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

Re: Ken Ham again "implicitly" confirms my representations!

Expand Messages
  • bucksburg
    ... Very enlightening, Mr. Baty. I m forced to concede your point that AIG really is a YCC (Young Creation Creationist) organization. Either that, or while Ken
    Message 1 of 10 , Dec 3, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "rlbaty50" <rlbaty@...> wrote:
      >> Here's another reference that deals with a subject that Daniel Buck was talking about in his effort to criticize something I had said about the matter and Ken Ham's position. I think it further confirms the accuracy of my representations:
      > The Bible does...give us information to calculate
      > reasonably accurately the age of the creation and
      > conclude that all of creation is young (here meaning
      > a few thousand, not millions, of years old).
      ----------------------------------------------------
      Very enlightening, Mr. Baty. I'm forced to concede your point that AIG really is a YCC (Young Creation Creationist) organization. Either that, or while Ken Ham is away Down Under, his underlings are misrepresenting him.

      On big problem with all this. If you are allowed to quote-mine in such a fashion, why should you be so upset that YCC's do the same?

      Or is that the Tu Quoque fallacy . . . .

      Daniel Buck
    • rlbaty50
      ... http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/29874 ... Daniel Buck, You ve been forced to concede a number of points to me lately; or so it
      Message 2 of 10 , Dec 3, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/29874
        "bucksburg" <bucksburg@...> wrote, in part:

        > Very enlightening, Mr. Baty.
        >
        > I'm forced to concede your point that...
        >
        > On big problem with all this.
        >
        > If you are allowed to quote-mine in such
        > a fashion, why should you be so upset that
        > YCC's do the same?

        Daniel Buck,

        You've been "forced" to "concede" a number of points to me lately; or so it seems. And yet you seem to keep trying to catch me in some offense.

        I am only a casual observer regarding the "quote-mining" issue, and I would propose that your proposal that I engage in an activity such as is commonly criticized (i.e., using quotes to misrepresent) is another fault on your part.

        I repeat my call for Ken Ham to come out, come clean and admit that I have accurately represented him and his position on such matters I have addressed or to discuss with me any fault he may allege regarding my representations.

        I would accept the appearance of Ken Ham's official representative/surrogate regarding these important public issues.

        As we know, in recent days Ken Ham's representatives have explicitly declined the invitation; implicitly "conceding" that I have been accurately representing Ken Ham and his positions.

        Sincerely,
        Robert Baty
      • bucksburg
        Okay, I m making some progress in my logic studies: Assertions are claims that require support. Evidence consists of the facts, examples, statistics, expert
        Message 3 of 10 , Dec 3, 2012
        • 0 Attachment
          Okay, I'm making some progress in my logic studies:
          "Assertions are claims that require support. Evidence consists of the
          facts, examples, statistics, expert opinions, and other information
          that support the assertions.
          EVIDENCE is what proves, or at the least, supports the assertions as
          true and valid. Evidence consists of definitions, facts, statistics,
          examples, and expert opinions -- all of which work together to
          demonstrate the validity of the assertions -- or not. Without
          evidence, assertions are nothing more than bare opinion.
          If the evidence is inadequate or questionable, then
          the assertions are, at best, doubtful."

          So it would be inaccurate to say (as Ken Ham is wont to) that Evolutionists and Creationists have the same evidence. What they have are the same facts. Once they line up those facts behind their respective assertions, then they become evidence.

          But it's more complicated than that: Assertions and facts invariably get confused with each other whenever Evoltionists and Creationists debate. Remember, facts are not open to argument: only assertions are. Until the respective side can agree on which are assertions and which are facts, they CANNOT have a logical discussion.

          Daniel Buck
        • rlbaty50
          Daniel Buck, I am glad to be able to take some credit for stimulating your logic studies. I m just a tyro myself and enjoy trying to figure out the basic
          Message 4 of 10 , Dec 3, 2012
          • 0 Attachment
            Daniel Buck,

            I am glad to be able to take some credit for stimulating your logic studies. I'm just a tyro myself and enjoy trying to figure out the basic stuff that falls within my realm of ability and interest and time.

            A number of points in your message might be clarified, but I will not pursue a critical analysis at this time.

            Just let me know if I can be of any further assistance and I will give you some of my "assertions".

            Sincerely,
            Robert Baty

            --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
            http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/29879
            "bucksburg" <bucksburg@...> wrote:

            > Okay, I'm making some progress in my logic studies:
            >
            >> "Assertions are claims that require support.
            >>
            >> Evidence consists of the facts, examples,
            >> statistics, expert opinions, and other
            >> information that support the assertions.
            >>
            >> EVIDENCE is what proves, or at the least,
            >> supports the assertions as true and valid.
            >>
            >> Evidence consists of definitions, facts,
            >> statistics, examples, and expert opinions
            >> -- all of which work together to demonstrate
            >> the validity of the assertions -- or not.
            >>
            >> Without evidence, assertions are nothing more
            >> than bare opinion.
            >>
            >> If the evidence is inadequate or questionable,
            >> then the assertions are, at best, doubtful."
            >
            > So it would be inaccurate to say (as Ken Ham is wont to)
            > that Evolutionists and Creationists have the same
            > evidence.
            >
            > What they have are the same facts.
            >
            > Once they line up those facts behind their respective
            > assertions, then they become evidence.
            >
            > But it's more complicated than that:
            >
            > Assertions and facts invariably get confused with each
            > other whenever Evoltionists and Creationists debate.
            >
            > Remember, facts are not open to argument: only assertions
            > are.
            >
            > Until the respective side can agree on which are assertions
            > and which are facts, they CANNOT have a logical discussion.

            --------------------------------------------
            --------------------------------------------
          • bucksburg
            ... What I d like to do is back up to where the first rabbit trail started. As I recall, we were discussing Dvidence For an Ancient Universe when I was waylaid
            Message 5 of 10 , Dec 3, 2012
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "rlbaty50" <rlbaty@...> wrote:
              >Just let me know if I can be of any further assistance and I will give you some of my "assertions".<

              What I'd like to do is back up to where the first rabbit trail started.

              As I recall, we were discussing Dvidence For an Ancient Universe when I was waylaid by a need to assent to the validity of the GRAS argument. I did, but then we got hung up on what lousy debaters the YCC's are and I don't think we ever got back to the subject of EFaAU.

              There is a serious problem with Carbon-14 dating, and I'd like to get to the bottom of it.

              Daniel Buck
            • rlbaty50
              ... http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/29881 ... For my part, Daniel, I am known to bring up the Goliath of GRAS critical thinking exercise
              Message 6 of 10 , Dec 3, 2012
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
                http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/29881
                "bucksburg" <bucksburg@...> wrote:

                > What I'd like to do is back up to where
                > the first rabbit trail started.
                >
                > As I recall, we were discussing Evidence
                > For an Ancient Universe when I was waylaid
                > by a need to assent to the validity of the
                > GRAS argument.
                >
                > I did, but then we got hung up on what lousy
                > debaters the YCC's are and I don't think we
                > ever got back to the subject of EFaAU.
                >
                > There is a serious problem with Carbon-14
                > dating, and I'd like to get to the bottom of it.

                For my part, Daniel, I am known to bring up the "Goliath of GRAS" critical thinking exercise with emphasis on young-earth creation-science when the opportunity arises.

                While you, perhaps somewhat reluctantly and only after considerable effort, were able to recognize the deductive logical validity of the "Goliath of GRAS", I do not recall if you successfully completed steps #2 and #3.

                Daniel, I think we more recently came to an agreement that there isn't any evidence for an old or young earth/universe except according to how one might interpret such evidence.

                All sorts of issues might be taken with the developing science on many, many fronts; C-14 is only one.

                However, history has shown us that the old earth/universe position is quite resilient and holds its own scientifically.

                The young earth/universe position also does quite well for those inclined to accept the UN/NONscientific proposition that, for example, the interpretation of the Bible according to Ken Ham is correct and that it trumps any other evidence and its interpretation to the contrary.

                For tyros like me, that allows for a considerable clarification of the fundamental issue and I don't have to quibble with others about complex, technical, scientific details upon which few are qualified
                to opine and command respect for their opinions.

                I like to follow along where I can, but I have found that the results of my "Goliath of GRAS" exercise provide the fundamental information I need to keep score as the popular public debate rages on.

                (Of course, before arriving at where I am today, I did wade into those deeper waters to test the scientific claims of young earth/universe promoters and found them specifically, explicitly wanting; ocean currents, moon dust, moths, reels 'n rocks, etc., etc.)

                Sincerely,
                Robert Baty
              • bucksburg
                Robert, Yes, I ve had to concede quite a bit to you lately, this all being due to your exceptional debating skills. And I m probably not done yet. Most people
                Message 7 of 10 , Dec 4, 2012
                • 0 Attachment
                  Robert,

                  Yes, I've had to concede quite a bit to you lately, this all being due to your exceptional debating skills. And I'm probably not done yet. Most people who use ad hominem to belittle their opponents probably have no idea how many potential converts they are scaring away, or how many people are being rooted even more firmly in their faulty opinions because they are being attacked just for holding them.

                  So, since you are not involved in the quote-mining debate, I'll withdraw the charges of inconsistency. But the way you are quoting the YCC's you are making them appear to be making contradictory statements about the age of stuff. This is what has been so enlightening to me, as I'd never noticed it before myself. Quote-mining may not be such a horrible offense after all, is what I'm saying.

                  Daniel Buck



                  --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "rlbaty50" <rlbaty@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
                  > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/29874
                  > "bucksburg" <bucksburg@> wrote, in part:
                  >
                  > > Very enlightening, Mr. Baty.
                  > >
                  > > I'm forced to concede your point that...
                  > >
                  > > On big problem with all this.
                  > >
                  > > If you are allowed to quote-mine in such
                  > > a fashion, why should you be so upset that
                  > > YCC's do the same?
                  >
                  > Daniel Buck,
                  >
                  > You've been "forced" to "concede" a number of points to me lately; or so it seems. And yet you seem to keep trying to catch me in some offense.
                  >
                  > I am only a casual observer regarding the "quote-mining" issue, and I would propose that your proposal that I engage in an activity such as is commonly criticized (i.e., using quotes to misrepresent) is another fault on your part.
                  >
                  > I repeat my call for Ken Ham to come out, come clean and admit that I have accurately represented him and his position on such matters I have addressed or to discuss with me any fault he may allege regarding my representations.
                  >
                  > I would accept the appearance of Ken Ham's official representative/surrogate regarding these important public issues.
                  >
                  > As we know, in recent days Ken Ham's representatives have explicitly declined the invitation; implicitly "conceding" that I have been accurately representing Ken Ham and his positions.
                  >
                  > Sincerely,
                  > Robert Baty
                  >
                • rlbaty50
                  ... http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/29893 ... It might be fun to look at some examples. The way you write that, Daniel, you seem to be
                  Message 8 of 10 , Dec 4, 2012
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
                    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/29893
                    "bucksburg" <bucksburg@...> wrote, in part:

                    > But the way you are quoting the YCC's
                    > you are making them appear to be making
                    > contradictory statements about the age
                    > of stuff.
                    >
                    > This is what has been so enlightening
                    > to me, as I'd never noticed it before
                    > myself.

                    It might be fun to look at some examples.

                    The way you write that, Daniel, you seem to be critical of the alleged appearances.

                    If I quote them properly and represent them accurately, and they "appear" to be making contradictory statements, that could be a good thing to be aware of as far as dealing with the popular public debate over what they are all about.

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