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

Fw: Re: Testing a fundamental position-step by step!

Expand Messages
  • Robert Baty
    ... From: Robert Baty Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2008 6:38 PM To: coCBanned@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: Testing a fundamental position-step by step!
    Message 1 of 1 , Nov 4, 2008
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      -----Original Message-----
      From: Robert Baty
      Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2008 6:38 PM
      To: coCBanned@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: Re: Testing a fundamental position-step by step!

      (Updated to add partipant answers. Feel free to let me know if I got your answers wrong, with justification for any change. New students, or those I may have left out, can post their answers to this subject thread and will be added to the review posts.-RLBaty)

      My most vocal, recent critics (i.e., DBWillis and Terry W. Benton), demonstrating a failure to understand the "Goliath of GRAS" and its place in the history of the popular, public debate over young-earth creation-science, have now made it quite clear that they are not up to completing the step by step course in "Understanding the 'Goliath of GRAS'".

      I have prepared this edited step by step course for others who may wish to take up the course and, regardless of their position, demonstrate an understanding of the "Goliath of GRAS" and its place in the popular, public debate!

      Here's the "Goliath of GRAS" argument for ready reference, with the first steps in the process following:

      >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.

      Step One:

      Is the "Goliath of GRAS" a logically valid, modus ponens argument?

      > Correct answer: "YES"!

      > DBWillis: "YES"!
      > Terry W. Benton: "YES"!
      > Todd S. Greene: "YES"!
      > Rick Hartzog: "YES"!

      Step Two:

      Can you hypothesize a situation where
      the Word of God (the text) cannot be wrong and says that everything was created over a period of six days?

      > Correct answer: "YES!"

      > DBWillis: "YES"!
      > Terry W. Benton: "YES"!
      > Todd S. Greene: "YES"!
      > Rick Hartzog: "YES"!

      Step Three:

      Can you hypothesize a situation where
      some interpret the text to mean that everything was created over a period of six, literal, 24 hours or so days less than a few thousand years ago (i.e., less than 100,000 years ago)?

      > Correct answer: "YES"!

      > DBWillis: "YES"!
      > Terry W. Benton: "YES"!
      > Todd S. Greene: "YES"!
      > Rick Hartzog: "YES"!

      Step Four:

      Can you hypothesize a situation, in conjunction with steps two and three, where there is some thing(s) that is, really is, more than a few thousand years old and that we can so determine from evidence independent of the interpretation of the text by some?

      > Correct answer: "YES"!

      > DBWillis: "NO"!
      > Terry W. Benton: "NO"!
      > Todd S. Greene: "YES"!
      > Rick Hartzog: "YES"!

      Step Five:

      Can you hypothesize a situation where, if there really is some thing more than a few thousand years old and we can so determine independent of the interpretation by some of the text, that the interpretation of the text by some is wrong (i.e., that real world claims based on interpretations of religious texts are subject to falsification and may, just may, like geocentrism, in fact, be falsified with reference to the evidence independent of the text and its interpretation)?

      > Correct answer: "YES"!

      > DBWillis: "NO"!
      > Terry W. Benton: "NO"!
      > Todd S. Greene: "YES"!
      > Rick Hartzog: "YES"!

      Step Six:

      Is the following hypothetical statement, based on your answers to the above, true:

      "IF God's word (the text) says
      everything began over a period
      of six days, is interpreted by
      some to mean it was six 24-hour
      days occurring a few thousand
      years ago, and there is empirical
      evidence that some thing is
      actually much older than a few
      thousand years, THEN the
      interpretation of the text by
      some is wrong."

      > Correct answer: "YES"!

      > DBWillis: "NO"!
      > Terry W. Benton: "NO"!
      > Todd S. Greene: "YES"!
      > Rick Hartzog: "YES"!

      Once we come to agreement on the answers to the above questions, we can proceed with further steps leading the student to further demonstrate his understanding of the "Goliath of GRAS" and its place in the popular, public debate over young-earth creation-science.

      Following my name below is the outstanding invitation regarding the proposed, formal, in writing, for the record discussion of the substantive issue involved in the "Goliath of GRAS" argument.

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

      Still no "David"!

      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, DBWillis, 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.