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

David Goldsmith (aka tinroad6g, et al) attempts to trick readers!

Expand Messages
  • Robert Baty
    Goldsmith s latest effort to rationalize his failure to come out or find anyone else who will come out for him and take up the young-earth creation-science
    Message 1 of 1 , Jun 17, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      Goldsmith's latest effort to rationalize his failure to "come out" or find anyone else who will "come out" for him and take up the young-earth creation-science test is found at:

      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DEBUNKINGEVOLUTIONISM/message/84379

      Me and my "Goliath of GRAS" have, in fact, taken on the powerhouses, none of which are found among the members of the DebunkingEvolutionism list, and have found that they simply won't "come out", answer two simple questions correctly, and then proceed to producing the formal, in writing, for the record discussion testing their fundamental claim that "nothing is more than a few thousand years old".

      Implicit in Goldsmith's effort is his admission that the scientific evidence clearly demonstrates that some thing really is more than a few thousand years old and that neither he or his kind have a scientific rebuttal that will stand the test.

      Einstein cannot help them!

      As Giberson has noted, and I have noted repeatedly, it is simply the case that Goldsmith, et al, hold the following UNscientific position:

      > We, David Goldsmith, et al, have
      > our interpretation of the text
      > regarding the real world and that
      > trumps any real world evidence
      > to the contrary.

      That being the case, they have no foundation upon which to seriously take up a scientific discussion on the merits of the proposition that "nothing is more than a few thousand years old".

      However, the invitation remains outstanding and, perhaps, one day one of them will accept and be able to proceed in qualifying for a formal, in writing, for the record discussion with purpose and consequence as reflected in my "Goliath of GRAS".

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

      Still no "David" who will "come out"!

      Sincerely,
      Robert Baty



      -----Original Message-----
      From: Robert Baty
      Sent: Monday, June 16, 2008 9:24 PM
      To: Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: [M & B] Re: AP this week: Testing a fundamental position!

      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]





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