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

Nick Lally/CSHF v. "Goliath of GRAS"!

Expand Messages
  • rlbaty50
    Nick Lally, Chairman of the Board of the Creation Science Hall of Fame, has indicated an interest this morning in my young-earth creation-science position.
    Message 1 of 4 , Jan 4, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      Nick Lally, Chairman of the Board of the Creation Science Hall of Fame, has indicated an interest this morning in my young-earth creation-science position.

      Nick,

      This is your invitation, which I explained in my private response to you, to engage my "Goliath of GRAS" exercise in critical thinking with emphasis on young-earth creation-science and why its promoters have failed in their scientific pretensions and legal challenges.

      Following is Step #1, the argument and basic stipulations for your consideration:

      Step #1:

      > Is the "Goliath of GRAS" argument so
      > constructed that if its premises are
      > true its conclusion will follow as
      > true therefrom (e.g., is it logically
      > valid)?
      >
      >> Robert Baty - Yes
      >> Nick Lally - ???

      The "Goliath of GRAS" 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.

      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 is
      > actually much older than a few thousand
      > years" - some thing 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.



      ------------------------------------------
      ------------------------------------------
    • rlbaty50
      Nick has declined the offer to discuss these fundamental issues. Rather than simply decline, however, he has some things to say that go to the continuing,
      Message 2 of 4 , Jan 5, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        Nick has declined the offer to discuss these fundamental issues. Rather than simply decline, however, he has some things to say that go to the continuing, popular, public discussion regarding young-earth creation-science and what we have considered before.

        So, I am going to post some of what he had to say and, if I get time, make some responses here (Nick was advised that the invitation remains open for him and his to join the discussion here).

        Just how important is the fuss over the age of stuff, Nick????

        (1)

        > From: Nick Lally (Creationfacts@...)
        > To: Robert Baty (rlbaty@...)
        > Date: Friday, January 4, 2013 11:32:46 -0500
        >
        > (excerpts)
        >
        > Robert,
        >
        > I was hoping you were an atheist and not a Hugh
        > "Rosser". Wow! You took me by surprised...
        >
        > Now where do I begin to convert you into a 6 day
        > Creationists? You are making this very hard for
        > me, but allow me to ask you this:
        >
        > If you believe in God you must...
        > If you believe..., then why not a 6 day creation?
        > How do you...
        > That makes you a PC Christian...(pick and choose).
        >
        > I'm afraid you are not able to sit on the fence
        > any longer.
        >
        > Either become an atheist or become a full believing
        > Christian.
        >
        > It's time to join our side, Robert.
        > You can't have it both ways.

        (2)

        > From: Nick Lally (Creationfacts@...)
        > To: Robert Baty (rlbaty@...)
        > CC: diatheke2@...
        > CC: fwepboyd@...
        > CC: joseph@...
        > CC: temlakos@...
        > Date: Saturday, January 5, 2013 09:34:20 -0500
        >
        > (excerpts)
        >
        > Robert,
        >
        > Thank you for your invitation to debate the Bible.....
        > Genesis, six day creation.
        >
        > Perhaps some other day when time allows, we could debate
        > the Genesis issue.
        >
        > For some reason I really don't understand how anyone
        > could debate something that is written with such clarity.
        >
        > A third grader could read Genesis and tell you that it
        > means a six day creation. But we adults want to insert
        > our own thoughts into the Bible and thus make it say
        > anything we want it to mean.
        >
        > Perhaps it's an overdose of pride....thinking we know
        > better then God?
        >
        > To be frank with you, I have more respect for atheists
        > then theists because at least I know where "they are
        > coming from." Being a "fence sitter" does little for
        > your salvation.
        >
        > Either you're with God or against Him.
        >
        > As a child, my father use to say to me (in his crude way),
        >
        >> "Either you believe in the entire Bible or
        >> throw the whole dam thing away".
        >
        > Years later, I found him to be right after all.
        >
        > So, Robert, are you going to tear out certain pages
        > in Genesis or are you going to believe in God's Word?
        >
        > I promise you that some day, you will become a Creationist.
        >
        > Nick Lally,
        > Chairman, Board of Directors,
        > Creation Science Hall of Fame

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


        --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
        "rlbaty50" wrote:

        Nick Lally, Chairman of the Board of the Creation Science Hall of Fame, has
        indicated an interest this morning in my young-earth creation-science position.

        Nick,

        This is your invitation, which I explained in my private response to you, to
        engage my "Goliath of GRAS" exercise in critical thinking with emphasis on
        young-earth creation-science and why its promoters have failed in their
        scientific pretensions and legal challenges.

        Following is Step #1, the argument and basic stipulations for your
        consideration:

        Step #1:

        > Is the "Goliath of GRAS" argument so
        > constructed that if its premises are
        > true its conclusion will follow as
        > true therefrom (e.g., is it logically
        > valid)?
        >
        >> Robert Baty - Yes
        >> Nick Lally - ???

        The "Goliath of GRAS" 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.

        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 is
        > actually much older than a few thousand
        > years" - some thing 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.



        ------------------------------------------
        ------------------------------------------
      • rlbaty50
        Here s my last response to Nick and his board of directors: (3) ... rlbaty50 wrote: Nick has declined the offer to discuss these fundamental issues. Rather
        Message 3 of 4 , Jan 5, 2013
        • 0 Attachment
          Here's my last response to Nick and his board of directors:

          (3)

          > To: Nick Lally (creationfacts@...)
          > From: Robert Baty (rlbaty@...)
          > CC: diatheke2@...
          > CC: fwepboyd@...
          > CC: joseph@...
          > CC: seeevidence@...
          > CC: temlakos@...
          > Date: Saturday, January 5, 2012 09:43:21 -0500
          >
          > Subject: Nick Lally, et al, v. "Goliath of GRAS"
          >
          > Nick,
          >
          > It seems rather inappropriate to decline my invitation
          > and then go to preachin' and taking some cheap shots
          > while you retreat.
          >
          > Your invitation, and the invitation to any who may
          > wish to represent "your side", will remain outstanding
          > at:
          >
          > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/30480
          >
          > I'll post your reply in that subject thread on my YAHOO!
          > list and maybe make some comments in response.
          >
          > You and/or yours can join that discussion, or not!
          >
          > Thanks for the consideration, and I'll continue to look
          > for the updates to your CSHF website; particularly as
          > they may relate to the Maury issue.
          >
          > And don't forget to follow the progress of my IRC 107
          > petition at:
          >
          > http://wh.gov/QQOh
          >
          > Overnight it hit the 550 mark!
          >
          > Sincerely,
          > Robert Baty


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


          --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
          "rlbaty50" wrote:

          Nick has declined the offer to discuss these fundamental issues. Rather than
          simply decline, however, he has some things to say that go to the continuing,
          popular, public discussion regarding young-earth creation-science and what we
          have considered before.

          So, I am going to post some of what he had to say and, if I get time, make some
          responses here (Nick was advised that the invitation remains open for him and
          his to join the discussion here).

          Just how important is the fuss over the age of stuff, Nick????

          (1)

          > From: Nick Lally (Creationfacts@...)
          > To: Robert Baty (rlbaty@...)
          > Date: Friday, January 4, 2013 11:32:46 -0500
          >
          > (excerpts)
          >
          > Robert,
          >
          > I was hoping you were an atheist and not a Hugh
          > "Rosser". Wow! You took me by surprised...
          >
          > Now where do I begin to convert you into a 6 day
          > Creationists? You are making this very hard for
          > me, but allow me to ask you this:
          >
          > If you believe in God you must...
          > If you believe..., then why not a 6 day creation?
          > How do you...
          > That makes you a PC Christian...(pick and choose).
          >
          > I'm afraid you are not able to sit on the fence
          > any longer.
          >
          > Either become an atheist or become a full believing
          > Christian.
          >
          > It's time to join our side, Robert.
          > You can't have it both ways.

          (2)

          > From: Nick Lally (Creationfacts@...)
          > To: Robert Baty (rlbaty@...)
          > CC: diatheke2@...
          > CC: fwepboyd@...
          > CC: joseph@...
          > CC: temlakos@...
          > Date: Saturday, January 5, 2013 09:34:20 -0500
          >
          > (excerpts)
          >
          > Robert,
          >
          > Thank you for your invitation to debate the Bible.....
          > Genesis, six day creation.
          >
          > Perhaps some other day when time allows, we could debate
          > the Genesis issue.
          >
          > For some reason I really don't understand how anyone
          > could debate something that is written with such clarity.
          >
          > A third grader could read Genesis and tell you that it
          > means a six day creation. But we adults want to insert
          > our own thoughts into the Bible and thus make it say
          > anything we want it to mean.
          >
          > Perhaps it's an overdose of pride....thinking we know
          > better then God?
          >
          > To be frank with you, I have more respect for atheists
          > then theists because at least I know where "they are
          > coming from." Being a "fence sitter" does little for
          > your salvation.
          >
          > Either you're with God or against Him.
          >
          > As a child, my father use to say to me (in his crude way),
          >
          >> "Either you believe in the entire Bible or
          >> throw the whole dam thing away".
          >
          > Years later, I found him to be right after all.
          >
          > So, Robert, are you going to tear out certain pages
          > in Genesis or are you going to believe in God's Word?
          >
          > I promise you that some day, you will become a Creationist.
          >
          > Nick Lally,
          > Chairman, Board of Directors,
          > Creation Science Hall of Fame

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


          --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
          "rlbaty50" wrote:

          Nick Lally, Chairman of the Board of the Creation Science Hall of Fame, has
          indicated an interest this morning in my young-earth creation-science position.

          Nick,

          This is your invitation, which I explained in my private response to you, to
          engage my "Goliath of GRAS" exercise in critical thinking with emphasis on
          young-earth creation-science and why its promoters have failed in their
          scientific pretensions and legal challenges.

          Following is Step #1, the argument and basic stipulations for your
          consideration:

          Step #1:

          > Is the "Goliath of GRAS" argument so
          > constructed that if its premises are
          > true its conclusion will follow as
          > true therefrom (e.g., is it logically
          > valid)?
          >
          >> Robert Baty - Yes
          >> Nick Lally - ???

          The "Goliath of GRAS" 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.

          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 is
          > actually much older than a few thousand
          > years" - some thing 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.

          ------------------------------------------
          ------------------------------------------
        • rlbaty50
          (4) From: Nick Lally (Creationfacts@...) To: Robert Baty (rlbaty@...) Date: Saturday, January 5, 2013 16:00:57 -0500 Subject: Re: Nick Lally, et al, v.
          Message 4 of 4 , Jan 5, 2013
          • 0 Attachment
            (4)

            From: Nick Lally (Creationfacts@...)
            To: Robert Baty (rlbaty@...)
            Date: Saturday, January 5, 2013 16:00:57 -0500

            Subject: Re: Nick Lally, et al, v. "Goliath of GRAS"

            Robert,

            I guess my email can be taken that way, but that's
            not the idea I was trying to convey to you.

            First, I never retreat from 'always being willing and
            ready to give an answer for my belief in God'.

            And secondly, "cheap shots" is not my style....even
            though one could easily take my answer in that way.

            I was attempting to tell you that God wants us to
            come to him like a child....believing with all our
            hearts and mind.

            A child reading Genesis can easily see that God has
            written about a six day creation and not evolution.

            Anything more read into His Word is only man's
            interpretations.

            If you feel that's still a cheap shot then there is
            nothing I can say or do about it.

            Please do keep in touch, and when time allows, I
            will look into your petition for Dr. Hovind.

            Have you seen Dr. Hovind's Induction page on the
            Creation Science Hall of Fame yet?

            And while you are there, check out our answer to
            the atheists and you who have questioned Matthew
            Fontaine Maury.

            Nick Lally,
            Chairman, Board of Directors,
            Creation Science Hall of Fame

            (5)

            To: Nick Lally (creationfacts@...)
            From: Robert Baty (rlbaty@...)
            Date: Saturday, January 5, 2013 17:00:41 -500

            Subject: RE: Nick Lally, et al, v. "Goliath of GRAS"

            Nick,

            See, you continue to do it!

            Yes, you "retreated" from the proposal to take up
            the discussion of the fundamental "nothing is more
            than a few thousand years old" issue in the context
            of my "Goliath of GRAS" argument, openly, honestly,
            and "on the record" as presented by my YAHOO! list
            venue and/or your CSHF venue.

            In response you went to turning loose rabbits which
            need not be chased at this time.

            I did see your Hovind induction page, but, last I
            checked, the Maury page had not been updated.

            I'll got check after I send this message.

            As to Maury, I note here that there were numerous
            questions raised about your promotion for him that
            you did not answer.

            See our earlier correspondence about that.

            Alas, as I noted, you got my opinion, with references,
            on those matters and you can do as you wish regarding
            your promotions for Hovind and Maury. The public can
            consider such matters and form their own opinions about
            such things.

            I will try to stay in touch if something comes to my
            attention that I think warrants further contact with you.

            The "Goliath of GRAS" invitation, remains outstanding:

            http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/30480

            Sincerely,
            Robert Baty

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