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

Sour grapes and empty put downs from Terry W. Benton!

Expand Messages
  • rlbaty50
    Sour grapes and empty put downs from Terry W. Benton My Goliath of GRAS has completed yet another victory tour on the coCBanned list. Terry W. Benton was,
    Message 1 of 1 , Jun 13, 2010
      Sour grapes and empty put downs from Terry W. Benton

      My "Goliath of GRAS" has completed yet another victory tour on the coCBanned list. Terry W. Benton was, as one of its vanquished, was compelled to admit to the fundamental point of the "Goliath of GRAS" exercise that was to demonstrate that young-earth creation-science promoters had failed to sustain any scientific standing for the fundamental claim of young-earth creation-science (e.g., "nothing is more than a few thousand years old").

      Not content to resolve this long-running controversy on the basis of that agreement, Terry has continued his typical, spiteful, course with further "you are one too fallacies", attempts at "empty put downs".

      Following is a link to Terry's recent message, some of his comments, and my observations related thereto:

      Link to Terry's message:

      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/21469

      --- In coCBanned@yahoogroups.com, "Terry" <terrywbenton@...> wrote on Saturday, June 12, 2010, in part:

      > Your positions also fail the
      > tests of science.

      No link!

      No quote!

      Another spiteful "empty put down" by Terry as he demonstrates his preference for the "you are one too fallacy".

      --- In coCBanned@yahoogroups.com, "Terry" <terrywbenton@...> wrote on Saturday, June 12, 2010, in part:

      > Still feeling good about
      > dumping on others?

      Another spiteful "empty put down" from Terry.

      I haven't been dumping. What Terry appears to have reference to is my preference for most appropriately summarizing what he and DBWillis, as examples, have promoted as the fundamental young-earth creation-science position:

      > We, young-earth creation-science
      > promoters, have our interpretation
      > of the text and that trumps any
      > real world evidence to the
      > contrary; any evidence of age
      > beyond a few thousand years
      > simply reflecting that God can
      > make things look more than a
      > few thousand years old.

      Noting that, and preferring that to all the obfuscations common to young-earth creation-science promoters is not "dumping".

      --- In coCBanned@yahoogroups.com, "Terry" <terrywbenton@...> wrote on Saturday, June 12, 2010, in part:

      > Who cares if YEC
      > (Revelation guided science)
      > fails the tests of naturalistic
      > science?

      Sour, sour grapes from Terry W. Benton!

      Who cares?

      One has only to look about to see who cares, and how much, in days gone by, the likes of Terry W. Benton and DBWillis, have cared as they foolishly railed against the simple, logical validity of the "Goliath of GRAS", the truth of its major premise, and the case made for estabishing the proof of its minor premise.

      Terry does propose now that young-earth creation-science is in a class by itself, but he doesn't go quite far enough. It is not so much driven by the special revelation referenced by Terry, but by the interpretation of such special revelation by young-earth creation-science promoters; as briefly stated below:

      > We, young-earth creation-science
      > promoters, have our interpretation
      > of the text and that trumps any
      > real world evidence to the
      > contrary.

      --- In coCBanned@yahoogroups.com, "Terry" <terrywbenton@...> wrote on Saturday, June 12, 2010, in part:

      > You should be more concerned
      > that naturalistic science fails
      > its own tests,

      > and

      > that AEC "fails the tests of
      > science",

      > and

      > that resurrectionists (you?)
      > fails the tests of science.

      I'll leave any problems with the "naturalistic sciences" to those working in the "naturalistic sciences".

      Similarly, I'll let the promoters of "AEC" deal with any scientific problems their positions might encounter.

      As to those "resurrectionists" Terry mentions, I notice that Terry again demonstrates a misunderstanding regarding that issue; an issue I have, without success, tried to get him and his fellow NI preacher DBWillis to deal with. While it may be scientifically possible to falsify a particular resurrection, science doesn't have the test to apply so as to demonstrate that no resurrection ever occurred.

      Terry has simply, and repeatedly, demonstrated he doesn't understand the difference between direct, positive evidence falsifying a claim (e.g., sustainable evidence that some things are more than a few thousand years old would falsify the claim that nothing is more than a few thousand years old) and other types of evidence and its effect on claims (e.g., that we don't know of any resurrections today does not falsify the claim that someone was resurrected yesterday).

      --- In coCBanned@yahoogroups.com, "Terry" <terrywbenton@...> wrote on Saturday, June 12, 2010, in part:

      > Like I said, it doesn't make
      > a bit a difference to me.

      That's another reference to the conclusion Terry has been compelled to admit; that young-earth creation-science can't sustain its scientific standing. More sour grapes from Terry W. Benton who went on to write:

      > It is the same with Ancient Earth
      > Creationists. They also "fail the
      > tests of science".

      Another attempt by Terry at the "you are one too fallacy"; who then went on to write:

      > The problem is that the very
      > premise of science "fails the
      > tests of science".

      > So, what of it?

      No indication of what he is trying to talk about, but the "empty put down" is another example of Terry trying to affect the "you are one too fallacy".

      --- In coCBanned@yahoogroups.com, "Terry" <terrywbenton@...> wrote on Saturday, June 12, 2010, in part:

      > I have not attacked you personally.

      > I have simply pointed out the silliness
      > of your rhetoric and of your position
      > that actually condemns yourself as
      > well as anybody else. I have pointed
      > out that you have some gall pointing
      > such a finger at YEC when your own
      > position also "fails the tests of
      > science".

      Terry makes a claim and then adds the comments that demonstrate that his claim is false.

      In fact, he has attacked me personally, in just such ways as he admits, and other ways as indicated in the historical record. My real "crime", causing Terry, and others, to engage in such conduct, has been to dare to engage the popular public debate over young-earth creation-science and in such a way as has been most effective in demonstrating that their hobby, young-earth creation-science, has failed the test of science.

      As I noted above regarding Terry's similar effort:

      No link!

      No quote!

      Another spiteful "empty put down" by Terry as he demonstrates his preference for the "you are one too fallacy".

      --- In coCBanned@yahoogroups.com, "Terry" <terrywbenton@...> wrote on Saturday, June 12, 2010, in part:

      > I would that you, Robert, would
      > pursue a different course...

      That's Terry attempting to mimic my comments as he went on to continue a course I have addressed above.

      A different course is one Terry needs to puruse.

      Matthew 7:1,2 & James 3:1!

      Maybe Terry will now that it has become clear that Terry agrees with me that the young-earth creation-science fundamental claim (e.g., nothing is more than a few thousand years old) has, to date, failed to measure up to its claim for qualifying for standing in the "scientific" community.

      If that ever changes, I am sure we won't be the first to know and will get the news from the world's major media outlets.

      I didn't see it in the headlines this morning...maybe tomorrow?

      Sincerely,
      Robert Baty

      P.S. Terry still has not posted my 13th message in the most recent "Goliath of GRAS" discussion on his GAG list. That also is evidence of something, but I'll leave it to each of you to form your own opinions about that.
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.