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

Testing a fundamental position: Genesis!

Expand Messages
  • rlbaty50
    (In case there are any April fools who might dare to take on my Goliath of GRAS ! April fool or not, the invitation remains outstanding.) I am going to
    Message 1 of 9 , Apr 1, 2010
      (In case there are any "April fools" who might dare to take on my "Goliath of GRAS"! April fool or not, the invitation remains outstanding.)

      I am going 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 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., are the premises true).

      Three simple steps have been posted to this list in order to facilitate the discussion and insure the argument is properly considered and appreciated for just what I have proposed for it.

      Many have tried and failed (see list archives); most recently Terry Hightower, David B. Willis, Jerry McDonald, Terry Benton and the infamous 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 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 and/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
      > thousand years.

      Conclusion:

      > The interpretation of the text
      > by some is wrong.

      You are welcome to try your hand at impeaching the validity of the argument, or simply accept it for what it is...a simple,
      logically valid statement of the real world falsification test for the fundamental real world claim commonly associated with
      the young-earth creation-science movement.

      It is further proposed that the only disputed aspect of the above argument is, in the context of the popular young-earth
      creation-science movement, the "evidence of age".

      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
    • Robert Baty
      I am going to post comments from Jerry D. McDonald, preacher, and Ken Ham (Answers In Genesis), Bert Thompson (Apologetics Press) and Kent Hovind (Creation
      Message 2 of 9 , Dec 18, 2010
        I am going to post comments from Jerry D. McDonald, preacher, and Ken Ham (Answers In Genesis), Bert Thompson (Apologetics Press) and Kent Hovind (Creation Science Evangelism), 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 certain anonymous whiners at the Christian Post website, 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
      • Terry
        Robert is a whiner who has been beaten so many times it has become a joke that he is a broken record with one issue that he lives for, and he has never done
        Message 3 of 9 , Dec 18, 2010
          Robert is a whiner who has been beaten so many times it has become a joke that he is a broken record with one issue that he lives for, and he has never done very well with that one issue, so people now think of him as a mental retard. See the yahoogroups GAGDebate for the ongoing games and run-around you always get when trying to get straight answers from this goof-ball, Robert Baty. He lives to agitate, agravate, and avoid legitimate debate, while being a puppet for atheists and naturalists, while pretending to believe in God and the Bible. If you want to waste time with this guys' ongoing games, good luck!

          Terry W. Benton

          --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Baty" <rlbaty60@...> wrote:
          >
          > I am going to post comments from Jerry D. McDonald, preacher, and Ken Ham (Answers In Genesis), Bert Thompson (Apologetics Press) and Kent Hovind (Creation Science Evangelism), 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 certain anonymous whiners at the Christian Post website, 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
          >
        • Robert Baty
          Sounds to me like it is Terry W. Benton doing the whining ! ... As I recall, Terry is one of those former old-earth/universe accepting kind of guys who only
          Message 4 of 9 , Dec 18, 2010
            Sounds to me like it is Terry W. Benton doing the "whining"!

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

            > Robert is a whiner who has been beaten so
            > many times it has become a joke that he
            > is a broken record with one issue that he
            > lives for, and he has never done very well
            > with that one issue, so people now think
            > of him as a mental retard.
            >
            > See the yahoogroups GAGDebate for the ongoing
            > games and run-around you always get when
            > trying to get straight answers from this
            > goof-ball, Robert Baty. He lives to agitate,
            > agravate, and avoid legitimate debate, while
            > being a puppet for atheists and naturalists,
            > while pretending to believe in God and the
            > Bible. If you want to waste time with this
            > guys' ongoing games, good luck!
            >
            > Terry W. Benton
            > http://www.pinelanechurchofchrist.com

            As I recall, Terry is one of those former "old-earth/universe" accepting kind of guys who only recently was converted by David B. Willis to the young-earth/apparent-mature age doctrinal position.

            In brief, his position briefly stated may be proposed as being:

            > I, Terry W. Benton, 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 God can make
            > stuff look older than it is.

            Apart from that, I think it is the case that Terry W. Benton hasn't fully, unequivocally accepted the propositions that:

            (1)

            > The "Goliath of GRAS" is so
            > constructed that if its
            > premises are true it
            > conclusion will follow as
            > true therefrom.

            (2)

            > The "Goliath of GRAS" major
            > premise is, given the
            > stipulations, true.

            Check the headlines tomorrow!

            It could be Terry knows more than he's letting on and the headlines in all the world's major media markets are going to herald in the morning the history making news that some young-earth creation-science promoter has finally come up with the evidence, independent of his interpretation of a religious text, that "nothing is more than a few thousand years old".

            Sincerely,
            Robert Baty
          • Robert Baty
            ... I had forgotten about where that left off. I went and checked and found the following proposition I submitted to Terry W. Benton way back when. Terry W.
            Message 5 of 9 , Dec 18, 2010
              --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "Terry" <terrywbenton@...> wrote, in part:

              > See the yahoogroups GAGDebate for
              > the...you...get...from...
              > Robert Baty.

              I had forgotten about where that left off.

              I went and checked and found the following proposition I submitted to Terry W. Benton way back when. Terry W. Benton didn't accept the offer, or otherwise pursue the negotiations in good faith, and that chat came to an end.

              Here's the link and message (note that Terry was moderating my posts and added his own comment to the beginning of my proposal):

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

              http://groups.yahoo.com/group/GAGdebate/message/67

              From: Robert Baty
              To: GAGDebate@yahoogroups.com
              Date: August 20, 2010

              Subject: Terry W. Benton's GAGDebate Invitation-Accepted!

              > NOTE from editor:
              >
              >> Robert will not get to debate without
              >> actually answering the questions posed
              >> to him. He indicates below that he will
              >> not answer the questions posed to him.
              >>
              >> So, he will not be allowed posts on
              >> this site that waste our time with
              >> more of his "weaseling".
              >>
              >> Terry W. Benton

              Benton's GAGDebate Invitation - Accepted!

              Submitted GAGDebate list: 08/19/2010 6:00 PM MT

              See (note the cross-posting by Terry; excluding the Maury_and_Baty list):

              http://groups.yahoo.com/group/GAG2discussion/message/115
              http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/24282

              > From: Terry W. Benton
              > Website: http://www.pinelanechurchofchrist.com
              > To: coCBanned@yahoogroups.com
              > To: GAG2discussion@yahoogroups.com
              > Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010
              >
              > (excerpt)
              >
              > Robert can return to the GAGDebate list
              > ( http://groups.yahoo.com/group/GAGdebate/ )
              > if he wants a real and fair debate.
              >
              > Terry W. Benton
              > http://www.pinelanechurchofchrist.com

              Following is the link to the GAGDebate list and its description:
              http://groups.yahoo.com/group/GAGdebate/

              > A discussion of the validity and
              > truth of my view of the divine
              > record of creation as opposed to
              > the view of Robert Baty and his
              > erroneous argument called
              > "Goliath of GRAS".

              I will be more than glad to have Terry's and my exchanges on any issues of mutual interest we may wish to discuss posted on the GAGDebate list concurrently with postings elsewhere as agreed to between the parties.

              (1)

              Since Terry has demonstrated lately that he can easily cross-post messages, I will propose that Terry agree to cross-post all exchanges between us, on matters to be agreed upon, on the Maury_and_Baty list as well as the GAGDebate list.

              Being public lists, they may be copied elsewhere as the parties or observers may determine appropriate. Terry and I will be allowed to post, unmoderated, on both lists.

              (2)

              Terry is welcome to discuss his view of creation all he wants. I'm not
              interested in discussing his views on that with him.

              (3)

              The "Goliath of GRAS" is not, fundamentally concerned with creation other than to propose that the evidence independent of the text indicates that it took place more than a few thousand years ago.

              (4)

              If Terry wants to discuss, in that context, the "Goliath of GRAS" and the claims I have made for it, I am more than willing to do so subject to terms and conditions to be resolved before beginning any such discussion with Terry.

              (5)

              In an effort to accommodate Terry, I will consider that he no longer disputes the "deductive validity" of the "Goliath of GRAS"; the next order of business for discussion being my truth claim regarding its major premise.

              (6)

              I would propose we both post messages under the subject header of "Goliath of GRAS - The Major Premise!".

              (7)

              Before beginning the discussion of the truth of the major premise of the "Goliath of GRAS", I would propose that Terry stipulate that he accepts the idea/concept that a hypothetical statement such as the major premise of the "Goliath of GRAS" may be determined to be true without regard to the truth of any of its antecedent elements.

              (8)

              In dealing with the issues, statements/premises will be considered true or false; arguments will be considered valid or not valid, sound or not sound in order to consistency. Issues regarding other relevant terms will be dealt with as deemed appropriate.

              (9)

              We may wish to appoint moderators to help us resolve certain disputed matters independent of the substance of our dispute over the merits of the "Goliath of GRAS".

              (9)

              The above and other matters to be resolved to the mutual satisfaction of both Terry W. Benton and me before the posting of my first affirmative which would provide the justification for why I consider the major premise true.

              Sincerely,
              Robert Baty

              ---------------------------
              ---------------------------
            • J427750108
              (Moderator s Note: Certain comments not relevant to the issue have been deleted from the attached message; the subject line has also been chagned for
              Message 6 of 9 , Dec 18, 2010
                (Moderator's Note: Certain comments not relevant to the issue have been deleted from the attached message; the subject line has also been chagned for relevance. The poster failed to comprehend the import of my note about Terry's moderation. Terry has been quite the moderator on his various lists; including the moderation of the poster below. Goldsmith has been a most prolific poster of complaints regarding the appropriate moderation that takes place on this list. Terry's use of moderation of which I took note is just another reflection that moderation of discussion list postings is a common practice; even at the Christian Post. Some use the feature better than others. I think I am one that uses it better than others and Goldsmith and Benton are appropriate subjects of moderation and are exceptional and rare cases as far as the history of this list is concerned. As for Terry, as his note and my reply to him indicated, he has trouble playing on a level playing field, staying on-topic, and accepting his own rules regarding questions.)

                RB:

                > Here's the link and message (note that
                > Terry was moderating my posts and added
                > his own comment to the beginning of my
                > proposal):

                Seems like a complaint from you about him adding and moderating your postings.

                Sincerely,
                Mark Goldsmith
              • rlbaty50
                Testing a fundamental position: Genesis! I am going to post comments from Jerry D. McDonald, preacher, and Ken Ham (Answers In Genesis), Bert Thompson
                Message 7 of 9 , Apr 4, 2011
                  Testing a fundamental position: Genesis!

                  I am going to post comments from Jerry D. McDonald, preacher, and Ken Ham
                  (Answers In Genesis), Bert Thompson (Apologetics Press) and Kent Hovind
                  (Creation Science Evangelism), 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
                  certain anonymous whiners at the Christian Post website, 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
                • rlbaty50
                  Testing a fundamental position: Genesis! In this message I am going to post comments from ... four promoters of the young-earth creation-science movement.
                  Message 8 of 9 , Oct 28, 2011
                    Testing a fundamental position: Genesis!

                    In this message I am going to post comments from

                    > Jerry D. McDonald, preacher,
                    > Ken Ham (Answers In Genesis),
                    > Bert Thompson (Apologetics Press) and
                    > Kent Hovind (Creation Science Evangelism),

                    four promoters of the young-earth creation-science movement.

                    Their views 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.

                    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).

                    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.

                    Empirical 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
                  • Charles Weston
                    All of these men ignore the teaching of Romans 1:20 that the nature of God is revealed through the natural world.  Creationists are today s circumcision
                    Message 9 of 9 , Oct 28, 2011
                      All of these men ignore the teaching of Romans 1:20 that the nature of God is revealed through the natural world.  Creationists are today's "circumcision party" in the Lord's church, who must be silenced (Titus 1:11).

                      Charles Weston

                      --- On Fri, 10/28/11, rlbaty50 <rlbaty@...> wrote:

                      From: rlbaty50 <rlbaty@...>
                      Subject: [M & B] Testing a fundamental position: Genesis!
                      To: Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com
                      Date: Friday, October 28, 2011, 11:33 AM

                       

                      Testing a fundamental position: Genesis!

                      In this message I am going to post comments from

                      > Jerry D. McDonald, preacher,
                      > Ken Ham (Answers In Genesis),
                      > Bert Thompson (Apologetics Press) and
                      > Kent Hovind (Creation Science Evangelism),

                      four promoters of the young-earth creation-science movement.

                      Their views 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.

                      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).

                      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.

                      Empirical 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

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