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

A second chance at my "Goliath"!

Expand Messages
  • rlbaty@webtv.net
    ... For easy reference, here again is my Goliath of GRAS : ######################## Major premise: If God s word (the text) says everything began over a
    Message 1 of 2 , May 9, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      Todd quite aptly noted in writing to Rudy:

      > So, Rudy, now the public record
      > shows your personal demonstration
      > that you really do know that GRAS
      > is still a live issue (especially
      > in the Church of Christ), because
      > the issue actually makes you so
      > uncomfortable that instead of giving
      > a straight answer to a straight
      > question you choose to ignore the
      > question. If GRAS really was a non-
      > issue then there would be no motivation
      > for evading the question in this way.

      For easy reference, here again 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.

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

      Now, before you go again in trying to confuse things and make yourself
      look bad, please take time to reflect on the discussions and decide
      whether you really, really, really have anything to offer that will come
      close to impugning the integrity of my "Goliath".

      (1) Do you acknowledge that there is such a thing as the "young-earth,
      creation-science" movement (very much headed up by Dr. Bert as far as
      the churches of Christ are concerned) that proposes that the age of
      things can be scientifically determined and that uses the Word of God to
      back up their real world "scientific" claims regarding the age of
      things?

      Surely you do (although I think Glenn is having a hard time coming to
      grips with that issue as it relates to the geocentric controversy that
      faces the same problem).

      (2) If not, do you (perhaps like Glenn and others) hold the position
      that real world claims regarding the age of things cannot be
      scientifically determined and that any such scientific claims are simply
      not falsifiable because of a lack of reliable information about the real
      world?

      (3) Do you agree with what Max Black of Cornell University said with
      reference to logic and my "Goliath"? He wrote, quoting Josiah Stamp in
      his book "Critical Thinking":

      > "Four hundred pages of crowded
      > fact and argument deceive the
      > very elect, but when reduced
      > to a three line syllogism, it will
      > lay bare the bones of the
      > argument so the fallacious
      > reasoning may be easily seen."

      (4) Do you agree that my "Goliath" really does present such a "three
      line syllogism" in such a way that "THE" issue facing Dr. Bert and his
      "young-earth, creation-science" fellows are facing?

      (5) Do you agree that my "Goliath" is properly labeled (some have really
      fussed about that, to no avail; it is properly labeled)?

      (6) Do you agree that it is validly constructed to the point that, if
      its premises are true then its conclusion must follow?

      (7) Do you agree that Glenn failed in proposing there was any
      grammatical defect in the language of my "Goliath"?

      (8) Do you agree that if you reject the truth of the major premise that
      you are forced into the position of denying the foundation upon which
      "young-earth, creation-science" is based and that your position is that
      real world claims regarding the young or ancient age of things is that
      young and/or ancient age claims with reference to the real world are
      simply not falsifiable with reference to any real world evidence?

      (9) Would you agree that Robert Baty has not been proposing that the
      minor premise is necessarily true, but has been trying to get folks to
      understand and appreciate the issue facing the "young-earth,
      creation-science" movement; even though he does seem to believe that
      traditional science has shown the minor premise to be true?

      (10) Would you agree that Robert Baty has been trying to get a
      legitimate contender to actually, formally, take up the negative to Todd
      Greene's affirmative position regarding the real world evidence?

      (11) Would you agree that the good brethren have failed the brotherhood
      by failing to compel Dr. Bert to publicly address his "Rock 'n Reel"
      claims and that Dr. Bert has failed to meet his public obligations, as a
      member of the church of Christ, a public figure and leader of a
      tax-exempt public charity regarding his "Rock 'n Reel" claims.

      Much more could be said, and may as time and interest allows. Now, if
      you really want to get serious about coming to an understanding of how
      my "Goliath" is everywhere the "young-earth, creation-science" debate
      rages, then please get serious about it.

      It is "THE" issue!

      Sincerely,
      Robert Baty

      P.S. In that context, I am looking forward to Rudy's answer, if he can
      muster one, to Todd's question; the same question that the Catholic
      geocentrists faced and were open and honest enough to answer (see my
      earlier note for their answer published for all the Internet users to
      see).

      I wonder if Rudy will propose he could be compelled to give up his
      interpretation or if he would prefer to give up the Word of God instead.
      (Yes, he does have the option of accepting the position that age
      evidence in the real world is not falsifiable by reference to real world
      evidence; or, as I have proposed, has he already been backed into that
      corner?)

      #########################
    • w_w_c_l
      Robert wrote (to the CoCBanned list): 3) Do you agree with what Max Black of Cornell University said with reference to logic and my Goliath ? He wrote,
      Message 2 of 2 , May 10, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        Robert wrote (to the CoCBanned list):

        3) Do you agree with what Max Black of Cornell University said with
        reference to logic and my "Goliath"? He wrote, quoting Josiah Stamp in
        his book "Critical Thinking":

        > "Four hundred pages of crowded
        > fact and argument deceive the
        > very elect, but when reduced
        > to a three line syllogism, it will
        > lay bare the bones of the
        > argument so the fallacious
        > reasoning may be easily seen."

        Hi, Robert. Your misconception here is apparent. In this instance
        the case might be better stated, "A thousand pages of scripture are
        understood perfectly by some, but the validity of a simple three-line
        syllogism is so obscure and confusing that it should only be
        approached indirectly, in roundabout ways, or better still, just
        ignored."

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