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

Fw: Veto Roley's empty boasts again; for the record!

Expand Messages
  • Robert Baty
    ... From: Robert Baty Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2008 4:09 PM To: coCBanned@yahoogroups.com Subject: Veto Roley s empty boasts again; for the record! Since
    Message 1 of 1 , Nov 4, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      -----Original Message-----
      From: Robert Baty
      Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2008 4:09 PM
      To: coCBanned@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: Veto Roley's empty boasts again; for the record!

      Since Veto Roley appears determined to continue to falsely represent the history of the matter, I present the following for ready reference to show what the issue was that I was dealing with and to propose that, search as one might, he will not find where Veto Roley came close to meeting his responsibilities to even try and prove that the Psalm 14:1 statement that

      > "the fool sayeth in his heart
      > there is no God"

      means, is properly interpreted to mean,

      > "all atheists are fools":

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

      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/8579

      From: Veto Roley
      Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2008 4:11 PM
      To: coCBanned@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: Authorities on Psalms 14:1

      (excerpts)

      The statement before us is,

      > "The fool has said in his
      > heart that there is no God."

      (T)he correct rendering of this statement is

      > "All atheists are fools"...

      Veto Roley

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

      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/8934

      From: Veto Roley
      To: coCBanned@yahoogroups.com
      Date: Thursday, July 31, 2008 3:15 AM
      Subject: Re: Rolie Polie Olie's "fool" and the IRS; another test!

      (excerpt)

      I'm going to try...to demonstrate the proof...that the interpretation of Pslams 14:1 that

      > "all atheists are fools"

      is a valid interpretation of

      > "the fool has said in his
      > heart that there is no God."

      What is shown below is a two-column
      Euclidean proof...

      Statement 1:

      > The Christian God exists and
      > is revealed in the Bible.

      Statement 2:

      > Belief in God does not make
      > Him real if He does not exist.
      > Disbelief in God does not make
      > Him false if He exists.

      Statement 3:

      > God, if He exists, is more powerful
      > than the combined strength of
      > humanity.

      Statement 4:

      > A man can possess, at the same
      > time and even in related fields,
      > great foolishness and great genius.

      Statement 5:

      > While great foolishness does not
      > cancel great genius, the
      > consequences of great foolishness
      > can be greater than the memory of
      > great genius.

      Statement 6:

      > The Bible declares someone who
      > denies God, but who is wise in
      > other areas, to be a fool.

      Statement 7:

      > Only positive faith in Him can
      > please God.

      Statement 8:

      > Those without positive faith
      > are hostile to God.

      Statement 9:

      > God's wrath is directed to those
      > who do not have a positive belief
      > in Him.

      Statement 10:

      > Neither agnostics nor atheists
      > have a positive belief in the
      > Christian God.

      Statement 11:

      > An atheist will face God's wrath
      > because he does not a positive
      > belief in Him.

      Statement 12:

      > Xxxx Xxxxxx is an atheist.

      Statement 13:

      > Xxxx Xxxxxx will, because of his
      > negative belief in God, face God's
      > wrath.

      Statement 14:

      > It is foolishness to oppose that
      > which you can not beat when
      > you gain nothing from that
      > opposition.

      Statement 15:

      > Opposing God only brings His wrath.

      Statement 16:

      > It is foolish to oppose God since
      > it only brings His wrath.

      Statement 17:

      > Atheists are foolish to oppose
      > God since it only brings His wrath.

      Statement 18:

      > The atheist is a fool for saying
      > in his heart that there is no God.

      Statement 19:

      > Xxxx is foolish to oppose God
      > since it only brings His wrath.

      Statement 20:

      > Regardless of wisdom he may
      > have in other fields, Xxxx is a
      > fool for saying in his heart there
      > is no God.

      Veto Roley

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

      My further comments:

      Most will readily note that Veto's highly touted "two-column thingy" doesn't come close to even dealing with his boast about what he can prove regarding Psalm 14:1.

      Search as you might in the archives, I propose that you won't find anything else that comes any closer than his above, failed "two-column thingy"!

      Similarly, I propose that you won't find anything in the archives where Veto Roley has provided anything of substance related to his allegations about my "Goliath of GRAS" being INvalid and UNsound.

      Veto Roley simply, for apparently personal reasons, can't face the "Goliath of GRAS" and so keeps promoting his ipse dixits against it.

      Certainly, as Veto Roley admits in his latest messages, he's got "trust" issues, but that involves his personal problems which I am unable to help him with; not for lack of trying, but because Veto rejects my help.

      Veto improperly tries to impute his problems with that onto me; a tactic that has been used by other adversaries of mine on this list.

      Perhaps now Veto Roley will take his own advice, if he cannot reform his behavior and work on cleaning up some of the problems he has created in these discussions, and just "shut up"!

      Sincerely,
      Robert Baty

      ------------Previous Messages-------------

      From: Robert Baty
      Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2008 9:23 AM
      To: coCBanned@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: [coCBanned] Re: Batty's gnat of gras

      What Veto Roley can't handle, and what is really bugging him:

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

      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 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

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

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

      From: Robert Baty
      Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2008 9:18 AM
      To: coCBanned@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: [coCBanned] Re: Batty's gnat of gras

      Veto Roley again confirms my observations!

      Veto writes:

      > I (Veto Roley) took...and then...

      What Veto is still in denial regarding is his failed effort to measure up to his boast that he can prove that the Psalm 14:1 statement that

      >> "the fool sayeth in his
      >> heart there is no God"

      > means, is properly
      > interterpreted to mean

      >> "all atheists are fools".

      Veto Roley even now seems to not want to refer to his "17 pieces" as his highly touted, but failed, "two-column Euclidean proof" that he never provided any authorities in support thereof.

      The substance of Veto Roley's continued demonstration is in the fact that he does not deal with or even attempt to rebut, which he cannot do, the fact that

      > for all Veto Roley knows

      >> there are some things
      >> more than a few thousand
      >> years old,

      >> my "Goliath of GRAS" is
      >> valid, and

      >> my "Goliath of GRAS" is
      >> sound.

      By his own admission, that is just fine with Veto Roley.

      And that and his personal problems appear to be what keeps him from taking his own advice and just "shutting up"!

      Sincerely,
      Robert Baty

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

      From: Veto F. Roley
      Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2008 12:40 AM
      To: coCBanned@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: [coCBanned] Re: Batty's gnat of gras

      Batty continues his irrationality by writing,

      > "Am I become your enemy
      > because I have told you the
      > truth? I provide some good
      > empirical evidence that such
      > can be the case."

      Batty, your writings PROVE you wouldn't know Truth if it was presented on a level that a kindergarden student could learn Truth.

      I took the patently, prima facie obvious (an atheist is fool for denying the Christian God if that God exists) and then, since you are so blind to Truth that you don't comprehend the obvious, broke it down into 17 child-size pieces for you, demonstrated the Truth of each of those pieces and painstakingly showed you how those 17 pieces led to the conclusion that, if the Christian God exists, the atheist is a fool for rejecting Him.

      It was demonstrated to you in detail that a person could be perceived, rightly or wrongly, as "wise" in one area (for instance, there is nothing that prevents an atheist from being the best civil engineer in the world or from solving very complex math problems), but very foolish in another area. It was shown to you that a person could be wise in one area and, AT THE SAME TIME, foolish in another.

      Moreover, I showed you that, for the purposes of this statement, one can claim to be an atheist, agnostic or apathetic toward religion and fall under the "fool" category in regards to God.

      Then you write that you have "good empirical evidence" to prove -- what?

      That I have a beef with you for some reason or that the atheist is wise for rejecting God if He exists (and Batty, either the athiest is a fool for rejecting God or he is wise -- those are the ONLY two choices open to you).

      I haven't seen evidence of either.

      I stand by my promise that once you start behaving rationally and intelligently, then I will stop calling you a fool.

      You can do this in one or two ways -- admit that you are wrong in regards to an athiest being a fool or declare yourself to be either an athiest or agnostic.

      The first admission admits the Truth.

      The second admission provides a rational context for your denial that the athiest is a fool for rejecting God.

      It is your inablity to comprehend Truth that results in me calling you Batty.

      As for any "evidence" that you might have presented... I simply haven't seen anything.

      All I've seen is the same old tired rehashing of what has been proven false.

      To put it in a way that you may can understand -- although I have my doubts that you have enough rationality to understand anything -- it would be like you arguing Ernst Haeckel's "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" or the validity of Piltdown Man in a discussion of evolution AFTER those items had been carefully explained and demonstrated to you as being scientific frauds.

      The more your argue your discredited points, the lower your credibility gets -- even though your credibility with me is so low I really don't know how it could get any lower.

      Repeating those arguments which have been correctly rejected as outright error does not make your errors correct, Batty.

      Batty, you haven't made a valid argument since I've been on this board, with Truth being the arbiter of what is valid.

      Truth, Batty... no. You don't know Truth.

      This is why you have ZERO credibility with me.

      This is why that I distrust ANYTHING you say.

      Veto Roley

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







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