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

Re: [M & B] Am I back to square one with Jerry D. McDonald?

Expand Messages
  • Jerry McDonald
    According to which kind of logic?  According to Aristolian the argument is valid because is in the correct form.  But I believe your question is does
    Message 1 of 43 , Oct 1, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      According to which kind of logic?  According to Aristolian the argument is valid
      because is in the correct form.  But I believe your question is "does
      the conclusion logically follow from the premises?"  My answer to that is the
      same as it has always been A RESOUNDING NO!  HOW UNEQUIVOCAL DO YOU WANT ME TO
      GET?
       
      In Christ Jesus
      Jerry D. McDonald




      ________________________________
      From: rlbaty50 <rlbaty@...>
      To: Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Fri, October 1, 2010 9:02:01 PM
      Subject: Re: [M & B] Am I back to square one with Jerry D. McDonald?

       
      --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, Jerry McDonald <jerry@...> wrote,
      regarding the "Goliath of GRAS" question, in relevant part:

      > I have already told you that
      > it is valid according aristolian
      > logic because it has the correct
      > form...
      >
      > That doesn't mean that your
      > conclusion logically follows
      > from your premises. 
      >
      > I have never taken the position
      > that the conclusion logically
      > follows from the premises
      > according to modern logic.
      >
      > As a matter of fact I have
      > always denied this, and I
      > will always deny it.

      Jerry,

      You didn't answer my question, which was:

      > Can you lay aside your equivocations
      > and labels and tell us clearly
      > whether, today, you believe that
      > the "Goliath of GRAS"argument has
      > a conclusion that will follow as
      > true from its premises if its
      > premises (both major premise and
      > minor premise; two premises) are
      > true?

      Well, maybe you did answer...

      > "No, I, Jerry D. McDonald, can
      > not lay aside my equivocations
      > and answer that.

      As to Aristotelian logic, if you admit that an argument is "valid", you are
      admitting that means

      > that the "Goliath of GRAS"
      > conclusion logically follows
      > from your premises, if the
      > premises are true.

      As to "modern logic", you've got nothing there to support your ipse dixit.

      In any case, Jerry, I thank you for confirming that as far as the "Step One"
      issue is concerned, you deny that

      > the "Goliath of GRAS"argument has
      > a conclusion that will follow as
      > true from its premises if its
      > premises (both major premise and
      > minor premise; two premises) are
      > true?

      Sincerely,
      Robert Baty

      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.




      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Jerry McDonald
      I was under the impression that you were going to re-write it.  If not, then just finish it and send it in.  In Christ Jesus Jerry D. McDonald
      Message 43 of 43 , Oct 2, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        I was under the impression that you were going to re-write it.  If not, then
        just finish it and send it in. 
        In Christ Jesus
        Jerry D. McDonald




        ________________________________
        From: Todd Greene <greeneto@...>
        To: Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Sat, October 2, 2010 8:33:13 AM
        Subject: [M & B] Re: Question

         
        Jerry McDonald says, "you cannot simply claim that I have not made affirmative
        arguments. If you are going to make such a claim it will become your duty to
        show why they are not affirmative arguments."

        Geeze, Jerry. My comments are BASED ON WHAT I ALREADY DID, REFERRING
        SPECIFICALLY TO THE DRAFT VERSION WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THAT NOW YOU ARE
        RIDICULOUSLY PRETENDING DOESN'T EXIST. I'm laughing at how you pretend to be so
        utterly clueless about reality on this, as on so many other things as well:

        From:
        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/18987

        |[Rick Hartzog wrote:]
        |> The first few
        |> sentences of the draft version of Todd's First Negative
        |> are adequate refutation of everything Jerry McDonald
        |> wrote (and everything he copy/pasted as well) in his
        |> First Affirmative.
        |>
        |> Short and sweet. Let McDonald ramble on for 20 or 30
        |> pages and then let Todd simply point out that McDonald
        |> signed on to *produce scientific evidence that shows
        |> the Earth is less than 10,000 years old*, and that
        |> McDonald is failing to do so.
        |
        | As you can actually see now, pointing out Jerry's
        | failure to actually address the proposition is exactly
        | what I did.

        The draft version of the first half of my response has only been accessible
        online for, oh, about 7 months, yet here is Jerry already pretending it doesn't
        exist, wasn't made available, and doesn't contain my discussion where I point
        out only at least a dozen times where the argument he has presented that I'm
        critiquing (in the discussion) is a negative argument attacking some aspect of
        science while never producing an affirmative argument for his proposition. This
        is the routine absurdity you have to deal with when dealing with the remarks of
        Jerry McDonald. (It's also indicative of why the vast majority of people refuse
        to waste their time with these idiots.)

        Oh, and I really like this post of mine as well:

        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/18107

        Here's another one, about your ridiculous "constituent elements" remarks:

        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/18108

        And, just so you know I'm not completely heartless:

        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/18244

        - Todd Greene

        --- In Maury_and_Baty, Jerry McDonald wrote (post #20634):
        > Another thing, Todd, you cannot simply claim that I have not made affirmative
        > arguments.  If you are going to make such a claim it will become your duty to

        > show why they are not affirmative arguments.  Just saying that my arguments
        > aren't affirmative arguments simply won't work.  You will need proof.
        >  
        > In Christ Jesus
        > Jerry D. McDonald
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > ________________________________
        > From: Todd Greene <greeneto@...>
        > To: Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com
        > Sent: Sat, October 2, 2010 12:31:09 AM
        > Subject: [M & B] Re: Question
        >
        >  
        > 1. Oh? You mean it was only 11 months and 23 days? Well if that really is the
        > case, then why did it take you almost a year to comprehend a simple part of
        > basic logic? Remember, here we are with you still arguing a man logically
        > implies he is an atheist merely because you claim he is an atheist for pointing
        >
        > out the fact that the argument that "The Bible is true because it says it is
        > true" is a circular argument and thus fallacious and he refuses to correspond
        > with you because doesn't like to waste any time writing to idiots. Your grasp
        >of
        >
        > even basic logic is extremely tenuous, and that's putting it mildly.
        >
        > 2. Elements are not conjured into being constituent by personal declaration.
        > It's amusing that you think so.
        >
        > I have never once stated I didn't like archaeology.
        >
        > You have never produced any population STATISTICS for me to state I don't like,
        >
        > either. As I've only pointed out at least eight times or so already, all you've
        >
        > produced is an arbitrary equation made up by young earth creationists that
        >bears
        >
        > no resemblance to reality. You're still ignoring rabbits and flies and bacteria
        >
        > and every other population of organisms on the planet. (It's also very
        > satisfying to witness young earth creationists demonstrating their obvious
        > incompetence by promoting such stupid arguments.) We laugh at the mentality of

        > young earth creationists where they seriously think that their mere act of
        > making things up magically makes it true, regardless of dealing with the real
        > world facts. We can make up math formulas all day long every day of the week.
        > That isn't statistics. Statistics is real world data. The fact that you keep
        > calling an arbitrary math formula "population STATISTICS" is just another
        > demonstration of the typical young earth creationist penchant for using word
        > games to misrepresent everything in sight.
        >
        > The public record shows that I'm quite able to deal with geology, not to
        >mention
        >
        > many other subjects related to science. Whether I feel like taking the time to

        > dig into the intimate details of some specific topic in order to fully
        > comprehend the points and the context of YEC misrepresentation of that specific
        >
        > topic that I'm not already familiar with is another issue.
        >
        > 3. "At any rate your job in this part of the debate is to simply rebut what I
        > bring forth, and you haven't even begun to do that." Haven't even begun to do
        > that. Yeah, that's a pretty funny remark. It never ceases to amaze me how so
        > many Church Of Christ preachers, especially of the ultra-fundamentalist branch,
        >
        > use blatant lying as a matter of routine. But I do enjoy these demonstrations
        >of
        >
        > these aspects of their supposed "absolute morality".
        >
        > "It's not your job to tell me how to run my affirmative." Of course, I'm not
        > telling you to run your affirmative. Quite the opposite, I enjoy the fact that

        > you're running it up to your standard level of incompetence. It's not your job

        > to tell me (or anyone else) or imply that I should just shut up and not point
        > out the many failures of your so-called "affirmative" that, besides all it's
        > other many flaws, doesn't actually affirm anything.
        >
        > 4. This is what I've been pointing out. To *affirm* your proposition you need
        >to
        >
        > produce an affirmative argument. Your first entry did not do so. This is the
        > point. It is indeed part of my job to point out that fact, which is exactly
        >what
        >
        > I did and have continued to do.
        >
        > - Todd Greene
        >
        > --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, Jerry McDonald <jerry@> wrote:
        > >
        > > 1. It didn't over a year to learn what validity was.  If you talk about
        >
        > > Aristolian logic all you need is the correct form.  However, if you are
        >using
        >
        > >
        > > modern logic you need a bit more.
        > > 2. the elements I have brought forth are constituent elements to my
        > >argument. 
        > >
        > > You don't like archaeology because you can't disprove it.  You don't like

        > > population statistics because it refutes your belief.  And you can't even

        > >begin
        > >
        > > to deal with geology as the last year and a half has clearly shown us.
        > >
        > > At any rate your job in this part of the debate is to simply rebut what I
        >bring
        >
        > >
        > > forth, and you haven't even begun to do that.  Why?  It's not your job
        >to
        >
        > >tell
        > >
        > > me how to run my affirmative.  You may tell the reader that I am not
        >affirming
        >
        > >
        > > my proposition, but you are obligated to respond to my arguments:
        > > 4. It will be the responsibility of the affirmant to make at least one
        >argument
        >
        > >
        > > for
        > > his case and defend that argument. It will be the responsibility of the
        > >rebuttal
        > > writer to negate the arguments that the affirmant makes for his case in the
        > > order
        > > that he makes them in. If, and only if, the rebuttal writer responds to each
        >of
        >
        > >
        > > the
        > > affirmant’s arguments as stipulated in the rules and he has space left
        >he
        >
        > may
        > > make negative arguments and it will then become the affirmative
        >writer’s
        > > responsibility to deal with those arguments as space becomes available.
        > >
        > >  
        > > In Christ Jesus
        > > Jerry D. McDonald
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > ________________________________
        > > From: Todd Greene <greeneto@>
        > > To: Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com
        > > Sent: Fri, October 1, 2010 4:38:47 PM
        > > Subject: [M & B] Re: Question
        > >
        > >  
        > > Unlike you, obviously, I actually know what "constituent elements" really
        >are.
        >
        >
        > > That's kind of the point, Jerry. For example, the constituent elements of
        > > olivene (or chrysolite) are manganese, iron, silicon, and oxygen - so if you

        > > start talking about how long toilet paper retains its consistency when tossed
        >
        > > down the hole of an outhouse, I know that you aren't talking about the
        > > constituent elements of olivene. Additionally, even assuming that what you're
        >
        > > talking about would actually be related (i.e., "logically constituent") to
        >the
        >
        >
        > > topic, THEN you'd have to produce "elements" that are both logically and
        > > factually correct. You have done NONE of these things.
        > >
        > > I also have to laugh when a guy who took over a year to even begin to
        > >comprehend
        > >
        > > the concept of "logical validity" starts making remarks about "constituent
        > > elements" using irrelevant arguments that are in themselves illogical and
        > > factually wrong. All of us - including you - know fully well that all you've

        > > done is produce some standard anti-science (i.e., negative arguments) canards
        >
        > >in
        > >
        > > YEC rhetoric that have been refuted for literally decades. Trying to pretend

        > > otherwise with word games pretending some sort of logical sophistication that
        >
        > > doesn't exist can't change this reality.
        > >
        > > - Todd Greene
        > >
        > > --- In Maury_and_Baty, Jerry McDonald wrote (post #20588):
        > > >
        > > > Todd, you don't seem to get the "constituent element" argument. 
        >You
        >
        > > >first lay
        > > >
        > > > the foundation, then you build thereon.  If when I have finished
        >with my
        >
        > > > affirmative, I have not provided adequate material you will have reason to

        > > > complain, but not until.  Until then your only obligation is to
        >respond to
        >
        > >
        > > >that
        > > >
        > > > which I produce.  No one argument will, by itself, prove my
        >
        > >proposition.  It
        > >
        > > >
        > > > will take all of them together.  This is a very common way of
        >proving
        >
        > >one's
        > >
        > > > position.
        > > >  
        > > > In Christ Jesus
        > > > Jerry D. McDonald
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > ________________________________
        > > > From: Todd Greene <greeneto@>
        > > > To: Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com
        > > > Sent: Thu, September 30, 2010 6:22:51 PM
        > > > Subject: [M & B] Re: Question
        > > >
        > > >  
        > > > "they do support my proposition when taken into account with everything
        >else
        >
        >
        > > > that I have written and will write"
        > > >
        > > > In other words, he never presented an affirmative argument for the
        > >proposition
        > >
        > >
        > > > he's supposed to presenting affirmative arguments for. As I pointed out
        > > >numerous
        > > >
        > > > times in my draft version (and which will remain in the final version),
        > > > everything he has written is negative arguments, which are standard YEC
        > > > arguments attacking various aspects of science but have nothing to do with

        > > > presenting positive arguments showing that the Earth has not existed for
        >more
        >
        > >
        > > > than 6,000 years or so. It's just another one of the points of basic logic

        > >and
        > >
        > >
        > > > standard debate that's at least 58 miles over Jerry's head.
        > > >
        > > > - Todd Greene
        > > >
        > > > --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, Jerry McDonald <jerry@> wrote:
        > > > >
        > > > > Well, I won't get into my arguments on the overthrusts other than to say

        > >that
        > >
        > > >
        > > > > they do support my proposition when taken into account with everything
        >else
        >
        > >
        > > > >that
        > > > >
        > > > > I have written and will write.ÃÆ'‚  I don't plan on
        >re-writing my
        >
        > >second
        > >
        > > > > affirmative.ÃÆ'‚  I will simply finish it with what
        > >ToddÃÆ'‚ sendsÃÆ'‚ in as
        > >
        > > > > hisÃÆ'‚ firstÃÆ'‚ official first rebuttal.
        > > > > ÃÆ'‚ 
        > > > > In Christ Jesus
        > > > > Jerry D. McDonald
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > > ________________________________
        > > > > From: rlbaty60 <rlbaty60@>
        > > > > To: Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com
        > > > > Sent: Thu, September 30, 2010 3:47:16 PM
        > > > > Subject: [M & B] Re: Question
        > > > >
        > > > > ÃÆ'‚ 
        > > > > --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, Jerry McDonald <jerry@> wrote:
        > > > >
        > > > > > Archaeology and Poplulation statistics
        > > > > > have nothing to do with the age of the
        > > > > > earth, so says Todd Greene.
        > > > > >
        > > > > > However, I did spend a lot of spaceÃÆ'‚ in
        > > > > > the field of geology and he didn't even
        > > > > > bother with that.ÃÆ'‚ 
        > > > > >
        > > > > > I could go back andÃÆ'‚ re-write my first
        > > > > > affirmative and just deal with geology
        > > > > > and that would leave Todd with nothing
        > > > > > to say because as he has admitted he
        > > > > > knows very little about geological
        > > > > > overthrusts, and that is where I wouldÃÆ'‚ 
        > > > > > spend a lot of my space.
        > > > >
        > > > > Jerry,
        > > > >
        > > > > I think the point Todd was making is that your "overthrust" discussion
        >does
        >
        > >
        > > > >not,
        > > > >
        > > > > did not, will not, can not in any way establish that the earth is not
        >more
        >
        >
        > > >than
        > > >
        > > > >
        > > > > 10,000 years old; "in other words", your "argument" did not support the
        > > > > proposition you are affirming.
        > > > >
        > > > > You don't need to re-write your first affirmative, just present your
        >second
        >
        > >
        > > > > affirmative after Todd posts his "first official negative".
        > > > >
        > > > > Sincerely,
        > > > > Robert Baty
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        > > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        > > >
        > >
        > >
        > > Rule 4 in the rules and proposition.
        > >
        > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        > >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >




        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.