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

Benton-Baty Debate on DAGON of GRAS Junk ARGUMENT

Expand Messages
  • Terry
    Benton-Baty Debate on DAGON of GRAS Junk ARGUMENT Robert Baty complained about me speaking negatively of his silly GRAS argument. He has never given anyone
    Message 1 of 1 , Jul 1, 2010
      Benton-Baty Debate on DAGON of GRAS Junk ARGUMENT

      Robert Baty complained about me speaking negatively of his silly GRAS argument. He has never given anyone reason to speak positively about it. My experience with it has been LOOONNGG enough to assess it correctly as a real piece of junk. It would no longer be right for me to pretend otherwise.

      RB: Terry Benton began his eleventh reply with:

      > Benton-Baty Debate on the
      > DAGON of GRAS JUNK ARGUMENT

      I think that pretty much set the tone for what followed which added nothing to the discussion of my "Goliath of GRAS" argument. Of course, Terry indicated quite early on that he would not cooperate with me in speaking the same language as is applicable to the issues under consideration.

      TB: There is nothing to discuss as Robert set the tone a while back saying that he would not answer my questions or points and that he did not have to prove his minor premise is true. He never answers anything. He just posts the same thing with a new introduction. That set the tone a long while back that we are indeed dealing with a junk-argument-junky, and that we will get no better from Robert than we have seen a hundred times before.

      RB: I went back and read my tenth message and looked at Terry's eleventh message.

      Terry is again making like he accepts the simple, logical validity of the "Goliath of GRAS"; that its conclusion will follow as true if its premises are true.

      TB: Seems to be a BIG "IF" that makes all the difference in the world, doesn't it? So, that is why Robert needs to prove the minor premise is true. But, he says he doesn't have to, and at times even pretends he HAS proven it to be true. Also, if there were no minor premise we could imagine it true as a hypothetical like:
      "If Robert keeps beating his wife, he will go to jail". Well, we have never seen him prove any of his GRAS minor premise, so his major premise is about like the RobertBeatsWife Major Premise. What good is it as just a true hypothetical?

      RB: Terry makes it rather clear in his eleventh message that after proposing to accept the validity of the "Goliath of GRAS" he cannot except the truth of the major premise.

      TB: I accept the major premise as written in true modus ponens form, just like:
      Major Premise:
      If Robert Baty keeps beating his wife, he will go to jail.

      Is there anything wrong with that Major Premise? No! But, what good is it if the Minor Premise is not proven true?


      Minor Premise:
      Robert Baty keeps beating his wife.

      Conclusion:
      He will go to jail.

      Robert "deems" his minor premise true and he will not exert effort to prove it. Then I will "deem" my minor premise true and I don't have to exert any effort to prove it either.

      RB: That is, Terry can't bring himself to comprehend a hypothetical world where a "can't be wrong word of God" says everything began over a period of six days and where some things are more than a few thousand years old. Terry makes like he can't comprehend such a world.

      TB: Well, I suggested that Robert re-write his argument so that people won't have to guess if he is in imaginary world or in the real world. I suggested that he re-write it so that we won't all have to add imaginations to it to make it "true" when it is really just true in imaginary or hypothetical world. But, will Robert listen? No! He has an idol, his DAGON of GRAS, and he wants to pretend with it like the Philistines did with their version of DAGON. Well, I'm not in for imaginary games where I have to guess when Robert is talking about reality or when he has jumped back to "hypothetical world". I'd just as soon that Robert deal with reality and talk straight about the issue of whether his GRAS actually is something he can prove on each part of the minor premise. If not, then chunk it, and write a new one he can prove and defend. We are tired of Robert's "logorrhea".

      RB: That being the case, Terry is simply not able to comprehend that in such a world that he can't comprehend there are some who, contrary to what the word of God means and the existence of some things more than a few thousand years old, they interpret God's word to mean that nothing is more than a few thousand years old.

      TB: Here we notice Robert changes from "the word of God SAYS" to "the word of God MEANS". Shouldn't you change your GRAS argument accordingly? As it is, we are having to 'imagine a world" where this is what you mean, and it would be so much better to adjust your argument to say what you mean without us having to guess and imagine. If I were Robert, I would chunk the silly GRAS argument as a very poorly worded argument where Robert was hoping we would "imagine" his thinking in his world for proper understanding (according to him). It would be better to chunk that poor means of communication, and state what you mean up front.

      Robert's proposed world conflicts with his other world, the one where people believe in "empirical evidence" as interpreted by naturalists as the final word on "real world evidence". They don't agree with God creating everything over a period of six days. They believe that the word of God can be wrong and IS wrong.

      Robert wants to play footsy with two opposite world-views and pick and choose when he wants to believe God's word and when he wants to believe the naturalists' interpretation of empirical evidence. He cannot have it both ways. Therefore, His GRAS argument is a worthless piece of JUNK.

      In the real world God's word does indeed conflict with the world that says everything began over a period of billions of years. Even Robert's GRAS argument disagrees with the two worlds. Robert's position holds the following conflicting views:

      1. God's word can't be wrong.
      2. God's word says "everything began over a period of six days".
      3. Empirical evidence says differently but does not matter here.
      4. Empirical evidence only matters about how long ago the 6 days occurred.

      Robert cannot harmonize his two different worlds. Robert needs to decide if God's word can be wrong or if the interpretation of empirical evidence can be wrong when there is obvious conflict like this.

      Robert needs to decide which world he wants to settle in because he cannot consistently be in both conflicting worlds at the same time without conflict:

      His errors and conflicts really propose:

      1. Some thing is more than a few thousand years old, as interpreted by naturalists and those influenced by naturalistic premises.
      2. God's word says "everything began over a period of six days".
      3. Those six days could have occurred millions of years ago or billions of years ago.
      4. I can believe all three items without conflict with either God's word or the "empirical evidence".

      But, the ones who say that something is more than a few thousand years old also contend that everything did NOT begin over a period of six days at any time, and that Adam was not formed within days of Light and the Sun, Moon, and stars. Therefore, Robert can "imagine" a world of no conflict, but he cannot prove there is indeed a valid world in which to believe both viewpoints.

      Robert has the following problems:

      1. In hypothetical world there are those who claim the earth is billions of years old. Are they right or wrong?
      2. In hypothetical world there are also those who claim the substance of the earth could be much older than when God took that substance and arranged the world a few thousand years ago. Are they right or wrong?
      3. In hypothetical world there are those who claim that the substance of all physical things began existence a few thousand years ago? Are they right or wrong?
      4. In hypothetical world there are those who claim that "everything began over a period of billions of years". Are they right or wrong?
      5. In hypothetical world there are those who claim that "everything began over a period of six days". Are they right or wrong?

      When will Robert set his hands to resolve these problems and come out of hypothetical world to tell us the truth about the real world?

      Further, since the DAGON of GRAS argument proposes "that hypothetical world" and that hypothetical world is in conflict, how can it be true and sound?

      The problem with Robert's "hypothetical world" is that it conflicts with ALL views. There are no atheists or Bible believers who believe in Robert's GRAS argument. Robert is the only man on earth, so far as I know, that believes his GRAS argument is correct and well-stated.

      Robert's argument needs to be dumped. It is a piece of JUNK.

      RB: That's the substance of the major premise of the "Goliath of GRAS"; a hypothetical world beyond the mental grasp of Terry to comprehend.

      TB: Well, there's your trouble. Nobody but Robert can understand it. Therefore, he needs to chunk it and put another on the level where everyone can grasp it. Right now, Robert is depending on all of us using our imagination that his actual words do not create for us. Robert needs to chunk the imagination-dependent-GRAS-argument and start over with an argument where his actual words create the truths he wants to convey.

      RB: Others are not so mentally challenged (e.g., "retarded") and clearly discern that in such a world the interpretation that nothing is more than a few thousand years old is wrong.

      TB: Can you name one other person who understands and agrees with this GRAS argument entirely, besides yourself?

      RB: If Terry can study on that a while (it appears he's been studying me quite a bit lately), perhaps he can bring himself to comprehend such a world as proposed in my major premise of the "Goliath of GRAS" and he can then graduate to a further discussion of the minor premise.

      TB: Well, since the GRAS argument does not say or imply that we should "imagine" it a certain way, then I would suggest that you insert into the argument the following for better and more accurate clarity:


      The "Goliath of Imaginary GRAS"

      Major premise:

      > If (A) God's word (the text) hypothetically can be imagined to say
      > everything began over a period
      > of six days, and

      > if (B) God's word is interpreted by
      > some to imaginarily mean it was six 24-hour
      > days occurring a few thousand
      > years ago, and

      > if (C) there is imaginary empirical
      > evidence that some thing is
      > actually in imaginary world much older than a
      > few thousand years,

      > then (D) the imaginary interpretation of
      > the imaginary text by some may be imagined to be wrong.

      THAT would be a more accurate way to word what you are asking us to "imagine" in another world.

      Problems with his present faulty GRAS wording:

      If God's word does not say everything began over a period of six days, then
      Robert's major and minor premises are based upon a falsehood. Robert will claim
      this antecedent is true in his minor premise. He will have to prove this claim.
      If he does not, then his argument is faulty from the start. But, he runs into
      the additional problem that his claim for the text of God's word is at odds
      with another part of his premise. He claims his "text" "can't be wrong" in
      saying "everything began over a period of six days", but he relies upon
      "empirical evidence" interpreters who will not agree with his premise that the
      text can't be wrong and that "everything (light, big bang, and man) began over
      a period of six days". So, his GRAS argument is a mess.

      Atheists who try to be honest see Robert's argument as a piece of worthless junk. It has been noted by
      some of the worst anti-creationists as a verbose piece of junk.

      1) Lenny Flank (anti-creationist) said in vulgarity:

      As will be crashingly clear to anyone who reads the archives, Baty's getting
      booted had nothing at all whatsoever to do in any way shape or form with his
      views (indeed, he's so gd obtuse in his verbiage that it's hard to even
      figure out what the h__l his views ARE). I don't give a rat's a___ if he's a
      YEC, OEC or whatever.
      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DebunkCreation/message/114000

      2) Dave Olderidge commented regarding Robert's GRAS argument:

      The language is turgid, loaded with assumptions, and just plain
      difficult to comprehend.
      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DebunkCreation/message/113977

      3) Michael E. Suttkus II observed Robert as one who:

      suffers from GMS (Gramatical Multiplication
      Syndrome), also known as logorhea. While the disease is curable in
      some instances, I fear Baty's case is terminal.
      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DebunkCreation/message/113948

      I believe "logorrhea is a very good word for Robert Baty's idolatrous work,
      the Dagon of GRAS.

      4) Jeff Fortune wrote:

      It seems to me that Robert's main point is that there is
      scientific evidence that YEC is bunk.

      No arguments from anyone here.

      Robert:

      1) Are you an OEC?
      2) If so, do you claim it is based on science?
      3) If so, can you present the scientific theory of old-earth creation?

      There - if that isn't on-topic for the list, I don't know what is.

      J http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DebunkCreation/message/113923

      TB: The funny thing about Robert's attempt to sell his argument on that atheistic
      site is that they all recognized it was just a bunch of junk. They did not
      believe he had any "scientific" and "empirical evidence" for Old Earth
      Creationism either.

      They told him to quit promoting his religious junk. Todd Greene found Robert
      to be a "useful idiot". What does that mean? It means
      that Todd thinks Robert is an "idiot" for even believing in OEC, but Todd can
      "use" Robert as a very "useful idiot" in trying to undermine the Bible and
      creationists in general, but YEC in particular. Doing so will also help
      strengthen his case also against God. Even OEC is not something you can prove
      using the "scientific method".

      Nor is the religion of atheism something you can prove using the "scientific method". But,
      Robert doesn't mind if an atheist uses him to undermine those who believe God and that God
      could indeed make a full-grown man and world a few thousand years ago.

      Now get this: Robert says the text of God's word "can't be wrong" about an
      Old Earth Creation that took place in six day a long time ago. Todd Greene
      thinks Robert is an idiot. There is no way that Robert or Piasan (a science
      teacher) can talk about an Old Earth Creation event in six days. So, Piasan and
      Robert have left the "scientific method" if they talk about "GOD" creating
      anything at anytime.

      Robert's GRAS argument is foolish from the start.


      Remember, Robert said:

      I'm under no obligation to present any proof regarding the minor premise as to
      these discussions.

      TB: Well, then he cannot drag out the argument of GRAS and claim it is true. If
      Robert persists in that "unseemly behavior",
      then ADAM2 is true and neutralizes any odors coming from Robert's piece of work
      and renders it tame and lame.

      Robert continues:

      > if (B) God's word is interpreted by
      > some to mean it was six 24-hour
      > days occurring a few thousand
      > years ago, and

      TB: Well, Robert has two things going here: 1) What God's word (the text)
      actually says, and Robert contends it actually says "everything began over a
      period of six days", and 2) the interpretation of it meaning a 'few thousand
      years ago". Now, anybody can see that Robert has a real problem. He is using
      'empirical evidence" to defeat only "young-earth-creationism", but that kind
      of "evidence" does not allow even 'old earth creationism". So, his whole
      argument is worthless.

      RB: > if (C) there is empirical
      > evidence that some thing is
      > actually much older than a
      > few thousand years,

      TB: The problem with that idea is that Empirical Evidence cannot be used to
      agree with "creation" by GOD at ANY time. The very premise of the scientific
      method is wholly naturalistic. THAT is WHY it takes so much time. When you get
      to assume that no almighty God was involved, you can assume as much time as you
      want to imagine.

      RB:> then (D) the interpretation of
      „« the text by some is wrong.

      TB: So, the major premise only hypothetical like: "If Robert Baty is mentally
      retarded, then his argument is likely retarded as well'. As a hypothetical, it
      is indeed in valid form, but the minor premise claims the antecedent is actually
      true. Robert makes it useless by claiming he can merely "deem" the minor
      premise is true without having to prove it actually IS true. His argument is
      just a worthless piece of junk.

      RB: Minor premise:

      > (A) God's word (the text) says
      > everything began over a period
      > of six days, and

      TB: I say that Robert cannot prove this is true. Robert has said he will not
      prove it either. Therefore, as far as we are concerned, Robert does not even
      believe his premise is true on this matter. That means his whole argument is
      indeed just a worthless piece of junk.

      > (B) God's word is interpreted by
      > some to mean it was six 24-hour
      > days occurring a few thousand
      > years ago, and

      TB: Without the A being true B becomes immaterial.

      > (C) there is empirical
      > evidence that some thing is
      > actually much older than a few
      > thousand years.

      TB: There is "interpretation" that something is actually much older than a few
      thousand years, but that interpretation is subject to questions about the
      premises from which they judged and interpreted that piece of empirical
      evidence.

      Conclusion:

      > (D) The interpretation of the
      > text by some is wrong.

      TB: The error of Robert's GRAS has been clearly demonstrated. His conclusion is
      wrong because his premises are wrong. I have made my ADAM2 argument like
      Robert's GRAS to show that anybody can construct a "valid" argument in form that
      is unsound and untrue in parts. The conclusion of the argument can only be true
      if each part of the premise is true. I have even added three more such
      arguments: 400lb Robert, RMR, and Abiogenesis. I can pretend all is true and say
      so just as Robert, and I also can do like Robert and claim that I don't have to
      prove anything is true, but I can say it is true regardless, just as he does
      with his silly GRAS argument.

      Stipulated definition:

      > Valid - If the premises are true,
      > the conclusion follows.

      Terry has indicated that he joins with me in accepting the fact that if the
      premises of the "Goliath of GRAS" are true, its conclusion will follow as true
      as a necessary consequence of the truth of the premises.
      TB: By extension, I have also shown that if (since) the premises are not true,
      the conclusion does not follow. Robert has already said that the premises do not
      have to be true for the argument to be valid. Gras is one of those cases. It is
      valid in form, but untrue in premise. Therefore, is is an unsound modus ponens
      argument.

      RB: Using the term "valid" saves time, if one understands how that term is used
      in describing a formal argument such as the "Goliath of GRAS".

      TB: We understand you to be saying that your form is valid. We got that. We also
      know your premise content is not true. Therefore the argument is unsound and
      worthless.


      RB: > The "Goliath of GRAS" major premise is true.

      TB: Readers are to make note here that Robert affirmed his GRAS argument was
      "valid", but is now going to determine if his premise is true. Valid form is one
      thing, true premises is another thing. He admits that a valid form can contain
      untrue premises. The major premise is declared true by the minor premise. So,
      whatever he says in the major premise has to be true if the minor premise is
      going to truly affirm the truth of the antecedent of the major premise. Robert
      is here declaring his major premise is true. He says that even though he knows
      it is false. But, let us watch him carefully.
      We find this part of Robert's presentations to be faulty because of the
      incompleteness of his definitions.

      RB: Here are the stipulated definitions:

      God's word - communication from God
      in words that cannot be wrong.

      TB: Problem: Robert does not believe there IS communication from God that can't
      be wrong. He does not believe it exists in any obtainable form today. He doesn't
      have God's word (according to his own point of view), and he cannot know if it
      says anything, much less if it says "everything began over a period of six
      days". When he affirms in his minor premise that "God's word" actually says
      "everything began over a period of six days", then he has to be able to both
      prove his source actually is "God's word" and not some corrupted and
      misrepresentation of God's word, and he must show that God's word says or
      necessarily implies that everything, not just physical things, began to exist in
      six days. Robert has a huge task ahead of him, and he has already set up for
      failure. We need him to further stipulate and define his terms so that we know
      what he is calling "God's word" and where it says "everything began over a
      period of six days".

      RB: Says - taking God's word at face
      value, God's word can be reasonably
      determined to literally mean that...

      TB: Robert said on his M&B list: "What men have delivered to me regarding the
      Bible may be wrong". (Message 18750). So, Robert cannot include the Bible in
      his stipulated definitions of "God's word" and "what it supposedly says" that
      "can't be wrong". Before we can know what "God's word" is, that is "not
      something delivered by men that may be wrong", then we cannot take it "at face
      value" because Robert has not told us where it is so that we can read it and
      take it "at face value". He must show us WHAT the word of God is, and what it
      says, before we can "take it at face value" for what it supposedly says. Robert
      seems to have ruled out the Bible as something that "can't be wrong". He says
      the Bible "may be wrong". So, we still need Robert to tell us WHAT God's word
      is, and give us the reference to what it says that "can't be wrong". If he does
      not identify the text, we cannot know whether it really "says" what Robert says
      it says, and then we cannot understand why Robert says something that he says
      "can't be wrong" actually "may be wrong".

      So, we need further information from Robert before we can grant that his
      "stipulated definitions" are adequate at all.


      RB: Everything - all things of our
      physical reality (e.g., universe,
      earth, moon, stars, plants,
      animals, man)

      TB: We cannot grant, without seeing a "text that can't be wrong", whether it
      says "everything", and whether it means only the physical things of our physical
      reality.
      Further, Robert's premise says "everything began" in six days. We need to see
      the "text that cannot be wrong" saying "everything began in six days". If
      Robert cannot show us the "text that cannot be wrong" showing that it does
      indeed say "everything began in six days", then we cannot grant Robert to have
      give us adequate stipulated definitions.

      "Began" is another term he needs to define. Did everything "begin to exist" in
      six days? And, does is say and mean "everything" only of a physical nature began
      to exist in six days? Robert needs to clarify all these matters for us before we
      can grant that his premise is true.


      RB: Interpreted - a belief as to the
      meaning, which meaning may be
      wrong.

      TB: Now, if there really is a text that cannot be wrong that actually says
      everything began in six days, that means that man himself began in six days of
      the matter and light that came into existence. There is no scientist who is
      going to grant Robert the privilege of saying the "text cannot be wrong" on this
      matter. Thus, no matter how the text is interpreted as to how long ago (6
      thousand or 6 billion years ago), Robert has said it "can't be wrong on this one
      matter at least: "the text can't be wrong that everything BEGAN in six days".
      None will agree that life began in six days of the big bang. They will quickly
      be at odds with Robert's premise that there is a "Text" of "God's word" that
      "can't be wrong" that says "everything began in six days". So, Robert will be
      at odds with the very people that tell him something really is much older than a
      few thousand years.

      Robert also has a faulty premise because it assumes that there is no faulty
      interpretation of empirical evidence, just faulty interpretation of a text that
      can't be wrong as to how long ago "everything began in six days". Robert is
      already in a pickle. He needs to take responsibility and further define his
      terms.


      RB: Few thousand - not more than 100,000.
      TB: That is relative. But, this part is really irrelevant until Robert shows us
      the "text that cannot be wrong" that says "everything began in six days".
      RB: Empirical evidence that... - some
      thing really is more than a few
      thousand years old and we can so
      determine from the evidence
      independent from the text.

      TB: Here Robert did not define "empirical evidence". We need to know what is
      considered empirical evidence, and with what assumptions was/is it to be
      examined in order to have absolute truth as to what it says or necessarily
      implies.

      He needs to define "really is". Is it "really is" according naturalistic
      assumption? Is it only "really is" as to perception and interpretation?

      He needs to show that what "really is" does not conflict with the "text that
      cannot be wrong" and how what "really is" and "cannot be wrong" are in agreement
      that "everything began in six days". If he does not do so, then his GRAS
      argument is "really" wrong and worthless.

      RB: If there are additional terms/phrases that are shown to be subject to some
      misunderstanding, additional stipulated definitions will be provided.

      TB: Robert LIED right here. He never would cooperate to give those additional
      definitions.

      RB: Here are my affirmations, unrebutted by Terry W. Benton,

      TB: Correction. I have fully rebutted Robert¡¦s silly affirmations.


      RB: though he has made
      quite clear that he doesn't agree:

      TB: Of course I disagree. He said himself that he cannot prove the whole of his
      argument. So, it is indeed a worthless piece of junk.

      RB: (1)

      The "Goliath of GRAS" is constructed in such a way
      that if its premises are true then its conclusion
      necessarily follows as true.

      TB: That¡¦s the problem. The premises are NOT true.

      RB: (2)

      The "Goliath of GRAS" major premise is true, by
      definition and simple force and effect of the
      principles of sound reasoning.

      TB: Nope, they are only hypothetically true, just as the hypothetical: "If
      Robert Baty is mentally retarded, then his argument is likely retarded as
      well". That major premise is ""true" in the same way.

      RB: (3)

      The "Goliath of GRAS" MINOR PREMISE is deemed to be true,

      TB: Merely "deeming" something to be true does not make it true. Therefore,
      Robert loses the argument that his "deeming" is good enough to prove his minor
      premise actually is true. I can deem my minor premise is true:

      "Robert Baty is mentally retarded". So what?


      RB:... for
      the purposes intended,

      TB: I can say "Robert Baty is mentally retarded" for the purposes intended. So
      what?


      RB: .. by stipulation of the
      affected parties and the failure of the
      opposition to present any scientific rebuttal;


      TB: I can say "Robert Baty is mentally retarded" by stipulation of the
      affected parties and the failure of the
      opposition (Robert) to present any scientific rebuttal;


      RB:...the opposition having been reduced to
      admitting that their best position against
      the evidence of age is:

      TB: I can say "Robert Baty is mentally retarded", the opposition (Robert)
      having been reduced to admitting that his best position against
      the evidence of mental retardation is his unproven assertion.

      Robert goes on to claim:
      > All the evidence independent of the
      > text showing that some things are
      > more than a few thousand years
      > old is just an indication that God
      > can make things look older than
      > they are,

      TB: Or, the evidence can be misinterpreted. We want Robert to prove all points.


      RB: and we've got our
      > interpretation of the text as to
      > the real world and that trumps
      > any real world evidence to the
      > contrary.

      TB: Robert Baty also "has his interpretation of the text
      as to the real world evidence supporting God involved ever at all,
      and yet for some strange reason the real world evidence is allowed
      to be the measure without God ever.

      Furthermore, his source trumps God "creating everything in over a period of six
      days" EVER.

      Yet, for some strange reason his interpretation of the text trumps any real
      world evidence to the contrary. His interpretation of the text is that God¡¦s
      word cannot be wrong about a six day creation of all things over hundreds of
      thousands of years ago, and yet, he does not allow that those who interpret
      "empirical evidence" do not agree with him that "everything began over a
      period of six days" EVER.

      Man did not begin over a period of six days of the Big Bang. Therefore, Robert
      is doing the very thing he accuses of YEC. He has his interpretation, and that
      trumps any evidence of real world evidence to the contrary. This is the total
      hypocrisy of Robert Baty's stupid argument.

      RB: As to (1):

      In previous messages it was demonstrated that the "Goliath of GRAS" argument is
      in a form known as modus ponens. It is a form recognized by legitimate
      scholars, students of sound reasoning, and folks possessed of common sense who
      can demonstrate an understanding of such which guarantees in cases such as the
      "Goliath of GRAS" that if the premises are true then the conclusion will follow
      as necessarily true from the truth of the premises.

      TB: Valid form is not the same as true in premise and content and conclusion.
      Otherwise, in previous messages it was demonstrated that the "Robert s Mentally
      Retarded" argument is
      in a form known as modus ponens. It is a form recognized by legitimate
      scholars, students of sound reasoning, and folks possessed of common sense who
      can demonstrate an understanding of such which guarantees in cases such as the
      "RMR" that if the premises are true then the conclusion will follow
      as necessarily true from the truth of the premises.


      RB: Notice, it is if the premises are true, not if I can prove the premises true
      to
      Terry W. Benton's satisfaction.

      TB: Likewise, notice, it is if the premises of RMR are true, not if I can prove
      the premises true to
      Robert Baty's satisfaction.


      RB: The term used to save time and space in discussing the nature/form of the
      argument is "valid" (e.g., valid - an argument having a form such that if its
      premises are true its conclusion will follow from the truth of its premises).

      TB: The term used in RMR to save time and space in discussing the nature/form
      of the
      argument is "valid" (e.g., valid - an argument having a form such that if its
      premises are true its conclusion will follow from the truth of its premises).


      RB: As to (2):

      Despite Terry's false claims otherwise, "likely" the resuts of his ungodly
      motivations, the stipulated definitions are sufficient to properly address the
      issue for whom the "Goliath of GRAS" was intended and guarantee the truth of the
      hypothetical/conditional major premise based on such definitions and the simple
      force and effect of the principles of sound reasoning.

      TB: Likewise, despite Robert's false claims otherwise, "likely" the resuts of
      his ungodly
      motivations, the stipulated definitions are sufficient to properly address the
      issue for whom the "Robert is Mentally Retarded Argument" was intended and
      guarantee the truth of the
      hypothetical/conditional major premise based on such definitions and the simple
      force and effect of the principles of sound reasoning.


      RB: This was demonstrated in earlier messages in that:

      > If God's word says everything began over
      > a period of six days, it cannot mean that
      > everything began within the last few
      > thousand years where some things
      > are more than a few thousand years
      > old.

      TB: But, likewise, if God¡¦s word says everything began over a period of six
      days, it cannot mean that it all began in six days at ANY time, no matter how
      long ago, if naturalistic science is the measure of truth and reality. And,
      likewise, if Robert is mentally retarded and cannot prove otherwise, it cannot
      prove he is actually quite sane and no mentally retarded.

      RB: > So, under such hypothesized
      > circumstances where some interpret
      > God's word to mean that nothing
      > is more than a few thousand years
      > old, such interpretation is wrong.

      TB: Likewise, under such hypothesized circumstances where some interpret God¡¦s
      word to mean that everything began over a period of six days much longer than a
      few thousand years ago, and such interpretation is counted false and wrong also
      where naturalistic science is the measure of truth and reality. And, if Robert
      is too mentally retarded to see this, then no one will be able to prove he is
      not mentally retarded.

      RB: As to (3):

      Promoters of the "Goliath of GRAS" as both valid and sound, accept the claims by
      some that:

      > God's word says everything began
      > over a period of six days.

      TB: The problem with that is that "empirical evidence" does not allow
      Robert's interpretation. Thus, Robert is guilty of the false circular reasoning
      that "I (Robert) have my interpretation and that trumps real world evidence to
      the contrary".

      RB: and

      > They interpret God's word to
      > mean that nothing is more
      > than a few thousand years old.

      TB: Robert has worded this incorrectly. Those who believe the GRAS argument
      accept the claim that:

      >The interpret God's word to
      >mean that everything is much older
      >than a few thousand years, and
      > was created in six days much longer ago than
      > a few thousand years ago.

      RB:
      Promoters of the "Goliath of GRAS" and the opposition for which it is intended,
      admit that there is evidence independent of the text of God's word indicating
      that some things are more than a few thousand years old.

      TB: That remains for Robert to prove.

      RB: The only issue as to the veracity of such evidence of age, for purposes of
      the
      "Goliath of GRAS", is the ability of the "Goliath of GRAS" opposition to present
      non-textual, sustainable rebuttal to the evidence of age.

      TB: That is false. Robert¡¦s own veracity is in question. He must show there is
      evidence of age that allows a six day creation of everything well over a few
      thousand years ago. He must show and present "non-textual, sustainable rebuttal
      to the evidence of age and whether it EVER happened in six days". Likewise, the
      issue for purposes of RMR is the ability of the RMR opposition to present
      evidence rebuttal that he is not mentally retarded.

      RB: To date, the best effort by the "Goliath of GRAS" opposition has been such
      as:

      > The evidence of age shows that
      > God is able to make something
      > look older than it is, and I've got
      > my interpretation of the text of
      > God's word regarding the age
      > of stuff and that trumps any
      > non-textual evidence to the
      > contrary.

      TB: To date the best effort the Dagon of GRAS position has been:

      >The evidence of age shows that God was able to
      >make something look like it was spread out over billions
      >of years when it all really happened within six days, and
      >I (Robert) have got my interpretation of the text of God's word
      >of all things created in six days and that trumps
      >any non-textual evidence to the contrary.

      Also,

      To date the best effort by the opposition to RMR (Robert Mentally Retarded) has
      been:

      >I (Robert) think I am sane and non-retarded
      >and that trumps all other evidence to the contrary.


      RB: Such a "default" position is quite understandable and, effectively, gives up
      the
      fundamental claim of young-earth creation-science and, effectively, admits that
      the claim that nothing is more than a few thousand years old is a theological,
      not scientific claim.

      TB: We want to know how Robert can claim GOD ever did anything? When does he
      reach a point that he does not agree with "scientific" claims? Is the
      "scientific" claim correct about origins? Or, is it not also "naturalistic"
      religious philosophy guiding the only conclusions their religious faith can
      reach?

      RB: Is the minor premise true?

      Some think so, some don't!

      TB: Therefore, unless Robert proves it IS true, it is as worthless as me saying
      my minor premise: "Robert is mentally retarded" is true. Is it true? Some
      think so, some don't.

      RB: There is no legitimate doubt but that there is clear and compelling evidence
      that the "constitutent elements" of the minor premise are true.

      TB: There is no legitimate doubt but that there is clear and compelling evidence
      that the "constitutent elements" of the minor premise are false. Robert has
      made no attempt to prove his argument is true in all its constituent parts.
      His failure demands that he prove every part of his premises. Otherwise, my
      premise that he is indeed mentally retarded can be deemed to be true without
      lifting a hand to prove it is true until someone wants to prove it is not true.

      RB: Some are convinced thereby; others are not!

      Regardless of where one comes down on that issue, the facts remains the
      "ungetoverable":

      TB: Robert cannot get over the fact that some believe he is ungetoverably
      mentally retarded. I can get over his argument by simply posing my counter
      ADAM2 argument beside his GRAS argument and playing the same game he plays.
      Robert cannot get over that. All of my argument as "ungetoverable".

      RB: > The "Goliath of GRAS" is a valid
      > statement of the issue facing
      > promoters of young-earth
      > creation-science

      TB: It poses only an issue of the integrity of he text of God's word, posing a
      false argument and then using "empirical evidence" in an arbitrary way while
      not believing it in all ways.


      RB:....who propose
      > that there is an infallible "God's
      > word" that says everything
      > began over a period of six
      > days

      TB: These even smacks of a belief in an Old Earth Creation event of six days.
      So, Robert puts himself in a real bind while pretending only to effect the YEC
      person.

      RB:...and interpret that word
      > to mean nothing is more than
      > a few thousand years old.

      TB: Robert's argument only puts HIM in a ridiculous light. He is obviously in
      conflict with his own claim about the six days of creation. He wants to put is
      further back, but the accepted "empirical evidence" does not allow
      "everything to begin over a period of six days" no matter how far back Robert
      wants to go. He is in conflict with BOTH the word of God AND the "so-called
      empirical evidence".

      RB: It's not the only such argument that may be presented to properly frame the
      fundamental issue, but it is one such argument; one that puts at risk the human
      interpretation of the text rather than putting at risk the veracity of the text
      itself.

      TB: No, the GRAS argument is actually so silly that it does call into question
      the very veracity of the text by depending on the naturalists' interpretation
      of empirical evidence and placing those interpretations above the text of God's
      word. That makes his argument a worthless piece of junk.

      RB: The "Family of GRAS" arguments are available either way one wants to go on
      that
      issue.

      TB: It goes nowhere but in the direction of serving the atheists as a "useful
      idiot" type argument.
      Useful Idiot=The term is now used more broadly to describe someone who is
      perceived to be manipulated by a political movement, terrorist group, hostile
      government, or business, whether or not the group is Communist in nature.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot

      By extension it means someone like Robert who serves the atheists well and is
      manipulated by atheists to try to undermine Christians and the word of God.


      RB: Either way, the ultimate results is the same. That is, the best effort by
      young-earth creation-science promoters to rebut the evidence of age effectively
      gives up any scientific claims by young-earth creation-science promoters who are
      reduced to admitting that their fundamental position is briefly summed up as:

      > The evidence of age shows that
      > God is able to make something
      > look older than it is, and I've got
      > my interpretation of the text of
      > God's word regarding the age
      > of stuff and that trumps any
      > non-textual evidence to the
      > contrary.

      TB: As we have seen, this does not help Robert at all. The atheists look at him
      as a useful idiot. His GRAS argument also shows the best effort by
      old-earth creation-science promoters to rebut the evidence of age effectively
      gives up any scientific claims by old-earth creation-science promoters who are
      reduced to admitting that their fundamental position is briefly summed up as:

      > The evidence of age shows that
      > God is able to make something
      > look older than it is, making something created in six days look as though it
      took billions of years for everything to develop, and I've got
      > my interpretation of the text of
      > God's word regarding the age
      > of stuff and how long it took to develop and that trumps any
      > non-textual evidence to the
      > contrary.

      So, Robert's GRAS argument is worthless. It tries to depend on "science" and
      the naturalistic "scientific method" while denying that God did everything in
      six days at ANY time.

      RB: Informed folks have had that figured out for a long time. The courts have
      had
      it figured out for a long time.

      TB: If one relies upon the courts, they have also figured (falsely) out that
      everything, if explained by naturalism, did not happen over a period of six days
      EVER, and that God cannot ever be considered as a real creator at any time.
      Robert has only given himself to the role of "useful idiot".

      RB: The "Goliath of GRAS" is a simple, logically valid way to frame the issue
      unequivocally, with purpose and consequence.

      TB: Wrong. The Dagon of GRAS very illogical, and complex, and full of
      self-contradiction. It is very full of equivocation with regard to meaning,
      purpose and consequence. It is very poorly written. Logorrhea comes to mind: an
      excessive flow of words; prolixity; wordiness; tumidity; incessant or compulsive
      talkativeness; wearisome volubility.
      from logos + ending from diarrhea. Thus, a form of diarrhea of words.

      RB: Why can't Terry W. Benton accept that, regardless of his obvious opinion
      that he
      may want his readers to reject its simplicity, its validity, the truth of its
      major premise and the deemed truth of its minor premise?

      TB: Why should anyone accept Robert's silly Dagon of GRAS? It is simply not
      worthy of belief. Only atheists like Todd Greene find it to be a useful idiot
      type argument. No Christian, whether YEC or OEC, thinks it can be held to be
      credible, and be willing to help Robert try to sustain it in all it¡¦s parts..

      RB: Terry has clearly written and acted in such a way to demonstrate the "why"
      of
      that. It is because it is "likely" that he is acting on ungodly motives.

      TB: Actually, I have clearly demonstrated that my motives are good and my
      arguments against Robert's silly Dagon of GRAS are indeed correct. When Robert
      would not "further define" as he promised, and his tract record showed that he
      would not in the future "further define" his terms, then it was right for me to
      pull in a "further definition¡¨ from him on other lists.

      All we have accomplished so far is to see Robert state his GRAS argument over
      and over, fail and refuse to answer the relevant questions about his terms, and
      fail to prove, even claiming he does not have to prove, his minor premise, all
      the while asserting that it is true and sound anyway. Meanwhile, I have composed
      similar
      arguments, claimed they are true, so that his GRAS is neutered and skinned,
      lying stinkily on the ground with no life in it. There is remains a worthless
      piece of junk.

      I wish that Robert would repent of all his ungodliness.

      Sincerely,
      Terry W. Benton
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.