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

Testing a fundamental position - "Goliath of GRAS"!

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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.