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

Testing DBWillis and a fundamental position!

Expand Messages
  • Robert Baty
    Step One: Is the following argument in logically valid form (i.e., IF the premises are true, the conclusion necessarily follows therefrom)? ... DBWillis now
    Message 1 of 8 , Sep 14, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      Step One:

      Is the following argument in logically valid form (i.e., IF the premises are true, the conclusion necessarily follows therefrom)?

      >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.

      DBWillis now answers as follows:

      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/15424

      > I (DBWillis) am going to concede
      > that the structure of the argument
      > Baty calls "Goliath"...is in a form
      > that a logician would call "valid."

      > DBWillis

      and

      > I (DBWillis) would say...the structure
      > is set up in a valid form...

      > DBWillis

      OK, DBWillis agrees with me that the "Goliath of GRAS", just as proposed is a logically valid argument; an important first step in the process of testing the fundamental position under consideration.

      Now I move to steps two, three and four together in hopes of speeding up further progress in our efforts to get DBWillis to the substantive issue in dispute.

      Step Two:

      Does DBWillis agree that the Word of God (i.e., the text), which cannot be wrong, says that everything began over a period of six days?

      Step Three:

      Does DBWillis agree that some people interpret the text to mean it was six, literal, 24 hour or so days occurring not more than a few thousand years ago (i.e., less than 100,000 years ago)?

      Step Four:

      Does DBWillis agree that there is a hypothetical world or this real world in which it just might be possible that some thing really is more than a few thousand years old and that we can so determine from evidence independent of any interpretation of a religious text?

      Hopefully, once DBWillis joins in agreeing with me on steps two, three and four, as he has now done with step one, we can proceed further in our process of testing a fundamental position.

      Will DBWillis join me through step four?

      We will see!

      Sincerely,
      Robert Baty

      ---------Outstanding Invitation-------------

      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 bonafide 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 scientific evidence shows that
      > the universe has been in existence
      > more than one hundred thousand
      > (100,000) years.

      > Affirm: Todd Greene
      > Deny: ???

      Proposition #2:

      > The scientific evidence shows that
      > the universe has not been in
      > existence for more than ten
      > thousand (10,000) years.

      > Affirm: ???
      > Deny: Todd Greene

      Proposition #3:

      > The scientific evidence shows that
      > the earth has been in existence
      > more than one hundred thousand
      > (100,000) years.

      > Affirm: Todd Greene
      > Deny: ???

      Proposition #4:

      > The scientific evidence shows that
      > the earth has not been in existence
      > for more than ten thousand (10,000)
      > years.

      > Affirm: ???
      > Deny: Todd 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 (i.e., Terry W. Benton, et al) have themselves retreated into the UNscientific position
      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.

      The above position effectively concedes that young-earth creation-science cannot stand up to scrutiny as being "science" and that the real world evidence falsifies the fundamental young-earth creation-science claim that "nothing is more than a few thousand years old".

      That is a good thing to know.

      Sincerely,
      Robert Baty

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



      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Robert Baty
      (I m reposting my comments, in relevant part, from the rabbit thread here to try and simplify the issues into this one thread which, I hope, will allow
      Message 2 of 8 , Sep 14, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        (I'm reposting my comments, in relevant part, from the "rabbit" thread here to try and simplify the issues into this one thread which, I hope, will allow DBWillis and me to resolve most expeditiously the problems he's been having regarding the important public debate over young-earth creation-science and the place my "Goliath of GRAS" has in that history. DBWillis is encouraged to join me in accepting the positions I have proposed through Step Five. We can then move on to other necessary steps in the process designed to help DBWillis with his problems related to this important public issue.-RLBaty)

        DBWillis wrote:

        > ...the following (is) also "valid."

        > But (it has a) false conclusion.

        > Note (it is) in exactly the same
        > structure as Baty's...and uses
        > the exact same meaning for
        > "empirical evidence."

        >> Major Premise

        >> If the text of God's word is
        >> interpreted by some to mean
        >> Jesus rose from the dead, and
        >> there is empirical evidence that
        >> no one is (or ever was-RLBaty)
        >> able to rise from the dead, then
        >> the interpretation of the text
        >> by some is wrong.

        >> Minor Premise:

        >> The text of God's word is
        >> interpreted by some to mean
        >> Jesus rose from the dead, and
        >> there is empirical evidence that
        >> no one is (or ever was-RLBaty)
        >> able to rise from the dead.

        >> Conclusion:

        >> The interpretation of the text
        >> by some is wrong.

        > Baty...just answer the question.
        > Why is that conclusion WRONG?

        That, of course, is the wrong question!

        The argument being VALID, the question is whether or not the argument is SOUND!

        SOUNDNESS depends on the truth of the premises.

        Are the premises true?

        Step Five:

        > Is the major premise of the
        > "Goliath of GRAS" true, where
        > the reference to empirical
        > evidence means that something
        > really is more than a few
        > thousand years old and we can
        > so determine from the evidence
        > independent of any interpretation
        > of a religious text?

        > Is the major premise of DBWillis'
        > "resurrection" argument true,
        > where the reference to empirical
        > evidence means that no one has
        > ever resurrected from the dead
        > and we can so determine from the
        > evidence independent of any
        > interpretation of a religious text?

        My answers are "yes" and "yes"; both major premises are true.

        Step Six:

        Well, before getting to step six, I think I'll wait to see if DBWillis will first agree with me up through step five.

        Sincerely,
        Robert Baty

        ------------Original Message--------------

        From: Robert Baty
        Sent: Sunday, September 14, 2008 2:03 PM
        To: Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, coCBanned@yahoogroups.com, Focus_on_Truth@yahoogroups.com

        Subject: Testing DBWillis and a fundamental position!

        ?Step One:

        Is the following argument in logically valid form (i.e., IF the premises are true, the conclusion necessarily follows therefrom)?

        >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.

        DBWillis now answers as follows:

        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/15424

        > I (DBWillis) am going to concede
        > that the structure of the argument
        > Baty calls "Goliath"...is in a form
        > that a logician would call "valid."

        > DBWillis

        and

        > I (DBWillis) would say...the structure
        > is set up in a valid form...

        > DBWillis

        OK, DBWillis agrees with me that the "Goliath of GRAS", just as proposed is a logically valid argument; an important first step in the process of testing the fundamental position under consideration.

        Now I move to steps two, three and four together in hopes of speeding up further progress in our efforts to get DBWillis to the substantive issue in dispute.

        Step Two:

        Does DBWillis agree that the Word of God (i.e., the text), which cannot be wrong, says that everything began over a period of six days?

        Step Three:

        Does DBWillis agree that some people interpret the text to mean it was six, literal, 24 hour or so days occurring not more than a few thousand years ago (i.e., less than 100,000 years ago)?

        Step Four:

        Does DBWillis agree that there is a hypothetical world or this real world in which it just might be possible that some thing really is more than a few thousand years old and that we can so determine from evidence independent of any interpretation of a religious text?

        Hopefully, once DBWillis joins in agreeing with me on steps two, three and four, as he has now done with step one, we can proceed further in our process of testing a fundamental position.

        Will DBWillis join me through step four?

        We will see!

        Sincerely,
        Robert Baty

        ---------Outstanding Invitation-------------

        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 bonafide 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 scientific evidence shows that
        > the universe has been in existence
        > more than one hundred thousand
        > (100,000) years.

        > Affirm: Todd Greene
        > Deny: ???

        Proposition #2:

        > The scientific evidence shows that
        > the universe has not been in
        > existence for more than ten
        > thousand (10,000) years.

        > Affirm: ???
        > Deny: Todd Greene

        Proposition #3:

        > The scientific evidence shows that
        > the earth has been in existence
        > more than one hundred thousand
        > (100,000) years.

        > Affirm: Todd Greene
        > Deny: ???

        Proposition #4:

        > The scientific evidence shows that
        > the earth has not been in existence
        > for more than ten thousand (10,000)
        > years.

        > Affirm: ???
        > Deny: Todd 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 (i.e., Terry W. Benton, et al) have themselves retreated into the UNscientific position
        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.

        The above position effectively concedes that young-earth creation-science cannot stand up to scrutiny as being "science" and that the real world evidence falsifies the fundamental young-earth creation-science claim that "nothing is more than a few thousand years old".

        That is a good thing to know.

        Sincerely,
        Robert Baty

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



        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Robert Baty
        DBWillis, our present student, has no platform upon which to stand and presume to question my succinct efforts to help him understand his problem, my Goliath
        Message 3 of 8 , Sep 14, 2008
        • 0 Attachment
          DBWillis, our present student, has no platform upon which to stand and presume to question my succinct efforts to help him understand his problem, my "Goliath of GRAS", and what is wrong with his arguments which he has designed to try and change the subject.

          So, I will review and lay out again the course I propose that DBWillis take with me in order to help him resolve his problems and misguided dispute with me regarding the "Goliath of GRAS".

          Steps One Through Five

          Step One:

          Is the following argument in logically valid form (i.e., IF the premises are true, the conclusion necessarily follows therefrom)?

          >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.

          DBWillis now answers as follows:

          http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/15424

          > I (DBWillis) am going to concede
          > that the structure of the argument
          > Baty calls "Goliath"...is in a form
          > that a logician would call "valid."

          > DBWillis

          and

          > I (DBWillis) would say...the structure
          > is set up in a valid form...

          > DBWillis

          OK, DBWillis agrees with me that the "Goliath of GRAS", just as proposed is a logically valid argument; an important first step in the process of testing the fundamental position under consideration.

          Now I move to steps two, three and four together in hopes of speeding up further progress in our efforts to get DBWillis to the substantive issue in dispute.

          Step Two:

          Does DBWillis agree that the Word of God (i.e., the text), which cannot be wrong, says that everything began over a period of six days?

          Step Three:

          Does DBWillis agree that some people interpret the text to mean it was six, literal, 24 hour or so days occurring not more than a few thousand years ago (i.e., less than 100,000 years ago)?

          Step Four:

          Does DBWillis agree that there is a hypothetical world or this real world in which it just might be possible that some thing really is more than a few thousand years old and that we can so determine from evidence independent of any interpretation of a religious text?

          Step Five:

          > Is the major premise of the
          > "Goliath of GRAS" true, where
          > the reference to empirical
          > evidence means that something
          > really is more than a few
          > thousand years old and we can
          > so determine from the evidence
          > independent of any interpretation
          > of a religious text?

          > Is the major premise of DBWillis'
          > "resurrection" argument true,
          > where the reference to empirical
          > evidence means that no one has
          > ever resurrected from the dead
          > and we can so determine from the
          > evidence independent of any
          > interpretation of a religious text?

          My answers are "yes" and "yes"; both major premises are true.

          Step Six:

          We're going to hold up on step six until we determine how far DBWillis is going to come in agreeing, as he should, on steps one through five.

          Hopefully, once DBWillis joins in agreeing with me on steps two, three, four and five, as he has now done with step one, we can proceed further in our process of testing a fundamental position and helping him with his problems regarding this important public issue.

          Will DBWillis join me through step five?

          We will see!

          Sincerely,
          Robert Baty


          ------------Original Message--------------

          From: Robert Baty
          Sent: Sunday, September 14, 2008 2:03 PM
          To: Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, coCBanned@yahoogroups.com, Focus_on_Truth@yahoogroups.com

          Subject: Testing DBWillis and a fundamental position!

          Step One:

          Is the following argument in logically valid form (i.e., IF the premises are true, the conclusion necessarily follows therefrom)?

          >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.

          DBWillis now answers as follows:

          http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/15424

          > I (DBWillis) am going to concede
          > that the structure of the argument
          > Baty calls "Goliath"...is in a form
          > that a logician would call "valid."

          > DBWillis

          and

          > I (DBWillis) would say...the structure
          > is set up in a valid form...

          > DBWillis

          OK, DBWillis agrees with me that the "Goliath of GRAS", just as proposed is a logically valid argument; an important first step in the process of testing the fundamental position under consideration.

          Now I move to steps two, three and four together in hopes of speeding up further progress in our efforts to get DBWillis to the substantive issue in dispute.

          Step Two:

          Does DBWillis agree that the Word of God (i.e., the text), which cannot be wrong, says that everything began over a period of six days?

          Step Three:

          Does DBWillis agree that some people interpret the text to mean it was six, literal, 24 hour or so days occurring not more than a few thousand years ago (i.e., less than 100,000 years ago)?

          Step Four:

          Does DBWillis agree that there is a hypothetical world or this real world in which it just might be possible that some thing really is more than a few thousand years old and that we can so determine from evidence independent of any interpretation of a religious text?

          Hopefully, once DBWillis joins in agreeing with me on steps two, three and four, as he has now done with step one, we can proceed further in our process of testing a fundamental position.

          Will DBWillis join me through step four?

          We will see!

          Sincerely,
          Robert Baty

          ---------Outstanding Invitation-------------

          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 bonafide 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 scientific evidence shows that
          > the universe has been in existence
          > more than one hundred thousand
          > (100,000) years.

          > Affirm: Todd Greene
          > Deny: ???

          Proposition #2:

          > The scientific evidence shows that
          > the universe has not been in
          > existence for more than ten
          > thousand (10,000) years.

          > Affirm: ???
          > Deny: Todd Greene

          Proposition #3:

          > The scientific evidence shows that
          > the earth has been in existence
          > more than one hundred thousand
          > (100,000) years.

          > Affirm: Todd Greene
          > Deny: ???

          Proposition #4:

          > The scientific evidence shows that
          > the earth has not been in existence
          > for more than ten thousand (10,000)
          > years.

          > Affirm: ???
          > Deny: Todd 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 (i.e., Terry W. Benton, et al) have themselves retreated into the UNscientific position
          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.

          The above position effectively concedes that young-earth creation-science cannot stand up to scrutiny as being "science" and that the real world evidence falsifies the fundamental young-earth creation-science claim that "nothing is more than a few thousand years old".

          That is a good thing to know.

          Sincerely,
          Robert Baty

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



          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Robert Baty
          It appears DBWillis, and now Terry W. Benton, are, despite the recent progress, are now indicating on the coCBanned list that they are unwilling to follow my
          Message 4 of 8 , Sep 15, 2008
          • 0 Attachment
            It appears DBWillis, and now Terry W. Benton, are, despite the recent progress, are now indicating on the coCBanned list that they are unwilling to follow my "succinct" step by step process that will allow them to come to grips with their problems regarding my "Goliath of GRAS", understand their problems, and understand the highly esteemed role my "Goliath of GRAS" plays in the popular public debate over young-earth creation-science.

            Presently, the first five steps have been laid out and DBWillis has only progressed through step one, agreeing with me that the "Goliath of GRAS" is just what has been claimed for it, a simple, logically valid argument.

            Alas, DBWillis, and now Terry W. Benton, are indicating they just aren't "man-up" to completing the other required steps which will allow us to deal with their problems, get answers to all their questions, and come to appreciate the highly esteemed role my "Goliath of GRAS" plays in the popular public debate over young-earth creation-science.

            It really doesn't get much easier than my step by step process.

            So let us review once again and call for DBWillis, and now Terry W. Benton, to join me in answering correctly the questions in each of the steps.

            Other misguided critics of my "Goliath of GRAS" are also welcome to complete the step by step process. It might provide a good example for the now reluctant DBWillis and Terry W. Benton.

            Steps One Through Five; succinctly!

            Step One:

            Is the following argument in logically valid form (i.e., IF the premises are true, the conclusion necessarily follows therefrom)?

            >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.

            DBWillis now answers as follows:

            http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/15424

            > I (DBWillis) am going to concede
            > that the structure of the argument
            > Baty calls "Goliath"...is in a form
            > that a logician would call "valid."

            > DBWillis

            and

            > I (DBWillis) would say...the structure
            > is set up in a valid form...

            > DBWillis

            OK, DBWillis agrees with me that the "Goliath of GRAS", just as proposed is a logically valid argument; an important first step in the process of testing the fundamental position under consideration.

            Now I move to steps two, three, four and five together in hopes of speeding up further progress in our efforts to get DBWillis, et al, to the substantive issue in dispute.

            Step Two:

            Does DBWillis, et al, agree that the Word of God (i.e., the text), which cannot be wrong, says that everything began over a period of six days?

            Step Three:

            Does DBWillis, et al, agree that some people interpret the text to mean it was six, literal, 24 hour or so days occurring not more than a few thousand years ago (i.e., less than 100,000 years ago)?

            Step Four:

            Does DBWillis, et al, agree that there is a hypothetical world or this real world in which it just might be possible that some thing really is more than a few thousand years old and that we can so determine from evidence independent of any interpretation of a religious text?

            Step Five:

            > Is the major premise of the
            > "Goliath of GRAS" true, where
            > the reference to empirical
            > evidence means that something
            > really is more than a few
            > thousand years old and we can
            > so determine from the evidence
            > independent of any interpretation
            > of a religious text?

            > Is the major premise of DBWillis'
            > "resurrection" argument true,
            > where the reference to empirical
            > evidence means that no one has
            > ever resurrected from the dead
            > and we can so determine from the
            > evidence independent of any
            > interpretation of a religious text?

            My answers are "yes" and "yes"; both major premises are true.

            Step Six:

            We're going to hold up on step six until we determine how far DBWillis, et al, is going to come in agreeing, as he should, on steps one through five.

            Hopefully, once DBWillis, et al, joins in agreeing with me on steps two, three, four and five, as he has now done with step one, we can proceed further in our process of testing a fundamental position and helping him with his problems regarding this important public issue.

            Will DBWillis, et al, join me through step five?

            We will see!

            Sincerely,
            Robert Baty

            ------------Original Message--------------

            From: Robert Baty
            Sent: Sunday, September 14, 2008 2:03 PM
            To: Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, coCBanned@yahoogroups.com, Focus_on_Truth@yahoogroups.com

            Subject: Testing DBWillis and a fundamental position!

            Step One:

            Is the following argument in logically valid form (i.e., IF the premises are true, the conclusion necessarily follows therefrom)?

            >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.

            DBWillis now answers as follows:

            http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/15424

            > I (DBWillis) am going to concede
            > that the structure of the argument
            > Baty calls "Goliath"...is in a form
            > that a logician would call "valid."

            > DBWillis

            and

            > I (DBWillis) would say...the structure
            > is set up in a valid form...

            > DBWillis

            OK, DBWillis agrees with me that the "Goliath of GRAS", just as proposed is a logically valid argument; an important first step in the process of testing the fundamental position under consideration.

            Now I move to steps two, three and four together in hopes of speeding up further progress in our efforts to get DBWillis to the substantive issue in dispute.

            Step Two:

            Does DBWillis agree that the Word of God (i.e., the text), which cannot be wrong, says that everything began over a period of six days?

            Step Three:

            Does DBWillis agree that some people interpret the text to mean it was six, literal, 24 hour or so days occurring not more than a few thousand years ago (i.e., less than 100,000 years ago)?

            Step Four:

            Does DBWillis agree that there is a hypothetical world or this real world in which it just might be possible that some thing really is more than a few thousand years old and that we can so determine from evidence independent of any interpretation of a religious text?

            Hopefully, once DBWillis joins in agreeing with me on steps two, three and four, as he has now done with step one, we can proceed further in our process of testing a fundamental position.

            Will DBWillis join me through step four?

            We will see!

            Sincerely,
            Robert Baty

            ---------Outstanding Invitation-------------

            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 bonafide 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 scientific evidence shows that
            > the universe has been in existence
            > more than one hundred thousand
            > (100,000) years.

            > Affirm: Todd Greene
            > Deny: ???

            Proposition #2:

            > The scientific evidence shows that
            > the universe has not been in
            > existence for more than ten
            > thousand (10,000) years.

            > Affirm: ???
            > Deny: Todd Greene

            Proposition #3:

            > The scientific evidence shows that
            > the earth has been in existence
            > more than one hundred thousand
            > (100,000) years.

            > Affirm: Todd Greene
            > Deny: ???

            Proposition #4:

            > The scientific evidence shows that
            > the earth has not been in existence
            > for more than ten thousand (10,000)
            > years.

            > Affirm: ???
            > Deny: Todd 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 (i.e., Terry W. Benton, et al) have themselves retreated into the UNscientific position
            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.

            The above position effectively concedes that young-earth creation-science cannot stand up to scrutiny as being "science" and that the real world evidence falsifies the fundamental young-earth creation-science claim that "nothing is more than a few thousand years old".

            That is a good thing to know.

            Sincerely,
            Robert Baty

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




            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Robert Baty
            Just in case any might have missed it, here again, succinctly , is the step by step review of our study of the Goliath of GRAS : Steps One Through Five Step
            Message 5 of 8 , Sep 15, 2008
            • 0 Attachment
              Just in case any might have missed it, here again, "succinctly", is the step by step review of our study of the "Goliath of GRAS":

              Steps One Through Five

              Step One:

              Is the following argument in logically valid form (i.e., IF the premises are true, the conclusion necessarily follows therefrom)?

              >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.

              DBWillis now answers as follows:

              http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/15424

              > I (DBWillis) am going to concede
              > that the structure of the argument
              > Baty calls "Goliath"...is in a form
              > that a logician would call "valid."

              > DBWillis

              and

              > I (DBWillis) would say...the structure
              > is set up in a valid form...

              > DBWillis

              OK, DBWillis agrees with me that the "Goliath of GRAS", just as proposed is a logically valid argument; an important first step in the process of testing the fundamental position under consideration.

              Now I move to steps two, three, four and five together in hopes of speeding up further progress in our efforts to get DBWillis, et al, to the substantive issue in dispute.

              Step Two:

              Does DBWillis, et al, agree that the Word of God (i.e., the text), which cannot be wrong, says that everything began over a period of six days?

              Step Three:

              Does DBWillis, et al, agree that some people interpret the text to mean it was six, literal, 24 hour or so days occurring not more than a few thousand years ago (i.e., less than 100,000 years ago)?

              Step Four:

              Does DBWillis, et al, agree that there is a hypothetical world or this real world in which it just might be possible that some thing really is more than a few thousand years old and that we can so determine from evidence independent of any interpretation of a religious text?

              Step Five:

              > Is the major premise of the
              > "Goliath of GRAS" true, where
              > the reference to empirical
              > evidence means that something
              > really is more than a few
              > thousand years old and we can
              > so determine from the evidence
              > independent of any interpretation
              > of a religious text?

              > Is the major premise of DBWillis'
              > "resurrection" argument true,
              > where the reference to empirical
              > evidence means that no one has
              > ever resurrected from the dead
              > and we can so determine from the
              > evidence independent of any
              > interpretation of a religious text?

              My answers are "yes" and "yes"; both major premises are true.

              Step Six:

              We're going to hold up on step six until we determine how far DBWillis, et al, is going to come in agreeing, as he should, on steps one through five.

              Hopefully, once DBWillis, et al, joins in agreeing with me on steps two, three, four and five, as he has now done with step one, we can proceed further in our process of testing a fundamental position and helping him with his problems regarding this important public issue.

              Will DBWillis, et al, join me through step five?

              We will see!

              Sincerely,
              Robert Baty

              ---------Outstanding Invitation-------------

              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 bonafide 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 scientific evidence shows that
              > the universe has been in existence
              > more than one hundred thousand
              > (100,000) years.

              > Affirm: Todd Greene
              > Deny: ???

              Proposition #2:

              > The scientific evidence shows that
              > the universe has not been in
              > existence for more than ten
              > thousand (10,000) years.

              > Affirm: ???
              > Deny: Todd Greene

              Proposition #3:

              > The scientific evidence shows that
              > the earth has been in existence
              > more than one hundred thousand
              > (100,000) years.

              > Affirm: Todd Greene
              > Deny: ???

              Proposition #4:

              > The scientific evidence shows that
              > the earth has not been in existence
              > for more than ten thousand (10,000)
              > years.

              > Affirm: ???
              > Deny: Todd 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 (i.e., Terry W. Benton, et al) have themselves retreated into the UNscientific position
              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.

              The above position effectively concedes that young-earth creation-science cannot stand up to scrutiny as being "science" and that the real world evidence falsifies the fundamental young-earth creation-science claim that "nothing is more than a few thousand years old".

              That is a good thing to know.

              Sincerely,
              Robert Baty

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



              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Robert Baty
              OK, let s try this again and see if we can t find some serious students out there who are willing to complete the step by step process developed for those who
              Message 6 of 8 , Sep 15, 2008
              • 0 Attachment
                OK, let's try this again and see if we can't find some serious students out there who are willing to complete the step by step process developed for those who have yet to understand and appreciate the "Goliath of GRAS", fundamentals of sound reasoning, common sense, and the place the "Goliath of GRAS" holds in the popular, public debate over the young-earth creation-science movement.

                It is hope that those who may have dropped out (i.e., DBWillis), or those who have otherwise chosen (i.e., DBWillis & Terry W. Benton) to distract and/or thwart those who might otherwise benefit from the process will cease their unseemly efforts.

                Steps One Through Five

                Step One:

                Is the following argument in logically valid form (i.e., IF the premises are true, the conclusion necessarily follows therefrom)?

                >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.

                DBWillis now answers as follows:

                http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/15424

                > I (DBWillis) am going to concede
                > that the structure of the argument
                > Baty calls "Goliath"...is in a form
                > that a logician would call "valid."

                > DBWillis

                and

                > I (DBWillis) would say...the structure
                > is set up in a valid form...

                > DBWillis

                OK, DBWillis agrees with me that the "Goliath of GRAS", just as proposed is a logically valid argument; an important first step in the process of testing the fundamental position under consideration.

                Now I move to steps two, three, four and five together in hopes of speeding up further progress in our efforts to get DBWillis, et al, to the substantive issue in dispute.

                Step Two:

                Does DBWillis, et al, agree that the Word of God (i.e., the text), which cannot be wrong, says that everything began over a period of six days?

                Step Three:

                Does DBWillis, et al, agree that some people interpret the text to mean it was six, literal, 24 hour or so days occurring not more than a few thousand years ago (i.e., less than 100,000 years ago)?

                Step Four:

                Does DBWillis, et al, agree that there is a hypothetical world or this real world in which it just might be possible that some thing really is more than a few thousand years old and that we can so determine from evidence independent of any interpretation of a religious text?

                Step Five:

                > Is the major premise of the
                > "Goliath of GRAS" true, where
                > the reference to empirical
                > evidence means that something
                > really is more than a few
                > thousand years old and we can
                > so determine from the evidence
                > independent of any interpretation
                > of a religious text?

                > Is the major premise of DBWillis'
                > "resurrection" argument true,
                > where the reference to empirical
                > evidence means that no one has
                > ever resurrected from the dead
                > and we can so determine from the
                > evidence independent of any
                > interpretation of a religious text?

                My answers are "yes" and "yes"; both major premises are true.

                Step Six:

                We're going to hold up on step six, and following steps, until we determine who is going to participate and whether there are going to be any disagreements to be resolved regarding steps one through five.

                Sincerely,
                Robert Baty

                ---------Outstanding Invitation-------------

                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 bonafide 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 scientific evidence shows that
                > the universe has been in existence
                > more than one hundred thousand
                > (100,000) years.

                > Affirm: Todd Greene
                > Deny: ???

                Proposition #2:

                > The scientific evidence shows that
                > the universe has not been in
                > existence for more than ten
                > thousand (10,000) years.

                > Affirm: ???
                > Deny: Todd Greene

                Proposition #3:

                > The scientific evidence shows that
                > the earth has been in existence
                > more than one hundred thousand
                > (100,000) years.

                > Affirm: Todd Greene
                > Deny: ???

                Proposition #4:

                > The scientific evidence shows that
                > the earth has not been in existence
                > for more than ten thousand (10,000)
                > years.

                > Affirm: ???
                > Deny: Todd 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 (i.e., Terry W. Benton, et al) have themselves retreated into the UNscientific position
                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.

                The above position effectively concedes that young-earth creation-science cannot stand up to scrutiny as being "science" and that the real world evidence falsifies the fundamental young-earth creation-science claim that "nothing is more than a few thousand years old".

                That is a good thing to know.

                Sincerely,
                Robert Baty

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




                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • Robert Baty
                OK, I think we can now identify further the unresolved problems DBWillis is having with the fundamental matters necessary to understanding the Goliath of
                Message 7 of 8 , Sep 15, 2008
                • 0 Attachment
                  OK, I think we can now identify further the unresolved problems DBWillis is having with the fundamental matters necessary to understanding the "Goliath of GRAS".

                  After finally agreeing that the "Goliath of GRAS" is the simple, logically valid argument that has been proposed, he now writes that he cannot join me in agreeing as to the subsequent steps posted in my step by step process.

                  Let's look at DBWillis' problems further:

                  First of all, DBWillis skipped over steps two and three and went on to step four. Perhaps he meant to agree to step two and three, but simply failed to do so.

                  DBWillis needs to clarify his position regarding steps two and three so that there is no misunderstanding about his agreeing with me on those simple, fundamental matters.

                  For now, I'll assume he agrees with me on steps two and three. That's further progress inasmuch as we have three of the five steps agreed upon.

                  Now, here's step four which DBWillis contests:

                  > Step Four:

                  > Does DBWillis, et al, agree that
                  > there is a hypothetical world or
                  > this real world in which it just
                  > might be possible that some thing
                  > really is more than a few thousand
                  > years old and that we can so
                  > determine from evidence
                  > independent of any interpretation
                  > of a religious text?

                  DBWillis replies:

                  > No, this is false.

                  Apparently, DBWillis is having a problem understanding a "hypothetical" claim such as is the major premise in modus ponens form arguments such as my "Goliath of GRAS". I suggest DBWillis do his own independent work on that problem in anticipating of his realizing, as he now has regarding the validity issue, that the hypothetical major premise of the "Goliath of GRAS" is "hypothetical", proposing a hypothetical situation where some thing really is more than a few thousand years old and we can so determine from the evidence independent of the text.

                  What DBWillis said to supplement his wrong answer to step four's question was not relevant to the question, and so need not be further dealt with.

                  Hopefully, DBWillis will give more serious consideration to actually trying to understand the "succinct" simplicity and propriety of the step four question, do his own independent study on hypothetical premises, and return with the correct answer.

                  Considering our indicated agreement through step three, at such time as DBWillis is able to provide the right answer to the step four question, we will proceed to consider his reply to the step five question, including any further consideration he may want to receive regarding his "resurrection" premise.

                  Sincerely,
                  Robert Baty

                  ---------DBWillis Latest Message----------

                  To: coCBanned@yahoogroups.com
                  From: DBWILLIS@...
                  Subject: [coCBanned] Re: Testing DBWillis and a fundamental position!
                  Date: Monday, September 15, 2008 1:12 PM

                  David Willis here,

                  RB>>Will DBWillis, et al, join me through step five?>>

                  No.

                  >>Step Four:

                  Does DBWillis, et al, agree that there is a hypothetical world or this real
                  world in which it just might be possible that some thing really is more than
                  a few thousand years old and that we can so determine from evidence
                  independent of any interpretation of a religious text?>>

                  No, this is false. Using a naturalistic method to test if a miracle
                  occurred and uniformitarian standards to determine age of a catastrophe will make it
                  impossible to "determine from evidence...text." If I had examined the wine
                  at Cana I could not know it was water 5 minutes earlier...apart from the
                  text.



                  Succinct enough? Stop your horsing around with self-praise and
                  grandstanding and maybe some useful discussion can happen.

                  Why won't you answer MY questions, Baty. Don't expect me to keep responding
                  to YOU all the time w/o you also responding to ME.

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





                  -----Original Message-----
                  From: Robert Baty
                  Sent: Monday, September 15, 2008 11:30 AM
                  To: Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, coCBanned@yahoogroups.com
                  Subject: [coCBanned] Re: Testing DBWillis and a fundamental position!

                  OK, let's try this again and see if we can't find some serious students out there who are willing to complete the step by step process developed for those who have yet to understand and appreciate the "Goliath of GRAS", fundamentals of sound reasoning, common sense, and the place the "Goliath of GRAS" holds in the popular, public debate over the young-earth creation-science movement.

                  It is hope that those who may have dropped out (i.e., DBWillis), or those who have otherwise chosen (i.e., DBWillis & Terry W. Benton) to distract and/or thwart those who might otherwise benefit from the process will cease their unseemly efforts.

                  Steps One Through Five

                  Step One:

                  Is the following argument in logically valid form (i.e., IF the premises are true, the conclusion necessarily follows therefrom)?

                  >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.

                  DBWillis now answers as follows:

                  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/15424

                  > I (DBWillis) am going to concede
                  > that the structure of the argument
                  > Baty calls "Goliath"...is in a form
                  > that a logician would call "valid."

                  > DBWillis

                  and

                  > I (DBWillis) would say...the structure
                  > is set up in a valid form...

                  > DBWillis

                  OK, DBWillis agrees with me that the "Goliath of GRAS", just as proposed is a logically valid argument; an important first step in the process of testing the fundamental position under consideration.

                  Now I move to steps two, three, four and five together in hopes of speeding up further progress in our efforts to get DBWillis, et al, to the substantive issue in dispute.

                  Step Two:

                  Does DBWillis, et al, agree that the Word of God (i.e., the text), which cannot be wrong, says that everything began over a period of six days?

                  Step Three:

                  Does DBWillis, et al, agree that some people interpret the text to mean it was six, literal, 24 hour or so days occurring not more than a few thousand years ago (i.e., less than 100,000 years ago)?

                  Step Four:

                  Does DBWillis, et al, agree that there is a hypothetical world or this real world in which it just might be possible that some thing really is more than a few thousand years old and that we can so determine from evidence independent of any interpretation of a religious text?

                  Step Five:

                  > Is the major premise of the
                  > "Goliath of GRAS" true, where
                  > the reference to empirical
                  > evidence means that something
                  > really is more than a few
                  > thousand years old and we can
                  > so determine from the evidence
                  > independent of any interpretation
                  > of a religious text?

                  > Is the major premise of DBWillis'
                  > "resurrection" argument true,
                  > where the reference to empirical
                  > evidence means that no one has
                  > ever resurrected from the dead
                  > and we can so determine from the
                  > evidence independent of any
                  > interpretation of a religious text?

                  My answers are "yes" and "yes"; both major premises are true.

                  Step Six:

                  We're going to hold up on step six, and following steps, until we determine who is going to participate and whether there are going to be any disagreements to be resolved regarding steps one through five.

                  Sincerely,
                  Robert Baty

                  ---------Outstanding Invitation-------------

                  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 bonafide 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 scientific evidence shows that
                  > the universe has been in existence
                  > more than one hundred thousand
                  > (100,000) years.

                  > Affirm: Todd Greene
                  > Deny: ???

                  Proposition #2:

                  > The scientific evidence shows that
                  > the universe has not been in
                  > existence for more than ten
                  > thousand (10,000) years.

                  > Affirm: ???
                  > Deny: Todd Greene

                  Proposition #3:

                  > The scientific evidence shows that
                  > the earth has been in existence
                  > more than one hundred thousand
                  > (100,000) years.

                  > Affirm: Todd Greene
                  > Deny: ???

                  Proposition #4:

                  > The scientific evidence shows that
                  > the earth has not been in existence
                  > for more than ten thousand (10,000)
                  > years.

                  > Affirm: ???
                  > Deny: Todd 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 (i.e., Terry W. Benton, et al) have themselves retreated into the UNscientific position
                  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.

                  The above position effectively concedes that young-earth creation-science cannot stand up to scrutiny as being "science" and that the real world evidence falsifies the fundamental young-earth creation-science claim that "nothing is more than a few thousand years old".

                  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
                  Here s another succinct review while we await further positive results from DBWillis serious consideration of his problems with my Goliath of GRAS and his
                  Message 8 of 8 , Sep 15, 2008
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Here's another "succinct" review while we await further positive results from DBWillis' serious consideration of his problems with my "Goliath of GRAS" and his "resurrection" argument:

                    Step One:

                    > DBWillis and I agree that the
                    > "Goliath of GRAS" is a simple,
                    > logically VALID argument.

                    Step Two:

                    > DBWillis and I agree that the
                    > Word of God (i.e., the text),
                    > which cannot be wrong, says
                    > that everything began over
                    > a period of six days.

                    Step Three:

                    > DBWillis and I agree that some
                    > people interpret the text to mean
                    > it was six, literal, 24 hour or so
                    > days occurring not more than a
                    > few thousand years ago (i.e., less
                    > than 100,000 years ago)?

                    Step Four:

                    > While I propose that it is possible
                    > to hypothesize a world in which
                    > some thing really is more than
                    > a few thousand years old and
                    > we can so determine from
                    > evidence independent of any
                    > interpretation of a religious
                    > text, DBWillis has yet to come
                    > to that knowledge!

                    > I await DBWillis' correction of his
                    > error. He can hypothesize such
                    > a world, we know he can do so,
                    > and he knows we know that he
                    > can do so.

                    > DBWillis just needs to correct
                    > his answer on step four and
                    > then proceed to step five.

                    Step Five:

                    > I propose that the major premise
                    > of the "Goliath of GRAS" is true,
                    > where the reference to empirical
                    > evidence means that something
                    > really is more than a few
                    > thousand years old and we can
                    > so determine from the evidence
                    > independent of any interpretation
                    > of a religious text.

                    > I propose that the major premise
                    > of DBWillis'"resurrection" argument
                    > is true, where the reference to
                    > empirical evidence means that no
                    > one has ever resurrected from the
                    > dead and we can so determine from
                    > the evidence independent of any
                    > interpretation of a religious text.

                    DBWillis has yet to advance to step five and provide his answer!

                    Step Six:

                    > I am holding up on step six and
                    > following pending a resolution
                    > of the disputed steps above.

                    Sincerely,
                    Robert Baty

                    -----Earlier Message (excerpts)-----------

                    From: Robert Baty
                    Sent: Monday, September 15, 2008 11:30 AM
                    To: Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, coCBanned@yahoogroups.com
                    Subject: [coCBanned] Re: Testing DBWillis and a fundamental position!

                    Steps One Through Five

                    Step One:

                    Is the following argument in logically valid form (i.e., IF the premises are true, the conclusion necessarily follows therefrom)?

                    >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.

                    DBWillis now answers as follows:

                    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/15424

                    > I (DBWillis) am going to concede
                    > that the structure of the argument
                    > Baty calls "Goliath"...is in a form
                    > that a logician would call "valid."

                    > DBWillis

                    and

                    > I (DBWillis) would say...the structure
                    > is set up in a valid form...

                    > DBWillis

                    OK, DBWillis agrees with me that the "Goliath of GRAS", just as proposed is a logically valid argument; an important first step in the process of testing the fundamental position under consideration.

                    Now I move to steps two, three, four and five together in hopes of speeding up further progress in our efforts to get DBWillis, et al, to the substantive issue in dispute.

                    Step Two:

                    Does DBWillis, et al, agree that the Word of God (i.e., the text), which cannot be wrong, says that everything began over a period of six days?

                    Step Three:

                    Does DBWillis, et al, agree that some people interpret the text to mean it was six, literal, 24 hour or so days occurring not more than a few thousand years ago (i.e., less than 100,000 years ago)?

                    Step Four:

                    Does DBWillis, et al, agree that there is a hypothetical world or this real world in which it just might be possible that some thing really is more than a few thousand years old and that we can so determine from evidence independent of any interpretation of a religious text?

                    Step Five:

                    > Is the major premise of the
                    > "Goliath of GRAS" true, where
                    > the reference to empirical
                    > evidence means that something
                    > really is more than a few
                    > thousand years old and we can
                    > so determine from the evidence
                    > independent of any interpretation
                    > of a religious text?

                    > Is the major premise of DBWillis'
                    > "resurrection" argument true,
                    > where the reference to empirical
                    > evidence means that no one has
                    > ever resurrected from the dead
                    > and we can so determine from the
                    > evidence independent of any
                    > interpretation of a religious text?

                    My answers are "yes" and "yes"; both major premises are true.

                    Step Six:

                    We're going to hold up on step six, and following steps, until we determine who is going to participate and whether there are going to be any disagreements to be resolved regarding steps one through five.

                    Sincerely,
                    Robert Baty

                    ---------Outstanding Invitation-------------

                    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 bonafide 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 scientific evidence shows that
                    > the universe has been in existence
                    > more than one hundred thousand
                    > (100,000) years.

                    > Affirm: Todd Greene
                    > Deny: ???

                    Proposition #2:

                    > The scientific evidence shows that
                    > the universe has not been in
                    > existence for more than ten
                    > thousand (10,000) years.

                    > Affirm: ???
                    > Deny: Todd Greene

                    Proposition #3:

                    > The scientific evidence shows that
                    > the earth has been in existence
                    > more than one hundred thousand
                    > (100,000) years.

                    > Affirm: Todd Greene
                    > Deny: ???

                    Proposition #4:

                    > The scientific evidence shows that
                    > the earth has not been in existence
                    > for more than ten thousand (10,000)
                    > years.

                    > Affirm: ???
                    > Deny: Todd 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 (i.e., Terry W. Benton, et al) have themselves retreated into the UNscientific position
                    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.

                    The above position effectively concedes that young-earth creation-science cannot stand up to scrutiny as being "science" and that the real world evidence falsifies the fundamental young-earth creation-science claim that "nothing is more than a few thousand years old".

                    That is a good thing 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.