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

Testing a fundamental position - Genesis!

Expand Messages
  • Robert Baty
    I would again 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,
    Message 1 of 21 , Sep 13, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      I would again 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 logical validity (i.e., if its premises are true the conclusion will follow as true).

      In order to respond to the "call", one need only utilize the "post" and/or "reply" features of this list, membership not being necessary to post, or simply address an e-mail to:

      > Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com .

      A debate between Todd S. Greene and Jerry D. McDonald, relating to the soundness of the argument, has begun.

      See below for proposition details and the
      following link for additional information as the debate develops:

      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/YoungEarthCreationism/

      Jerry D. McDonald has submitted his first affirmative and we are waiting for
      Todd S. Greene's first rebuttal.

      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 movement (i.e., "nothing is more than a
      few thousand years old") 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
      > thousan d 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 is,
      in the context of the popular young-earth
      creation-science movement, the "evidence of age".

      In order to deal with that issue, a formal, in writing, for the record
      discussion is, as noted above, presently ongoing between Todd S. Greene and
      Jerry D. McDonald with the following propositions for discussion:

      Proposition # 1:

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

      >> Affirm: Jerry D. McDonald
      >> Deny: Todd S.. Greene

      Proposition #2:

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

      > Affirm: Todd S. Greene
      > Deny: Jerry D. McDonald

      Proposition #3:

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

      >> Affirm: Jerry D. McDonald
      >> Deny: Todd S. Greene

      Proposition #4:

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

      >> Affirm: Todd S. Greene
      >> Deny: Jerry D. McDonald

      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



      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • rlbaty50
      I am going to post comments from Jerry D. McDonald, preacher, and Ken Ham and Bert Thompson, two of the leading lights of the young-earth creation-science
      Message 2 of 21 , Jul 22, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        I am going to post comments from Jerry D. McDonald, preacher, and Ken Ham and Bert Thompson, two of the leading lights of the young-earth creation-science movement, which provide a context for setting up, in simple, logically valid form, the fundamental issue facing bonafide young-earth creation-science promoters and their fundamental claim that "nothing is more than a few thousand years old".

        At the end of this message, you will also find the affirmative admission from DBWillis, preacher, as to the real position held by those attempting to justify their theological claim that "nothing is more than a few thousand years" old based on scientific grounds.

        To date, no bonafide young-earth creation-science promoter has dared to repudiate, deny and/or rebut the comments; though Terry W. Benton, the NI Pine Lane church preacher, http://www.pinelanechurchofchrist.com , has recently tried.

        (See archives of this list for full details.)

        I will then 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 logical validity (i.e., if its premises are true the conclusion will follow as true) and soundness (i.e., logically valid with true premises).

        Many have tried and failed (see list archives); most recently the NI Pine Lane church preacher Terry W. Benton, http://www.pinelanechurchofchrist.com , and previously such as Terry Hightower, David B. Willis, Jerry McDonald, David P. Brown & his "boys" of the CFTF, Gil Yoder of the OABS, and Goldsmith.

        In order to respond to the "call", one need only utilize the "post" and/or "reply" features of this list, membership not being necessary to post, or simply address an e-mail to:

        > Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com .

        Here now to provide the context for considering my "Goliath of GRAS" are the comments from those leading lights amongst the young-earth creation-science movement and the preacher Jerry D. McDonald:

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

        (1)

        http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/1991

        THE YOUNG EARTH
        by Bert Thompson

        (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.

        (2)

        http://www.apologeticspress.org/modules.php?name=Read&cat=1&itemid=457

        The Bible and the Age of the Earth [Part II]
        by Bert Thompson
        Genesis 1:1 is...a record of God's action which produced an Earth ready for man's use.

        Exodus 20:11...explicitly affirms that everything that was made by God was completed within the six days of the initial week.

        (3)

        http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/could-god-have-created-in-six-days

        Could God Really Have Created Everything in Six Days?
        by Ken Ham

        Taking Genesis 1...at face value,
        without doubt it SAYS

        > that God created the universe,
        > the earth,
        > the sun,
        > moon and stars,
        > plants and animals,
        > and the first two people (within 6 days)

        Luther and Calvin were...adamant that
        Genesis 1 taught six ordinary days of
        creation—only thousands of years ago.
        Some have argued that "the heavens
        and the earth" is just earth and perhaps
        the solar system, not the whole universe.

        However, this verse clearly SAYS that

        > God made everything in six days—six
        > consecutive ordinary days...

        (T)he age of the universe is only about
        six thousand years.


        (4)

        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/19562

        From: Jerry D. McDonald
        To: Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com
        Date: Thursday, July 15, 2010

        Subject: Re: Jerry D. McDonald v. Terry W. Benton!

        > Question:
        >
        > 1.
        >
        > Do you, like Ken Ham, believe
        > that God's word "says" everything
        > was made during the six days?

        Answer:

        1. Yes.

        Jerry D. McDonald

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

        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 and/or if that interpretation is subject to falsification based on the real world evidence.

        I've developed a simple, logical, deductively valid argument (i.e., "Goliath of GRAS") proposing that the real world interpretation of the text commonly associated with the young-earth creation-science movement (i.e., "nothing is more than a few thousand years old") is subject to falsification with reference
        to the real world evidence.

        Here it is, the "Goliath of GRAS":

        Major premise:

        > If (A) God's word (the text) says
        > everything began over a period
        > of six days, and

        > if (B) God's word is interpreted
        > by some to mean it was six 24-hour
        > days occurring a few thousand
        > years ago, and

        > if (c) there is empirical
        > evidence that some thing is
        > older than a few thousand
        > years,

        > then (D) the interpretation of
        > the text by some is wrong.

        Minor premise:

        > (A) God's word (the text) says
        > everything began over a period
        > of six days, and

        > (B) God's word is interpreted by
        > some to mean it was six 24-hour
        > days occurring a few thousand
        > years ago, and

        > (C) there is empirical evidence
        > that some thing is older than a
        > few thousand years.

        Conclusion:

        > (D) The interpretation of the
        > text by some is wrong.

        Stipulated Meanings:

        God's word - special revelation from
        God in words that cannot be wrong.

        Interpreted to mean... - what some
        think the text means and which
        thinking may be wrong.

        Emprical evidence that... - some
        thing is more than a few
        thousand years old and we can
        so determine from the evidence
        independent of the text.

        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 is, in the context of the popular young-earth
        creation-science movement, the "evidence of age"; though many critics have vainly tried to deny the deductive validity of the argument and the truth of its major premise.

        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
        > contrary evidence simply
        > indicating God can make
        > things look older than
        > they are.

        See:

        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/19693

        > I would affirm that!

        >> DBWillis, NI preacher

        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
      • rlbaty60
        I am going to post comments from Jerry D. McDonald, preacher, and Ken Ham, Bert Thompson and Kent Hovind, three of the leading lights of the young-earth
        Message 3 of 21 , Jul 28, 2010
        • 0 Attachment
          I am going to post comments from Jerry D. McDonald, preacher, and Ken Ham, Bert Thompson and Kent Hovind, three of the leading lights of the young-earth creation-science movement, which provide a context for setting up, in simple, logically valid form, the fundamental issue facing bonafide young-earth creation-science promoters and their claim that "nothing is more than a few thousand years old".

          At the end of this message, you will also find the affirmative admission from DBWillis, preacher, as to the real position held by those attempting to justify their theological claim that "nothing is more than a few thousand years" old based on scientific grounds.

          To date, no bonafide young-earth creation-science promoter has dared to repudiate, deny and/or rebut the comments; though Terry W. Benton, the NI Pine Lane church preacher,
          http://www.pinelanechurchofchrist.com ,
          has recently tried.

          (See archives of this list for full details.)

          I will then 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 logical validity (i.e., if its premises are true the conclusion will follow as true) and soundness (i.e., logically valid with true premises).

          Many have tried and failed (see list archives for details); most recently the NI Pine Lane church preacher Terry W. Benton,
          http://www.pinelanechurchofchrist.com ,
          and previously such as Terry Hightower, David B. Willis, Jerry McDonald, David P. Brown & his "boys" of the CFTF, Gil Yoder of the OABS, and Goldsmith.

          In order to respond to the "call", one need only utilize the "post" and/or "reply" features of this list, membership not being necessary to post, or simply address an e-mail to:

          > Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com .

          Here now to provide the context for considering my "Goliath of GRAS" are the comments from those leading lights amongst the young-earth creation-science movement and the preacher Jerry D. McDonald:

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

          (1)

          http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/1991

          THE YOUNG EARTH
          by Bert Thompson

          (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.

          (2)

          http://www.apologeticspress.org/modules.php?name=Read&cat=1&itemid=457

          The Bible and the Age of the Earth [Part II]
          by Bert Thompson

          Genesis 1:1 is...a record of God's action which produced an Earth ready for man's use.

          Exodus 20:11...explicitly affirms that everything that was made by God was completed within the six days of the initial week.

          (3)

          http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/could-god-have-created-in-six-days

          Could God Really Have Created Everything in Six Days?
          by Ken Ham

          Taking Genesis 1...at face value,
          without doubt it SAYS

          > that God created the universe,
          > the earth,
          > the sun,
          > moon and stars,
          > plants and animals,
          > and the first two people (within 6 days)

          Luther and Calvin were...adamant that
          Genesis 1 taught six ordinary days of
          creation—only thousands of years ago.

          Some have argued that "the heavens
          and the earth" is just earth and perhaps
          the solar system, not the whole universe.

          However, this verse clearly SAYS that

          > God made everything in six days—six
          > consecutive ordinary days...

          (T)he age of the universe is only about
          six thousand years.

          (4)

          http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/19562

          From: Jerry D. McDonald
          To: Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com
          Date: Thursday, July 15, 2010
          Subject: Re: Jerry D. McDonald v. Terry W. Benton!

          > Question:
          >
          > 1.
          >
          > Do you, like Ken Ham, believe
          > that God's word "says" everything
          > was made during the six days?

          Answer:

          1. Yes.

          Jerry D. McDonald

          (5)

          http://www.drdino.com/about-cse/dr-kent-hovind/

          I can say with all certainty that
          the Bible is the infallible, inspired,
          inerrant Word of the living God.

          The universe was created in 6 literal
          24 hour days about 6,000 years ago
          (Matthew 19:4; Exodus 20:11;
          Genesis 1 & 5).

          Kent Hovind

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

          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 and/or if that interpretation is subject to falsification based on the real world evidence.

          I've developed a simple, logical, deductively valid argument (i.e., "Goliath of GRAS") proposing that the real world interpretation of the text commonly associated with the young-earth creation-science movement (i.e., "nothing is more than a few thousand years old") is subject to falsification with reference to the real world evidence.

          Here it is, the "Goliath of GRAS":

          Major premise:

          > If (A) God's word (the text) says
          > everything began over a period
          > of six days, and

          > if (B) God's word is interpreted
          > by some to mean it was six 24-hour
          > days occurring a few thousand
          > years ago, and

          > if (c) there is empirical
          > evidence that some thing is
          > older than a few thousand
          > years,

          > then (D) the interpretation of
          > the text by some is wrong.

          Minor premise:

          > (A) God's word (the text) says
          > everything began over a period
          > of six days, and

          > (B) God's word is interpreted by
          > some to mean it was six 24-hour
          > days occurring a few thousand
          > years ago, and

          > (C) there is empirical evidence
          > that some thing is older than a
          > few thousand years.

          Conclusion:

          > (D) The interpretation of the
          > text by some is wrong.

          Stipulated Meanings:

          God's word - special revelation from
          God in words that cannot be wrong.

          Interpreted to mean... - what some
          think the text means and which
          thinking may be wrong.

          Emprical evidence that... - some
          thing is more than a few
          thousand years old and we can
          so determine from the evidence
          independent of the text.

          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 is, in the context of the popular young-earth
          creation-science movement, the "evidence of age"; though many critics have vainly tried to deny the deductive validity of the argument and the truth of its major premise.

          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
          > contrary evidence simply
          > indicating God can make
          > things look older than
          > they are.

          See:

          http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/19693

          > I would affirm that!
          >> DBWillis, NI preacher

          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
        • rlbaty60
          I am going to post comments from Jerry D. McDonald, preacher, and Ken Ham, Bert Thompson and Kent Hovind, three of the leading lights of the young-earth
          Message 4 of 21 , Aug 12, 2010
          • 0 Attachment
            I am going to post comments from Jerry D. McDonald, preacher, and Ken Ham, Bert Thompson and Kent Hovind, three of the leading lights of the young-earth creation-science movement, which provide a context for setting up, in simple, logically valid form, the fundamental issue facing bonafide young-earth creation-science promoters and their claim that "nothing is more than a few
            thousand years old".

            At the end of this message, you will also find the affirmative admission from DBWillis, preacher, as to the real position held by those attempting to justify their theological claim that "nothing is more than a few thousand years" old based on scientific grounds.

            To date, no bonafide young-earth creation-science promoter has dared to repudiate, deny and/or rebut the comments; though Terry W. Benton, the NI Pine Lane church preacher,
            http://www.pinelanechurchofchrist.com ,
            has recently tried.

            (See archives of this list for full details.)

            I will then 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 logical validity (i.e., if its premises are true the conclusion will follow as true) and soundness (i.e., logically valid with true premises).

            Many have tried and failed (see list archives for details); most recently the NI Pine Lane church preacher Terry W. Benton,
            http://www.pinelanechurchofchrist.com ,
            and previously such as Terry Hightower, David B. Willis, Jerry McDonald, David P. Brown & his "boys" of the CFTF, Gil Yoder of the OABS, and Goldsmith.

            In order to respond to the "call", one need only utilize the "post" and/or "reply" features of this list, membership not being necessary to post, or simply address an e-mail to:

            > Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com .

            Here now to provide the context for considering my "Goliath of GRAS" are the comments from those leading lights amongst the young-earth creation-science movement and the preacher Jerry D. McDonald:

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

            (1)

            http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/1991

            THE YOUNG EARTH
            by Bert Thompson

            (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.

            (2)

            http://www.apologeticspress.org/modules.php?name=Read&cat=1&itemid=457

            The Bible and the Age of the Earth [Part II]
            by Bert Thompson

            Genesis 1:1 is...a record of God's action which produced an Earth ready for man's use.

            Exodus 20:11...explicitly affirms that everything that was made by God was completed within the six days of the initial week.

            (3)

            http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/could-god-have-created-in-six-days

            Could God Really Have Created Everything in Six Days?
            by Ken Ham

            Taking Genesis 1...at face value,
            without doubt it SAYS

            > that God created the universe,
            > the earth,
            > the sun,
            > moon and stars,
            > plants and animals,
            > and the first two people (within 6 days)

            Luther and Calvin were...adamant that
            Genesis 1 taught six ordinary days of
            creation—only thousands of years ago.

            Some have argued that "the heavens
            and the earth" is just earth and perhaps
            the solar system, not the whole universe.

            However, this verse clearly SAYS that

            > God made everything in six days—six
            > consecutive ordinary days...

            (T)he age of the universe is only about
            six thousand years.

            (4)

            http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/19562

            From: Jerry D. McDonald
            To: Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com
            Date: Thursday, July 15, 2010
            Subject: Re: Jerry D. McDonald v. Terry W. Benton!

            > Question:
            >
            > 1.
            >
            > Do you, like Ken Ham, believe
            > that God's word "says" everything
            > was made during the six days?

            Answer:

            1. Yes.

            Jerry D. McDonald

            (5)

            http://www.drdino.com/about-cse/dr-kent-hovind/

            I can say with all certainty that
            the Bible is the infallible, inspired,
            inerrant Word of the living God.

            The universe was created in 6 literal
            24 hour days about 6,000 years ago
            (Matthew 19:4; Exodus 20:11;
            Genesis 1 & 5).

            Kent Hovind

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

            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 and/or if that interpretation is subject to falsification based on the real world evidence.

            I've developed a simple, logical, deductively valid argument (i.e., "Goliath of GRAS") proposing that the real world interpretation of the text commonly associated with the young-earth creation-science movement (i.e., "nothing is more than a few thousand years old") is subject to falsification with reference
            to the real world evidence.

            Here it is, the "Goliath of GRAS":

            Major premise:

            > If (A) God's word (the text) says
            > everything began over a period
            > of six days, and

            > if (B) God's word is interpreted
            > by some to mean it was six 24-hour
            > days occurring a few thousand
            > years ago, and

            > if (c) there is empirical
            > evidence that some thing is
            > older than a few thousand
            > years,

            > then (D) the interpretation of
            > the text by some is wrong.

            Minor premise:

            > (A) God's word (the text) says
            > everything began over a period
            > of six days, and

            > (B) God's word is interpreted by
            > some to mean it was six 24-hour
            > days occurring a few thousand
            > years ago, and

            > (C) there is empirical evidence
            > that some thing is older than a
            > few thousand years.

            Conclusion:

            > (D) The interpretation of the
            > text by some is wrong.

            Stipulated Meanings:

            God's word - special revelation from
            God in words that cannot be wrong.

            Interpreted to mean... - what some
            think the text means and which
            thinking may be wrong.

            Emprical evidence that... - some
            thing is more than a few
            thousand years old and we can
            so determine from the evidence
            independent of the text.

            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 is, in the context of the popular young-earth
            creation-science movement, the "evidence of age"; though many critics have vainly tried to deny the deductive validity of the argument and the truth of its major premise.

            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
            > contrary evidence simply
            > indicating God can make
            > things look older than
            > they are.

            See:

            http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/19693

            > I would affirm that!
            >> DBWillis, NI preacher

            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
          • rlbaty60
            I am going to post comments from Jerry D. McDonald, preacher, and Ken Ham, Bert Thompson and Kent Hovind, three of the leading lights of the young-earth
            Message 5 of 21 , Aug 24, 2010
            • 0 Attachment
              I am going to post comments from Jerry D. McDonald, preacher, and Ken Ham, Bert Thompson and Kent Hovind, three of the leading lights of the young-earth creation-science movement, which provide a context for setting up, in simple, logically valid form, the fundamental issue facing bonafide young-earth creation-science promoters and their claim that "nothing is more than a few thousand years old".

              At the end of this message, you will also find the affirmative admission from DBWillis, preacher, as to the real position held by those attempting to justify their theological claim that "nothing is more than a few thousand years" old based on scientific grounds.

              To date, no bonafide young-earth creation-science promoter has dared to repudiate, deny and/or rebut the comments; though Terry W. Benton, the NI Pine Lane church preacher,
              http://www.pinelanechurchofchrist.com ,
              has recently tried.

              (See archives of this list for full details.)

              I will then 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 logical validity (i.e., if its premises are true the conclusion will follow as true) and soundness (i.e., logically valid with true premises).

              Many have tried and failed (see list archives for details); most recently the NI Pine Lane church preacher Terry W. Benton,
              http://www.pinelanechurchofchrist.com ,
              and previously such as Terry Hightower, David B. Willis, Jerry McDonald, David P. Brown & his "boys" of the CFTF, Gil Yoder of the OABS, and Goldsmith.

              In order to respond to the "call", one need only utilize the "post" and/or "reply" features of this list, membership not being necessary to post, or simply address an e-mail to:

              > Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com .

              Here now to provide the context for considering my "Goliath of GRAS" are the comments from those leading lights amongst the young-earth creation-science movement and the preacher Jerry D. McDonald:

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

              (1)

              http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/1991

              THE YOUNG EARTH
              by Bert Thompson

              (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.

              (2)

              http://www.apologeticspress.org/modules.php?name=Read&cat=1&itemid=457

              The Bible and the Age of the Earth [Part II]
              by Bert Thompson

              Genesis 1:1 is...a record of God's action which produced an Earth ready for man's use.

              Exodus 20:11...explicitly affirms that everything that was made by God was completed within the six days of the initial week.

              (3)

              http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/could-god-have-created-in-six-days

              Could God Really Have Created Everything in Six Days?
              by Ken Ham

              Taking Genesis 1...at face value,
              without doubt it SAYS

              > that God created the universe,
              > the earth,
              > the sun,
              > moon and stars,
              > plants and animals,
              > and the first two people (within 6 days)

              Luther and Calvin were...adamant that
              Genesis 1 taught six ordinary days of
              creation—only thousands of years ago.

              Some have argued that "the heavens
              and the earth" is just earth and perhaps
              the solar system, not the whole universe.

              However, this verse clearly SAYS that

              > God made everything in six days—six
              > consecutive ordinary days...

              (T)he age of the universe is only about
              six thousand years.

              (4)

              http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/19562

              From: Jerry D. McDonald
              To: Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com
              Date: Thursday, July 15, 2010
              Subject: Re: Jerry D. McDonald v. Terry W. Benton!

              > Question:
              >
              > 1.
              >
              > Do you, like Ken Ham, believe
              > that God's word "says" everything
              > was made during the six days?

              Answer:

              1. Yes.

              Jerry D. McDonald

              (5)

              http://www.drdino.com/about-cse/dr-kent-hovind/

              I can say with all certainty that
              the Bible is the infallible, inspired,
              inerrant Word of the living God.

              The universe was created in 6 literal
              24 hour days about 6,000 years ago
              (Matthew 19:4; Exodus 20:11;
              Genesis 1 & 5).

              Kent Hovind

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

              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 and/or if that interpretation is subject to falsification based on the real world evidence.

              I've developed a simple, logical, deductively valid argument (i.e., "Goliath of GRAS") proposing that the real world interpretation of the text commonly associated with the young-earth creation-science movement (i.e., "nothing is more than a few thousand years old") is subject to falsification with reference
              to the real world evidence.

              Here it is, the "Goliath of GRAS":

              Major premise:

              > If (A) God's word (the text) says
              > everything began over a period
              > of six days, and

              > if (B) God's word is interpreted
              > by some to mean it was six 24-hour
              > days occurring a few thousand
              > years ago, and

              > if (c) there is empirical
              > evidence that some thing is
              > older than a few thousand
              > years,

              > then (D) the interpretation of
              > the text by some is wrong.

              Minor premise:

              > (A) God's word (the text) says
              > everything began over a period
              > of six days, and

              > (B) God's word is interpreted by
              > some to mean it was six 24-hour
              > days occurring a few thousand
              > years ago, and

              > (C) there is empirical evidence
              > that some thing is older than a
              > few thousand years.

              Conclusion:

              > (D) The interpretation of the
              > text by some is wrong.

              Stipulated Meanings:

              God's word - special revelation from
              God in words that cannot be wrong.

              Interpreted to mean... - what some
              think the text means and which
              thinking may be wrong.

              Emprical evidence that... - some
              thing is more than a few
              thousand years old and we can
              so determine from the evidence
              independent of the text.

              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 is, in the context of the popular young-earth
              creation-science movement, the "evidence of age"; though many critics have vainly tried to deny the deductive validity of the argument and the truth of its major premise.

              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
              > contrary evidence simply
              > indicating God can make
              > things look older than
              > they are.

              See:

              http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/19693

              > I would affirm that!
              >> DBWillis, NI preacher

              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
            • rlbaty60
              I am going to post comments from Jerry D. McDonald, preacher, and Ken Ham, Bert Thompson and Kent Hovind, three of the leading lights of the young-earth
              Message 6 of 21 , Sep 26, 2010
              • 0 Attachment
                I am going to post comments from Jerry D. McDonald, preacher, and Ken Ham, Bert Thompson and Kent Hovind, three of the leading lights of the young-earth creation-science movement, which provide a context for setting up, in simple, logically valid form, the fundamental issue facing bonafide young-earth creation-science promoters and their claim that "nothing is more than a few thousand years old".

                At the end of this message, you will also find the affirmative admission from DBWillis, preacher, as to the real position held by those attempting to justify their theological claim that "nothing is more than a few thousand years" old based on scientific grounds.

                To date, no bonafide young-earth creation-science promoter has dared to repudiate, deny and/or rebut the comments; though Terry W. Benton, the NI Pine Lane church preacher,

                http://www.pinelanechurchofchrist.com ,

                has recently tried.

                (See archives of this list for full details.)

                I will then 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 logical validity (i.e., if its premises are true the conclusion will follow as true) and soundness (i.e., logically valid with true premises).

                Many have tried and failed (see list archives for details); most recently the NI Pine Lane church preacher Terry W. Benton,

                http://www.pinelanechurchofchrist.com ,

                and previously such as Terry Hightower, David B. Willis, Jerry McDonald, David P. Brown & his "boys" of the CFTF, Gil Yoder of the OABS, and Goldsmith.

                In order to respond to the "call", one need only utilize the "post" and/or "reply" features of this list, membership not being necessary to post, or simply address an e-mail to:

                > Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com .

                Here now to provide the context for considering my "Goliath of GRAS" are the comments from those leading lights amongst the young-earth creation-science movement and the preacher Jerry D. McDonald:

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

                (1)

                http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/1991

                THE YOUNG EARTH
                by Bert Thompson

                (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.

                (2)

                http://www.apologeticspress.org/modules.php?name=Read&cat=1&itemid=457

                The Bible and the Age of the Earth [Part II]
                by Bert Thompson

                Genesis 1:1 is...a record of God's action which produced an Earth ready for man's use.

                Exodus 20:11...explicitly affirms that everything that was made by God was completed within the six days of the initial week.

                (3)

                http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/could-god-have-created-in-six-days

                Could God Really Have Created Everything in Six Days?
                by Ken Ham

                Taking Genesis 1...at face value,
                without doubt it SAYS

                > that God created the universe,
                > the earth,
                > the sun,
                > moon and stars,
                > plants and animals,
                > and the first two people (within 6 days)

                Luther and Calvin were...adamant that
                Genesis 1 taught six ordinary days of
                creation—only thousands of years ago.

                Some have argued that "the heavens
                and the earth" is just earth and perhaps
                the solar system, not the whole universe.

                However, this verse clearly SAYS that

                > God made everything in six days—six
                > consecutive ordinary days...

                (T)he age of the universe is only about
                six thousand years.

                (4)

                http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/19562

                From: Jerry D. McDonald
                To: Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com
                Date: Thursday, July 15, 2010
                Subject: Re: Jerry D. McDonald v. Terry W. Benton!

                > Question:
                >
                > 1.
                >
                > Do you, like Ken Ham, believe
                > that God's word "says" everything
                > was made during the six days?

                Answer:

                1. Yes.

                Jerry D. McDonald

                (5)

                http://www.drdino.com/about-cse/dr-kent-hovind/

                I can say with all certainty that
                the Bible is the infallible, inspired,
                inerrant Word of the living God.

                The universe was created in 6 literal
                24 hour days about 6,000 years ago
                (Matthew 19:4; Exodus 20:11;
                Genesis 1 & 5).

                Kent Hovind

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

                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 and/or if that interpretation is subject to falsification based on the real world evidence.

                I've developed a simple, logical, deductively valid argument (i.e., "Goliath of GRAS") proposing that the real world interpretation of the text commonly associated with the young-earth creation-science movement (i.e., "nothing is more than a few thousand years old") is subject to falsification with reference
                to the real world evidence.

                Here it is, the "Goliath of GRAS":

                Major premise:

                > If (A) God's word (the text) says
                > everything began over a period
                > of six days, and
                >
                > if (B) God's word is interpreted
                > by some to mean it was six 24-hour
                > days occurring a few thousand
                > years ago, and
                >
                > if (c) there is empirical
                > evidence that some thing is
                > older than a few thousand
                > years,
                >
                > then (D) the interpretation of
                > the text by some is wrong.

                Minor premise:

                > (A) God's word (the text) says
                > everything began over a period
                > of six days, and
                >
                > (B) God's word is interpreted by
                > some to mean it was six 24-hour
                > days occurring a few thousand
                > years ago, and
                >
                > (C) there is empirical evidence
                > that some thing is older than a
                > few thousand years.

                Conclusion:

                > (D) The interpretation of the
                > text by some is wrong.

                Stipulated Meanings:

                God's word - special revelation from
                God in words that cannot be wrong.

                Interpreted to mean... - what some
                think the text means and which
                thinking may be wrong.

                Emprical evidence that... - some
                thing is more than a few
                thousand years old and we can
                so determine from the evidence
                independent of the text.

                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 is, in the context of the popular young-earth
                creation-science movement, the "evidence of age"; though many critics have vainly tried to deny the deductive validity of the argument and the truth of its major premise.

                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
                > contrary evidence simply
                > indicating God can make
                > things look older than
                > they are.

                See:

                http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/19693

                > I would affirm that!
                >
                >> DBWillis, NI preacher

                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
              • DBWILLIS@aol.com
                David Willis here, Baty provided this wording and then said I agreed to it. I did not. ... These are not my words...in fact I didn t even agree to them after
                Message 7 of 21 , Sep 27, 2010
                • 0 Attachment
                  David Willis here,


                  Baty provided this wording and then said I agreed to it. I did not.

                  >>> I've got my interpretation
                  > of the text regarding the
                  > real world and that trumps
                  > any real world evidence
                  > to the contrary;


                  These are not my words...in fact I didn't even agree to them after someone
                  else wrote them. Those are Baty's words, not mine, and I did not agree to
                  Baty's wording. Baty has a nasty habit of falsifying what someone else has
                  said or agreed with.

                  the
                  > contrary evidence simply
                  > indicating God can make
                  > things look older than
                  > they are.

                  See:

                  _http://groups.http://grohttp://groups.<Whttp://groups_
                  (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/19693)



                  Read this post and notice that I did NOT agree to the wording given by Baty
                  above.


                  > I would affirm that!
                  >
                  >> DBWillis, NI preacher1>>



                  Pi was too much of a coward to answer this...maybe Baty would like to try:

                  Is God able to righteously make a rounded rock instantly if He wanted to?
                  (It calls for a yes or no answer).






                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • PIASAN@aol.com
                  From: DBWILLIS Pi was too much of a coward to answer this...maybe Baty would like to try: Is God able to righteously make a rounded rock instantly if He
                  Message 8 of 21 , Sep 27, 2010
                  • 0 Attachment
                    From: DBWILLIS
                    Pi was too much of a coward to answer this...maybe Baty would like to try:

                    Is God able to righteously make a rounded rock instantly if He wanted to?
                    (It calls for a yes or no answer).
                    **************

                    Pi:
                    I have answered it, and similar questions ad nauseam. It got to the point David was going thru every potential miracle he could think of one-by-one. I simply got bored with the exercise and its futility.

                    My position remains unchanged.... the "appearance of age" argument requires a deceptive God.




                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • George A. Jackson
                    ... George here: This is one position you need to remove from your mind. ... Was Jesus being deceptive when He turn the water into wine?
                    Message 9 of 21 , Sep 27, 2010
                    • 0 Attachment
                      From PI in part:

                      > My position remains unchanged....
                      > the "appearance of age" argument
                      > requires a deceptive God.

                      George here:

                      This is one position you need to remove from your mind.

                      As has been said by Terry and myself:

                      > "When one say what they are doing
                      > or tells you what they are doing,
                      > it is not being "deceptive".

                      Was Jesus being "deceptive" when He turn the water into wine?
                    • PIASAN@aol.com
                      From: George A. Jackson Was Jesus being deceptive when He turn the water into wine? ********** Pi: See my comments to David about the rounded stone....
                      Message 10 of 21 , Sep 27, 2010
                      • 0 Attachment
                        From: George A. Jackson
                        Was Jesus being "deceptive" when He turn the water into wine?
                        **********

                        Pi:
                        See my comments to David about the rounded stone....




                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      • rlbaty60
                        DBWillis has returned to this list to play his word games rather than simply admit to his position and deal with it; if he had an interest in doing so. ...
                        Message 11 of 21 , Sep 27, 2010
                        • 0 Attachment
                          DBWillis has returned to this list to play his word games rather than simply admit to his position and deal with it; if he had an interest in doing so.

                          I gave DBWillis' position as being, briefly stated in part, as:

                          > I've got my interpretation
                          > of the text regarding the
                          > real world and that trumps
                          > any real world evidence
                          > to the contrary;

                          DBWillis then claims, rather equivocally:

                          > These are not my words...
                          >
                          > Those are Baty's words, not mine,
                          > and I did not agree to Baty's wording.

                          I also noted DBWillis' position as being, briefly stated in part, as:

                          > the contrary evidence simply
                          > indicating God can make
                          > things look older than
                          > they are.

                          The equivocal DBWillis says about that representation of his position:

                          > Read this post and notice that
                          > I did NOT agree to the wording
                          > given by Baty above.

                          "This post" as referenced by DBWillis is as follows (excepts):

                          http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/19693

                          > From: DBWillis
                          > To: coCBanned@yahoogroups.com
                          > Date: May 2, 2010
                          >
                          > Subject: Re: a "yes or no" answer for David
                          >
                          > David Willis here
                          >
                          > Baty (suggesting what I would affirm)
                          >
                          >> After all, any evidence that some
                          >> thing is over a few thousand years
                          >> old just shows God can make stuff
                          >> that looks older than it really is.
                          >>
                          >>> Signed: DBWillis

                          > I would affirm that!

                          Those familiar with the antics of DBWillis and the position that he has been repeatedly affirming in the discussions about the age of stuff will recognize that the following has been "affirmed" by DBWillis regardless of his quibbling about the specific wording of his position:

                          > I, DBWillis, have my interpretation
                          > of the text regarding the real
                          > world and that trumps any real
                          > world evidence to the contrary;
                          > such contrary evidence simply
                          > indicating that some God can
                          > make some things look older
                          > than they are.
                          >
                          >> Affirmed: DBWillis

                          Will DBWillis work with me, in good faith, to clearly resolve his problem with my representation of his fundamental position and affirmation?

                          Sincerely,
                          Robert Baty
                        • rlbaty60
                          Regarding my representations regarding DBWillis positions as they relate to the Goliath of GRAS analysis, I repost my following representations for DBWillis
                          Message 12 of 21 , Sep 27, 2010
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Regarding my representations regarding DBWillis' positions as they relate to the "Goliath of GRAS" analysis, I repost my following representations for DBWillis to specifically address.

                            Are my representations of his position correct?

                            If not, DBWillis should, unequivocally, give his relevant position on each matter for possible further discussion:

                            "Goliath of GRAS"?

                            Major premise:

                            > If (A) God's word (the text) says
                            > everything began over a period
                            > of six days, and

                            > if (B) God's word is interpreted by
                            > some to mean it was six 24-hour
                            > days occurring a few thousand
                            > years ago, and

                            > if (C) there is empirical
                            > evidence that some thing is
                            > actually much older than a
                            > few thousand years,

                            > then (D) the interpretation of
                            > the text by some is wrong.

                            Minor premise:

                            > (A) God's word (the text) says
                            > everything began over a period
                            > of six days, and

                            > (B) God's word is interpreted by
                            > some to mean it was six 24-hour
                            > days occurring a few thousand
                            > years ago, and

                            > (C) there is empirical
                            > evidence that some thing is
                            > actually much older than a few
                            > thousand years.

                            Conclusion:

                            > (D) The interpretation of the
                            > text by some is wrong.

                            (1)

                            > If the "Goliath of GRAS"
                            > premises are true its
                            > conclusion will follow
                            > as true.

                            >> Robert Baty - Yes
                            >> DBWillis - Yes

                            (2)

                            > The "Goliath of GRAS"
                            > major premise is true.

                            >> Robert Baty - Yes
                            >> DBWillis - Yes

                            (3)

                            > God's word "says" everything
                            > was created in six days.

                            >> Robert Baty - Yes
                            >> DBWillis - Yes

                            (4)

                            > Some folks interpret God's word
                            > to mean everything began over
                            > a period of six days no more than
                            > a few thousand years ago.

                            >> Robert Baty - Yes
                            >> DBWillis - Yes

                            (5)

                            > God's natural revelation provides
                            > evidence independent of the text
                            > that some things are more than
                            > a few thousand years old.

                            >> Robert Baty - Yes
                            >> DBWillis - Yes

                            (6)

                            > Young-earth creation-science
                            > promoters have failed to sustain
                            > their scientific position that
                            > nothing is more than a few
                            > thousand years old.

                            >> Robert Baty - Yes
                            >> DBWillis - Yes

                            (7)

                            > Young-earth creation-science
                            > promoters reject the evidence
                            > from God's natural revelation
                            > as to age based on their
                            > interpretation of the text which
                            > trumps any evidence from
                            > God's natural revelation and
                            > the interpretation thereof.

                            >> Robert Baty - Yes
                            >> DBWillis - Yes

                            (8)

                            > Young-earth creation-science
                            > promoters consider the evidence
                            > of age simply an indication that
                            > God can make some things
                            > look older than they are.

                            >> Robert Baty - Yes
                            >> DBWillis - Yes

                            These matters, of course, are open for future discussion as may be desired.

                            Sincerely,
                            Robert Baty
                          • Todd Greene
                            Of course, and in FACT, these two mean the same thing: David Willis wrote, After all, any evidence that some thing is over a few thousand years old just shows
                            Message 13 of 21 , Sep 27, 2010
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Of course, and in FACT, these two mean the same thing:

                              David Willis wrote, "After all, any evidence that some thing is over a few thousand years old just shows God can make stuff that looks older than it really is."

                              Robert Baty states the direct implication of this as, "I've got my interpretation of the text regarding the real world and that trumps any real world evidence to the contrary."

                              Which is precisely why David Willis runs as fast as he can away from the scientific requirement of TESTING beliefs/ideas against the EVIDENCE. David KNOWS that his young earth creationism belief has already been TESTED against the EVIDENCE and has FAILED THE TESTS thousands of times over. (This is why young earth creationism ideas no longer even exist in science, and have not been part of science for over two hundred years.) In SCIENCE, which relies fundamentally on TESTING ideas against the relevant EVIDENCE, when an idea has been unequivocally (and voluminously) FALSIFIED by the EVIDENTIAL TESTS, then that idea is cast aside. Since we know through geological science (i.e., by the tests against the relevant geological evidence) and astronomical science (i.e., by the tests against the relevant astronomical evidence) that the earth and the universe have been around far, far longer than merely 6,000 years or so, we know that young earth creationism is wrong. False ideas are no longer relevant to science, except as footnotes in the history of science.

                              And we know that Robert Baty's statement of the implication of all of David's statements along these same lines is correct, because David's rhetoric demonstrates that he is going to cling to his belief in his religious dogma NO MATTER WHAT THE EVIDENCE IS. That is precisely what the "apparent age" argument is: 'I am going to believe in young earth creationism no matter what the evidence is, because the evidence shows exactly that of an ancient universe and ancient earth, because God made it to look that way. The stellar explosion designated SN1987A never happened but is merely an illusion of an explosion that God created out in space about 6,000 light-years from earth.'

                              This is merely a denial of the real world evidence dressed up in theological clothes to help people try to minimize their cognitive dissonance with respect to clinging to a religious belief that has been proved to be wrong scientifically by the real world observations of the fact that the universe has been around far, far longer than just 6,000 years.

                              - Todd Greene



                              --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, DBWILLIS@... wrote:
                              >
                              > David Willis here,
                              >
                              >
                              > Baty provided this wording and then said I agreed to it. I did not.
                              >
                              > >>> I've got my interpretation
                              > > of the text regarding the
                              > > real world and that trumps
                              > > any real world evidence
                              > > to the contrary;
                              >
                              >
                              > These are not my words...in fact I didn't even agree to them after someone
                              > else wrote them. Those are Baty's words, not mine, and I did not agree to
                              > Baty's wording. Baty has a nasty habit of falsifying what someone else has
                              > said or agreed with.
                              >
                              > the
                              > > contrary evidence simply
                              > > indicating God can make
                              > > things look older than
                              > > they are.
                              >
                              > See:
                              >
                              > _http://groups.http://grohttp://groups.<Whttp://groups_
                              > (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/19693)
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > Read this post and notice that I did NOT agree to the wording given by Baty
                              > above.
                              >
                              >
                              > > I would affirm that!
                              > >
                              > >> DBWillis, NI preacher1>>
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > Pi was too much of a coward to answer this...maybe Baty would like to try:
                              >
                              > Is God able to righteously make a rounded rock instantly if He wanted to?
                              > (It calls for a yes or no answer).
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                              >
                            • rlbaty60
                              ... It appears DBWillis has again run off from the issue he raised concerning my representation of his position as a representative example of young-earth
                              Message 14 of 21 , Sep 27, 2010
                              • 0 Attachment
                                --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "Todd Greene" <greeneto@...> wrote, in part:

                                > David Willis wrote,
                                >
                                >> "After all, any evidence that
                                >> some thing is over a few
                                >> thousand years old just shows
                                >> God can make stuff that looks
                                >> older than it really is."

                                It appears DBWillis has again run off from the issue he raised concerning my representation of his position as a representative example of young-earth creation-science promoters.

                                In any case, for ready reference regarding this thread, here again is the link and excerpts from just one of DBWillis' messages which document and support my representations of his position:

                                http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/19693

                                > From: DBWillis
                                > To: coCBanned@yahoogroups.com
                                > Date: May 2, 2010
                                >
                                > Subject: Re: a "yes or no" answer for David
                                >
                                > David Willis here
                                >
                                > Baty (suggesting what I would affirm):
                                >
                                >> (A)ny evidence that some thing
                                >> is over a few thousand years
                                >> old just shows God can make
                                >> stuff that looks older than it
                                >> really is.
                                >
                                > I would affirm that!

                                I would that DBWillis would engage in a good faith effort to clarify his position if it is not as I have represented it to be.

                                However, for the present, it appears he has again run off after taking another cheap shot at me.

                                Sincerely,
                                Robert Baty
                              • rlbaty60
                                Will this new day bring DBWillis out for an open, honest discussion of his positions which he claimed yesterday I was not properly representing, or will he
                                Message 15 of 21 , Sep 28, 2010
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Will this new day bring DBWillis out for an open, honest discussion of his positions which he claimed yesterday I was not properly representing, or will he remain in hiding?

                                  --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "rlbaty60" <rlbaty60@...> wrote:

                                  DBWillis took his cheap shot here, whining about my representation of his position as if it was not representative of the young-earth creation-science movement's promoters and DBWillis himself.

                                  Then DBWillis took off and ran off rather than "man-up" to dealing with his claim and his position(s) such as I have addressed.

                                  That my request of DBWillis, after he popped off, is quite appropriate and consistent with his own rules regarding such things is reflected in DBWillis recent message below:

                                  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/24441

                                  > From: DBWillis
                                  > To: coCBanned@yahoogroups.com
                                  > Date: Friday, 3 Sep 2010
                                  >
                                  > Subject: Re: A religious issue
                                  > not a truth issue?
                                  >
                                  > If you (Pi) want to whine and
                                  > say I've misrepresented you to
                                  > say you are..., then please...
                                  >
                                  > Maybe you are a SCHIZO...

                                  So I refer DBWillis to his whining here today as if I had misrepresented his position(s) and ask him to please engage me in good faith so that we will come to an explicit agreement regarding my representation of his position on the matters relevant to an analysis of the "Goliath of GRAS".

                                  Sincerely,
                                  Robert Baty

                                  and

                                  --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "rlbaty60" <rlbaty60@...> wrote:

                                  DBWillis has returned to this list to play his word games rather than simply admit to his position and deal with it; if he had an interest in doing so.

                                  I gave DBWillis' position as being, briefly stated in part, as:

                                  > I've got my interpretation
                                  > of the text regarding the
                                  > real world and that trumps
                                  > any real world evidence
                                  > to the contrary;

                                  DBWillis then claims, rather equivocally:

                                  > These are not my words...
                                  >
                                  > Those are Baty's words, not mine,
                                  > and I did not agree to Baty's wording.

                                  I also noted DBWillis' position as being, briefly stated in part, as:

                                  > the contrary evidence simply
                                  > indicating God can make
                                  > things look older than
                                  > they are.

                                  The equivocal DBWillis says about that representation of his position:

                                  > Read this post and notice that
                                  > I did NOT agree to the wording
                                  > given by Baty above.

                                  "This post" as referenced by DBWillis is as follows (excepts):

                                  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/19693

                                  > From: DBWillis
                                  > To: coCBanned@yahoogroups.com
                                  > Date: May 2, 2010
                                  >
                                  > Subject: Re: a "yes or no" answer for David
                                  >
                                  > David Willis here
                                  >
                                  > Baty (suggesting what I would affirm)
                                  >
                                  >> After all, any evidence that some
                                  >> thing is over a few thousand years
                                  >> old just shows God can make stuff
                                  >> that looks older than it really is.
                                  >>
                                  >>> Signed: DBWillis
                                  >
                                  > I would affirm that!

                                  Those familiar with the antics of DBWillis and the position that he has been repeatedly affirming in the discussions about the age of stuff will recognize that the following has been "affirmed" by DBWillis regardless of his quibbling about the specific wording of his position:

                                  > I, DBWillis, have my interpretation
                                  > of the text regarding the real
                                  > world and that trumps any real
                                  > world evidence to the contrary;
                                  > such contrary evidence simply
                                  > indicating that some God can
                                  > make some things look older
                                  > than they are.
                                  >
                                  >> Affirmed: DBWillis

                                  Will DBWillis work with me, in good faith, to clearly resolve his problem with my representation of his fundamental position and affirmation?

                                  Sincerely,
                                  Robert Baty

                                  and

                                  --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "rlbaty60" <rlbaty60@...> wrote:

                                  Regarding my representations regarding DBWillis' positions as they relate to the "Goliath of GRAS" analysis, I repost my following representations for DBWillis to specifically address.

                                  Are my representations of his position correct?

                                  If not, DBWillis should, unequivocally, give his relevant position on each matter for possible further discussion:

                                  "Goliath of GRAS"?

                                  Major premise:

                                  > If (A) God's word (the text) says
                                  > everything began over a period
                                  > of six days, and

                                  > if (B) God's word is interpreted by
                                  > some to mean it was six 24-hour
                                  > days occurring a few thousand
                                  > years ago, and

                                  > if (C) there is empirical
                                  > evidence that some thing is
                                  > actually much older than a
                                  > few thousand years,

                                  > then (D) the interpretation of
                                  > the text by some is wrong.

                                  Minor premise:

                                  > (A) God's word (the text) says
                                  > everything began over a period
                                  > of six days, and

                                  > (B) God's word is interpreted by
                                  > some to mean it was six 24-hour
                                  > days occurring a few thousand
                                  > years ago, and

                                  > (C) there is empirical
                                  > evidence that some thing is
                                  > actually much older than a few
                                  > thousand years.

                                  Conclusion:

                                  > (D) The interpretation of the
                                  > text by some is wrong.

                                  (1)

                                  > If the "Goliath of GRAS"
                                  > premises are true its
                                  > conclusion will follow
                                  > as true.

                                  >> Robert Baty - Yes
                                  >> DBWillis - Yes

                                  (2)

                                  > The "Goliath of GRAS"
                                  > major premise is true.

                                  >> Robert Baty - Yes
                                  >> DBWillis - Yes

                                  (3)

                                  > God's word "says" everything
                                  > was created in six days.

                                  >> Robert Baty - Yes
                                  >> DBWillis - Yes

                                  (4)

                                  > Some folks interpret God's word
                                  > to mean everything began over
                                  > a period of six days no more than
                                  > a few thousand years ago.

                                  >> Robert Baty - Yes
                                  >> DBWillis - Yes

                                  (5)

                                  > God's natural revelation provides
                                  > evidence independent of the text
                                  > that some things are more than
                                  > a few thousand years old.

                                  >> Robert Baty - Yes
                                  >> DBWillis - Yes

                                  (6)

                                  > Young-earth creation-science
                                  > promoters have failed to sustain
                                  > their scientific position that
                                  > nothing is more than a few
                                  > thousand years old.

                                  >> Robert Baty - Yes
                                  >> DBWillis - Yes

                                  (7)

                                  > Young-earth creation-science
                                  > promoters reject the evidence
                                  > from God's natural revelation
                                  > as to age based on their
                                  > interpretation of the text which
                                  > trumps any evidence from
                                  > God's natural revelation and
                                  > the interpretation thereof.

                                  >> Robert Baty - Yes
                                  >> DBWillis - Yes

                                  (8)

                                  > Young-earth creation-science
                                  > promoters consider the evidence
                                  > of age simply an indication that
                                  > God can make some things
                                  > look older than they are.

                                  >> Robert Baty - Yes
                                  >> DBWillis - Yes

                                  These matters, of course, are open for future discussion as may be desired.

                                  Sincerely,
                                  Robert Baty
                                • rlbaty60
                                  ... Then, rather than deal with that issue, DBWillis ran off...again. Despite repeated entreaties for him to engage in a discussion of my representation of
                                  Message 16 of 21 , Sep 28, 2010
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    DBWillis made a recent appearance on this list in order to "whine" as if I had misrepresented his position which I have briefly summarized as follows:

                                    > I, DBWillis, have my interpretation
                                    > of the text regarding the real
                                    > world and that trumps any real
                                    > world evidence to the contrary;
                                    > such contrary evidence simply
                                    > indicating that some God can
                                    > make some things look older
                                    > than they are.

                                    Then, rather than deal with that issue, DBWillis ran off...again. Despite repeated entreaties for him to engage in a discussion of my representation of his positions as a stereotypical young-earth creation-science promoter, DBWillis continues to "hide out".

                                    Despite his "whining" here, DBWillis did just post another confirmation of the accuracy of my representations regarding his position. Here's DBWillis' latest confirmationshown of the accuracy of my representation of his positions (excerpts):

                                    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/24564

                                    > From: DBWillis
                                    > To: coCBanned@yahoogroups.com
                                    > Date: Tuesday, September 28, 2010
                                    >
                                    > Subject: "Apparent Age"
                                    >
                                    > DW here,
                                    >
                                    > Todd wrote on another list:
                                    >
                                    >> David's rhetoric demonstrates that
                                    >> he is going to cling to his belief
                                    >> in his religious dogma NO MATTER
                                    >> WHAT THE EVIDENCE IS.
                                    >
                                    > DW:
                                    >
                                    > IF viewed through a "naturalism-only"
                                    > filter, philosophically ruling out any
                                    > acts of God.

                                    Yes, that post from DBWillis implies that my representation of his positions is correct.

                                    If not, this list is still open to DBWillis (or anyone else) for purposes of openly, honestly resolving any doubts about my representation of DBWillis' positions.

                                    Sincerely,
                                    Robert Baty

                                    --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "rlbaty60" <rlbaty60@...> wrote:

                                    Will this new day bring DBWillis out for an open, honest discussion of his positions which he claimed yesterday I was not properly representing, or will he remain in hiding?

                                    --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "rlbaty60" <rlbaty60@...> wrote:

                                    DBWillis took his cheap shot here, whining about my representation of his position as if it was not representative of the young-earth creation-science movement's promoters and DBWillis himself.

                                    Then DBWillis took off and ran off rather than "man-up" to dealing with his claim and his position(s) such as I have addressed.

                                    That my request of DBWillis, after he popped off, is quite appropriate and consistent with his own rules regarding such things is reflected in DBWillis recent message below:

                                    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/24441

                                    > From: DBWillis
                                    > To: coCBanned@yahoogroups.com
                                    > Date: Friday, 3 Sep 2010
                                    >
                                    > Subject: Re: A religious issue
                                    > not a truth issue?
                                    >
                                    > If you (Pi) want to whine and
                                    > say I've misrepresented you to
                                    > say you are..., then please...
                                    >
                                    > Maybe you are a SCHIZO...

                                    So I refer DBWillis to his whining here today as if I had misrepresented his position(s) and ask him to please engage me in good faith so that we will come to an explicit agreement regarding my representation of his position on the matters relevant to an analysis of the "Goliath of GRAS".

                                    Sincerely,
                                    Robert Baty

                                    and

                                    --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "rlbaty60" <rlbaty60@...> wrote:

                                    DBWillis has returned to this list to play his word games rather than simply admit to his position and deal with it; if he had an interest in doing so.

                                    I gave DBWillis' position as being, briefly stated in part, as:

                                    > I've got my interpretation
                                    > of the text regarding the
                                    > real world and that trumps
                                    > any real world evidence
                                    > to the contrary;

                                    DBWillis then claims, rather equivocally:

                                    > These are not my words...
                                    >
                                    > Those are Baty's words, not mine,
                                    > and I did not agree to Baty's wording.

                                    I also noted DBWillis' position as being, briefly stated in part, as:

                                    > the contrary evidence simply
                                    > indicating God can make
                                    > things look older than
                                    > they are.

                                    The equivocal DBWillis says about that representation of his position:

                                    > Read this post and notice that
                                    > I did NOT agree to the wording
                                    > given by Baty above.

                                    "This post" as referenced by DBWillis is as follows (excepts):

                                    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/19693

                                    > From: DBWillis
                                    > To: coCBanned@yahoogroups.com
                                    > Date: May 2, 2010
                                    >
                                    > Subject: Re: a "yes or no"
                                    > answer for David
                                    >
                                    > David Willis here
                                    >
                                    > Baty (suggesting what I would affirm)
                                    >
                                    >> After all, any evidence that some
                                    >> thing is over a few thousand years
                                    >> old just shows God can make stuff
                                    >> that looks older than it really is.
                                    >>
                                    >>> Signed: DBWillis
                                    >
                                    > I would affirm that!

                                    Those familiar with the antics of DBWillis and the position that he has been repeatedly affirming in the discussions about the age of stuff will recognize that the following has been "affirmed" by DBWillis regardless of his quibbling about the specific wording of his position:

                                    > I, DBWillis, have my interpretation
                                    > of the text regarding the real
                                    > world and that trumps any real
                                    > world evidence to the contrary;
                                    > such contrary evidence simply
                                    > indicating that some God can
                                    > make some things look older
                                    > than they are.
                                    >
                                    >> Affirmed: DBWillis

                                    Will DBWillis work with me, in good faith, to clearly resolve his problem with my representation of his fundamental position and affirmation?

                                    Sincerely,
                                    Robert Baty

                                    and

                                    --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "rlbaty60" <rlbaty60@...> wrote:

                                    Regarding my representations regarding DBWillis' positions as they relate to the "Goliath of GRAS" analysis, I repost my following representations for DBWillis to specifically address.

                                    Are my representations of his position correct?

                                    If not, DBWillis should, unequivocally, give his relevant position on each matter for possible further discussion:

                                    "Goliath of GRAS"?

                                    Major premise:

                                    > If (A) God's word (the text) says
                                    > everything began over a period
                                    > of six days, and

                                    > if (B) God's word is interpreted by
                                    > some to mean it was six 24-hour
                                    > days occurring a few thousand
                                    > years ago, and

                                    > if (C) there is empirical
                                    > evidence that some thing is
                                    > actually much older than a
                                    > few thousand years,

                                    > then (D) the interpretation of
                                    > the text by some is wrong.

                                    Minor premise:

                                    > (A) God's word (the text) says
                                    > everything began over a period
                                    > of six days, and

                                    > (B) God's word is interpreted by
                                    > some to mean it was six 24-hour
                                    > days occurring a few thousand
                                    > years ago, and

                                    > (C) there is empirical
                                    > evidence that some thing is
                                    > actually much older than a few
                                    > thousand years.

                                    Conclusion:

                                    > (D) The interpretation of the
                                    > text by some is wrong.

                                    (1)

                                    > If the "Goliath of GRAS"
                                    > premises are true its
                                    > conclusion will follow
                                    > as true.

                                    >> Robert Baty - Yes
                                    >> DBWillis - Yes

                                    (2)

                                    > The "Goliath of GRAS"
                                    > major premise is true.

                                    >> Robert Baty - Yes
                                    >> DBWillis - Yes

                                    (3)

                                    > God's word "says" everything
                                    > was created in six days.

                                    >> Robert Baty - Yes
                                    >> DBWillis - Yes

                                    (4)

                                    > Some folks interpret God's word
                                    > to mean everything began over
                                    > a period of six days no more than
                                    > a few thousand years ago.

                                    >> Robert Baty - Yes
                                    >> DBWillis - Yes

                                    (5)

                                    > God's natural revelation provides
                                    > evidence independent of the text
                                    > that some things are more than
                                    > a few thousand years old.

                                    >> Robert Baty - Yes
                                    >> DBWillis - Yes

                                    (6)

                                    > Young-earth creation-science
                                    > promoters have failed to sustain
                                    > their scientific position that
                                    > nothing is more than a few
                                    > thousand years old.

                                    >> Robert Baty - Yes
                                    >> DBWillis - Yes

                                    (7)

                                    > Young-earth creation-science
                                    > promoters reject the evidence
                                    > from God's natural revelation
                                    > as to age based on their
                                    > interpretation of the text which
                                    > trumps any evidence from
                                    > God's natural revelation and
                                    > the interpretation thereof.

                                    >> Robert Baty - Yes
                                    >> DBWillis - Yes

                                    (8)

                                    > Young-earth creation-science
                                    > promoters consider the evidence
                                    > of age simply an indication that
                                    > God can make some things
                                    > look older than they are.

                                    >> Robert Baty - Yes
                                    >> DBWillis - Yes

                                    These matters, of course, are open for future discussion as may be desired.

                                    Sincerely,
                                    Robert Baty
                                  • Todd Greene
                                    ... I have to thank David again for kindly continuing to demonstrate how they use the word naturalism merely as a fundamentalist Christian boogey-man term to
                                    Message 17 of 21 , Sep 29, 2010
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      What I wrote that the young earth creationist and "apparent age" advocate David Willis conveniently skipped:

                                      | Which is precisely
                                      | why David Willis runs as fast as he can away from the
                                      | scientific requirement of TESTING beliefs/ideas against
                                      | the EVIDENCE. David KNOWS that his young earth
                                      | creationism belief has already been TESTED against the
                                      | EVIDENCE and has FAILED THE TESTS thousands of times
                                      | over. (This is why young earth creationism ideas no
                                      | longer even exist in science, and have not been part of
                                      | science for over two hundred years.) In SCIENCE, which
                                      | relies fundamentally on TESTING ideas against the
                                      | relevant EVIDENCE, when an idea has been unequivocally
                                      | (and voluminously) FALSIFIED by the EVIDENTIAL TESTS,
                                      | then that idea is cast aside.

                                      I have to thank David again for kindly continuing to demonstrate how they use the word "naturalism" merely as a fundamentalist Christian boogey-man term to denigrate any scientific results they don't like because of some particular religious doctrines they believe that have been scientifically falsified. In their rhetorical word games all the word "naturalism" refers to is TESTING beliefs against EVIDENCE, and it is because their religious doctrine of young earth creationism has been unequivocally falsified by evidential testing (in geology and astronomy) that they have "philosophically" chosen to ignore the evidence. They HATE testing ideas against the evidence, precisely because their particular idea has FAILED the tests, and they consider their false belief to be so much more precious to them than the truth that they have instead chosen to attack the very idea of TESTING ideas against the EVIDENCE in the first place.

                                      Note also how David demonstrates his fondness for making arguments BASED on MAKING THINGS UP. David does not have a miracle to produce for detailed examination, so HE DOESN'T HAVE A CLUE what such detailed examination would show. I have already discussed this point in a following post (from the quote above).

                                      - Todd Greene


                                      --- In coCBanned, David Willis wrote (post #24564):
                                      > DW here,
                                      >
                                      > Todd wrote on another list:>>David's rhetoric demonstrates that he is
                                      > going to cling to his belief in his religious dogma NO MATTER WHAT THE EVIDENCE
                                      > IS. >>
                                      >
                                      >
                                      > DW: IF viewed through a "naturalism-only" filter, philosophically ruling
                                      > out any acts of God.
                                      >
                                      > >>That is precisely what the "apparent age" argument is: 'I am going to
                                      > believe in young earth creationism no matter what the evidence is, because
                                      > the evidence shows exactly that of an ancient universe and ancient earth,
                                      > because God made it to look that way. The stellar explosion designated SN1987A
                                      > never happened but is merely an illusion of an explosion that God created
                                      > out in space about 6,000 light-years from earth.'
                                      >
                                      > This is merely a denial of the real world evidence dressed up in
                                      > theological clothes to help people try to minimize their cognitive dissonance with
                                      > respect to clinging to a religious belief that has been proved to be wrong
                                      > scientifically by the real world observations of the fact that the universe
                                      > has been around far, far longer than just 6,000 years.>>
                                      >
                                      >
                                      > Of course what Todd says here would apply equally to any miracle,
                                      > including the Resurrection and the making of loaves and fishes and the changing
                                      > water into wine. Every miracle contradicts Todd's religion of naturalism so
                                      > Todd imitates Obama's mocking of those who "cling" to their religion. Any
                                      > true theist should reject both of them. But Baty and Pi don't behave like
                                      > true theists. They cheer on an atheist who mocks the idea of God doing
                                      > something supernatural.


                                      --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "Todd Greene" <greeneto@...> wrote:
                                      >> Of course, and in FACT, these two mean the same thing:
                                      >>
                                      >> David Willis wrote, "After all, any evidence that some
                                      >> thing is over a few thousand years old just shows God can
                                      >> make stuff that looks older than it really is."
                                      >>
                                      >> Robert Baty states the direct implication of this as,
                                      >> "I've got my interpretation of the text regarding the
                                      >> real world and that trumps any real world evidence to the
                                      >> contrary."
                                      >>
                                      >> Which is precisely why David Willis runs as fast as he
                                      >> can away from the scientific requirement of TESTING
                                      >> beliefs/ideas against the EVIDENCE. David KNOWS that his
                                      >> young earth creationism belief has already been TESTED
                                      >> against the EVIDENCE and has FAILED THE TESTS thousands
                                      >> of times over. (This is why young earth creationism ideas
                                      >> no longer even exist in science, and have not been part
                                      >> of science for over two hundred years.) In SCIENCE, which
                                      >> relies fundamentally on TESTING ideas against the relevant
                                      >> EVIDENCE, when an idea has been unequivocally (and
                                      >> voluminously) FALSIFIED by the EVIDENTIAL TESTS, then that
                                      >> idea is cast aside. Since we know through geological
                                      >> science (i.e., by the tests against the relevant
                                      >> geological evidence) and astronomical science (i.e., by
                                      >> the tests against the relevant astronomical evidence) that
                                      >> the earth and the universe have been around far, far
                                      >> longer than merely 6,000 years or so, we know that young
                                      >> earth creationism is wrong. False ideas are no longer
                                      >> relevant to science, except as footnotes in the history of
                                      >> science.
                                      >>
                                      >> And we know that Robert Baty's statement of the
                                      >> implication of all of David's statements along these same
                                      >> lines is correct, because David's rhetoric demonstrates
                                      >> that he is going to cling to his belief in his religious
                                      >> dogma NO MATTER WHAT THE EVIDENCE IS. That is precisely
                                      >> what the "apparent age" argument is: 'I am going to
                                      >> believe in young earth creationism no matter what the
                                      >> evidence is, because the evidence shows exactly that of an
                                      >> ancient universe and ancient earth, because God made it to
                                      >> look that way. The stellar explosion designated SN1987A
                                      >> never happened but is merely an illusion of an explosion
                                      >> that God created out in space about 6,000 light-years from
                                      >> earth.'
                                      >>
                                      >> This is merely a denial of the real world evidence dressed
                                      >> up in theological clothes to help people try to minimize
                                      >> their cognitive dissonance with respect to clinging to a
                                      >> religious belief that has been proved to be wrong
                                      >> scientifically by the real world observations of the fact
                                      >> that the universe has been around far, far longer than
                                      >> just 6,000 years.
                                      >>
                                      >> - Todd Greene
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      > --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, DBWILLIS@ wrote:
                                      >>> David Willis here,
                                      >>>
                                      >>>
                                      >>> Baty provided this wording and then said I agreed to it. I did not.
                                      >>>
                                      >>> >>> I've got my interpretation
                                      >>> > of the text regarding the
                                      >>> > real world and that trumps
                                      >>> > any real world evidence
                                      >>> > to the contrary;
                                      >>>
                                      >>>
                                      >>> These are not my words...in fact I didn't even agree to them after someone
                                      >>> else wrote them. Those are Baty's words, not mine, and I did not agree to
                                      >>> Baty's wording. Baty has a nasty habit of falsifying what someone else has
                                      >>> said or agreed with.
                                      >>>
                                      >>> the
                                      >>> > contrary evidence simply
                                      >>> > indicating God can make
                                      >>> > things look older than
                                      >>> > they are.
                                      >>>
                                      >>> See:
                                      >>>
                                      >>> _http://groups.http://grohttp://groups.<Whttp://groups_
                                      >>> (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/19693)
                                      >>>
                                      >>>
                                      >>>
                                      >>> Read this post and notice that I did NOT agree to the wording given by Baty
                                      >>> above.
                                      >>>
                                      >>>
                                      >>> > I would affirm that!
                                      >>> >
                                      >>> >> DBWillis, NI preacher1>>
                                      >>>
                                      >>>
                                      >>>
                                      >>> Pi was too much of a coward to answer this...maybe Baty would like to try:
                                      >>>
                                      >>> Is God able to righteously make a rounded rock instantly if He wanted to?
                                      >>> (It calls for a yes or no answer).
                                    • Todd Greene
                                      I realize I have not mentioned this particular point recently (though I have brought it up a number of times in the past), but HERE IS HOW DAVID WILLIS COULD
                                      Message 18 of 21 , Sep 29, 2010
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        I realize I have not mentioned this particular point recently (though I have brought it up a number of times in the past), but HERE IS HOW DAVID WILLIS COULD PROVE THAT I'M WRONG: Produce the evidence that God created an illusion, about 6,000 years ago, of the explosion of a star that never happened out in space about 6,000 light-years from Earth. Produce your EVIDENCE for this, David.

                                        Of course, we know (1) David will never produce any such evidence, because there isn't any, and (2) he (and his fellow fundamentalist Christians who use this same rhetoric) is using this rhetorical game for the very purpose of running away from any and all evidence in the first place (which is what proves that what I have stated all along about this is correct).

                                        So when I point out that when YECs are doing things such as using the word "naturalism" purely as rhetorical trickery using a fundamentalist Christian boogey-man term to denigrate the very principle of TESTING ideas against EVIDENCE, I'm exactly right about this, and David cannot produce any EVIDENCE for his claims - not even in principle, because he is in principle arguing against the idea of dealing with the evidence in the first place. Which is what further proves that his complaints against people pointing out the fact that "the attitude of the young earth creationists is the corrupt attitude that they're going to cling to their belief no matter what the evidence is" are just a further demonstration of how these guys love to tell lies about everything in sight - even telling lies about themselves (attempting to cast themselves in a better light when it is pointed out just how flawed their ideas really are). That is exactly what the young earth creationist attitude is, and the "apparent age" argument itself is a blatant proof of this fact.

                                        - Todd Greene


                                        --- In Maury_and_Baty, Todd Greene wrote (post #20531):
                                        > What I wrote that the young earth creationist and "apparent age" advocate David Willis conveniently skipped:
                                        >
                                        > | Which is precisely
                                        > | why David Willis runs as fast as he can away from the
                                        > | scientific requirement of TESTING beliefs/ideas against
                                        > | the EVIDENCE. David KNOWS that his young earth
                                        > | creationism belief has already been TESTED against the
                                        > | EVIDENCE and has FAILED THE TESTS thousands of times
                                        > | over. (This is why young earth creationism ideas no
                                        > | longer even exist in science, and have not been part of
                                        > | science for over two hundred years.) In SCIENCE, which
                                        > | relies fundamentally on TESTING ideas against the
                                        > | relevant EVIDENCE, when an idea has been unequivocally
                                        > | (and voluminously) FALSIFIED by the EVIDENTIAL TESTS,
                                        > | then that idea is cast aside.
                                        >
                                        > I have to thank David again for kindly continuing to demonstrate how they use the word "naturalism" merely as a fundamentalist Christian boogey-man term to denigrate any scientific results they don't like because of some particular religious doctrines they believe that have been scientifically falsified. In their rhetorical word games all the word "naturalism" refers to is TESTING beliefs against EVIDENCE, and it is because their religious doctrine of young earth creationism has been unequivocally falsified by evidential testing (in geology and astronomy) that they have "philosophically" chosen to ignore the evidence. They HATE testing ideas against the evidence, precisely because their particular idea has FAILED the tests, and they consider their false belief to be so much more precious to them than the truth that they have instead chosen to attack the very idea of TESTING ideas against the EVIDENCE in the first place.
                                        >
                                        > Note also how David demonstrates his fondness for making arguments BASED on MAKING THINGS UP. David does not have a miracle to produce for detailed examination, so HE DOESN'T HAVE A CLUE what such detailed examination would show. I have already discussed this point in a following post (from the quote above).
                                        >
                                        > - Todd Greene
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > --- In coCBanned, David Willis wrote (post #24564):
                                        > > DW here,
                                        > >
                                        > > Todd wrote on another list:>>David's rhetoric demonstrates that he is
                                        > > going to cling to his belief in his religious dogma NO MATTER WHAT THE EVIDENCE
                                        > > IS. >>
                                        > >
                                        > >
                                        > > DW: IF viewed through a "naturalism-only" filter, philosophically ruling
                                        > > out any acts of God.
                                        > >
                                        > > >>That is precisely what the "apparent age" argument is: 'I am going to
                                        > > believe in young earth creationism no matter what the evidence is, because
                                        > > the evidence shows exactly that of an ancient universe and ancient earth,
                                        > > because God made it to look that way. The stellar explosion designated SN1987A
                                        > > never happened but is merely an illusion of an explosion that God created
                                        > > out in space about 6,000 light-years from earth.'
                                        > >
                                        > > This is merely a denial of the real world evidence dressed up in
                                        > > theological clothes to help people try to minimize their cognitive dissonance with
                                        > > respect to clinging to a religious belief that has been proved to be wrong
                                        > > scientifically by the real world observations of the fact that the universe
                                        > > has been around far, far longer than just 6,000 years.>>
                                        > >
                                        > >
                                        > > Of course what Todd says here would apply equally to any miracle,
                                        > > including the Resurrection and the making of loaves and fishes and the changing
                                        > > water into wine. Every miracle contradicts Todd's religion of naturalism so
                                        > > Todd imitates Obama's mocking of those who "cling" to their religion. Any
                                        > > true theist should reject both of them. But Baty and Pi don't behave like
                                        > > true theists. They cheer on an atheist who mocks the idea of God doing
                                        > > something supernatural.
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "Todd Greene" <greeneto@> wrote:
                                        > >> Of course, and in FACT, these two mean the same thing:
                                        > >>
                                        > >> David Willis wrote, "After all, any evidence that some
                                        > >> thing is over a few thousand years old just shows God can
                                        > >> make stuff that looks older than it really is."
                                        > >>
                                        > >> Robert Baty states the direct implication of this as,
                                        > >> "I've got my interpretation of the text regarding the
                                        > >> real world and that trumps any real world evidence to the
                                        > >> contrary."
                                        > >>
                                        > >> Which is precisely why David Willis runs as fast as he
                                        > >> can away from the scientific requirement of TESTING
                                        > >> beliefs/ideas against the EVIDENCE. David KNOWS that his
                                        > >> young earth creationism belief has already been TESTED
                                        > >> against the EVIDENCE and has FAILED THE TESTS thousands
                                        > >> of times over. (This is why young earth creationism ideas
                                        > >> no longer even exist in science, and have not been part
                                        > >> of science for over two hundred years.) In SCIENCE, which
                                        > >> relies fundamentally on TESTING ideas against the relevant
                                        > >> EVIDENCE, when an idea has been unequivocally (and
                                        > >> voluminously) FALSIFIED by the EVIDENTIAL TESTS, then that
                                        > >> idea is cast aside. Since we know through geological
                                        > >> science (i.e., by the tests against the relevant
                                        > >> geological evidence) and astronomical science (i.e., by
                                        > >> the tests against the relevant astronomical evidence) that
                                        > >> the earth and the universe have been around far, far
                                        > >> longer than merely 6,000 years or so, we know that young
                                        > >> earth creationism is wrong. False ideas are no longer
                                        > >> relevant to science, except as footnotes in the history of
                                        > >> science.
                                        > >>
                                        > >> And we know that Robert Baty's statement of the
                                        > >> implication of all of David's statements along these same
                                        > >> lines is correct, because David's rhetoric demonstrates
                                        > >> that he is going to cling to his belief in his religious
                                        > >> dogma NO MATTER WHAT THE EVIDENCE IS. That is precisely
                                        > >> what the "apparent age" argument is: 'I am going to
                                        > >> believe in young earth creationism no matter what the
                                        > >> evidence is, because the evidence shows exactly that of an
                                        > >> ancient universe and ancient earth, because God made it to
                                        > >> look that way. The stellar explosion designated SN1987A
                                        > >> never happened but is merely an illusion of an explosion
                                        > >> that God created out in space about 6,000 light-years from
                                        > >> earth.'
                                        > >>
                                        > >> This is merely a denial of the real world evidence dressed
                                        > >> up in theological clothes to help people try to minimize
                                        > >> their cognitive dissonance with respect to clinging to a
                                        > >> religious belief that has been proved to be wrong
                                        > >> scientifically by the real world observations of the fact
                                        > >> that the universe has been around far, far longer than
                                        > >> just 6,000 years.
                                        > >>
                                        > >> - Todd Greene
                                        > >
                                        > >
                                        > >
                                        > > --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, DBWILLIS@ wrote:
                                        > >>> David Willis here,
                                        > >>>
                                        > >>>
                                        > >>> Baty provided this wording and then said I agreed to it. I did not.
                                        > >>>
                                        > >>> >>> I've got my interpretation
                                        > >>> > of the text regarding the
                                        > >>> > real world and that trumps
                                        > >>> > any real world evidence
                                        > >>> > to the contrary;
                                        > >>>
                                        > >>>
                                        > >>> These are not my words...in fact I didn't even agree to them after someone
                                        > >>> else wrote them. Those are Baty's words, not mine, and I did not agree to
                                        > >>> Baty's wording. Baty has a nasty habit of falsifying what someone else has
                                        > >>> said or agreed with.
                                        > >>>
                                        > >>> the
                                        > >>> > contrary evidence simply
                                        > >>> > indicating God can make
                                        > >>> > things look older than
                                        > >>> > they are.
                                        > >>>
                                        > >>> See:
                                        > >>>
                                        > >>> _http://groups.http://grohttp://groups.<Whttp://groups_
                                        > >>> (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/19693)
                                        > >>>
                                        > >>>
                                        > >>>
                                        > >>> Read this post and notice that I did NOT agree to the wording given by Baty
                                        > >>> above.
                                        > >>>
                                        > >>>
                                        > >>> > I would affirm that!
                                        > >>> >
                                        > >>> >> DBWillis, NI preacher1>>
                                        > >>>
                                        > >>>
                                        > >>>
                                        > >>> Pi was too much of a coward to answer this...maybe Baty would like to try:
                                        > >>>
                                        > >>> Is God able to righteously make a rounded rock instantly if He wanted to?
                                        > >>> (It calls for a yes or no answer).
                                        >
                                      • Todd Greene
                                        ... The young earth creationist David Willis says atheists are dumb because they require EVIDENCE, and David HATES the principle of requiring evidence
                                        Message 19 of 21 , Sep 30, 2010
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          --- In coCBanned, David Willis wrote (post #24567):
                                          > DW here,
                                          >
                                          >> [Todd Greene wrote:]
                                          >>> In fact, David
                                          >>> Willis DOES NOT HAVE A CLUE what any supposed
                                          >>> instantaneously created bread or instantaneously created
                                          >>> wine would actually look like under detailed microscopic
                                          >>> examination, precisely because HE JUST MAKES THINGS UP.
                                          >>
                                          > [Terry Benton wrote:]
                                          >> Why would it look different under a microscope? If it is
                                          >> deceptive at any level it is deceptive.
                                          >
                                          > Yeah...I guess to a dumb atheist,

                                          The young earth creationist David Willis says atheists are "dumb" because they require EVIDENCE, and David HATES the principle of requiring evidence because he doesn't have evidence. So he calls it "dumb". These are the silly word games fundamentalists such as David Willis love to play. In reality, the "dumb" guys are precisely those who engage in the charade that it's perfectly okay to just make things up and then pretend they are "true" WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE - and not only without evidence but CONTRARY to the evidence that does exist.

                                          Besides, any time a young earth creationist calls anyone "dumb", it's just another laugh, these guys are such clowns!

                                          > or theistic evolutionist,
                                          > Jesus could say "But I'm NOT a deceiver about the wine
                                          > because if you had a microscope you could examine it on a
                                          > cellular level and SEE that it looks different than other
                                          > wine." And the first century headwaiter would say "but
                                          > what IS a microscope, and where can I get one of those?"

                                          The point, of course, that David has ignored again, is that he doesn't have a clue what the detailed physical features of any such instantaneously miraculously created wine would look like. He MADE UP what HE ASSERTS it would look like, and then BASED his argument on his own assertion. This is the CIRCULAR ARGUMENTATION that young earth creationists, and fundamentalist Christians, love so much. And how does David respond to my pointing out this error of his argument? HE JUST KEEPS RIGHT ON USING THE SAME FALLACIOUS ARGUMENTATION, making things up and then making arguments based on what he has made up. Of course, we know why: He doesn't have any actual evidence, and he cannot produce any actual evidence, and he knows it, so all he does is continue to make things up despite the fact that such circular argumentation is utterly meaningless. But he's too "dumb" to comprehend the meaningless nature of circular argumentation with respect to empirical claims.

                                          > And maybe someone who would chop down a tree 6000 or so
                                          > years ago would say, "tree rings? We don't look at tree
                                          > rings to figure how old a tree is...we look at how large
                                          > it is, and we also factor in that God made some of them
                                          > when He created the world. We never thought of counting
                                          > rings.

                                          What does David do? HE MAKES MORE STUFF UP. David's argumentation is BASED on pure fabrication.

                                          > We just accepted
                                          > the idea that God made some large trees and some smaller
                                          > ones instantly, and later some grew up from seeds, so it
                                          > never occurred to us at all that God was trying to deceive
                                          > anyone. Last week we took some flowers from the woods and
                                          > planted them in front of our home and never thought anyone
                                          > would accuse us of being deceivers about whether they grew
                                          > there on their own! If you accused us of being deceivers
                                          > due to something like that we would think you are NUTS,
                                          > especially if we TOLD you where the flowers came from!"

                                          Which is utterly irrelevant, because in fact you can conduct detailed examination of the physical features of the flowers and determine that they did not grow in the soil where they have been transplanted to. So notice how David completely IGNORES ACTUALLY DEALING WITH REAL WORLD EVIDENCE in his argumentation. Again.

                                          Which is why whenever he complains about us pointing out the observational fact that young earth creationists believe what they believe on the basis of their own subjective belief (which is a religious belief) NO MATTER WHAT THE FACTS ARE, and use their "apparent age" argument for the very purpose of denying the evidence and running away from the very idea of even TESTING ideas against relevant EVIDENCE in the first place, we just laugh at his use of a complaint charade to try to cover up the obviously fallacious nature of his attitude.

                                          By the way, has David produced that evidence yet that SN1987A is merely an illusion, that I asked him for? Of course not.

                                          Chuckling,
                                          Todd Greene
                                        • rlbaty60
                                          Despite his whining on this list, as if I had misrepresented his positions, DBWillis has not returned to work with me in good faith to resolve any doubts
                                          Message 20 of 21 , Sep 30, 2010
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            Despite his "whining" on this list, as if I had misrepresented his positions, DBWillis has not returned to work with me in good faith to resolve any doubts about the propriety of my representations as to his opinions regarding young earth creation science and more specifically how they relate to the analysis of my "Goliath of GRAS"; even as he has continued to post elsewhere on related subjects.

                                            I shall draw such conclusions from that as are justified by the evidence.

                                            Sincerely,
                                            Robert Baty

                                            --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "rlbaty60" <rlbaty60@...> wrote:


                                            DBWillis made a recent appearance on this list in order to "whine" as if I had misrepresented his position which I have briefly summarized as follows:

                                            > I, DBWillis, have my interpretation
                                            > of the text regarding the real
                                            > world and that trumps any real
                                            > world evidence to the contrary;
                                            > such contrary evidence simply
                                            > indicating that some God can
                                            > make some things look older
                                            > than they are.

                                            Then, rather than deal with that issue, DBWillis ran off...again. Despite repeated entreaties for him to engage in a discussion of my representation of his positions as a stereotypical young-earth creation-science promoter, DBWillis continues to "hide out".

                                            Despite his "whining" here, DBWillis did just post another confirmation of the accuracy of my representations regarding his position. Here's DBWillis' latest confirmationshown of the accuracy of my representation of his positions (excerpts):

                                            http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/24564

                                            > From: DBWillis
                                            > To: coCBanned@yahoogroups.com
                                            > Date: Tuesday, September 28, 2010
                                            >
                                            > Subject: "Apparent Age"
                                            >
                                            > DW here,
                                            >
                                            > Todd wrote on another list:
                                            >
                                            >> David's rhetoric demonstrates that
                                            >> he is going to cling to his belief
                                            >> in his religious dogma NO MATTER
                                            >> WHAT THE EVIDENCE IS.
                                            >
                                            > DW:
                                            >
                                            > IF viewed through a "naturalism-only"
                                            > filter, philosophically ruling out any
                                            > acts of God.

                                            Yes, that post from DBWillis implies that my representation of his positions is
                                            correct.

                                            If not, this list is still open to DBWillis (or anyone else) for purposes of openly, honestly resolving any doubts about my representation of DBWillis' positions.

                                            Sincerely,
                                            Robert Baty

                                            --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "rlbaty60" <rlbaty60@...> wrote:

                                            Will this new day bring DBWillis out for an open, honest discussion of his positions which he claimed yesterday I was not properly representing, or will he remain in hiding?

                                            --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "rlbaty60" <rlbaty60@...> wrote:

                                            DBWillis took his cheap shot here, whining about my representation of his position as if it was not representative of the young-earth creation-science movement's promoters and DBWillis himself.

                                            Then DBWillis took off and ran off rather than "man-up" to dealing with his claim and his position(s) such as I have addressed.

                                            That my request of DBWillis, after he popped off, is quite appropriate and consistent with his own rules regarding such things is reflected in DBWillis recent message below:

                                            http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/24441

                                            > From: DBWillis
                                            > To: coCBanned@yahoogroups.com
                                            > Date: Friday, 3 Sep 2010
                                            >
                                            > Subject: Re: A religious issue
                                            > not a truth issue?
                                            >
                                            > If you (Pi) want to whine and
                                            > say I've misrepresented you to
                                            > say you are..., then please...
                                            >
                                            > Maybe you are a SCHIZO...

                                            So I refer DBWillis to his whining here today as if I had misrepresented his position(s) and ask him to please engage me in good faith so that we will come to an explicit agreement regarding my representation of his position on the matters relevant to an analysis of the "Goliath of GRAS".

                                            Sincerely,
                                            Robert Baty

                                            and

                                            --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "rlbaty60" <rlbaty60@...> wrote:

                                            DBWillis has returned to this list to play his word games rather than simply admit to his position and deal with it; if he had an interest in doing so.

                                            I gave DBWillis' position as being, briefly stated in part, as:

                                            > I've got my interpretation
                                            > of the text regarding the
                                            > real world and that trumps
                                            > any real world evidence
                                            > to the contrary;

                                            DBWillis then claims, rather equivocally:

                                            > These are not my words...
                                            >
                                            > Those are Baty's words, not mine,
                                            > and I did not agree to Baty's wording.

                                            I also noted DBWillis' position as being, briefly stated in part, as:

                                            > the contrary evidence simply
                                            > indicating God can make
                                            > things look older than
                                            > they are.

                                            The equivocal DBWillis says about that representation of his position:

                                            > Read this post and notice that
                                            > I did NOT agree to the wording
                                            > given by Baty above.

                                            "This post" as referenced by DBWillis is as follows (excepts):

                                            http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/19693

                                            > From: DBWillis
                                            > To: coCBanned@yahoogroups.com
                                            > Date: May 2, 2010
                                            >
                                            > Subject: Re: a "yes or no"
                                            > answer for David
                                            >
                                            > David Willis here
                                            >
                                            > Baty (suggesting what I would affirm)
                                            >
                                            >> After all, any evidence that some
                                            >> thing is over a few thousand years
                                            >> old just shows God can make stuff
                                            >> that looks older than it really is.
                                            >>
                                            >>> Signed: DBWillis
                                            >
                                            > I would affirm that!

                                            Those familiar with the antics of DBWillis and the position that he has been repeatedly affirming in the discussions about the age of stuff will recognize that the following has been "affirmed" by DBWillis regardless of his quibbling about the specific wording of his position:

                                            > I, DBWillis, have my interpretation
                                            > of the text regarding the real
                                            > world and that trumps any real
                                            > world evidence to the contrary;
                                            > such contrary evidence simply
                                            > indicating that some God can
                                            > make some things look older
                                            > than they are.
                                            >
                                            >> Affirmed: DBWillis

                                            Will DBWillis work with me, in good faith, to clearly resolve his problem with my representation of his fundamental position and affirmation?

                                            Sincerely,
                                            Robert Baty

                                            and

                                            --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "rlbaty60" <rlbaty60@...> wrote:

                                            Regarding my representations regarding DBWillis' positions as they relate to the "Goliath of GRAS" analysis, I repost my following representations for DBWillis to specifically address.

                                            Are my representations of his position correct?

                                            If not, DBWillis should, unequivocally, give his relevant position on each matter for possible further discussion:

                                            "Goliath of GRAS"?

                                            Major premise:

                                            > If (A) God's word (the text) says
                                            > everything began over a period
                                            > of six days, and

                                            > if (B) God's word is interpreted by
                                            > some to mean it was six 24-hour
                                            > days occurring a few thousand
                                            > years ago, and

                                            > if (C) there is empirical
                                            > evidence that some thing is
                                            > actually much older than a
                                            > few thousand years,

                                            > then (D) the interpretation of
                                            > the text by some is wrong.

                                            Minor premise:

                                            > (A) God's word (the text) says
                                            > everything began over a period
                                            > of six days, and

                                            > (B) God's word is interpreted by
                                            > some to mean it was six 24-hour
                                            > days occurring a few thousand
                                            > years ago, and

                                            > (C) there is empirical
                                            > evidence that some thing is
                                            > actually much older than a few
                                            > thousand years.

                                            Conclusion:

                                            > (D) The interpretation of the
                                            > text by some is wrong.

                                            (1)

                                            > If the "Goliath of GRAS"
                                            > premises are true its
                                            > conclusion will follow
                                            > as true.

                                            >> Robert Baty - Yes
                                            >> DBWillis - Yes

                                            (2)

                                            > The "Goliath of GRAS"
                                            > major premise is true.

                                            >> Robert Baty - Yes
                                            >> DBWillis - Yes

                                            (3)

                                            > God's word "says" everything
                                            > was created in six days.

                                            >> Robert Baty - Yes
                                            >> DBWillis - Yes

                                            (4)

                                            > Some folks interpret God's word
                                            > to mean everything began over
                                            > a period of six days no more than
                                            > a few thousand years ago.

                                            >> Robert Baty - Yes
                                            >> DBWillis - Yes

                                            (5)

                                            > God's natural revelation provides
                                            > evidence independent of the text
                                            > that some things are more than
                                            > a few thousand years old.

                                            >> Robert Baty - Yes
                                            >> DBWillis - Yes

                                            (6)

                                            > Young-earth creation-science
                                            > promoters have failed to sustain
                                            > their scientific position that
                                            > nothing is more than a few
                                            > thousand years old.

                                            >> Robert Baty - Yes
                                            >> DBWillis - Yes

                                            (7)

                                            > Young-earth creation-science
                                            > promoters reject the evidence
                                            > from God's natural revelation
                                            > as to age based on their
                                            > interpretation of the text which
                                            > trumps any evidence from
                                            > God's natural revelation and
                                            > the interpretation thereof.

                                            >> Robert Baty - Yes
                                            >> DBWillis - Yes

                                            (8)

                                            > Young-earth creation-science
                                            > promoters consider the evidence
                                            > of age simply an indication that
                                            > God can make some things
                                            > look older than they are.

                                            >> Robert Baty - Yes
                                            >> DBWillis - Yes

                                            These matters, of course, are open for future discussion as may be desired.

                                            Sincerely,
                                            Robert Baty
                                          • Todd Greene
                                            ... To make Robert s point more explicit, we must note the fact that David s pretended IF viewed through a naturalism-only filter, philosophically ruling
                                            Message 21 of 21 , Sep 30, 2010
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              In Maury_and_Baty, Robert Baty wrote (post #20568):
                                              |[snip]
                                              > Despite his "whining" here, DBWillis did just post
                                              > another confirmation of the accuracy of my
                                              > representations regarding his position. Here's
                                              > DBWillis' latest confirmation of the accuracy
                                              > of my representation of his positions (excerpts):
                                              >
                                              > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/24564
                                              >
                                              >> From: DBWillis
                                              >> To: coCBanned@yahoogroups.com
                                              >> Date: Tuesday, September 28, 2010
                                              >>
                                              >> Subject: "Apparent Age"
                                              >>
                                              >> DW here,
                                              >>
                                              >> Todd wrote on another list:
                                              >>
                                              >>> David's rhetoric demonstrates that
                                              >>> he is going to cling to his belief
                                              >>> in his religious dogma NO MATTER
                                              >>> WHAT THE EVIDENCE IS.
                                              >>
                                              >> DW:
                                              >>
                                              >> IF viewed through a "naturalism-only"
                                              >> filter, philosophically ruling out any
                                              >> acts of God.
                                              >
                                              > Yes, that post from DBWillis implies that my
                                              > representation of his positions is correct.
                                              |[snip]

                                              To make Robert's point more explicit, we must note the fact that David's pretended "IF viewed through a 'naturalism-only' filter, philosophically ruling out any acts of God" is itself a (deliberate) misrepresentation of the rejection of young earth creationism.

                                              First of all, his misrepresentation is merely another manifestation of many YECs' absurd pretension that the hundreds of millions of Christians who reject the religious doctrine of young earth creationism don't even exist. He attacks the scientific results he doesn't like (because they are contrary to his religious dogma) by falsely portraying it as a massive worldwide atheist/evolutionist conspiracy. The fact that hundreds of millions of Christians reject the religious doctrine of young earth creationism alone unequivocally disproves his remark. (OF course, young earth creationists don't care about this fact about the real world, that hundreds of millions of Christians who reject their religious doctrine exist, they're going to keep right on making remarks based on the false premise that they don't. Young earth creationists love their false delusional rhetoric far more than dealing with reality. Dealing with reality is not of concern to them. This is kind of the point with young earth creationists. It's adherence to their false religious doctrine that matters.

                                              Second - another point which I'm keeping at the forefront every time David spouts his silly rhetoric - the term "naturalism" as used by young earth creationists is merely a fundamentalist Christian boogey-man word they use (it's called prejudice-pandering) to attack the principle of TESTING ideas against the relevant EVIDENCE. They have forced themselves into attacking the very idea of TESTING ideas against the EVIDENCE, because they're promoting an idea (a belief in a particular religious dogma) that has been falsified for over two hundred years - in other words, it's an idea that has been thoroughly TESTED against the relevant EVIDENCE and it has unequivocally failed the tests, so they attack the fundamental process of TESTING ideas against the EVIDENCE because they themselves are well aware of the fact that their idea - the idea of young earth creationism - cannot stand up to that process.

                                              This second point is also relevant to the first point by the fact that the millions of Christians reject young earth creationism NOT because - as David falsely pretends - they view the matter "through a 'naturalism-only' filter, philosophically ruling out any acts of God", but because, unlike young earth creationists, they do NOT reject the fundamental epistemological matter of TESTING ideas against the relevant EVIDENCE.

                                              - Todd Greene
                                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.