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/160811 From: Robert Baty To: Human-nonmoderated@yahoogroups.com Date: Saturday, July 2, 2011 Time:
    Message 1 of 75 , Jul 2 2:04 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Human-nonmoderated/message/160811

      From: Robert Baty
      To: Human-nonmoderated@yahoogroups.com
      Date: Saturday, July 2, 2011
      Time: 3:00 PM MT

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

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

      > I just read all the posts he's (Goldsmith)
      > done in the other forum (Baty_Defeated) and
      > he (Goldsmith) just talks about you (Baty),
      > not the other list. It doesn't look to me
      > like he's all that cranked up about you OR
      > this list.

      Your further demonstration of comprehension problems is so noted.

      Or is it the claim from an earlier post that you really haven't been giving
      proper consideration to your responsibiities in this discussion that explains
      your failure to acknowledge the obvious.

      So Tip,

      Which of the 10 points do you agree with, which do you disagree with, if any,
      and which would you be willing to discuss, as you suggested, point by point; in
      the other subject thread "Killingsworth v. Baty: A New Approach"?

      Sincerely,
      Robert Baty

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

      (Reposted for Killingsworth's convenience lest he missed it when earlier posted.
      There are 10 points for his consideration; one point at a time as he earlier
      suggested. If he has no dispute with the 10 points, I would appreciate his
      explicit acknowledgement.-RLBaty)

      The controversy between Tip Killingsworth and me involves a critical analysis of
      my argument (copied following my name below) and the claims I make for it in
      demonstrating why it is that young-earth creation-science promoters have failed
      in their scientific pretensions and legal challenges.

      In this new approach to providing Killingsworth with a further opportunity to
      engage in the discussion of these important public issues, I would like to
      summarize certain matters and see if Killingsworth will engage in an open,
      honest discussion of whatever disagreements he may have with my claims;
      reasonably, step by step.

      (Killingsworth previously indicated a preference for taking one step at a time.
      So, perhaps he will follow that principle and work his way through the following
      one point at a time.)

      (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.

      I look forward to a good faith, open, honest discussion of such points above
      that Killingsworth, or others, may want to engage.

      However, I'll take it however folks might want to play it.

      In either case, another chapter is beginning and will be gladly added to the
      popular public debate over the merits of young-earth creation-science and the
      historic place my argument has in it.

      Sincerely,
      Robert Baty

      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

      ---------------------------------------------
      ---------------------------------------------
    • 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 8:47 PM
      • 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.