The false major premise of Benton's "Adam2" argument!
- One of the links to the authentic, bonafide, step by step program designed for the remedial logic and theology students such as DBWillis, Terry W. Benton and Veto Roley, is:
Beware of cheap efforts to imitate and mock from such as Terry W. Benton, preacher, debater, logician of sorts and public representative of the Pine Lane church of Christ,
One such cheap effort to imitate and mock from Terry W. Benton is his redundant presentation of what he calls his "Adam2" argument, the major premise which is as follows:
Major Premise as stated by Terry:
> If the empirical evidence saysAs done when the "Adam2" was previously disposed of by me, the following is presented again in order to simplify what the above is actually proposing, quite unlike the "Goliath of GRAS":
> that there were millions of years
> of pre-Adamic races, and is
> interpreted to mean that Adam
> had earthly fathers and mothers,
> and God's word says that Adam
> was the first man and had no
> earthly father or mother, then
> the interpretation of the
> empirical evidence by some is
> Terry W. Benton
Major Premise as restated by Robert:
> If there is empirical evidenceThe fundamental difference between Terry's major premise and that of the "Goliath of GRAS" is that the "Goliath of GRAS" has a true major premise, by stipulated definition and the force and effect of sound reasoning and common sense, while Terry W. Benton's major premise is false.
> of something and that is
> interpreted contrary to what
> Terry W. Benton says God's
> word teaches, then the
> interpretation of the
> empirical evidence is wrong!
That that is the case is seen in Terry's proposed Step Five:
Step Five as proposed by Terry:
> Is the major premise of theWell, well! Not particularly "succinct", but I think we can figure out what that is getting at; and it works to show just how "foolish" Terry W. Benton has been in resuming his unseemly, unrepentant course instead of seriously taking up the legitimate step by step program designed to help him with his problems regarding the "Goliath of GRAS".
> "Goliath of ADAM2" true,
>> where the reference to
>> empirical evidence means
>> that there really were
>> pre-Adamic races that gave
>> birth to him and the text
>> of God's word is misinterpreted
>> to mean Adam was the first
>> man without a father or mother,
>> and that only the empirical
>> evidence should be
>> considered independently of any
>> interpretation of a religious text?
> Terry W. Benton
Terry W. Benton, in his Step Five stipulates that:
> The reference to empiricalIf it is the case, as Terry stipulates, that "there really were pre-Adamic races that gave birth to him and that the text of God's word is misinterpreted", then it should be clear that Terry's major premise is false in that, if it really is the case..., then it is NOT the case that the interpretation of the empirical evidence is wrong!
> evidence means that there
> really were pre-Adamic races
> that gave birth to him and the
> text of God's word is
> Terry W. Benton
So, the answer to Terry's Step Five question is:
> NO, the major premise is NOT true!And that answer can be determined simply with reference to the stipulated definitions, sound reasoning and common sense!
That Terry's major premise is false can be more easily determined by considering my "succinct" restatement above of Terry's major premise.
Now, perhaps, Terry will give up his "foolish" folly and seriously take up the simple, "succinct", step by step program that has been designed specifically for him and others who are having so many problems understanding the simplicity and propriety of the "Goliath of GRAS" and its highly esteemed place in the history of the popular, public young-earth creation-science debate.
Here's one of the links where those interested can take up the step by step process to understanding and appreciating the "Goliath of GRAS":
Please, please, Terry, no more "foolishness" from you. Get serious, repent, bring forth your works meet for repentance, or at least stay out of the way...please!
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]