## David A. DeWitt's faulty logic; more "MISREPRESENTATIONS"!

Expand Messages
• ... http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/26221 ... That illustrates, in part, why I have tried to insist on resolving the validity issue
Message 1 of 4 , Feb 2, 2012
View Source
• 0 Attachment
--- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/26221
David A. DeWitt, Ph.D., is reported to have written, in part:

> Similarity is very weak evidence because it is
> the logical fallacy of affirming the consequent.
>
> It is the same as
>
>> 1 Broccoli makes me sick.
>> 2 I am sick.
>> 3 Therefore I ate broccoli.
>
> Obviously I could be sick because I caught a virus.

That illustrates, in part, why I have tried to insist on resolving the "validity" issue regarding my "Goliath of GRAS" before attempting to complete the "Goliath of GRAS" exercise.

What is the "fallacy of affirming the consequent"?

Consider how Wickapedia reports it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent

> Affirming the consequent, sometimes called
> converse error, is a formal fallacy, committed
> by reasoning in the form:
>
>> If P, then Q.
>> Q.
>> Therefore, P.
>
> An argument of this form is invalid, i.e., the
> conclusion can be false even when statements 1
> and 2 are true.
>
> Since P was never asserted as the only sufficient
> condition for Q, other factors could account for
> Q (while P was false).
>
> The name affirming the consequent derives from the
> premise Q, which affirms the "then" clause of the
> conditional premise.

David A. DeWitt "misrepresented" the matter!

Maybe we'll have more to say about DeWitt's faulty logic later.

Todd, what was that we were discussing about "misrepresentations"!

Sincerely,
Robert Baty

>
> Common ancestry would be like this:
>
> 1. Similar organisms are derived from common ancestors.
> 2. Organisms are similar.
> 3. Therefore all organisms come from common ancestors.
>
> Tip, thanks for the opportunity to provide a defense.
>
> I went out of my way to write the book in such a way that an evolutionist would disagree with my arguments but would also
> admit that I presented their side accurately.
>
> David A. DeWitt
>
> --------------------------------------
> --------------------------------------
>
• From the Answers in Genesis site: [David DeWitt s] primary research efforts have been to understand the mechanisms causing cellular damage in Alzheimer s
Message 2 of 4 , Feb 3, 2012
View Source
• 0 Attachment
From the "Answers in Genesis" site:

"[David DeWitt's] primary research efforts have been to understand the mechanisms causing cellular damage in Alzheimer's disease. He has authored and co-authored articles that have appeared in peer-reviewed journals such as Brain Research and Experimental Neurology."

In other words, he's never published even a single scientific research article that supports young earth creationism. This is, not just typical, but true about young earth creationist "scientists" across the board, proving the blatant fallacy of the young earth creationist argument that young earth creationism is "scientific" because there are scientists who believe in young earth creationism.

Sure there are, BUT THEY CAN'T BACK IT UP DOING ACTUAL SCIENCE. And that's the only thing that's relevant.

Now, since a leading young earth creationist, Ken Ham, points out that "[Misrepresentation]...is not a proper debating procedure - especially for Christians", that "it is important for us to strive to accurately represent" matters, and that the tactics of misrepresentation "are neither biblically nor logically sound", we look forward to them ceasing from misrepresenting young earth creationism as being "scientific" based on the false argument that it's scientific merely because some people who do scientific research on things that are irrelevant to supporting their ideas about astronomy and geology believe in the religious doctrine of young earth creationism.

But since we know such remarks are nothing more than a deceitful facade, we know they're going to keep right on using such false arguments.

- Todd Greene
• ... http://dir.groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/26227 ... http://dir.groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/26201 rlbaty50
Message 3 of 4 , Feb 3, 2012
View Source
• 0 Attachment
--- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
http://dir.groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/26227
"Todd Greene" wrote somewhat sarcastically, in part:

> ...we look forward to them (Ken Ham/AIG, et al)
> ceasing from misrepresenting young earth creationism
> as being "scientific"...

Maybe we'll get an explicit statement of that if Ken Ham openly, honestly responds to my inquiry regarding his position on my "Goliath of GRAS" (I just checked and it wasn't posted to his website this morning):

--- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
http://dir.groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/26201
"rlbaty50" <rlbaty@...> wrote:

(1) Confirmation:

From: Ken Ham/AIG via website contact page
To: Robert Baty
Date: Wednesday, February 1, 2012
Time: 4:00 PM MT

Thank you

Thank you for contacting Answers in Genesis.

Your message has been sent to the appropriate
person.

If your message requires a response, we will

(2) The Message:

To: Ken Ham via AIG website contact email
From: Robert Baty
Date: Wednesday, February 1, 2012
Time: 4:00 PM MT

Subject: "Goliath of GRAS" argument

I have encountered many of your supporters
over the years and they all have been unable
to logically and scientifically rebut the
soundness of my "Goliath of GRAS" argument.

One such supporter of yours wrote today,
in relevant part:

> "Ken Ham doesn't know Baty exists."

and

> "Ken Ham couldn't care less about
> Baty's argument."

There's basically three simple issues involved
in the evaluation of my argument:

1.

> Is the argument so constructed that
> if its premises are true its conclusion
> will follow as true therefrom?

I think so.

2.

> Is the major premise of the argument,
> given the stipulations and the force
> and effect of sound, biblical, common
> sense reasoning, true?

I think so.

3.

> Why do young-earth creation-science
> promoters reject the truth of the minor
> premise?

I propose that the minor premise is rejected
by young-earth creation-science promoters because,
as AIG makes clear in its faith statement, they
consider that no evidence of age can be properly
interpreted to mean anything is more than a few
thousand years old contrary to the young-earth
interpretation of Scripture.

I thank you for your serious consideration of this
important public issue.

Sincerely,
Robert Baty

----- The "Goliath of GRAS" argument by Robert 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 (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.

Basic Stipulations:

> "God's word" - communication from God
> in words that are not wrong.

> "Interpreted by some" - what some folks
> think it means and what thinking might
> be wrong.

> "Empirical evidence that..." - some
> thing(s) is more than a few thousand
> years old and we can so determine
> from evidence and its interpretation
> independent of "the text".

> "Few thousand" - 100,000 or less.

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