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

Re: "Goliath of GRAS" v. "Tip" Killingsworth, et al!

Expand Messages
  • Robert
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Human-nonmoderated/message/160527 From: Robert Baty To: Human-nonmoderated@yahoogroups.com Date: Thursday, June 30, 2011 Time:
    Message 1 of 75 , Jun 30, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Human-nonmoderated/message/160527

      From: Robert Baty
      To: Human-nonmoderated@yahoogroups.com
      Date: Thursday, June 30, 2011
      Time: 8:09 PM MT

      Subject: Re: Testing a fundamental position - Genesis!

      --- In Human-nonmoderated@yahoogroups.com, PHarrison/interEng <intereng@...>
      wrote:

      > Young Earth creationists must, in order
      > to justify their position, cast doubt
      > on any and all methods used to show that
      > the Earth and everything in it go back
      > more than roughly 6,000 years.

      There are any number of ways to deal with issue which is hotly debated
      throughout the country and the Internet.

      Despite the scientific pretensions, which can be appropriately dealt with by
      folks with the time, talent and interest to do so (which I have done in days
      gone by), I have in more recent years developed my argument and the related
      exercise in evaluating it in order to illustrate, without needing to resort to
      the complex, scientific details, why it is that young-earth creation-science has
      failed in its scientific pretensions and legal challenges.

      As we have seen in this latest exercise:

      (1)

      Young-earth creation-science promoters can
      demonstrate problems in recognizing a properly
      constructed, modus ponens, argument.

      (2)

      Young-earth creation-science promoters can
      have problems in recognizing a true, mixed
      hypothetical statement forming the major
      premise of a properly constructed argument;
      true based on stipulated definitions and
      the force and effect of sound, biblical,
      common-sense reasoning.

      (3)

      Young-earth creation-science promoters can
      have problems in admitting that their
      fundamental position can be properly
      summarized as being:

      > I have my interpretation of the
      > text regarding the age of stuff
      > and that trumps any evidence to
      > the contrary.

      While my argument is quite straightforward and really quite simple, young-earth
      creation-science promoters have fussed for years over each of the above matters.

      Tip Killingsworth is the latest in a long line and I appreciate his willingness
      to engage in the exercise and his demonstration that the exercise has such
      results as I have proposed.

      Sincerely,
      Robert Baty
    • Robert
      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Human-nonmoderated/message/160957 From: Robert Baty To: Human-nonmoderated@yahoogroups.com Date: Saturday, July 2, 2011 Time:
      Message 75 of 75 , Jul 2, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Human-nonmoderated/message/160957

        From: Robert Baty
        To: Human-nonmoderated@yahoogroups.com
        Date: Saturday, July 2, 2011
        Time: 9:30 PM MT

        Subject: Re: Killingsworth v. Baty: A New Approach!

        --- In Human-nonmoderated@yahoogroups.com, tip@... wrote:

        > Let's take Point 2.
        >
        > Of course, God's Word COULD be wrong
        > or it COULD be misinterpreted.

        Silly me, why didn't I remember!

        That's just Tip Killingsworth up to more of his evasive, UNholy spirited antics;
        or so it now seems to me.

        From Tip's website:

        > http://www.masterlife.org/content/view/20/33/
        >
        > Statement of Faith
        >
        > The sole basis of our beliefs is...
        > God's infallible written Word...
        >
        > We (Tip Killingsworth, et al) believe
        > that it was uniquely, verbally and fully
        > inspired by the Holy Spirit and that it
        > was written without error (inerrant) in
        > the original manuscripts.

        So, let me repost the following yet again and give Tip Killingsworth yet another
        opportunity to engage in a good faith, open, honest discussion with me regarding
        the 10 points:

        --- In Human-nonmoderated@yahoogroups.com, "Robert" <rlbaty@...> wrote:

        --- In Human-nonmoderated@yahoogroups.com, tip@... wrote:

        > Let's take Point 2.
        >
        > Of course, God's Word COULD be wrong
        > or it COULD be misinterpreted.

        Let's first review:

        Point (6)

        > Robert Baty's argument is so constructed
        > that if its premises are true its conclusion
        > will follow as true therefrom (e.g., it's
        > logically valid).
        >
        >> Robert Baty - Yes
        >> Tip Killingsworth - Yes

        That's one of ten and we've got, potentially, nine more to go.

        We'll now take a look at Point 2.

        Point (2)

        > Typical young-earth creation-science
        > promoters believe that God is and
        > God's word cannot be wrong in what
        > it says or what it means.
        >
        >> Robert Baty - Yes
        >> Tip Killingsworth - No

        Have I got you right on that right, Tip?

        For purposes of this exercise, I consider that Ken Ham is a "typical"
        young-earth creation-science promoter. Relative to Point (2), he puts it like
        this:

        > http://www.answersingenesis.org/about/faith
        >
        > The 66 books of the Bible are the
        > written Word of God. The Bible is
        > divinely inspired and inerrant
        > throughout.

        As it relates to my argument, the relevant stipulation is:

        > God's word:
        >
        >> communication from God in
        >> words that are not wrong

        By stipulation, God's word cannot be wrong.

        If you wish to take up the position that what you claim to be God's word could
        be wrong, I've got another argument for that if you wish to consider that
        alternative.

        In other words, if some thing really is more than a few thousand years old, it
        is the case that,

        > (1)
        >
        >> any interpretation of an alleged
        >> God's word otherwise is wrong, or
        >
        > (2)
        >
        >> the alleged God's word is wrong.

        Please note, Point (2) is not just about whether the text or its interpretation
        is wrong, but the typical young-earth creation-science promoter's (e.g., Ken
        Ham, et al) position regarding the text.

        Sincerely,
        Robert Baty

        The 10 points for Tip Killingsworth:

        (1)

        A fundamental reason why young-earth creation-science
        promoters have failed in their scientific pretensions
        and legal challenges is because their position can
        be briefly and properly summarized, being explicitly
        or implicitly affirmed by young-earth creation-science
        promoters, as being:

        > We, young-earth creation-science promoters,
        > have our interpretation of the text as to
        > the age of stuff, and that trumps any
        > non-textual evidence and its interpretation
        > to the contrary.

        (2)

        Typical young-earth creation-science promoters
        believe that God is and God's word cannot be
        wrong in what it says or what it means.

        (3)

        Typical young-earth creation-science promoters
        believe that God's word says everything began
        over a period of six days.

        (4)

        Typical young-earth creation-science promoters
        believe God's word means that nothing is more
        than a few thousand years old.

        (5)

        Typical young-earth creation-science promoters
        believe, in principle, that if some thing is
        over a few thousand years old, then it would
        be the case that their interpretation of God's
        word would be wrong and not that God's word
        is wrong.

        (6)

        My argument is so constructed that if its
        premises are true its conclusion will follow
        as true therefrom (e.g., it's logically valid).

        (7)

        My argument logically presents a real world
        test of the young-earth creation-science
        promoters' textual interpretation that
        nothing is more than a few thousand years
        old.

        (8)

        Young-earth creation-science promoters do
        not, as a practical matter, believe their
        interpretation of the text is subject to
        falsification with reference to non-textual
        evidence and its interpretation.

        (9)

        The major premise of my argument, given the
        stipulations and the force and effect of
        sound, biblical, common-sense reasoning,
        is true.

        (10)

        Tip Killingsworth does not believe it is
        the case that anything is more than a
        few thousand years old and that we can
        so determine from evidence independent
        of the text.

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

        The Argument

        MAJOR PREMISE:

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

        Stipulations:

        > God's word:
        >
        >> communication from God in
        >> words that are not wrong

        > Interpretation:
        >
        >> what some think the meaning
        >> is and which meaning is
        >> subject to error

        > Empirical evidence that...:
        >
        >> some thing is more than a
        >> few thousand years old and
        >> we can so determine from
        >> the evidence independent of
        >> the text and its interpretations

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