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

Re: AP this week: Testing a fundamental position!

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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.