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

AP this week: Testing a fundamental position!

Expand Messages
  • Robert Baty
    Apologetics Press (AP) this week has an interesting article that makes one wonder why it is that they and their kind have all run off from the outstanding
    Message 1 of 4 , Jun 16, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      Apologetics Press (AP) this week has an interesting article that makes one wonder why it is that they and their kind have all run off from the outstanding invitation to have their fundamental position, "nothing is more than a few thousand years old", tested in a formal, for the record, in writing discussion.

      Here's the link to the article with my adaptations following:

      http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/3721

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

      Young-earth creationists: Not So Open-Minded After All
      by Robert Baty B.B.A

      The young-earth creation science community wants people to think that it is objective.

      Young earth creation science promoters consistently paint the picture that they are the ones who are open-minded and honestly seeking the truth.

      At the same time, they suggest that their opposition is narrow-minded and impervious to rational criticism.

      If it is the case that young-earth creation science promoters are open-minded and constantly looking to test their theories, then we would expect them to be anxious to critically consider young-earth creation science claims, to welcome evidence that opposes key young-earth creation science claims, and to promote open, two-sided communication about the difficulties inherent in the young-earth creation science claims.

      What we actually see, however, is the exact opposite.

      What should be done when people want to critically analyze young-earth creation science in order to test its veracity?

      Should people be encouraged to approach young-earth creation science with an open mind and let the merits of young-earth creation science speak for themselves?

      Absolutely not!

      Critical analysis of young-earth creation science must be avoided at all cost.

      Having people critically analyze young-earth creation science is ill advised and unnecessary?

      The way to promote young-earth creation science is to make sure that there is no opposition to its claims.

      Many years ago, the Proverbs writer noted:

      > "The first one to plead his cause
      > seems right, until his neighbor
      > comes and examines him."
      > Proverbs 18:17

      Young-earth creation science promoters simply want to make sure that there are no pesky neighbors available to answer them.

      Young earth creation science promoters understand that if people are given the opportunity to look at young-earth creation science claims with an open mind, study them carefully, and consider them critically, the young-earth creation science claims collapse under their own, insupportable weight.

      So much for the open-minded objectivity claimed by atheists and young-earth creation scientist promoters!

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

      My "Goliath of GRAS"...still the one to beat!

      Still no "David".

      Sincerely,
      Robert Baty


      -----Original Message-----
      From: Robert Baty
      Sent: Monday, June 16, 2008 12:17 PM
      To: Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: [M & B] Testing a fundamental position!

      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



      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Robert Baty
      (Sorry about that! In the following I edited the title of my adaptation and eliminated the unintended atheist reference in the last paragraph.) Apologetics
      Message 2 of 4 , Jun 16, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        (Sorry about that! In the following I edited the title of my adaptation and eliminated the unintended "atheist" reference in the last paragraph.)

        Apologetics Press (AP) this week has an interesting article that makes one wonder why it is that they and their kind have all run off from the outstanding invitation to have their fundamental position, "nothing is more than a few thousand years old", tested in a formal, for the record, in writing discussion.

        Here's the link to the article with my adaptations following:

        http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/3721

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

        Young-earth Creation Science Promoters: Not So Open-Minded After All
        by Robert Baty B.B.A

        The young-earth creation science community wants people to think that it is objective.

        Young earth creation science promoters consistently paint the picture that they are the ones who are open-minded and honestly seeking the truth.

        At the same time, they suggest that their opposition is narrow-minded and impervious to rational criticism.

        If it is the case that young-earth creation science promoters are open-minded and constantly looking to test their theories, then we would expect them to be anxious to critically consider young-earth creation science claims, to welcome evidence that opposes key young-earth creation science claims, and to promote open, two-sided communication about the difficulties inherent in the young-earth creation science claims.

        What we actually see, however, is the exact opposite.

        What should be done when people want to critically analyze young-earth creation science in order to test its veracity?

        Should people be encouraged to approach young-earth creation science with an open mind and let the merits of young-earth creation science speak for themselves?

        Absolutely not!

        Critical analysis of young-earth creation science must be avoided at all cost.

        Having people critically analyze young-earth creation science is ill advised and unnecessary?

        The way to promote young-earth creation science is to make sure that there is no opposition to its claims.

        Many years ago, the Proverbs writer noted:

        > "The first one to plead his cause
        > seems right, until his neighbor
        > comes and examines him."
        > Proverbs 18:17

        Young-earth creation science promoters simply want to make sure that there are no pesky neighbors available to answer them.

        Young earth creation science promoters understand that if people are given the opportunity to look at young-earth creation science claims with an open mind, study them carefully, and consider them critically, the young-earth creation science claims collapse under their own, insupportable weight.

        So much for the open-minded objectivity claimed by young-earth creation science promoters!

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

        My "Goliath of GRAS"....still the one to beat!

        Still no "David".

        Sincerely,
        Robert Baty

        --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        From: Robert Baty
        Sent: Monday, June 16, 2008 12:17 PM
        To: Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: [M & B] Testing a fundamental position!


        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

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



        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Robert Baty
        It didn t take David Goldsmith (aka tinroad6g, et al) to prove my point with his latest false and misleading post to the DebunkingEvolutionism list found at:
        Message 3 of 4 , Jun 16, 2008
        • 0 Attachment
          It didn't take David Goldsmith (aka tinroad6g, et al) to prove my point with his latest false and misleading post to the DebunkingEvolutionism list found at:

          http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DEBUNKINGEVOLUTIONISM/message/84377

          Therein Goldsmith repeats his false and misleading claim that:

          > Robert Baty wishes to "test" Y.E.C.
          > with the 1800's science of Newton's
          > refuted theory on time. He refuses
          > to discuss Einstein's proven special
          > theory of relativity on time.

          The challenge is to young-earth creation science promoters to test their claim. Typically, Goldsmith is just getting things backwards.

          Why can't Goldsmith "come out" to meet my Goliath of GRAS and test his claim?

          Because, as previously noted, he knows it cannot stand the test??

          Goldsmith cannot even get to first base by answering correctly two, simple, fundamental questions that could qualify him to test his young-earth creation-science claim that "nothing is more than a few thousand years old".

          Question #1:

          Is the following argument valid?

          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.

          Question #2:

          Is the following hypothetical statement true?

          > 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.

          Goldsmith won't "come out" and answer the questions correctly and he can't find a young-earth creation science promoter who will, with the express purpose of qualifying for a serious, mature and mannerly test of the the fundamental young-earth creation-science claim.

          Interestingly, Giberson, professor of physics, in his just released book recently mentioned here, knew the likes of Goldsmith well and writes as follows:

          > "Creationists disagree with mainstream
          > science on many topics... We hunt in
          > in vain, though, to find a more
          > dramatic numerical disagreement...
          > than the one that exists in America
          > today over the age of the earth.

          > This disagreement does not
          > result from simple scientific
          > ignorance, as would be the case
          > with a question about Einstein's
          > theory of relativity, which is
          > understood by a small fraction of
          > advanced students."

          > pages 121, 122

          Obviously, Goldsmith is no advanced student of Einstein's relativity, and he has made no effort to demonstrate his understanding thereof as it relates to the claim that "nothing is more than a few thousand years old".

          Giberson also provides a little history lesson from the Arkansas creation-law trial that further helps characterize Goldsmith, et al, and their approach to the issue.

          > "The defense attorneys apparently
          > embraced the general and damning
          > creationist confusion that there are
          > only two models of origins. This
          > peculiar oversimplification assumes
          > the two models are in such
          > contradiction that evidence against
          > one of them counts as evidence for
          > the other.

          > Ayala found it necessary to "educate"
          > attorney David Williams on this
          > elementary point of logic.

          >> 'My dear young man,'

          > said Ayala, looking at Williams with
          > what Gilkey described as 'evident
          > pity',

          >> 'negative criticisms of evolutionary
          >> theory, even if they carried some
          >> weight, are utterly irrelevant to the
          >> question of the validity or legitimacy
          >> of creation science.

          >> Sure you realize that not being Mr.
          >> Williams in no way entails being
          >> Mr. Ayala!'

          > With that, Mr. Williams neatly folded his
          > legal tail between his legs and slunk
          > back to his table."

          > page 102

          Like Mr. Ayala, I guess I should take some credit for helping young-earth creation-science promoters understand various elementary points of logic. See the archives of this list for documentary evidence thereof.

          You are welcome.

          As for Goldsmith and his fainthearted, likeminded young-earth creation-science promoters, those two questions await them to be answered correctly and allow them move to the next round of qualifying for a formal, in writing, for the record discussion on the scientific evidence of age.

          At that time, Goldsmith, et al, will be welcome to test their own, as opposed to Einstein's, time-dilation theory against the evidence of age as may be presented by the opposition.

          Will Goldsmith or his like-minded young-earth creation-science promoters show up?

          I don't think so, but the invitation remains open for them to accept.

          My Goliath of GRAS...still the one to beat.

          Still no "David"!

          Oh, as for McDonald, it appears he still has yet to respond to Greene's personal and public invitation to discuss the scientific evidence of age as McDonald was trying to propose he was interested in pursuing.

          And it is now only 3 weeks from McDonald's promised event in Fort Collins and I have yet to see any notice of the advertisements and the venue.

          Has McDonald simply decided to NOT fulfill his promise to have that event in about 3 weeks in Fort Collins??

          I think so, but time will tell!

          Sincerely,
          Robert Baty

          P.S. Giberson, as previously noted, also, on page 122, noted that the creation science promoters who testified in the Arkansas trial indicated they were willing to set aside scientific evidence contrary to their interpretation of the Bible. In other words, as we've noted on so many occasions, the real reason Goldsmith, et al, don't show up for the test is because their real position is briefly summarized as follows:

          > I, David Goldsmith, et al, have my
          > interpreation of the text as to the
          > real world and that trumps any real
          > world evidence to the contrary.

          How very geocentric of them!

          And that, I think, can't be noted too often as Goldsmsith, et al, try to fool others into thinking their position is otherwise.

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



          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Todd S. Greene
          ... makes one wonder why it is that they and their kind have all run off from the outstanding invitation to have their fundamental position, nothing is more
          Message 4 of 4 , Jun 19, 2008
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In Maury_and_Baty, Robert Baty wrote:
            > Apologetics Press (AP) this week has an interesting article that
            makes one wonder why it is that they and their kind have all run off
            from the outstanding invitation to have their fundamental position,
            "nothing is more than a few thousand years old", tested in a formal,
            for the record, in writing discussion.
            >
            > Here's the link to the article with my adaptations following:
            >
            > http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/3721
            |[snip]

            This creationist rhetoric is - OF COURSE! - just another example of
            the tactics of deceitfulness that creationists love to use. It is
            blatantly false in a variety of ways.

            First of all, creationists could prove that they're sincere and
            serious about genuine "critical analysis of evolution" by doing real
            science research. Of course, as all of us - including creationists -
            know creationists avoid the world of professional science like the
            plague PRECISELY BECAUSE THEY KNOW THAT THEIR RELIGIOUS NOTIONS CANNOT
            STAND THE TESTS OF SERIOUS SCRUTINY IN THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY.
            (Indeed, creationists today, including IDists, have distanced
            themselves so far from the realm of serious science that zany
            conspiracy theory rhetoric has become their most popular "argument"
            for why creationism doesn't exist in science.)

            Second, creationists are talking about "critical analysis of
            evolution" in science classes in public schools, what they're really
            saying is that they want to shove their long discredited
            religion-motivated pseudoscientific attacks against evolution down
            kid's throats. All of us - including creationists - know that they
            hate evolution because of their particular religious beliefs and
            doctrines. This is nothing more than another excuse to violate the
            First Amendment and shove their religious beliefs down kid's throats
            in public schools. Creationists are desperately trying to make it
            legal to promote their religious beliefs in public schools by lying to
            children with creationist pseudoscience propaganda.

            Third, creationists - especially young earth creationists - aren't
            even sincere in principle about critical analysis. Imagine a high
            school science teacher in a public school devoting a couple weeks of
            time in a science class devoted specifically to critical analysis of
            creationism, looking in detail at creationist claims explicitly and
            dealing with them head-on going over all the many scientific errors.
            Religious parents in the school district would assault any such
            teacher for daring to attack their personal religious beliefs. (After
            all, if creationists were really serious about "critical analysis,"
            then we'd be seeing them using such critical analysis of "scientific
            creationism" in their own literature and in their church classes on
            the subject, but in fact we observe that creationists routinely attack
            any individuals in their own churches who dare to engage in any
            genuine critical analysis - who even dare to merely expect advocates
            of creationism to exercise a basic level of personal responsibility in
            regard to correction of obvious errors!

            So - yet again - we find creationists playing word games that (1)
            demonstrate their hypocrisy, and (2) are being used deceitfully as a
            shell game try to get their religion-motivated pseudoscience attacks
            against evolution by the First Amendment.

            The more tricks creationists play, the more they show that the false
            nature of the facade of "scientific creationism" just doesn't change.
            All word games. No scientific substance.

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