| I stated in my fourth affirmation that I intended to use this affirmation to defend my arguments and summarize the debate since Robert was going to get the last word. Robert thought that he would take advantage of me in that area and so he went on ahead and wrote his last negation without ever knowing what I was going to say in my fifth affirmation. He said that he was going to do it because we didn’t have any rules and he thought it might be kind of neat. 1. It isn’t kind of neat! Why? Because it unequivocally shows that Robert never had any intentions of responding to my fifth affirmative. 2. His fifth negation shows that he had planned all along to wait until my fifth affirmative was over to finally come out and respond to the arguments that I have been trying to get him to respond to all along. Well that one backfired in his face. Now I have his responses on record and I will now get the last word in this debate and respond to his fourth and fifth negations in this affirmative and rejoinder. I originally had this set up on my website that after his fourth negation, my fifth affirmation would follow, then his fifth negation. However, since he has seen fit to play this little game with me, I will change things, and put the link to his fourth negation after my fourth affirmation, then a link to his fifth negation after his fourth negation. This will give me the opportunity to place the link to my fifth affirmation after his fifth negation. This will give me the last word in this debate and I will be able to respond to those things that he had planned all along not to respond to until it was too late for me to do anything about it.
Robert complains because I took the lead and started this discussion without having an agreement on logistical details common to formal debates or propositions. Yes, I did! I got tired of his dragging his feet. I am a lot less tolerant of people like Robert than I was 10 to 15 years ago. Back then I would have haggled for months with an opponent over a proposition and rules. Today, I don’t have the patience that it takes to negotiate with someone like Robert. I tried, for several days, to get Robert to talk about propositions, but all he could talk about was the validity of his so- called “Goliath of GRAS” argument. He asked me if I thought it was valid, and I told him that I didn’t and gave him the reasons why. He then started in on his usual, Robert Baty, repetition of claiming that it was valid and that I had to agree with him that it was valid before we could move on to propositions and rules. This was something that we never were going to agree on because I don’t believe it is valid. I am never going to shake hands with him on this issue because I don’ t believe it to be valid. After several days of this I decided to get on with the debate and discuss the issue. He didn’t want to take the lead, he didn’t want to affirm anything, so I decided to go into the affirmative and take the lead. He agreed to follow, nice guy or not, he agreed to it, whether he signed the proposition or not, he agreed to it. Regardless of the reasons, he agreed to it, and now it is a little late in the day to complain about the proposition. If he didn’t want to deny that proposition, he should have just said so and left the debate. Robert doesn’t want to debate anyone, all he wants to do is argue, period! I wrote a proposition, and defined it. I also gave an argument that was valid, and true, thus making it a sound argument. He said that although I alluded to the argument in my fourth rebuttal I didn’t repeat it or the resolution to it. No, I didn’t repeat it. I wasn’t going to repeat it until this affirmation. I spent my space in making an argument, of which Robert didn’t touch, top, side, nor bottom, and responding to everything in his article. He complained because I responded to everything in his article, but that is just the way I am. I believe in responding to everything that your opponent says. In this affirmation, I am NOT going to be taking his fourth negative, point-by-point, because I want to spend time defending my arguments and summarizing the debate, since it is nothing more than repetition of his Goliath of GRAS argument and I do want to respond to the things he wrote in his fifth negation. However, I will respond to as much as is possible.
Major Premise: All total situations, the constituent elements of which are factual, are total situations which are true. Minor Premise: The total situation described by my proposition is a total situation, the constituent elements of which are factual. Conclusion: Therefore, the total situation described by my proposition is a total situation which is true. As I pointed out when I started out in the lead, this argument simply says that if all the parts (elements) of the argument are factual, then the whole is true. Robert’s argument against this was “a well-known preacher” named Al Maxey, had problems with the argument. I am well aware of Maxey’s problem. Maxie doesn’t like the argument because he can’t respond to it, so he ridicules it as being wrong. That is like saying if all the parts of a thing are factual the whole won’t be true. That is absurd, but this is Robert’s champion: Al Maxey—well known preacher (well known for his heresy), but this shouldn’t bother Robert because after all he teams up with atheists to fight Christians all the time so teaming up with Maxey is not much of a problem at all. Robert says that my proposition doesn’t represent the relevant total situation. It does as far as the scriptures are concerned, but Robert has no concern for the scriptures. He places alleged “real-world” evidence above the scriptures. He seems to have forgotten Paul’s words: “And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in US NOT TO THINK of men ABOVE THAT WHICH IS WRITTEN, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another” (1 Cor. 4:6). If Paul didn’t want us to think of men above that which was written, he didn’t want us to think of anything (even Robert’s alleged real world evidence) above that which was written. Robert wants us to think of men (and their real world evidence) above that which is written. No thank you, I’ll stick with the Apostle Paul. That way I can stand before Christ in the Day of Judgment without fear of being displeasing to my Lord because I did exactly the opposite of what his inspired Apostle taught. He says that he won’t quibble about the constituent element argument because he says that he relied upon it more than I did. Yeah right, that’s a joke! In the first place he said that Al Maxey indicated that it wasn’t a valid argument, now he says he used it more than I did! I guess he used an invalid argument more than I did, and in his fifth negation he had the gall to accuse me of “flip-flopping.” He continues to talk about how; for the sake of this discussion he is willing to grant that the Bible does teach that everything was made in six literal 24 hour days. Well, I don’t see how he could say otherwise. He never did deal with Mt. 19:4; Mk. 10:6; the genealogy in Luke chapter 3 and/or the passage in Exodus 20:9-11. The reason he grants this is because this is exactly what it teaches. It doesn’t teach anything else. I have tried to get him to give me a proper interpretation (since he thinks mine is erroneous), but he has refused, to date, to even attempt such. He being a, supposed, Christian would rather side with the atheists and try to uphold their alleged real world evidence than to stick with what the Bible says. He claims to believe in the inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible. If this is so, then he must realize that the Bible is the standard, and if any real world evidence goes contrary to the Bible, that real world evidence is faulty. But, again, this is something that he just cannot accept. He tells us that the total situation covers both general revelation (that which he wants to call real world evidence) and special revelation. Well, I agree with that. However, general revelation will not contradict special revelation, and if the interpretation of general revelation does, then the interpretation of general revelation is false. Why? Because if the Bible is inspired by God, then it is the standard, and any general revelation that appears to contradict the Bible (such as the interpretation of the length of the Genesis days) then that interpretation of general revelation is false. However, general revelation (true science) will not contradict special revelation (the Bible). And if the Bible teaches that the Genesis days were six literal 24 hour days (as Robert has granted for the sake of this debate), then general revelation will teach the same thing (for the sake of this debate)! If not, why not? I have challenged him, over and again, to show me real world evidence that contradicts the interpretation of the Bible that the earth was created in six literal 24 hour days. His response? “That’s not my purpose in this discussion….” No, it seems that it isn’t his purpose in this discussion. His purpose seems to be to shout about how his DEAD Goliath of GRAS (which is as dead as Goliath of GATH) is alive and well, and about how much he is winning this debate. Well, I’ll leave that to the reader to determine who has won and who has not; and I won’t have to have a poll to do it either. He seems to be awfully concerned about my up and coming debate with Todd Greene, so much so that he had little or no concern about my debate with Robert Baty. I suggested that he not worry about my debate with Greene and start worrying about my debate with Baty, because Baty wasn’t doing so well, but he continued to ignore my advice. Now he can’ t do anything about it, because his part of this debate is complete (because of his own foolish actions) and he has no further opportunities to respond to anything I have to say. He spent time and space trying to re-establish the validity of his Goliath of GRAS. He went to Wikepedia to show that his argument is valid. I gave a quotation from Copi’s Introduction to Logic, to show what makes an argument valid. He, in a later email, went to another one of Copi’s books to show that Copi agreed with him. Well, I don’t have that book, but I am willing to bet that Copi was just talking about validity in form; something that I have said all along. Is Robert’s argument in a valid format? Yes, it is! Is it a valid argument? No, it is not! Why? Because the conclusion doesn’t logically and necessarily follow from the minor premise; something Copi said had to take place. but Robert doesn’t care about that. He will continue to brag on his dead giant as though it is alive. I say let him brag.
In discussing the above claims by Jerry McDonald, I would like to move from the easiest, to the easier and then to the easy. Jerry McDonald's "Argument #2" recited above is considered the easiest for purposes of its relationship to the proposition that nothing is more than a few thousand years old. For all those who can see through the rungs of a ladder, it is simply self-evident that the simple, logical validity of my "Goliath of GRAS" has nothing to do with whether or not anything is more than a few thousand years old. I need not dispute the validity or soundness of Jerry McDonald's "Argument #2" for that reason, though I could demonstrate that, while valid in itself, it is not sound because its major premise is false. Whether its minor premise is true or false, of course, is the topic for Jerry McDonald to take up in his more formal, in writing (or oral), for the record discussion with Todd S. Greene as to the real world evidence of age. He says that it is “self-evident that the simple, logical validity of my ‘Goliath of GRAS’ has nothing to do with whether or not anything is more than a few thousand years old.” I hate to sound like a broken record, but again he is wrong on this. In order to be valid the conclusion has to logically and necessarily follow from the minor premise, something his argument does not do. Let’s notice his argument again:
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. Now while the argument is in the “if p then q” format this does not make it valid. However, he says that his argument’s validity has nothing to do with whether or not some thing is only a few thousand years old. In order for the argument to be valid, the conclusion: “The interpretation of the text by some is wrong” must logically and necessarily follow the minor premise: “God’s word (the text) says that 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 things is actually MUCH OLDER THAN A FEW THOUSAND YEARS.” So the validity of his argument does have something to do with whether or not some thing is only a few thousand years old.
So, Jerry McDonald loses as to his efforts regarding his "Argument #2". He claims that my second element: “The Field of Botany Shows That the Creation Days Were Literal 24 Hour Days” has nothing to do with his Goliath of GRAS argument, and a far as it having nothing to do with your DEAD giant, well that may very well be true. However, I don’t know that my part of this debate had anything to do with your DEAD giant, other than to show that it wasn’t a valid argument. He says that the argument is unsound. Well, what makes it unsound? I have tried to get him to show what makes it unsound, and he has refused to do that. I guess it is because he doesn’t know what makes it unsound. How could plant life exist without the sun for millions of years? A question that has never been answered.
As to Jerry McDonald's "Argument #3", the conclusion does not establish the real age of anything and says nothing by way of showing that nothing is more than a few thousand years old. If it be granted, at least for sake of argument, that there are "apparent" and "real" ages which are different, not a particularly unreasonable position (i.e., I saw a lady today that looked 34 years old, but she told me she was really 43), it simply does NOT follow that nothing is more than a few thousand years old. So, Jerry McDonald loses as to his efforts regarding his "Argument #3". McDonald He says that the conclusion of my element number three: “The Bible Teaches That Our World Is Relatively Young” does nothing to show that the earth is young. He talks about a lady he thought was 34, but she was actually 33. Robert the apparent age argument doesn’t show that something looks younger than it really is. It shows that though something is really young, it looks old. You have the other way around; completely opposite than what it should be. As far as the scriptures teaching that everything is no more than a few thousand years old, even he admits (for the sake of this debate) that the Bible does teach this. If he will remember the proposition reads: “The Bible teaches….” Now he can say, all he wants, that he didn’t agree with that proposition, but in reality he did because he went ahead with the debate.
Now we are down to the easy "Argument #1" and the proposition and elements that go along with it, having disposed of "Arguments #2" and "3" as shown above. Despite Jerry McDonald's failure to provide any acceptable logic authorities, like his preferred Copi, to discuss the legitimacy of his "Argument #1, I am willing to grant, for sake of this discussion, that it is a valid argument and that its major premise is true. I know, I am being too kind. Like, I'm not even sure what the major premise really means or how Jerry McDonald would go about proving such a universal affirmation. But let's go with it and move on to the minor premise, the proposition and the elements. The minor premise of "Argument #1" states: The total situation described by my proposition is a total situation the constituent elements of which are factual. The proposition referenced is: The Bible teaches that God created all things in six literal 24 hour days. First problem: The proposition says nothing about nothing being more than a few thousand years old. McDonald No, Robert it doesn’t! It isn’t an argument dealing with that specific issue. It is an argument dealing with several elements (one of which was that specific issue). Thus that is what makes that premise valid. Baty
The proposition is not, for purposes of a discussion as to whether or not anything is more than a few thousand years old, a statement of the "total situation". The "total situation" on the issue under consideration, that nothing is more than a few thousand years old, simply includes the biblical text and the real world "text". The total situation, for the purposes of this debate really deals with the Bible, because that is all that is in the proposition, which Robert agreed to (whether he wants to admit it or not) debate. However, I did give arguments from “real world evidence” and Robert has yet to touch top, side, or bottom of them.
That being the case, as Jerry McDonald implicitly admits with his "6 Elements", his minor premise is deemed false for purposes of this discussion. Jerry McDonald's proposition does not describe the "total situation" necessary to meet the requirements of his argument and sound reasoning if it is intended to reach the conclusion that, "therefore, nothing is more than a few thousand years old". My elements did deal with both scripture and real world evidence. He admits that (for the purposes of this debate) that my interpretation of the scriptures is correct. However, he won’t even touch the “real world” arguments I made. I wonder why?
Third Problem-The 6 Elements: As noted above, for sake of this discussion, it is my conclusion that there are only two relevant "elements"; though they may be subdivided almost without limit, or at least more than any mortal could have the time, talent and ability to fully consider. Those two elements are simply the text and the real world evidence. Did you get that! The two relevant "elements" are the text and the real world evidence. That immediately eliminates Jerry McDonald's "Element #4" as irrelevant. It has already been explained in my earlier submission why the claim is false. But even if it was true, it would not have any relevance to whether or not anything really is more than a few thousand years old. It doesn’t eliminate element number four, not for the purpose of this debate, because he said that he would grant, for the purpose of this debate, that the Bible does teach that everything took place in six literal 24 hour days, and that it only happened a few thousand years ago. FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS DEBATE, ROBERT HAS CONCEDED THIS DEBATE!
Jerry McDonald's "Element #1" and "Element #3" deal with the textual element. Jerry McDonald's "Element #2", "Element #5" and "Element #6" deal with the real world evidence. As to my purpose in dealing with the fundamental "young-earth, creation-science" position that nothing is more than a few thousand years old, as Todd S. Greene has reasonably explained in a recent posting to my discussion list (link provided below), one's interpretation of the text need not be disputed. The fundamental "young-earth, creation-science" issue has to do with whether or not the real world evidence rebuts the real world claim that nothing is more than a few thousand years old and, by implication, shows that either the interpretation of the text is wrong or the text itself is wrong. So, I have, by my count, disposed of "Element #1", "Element #3", "Element #4. He says that because Copi didn’t specifically refer to the constituent element argument that he had nothing to say about it. Copi showed what a valid argument was, and what made an argument sound. Thomas Warren, Roy Deaver, and Guy N. Woods (all three which had more knowledge of these things than Robert Baty and Al Maxie put together) all said that this was a valid and sound argument using the principles that logicians like Copi gave as made an argument valid and sound. It is too bad that Robert wasn’t there to tell Brother Warren that he didn’t know what he was talking about when he used that argument in debate after debate. Where was Robert then? I wonder where he was? O, I know, he was keeping his mouth shut just like all the other liberals were. That was the smartest thing I’ve seen out of him yet. Now that Brother Warren, Brother Deaver and brother Woods are all dead, they can’t speak for themselves, so Robert comes up and opens his mouth. My dad used to say that it is better to keep your mouth shut and let everyone think you were a fool, than it was to open it up and let everyone know you are a fool. He hasn’t disposed of anything, except in his own demented mind. Where is his proper interpretation that the Genesis days in Exodus 20:9-11 were more than six literal 24 hour days? He hasn’t given it. He hasn’t given it because he couldn’t give it. So element number one is still there. Where is his proof that the Bible doesn’t teach that the world is relatively young? He hasn’t given it. Therefore element number three is still there. The only element that he has done any damage to at all is element number four, and that is because he backwatered on me. He told me that for the sake of this discussion that he believed that the Bible taught that the earth was young, but then he said that he only meant that for the sake of this discussion. Well, for the sake of this discussion (which is what we are involved in) “My Opponent, Robert Baty, Concedes to the Position That Nothing Is More Than A Few Thousand Years Old.” So for the sake of this discussion, that element is still there. He says that there are only two relevant elements in this discussion “the text, and real world evidence.” Well, I do agree with him on that, but I gave proof from both and he refused to do anything more than just deny that they were valid for anything more than this discussion. So I guess for the sake of this discussion “Goliath of GRAS” is as DEAD as Goliath of GATH. Now, for the sake of this discussion I’ll take my sword (the word of God) and cut off Goliath of GRAS’s head. Whack, it is done!
That leaves "Element #2", "Element #5" and "Element #6" for consideration. .. In other words, as suggested by Jerry McDonald, does the real world evidence show that nothing is more than a few thousand years old? At best, Jerry McDonald's attempts only suggest that there may be certain characteristics about the Earth that are less than a few thousand years old, and Todd S. Greene stands prepared to actually deal with such claims in the more formal, pending debate with Jerry McDonald on those issues. Similarly, Todd S. Greene stands prepared to therein offer specific affirmative evidence that some characteristic as to the Earth and as to the Universe shows that both the Earth and the Universe are more than a few thousand years old (i.e., at least 100,000 years old). McDonald I don’t know why he keeps talking about what Todd Greene is going to do when he and I meet. That will be another debate entirely. I won’t even bring the scriptures into it. However, this debate is about what the scriptures and real world evidence teaches. I used both and as is typical with Robert, he ignored or simply denied all that I had to say. Yet he continues to claim victory for himself and his DEAD giant (who no longer has a head). Don’t worry about what Todd Greene is going to say, what does Robert Baty have to say? Apparently, nothing at all!
Jerry McDonald has not shown that nothing is more than a few thousand years old. He has preemptively indicated that he rejects any real world evidence that some thing is more than a few thousand years old based on his NONscientific "apparent age" doctrine. McDonald I don’t “preemptively” indicate that I reject any real world evidence that some thing is more than a few thousand years old based on a non-scientific “apparent age” doctrine. I preemptively indicate that I reject any SO-CALLED real world evidence that some thing is more than a few thousand years old based on the BIBLICAL “apparent age” doctrine. I place the Bible over any so-called scientific or real world evidence that there is. Robert states that he believes that the Bible is the inspired and inerrant word of God. This means that he believes that the Bible is true and without error. Therefore he must accept the Bible as the standard, not his ALLEGED “real world evidence,” at least for the sake of this discussion.
Jerry McDonald's default "apparent age" defense, admitting he has no scientific rebuttal to what he knows is real world evidence that some thing is more than a few thousand years old, is a concession to me and my "Goliath of GRAS" that is equivalent to an admission of defeat. I accept, therefore, Jerry McDonald's implicit admission of defeat. He has yet to show why my “apparent age” argument is faulty. He has yet to show what makes it faulty, except to show that he saw a 43 year old women who looked 34; which had the argument completely backwards. I never said that the “apparent age” argument made the earth LOOK young, it said it made the earth LOOK OLD, but it was really young. He can wait until Christ comes again for my acceptance of defeat, but he’ll never get it.
My "Goliath of GRAS"...still unbeaten and still the one to beat. Now, we look forward with great anticipation to the upcoming, pending McDonald-Greene Debate which, according to reports, will not involve the use of the religious text for proof by Jerry McDonald but will be limited to determining whether or not anything is more than a few thousand years old without regard to any religious textual foundation (i.e., the real world evidence and any other such non-religious evidence that Jerry McDonald may choose to invoke). McDonald No, his Goliath of GRAS is not unbeaten; it is dead and the head has been severed by the word of Almighty God. Reader, please go back and read this debate carefully. You will notice how Robert has dodged arguments and questions, and has even admitted doing so. He says that he has won, but I think you know better than that. As Brother Warren said in his debate with Dr. Flew that you can tell a lot about the truthfulness of a person’s position by looking at how he deals with the questions and arguments his opponent has made. Robert admits not dealing with mine and ever brags about it. I feel that this says a lot about his position: it is a false position. I thank you for reading this debate, and I hope you have learned something from it. In Christ, Jerry D. McDonald jerry@challenge2.org http://www.challenge2.org http://www.biblical-criticism.com |
| The McDonald-Baty Debate The Age of the Earth |
McDonald's Fifth Affirmation and Rejoinder
 |
| |
 |
| but try the spirits whether they are of God 1 Jno. 4:1 |