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

Goldsmith ("Hammer") v. Baty ("Goliath of GRAS") - The Latest Round!

Expand Messages
  • Robert Baty
    See: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BATY_DEFEATED/message/157 From: Robert Baty To: Baty_Defeated@yahoogroups.com Date: Monday, January 31, 2011 Time: 2:30 PM
    Message 1 of 14 , Jan 31, 2011
      See:

      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BATY_DEFEATED/message/157

      From: Robert Baty
      To: Baty_Defeated@yahoogroups.com
      Date: Monday, January 31, 2011
      Time: 2:30 PM or thereabouts

      Subject: Welcome...

      Thanks for the welcome.

      The invitation remains outstanding as reflected at:

      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/22209

      I'm open to taking up a discussion of Goldsmith's "Hammer" in conjunction with my "Goliath of GRAS", and have already offered a number of observations related thereto (see above link and related posts).

      I am always glad to take up the matter, beginning with how such discussions might be conducted between the Maury_and_Baty list and other venues of choice as may be desired by interested parties.

      If any be interested, don't shout (e.g., use all caps).

      Sincerely,
      Robert Baty

      --- In BATY_DEFEATED@yahoogroups.com, "tinroad6g" <tinroad6g@...> wrote:

      > Welcome back Robert.
      >
      > Come face...THE HAMMER
      >
      > Goldsmith (aka tinroad6g)

      --- In BATY_DEFEATED@yahoogroups.com, "j427750108" <goldsmithmark@> wrote:

      > I want to welcome back former member
      > of Baty_Defeated Bobby Baty.
      >
      > Welcome aboard Bobby!!
      >
      > Goldsmith (aka Mark)

      ---------------------------
      ---------------------------
    • Robert Baty
      That round quickly ended with Goldsmith deleting my message #157. Goldsmith also posted a message #158 and then quickly deleted it (see link and copy below). I
      Message 2 of 14 , Jan 31, 2011
        That round quickly ended with Goldsmith deleting my message #157.

        Goldsmith also posted a message #158 and then quickly deleted it (see link and copy below).

        I guess we'll just have to wait and see whether or not Goldsmith attempts to initiate yet another round of effort to take up a concurrent discussion of his "Hammer" and my "Goliath of GRAS".

        --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Baty" <rlbaty60@...> wrote:

        See:

        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BATY_DEFEATED/message/157

        From: Robert Baty
        To: Baty_Defeated@yahoogroups.com
        Date: Monday, January 31, 2011
        Time: 2:30 PM or thereabouts

        Subject: Welcome...

        Thanks for the welcome.

        The invitation remains outstanding as reflected at:

        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/22209

        I'm open to taking up a discussion of Goldsmith's "Hammer" in conjunction with my "Goliath of GRAS", and have already offered a number of observations related thereto (see above link and related posts).

        I am always glad to take up the matter, beginning with how such discussions might be conducted between the Maury_and_Baty list and other venues of choice as may be desired by interested parties.

        If any be interested, don't shout (e.g., use all caps).

        Sincerely,
        Robert Baty

        --- In BATY_DEFEATED@yahoogroups.com, "tinroad6g" <tinroad6g@> wrote:

        > Welcome back Robert.
        >
        > Come face...THE HAMMER
        >
        > Goldsmith (aka tinroad6g)

        --- In BATY_DEFEATED@yahoogroups.com, "j427750108" <goldsmithmark@> wrote:

        > I want to welcome back former member
        > of Baty_Defeated Bobby Baty.
        >
        > Welcome aboard Bobby!!
        >
        > Goldsmith (aka Mark)

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

        Here's the link to and text of the subsequent message #158 which has also now been deleted by Goldsmith:

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

        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BATY_DEFEATED/message/158

        > To: BATY_DEFEATED@yahoogroups.com
        > From: tinroad6g@... (aka Beetlebrain Troll)
        > Date: Monday January 31 2011
        > Time: 2:42 PM MT
        >
        > Subject: Re: Welcome to the new member
        >
        > leon
        >
        >> Robert Baty seems unwilling or unable
        >> to challenge...the HAMMER of LOGIC
        >
        > It is very true ...YOU CAN'T TOUCH THIS
        >
        > The HAMMER has never been defeated

        ------------------------------------
        ------------------------------------
      • Robert Baty
        The two arguments for discussion to begin anew if there is interest: (1) The Hammer by Goldsmith ... (2) The Goliath of GRAS by Baty
        Message 3 of 14 , Jan 31, 2011
          The two arguments for discussion to begin anew if there is interest:

          (1)

          The "Hammer" by Goldsmith

          > 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
          >> interpreted by some that things
          >> are actually much older
          >> than a few thousand years,
          >>
          >> THEN (D) the interpretation of the
          >> text or the interpretation of the
          >> empirical evidence 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
          >> interpreted by some that things
          >> are actually much older
          >> than a few thousand years.

          > Conclusion:
          >
          >> (D) The interpretation of the
          >> text or the interpretation of the
          >> empirical evidence by some is
          >> wrong.

          (2)

          The "Goliath of GRAS" by Baty

          > 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
          >> 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
          >> much older than a few
          >> thousand years.

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

          --------------------------------
          --------------------------------
        • Robert Baty
          See, and then watch and see where that goes: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BATY_DEFEATED/message/163 From: Robert Baty To: Baty_Defeated@yahoogroups.com Date:
          Message 4 of 14 , Jan 31, 2011
            See, and then watch and see where that goes:

            http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BATY_DEFEATED/message/163

            From: Robert Baty
            To: Baty_Defeated@yahoogroups.com
            Date: Monday, January 31, 2011
            Time: 5:25 PM MT or thereabouts

            Subject: Goldsmith ("Hammer") v. Baty ("Goliath of GRAS")

            The two arguments for discussion if there is interest:

            (1)

            The "Hammer" by Goldsmith

            > 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
            >> interpreted by some that things
            >> are actually much older
            >> than a few thousand years,
            >>
            >> THEN (D) the interpretation of the
            >> text or the interpretation of the
            >> empirical evidence 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
            >> interpreted by some that things
            >> are actually much older
            >> than a few thousand years.

            > Conclusion:
            >
            >> (D) The interpretation of the
            >> text or the interpretation of the
            >> empirical evidence by some is
            >> wrong.

            (2)

            The "Goliath of GRAS" by Baty

            > 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
            >> 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
            >> much older than a few
            >> thousand years.

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

            --------------------------------
            --------------------------------
          • Robert Baty
            ... http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BATY_DEFEATED/message/168 From: Robert Baty To: Baty_Defeated@yahoogroups.com Date: Monday, January 31, 2011 Subject: Re:
            Message 5 of 14 , Jan 31, 2011
              --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Baty" <rlbaty60@...> wrote, in part:

              > ...watch and see where that goes:

              It hasn't gone very far. Goldsmith has already deleted yet another post of mine, the link and text of which is as follows:

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

              http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BATY_DEFEATED/message/168

              From: Robert Baty
              To: Baty_Defeated@yahoogroups.com
              Date: Monday, January 31, 2011

              Subject: Re: Goldsmith ("Hammer") v. Baty ("Goliath of GRAS")!

              --- In BATY_DEFEATED@yahoogroups.com, "j427750108" <goldsmithmark@...> wrote, in relevant part:

              > Waiting on you.

              OK, let's try this to get things started:

              (1)

              Is the "Hammer" constructed such that if its premises are true then its conclusion will follow as true therefrom?

              > Robert Baty - Yes
              > Goldsmith - ???

              (2)

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

              > Robert Baty - Yes
              > Goldsmith - ???

              The two arguments for discussion:

              (1)

              The "Hammer" by Goldsmith

              > 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
              >> interpreted by some that things
              >> are actually much older
              >> than a few thousand years,
              >>
              >> THEN (D) the interpretation of the
              >> text or the interpretation of the
              >> empirical evidence 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
              >> interpreted by some that things
              >> are actually much older
              >> than a few thousand years.

              > Conclusion:
              >
              >> (D) The interpretation of the
              >> text or the interpretation of the
              >> empirical evidence by some is
              >> wrong.

              (2)

              The "Goliath of GRAS" by Baty

              > 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
              >> 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
              >> much older than a few
              >> thousand years.

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

              --------------------------------
              --------------------------------
            • Robert Baty
              Instead of simply engaging the discussion, Goldsmith has now placed me in moderation on his list. ... From: Robert Baty To: Baty_Defeated@yahoogroups.com Date:
              Message 6 of 14 , Jan 31, 2011
                Instead of simply engaging the discussion, Goldsmith has now placed me in moderation on his list.

                Following is my most recent submission that has yet to be posted:

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

                From: Robert Baty
                To: Baty_Defeated@yahoogroups.com
                Date: Monday, January 31, 2011
                Time: 6:23 PM MT or thereabouts

                Subject: Goldsmith ("Hammer") v. Baty ("Goliath of GRAS")!

                --- In BATY_DEFEATED@yahoogroups.com, "j427750108" <goldsmithmark@...> wrote:

                > Address the issue at hand Robert.

                I sought to discuss any disagreement we might have regarding the fundamental matter regarding the construction of the two arguments.

                If you wish to discuss something else first, we can chat about alternatives.

                Your indicated interest in the stipulated meaning assigned to the various terms and/or phrases used in the respective arguments certainly might make for a good, alternative starting place.

                So, if that is where you wish to begin, I will follow your lead and post my stipulated definitions as to the "Goliath of GRAS" after you post your stipulated definitions regarding the "Hammer".

                To help us work through that important aspect of the discussion, I will recommend that you stipulate to what definitions you wish to use in the discussion regarding the following terms used in the "Hammer":

                > God's word
                > Interpreted by some
                > Empirical evidence

                Upon the posting of your stipulated definitions for purposes of discussing the "Hammer", I will then post my stipulated definitions for use in discussing the "Goliath of GRAS" as follows:

                > God's word
                > Interpreted by some
                > Empirical evidence that...

                We can then discuss any issues we might have regarding the stipulations and add to them by mutual agreement.

                The two arguments for discussion:

                (1)

                The "Hammer" by Goldsmith

                > 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
                >> interpreted by some that things
                >> are actually much older
                >> than a few thousand years,
                >>
                >> THEN (D) the interpretation of the
                >> text or the interpretation of the
                >> empirical evidence 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
                >> interpreted by some that things
                >> are actually much older
                >> than a few thousand years.

                > Conclusion:
                >
                >> (D) The interpretation of the
                >> text or the interpretation of the
                >> empirical evidence by some is
                >> wrong.

                (2)

                The "Goliath of GRAS" by Baty

                > 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
                >> 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
                >> much older than a few
                >> thousand years.

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

                --------------------------------
                --------------------------------
              • Robert Baty
                Something to remember: Goldsmith recently proposed that I was not willing and/or able to show up and discuss his Hammer . Here s how Goldsmith put it:
                Message 7 of 14 , Jan 31, 2011
                  Something to remember:

                  Goldsmith recently proposed that I was not willing and/or able to show up and discuss his "Hammer". Here's how Goldsmith put it:

                  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BATY_DEFEATED/message/151

                  > From: Goldsmith (aka "Leon"/"idoubtit80")
                  > To: Baty_Defeated@yahoogroups.com
                  > Date: Sunday, January 30, 2011
                  >
                  > Subject: The Hammer is here
                  >
                  > (excerpts)
                  >
                  > Robert Baty refuses to discuss...
                  > THE HAMMER of LOGIC
                  >
                  > The undefeated HAMMER of LOGIC is
                  > still here and Robert is gone.
                  >
                  > YOU CAN'T TOUCH THIS
                  >
                  > "Leon Goldsmith"

                  Watch and see if Goldsmith (e.g., "Leon", "Mark", et al) now runs off from discussing his own creation, the "Hammer"; as his recent antics already suggest he is doing.

                  As for me, I'm prepared to discuss both arguments concurrently.

                  Sincerely,
                  Robert Baty


                  --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Baty" <rlbaty60@...> wrote:

                  Instead of simply engaging the discussion, Goldsmith has now placed me in moderation on his list.

                  Following is my most recent submission that has yet to be posted:

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

                  From: Robert Baty
                  To: Baty_Defeated@yahoogroups.com
                  Date: Monday, January 31, 2011
                  Time: 6:23 PM MT or thereabouts

                  Subject: Goldsmith ("Hammer") v. Baty ("Goliath of GRAS")!

                  --- In BATY_DEFEATED@yahoogroups.com, "j427750108" <goldsmithmark@> wrote:

                  > Address the issue at hand Robert.

                  I sought to discuss any disagreement we might have regarding the fundamental matter regarding the construction of the two arguments.

                  If you wish to discuss something else first, we can chat about alternatives.

                  Your indicated interest in the stipulated meaning assigned to the various terms and/or phrases used in the respective arguments certainly might make for a good, alternative starting place.

                  So, if that is where you wish to begin, I will follow your lead and post my stipulated definitions as to the "Goliath of GRAS" after you post your stipulated definitions regarding the "Hammer".

                  To help us work through that important aspect of the discussion, I will recommend that you stipulate to what definitions you wish to use in the discussion regarding the following terms used in the "Hammer":

                  > God's word
                  > Interpreted by some
                  > Empirical evidence

                  Upon the posting of your stipulated definitions for purposes of discussing the "Hammer", I will then post my stipulated definitions for use in discussing the "Goliath of GRAS" as follows:

                  > God's word
                  > Interpreted by some
                  > Empirical evidence that...

                  We can then discuss any issues we might have regarding the stipulations and add to them by mutual agreement.

                  The two arguments for discussion:

                  (1)

                  The "Hammer" by Goldsmith

                  > 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
                  >> interpreted by some that things
                  >> are actually much older
                  >> than a few thousand years,
                  >>
                  >> THEN (D) the interpretation of the
                  >> text or the interpretation of the
                  >> empirical evidence 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
                  >> interpreted by some that things
                  >> are actually much older
                  >> than a few thousand years.

                  > Conclusion:
                  >
                  >> (D) The interpretation of the
                  >> text or the interpretation of the
                  >> empirical evidence by some is
                  >> wrong.

                  (2)

                  The "Goliath of GRAS" by Baty

                  > 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
                  >> 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
                  >> much older than a few
                  >> thousand years.

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

                  --------------------------------
                  --------------------------------
                • Robert Baty
                  Following is the link and full text of Goldsmith s earlier, evasive message #164 to his list. It is noted, just as a preliminary matter to actually discussing
                  Message 8 of 14 , Jan 31, 2011
                    Following is the link and full text of Goldsmith's earlier, evasive message #164 to his list.

                    It is noted, just as a preliminary matter to actually discussing our respective arguments, that Goldsmith simply indicates that he rejects the truth of the minor premise.

                    We will, perhaps, get into that problem of Goldsmith's as the latest exchange might proceed.

                    For now, the burden of moving the proposed discussion forward rests with Goldsmith and what he is going to do about posting my last submission to his list and either proceeding to post his stipulations or discussing an alternative course of action.

                    Sincerely,
                    Robert Baty

                    ----Link and full text of Goldsmith's #164---

                    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BATY_DEFEATED/message/164

                    From: Goldsmith (aka "Mark"/"j427750108")
                    To: Baty_Defeated@yahoogroups.com
                    Sent: Monday, January 31, 2011 5:35 PM MT

                    Subject: Re: Goldsmith ("Hammer") v. Baty ("Goliath of GRAS")!

                    > "there is empirical evidence that
                    > some thing is much older than a
                    > few thousand years."

                    The statement above is logically invalid.

                    Evidence doesn't speak.

                    It must be interpreated.

                    It is impossible to have -

                    > "empirical evidence that some
                    > thing is much older than a few
                    > thousand years".

                    It is only possible to have an interpretation.

                    You lose.

                    "Mark Goldsmith"

                    --- In BATY_DEFEATED@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Baty" <rlbaty@...> wrote:

                    The two arguments for discussion:

                    (1)

                    The "Hammer" by Goldsmith

                    > 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
                    >> interpreted by some that things
                    >> are actually much older
                    >> than a few thousand years,
                    >>
                    >> THEN (D) the interpretation of the
                    >> text or the interpretation of the
                    >> empirical evidence 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
                    >> interpreted by some that things
                    >> are actually much older
                    >> than a few thousand years.

                    > Conclusion:
                    >
                    >> (D) The interpretation of the
                    >> text or the interpretation of the
                    >> empirical evidence by some is
                    >> wrong.

                    (2)

                    The "Goliath of GRAS" by Baty

                    > 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
                    >> 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
                    >> much older than a few
                    >> thousand years.

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

                    --------------------------------
                    --------------------------------
                  • Robert Baty
                    Goldsmith has just made it rather explicit that he is not really up to having a discussion of his Hammer as he proposed; much less in conjunction and
                    Message 9 of 14 , Jan 31, 2011
                      Goldsmith has just made it rather explicit that he is not really up to having a discussion of his "Hammer" as he proposed; much less in conjunction and concurrent with a discussion of my "Goliath of GRAS".

                      Rather than post my last submission/suggestion to his list and respond appropriately in order to meet his burden of moving the discussion forward, Goldsmith has posted the following admitting of his unwillingness and/or inability to deal with his problems regarding his own creation, the "Hammer", or my "Goliath of GRAS":

                      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BATY_DEFEATED/message/171

                      > From: Goldsmith (aka "Mark"/"j427750108")
                      > To: Baty_Defeated@yahoogroups.com
                      > Date: Monday, January 31, 2011
                      > Time: 8:15 PM MT
                      >
                      > Subject: Re: Moderation
                      >
                      > It appears that Robert is not willing or
                      > is unable to correct the problem with his
                      > "Goliath."
                      >
                      > The "Goliath" is logically invalid as
                      > stated. The "Hammer" has nailed him to
                      > the wall.
                      >
                      > Robert has been placed on moderation until
                      > he answers the issue at hand.
                      >
                      > "Mark Goldsmith"

                      Well, should Goldsmith or anyone else wish to discuss Goldsmith's "Hammer" or my "Goliath of GRAS", they are welcome to engage the discussion in a reasonable and reasoned manner.

                      Sincerely,
                      Robert Baty
                    • PIASAN@aol.com
                      From: Robert Baty Instead of simply engaging the discussion, Goldsmith has now placed me in moderation on his list. ************ Pi: And you re surprised
                      Message 10 of 14 , Jan 31, 2011
                        From: Robert Baty
                        Instead of simply engaging the discussion, Goldsmith has now placed me in
                        moderation on his list.


                        ************
                        Pi:
                        And you're surprised because ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?




                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      • Robert Baty
                        ... Not surprised; just reporting the developments for the record. So many have offered so many arguments as if they could compete with my Goliath of GRAS
                        Message 11 of 14 , Jan 31, 2011
                          --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, PIASAN@... wrote:

                          > From: Robert Baty
                          >
                          >> Instead of simply engaging the
                          >> discussion, Goldsmith has now
                          >> placed me in moderation on his
                          >> list.
                          >
                          > ************
                          > Pi:
                          >
                          > And you're surprised because?????????

                          Not surprised; just reporting the developments for the record.

                          So many have offered so many arguments as if they could compete with my "Goliath of GRAS" and, to date, they have all fallen by the wayside for one reason or another.

                          Goldsmith's "Hammer" is just the latest and, despite his own call to discuss it, Goldsmith now has clearly indicated that discussing the merits of his "Hammer" (e.g., why it fails to measure up to Goldsmith's claims for it) is one thing he just doesn't want to do.

                          Such, however, remains open for discussion here should there be any interest, even by Goldsmith who maintains his membership here.

                          And so the evidence mounts in explaining why, in part, it is that young-earth creation-science promoters have failed in their scientific pretensions and legal challenges (e.g., a lack of reasoning skills as has been and continues to be so often demonstrated when coming face to face with the "Goliath of GRAS" exercise).

                          Sincerely,
                          Robert Baty
                        • Jerry McDonald
                          And he wonders why I refuse to join his son s list. jdm
                          Message 12 of 14 , Jan 31, 2011
                            And he wonders why I refuse to join his son's list.
                            jdm
                            --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, PIASAN@... wrote:
                            >
                            > From: Robert Baty
                            > Instead of simply engaging the discussion, Goldsmith has now placed me in
                            > moderation on his list.
                            >
                            >
                            > ************
                            > Pi:
                            > And you're surprised because ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                            >
                          • PIASAN@aol.com
                            Actually, I think it s junior s list. ... From: Jerry McDonald jerry@challenge2.org And he wonders why I refuse to join his son s list. dm -- In
                            Message 13 of 14 , Jan 31, 2011
                              Actually, I think it's junior's list.





                              -----Original Message-----
                              From: Jerry McDonald jerry@...


                              And he wonders why I refuse to join his son's list.
                              dm
                              -- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, PIASAN@... wrote:

                              From: Robert Baty
                              Instead of simply engaging the discussion, Goldsmith has now placed me in
                              moderation on his list.


                              ************
                              Pi:
                              And you're surprised because ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?





                              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                            • Robert Baty
                              I report, you decide; it s open for discussion! See: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/22225 ... IN SUMMARY or HOW THE HAMMER , BY
                              Message 14 of 14 , Feb 1, 2011
                                I report, you decide; it's open for discussion!

                                See:

                                http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/22225

                                Goldsmith:

                                > Robert Baty refuses to discuss
                                > the "Hammer".

                                Baty:

                                > Goldsmith refuses to discuss
                                > the "Hammer".

                                Goldsmith:

                                > The undefeated "Hammer" is
                                > still here and Robert is gone.

                                Baty:

                                > The defeated "Hammer" is still
                                > here and open for discussion.

                                Goldsmith:

                                > Baty can't touch the "Hammer".

                                Baty:

                                > All I had to do was tap the "Hammer"
                                > and it was defeated with no
                                > apologists to take up for it.

                                IN SUMMARY

                                or

                                HOW THE "HAMMER", BY GOLDSMITH,
                                WAS "HAMMERED", BY BATY

                                The "Hammer" by Goldsmith

                                > 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
                                >> interpreted by some that things
                                >> are actually much older
                                >> than a few thousand years,
                                >>
                                >> THEN (D) the interpretation of the
                                >> text or the interpretation of the
                                >> empirical evidence 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
                                >> interpreted by some that things
                                >> are actually much older
                                >> than a few thousand years.

                                > Conclusion:
                                >
                                >> (D) The interpretation of the
                                >> text or the interpretation of the
                                >> empirical evidence by some is
                                >> wrong.

                                Analysis:

                                Argument Construction:

                                > The "Hammer" is constructed such that if its
                                > premises, major premise and minor premise,
                                > are true, then its conclusion will follow as
                                > true from the truth of its premises.

                                Argument Soundness:

                                > An argument is sound if it is properly
                                > constructed and has true premises
                                > leading to a true conclusion.

                                Stipulations:

                                > God's word - communication from God in
                                > words that are not wrong in the message
                                > intended to be communicated

                                > Interpreted by - what some think the
                                > text or empirical evidence means; such
                                > thinking possibly being wrong

                                > Empirical evidence - evidence apart
                                > from the text of God's word

                                The "Hammer" Major Premise:

                                > The major premise is considered false because
                                > there is another possible consequent if the
                                > antecedent is true; both interpretations, of
                                > the text and of the empirical evidence, could
                                > be wrong.

                                UNsoundness of the "Hammer":

                                > Because the major premise of the "Hammer"
                                > can be shown to be false (see above), the
                                > "Hammer" is UNsound. Having a false premise,
                                > its conclusion cannot be shown to be true
                                > from the argument presented (e.g., the
                                > "Hammer").

                                Should there be any apologists for the "Hammer", by Goldsmith, and who are willing to "come out" for the discussion, they are welcome to do so.

                                If there is interest, we might also consider a similar analysis of the "Goliath of GRAS", the one remaining to be beat; an effective exercise for demonstrating why it is that young-earth creation-science promoters have failed in their scientific pretensions and legal challenges.

                                Sincerely,
                                Robert Baty
                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.