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

Victor McAllister v. "Goliath of GRAS" - Step #1!

Expand Messages
  • Robert Baty
    Victor McAllister v. Goliath of GRAS - Step #1! cc: Creationism@yahoogroups.com cc: Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com I detect some ever so slight improvement
    Message 1 of 2 , Feb 18, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      Victor McAllister v. "Goliath of GRAS" - Step #1!

      cc: Creationism@yahoogroups.com
      cc: Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com

      I detect some ever so slight improvement in Victor's thinking regarding these important, fundamental matters, and so I will again try to help him to successfully complete the "Goliath of GRAS" exercise in critical thinking with emphasis on young-earth creation-science promoters.

      Step #1:

      Is the "Goliath of GRAS" argument so constructed
      that if its premises are true its conclusion will
      follow as true therefrom?

      > Robert Baty - Yes
      > Victor McAllister - ???

      My reasons for allowing Victor to again engage the exercise are based on his latest posting:

      --- In creationism@yahoogroups.com,
      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/creationism/message/75062
      Victor McAllister wrote earlier today, in part:
       
      > The Bible contains hundreds of verses
      > with the expression "if" and "then."  
      >
      > Biblical "if - then" statements are
      > related to the commonplace meaning of
      > words and ordinary affairs. 
      >
      >> Victor McAllister
      >> February 18, 2013

      Victor himself has used that "construct" extensively in his writings, as was previously pointed out.

      And yet, despite my earlier efforts, Victor McAllister has not admitted, explained and corrected his errors regarding such things and as reflected in his following comment:

      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OriginsTalk/message/21401

      > GOLIATH OF GRAS IS A
      > VISIBLY FALSE CONSTRUCT.

      >> Victor McAllister
      >> http://godsriddle.com/

      It's not about Aristotle as Victor might propose.
      It's not about logical systems as Victor might propose.

      It's about how Victor thinks, today, February 18, 2013.

      Following is the argument that forms the foundation of the exercise and the basic stipulations.

      Victor, please provide your simple "yes" or "no" answer to Step #1 and then we might further consider what discussion might be appropriate as to Step #1 and if you are prepared to progress to Step #2 and, just possibly, the final Step #3.

      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.

      Sincerely,
      Robert Baty

    • rlbaty50
      Step #1: Is the Goliath of GRAS argument so constructed that if its premises are true its conclusion will follow as true therefrom? ... Following are some
      Message 2 of 2 , Feb 18, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        Step #1:

        Is the "Goliath of GRAS" argument so constructed
        that if its premises are true its conclusion will
        follow as true therefrom?

        > Robert Baty - Yes
        > Victor McAllister - ???

        Following are some additional comments from Victor McAllister that might be worthy of further consideration depending on his progress in the "Goliath of GRAS" exercise.

        --- In creationism@yahoogroups.com,
        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/creationism/message/75062
        Victor McAllister wrote on February 18, 2013, in part:

        > Formal logic did not come into existence
        > until Aristotle.
        >
        > Logical syllogisms go back about a century.
        >
        > The Bible states that time is in our minds:
        > Ecclesiastes 3:11.
        >
        > Let's examine the age of the earth with biblical
        > logic, rather than mathematical logic.
        >
        > Can the universe be both old in age and young in
        > years?
        >
        > If ancient days and years were vast eons and days
        > and years steadily accelerate, then the world would
        > have vast age, yet few rotations around the Sun.
        >
        > Every old person remembers that days and years
        > were slower during our youth.
        >
        > The age of the universe is not a problem for Changing
        > Earth Creationists.
        >
        > Changing Earth Creationist's reject the idea Peter
        > predicted for the last days - the notion that all
        > things remain the same.
        >
        > A universe where matter changes as it ages, the
        > cosmos could have vast age, yet the Earth could
        > have orbited the Sun only 6,000 times.
        >
        > Creation does not use syllogisms, just Moses'
        > Hebrew words.
        >
        >> Victor McAllister
        >> Monday, February 18, 2013

        -------------------Original Message-------------------

        --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
        Robert Baty <rlbaty@...> wrote:

        Victor McAllister v. "Goliath of GRAS" - Step #1!

        cc: Creationism@yahoogroups.com
        cc: Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com

        I detect some ever so slight improvement in Victor's thinking regarding these important, fundamental matters, and so I will again try to help him to successfully complete the "Goliath of GRAS" exercise in critical thinking with emphasis on young-earth creation-science promoters.

        Step #1:

        Is the "Goliath of GRAS" argument so constructed
        that if its premises are true its conclusion will
        follow as true therefrom?

        > Robert Baty - Yes
        > Victor McAllister - ???

        My reasons for allowing Victor to again engage the exercise are based on his latest posting:

        --- In creationism@yahoogroups.com,
        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/creationism/message/75062
        Victor McAllister wrote earlier today, in part:

        > The Bible contains hundreds of verses
        > with the expression "if" and "then."
        >
        > Biblical "if - then" statements are
        > related to the commonplace meaning of
        > words and ordinary affairs.
        >
        >> Victor McAllister
        >> February 18, 2013

        Victor himself has used that "construct" extensively in his writings, as was previously pointed out.

        And yet, despite my earlier efforts, Victor McAllister has not admitted, explained and corrected his errors regarding such things and as reflected in his following comment:

        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OriginsTalk/message/21401

        > GOLIATH OF GRAS IS A
        > VISIBLY FALSE CONSTRUCT.

        >> Victor McAllister
        >> http://godsriddle.com/

        It's not about Aristotle as Victor might propose.
        It's not about logical systems as Victor might propose.

        It's about how Victor thinks, today, February 18, 2013.

        Following is the argument that forms the foundation of the exercise and the basic stipulations.

        Victor, please provide your simple "yes" or "no" answer to Step #1 and then we might further consider what discussion might be appropriate as to Step #1 and if you are prepared to progress to Step #2 and, just possibly, the final Step #3.

        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.

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