Re: [M & B] That "constituent elements argument" controversy, and questions!
- --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, Jerry McDonald <jerry@...> wrote, in part:
> (B)ringing up something quoted inLooks like a little "evil surmising" by you there, Jerry!
> the Gospel Gardian back 2 years
> after I was born about an argument
> that was brought up by Thomas Warren
> and Roy Deaver in hopes of stirring
> up trouble between Terry Benton and
> me, isn't going to let Todd off the
> hook when he goes to try to answer
> my argument tomorrow.
It's your argument, Jerry, the one you are trying to use now with Todd; the one you borrowed from Warren and Deaver, by your own words.
> That argument has been successfullyYeah, yeah, yeah!
> been used since 1956 in debates
> on every subject.
"Successfully on every subject"?
Another ipse dixit which I claim is false.
In any case, Jerry, what you haven't answered to is the fact that I claimed you can't establish the "total situation" relevant to your proposition to even get to dealing with how the total situation, consitutuent elements argument might apply to your claim that the scientific evidence shows that the earth is no more than 10,000 years old.
If your "constituent elements argument", as you claim, has ever been "used successfully in debate" to establish that "the earth is no more than 10,000 years old", a lot of folks missed it.
Maybe you can find an on-line link and we can check out that earlier debate. Surely, if there was one, it's on-line by now.