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

What is admissable evidence?

Expand Messages
  • Robert Baty
    That (see message following my name below), from DBWillis, just wasn t very succinct at all! One might get the distinct impression that DBWillis wasn t being
    Message 1 of 1 , Sep 16, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      That (see message following my name below), from DBWillis, just wasn't very "succinct" at all!

      One might get the distinct impression that DBWillis wasn't being serious when he proposed that I be "succinct" in my efforts to help him with his problems.

      Here's now two of the links again to the "succinct" review of the "succinct" step by step process designed just for such as DBWillis to allow him to demonstrate his understanding of my "Goliath of GRAS" and his related problems such as demonstrated in his latest post:

      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/15448

      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/10303

      After getting off to a good start, DBWillis appears to have simply "run off"! I think his latest posting gives insight into why that may be the case.

      I was able to discern the following from DBWillis latest message:

      > This whole debate hinges on
      > what is admissable evidence...

      > ...the theistic model is that some
      > things we see as age may only be
      > appearance of age.

      > Maybe since we have Todd in
      > the discussion we can get an
      > HONEST opinion about whether
      > the Bible claims to describe a
      > recent global flood.

      > ...AE theists try to twist it to fit
      > their view because they elevate
      > man's naturalistic science above
      > the clear statements found in
      > the Word of God.

      The above comments suggest that DBWillis, despite clearly demonstrating otherwise in his discussions, understands quite well the "Goliath of GRAS" and simply is not able to defeat its simple, logical validity, the truth of its major premise or show that the evidence of age cannot stand up to legitimate "scientific" scrutiny.

      DBWillis knows that young-earth creation-science has lost the debate over whether or not the legitimate evidence, apart from any interpretation of a religious text, demonstrates that some things really are more than a few thousand years old.

      DBWillis' UNscientific position, "succinctly" summarized is, as further demonstrated in his latest posting, is:

      > I, DBWillis, have my interpretation
      > of the text regarding the real
      > world and that trumps any real
      > world evidence to the contrary.

      As earlier noted, you can simply change the subject from "age" to the "recent global flood" to get one of the "family of GRAS" arguments in order to present DBWillis with the falsification test of his interpretation of the text on the flood issue.

      DBWillis won't go there any more than he's been willing to complete the step by step program to demonstrate his understanding of the "Goliath of GRAS".

      Why?

      "Succinctly" put, it is because DBWillis' position, despite all his rhetoric to confuse the issue, really can be briefly summarized as:

      > I, DBWillis, have my interpretation
      > of the text regarding the real
      > world and that trumps any real
      > world evidence to the contrary.

      It isn't really about a lack of understanding of the "Goliath of GRAS", though DBWillis, Terry W. Benton, et al, need to complete the step by step process in order to officially demonstrate their understanding.

      It really is about the fact that they simply will not accept the proposition that their real world claim, based on an interpretation of a religious text, is subject to falsification with reference to the evidence independent of such interpretation. In other words, "succinctly" put, they don't believe it is possible to know, independent of their interpretation of the text, whether or not anything is more than a few thousand years old.

      They could test that position against the evidence of age issue with my "Goliath of GRAS" as the platform, but they have yet to find a "David" to take up the cause!

      Why?

      Because they know they have already lost that debate! Young-earth creation-science cannot stand the test!

      The step by step program awaits DBWillis, Terry W. Benton, and any others serious about demonstrating their understanding of the "Goliath of GRAS", DBWillis' "resurrection" argument problem, and Terry W. Benton's "Adam2" argument problem.

      Here's now two links to pick up the step by step process and begin working through it so as to demonstrate your understanding of the issues (i.e., before making a "fool" of yourself by demonstrating a lack of understanding and attacking the "Goliath of GRAS" with false charges):

      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/15448

      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/10303

      See you there, or not!

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

      Still no "David"!

      Sincerely,
      Robert Baty



      -----Original Message-----
      From: DBWILLIS@...
      Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2008 12:42 AM
      To: coCBanned@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: [coCBanned] What is admissable evidence


      David Willis here,

      Todd G. who lied to us for months that he was a theist (Steve
      Heiden)...wants to charge ME with lying and deceit. Isn't that rich! Ad hominem is about
      all these fellas have in their holster.

      He wrote:

      Such as in this case where David Willis
      blatantly lied with a statement based on falsely pretending that
      everyone who is not a young earth creationist is an atheist. ...What do
      Terry's remarks here have to do with David using the falsehood
      that everyone who isn't a young earth creationist is an atheist???...Every
      young earth
      creationist who uses rhetoric by which he pretends that geological
      science or astronomical science "isn't really science, but it's just
      atheism in disguise, and all the Christians who disagree with my
      belief in the doctrine of young earth creationism have merely been
      fooled by the atheist philosophy" is lying through his teeth, and
      showing what a complete idiot he is besides.>>

      Nice. I went back to search for "atheist" to find how I had used the term
      lately and I didn't find what he accused me of saying, but rather found this:


      >>Pure atheists can deny God and miracles
      altogether. But you theists who want to use atheistic methods to test what
      did
      or
      didn't happen are simply in an oxymoronic state of cognitive dissonance.
      >>

      Now that is NOT saying all who are not YE are atheists. I refer to you AE's
      as THEISTS...who use "atheistic methods" and by that I mean you only permit
      explanations which rule out the supernatural...as atheists would.
      Naturalist-only explanations. That is all I mean. To charge me with saying you are all
      atheists is at least as unfair as you think I have been. Not all AE's are
      atheists and many here are not, but it appears that some of you (Todd
      excluded) believe God exists but He is limited to acting ONLY in a way that would fit
      with how it would appear if He did NOT exist. Is that it? Deism? Or an
      imitation of Deism by God? If He does something actually SUPERNATURAL, then He
      contradicts His NATURE???

      This whole debate hinges on what is admissable evidence and trying to win it
      by only admitting evidence which an atheist would admit...just will not be
      acceded. Whether you LIKE it or not, it is fair that if you are seeking to
      test the theist model (or YE model) and seek to know if something supernatural
      may have happened, then you must ask what the world would be likely to look
      like if it HAD. Even theists who are AE will admit that if you try to find a
      naturalistic explanation for everything, you will get it WRONG....whether or
      not that is "scientific". Unfortunately for AE's, on part of the theistic
      model is that some things we see as age may only be appearance of age. That is
      true BY DEFINITION. Like it or not...that is the model. Atheists would
      tell you that God did NOT bring matter into existence. They would say that the
      evidence (i.e. the naturalistic evidence) would fit the non-existence of
      God...and ONLY the non-existence of God. And of course they are right...if they
      get to define what is admissable as evidence. If you start the investigation
      by ruling out God and any supernatural acts, then the debate about where
      matter came from is already over and atheism wins. Same goes for the origin of
      life. Same goes for the Resurrection, and every miracle. And atheists are
      nearly as adamant against any major catastrophe being considered as possibly
      explaining features we observe. And unfortunately some theists will agree
      with them about what to admit into evidence. They want the rules of debate to
      exclude any explanation which has God actually behaving like a Creator. He
      is supposed to be kept bottled up I guess and behave as if He DOESN'T exist.

      Can God instantly make a grain of sand, EVEN A SINGLE TINY GRAIN OF
      SAND...without contradicting His nature? Yes or no?

      Maybe since we have Todd in the discussion we can get an HONEST opinion
      about whether the Bible claims to describe a recent global flood. He doesn't
      have any inconvenient hangups or scruples to prevent him from admitting it DOES
      describe that...but it was just a lie from a human. I respect that honest
      dealing with the text much better than how AE theists try to twist it to fit
      their view because they elevate man's naturalistic science above the clear
      statements found in the Word of God.

      DW




      **************Psssst...Have you heard the news? There's a new fashion blog,
      plus the latest fall trends and hair styles at StyleList.com.
      (http://www.stylelist.com/trends?ncid=aolsty00050000000014)


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




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