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

Jerry McDonald, why?

Expand Messages
  • Robert Baty
    Jerry McDonald most recently proposed he was interested in challenging Todd S. Green to a scientific debate over the evidence of age. ...
    Message 1 of 1 , Jun 8, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      Jerry McDonald most recently proposed he was interested in challenging Todd S. Green to a scientific debate over the evidence of age.

      Following is the link and excerpts from Jerry's post to the DebunkingEvolutionism list:

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

      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DEBUNKINGEVOLUTIONISM/message/84284

      DebunkingEvolutionism list
      Message #84284

      From: Jerry D. McDonald
      Date: June 6, 2008

      Subject: Re: Greene vs McDonald

      Resolved: The scientific evidence shows that the universe has been around for over 100,000 years.

      Affirm:
      Deny: Jerry McDonald

      Resolved: The scientific evidence shows that the earth has not been around for more than 10,000 years.

      Affirm: Jerry D. McDonald
      Deny:

      What about it Todd?

      jdm

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

      My further comments:

      Jerry McDonald has already made it rather clear that his real position, as opposed to his apparent position, is briefly stated as follows:

      > I, Jerry McDonald, have my
      > interpretation of the Bible
      > regarding the real world and
      > that trumps any real world
      > evidence to the contrary.

      So, one might opine, why does Jerry want to discuss the scientific evidence of age?

      If the above is not currently Jerry's real position, as opposed to his apparent position, on the matter of age, then maybe Jerry wants to pick one of the following as his basis for wanting to test his position:

      > Jerry's possible position #1:

      > If the Bible (the text) says
      > everything began over a period
      > of six days, and if it really means
      > that it was six 24-hour days
      > occurring not more than a few
      > thousand years ago, and if there
      > is scientific evidence that some
      > thing is actually much older than
      > a few thousand years, then the
      > Bible is wrong.

      > Jerry's possible position #2:

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

      It seems Jerry and his kind have trouble picking one of the above as a foundation upon which to build a discussion that will have purpose and consequence in the context of the popular "young-earth/universe" movement.

      So, just why does Jerry want to propose a discussion now?

      Is Jerry willing to risk the veracity of the Bible?

      Is Jerry willing to risk his interpretation of God's word?

      Neither?

      That's what I thought, for Jerry's real position, briefly stated, is:

      > I, Jerry McDonald, have my
      > interpretation of the Bible
      > regarding the real world and
      > that trumps any real world
      > evidence to the contrary.

      That's good to know!

      Sincerely,
      Robert Baty



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