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

Re: A call for my "Goliath of GRAS"!

Expand Messages
  • rlbaty@webtv.net
    ... If that be the case, then it is also the case that any criticism of my Goliath has already been answered. Perhaps we need to revisit it here. Major
    Message 1 of 1 , Apr 28 7:57 PM
      George wrote to the coCBanned list, in part:

      > I believe I commented on this
      > sometime in the past but don't
      > remember when or what list.

      If that be the case, then it is also the case that any criticism of my
      "Goliath" has already been answered.

      Perhaps we need to revisit it here.

      Major premise of my "Goliath":

      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.

      George provides his ipse dixit:

      > The Major premise is false because
      > it is incorrectly stated.

      George propose a re-write of the major premise that looks like this:

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

      The only substantive difference I see is that George left out the first
      "If", and added an "and" and an "if" elsewhere so as to confuse the
      grammar, not understanding the meaning of the antecedent as stated.

      I guess someone will have to explain to George the nature of the
      argument. Like, I think he just "proved" that the major premise of my
      "Goliath" is true, not false as he proposes. Maybe we need a grammar
      lesson as well as a logic lesson; but we'll learn. HINT: The "If"
      applies to the antecedent in its entirety.

      Minor premise of my "Goliath":

      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.

      George's ipse dixit about that is:

      > The Minor premise is false because
      > it is incorrectly stated.

      George suggests a re-write that looks like this:

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

      Someone tell George that the argument requires that the hypothetical
      "if" statement is properly the major premise as in my "Goliath".

      The minor premise, as in my "Goliath", is properly an affirmative of the
      antecedent of the major premise.

      Sorry George. Well I'm not really sorry. I'm glad you've demonstrated
      just how indestructible (as Nathan might say. . .the truth just doesn't
      change and my "Goliath" is the truth of the matter) my "Goliath" is in
      setting forth "THE" basic issue facing Dr. Bert and his hobby
      Someone tell George that the argument requires that the hypothetical
      "if" statement is properly the major premise as in my "Goliath".

      The minor premise, as in my "Goliath", is properly an affirmative of the
      antecedent of the major premise.

      Actually, it looks to me like George's major and minor premises are one
      and the same.

      George, that's no argument!

      Conclusion of my "Goliath":

      The interpretation of the text by some is wrong.

      George then attempts an analysis of the conclusion of my "Goliath" with
      yet another ipse dixit:

      > The Conclusion is incorrectly stated
      > due to the premises.

      George suggests the following re-write:

      > The interpretation of the text by
      > some is wrong only if there is
      > empirical evidence that things
      > are actually much older than a few
      > thousand years and there is no
      > supernatural element involved.

      Nope. That won't work either George. After having shown that the
      "Goliath" is a valid logical argument, the conclusion of my "Goliath of
      GRAS" is properly shown to be:

      The interpretation of the text by some is wrong.

      As the expert logic fellows among us and in the logic community point
      out, in such cases as the "Goliath of GRAS", if the argument is valid,
      and the premises are true, the conclusion must follow.

      History has demonstrated, to date, that the "Goliath" is valid and its
      premises, if true, properly lead to the conclusion that some have the
      text misinterpreted.

      The only real issue for debate is whether there is the evidence for a
      great age (much more than 6,000 years) of things.

      Todd, as far as I now, is prepared to affirm that aspect of the
      "Goliath" and so convinced those who will be convinced that the
      interpretation of some (i.e. Dr. Bert and his hobby-riders) is wrong.

      The invitation, however, is open to those who think they've got a better
      argument that will reflect how the "young-earth, creation-science"
      fundamental issue can be falsified based on a scientific approach.

      George missed all the way around.

      Alternatively, you are welcome to join others who realize more and more
      that the YEC position is not falsifiable based on consideration of the
      real world evidence.

      As Dr. Fox admitted. . ."Don't bother me with the evidence, I've got my
      interpretation that trumps all scientific evidence to the contrary".

      We could save a lot of time and trouble if Dr. Bert and his hobby-riders
      would just make such admissions up front. There would be other things
      to talk about.

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