error
          instead of the truth?

          LOL! LOL! LOL!

          Have I missed something here? Is James missing an essential part of
          mathematics and everyday life?

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