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

To Rick, my reply!

Expand Messages
  • rlbaty@webtv.net
    ... That, as determined by our own Mathewmaury , stands for Gene and Robert s Argument Supreme . I guess I get credit for adding the Goliath to it. Isn t
    Message 1 of 1 , Mar 8, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      Rick, you wrote, in part:

      > I haven't run across one that
      > tells me what "GRAS" stands for. 

      That, as determined by our own "Mathewmaury", stands for "Gene and
      Robert's
      Argument Supreme". I guess I get credit for adding the "Goliath" to it.

      Isn't that right, "Mathewmaury"?

      Gene was active at the time on this list and in opposition to
      "Mathewmaury", though the credit for the argument itself probably rests
      with me. The "G" seemed to fit in with "Mathewmaury"'s designs in
      coining the term.

      You added:

      > It certainly is a formidable argument,
      > but it is not new, so don't go
      > trying to trademark it, Robert. 
      > . . .there are many who have
      > come to the same conclusion
      > forced by Goliath's logic, long
      > before Goliath was ever postulated. 

      > So don't be too smug. 

      Me, too smug? I think we'd all agree that the point of "Goliath" has
      been common wherever the issues are discussed. If I am deserving of any
      credit, it is in presenting the argument in a concise, valid logical
      format that, to date, has been victorious in all challenges against it.

      It is, IMHO, "THE" argument that sets forth the fundamental issue facing
      the "young-earth, creation-science" movement.

      As reflected in our discussion here, it has been an excellent vehicle
      for backing would be proponents of YEC into the corner of having to
      admit that their fundamental position regarding real world
      interpretations of the text is not falsifiable based on real world
      evidence.

      I would be glad to give credit to anyone else who has actually set forth
      such a concise and logical statement of the issue as is reflected in the
      "Goliath of GRAS".

      If you find such specific references, please feel free to post them. I
      do have my 15 minutes to share with them.

      Here again for reference, is my "Goliath of GRAS":

      #######################

      Major premise:

      If God's word (the text) says everything began over a period of six
      days, is interpreted by some to mean it was six 24-hour days occurring a
      few thousand years ago, and there is empirical evidence that things are
      actually much older than a few thousand years, then the interpretation
      of the text by some is wrong.

      Minor premise:

      God's word (the text) says everything began over a period of six days,
      is interpreted by some to mean it was six 24-hour days occurring a few
      thousand years ago, and there is empirical evidence that things are
      actually much older than a few thousand years.

      Conclusion:

      The interpretation of the text by some is wrong.

      ##########################

      In conclusion, and in reference to your invitation to "Mathewmaury", I
      do hope you get his attention. I would like to see how you and he get
      along.

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