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

Casey Head & Renewed in Spirit followup!

Expand Messages
  • Robert Baty
    Some may recall that, in a recent Renewed in Spirit broadcast, Casey Head had an article on Theistic Evolution. I posted responses, promoting my Goliath of
    Message 1 of 4 , Apr 5, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      Some may recall that, in a recent Renewed in Spirit broadcast, Casey Head had an article on Theistic Evolution.

      I posted responses, promoting my "Goliath of GRAS" on its website.

      There was no reply, so I went my way.

      I just checked again, and there has been one reply. So, I responded to that.

      Here's the reply and my response to that reply:

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

      Renewed In Spirit

      Archive March, 2007

      Theistic Evolution
      Written by Casey Head
      Saturday, 17 March 2007

      (snip article and earlier responses)

      BT Moody: 2007-04-01 04:13:10

      First, I think you should shorten your minor premise to read, "There is empirical evidence that some thing is much older than a few thousand years" As it is now, it is very cumbersome.

      Second, the obvious response is (1) How "empirical is that evidence, ie is it biased by Darwinism, etc; (2) How much trust can we put in Uniformitarianism; and (3) To what extent can appearance of age deal with some old looking things.

      Since my observations are not novel, I assume you have considered them and have arguments lined up to explain/refute them. There are plenty of good resources available representing both sides of the issue, so I would urge any who are new to this issue to avail yourself of such resources. And since they are so readily available, I have no intention of entering a discussion about this issue on this forum or any other.


      RLBaty: 2007-04-05 19:32:25

      Mr. Moody,

      You are correct in your observation that such efforts as yours to improve on the argument has been considered and all, to day, have failed.

      Your proposals would not result in an improvement.

      For those familiar with this important public issue, the argument is not at all cumbersome, but goes right to the issues.

      For those who may wish to seriously discuss the argument, they are welcome to do so on my list as referenced in my original post.

      Thanks for your attention to the issue.

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

      I thought you might like to know!

      Sincerely,
      Robert Baty




      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Ernest
      Just how hard is it for so many not to admit that ( some misinterpret the scriptures ) Robert, apparently very hard. Robert Baty wrote:
      Message 2 of 4 , Apr 5, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        Just how hard is it for so many not to admit that ( some misinterpret the scriptures ) Robert, apparently very hard.

        Robert Baty <rlbaty@...> wrote:
        Some may recall that, in a recent Renewed in Spirit broadcast, Casey Head had an article on Theistic Evolution.

        I posted responses, promoting my "Goliath of GRAS" on its website.

        There was no reply, so I went my way.

        I just checked again, and there has been one reply. So, I responded to that.

        Here's the reply and my response to that reply:

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

        Renewed In Spirit

        Archive March, 2007

        Theistic Evolution
        Written by Casey Head
        Saturday, 17 March 2007

        (snip article and earlier responses)

        BT Moody: 2007-04-01 04:13:10

        First, I think you should shorten your minor premise to read, "There is empirical evidence that some thing is much older than a few thousand years" As it is now, it is very cumbersome.

        Second, the obvious response is (1) How "empirical is that evidence, ie is it biased by Darwinism, etc; (2) How much trust can we put in Uniformitarianism; and (3) To what extent can appearance of age deal with some old looking things.

        Since my observations are not novel, I assume you have considered them and have arguments lined up to explain/refute them. There are plenty of good resources available representing both sides of the issue, so I would urge any who are new to this issue to avail yourself of such resources. And since they are so readily available, I have no intention of entering a discussion about this issue on this forum or any other.

        RLBaty: 2007-04-05 19:32:25

        Mr. Moody,

        You are correct in your observation that such efforts as yours to improve on the argument has been considered and all, to day, have failed.

        Your proposals would not result in an improvement.

        For those familiar with this important public issue, the argument is not at all cumbersome, but goes right to the issues.

        For those who may wish to seriously discuss the argument, they are welcome to do so on my list as referenced in my original post.

        Thanks for your attention to the issue.

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

        I thought you might like to know!

        Sincerely,
        Robert Baty

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]







        For verily i say unto you, till heaven and earth pass one jot or one tittle shal in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Mt.5:18









        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • w_w_c_l
        ... Now, give me a logic lesson, Robert. You need all the elements of the major premise included in the minor premise, don t you? That way we all know that the
        Message 3 of 4 , Apr 5, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          > BT Moody: 2007-04-01 04:13:10
          >
          > First, I think you should shorten your
          > minor premise to read, "There is empirical
          > evidence that some thing is much older than
          > a few thousand years" As it is now, it is
          > very cumbersome.

          Now, give me a logic lesson, Robert.

          You need all the elements of the major premise
          included in the minor premise, don't you?

          That way we all know that the reason people
          fight against the real world evidence of age
          is because of what we read in the Bible and
          how "some" interpret that reading, right?

          > Second, the obvious response is (1) How
          > "empirical is that evidence, ie is it biased
          > by Darwinism, etc; (2) How much trust can we
          > put in Uniformitarianism; and (3) To what
          > extent can appearance of age deal with some
          > old looking things.

          Yes, obvious for the most part, as he says.
          But someone would have a hard time, I think,
          convincingly showing that the scientists who
          are concerned with the origins of the Universe
          or the geologic features of the Earth are
          "biased" because of something the biologists
          are working on.

          And that "appearance of age" thing that they
          think is a panacea when they bring it out
          always seems to be a sweet poison when they
          are forced to drink it down.

          > Since my observations are not novel, I assume
          > you have considered them and have arguments
          > lined up to explain/refute them.

          There is a little secret to this that I don't
          think most of the young-earthers have ever
          considered: the refutations of their arguments
          are overall very easy, since they all have been
          refuted for decades.

          It's when they have to start refuting specific
          old-earth evidence that they are going to get
          into deep trouble. Deeeep trouble.

          > There are plenty of good resources available
          > representing both sides of the issue, so I
          > would urge any who are new to this issue to
          > avail yourself of such resources.

          To me it looks like quite a disparity between
          both the quality and the quantity of the
          "good resources" on either side of the issue.

          > And since they are so readily available, I
          > have no intention of entering a discussion
          > about this issue on this forum or any other.

          The "Everyman" of YEC!

          Where is that flame-thrower!


          Rick Hartzog
          Worldwide Church of Latitudinarianism



          --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
          "Robert Baty" <rlbaty@...> wrote:
          >
          >
          > Some may recall that, in a recent Renewed in Spirit broadcast,
          Casey Head had an article on Theistic Evolution.
          >
          > I posted responses, promoting my "Goliath of GRAS" on its website.
          >
          > There was no reply, so I went my way.
          >
          > I just checked again, and there has been one reply. So, I
          responded to that.
          >
          > Here's the reply and my response to that reply:
          >
          > --------------------------
          >
          > Renewed In Spirit
          >
          > Archive March, 2007
          >
          > Theistic Evolution
          > Written by Casey Head
          > Saturday, 17 March 2007
          >
          > (snip article and earlier responses)
          >
          > BT Moody: 2007-04-01 04:13:10
          >
          > First, I think you should shorten your minor premise to
          read, "There is empirical evidence that some thing is much older than
          a few thousand years" As it is now, it is very cumbersome.
          >
          > Second, the obvious response is (1) How "empirical is that
          evidence, ie is it biased by Darwinism, etc; (2) How much trust can
          we put in Uniformitarianism; and (3) To what extent can appearance of
          age deal with some old looking things.
          >
          > Since my observations are not novel, I assume you have considered
          them and have arguments lined up to explain/refute them. There are
          plenty of good resources available representing both sides of the
          issue, so I would urge any who are new to this issue to avail
          yourself of such resources. And since they are so readily available,
          I have no intention of entering a discussion about this issue on this
          forum or any other.
          >
          >
          > RLBaty: 2007-04-05 19:32:25
          >
          > Mr. Moody,
          >
          > You are correct in your observation that such efforts as yours to
          improve on the argument has been considered and all, to day, have
          failed.
          >
          > Your proposals would not result in an improvement.
          >
          > For those familiar with this important public issue, the argument
          is not at all cumbersome, but goes right to the issues.
          >
          > For those who may wish to seriously discuss the argument, they are
          welcome to do so on my list as referenced in my original post.
          >
          > Thanks for your attention to the issue.
          >
          > --------------------------
          >
          > I thought you might like to know!
          >
          > Sincerely,
          > Robert Baty
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          >
        • Robert Baty
          Rick, In answer to your question, in order to be validly constructed, the minor premise should affirm the antecedent or deny the consequent. In the case of my
          Message 4 of 4 , Apr 5, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            Rick,

            In answer to your question, in order to be validly constructed, the minor premise should affirm the antecedent or deny the consequent.

            In the case of my "Goliath of GRAS", the affirmation is of the antecedent

            So, Moody's recommendation simply won't work.

            The argument is designed explicitly to represent the "young-earth, creation-science" position and the real world falsification test thereof. It does that, and no one has come up with a better way to do it.

            As to the "evidence" issue, it is quite a curiosity to me how many want to jump the gun and starting talking about that evidence before even agreeing on the principles behind the discussion.

            That is, if they don't think the real world claim is subject to falsification, it really doesn't matter to them what the evidence
            is.

            And, if they agree on the principle of falsification with regard to such things, then we should just be able to move on to getting someone to sign up for the formal, in writing, for the record discussion and proceed to have the best we can get to present both sides for consideration.

            If they think they've got something against the evidence, then they need to sign up and formally, in writing, for the record make their case or have it revealed that they really are simply in Dr. Fox's corner.

            As we are well aware, there are a lot of chatter groups and instances that attempt to informally deal with the issue.

            Been there, done that!

            Now I'm simply trying to facilitate a formal, in writing, for the record discussion.

            So far, it looks like we aren't going to have to bother Todd for an appearance.

            Sincerely,
            Robert Baty



            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.