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

Jared F. Bennatt Completes "Goliath of GRAS" Exercise!

Expand Messages
  • rlbaty50
    Jared has been another reluctant participant in this simple, critical thinking exercise with emphasis on young-earth creation-science promoters, but I think I
    Message 1 of 1 , Feb 6, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      Jared has been another reluctant participant in this simple, critical thinking exercise with emphasis on young-earth creation-science promoters, but I think I can safely announce his successful completion of the 3-step exercise as shown below:

      Step #1:

      I think the "Goliath of GRAS" argument is so
      constructed that if its premises are true its
      conclusion will follow as true therefrom
      (i.e., it is logically valid).

      > Robert Baty - Yes
      > Jared F. Bennatt - Yes

      Step #2:

      I think the "Goliath of GRAS" major premise,
      GIVEN THE STIPULATIONS and a little common
      sense, can be shown to be true.

      > Robert Baty - Yes
      > Jared F. Bennatt - Yes

      Step #3:

      I think folks like Ken Ham reject the truth
      of the "Goliath of GRAS" minor premise because,
      briefly stated, they have their interpretation
      of the Bible regarding the age of stuff and
      for them that trumps any other evidence and
      its interpretation to the contrary.

      > Robert Baty - Yes
      > Jared F. Bennatt - Yes

      If I have not accurately reflected Jared's current positions as to the 3 steps in the exercise, the subject is open for further consideration and evaluation.

      Jared may have other problems regarding critical thinking issues related to the "Goliath of GRAS" exercise and what inferences may be drawn from a successful completion of the exercise. These too are open for consideration if there is interest.

      My "Goliath of GRAS"...still the one to beat!
      Still no "David"!

      THE "GOLIATH OF GRAS" ARGUMENT and STIPULATIONS

      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.

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