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

Debate update from Terry, and my reply!

Expand Messages
  • rlbaty50
    (Terry s update follows my reply below.-RLBaty) ... Yes he did! ... With folks like Terry, I always hit a home run; no strikes, no balls, just home runs! Terry
    Message 1 of 1 , May 3, 2010
      (Terry's update follows my reply below.-RLBaty)

      Terry now writes to the coCBanned list:

      > Willis did not say anything about me.

      Yes he did!

      Terry went on with:

      > What I have done is to demand
      > that Robert prove each item
      > in his premises is indeed true.
      > Robert has yet to do that.
      > Strike one.

      With folks like Terry, I always hit a home run; no strikes, no balls, just home runs!

      Terry has had the "proof" ever before him; his response has simply been "ain't so".

      As for our present discussion, I'm still waiting for Terry to agree with the simple, stipulated definitions so that I might continue my presentation of the "Goliath of GRAS" and my claims regarding its soundness.

      Terry writes:

      > I'm not sure MathewMaury understands
      > whether I am or not worthy...

      Seems clear enough to me, and I suspect others, that "MathewMaury" has Terry pegged pretty well as another unworthy opponent of my "Goliath of GRAS".

      Terry claims:

      > I don't know that Jerry rejects
      > my position or not since I have
      > not stated it.

      Pardon me! :o) I thought you were rather clear in rejecting the notion that "nothing is more than a few thousand years old" and rejecting the notion that "God's word says everything began during a period of 6 days".

      Of course, as preachers go, they are at times seen floating positions as though they did hold them when they really do not.

      That's fine with me Terry; play that fool's game as you will.

      Kinda reminds me of "Planet of the Apes"; "preacher (McDonald) shall not speak ill of preacher (Benton)". I think that's what is at play here.

      Terry alleges:

      > I don't really care if people
      > want to hop in and have their
      > own debates,

      That's funny, considering all the squaking about that in days gone by and Terry's attempt to insist that folks shut up and just let the debate speak for itself.

      Terry writes:

      > I am simply advising that people
      > let Robert prove his own proposition
      > is true.

      I don't believe that either!

      "People" are already fairly informed on the "proof" and have their opinion about that.

      "People" are wanting to see how "useful" an "idiot" Terry is going to demonstrate himself to be as he attempts in vain to impeach the "Goliath of GRAS" and its historical place in the history of the popular public debate over young-earth creation-science.

      So far, Terry is proving to be a very "useful idiot".

      Terry writes regarding his answer to my request he accept the stipulated definitions as to the "Goliath of GRAS":

      > It is on its way soon. I've been
      > too busy with other more pressing
      > matters. I told Robert it would
      > be at my pace and convenience.
      > I don't live my life for Robert's
      > schedule and Robert's demands.
      > I will answer when I get it all
      > together.

      That's funny!

      Terry has NOT been too busy with more pressing matters; as is clearly evidenced by his continuing posting to the coCBanned list.

      What Terry is suggesting is that he is struggling to prepare some fool's play in an effort to justify rejecting one of more of the stipulated definitions.

      Take your time, Terry; your fool's play idiocy will prove quite useful.

      Terry goes on to confirm his course with:

      > I don't accept Robert's "stipulated
      > terms" or definitions and have always
      > asked for clarifications in the past
      > and will ask for them again, with
      > predictably the same results. He
      > will not answer the revelant
      > questions. We will see.

      Terry's problem is he falsely proposes that fool's play questions require an answer from me.

      And the hypocrite Terry still has the ungodly nerve to suggest I am the one who has been evasive.

      Indeed, we will see how useful an idiot Terry wants to be in the next round.

      Sincerely,
      Robert Baty


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

      --- In coCBanned@yahoogroups.com, "rlbaty50" <rlbaty@> wrote:

      > Of course Terry would advise folks
      > to keep quiet, especially DBWillis
      > who has already described Terry as
      > some kind of idiot for trying to deny
      > the simple truth reflected in my
      > major premise.

      TB: Again, a total misrepresentation. Willis did not say anything about me. Willis said it be idiotic to argue with a man who says "if I am right, then you are wrong". Well, I am not idiotic enough to do that. What I have done is to demand that Robert prove each item in his premises is indeed true. Robert has yet to do that. Strike one.

      RB:

      > Of course Terry would advise folks
      > to keep quiet, especially "MathewMaury"
      > who has rejected Terry as a worthy foe
      > of my "Goliath of GRAS" for Terry's
      > rejection of what "MathewMaury" claims
      > God's word says.

      TB: I'm not sure MathewMaury understands whether I am or not worthy, or whether he understands my reasons for wanting Robert to prove his opening comment. So, at this point, it seems irrelevant since Robert is relying on others to prove his premise is true. I would think that Mathew would like to see how ROBERT would prove his premise is true.

      RB:

      > Of course Terry would advise folks
      > to keep quiet, especially Jerry
      > McDonald who rejects Terry's claim
      > that there is enough time after
      > Genesis 1:1 to allow for some things
      > to be more than a few thousand years
      > old.

      TB: I don't know that Jerry rejects my position or not since I have not stated it, but regardless I am sure that Jerry would like to see Robert prove his own premise so that we can see how he can affirm that what "can't be wrong", God's word", says "everything began in six days" and then winds up being wrong anyway when Robert gets to the area of his premise about what "empirical evidence" is interpreted to prove. He winds up with God's text can be wrong and is wrong about "everything beginning in six days". Does empirical evidence show that life began in six days? I'm sure Jerry as well as the rest of us are happy to wait to see if Robert will prove his own premise is true, or if instead he will hope that some of us will divert attention so as to give Robert an out.

      RB:

      > Of course Terry would advise folks
      > to keep quiet. Terry has previously
      > indicated that he likes to have it
      > his way and he just doesn't like
      > folks talking about his "debates".

      TB: I don't really care if people want to hop in and have their own debates, but I am simply advising that people let Robert prove his own proposition is true. I think we all would like to see how he does it. He has had years of evasion by creating side-debates between others while he totally gets away with evasion of his responsibility. I would advise that people who have wanted Robert to actually prove his own proposition, give him the rope to hang himself. Let him prove his own premise is true if he can. Afterwards, if any of us want to engage further on the matter, we can. Don't allow Robert to create yet another diversion.

      RB:

      > For all Terry's claims, some may
      > be properly wondering why he is
      > delaying the progress of our
      > discussion by not yet accepting
      > the simple, stipulated definitions
      > that would allow the discussion to
      > move forward.

      TB: It is on its way soon. I've been too busy with other more pressing matters. I told Robret it would be at my pace and convenience. I don't live my life for Robert's schedule and Robert's demands. I will answer when I get it all together.

      RB:

      > Should Terry accept the simple,
      > stipulated definitions, I am
      > prepared to move on to the "next
      > step" in the discussion designed
      > to present the "Goliath of GRAS".

      TB: Of course, we've been throught this before. I don't accept Robert's "stipulated terms" or definitions and have always asked for clarifications in the past and will ask for them again, with predictably the same results. He will not answer the revelant questions. We will see.

      RB:

      > Should Terry reject the simple,
      > stipulated definitions, I will
      > consider his objections and see
      > if he is up to "resolving" his
      > problems therewith.

      TB: We will see if Robert will answer and if his answers will solve our mutual problems

      Sincerely,
      Terry W. Benton

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