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

Fwd: Re: McDonald v. Baty Fort Collins Debate: Status Report (revised)!

Expand Messages
  • Jerry McDonald
    Jerry McDonald wrote: Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2008 19:28:53 -0800 (PST) From: Jerry McDonald Subject: Re: McDonald v.
    Message 1 of 1 , Feb 24, 2008
      Jerry McDonald <jerry@...> wrote: Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2008 19:28:53 -0800 (PST)
      From: Jerry McDonald <jerry@...>
      Subject: Re: McDonald v. Baty Fort Collins Debate: Status Report (revised)!
      To: Robert Baty <rlbaty@...>



      Robert Baty <rlbaty@...> wrote: Jerry,

      Your continuing bad faith certainly does place me, negotiating in good faith, in a league quite distinct from you; just as you opined.
      McDonald
      My bad faith? What bad faith are you talking about. I told you what proposition that I would affirm in debate. YOU WILL NOT TELL ME WHAT TO AFFIRM.

      Baty
      Your latest postings fail to provide me with your explicit affirmation or denial of those propositions which you have clearly and implicitly, if not explicitly, affirmed during the course of these most important discussions. Or, did I miss something?

      McDonald
      I am sorry you have such a reading comprehension problem so let me put it in bold capital letters so you won't miss it.
      IF I DEFEND THE POSITION THAT YOU ARE AN ATHEIST MY PROPOSITION MUST READ "RESOLVED, THE EVIDENCE CONCLUDES THAT ROBERT BATY IS AN ATHIEST." IF YOU DO NOT WISH TO DISCUSS THAT PROPOSITION WE MAY DISCUSS THE AGE OF THE EARTH AT WHICH TIME I WILL AFFIRM THE FOLLOWING PROPOSITION: "RESOLVED: THE EARTH IS NOT MORE THAN 10,000 YEARS OLD."

      Now I hope that is explicit enough for you. If it isn't I don't know how to make it any clearer.

      Baty
      Now, are you going to, for the record, state explicitly whether or not you continue to affirm or if you now deny the truth of those propositions set forth below; without regard to whether or not such propositions are debated by us in Fort Collins:

      Jerry McDonald's Proposition #1:

      > If one does NOT believe that
      > God has the supernatural creative
      > power to create the universe in
      > six literal 24 hour days and age it
      > to where it would be billions of
      > years old in those six literal 24
      > hour days, then he is an atheist.

      > Affirm: Jerry McDonald

      Jerry McDonald's Proposition #2:

      > If anyone agrees to moderate
      > for an atheist in a debate with
      > Jerry McDonald on the scientific
      > evidence of age as to the
      > universe and/or earth, then
      > that person is an atheist.

      > Affirm: Jerry McDonald

      Jerry McDonald, do you stand by your above affirmations, or not?

      McDonald
      Those would be good major premises of arguments I could use, but I have already given my propositions for the debate.

      Baty

      As you might say, Jerry, answer the question?

      What you, Jerry McDonald, are failing to admit to is the simple, ungetoverable fact that such propositions as we are discussing may be either affirmed or denied as to their truth and such positions may, indeed, be debated. I thought we had this simple stuff resolved; but apparently not!

      It really is that simple, Jerry.
      McDonald
      I guess we really don't have it resolved, because again you are attempting to tell me what I must affirm. I have already EXPLICITLY told you that I would use the above as arguments, but my proposition will be written as I have written it in bold all caps.
      Baty
      You apparently don't really want to debate and test the fundamental principles and propositions you have been espousing in recent discussions.

      McDonald
      I am not the one running. I have already told you what my propositions will be depending on which topic we debate. You, and all your whining in the world won't change that. Get use to it Robert, you will not write my proposition. I will gladly use those arguments, re-written in my own terms, if we discuss the atheists debate, but neither one will be my proposition. You are not going to tie me down to just one argument. I will use as many arguments to show that you are an atheist as I see fit. Don't even try to go there, many before you have tried, and everyone of them has failed. You will certainly not be the first to succeed where so many have failed.

      Baty
      Jerry, you are now again, in bad faith, trying to change the subject. You write, in relevant part as to your alleged proposition:

      > the evidence concludes that
      > your (Robert Baty's) belief is
      > atheistic

      However, you previously and cryptically proposed that:

      > My proposition will be something
      > along the line of "Resolved: The
      > evidence concludes that Robert
      > Baty is an atheist.

      I can certainly understand why you are struggling so concerning your bad faith efforts.

      That is one reason why I think it important, for the record, to document what propositions you have espoused that you are now running from as fast as you can, and which propositions you really, or just apparently, believe to be true.

      While I deny both, and have no interest in debating the matter with you, Jerry, you need to make clear for the audience that you speak to whether or not you still affirm the two propositions at the beginning of this message and whether you think I'm an atheist or just think I've got some position that is atheistic.

      McDonald
      There is no difference between atheistic and atheist. Only an atheist would hold to atheistic beliefs. I will define atheist as one who does not believe in the God of the Bible. JUST SO YOU CAN UNDERSTAND ME AGAIN. NEITHER ONE OF YOUR CHOICE OF MY PROPOSITIONS WILL BE MY PROPOSITION. MY PROPOSITION WILL READ: "RESOLVED: THE EVIDENCE CONCLUDES THAT ROBERT BATY IS AN ATHEIST." WHAT PART OF THAT DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND. I will use the propositional statements as major premises of my arguments, but they will not be my debate proposition. You will not restrict me to one point and one point only. GOT THAT? OR DO YOU NEED ME TO DRAW YOU A PICTURE? CAN YOU ONLY UNDERSTAND WHEN CRAYONS ARE INVOLVED?
      Baty
      Jerry, both your "age" proposition and "Robert is an atheist" propositions are too broad and non-specific to be relevant to any interests I may have in debating such questions.


      McDonald
      Well...that's too bad, because those are the only two propositions I will affirm. Whether you like it or not! WHAT PART OF THAT DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND? WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO DRAW YOU A PICTURE? DO YOU NEED CRAYONS TO UNDERSTAND SOMETHING?

      Baty
      There is nothing really for me to debate you on your "age" proposition for I've already noted that your position is briefly summarized as:

      > I, Jerry McDonald, have my
      > interpretation of the text
      > that nothing is more than
      > 10,000 years old and that
      > trumps any real world evidence,
      > independent of the text, to the
      > contrary.

      You are welcome to that, and I understand it. You just need to be more open, and honest and in good faith tell folks that that is where you are at and that you are with me in rejecting the popular claims of "young-earth, creation-science" to the contrary.

      As to your "Robert is an atheist" proposition, you first need to answer explicitly as to whether or not you still maintain your affirmations as to the two propositions at the beginning of this message. I've now included both of them in the debate status report following my name below.

      Answer the question, Jerry, as to whether or not you maintain your affirmations as to the two arguments so we can move along.

      McDonald
      MY ANSWER IS "NO!" GET IT? OR DO YOU NEED A PICTURE? DO YOU REALLY NEED CRAYONS TO FIGURE THIS OUT?
      Baty
      If you wish to substitute some other "Robert is an atheist" or "Robert holds positions atheists hold" proposition, feel free to do so with the definitions you wish to use that we might stipulate to.

      As I said before and still maintain, quite appropriately so, there is no reason to set the debate up, in bad faith as you appear determined to do, to be a semantic fuss about the meaning of the relevant terms describing the point in dispute.

      Jerry, you have already indicated acceptance of my proposition and the stipulated definitions.

      If we are unable to reach an agreement as to YOUR proposition, Jerry, I'm certainly amenable to simply discussing my proposition in the debate.

      So, again, Jerry, answer my question regarding those two propositions and utilize my status report to make any changes, including the definitions of relevant terms(i.e., "atheist", "evidence", "concludes", etc.) in whatever proposition you wish to now officially propose, and we'll proceed accordingly with our negotiations.

      Be sure to date and time you revision of my status report so that we might have an easy reference in determining what is the latest revision.

      I'll be hoping you can now demonstrate some good faith in your effort, should you consider to be desirous of producing the debate YOU, Jerry McDonald, were wanting to produce.

      Jerry, you are off to a bad start, in continuing bad faith. And there is so much more to do besides coming to an agreement on the propositions and definitions to be used.

      Please give serious consideration as to how you might further respond in prosecuting YOUR interests in having a formal, oral discussion with me in Fort Collins

      Sincerely,
      Robert Baty

      McDonald
      As I have already stated numerous times. MY PROPOSITION WILL EITHER READ: "RESOLVED: THE EVIDENCE CONLUDES THAT ROBERT BATY IS AN ATHEIST," OR "RESOLVED: THE EARTH IS NOT MORE THAN 10,000 YEARS OLD." EITHER ACCEPT IT OR DON'T, BUT YOU WON'T WEAR ME DOWN. YOU ARE SPINNING YOUR WHEELS IN THE MUD HERE. I WILL NOT BEND, I WILL NOT COMPROMISE, AND I WILL NOT GIVE IN TO YOUR DEMANDS.
      jdm
      ----------------------------------

      Debate status report: 02/24/2008; 3:50 p.m MT

      Robert Baty's Proposition:

      > If the Bible is God's word (the text)
      > and 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 in terpretation of the text
      > by some is wrong.

      > Affirm: Robert Baty
      > Deny: Jerry D. McDonald

      Stipulated Definitions:

      > God's word: a communication
      > from God, in words, that cannot
      > be w rong.

      > Says: the words themselves,
      > though they may "mean"
      > something other than what
      > they "say".

      > Few thousand years: more
      > than 10,000.

      > Empirical evidence that some
      > thing is actually much older
      > than a few thousand years:
      > some thing is actually much
      > older than a few thousand
      > years and we can so
      > determine with reference to
      > evidence independent of the
      > Word of God.

      > Interpreted: held to "mean",
      > possibly in error.

      > Accepted: Robert Baty
      > Accepted: Jerry McDonald

      Jerry McDonald's Proposition #1:

      > If one does NOT believe that
      > God has the supernatural creative
      > power to create the universe in
      > six literal 24 hour days and age it
      > to where it would be billions of
      > years old in those six literal 24
      > hour days, then he is an atheist.

      > Affirm: Jerry McDonald
      > Deny: Robert Baty

      Stipulated Definitions:

      > To be determined.

      or

      Jerry McDonald's Proposition #2:

      > If anyone agrees to moderate
      > for an atheist in a debate with
      > Jerry McDonald on the scientific
      > evidence of age as to the
      > universe and/or earth, then
      > that person is an atheist.

      > Affirm: Jerry McDonald
      > Deny: Robert Baty

      Stipulated Definitions:

      > To be determined!

      > Accepted: Robert Baty
      > Accepted: (Jerry McDonald????)

      Other details/logistics:

      > 1. Jerry McDonald in cooperation
      > with Marty Trujillo are to arrange
      > for an appropriate venue of their
      > choosing in Fort Collins, CO; at
      > no cost to Robert Baty.

      > 2. The debate will be an oral,
      > public debate, for the record.

      > 3. Each participant agrees to
      > endeavor in good faith to
      > strictly adhere to Hedge's 7
      > rules of honorable discourse.

      > 4. Robert Baty will ask for no
      > reimbursements.

      > 5. Other details are to be worked
      > out in good faith as between
      > Jerry McDonald and Robert Bat y.

      > Accept: Robert Baty
      > Accept: Jerry McDonald

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










      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.