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

Re: NW Creation Network v. "Goliath of GRAS" - (1), (2), (3)!

Expand Messages
  • rlbaty50
    ... From: Robert Baty To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com Date: Friday, June 2, 2010 11:30 PM MT Subject: Re: Testing a fundamental position-Genesis! Joe didn t
    Message 1 of 61 , Jul 2, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      Here's my response to Victor and Terry, yet to be posted due to the moderation practice of the OriginsTalk list:

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

      From: Robert Baty
      To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com
      Date: Friday, June 2, 2010 11:30 PM MT

      Subject: Re: Testing a fundamental position-Genesis!

      Joe didn't post anything that I need to deal with, and so I will spend time in this message dealing with the substance of what Victor and Terry posted.

      In order to make it easier to stay on topic, understand the topic, and avoid the pitfalls of trying to follow Victor's and Terry's misdirections, I will post the argument here instead of at the end of message:

      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
      > actually much older than a
      > few thousand years,

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

      Minor premise:

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

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

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

      Conclusion:

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

      Victor first. Victor wrote, in relevant part:

      > Why do you want the Bible to fit
      > the ideas of a pagan - Aristotle's
      > logic?

      > Your arguments are constructed on
      > the reasoning of the pagan Greeks -
      > science.

      > How could that be biblical?

      > Try real hard to break your mind
      > free from the mindset of the scientist.

      >> Victor McAllister

      Victor, you continue, despite my suggestion, to make claims regarding me and my position without providing a link and quote to justify it.

      Try real hard, Victor, to consider that God's word frequently used the "if...then" logical formula and/or implies it in its arguments.

      Try real hard, Victor, if you wish to engage in a discussion of the "Goliath of GRAS" and the claims I have made for it, and give your answer to the following fundamental questions:

      (1)

      > Is the "Goliath of GRAS" constructed
      > in such a way that if its premises
      > are true the conclusion will follow
      > as true from the truth of its premises?

      (2)

      > Is the "Goliath of GRAS" major
      > premise true? Explain your answer.

      Now, on to Terry W. Benton, the NI Pine Lane church preach, http://www.pinelanechurchofchrist.com .

      Terry's message is typical of his "get Baty" ministry and continues his false and misleading claims. If anyone here agrees with the substance of Terry's claims, I will gladly deal with your legitimate interests. Terry knows or should know better to continue his false and misleading claims; having been advised many times of his various and sundry false and misleading claims.

      Terry, on another list, announced he would be "dropping his bombs" here, and so he has. Well, I did warn this list in my earlier postings that there were many such as Terry W. Benton publishing false and misleading claims about me and my "Goliath of GRAS".

      I will deal briefly with some of what Terry says:

      > Robert wants to...
      > ...Thus, ...

      That's false.

      Like Victor, Terry doesn't provide any link or quotes from me to justify his false and/or misleading claims.

      The "Goliath of GRAS" and the claims I have made for it, do not call for a debate over God's word and what it says, and does not call for a debate over whether God's word is wrong as claimed by Terry.

      Terry knows or should know that his claim is false.

      Similarly, Terry's claim that it assumes one can rely on the testimony of naturalists to prove God's word wrong is false.

      Terry knows or should know that his claim is false.

      Well, Terry's message goes down hill from there, demonstrating that Terry is committed to "bombing" this list with his "cut and paste" false and misleading postings.

      If anyone saw anything in there that they think, seriously, is substantive and of interest, feel free to isolate it for my consideration.

      Otherwise, look for Terry's unequivocal answers to the two outstanding questions:

      (1)

      > Is the "Goliath of GRAS" constructed
      > in such a way that if its premises
      > are true the conclusion will follow
      > as true from the truth of its premises?

      (2)

      > Is the "Goliath of GRAS" major premise
      > true? Explain your answer.

      Terry has waffled back and forth on #1, and has yet accept and to demonstrate his understanding of the truth of the major premise; the truth of which is determined quite "unlike" Terry's "400-lb Robert", "Retarded Robert" and "Wife-beating Robert" arguments.

      Terry has promoted the idea that the major premise in the "Goliath of GRAS" is true "like" his "400-lb Robert", "Retarded Robert" and "Wife-beating Robert" arguments may be true.

      Terry recently ran off from dealing with that, and so I am still waiting for him graduate from the two questions outstanding here.

      I could have missed it, though.

      Let me know if you find where Terry has accepted the truth of the "Goliath of GRAS" major premise and can explain why it is true in a manner unlike any such determination as to the major premises of his "400-lb Robert", "Retarded Robert" and "Wife-beating Robert" arguments.

      Sincerely,
      Robert Baty
    • rlbaty50
      ... From: Robert Baty To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com Date: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 Subject: Re: Testing a fundamental position - Genesis! The first
      Message 61 of 61 , Jul 13, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        Victor is doing a good job of proving Pi's opinions on how Victor operates and his problems. Here's my latest reply to Victor on the OriginsTalk list which should be posted soon after being approved by the moderator:

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

        From: Robert Baty
        To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com
        Date: Tuesday, July 13, 2010

        Subject: Re: Testing a fundamental position - Genesis!

        The "first principle"; a demonstration!

        Is the "Goliath of GRAS" construct such that if its premises are true then its conclusion will follow as true from the true premises?

        Explain your answer!

        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
        > actually much older than a
        > few thousand years,

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

        Minor premise:

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

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

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

        Conclusion:

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

        Victor continues to say and not do, but I will bear with him a little longer and give him an opportuntity to "come and let us reason together".

        Let's see what it is Victor is continuing to have trouble with, his latest evasions being posted at the following link:

        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OriginsTalk/message/21423

        Ipse dixit Victor writes:

        > Any formal logical discussion about
        > earth history must necessarily lead
        > to falsehoods.

        The falsehood is Victor's claim which, again, reflects Victor is turned against reason because reason has turned against him. I think I know why he is so determined.

        Victor writes another falsehood:

        > The Bible uses a different kind
        > of logic...

        Nope, it has already been demonstrated that that is false and that the Bible, as well as Victor himself, uses the same logical "construct" as reflected in the "Goliath of GRAS". Now will Victor repent and openly, honestly deal with the "construct" the Bible and he himself uses:

        Is the "Goliath of GRAS" construct such that if its premises are true then its conclusion will follow as true from the true premises?

        Explain your answer!

        Victor was honest enough to confirm my representation of his position regarding the age of the creation, writing:

        > It has to be both young and old...

        That's for confirming your position, Victor. It's premature in this discussion, but since you have been so determined to demonstrate just how unreasonable you can be, it is welcomed.

        If you could ever graduate with the right answers regarding the following:

        Is the "Goliath of GRAS" construct such that if its premises are true then its conclusion will follow as true from the true premises?

        Explain your answer!

        And then graduate by getting the right answer on the question regarding the truth of the major premise in the "Goliath of GRAS", we might discuss that in more detail.

        However, as I already noted, your position, briefly stated, presents nothing by the way of challenging the "Goliath of GRAS", the claims I have made for it, and its historic place in the popular public discussion of young-earth creation-science. In fact, in conceding the creation is old you give up any objection to my "Goliath of GRAS" and have no reasonable means of demonstrating that the creation is both old and young at the same time.

        Oh, here's how I interpret, briefly, your fundamental, UNscientific position:

        > I, Victor McAllister, have my interpretation
        > of the text regarding the real world, and
        > that trumps any real world evidence to
        > the contrary.

        That's fine with me, I indicated early on in this discussion that my "Goliath of GRAS" had the utilitarian effect of compelling its critics to default to that position which, effectively, if not explicitly, concedes that young-earth creation-science has NOT measured up to its scientific claims.

        Victor, of course, indicates he actually agrees with me on that.

        So what is bugging Victor? I think I know, but that's a problem for him to deal with and, I hope, if he isn't going to get serious about the subject of this thread he retires from his redundant interjections of his hobby into this thread out of time.

        Victor concluded with:

        > Stop twisting the Bible...

        That's another Matthew 7:1,2 & James 3:1 problem for Victor.

        Victor needs to stop twisting the Bible to try and support his own hobby, accept the construct of his own reasoning which is in conformity to the construct used by the Bible and in the "Goliath of GRAS", come let us reason together, and answer the "first principle" question:

        Is the "Goliath of GRAS" construct such that if its premises are true then its conclusion will follow as true from the true premises?

        Explain your answer!

        Sincerely,
        Robert Baty

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