| It is important to remember that Jerry McDonald simply started this debate and, nice guy that I am, I followed his lead. It is a worthwhile exercise. However, there were no agreed upon logistical details common to formal debates; no agreed upon proposition( s). Jerry wrote in his fourth affirmative: The reader is the judge as to who has fulfilled his duties or not. I'll leave that to the reader. I agree, in relevant part, that the readers are to decide for themselves what to make of this exercise. For myself, I make out that I've won. While Jerry McDonald made several references to his argument in his fourth affirmative, I did not notice him actually restating it or his resolution. Here from Jerry McDonald's first affirmative is his proposition which he claims we would have if we had agreed upon a proposition: Resolved: The Bible teaches that God created all things in six literal 24 hour days. Jerry McDonald then presents his argument in his first affirmative to "back up his claim", which is as follows: All total situations, the constituent elements of which are factual, are total situations which are true. The total situation described by my proposition is a total situation the constituent elements of which are factual. Therefore, the total situation described by my proposition is a total situation which is true. One problem is that we didn't agree on a proposition, and I don't agree that the one Jerry McDonald came up with would be the one we need to talk about. I need not quibble about Jerry McDonald's argument. I have, in this discussion, relied upon it more than he has. Another problem is that Jerry McDonald's proposition does not represent the relevant total situation. The total relevant situation involves both the text and the real world evidence. Contrary to Jerry McDonald's claim, I have dealt with his argument as I should have, given my time, talent and interest. I was pretty good at doing so as well. For sake of this discussion, which is to deal with the fundamental real world "young-earth, creation-science" claim that nothing is more than a few thousand years old, I am not disputing that the text says what Jerry McDonald says it says or that some interpret that to mean that nothing is more than a few thousand years old. My fundamental approach to the total situation is to test the textual claims as made by Jerry McDonald against the real world evidence, proposing that if the earth moves about the sun instead of the sun moving about the earth, then the geocentric claims for the text are in error, without regard to any fuss about what the text might otherwise mean. So it is that my "Goliath of GRAS" provides the simple, logically valid framework for considering the issue and proposing that, since we agree that the "Word of God" cannot be wrong, then, if some thing really is more than a few thousand years old and we can so determine it from the real world evidence, then it is our geocentric interpretation. ..oops... our nothing is more than a few thousand years old interpretation of the text that is wrong. In his fourth affirmative, Jerry McDonald continues to attack the validity of my "Goliath of GRAS", by use of an equivocation regarding the meaning and significance of "valid", at least in part. Following is an unanswered presentation rebutting Jerry McDonald's claims and further establishing the validity of my "Goliath of GRAS" argument: ----Begin Presentation- --------- Here's another logic expert who recognizes the simple, logical validity of my "Goliath of GRAS": -------- http://www.philosop hypages.com/ lg/e10b.htm (excerpts) Testing for Validity (T)he validity of any argument depends solely upon its logical form...Since the argument form reliably leads from premises of a certain general structure to a conclusion of a different structure, every substitution- instance of that argument form must express a valid argument. Modus Ponens Consider, for example, what happens when we construct a truth-table that lists each of the four combinations of truth- values that the component statements could exhibit in the simple argument form that we identified at the top of this page. (Go to link for truth-table graphics-RLBaty) This truth-table shows that (no matter what statements we substitute for p and q ) both of the premises of the argument will be true only on the first line (when both component statements are true). But on that line, the conclusion is also true, so the inference is valid. Whenever we come across an argument that shares this basic structure, we can be perfectly certain of its logical validity. In fact, arguments of this form are so common that the form itself has a name, Modus Ponens, which we will usually abbreviate as M.P. ------------ From Wikipedia: The argument form has two premises. Yes, my "Goliath of GRAS" has two premises. The first premise is the "if"-"then" or conditional claim, namely that P implies Q. Yes, that's the character of the first premise in my "Goliath of GRAS" The second premise is that P, the antecedent of the conditional claim, is true. Yes, that's what the second premise in my "Goliath of GRAS" states. From these two premises it can be logically concluded that Q, the consequent of the conditional claim, must be true as well. Yes, the conclusion of my "Goliath of GRAS" would be logically concluded if the two premises are true. (T)he validity of modus ponens tells us that the conclusion must be true if all the premises are true. In demonstration of the above and Jerry McDonald's error on this most simple of issues, I present for ready reference 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. (The first premise is the "if"-"then" or conditional claim, namely that P implies Q.) 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. (The second premise is that P, the antecedent of the conditional claim, is true.) Conclusion: The interpretation of the text by some is wrong. (From the two premises it can be logically concluded that Q, the consequent of the conditional claim, must be true as well.) ------------ --End Presentation- ------- Ultimately, it appears that Jerry McDonald finds himself forced to falsely claim that the "Goliath of GRAS" is invalid because he simply has yet to accept the proposition that the real world evidence may be used to test the veracity of real world claims such as the sun moves about the Earth instead of the earth moving about the sun or that nothing is more than a few thousand years old. A close reading of Jerry McDonald's writing in this debate will show that he appears to flip-flop on the issue, but when pressed he appears to also clearly default into claiming that his interpretation of the Bible regarding the real world cannot be falsified with real world evidence and, in implicitly acknowledging that there is real world evidence that some thing is more than a few thousand years old, he will simply invoke the "apparent age" doctrine to deny out of hand the veracity of such real world evidence. That is what is important to note; very important. So, I repeat, I find that Jerry McDonald has yet to accept the prospect that his real world claim that nothing is more than a few thousand years old is subject to falsification with reference to the real world evidence. That's the real basis upon which he and others attempt to deny that my "Goliath of GRAS" is valid. They simply can't stand the prospect of losing the argument over the evidence of age based on the real world evidence. They implicitly acknowledge that the real world evidence really does show that some thing is more than a few thousand years old and they have no real world evidentiary rebuttal - only the invocation of the theological doctrine of "apparent age". That's why I keep saying I win; because I do. Jerry McDonald has been forced, whether he accepts the conclusion or not, to give up "young-earth, creation-science" (which I did explain to him-elsewhere, notwithstanding that, as has been noted on other matters, Jerry hasn't been paying close enough attention). The concepts involved in "young-earth, creation-science" is that nothing is more than a few thousand years old, that's what the real world evidence shows, and that such real world claims are subject to falsification with reference to the real world evidence notwithstanding the text of any religious writings. Jerry McDonald's invoking of the "apparent age" defense concedes that fundamental claim of "young-earth, creation- science" is wrong. According to the "apparent age" doctrine, the evidence, contrary to "young-earth, creation-science" , really does show that some thing is more than a few thousand years old. Why, in his fourth affirmative, is Jerry McDonald wanting to deal with the real world evidence? He's already made the convincing presentation that, to him, it doesn't really matter. Why doesn't the real world evidence matter to Jerry McDonald? Because, as he writes, The Bible falsifies any real world evidence to the contrary of what it teaches." By that, in the context of this discussion, Jerry McDonald has reference to his interpretation as to what the Bible teaches. In other words: My, Jerry McDonald's, interpretation of the Bible falsifies any real world evidence to the contrary. Quite understandable, and he's welcome to that position as far as this discussion is concerned. It is just very important that we all can agree on whether or not that is really where Jerry McDonald is standing; and it appears that it is. If that is not the case, I encourage Jerry McDonald to seriously consider his error regarding my "Goliath of GRAS" argument and accept the notion that: If some thing really is more than a few thousand years old, and we can so determine from the real world evidence, then any claim to the contrary is false, regardless of the source of such contrary claim. At that point, Jerry McDonald would be primed to actually deal with the real world evidence and try to show, from the real world evidence, why nothing is more than a few thousand years old; or at least successfully rebutting the affirmative claims as to specific "things". That's what the debate between Todd S. Greene and Jerry McDonald should be all about. Jerry McDonald's keeps demanding: "Show me the real world evidence." That's not my purpose in this discussion, nor is it my purpose to fuss over the text of the Bible. Neither is it necessary in this discussion. Jerry McDonald already implicitly concedes that there is, in fact, real world evidence that some things are more than a few thousand years old. He would not require his default "apparent age" doctrine if that were not the case. At the appropriate time, and, as presently considered, Jerry McDonald will be able to specifically and explicitly consider the real world evidence in a formal, in writing (or oral), for the record discussion with Todd S Greene as to the evidence of age. With reference to Todd S. Greene's position, Jerry McDonald in his fourth affirmative writes, in relevant part: His arguments... simply do not hold up. They have been answered. That's the dispute for Todd and Jerry to take up, hopefully with Jerry being willing to acknowledge that his claim that nothing is more than a few thousand years old is subject to falsification with reference to the real world evidence independent of any non-real world source for the claim. Todd's basic position, as announced on his own website as a challenge to such as Jerry McDonald, is almost identical to Jerry's. That is, Todd claims that no "young-earth, creation-science" claim can withstand real world scrutiny and sustain the proposition that nothing is more than a few thousand years old or, for sake of the discussion, that the earth and universe are less than 100,000 years old. That should just about cover the substance of Jerry McDonald's situation and more particularly his fourth affirmative. I look forward to Jerry's fifth presentation in which, he has announced, he will defend his claims and summarize the discussion. That should be a short fifth presentation, in my opinion. Properly considered, Jerry, upon serious reflection, might simply note that he cannot defend that which I have taken exception to, that my "Goliath of GRAS" is a valid argument for the purposes set forth, and that I, Robert Baty, win! If that is not what Jerry's fifth presentation looks like, in substance, then I guess I'll have to explain myself why that is the case in my fifth and final response. I'll leave it to readers to judge for themselves whether Jerry or I get our conclusions right, or if we are both wrong. For those interested, you are all welcome to take up more casual conversation regarding these matters on my little, public discussion list found at: http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/Maury_ and_Baty/ You don't have to be a member to view the archives or post messages. To post, you may use the "post" or "reply" icons or simply send an e-mail to: Maury_and_Baty@ yahoogroups. com Sincerely, Robert Baty |
| The McDonald-Baty Debate The Age of the Earth |
Baty's Fourth Negation
 |
| |
 |
| but try the spirits whether they are of God 1 Jno. 4:1 |