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

Testing a fundamental position!

Expand Messages
  • Robert Baty
    The fundamental issue facing the young-earth, creation-science movement is simply and logically set forth in the following argument which reflects the real
    Message 1 of 74 , Jan 29, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      The fundamental issue facing the "young-earth, creation-science" movement is simply and logically set forth in the following argument which reflects the real world falsification test for the fundamental real world claim behind the "young-earth, creation-science" movement (i.e., nothing is more than a few thousand years old).

      It is provided for comment and analysis with an open invitation to a formal, in writing, for the record discussion of the disputed evidence of age issue.

      Here is the argument:

      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 some thing
      > is 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 some thing
      > is actually much older
      > than a few thousand years.

      Conclusion:

      > The interpretation of the
      > text by some is wrong.

      My argument...still the one to beat!

      The suggested propositions for discussion are as follows:

      Proposition #1:

      > The empirical evidence
      > shows that the Earth
      > has been in existence
      > longer than one hundred
      > thousand (100,000) years.

      > Affirm: Todd S. Greene
      > Deny: ????

      Proposition #2:

      > The empirical evidence
      > shows that the Universe
      > has been in existence
      > longer than one
      > hundred thousand
      > (100,000) years.
      >
      > Affirm: Todd S. Greene
      > Deny: ????

      Proposition #3:

      > The empirical evidence
      > shows that the Earth
      > is less than one hundred
      > thousand (100,000)
      > years old.

      > Affirm: ????
      > Deny: Todd S. Greene

      Proposition #4:

      > The empirical evidence
      > shows that the Universe
      > is less than one hundred
      > thousand (100,000)
      > years old.

      > Affirm: ????
      > Deny: Todd S. Greene

      Sincerely,
      Robert Baty




      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • rlbaty50
      I would again like to post comments from one of the former leading lights within the churches of Christ and its young-earth creation-science movement. To date,
      Message 74 of 74 , Nov 27, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        I would again like to post comments from one of the former leading lights within
        the churches of Christ and its young-earth creation-science movement.

        To date, no bonafide young-earth creation-science promoter has dared to
        repudiate, deny or rebut the comments.

        I would also then like to give my "Goliath of GRAS" argument for any who may
        want to "come out" in response to its call and take up the public discussion as
        to the argument's logical validity (i.e., if its premises are true the conclusion will follow as true).

        In order to respond to the "call", one need only utilize the "post" and/or "reply" features of this list, membership not being necessary to post, or simply address an e-mail to:

        > Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com .

        A debate between Todd S. Greene and Jerry D. McDonald, relating to the soundness of the argument, has begun.

        See below for proposition details and the
        following link for additional information as the debate develops:

        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/YoungEarthCreationism/

        Jerry D. McDonald has submitted his first affirmative and we are waiting for
        Todd S. Greene's first rebuttal; a rebuttal that has, quite unfortunately, been a long time in coming and hasn't come yet!

        Here now to provide the context for considering my "Goliath of GRAS" are the
        comments from that leading light amongst the young-earth creation-science
        movement within the churches of Christ:

        -------------------------------------------

        http://www..apologeticspress.org/articles/1991

        THE YOUNG EARTH

        (excerpts)

        "(T)he most serious area of conflict between the biblical account and the
        evolutionary scenario is the chronological framework of history

        > in other words,
        > the age of the Earth..

        While a young Earth/Universe presents no problem for a creationist, it is the
        death knell to each variety of the evolutionary model.

        A simple, straightforward reading of the biblical record indicates that the
        Cosmos was created in six days only a few thousand years ago.

        Much of the controversy today between creationists and evolutionists revolves
        around the age of the Earth.

        A large part of that controversy centers around the fact that there is no
        compromise that will permit the old-Earth/young-Earth scenarios to coexist; the
        gulf separating the biblical and
        evolutionary views on the topic of the age of the Earth is just too large......

        (W)e must 'query if vast time is indeed available.'

        That is our purpose here.

        There is ample scientific evidence to indicate that such time is not available,
        and that the Earth is relatively young, not
        extremely old.

        That evidence needs to be examined and considered...

        There is good scientific evidence that the Earth...has an age of only a few
        thousand years, just as the Bible plainly indicates."

        (end excerpt)

        ------------------------------------------
        ------------------------------------------

        It is undisputed, as the above shows, that some folks believe that

        > the Bible teaches

        that

        > "nothing is more than a few
        > thousand years old".

        The relevant question, when it comes to the fundamental young-earth
        creation-science position on that point is whether or not the real world evidence really does support that interpretation and/or if that interpretation is subject to falsification based on the real world evidence.

        I've developed a simple, logically valid argument (i.e., "Goliath of GRAS")
        proposing that the real world interpretation of the text commonly associated with the young-earth creation-science movement (i.e., "nothing is more than a few thousand years old") is subject to falsification with reference to the real
        world evidence.

        Here it is, the "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 some thing is
        > 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 some thing is
        > actually much older than a few
        > thousan d years.

        Conclusion:

        > The interpretation of the text
        > by some is wrong.

        You are welcome to try your hand at impeaching the validity of the argument, or
        simply accept it for what it is...a simple,
        logically valid statement of the real world falsification test for the fundamental real world claim commonly associated with
        the young-earth creation-science movement.

        It is further proposed that the only disputed aspect of the above argument is,
        in the context of the popular young-earth
        creation-science movement, the "evidence of age".

        In order to deal with that issue, a formal, in writing, for the record discussion is, as noted above, presently ongoing between Todd S. Greene and Jerry D. McDonald with the following propositions for discussion:

        Proposition # 1:

        > The scientific evidence shows that
        > the earth has NOT been in existence
        > for more than ten thousand (10,000)
        > years.

        >> Affirm: Jerry D. McDonald
        >> Deny: Todd S.. Greene

        Proposition #2:

        > The scientific evidence shows that
        > the earth has been in existence
        > more than one hundred thousand
        > (100,000) years.

        > Affirm: Todd S. Greene
        > Deny: Jerry D. McDonald

        Proposition #3:

        > The scientific evidence shows that
        > the universe has NOT been in
        > existence for more than ten
        > thousand (10,000) years.

        >> Affirm: Jerry D. McDonald
        >> Deny: Todd S. Greene

        Proposition #4:

        > The scientific evidence shows that
        > the universe has been in existence
        > more than one hundred thousand
        > (100,000) years.

        >> Affirm: Todd S. Greene
        >> Deny: Jerry D. McDonald

        Typically, those desiring to see my "Goliath of GRAS" defeated have themselves
        retreated into the UNscientific position
        summarized as follows:

        > I've got my interpretation
        > of the text regarding the
        > real world and that trumps
        > any real world evidence
        > to the contrary.

        The above position effectively concedes that young-earth creation-science cannot
        stand up to scrutiny as being "science" and that the real world evidence falsifies the fundamental young-earth creation-science claim that "nothing is more than a few thousand years old".

        That is a good thing to know.

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