A "critical thinking" exercise for young-earth creation-science promoters!

[RLBaty]

The forum sub-title said "critical thinking", so I have decided to introduce my exercise in critical thinking here for some possible feedback.

I have enjoyed some considerable success in using it to demonstrate why it is, in part, that young-earth creation-science promoters have failed in their scientific pretensions and legal challenges; without having to get into the tedious, technical, scientific details regarding specific claims regarding the age of stuff.

I appreciate the fact that there are those who are qualified and willing to deal with the technical, scientific details. I've been there and done that as a tyro and have found a simpler way, more suitable to my time, talent and interest, to address the fundamental issue facing young-earth creation-science promoters.

Here's the basic argument which, I have found, confounds the young-earth creation-science promoters I have encountered and has been used successfully to demonstrate why it is, in part, that young-earth creation-science promoters have failed in their scientific pretensions and legal challenges:


MAJOR PREMISE:

> IF (A) God's word (the text) says
> everything began over a period
> of six days, and
>
> IF (B) God's word (the text) is
> interpreted by some to mean it
> was six 24-hour days occurring
> a few thousand years ago, and
>
> IF (C) there is empirical
> evidence that some thing is
> actually much older than a
> few thousand years,
>
> THEN (D) the interpretation of
> the text by some is wrong.

MINOR PREMISE:

> (A) God's word (the text) says
> everything began over a period
> of six days, and
>
> (B) God's word (the text) is
> interpreted by some to mean it
> was six 24-hour days occurring
> a few thousand years ago, and
>
> (C) there is empirical evidence
> that some thing is actually much
> older than a few thousand years.

CONCLUSION:

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

My initital claims for the argument typically include the following:

(1)

The argument is constructed such that if its
premises are true the conclusion will follow
as true from the truth of the premises.

(2)

The major premise, based on the stipulated/
precising definitions and the force and effect
of sound, biblical, common-sense reasoning
is true.

Those two issues usually are what confounds the young-earth creation-science promoters I have encountered and demonstrates, in part, why it is they fail in their scientific pretensions and legal challenges.

In any case, I thought I would trot out the exercise here and see what kind of feedback I might get.

[Marduk]

I have enjoyed some considerable success in using it .

I'd like to see that
link please

[Hans]

I'd like to see that
link please

I'd be interested in seeing that myself

Your idea starts with a major, and I believe, disabling defect, your assumption that YE believers would substitute critical thinking for belief. It has been my experience that they will not.

[RLBaty]

Your idea starts with a major, and I believe,
disabling defect, your assumption that YE
believers would substitute critical thinking
for belief. It has been my experience that
they will not.



It's not a disabling defect, if that's the way you see it. It happens to be one of the utilitarian demonstrations that the exercise, when engaged by young-earth creation-science promoters, allows to be made manifest.

While many young-earth creation-science promoters claim to adhere to the principles of critical thinking (e.g., logic), my little exercise has been helpful in demonstrating that, when logic turns on them, they turn on logic.

And that is one reason why young-earth creation-science promoters fail in their scientific pretensions and legal challenges.

My argument has a first name, it's "G-o-l-i-a-t-h"!

My argument has a second name, it's "G-R-A-S"!

As the country song suggests..."look it up"!

That's "Goliath of GRAS"! :)

[Marduk]

I'd be interested in seeing that myself

Your idea starts with a major, and I believe, disabling defect, your assumption that YE believers would substitute critical thinking for belief. It has been my experience that they will not.

Yup, I can only see this working as a way of one religious belief demonstrating to another religious belief that their way is superior.
It won't work in the real world where the truth is that there is no monotheistic deity.

So it may work to convert a YEC to Evangelism, but it falls flat when it comes to making anyone who is self deluded enough to believe say in Jesus, to realise that the whole thing is nonsense

this btw is an oxymoron
The major premise, based on the stipulated/
precising definitions and the force and effect
of sound, biblical, common-sense reasoning
is true.
there is no such thing as "sound, biblical, common-sense reasoning", the bible reflects the beliefs of its very unknowledgable creators, so in effect is 2000+ years out of date.

We have moved on from Babylonian science you know
:p

btw still waiting for that link

[Skeptic Ginger]

....My initital claims for the argument typically include the following:
(1) The argument is constructed such that if its premises are true the conclusion will follow as true from the truth of the premises.
(2) The major premise, based on the stipulated/ precising definitions and the force and effect of sound, biblical, common-sense reasoning is true.

Those two issues usually are what confounds the young-earth creation-science promoters I have encountered and demonstrates, in part, why it is they fail in their scientific pretensions and legal challenges.
In any case, I thought I would trot out the exercise here and see what kind of feedback I might get.Have you seen Eugenie Scott's Creationism belief continuum (http://ncse.com/creationism/general/creationevolution-continuum)?

When she has students (college class) who refuse to accept evolution theory from their position of indoctrination, she has them look at where they are on the continuum of belief. Then she shows how they are not as close to Bible literalism as other people and suggests that they have chosen what to believe and what to reject in the Bible. And if you can reject some things in the Bible, why cling to evolution denial?

[RLBaty]

this btw is an oxymoron...

there is no such thing as "sound, biblical,
common-sense reasoning", the bible reflects
the beliefs of its very unknowledgable creators,
so in effect is 2000+ years out of date.

We have moved on from Babylonian science
you know

btw still waiting for that link



Well, that's a two way street. I'm waiting to see if you have enough legitimate interest in the subject to "look it up".

Otherwise, I will be more than glad to try and deal with such issues as folks here might be interested in having considered.

Maybe someone will also look up "oxymoron" and demonstrate for us why it is that my statement, as alleged, is NOT "oxymoronic".

For purposes of this exercise and generally accepted principles of critical thinking, there is such a thing as "sound, biblical, common-sense reasoning" and that fact stands independent of any diversions regarding opinions as to what folks in the long ago might have believed about this or that and the other.

My argument, I propose, is just such an example of:

> sound reasoning;
>
> biblical reasoning;
>
> common-sense reasoning.

That when faced with my argument, the young-earth creation-science promoters typically balk, demonstrating why it is, in part, that they fail in their scientific pretensions and legal challenges.

For others, it may simply suffice to explain my argument is what is commonly called a modus ponens form and why it is the major premise, by definition, is true.

I can take it either way.

[RLBaty]

Have you seen Eugenie Scott's Creationism belief continuum (http://ncse.com/creationism/general/creationevolution-continuum)?



No! I'll try to take a look.

[RLBaty]

this btw is an oxymoron...

there is no such thing as "sound, biblical,
common-sense reasoning"...



I suspect there may not be many here who would challenge the existence of "sound" and "common-sense" reasoning. So, let me add this regarding the "biblical" claim in my earlier post.

I had a critic complaining about such things not long ago. I did a quick check and found a reference that noted that "if" is used as many as 1,500 times in the bible.

If you "look it up", you will find one or more biblical arguments that follows the form of my argument in this discussion thread.

Hence, my claims:

> My argument uses sound reasoning.

> My argument uses biblical reasoning.

> My argument uses common-sense reasoning.

[Marduk]

ok, offhand then, do you believe in the existence of :-
1. Angels
2. the story of babel
3. the garden of Eden ?

lets see if for the purposes of this exercise, there is such a thing as "sound, biblical,
common-sense reasoning"
:D

[Mojo]

Your idea starts with a major, and I believe, disabling defect, your assumption that YE believers would substitute critical thinking for belief. It has been my experience that they will not.


They wouldn't even get that far. At point (C) they would just claim that any evidence that contradicts the Bible must be wrong.

[RLBaty]

They wouldn't even get that far.

At point (C) they would just claim that any
evidence that contradicts the Bible must be
wrong.



You are jumping ahead! :)

[RLBaty]

ok, offhand then, do you believe in the existence of :-

1. Angels
2. the story of babel
3. the garden of Eden ?

lets see if for the purposes of this exercise,
there is such a thing as "sound, biblical,
common-sense reasoning"



If you happen to have a serious interest in trying to rebut my claim that my argument is an example of:

(1) sound reasoning;

(2) biblical reasoning;

(3) common-sense reasoning;

the "reasonable" course would not be to ask about what I might believe about angels and such.

You seemed to be especially peeved at my suggestion earlier that the Bible does actually use the same form or argumentation as I do in my exercise.

If the Bible uses the same form of argument
as I use for my argument, then I am justified
in proposing that my argument uses biblical
reasoning.

Now, if you wish to deny that the Bible uses the following form of argument, then please be explicit in denying it and demonstrating your unwillingness to "look it up", and then maybe I will give you a quote to demonstrate your error:

> If p, then q.
> P.
> Therefore, q.

Others are more than welcome to also try to help Marduk with the problem.

If we can get past the "biblical reasoning" problem and there is any serious dispute about my claim about my argument using "sound" and "common-sense" reasoning, I can offer further definitions justifying my use of such terms in characterizing my argument.

[RLBaty]

I suppose it might be done on the Internet, but I've got this book called a concordance that also helps me look up stuff.

It lists Genesis 4:7 as the first instance of "if" in the Bible, and I find there the following argument:

Major Premise:

> If thou doest well,
> then thou shalt be accepted.

Minor Premise:

> Thou doest well.

Conclusion:

> Thou shalt be accepted.

That looks like biblical reasoning to me.

That looks like the form of reasoning in my argument.

It looks like my argument uses biblical reasoning.

Does anyone really have a serious problem with that???

[DallasDad]

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


The interpretation may be perfectly correct, but the claim may be wrong. For instance, if I claimed:

All blox are scrut,
Some scrut are kobb,
Therefore some blox are kobb

You may interpret my conditionals correctly and even write scholarly papers about it, but if you accepted my conclusion, you'd be wrong. Your focus on the interpretation of the Bible is puzzling: Don't you have to establish the truth-value of something before quibbling over which interpretation of the argument is more correct?

Even if you fixed my logic to make a different example (adding, perhaps, that no kobb are not also blox), then you'd still have to establish the existence of blox, scrut, and kobb before you've said anything. If blox, scrut, and kobb are elves, kobolds, and unicorns, then the argument is nothing more than an exercise in formal logic.

Before worrring about what God may have said in the Bible (or whether or not it's being interpreted correctly), you should focus on whether or not God exists, if he/she/it does, whether or not he/she/it wrote or inspired the Bible, if so, whether or not our current versions match the originals -- and even if you can establish all of that, you need to demonstrate that God isn't a liar, a practical joker, or just plain wrong. Then worry about what it means and how to interpret it.

In short, the logical form of an argument whose referents don't exist is not significant one way or another. Well-formed meaningless drivel is still meaningless drivel.

[RLBaty]

One of my most vocal critics is a young-earth creation-science preacher from Missouri by the name of Jerry D. McDonald. He has long disputed my fundamental claim that my argument

> is so constructed that if its premises are true
> then its conclusion will follow as true therefrom.

I'm not sure whether or not he's changed his position on that question, or whether, as of today, he now agrees with me about that.

Since so many over the years have disputed such a fundamental claim, demonstrating, in part, why young-earth creation-science promoters fail in their scientific pretensions and legal challenges, at one point the testimony of certain professionals were solicited.

They all agreed with me. :eek:

At the top of the list of professionals, by my account, is Carl Cohen, co-author of the popular "Introduction to Logic" text.

At one point, McDonald thought to fuss with Cohen about the construction of my argument.

Here, from the public record, is an e-mail Cohen sent to McDonald, showing Cohen's long-suffering character and attempting to help McDonald with his problem:

Breach of rule 4 removed. Do not copy and paste material from elsewhere.

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

[RLBaty]

Your focus on the interpretation of the Bible is puzzling:
Don't you have to establish the truth-value of something
before quibbling over which interpretation of the argument
is more correct?

If...,then the argument is nothing more than an exercise
in formal logic.

Before worrring about what God may have said in the Bible
(or whether or not it's being interpreted correctly), you
should focus on...

In short, the logical form of an argument whose referents
don't exist is not significant one way or another.

Well-formed meaningless drivel is still meaningless drivel.



Did you miss my introrductory comments regarding the utilitarian results to be gained from the exercise (e.g., demontrating why it is that young-earth creation-science promoters fail in their scientific pretensions and legal challenges)?

I don't do "blox, flox, or sox" and such. If you care to discuss my argument and the claims I make for it, you are welcome to do so.

It is, in part, an exercise in formal logic, and with the intended purposes as repeatedly stated.

Some believe in God.
Some do not.

Some believe there is an infallible "word of God".
Some don't.

Some believe that what they believe to be "God's word" means "nothing is more than a few thousand years old".
Some don't.

The exercise, the argument, is not for everyone. It's for a particular class of folk and has been designed with specific purposes which it quite successfully fulfills.

There is another argument for those who wish to put the veracity of the Bible at risk, over the age of stuff, instead of simply their interpretation thereof. You are welcome to consider that argument as well if you have an interest.

As so many times before, it looks like we are having a trouble getting a consensus that

(1)

the argument is constructed such that if its
premises are true its conclusion will follow
as true therefrom, and

(2)

given the stipulated/precising definitions,
and the force and effect of sound, biblical,
common-sense reasoning, the major
premise is true.

Are there no young-earth creation-science promotes here willing to "come out" and take up the exercise???

[bluesjnr]

Are you getting paid for every time you use the phrase

"they fail in their scientific pretensions and legal challenges."?

[RLBaty]

Are you getting paid for every time you
use the phrase

"they fail in their scientific pretensions
and legal challenges."?



My contract prohibits me from discussing its financial particulars. :blush:

Are you concerned about the prospects of me profiting from daring to join the popular public debate over young-earth creation-science, or are you concerned about the veracity of my claim that

> young-earth creation-science promoters
> have failed in their scientific pretensions
> and legal challenges?

[RLBaty]

It just so happens that McDonald has just posted his second rebuttal to Castagnoli in a debate they are having about SN1987A.

If you are interested, you can go to the following link for his latest on that and find other links to what McDonald has going on:

http://www.challenge2.org/sn1987amcd2reb.pdf

I welcome such exercises, but, as noted earlier, I have my own way of dealing with young-earth creation-science promoters; one that avoids having to try and fuss about the technical details of the various scientific claims that might be made.

[TubbaBlubba]

I'm sorry, exactly what are you asking us to discuss in this thread?


Also, your logical exercise is flawed - it contains the hidden premise that "God's word" - the Bible, I presume - can't simply be wrong.

[Marduk]

If you happen to have a serious interest in trying to rebut my claim that my argument is an example of:


I take it from your refusal to answer a straight question that you are a monotheist

if that is the case then you have completely missed the point of this forum

its about critical thinking and education, not about which belief system is correct

to most of the non theists who are members here there is no difference between you and a YEC

let me give you an analogy see if you can get your head round this

you are at an asylum and you want to see if one of the inmates is capable of rational thought. what you're thinking you're doing is acting like a psychiatrist and doing your test, when in fact unknown to you, you're just another mental patient who thinks he's a doctor and who thinks that what he is doing is credible

to everyone outside looking in of course its quite clear that you're foaming at the mouth and gibbering at the full moon

do you understand that, you'll need to if you're going to get anywhere with this thread

Its also a bit hippocritical that you think theres something wrong with the beliefs of others when your own are so very questionable

.
they don't discriminate here, YEC, Christian, Muslim, Judaism, are all the same
they are all wrong

;)

Personally my faith of course is way, far, far, superior to yours, but as you aren't willing to discuss yours then you are wasting everybodies time
:p


let me ask you a straight question for which you only need to give a short answer, with no explanation, should be easy right ?
heres the question
Q. Is there any possibility that your belief system is erroneous ?
yes/no ?

[RLBaty]

I'm sorry, exactly what are you asking
us to discuss in this thread?

Also, your logical exercise is flawed - it
contains the hidden premise that
"God's word" - the Bible, I presume -
can't simply be wrong.



I've introduced my argument and the claims I make for it for discussion should there be interest in doing so. There's been some; maybe there will be more.

There is no "hidden premise" contained in the argument. The stipulated/precising definition, consistent with the claims made by those for whom the argument is designed, does include the "infallibility" factor.

That's not a flaw!

It goes to demonstrating, as the exercise has been designed, why it is that young-earth creation-science promoters fail in their scientific pretensions and legal challenges.

Anyone else having trouble understanding the meaning of the terms/phrases used in the exercise?

[RLBaty]

(1)

I take it from your refusal to answer a straight
question that you are a monotheist.

If that is the case then you have completely
missed the point of this forum.

(2)

Its about critical thinking and education, not
about which belief system is correct.

(3)

It's also a bit hypocritical that you think there's
something wrong with the beliefs of others when
your own are so very questionable.

They don't discriminate here, YEC, Christian,
Muslim, Judaism, are all the same they are all wrong

Personally my faith of course is way, far, far,
superior to yours, but as you aren't willing to
discuss yours then you are wasting everybodies time



(1)

As in that other thread I recently started, it seems getting off-topic is not uncommon, but there are rules about such things; or so I've read.

(2)

The subject of this thread is a critical thinking exercise designed to demonstrate, in part, why it is that young-earth creation-science promoters have failed in their scientific pretensions and legal challenges.

(3)

As to the hypocrisy, it appears my critic is the one being hypocritical regarding such things. Y'all are welcome to your own opinions on that issue.

As I understand such venues, everyone makes their own decision as to what conversations to engage. I'm not wasting anyone's time, but it seems some here are interested in wasting time by evading the fundamental issues involved in engaging my exercise.

I may have missed it, but there still seems to be no consensus regarding such fundamental matters as whether or not

(A)

my argument is so constructed that if its premises
are true its conclusion will follow as true therefrom,

and

(B)

my argument's major premise, given the stipulated/
precising definition of its terms/phrases, and the
force and effect of sound, biblical, common-sense
reasoning, is true.

From what has gone on here, it would seem that the kind of problems young-earth creation-science promoters have with such fundamentals may also be problems for skeptical sorts.

I don't need to "get anywhere" with this thread.

I've introduced my exercise and, anyway it goes, a new chapter will be added to the history of my argument and its historic place in the popular public discussion of young-earth creation-science.

It's up to y'all as to how you want to be represented in this simple "critical thinking" exercise.

[DallasDad]

I doubt you'll find anyone here willing to argue that modus ponens, modus tollens, or any of the basic assumptions and operations of formal logic are wrong. If you don't want to discuss the assertions themselves, you are left with no controversey at all.

Granted: p>q & p yields q. Now what?

[RLBaty]

Granted: p>q & p yields q.

If you don't want to discuss the assertions themselves,
you are left with no controversy at all.

Now what?



I am not the one who has been avoiding a discussion of the assertions I have made regarding my argument; reasonably, step by step!

So, let's see how many are willing to "come out" and agree with my two fundamental assertions:

(1)

My argument is constructed such that if its premises
are true its conclusion will follow as true therefrom.

(2)

My argument's major premise, given the stipulated/
precising definitions and the force and effect of
sound, biblical, common sense reasoning, is true.

Will we get a consensus on those two fundamentals?

We've already had someone trying to deny that the form of my argument is such as is used in the Bible.

Do you think he/she/it has learned better?

One of my other fundamental assertions is that a critical analysis of my argument, especially when engaged by young-earth creation-science promoters such as has been done elsewhere on numerous occasions, demonstrates, in part, why it is that young-earth creation-science promoters have failed in their scientific pretensions and legal challenges.

[DallasDad]

1) Why would you care about getting consensus?

2) Modus ponens is indeed used in the Bible. It's also used in Harry Potter. To call the rhetorical devices used in fiction "reasoning" is to ignore the lack of referents. The arguments in the Bible and in Harry Potter have the form of reasoning, but do not apply to any actual person or thing.

3) The person who quibbled with your use of "biblical" wasn't questioning whether or not a particular form of argument could be found in the Bible. The Bible also talks about salamanders; this does not make herpatology a branch of theology.

Some people interpret the Bible as saying the world is ~6000 years old.
We have credible evidence demonstrating Earth is signficantly older.

Possible conclusions:

1) Some people interpret the Bible incorrectly;
2) Some people interpret the Bible correctly, but the Bible is wrong;

Given that you could take both conclusions for granted regardless of the preceding argument, what's next? Does this exercise have a point? My Google Fu says you've been at this for a long time, on a number of different fora. I haven't found anyone who argues with you about the form of your argument. It's Freshman-level correct in every particular. But so what? Did you take the second semester and discover that arguments have function as well as form? It doesn't appear so.

Get to the point. If you repeat your argument again, and ask if anyone will step up to disagree, you'll have proven my point, not yours.

Your style so far is redolent of OCD. Have you discussed the Goliath thing with a doctor?

[RLBaty]

1)

Why would you care about getting consensus?

3)

The person who quibbled with your use of
"biblical" wasn't questioning whether or not a
particular form of argument could be found in
the Bible.

4)

Some people interpret the Bible as saying the
world is ~6000 years old. We have credible
evidence demonstrating Earth is signficantly older.

Possible conclusions:

> A) Some people interpret the Bible incorrectly;
> B) Some people interpret the Bible correctly, but the Bible is wrong;


5)

Does this exercise have a point?


6)

I haven't found anyone who argues with you
about the form of your argument.

7)

Get to the point.

8)

Have you discussed the Goliath thing with a doctor?



(1)

Seems common enough a technique to me in the process of determining what, if anything, might be disputed and subject to further exploration.

(3)

That person is more than welcome to return to the discussion and clarify what he was trying to do and whether or not he now agrees with my simple assertion on the matter.

(4)

Indeed, if some thing is more than a few thousand years old, the it is either the case, or so it is proposed, that either the Bible is wrong or the interpretation of the Bible is wrong.

I've addressed that already here. There's an argument for both, and the argument I have presented in this exercise as has already been stated, is for those who prefer to put the interpretation at risk over the age issue rather than the veracity of the text itself.

(5)

I've repeatedly stated that the point of the exercise, among other things which you and yours are helping to demonstrate, is to demonstrate why it is, in part, that young-earth creation-science promoters have failed in their scientific pretensions and legal challenges.

(6)

You didn't look very far! I think I even gave a reference to one Missouri preacher who has spent considerable time arguing about the form of my argument (e.g., denying its validity).

(7)

I've been on point. It's others here, including yourself, who seem to prefer diversions.

(8)

Did you happen to count how many times, in your research regarding me and my argument, that has been brought up?

See rules for this venue for further feedback!

DallasDad, I don't think you said, do you agree with me that the major premise of my argument is true?

[RLBaty]

I haven't found anyone who argues with you
about the form of your argument.



I went back and did a quick check and found a message in another discussion list set up by one of my critics to specialize in attacking me and my argument, dated May 2, 2011, which states, in relevant part:

> "(RLBaty's) Goliath has been proven logically invalid."

So, my preference for starting at the beginning and progressing step by step through the exercise, is based on years of having to quibble with such young-earth creation-science promoters determined to establish my claim that such an exercise as presented in by my argument does, indeed, demonstrate, in part, why it is that young-earth creation-science promoters fail in their scientific pretensions and legal challenges.

I thought it would add to the historical record to present the exercise here for consideration.

It has added an interesting chapter.

Perhaps it will add more...perhaps not.

[RLBaty]

There are actually several arguments in my "Family of GRAS"; which have developed over the years in response to dealing with young-earth creation-science promoters.

I'm getting ready to check out for awhile, but I thought I would quickly post the two main arguments from the "Family of GRAS"; (1) my original argument that tests the interpretation and (2) the related argument which tests the veracity of the text:

Breach of rule 6 removed. Stop posting the same test over and over again.

I'll try to deal with any legitimate interests when I am able to return.

I might even try to banter a bit over any continuing less than legitimate interests! :)

[DallasDad]

I'd composed a fairly long response which appears to have been eaten by the forum. It's not worth recomposing. Better to let the thread die.

[Marduk]

I've introduced my exercise and, anyway it goes, a new chapter will be added to the history of my argument and its historic place in the popular public discussion of young-earth creation-science.
:rolleyes:

[RLBaty]

I'd composed a fairly long response which
appears to have been eaten by the forum.

It's not worth recomposing.

Better to let the thread die.



I would not dispute the proposition that the verbose effort to participate further in this thread is not worth recomposing, but I would have gladly given it consideration and an appropriate, short answer.

My "Goliath of GRAS"...still the one to beat!

I suppose it's up to the management here, but I figure the thread will remain alive for some time and the invitation will remain outstanding for all who might wish to legitimately take part in the exercise.

Following for easy reference, is the argument, the basic stipulations, and the two questions proposed to start the exercise and establish the level of competency for those wishing to engage the exercise (and for discussion as may be necessary):

Breach of rule 6 removed.

Despite the interest or lack thereof that might be demonstrated here, and the competence of potential participants here to engage the exercise, the popular public debate regarding young-earth creation-science will continue, and where its merits are taken and considered seriously my argument will be there in the midst; either implicitly or explicitly.

My "Goliath of GRAS"...still the one to beat!
Still no "David"!

I thought you might like to know, and now you know! :blush:

[GeeMack]

[*spam snipped*]
Those two issues usually are what confounds the young-earth creation-science promoters I have encountered and demonstrates, in part, why it is they fail in their scientific pretensions and legal challenges.


It doesn't appear to demonstrate any such thing, the continued unsupported assertion that it does notwithstanding.

[RLBaty]

It doesn't appear to demonstrate any
such thing, the continued unsupported
assertion that it does notwithstanding.



Another anonymous sniper comes late to the exercise and fails to engage the exercise.

The invitation remains outstanding as reflected in message #34 above for those with legitimate interests in participating in the exercise.

I am wondering, though, about whether it "appears" to GeeMack that,

Breach of rule 6 removed.

I don't think he said how those fundamental matters "appear" to him.

Were he, or others, to engage the exercise in good faith, he/they might find that the "appearance" from his/their vantage point might change and he/they will recognize how the failure of young-earth creation-science promoters in dealing with simple principles of sound, biblical, common-sense reasoning regarding the age of stuff and their failure to recognize a true, hypothetical statement goes to their problem in failing in their scientific pretensions and legal challenges.

To date, it appears even skeptical sorts here are having trouble admitting to the truth of my major premise.

Interesting!

[mutile]

The conclusion does not follow as there is no requirement for all objects to age at the same rate, some objects may age significantly faster if God wanted them to.

[marplots]

The conclusion does not follow because you are claiming that empirical evidence trumps the Bible. That can't be the case -- the evidence is wrong and "empirical" or not, it has no status in the argument at all.

Your mistake is in moving beyond the Bible as the revealed source of inerrant truth in the first place. The syllogism should stop with the first premise and drop the "if" from it.

1) The earth was created in 6 days, less than 10,000 years ago.

There you go. I fixed it for you. See how concise revealed truth can be? No need to try twisty logic yoga to it at all.

[RLBaty]

The conclusion does not follow as there is
no requirement for all objects to age at
the same rate, some objects may age
significantly faster if God wanted them
to.



Now, that's a little more like it and sounds like the sort of thing typically coming from a young-earth creation-science promoter who has trouble with formal logical constructs and true hypothetical statements.

In claiming that the "conclusion does not follow", the poster seems to be suggesting that the argument,

Breach of rule 6 removed.

Is that it, "mutile"?

Otherwise, the equivocation about how things "age" at different rates is a subject to be dealt with later in the exercise; for those who progress that far.

[RLBaty]

The conclusion does not follow because you are claiming that empirical evidence trumps the Bible. That can't be the case -- the evidence is wrong and "empirical" or not, it has no status in the argument at all.

Your mistake is in moving beyond the Bible as the revealed source of inerrant truth in the first place. The syllogism should stop with the first premise and drop the "if" from it.

1) The earth was created in 6 days, less than 10,000 years ago.

There you go. I fixed it for you. See how concise revealed truth can be? No need to try twisty logic yoga to it at all.



No mistake on my part!

If there be a mistake, Marplots, it is you framing the issue so as to fail to distinguish between your interpretation of the Bible and what God's word might actually mean. More about that later...maybe.

Marplots, you are also getting ahead in the exercise without first resolving the fundamentals.

Revealed truth comes in both "special" and "natural" revelations.

Even if "the earth was created in 6 days, less than 10,000 years ago", the exercise stands and the correct answers to the fundamental questions remain the same.

Marplots, how do you answer:

Breach of rule 6 removed.

[GeeMack]

[*snide insults and spam snipped*]


Is that you, yrreg?

[RLBaty]

...No need to try twisty logic yoga to it at all.



I don't know if "marplots" is a bonafide young-earth creation-science promoter or just trying to look like one, but such comments are typical of how young-earth creation-science promoters turn on logic when logic turns on them and, in part, illustrates my claim as to how my little exercise can be used to demonstrate, in part, why it is that young-earth creation-science promoters have failed in their scientific pretensions and legal challenges.

But back to those two fundamental questions should there be any here interested in proceeding, step by reasonable step, with the exercise:
Breach of rule 6 removed.

[RLBaty]

Is that you, yrreg?



> No matter how high a hungry fox jumped to reach
> some grapes hanging from a tall vine, it could not
> reach them; so it left saying to itself:
>
>> “Anyway the grapes are sour.”

[GeeMack]

Here's the basic argument which, I have found, confounds the young-earth creation-science promoters I have encountered and has been used successfully to demonstrate why it is, in part, that young-earth creation-science promoters have failed in their scientific pretensions and legal challenges:

[*spam snipped*]


It appears your unsupported assertion remains unsupported. Although "young-earth creation-science promoters" do seem to have "failed in their scientific pretensions and legal challenges", your little alleged exercise in logic doesn't demonstrate why that is so.

So both the YEC promoters and you have failed to make your cases. If you start over, maybe try another approach. The repetition of your original comments isn't working.

[RLBaty]

(Y)our little alleged exercise in logic doesn't
demonstrate why that is so.

If you start over, maybe try another approach.

The repetition of your original comments isn't
working.



It's working, but I do recognize you propose to have a different opinion about what conclusions might be drawn from my exercise as it has developed in this venue.

But, I will allow you to start over and see if you can offer your answers to the two fundamental questions:

Breach of rule 6 removed.

Others with legitimate interests in the exercise are also welcome to provide their answers to the questions, with any discussion/comments they might deem appropriate.

[Marduk]

It's working, .

where ?
:rolleyes:

[GeeMack]

Those two issues usually are what confounds the young-earth creation-science promoters I have encountered [...]


Their being confounded by your gibberish does not mean what you think it means.

[marplots]

No mistake on my part!

If there be a mistake, Marplots, it is you framing the issue so as to fail to distinguish between your interpretation of the Bible and what God's word might actually mean. More about that later...maybe.

Hang on here. When did it become "my interpretation?" There is no intermediary here and no "interpretation" on offer. You are adding in a step that isn't there.

Marplots, you are also getting ahead in the exercise without first resolving the fundamentals.

Well, I guess I'd like to move on to the more interesting stuff.

Revealed truth comes in both "special" and "natural" revelations.

Even if "the earth was created in 6 days, less than 10,000 years ago", the exercise stands and the correct answers to the fundamental questions remain the same.

Marplots, how do you answer:

(1)

Is my argument so constructed that if the premises
are true the conclusion will follow as true therefrom?

Maybe, except things can be created with age, can't they? Or is this beyond God's power?
You may be familiar with empirical evidence that shows time is relative and not a static thing. You should add that bit of scientific truth into the mix.


Does my argument, given the stipulations and the
force and effect of sound, biblical, common-sense
reasoning, have a true major premise?

Sure, why not? The conclusion doesn't follow necessarily though.

[RLBaty]

where ?



Here! :)

[RLBaty]

...gibberish...



You said the magic word; meet Goldsmith and Flank! :)

I think I must have missed it again. What were your answers to the questions:
Breach of rule 6 removed.

[RLBaty]

(1)

When did it become "my interpretation?"
There is no intermediary here and no "interpretation" on offer.

(2)

Well, I guess I'd like to move on to the more interesting stuff.

(3)

(T)hings can be created with age, can't they?
Or is this beyond God's power?



(1)

Didn't you propose:

> The earth was created in 6 days,
> less than 10,000 years ago.

That's the interpretation I referenced.

(2)

As far as this exercise is concerned, if my argument is not constructed such that if its premises are true its conclusion will follow as true therefrom, then there is nothing to move on to.

As far as this exercise is concerned, if my argument is so constructed that if its premsies are true the conclusion will follow as true therefrom, but its major premise is not true, then there is nothing to move on to.

(3)

I recently had that discussion with McDonald and we did not reach an agreement. I proposed that God could not make something older than it is. McDonald suggested otherwise. McDonald appeared to confuse the issue and couldn't decide whether he wanted to claim that God could make stuff older than it is or simply wanted to claim that God could make things look older than they are.

Marplots, are you proposing that God can make stuff older than it is or that he can simply make stuff look older than it is.

Of course, in proposing the "apparent/mature age" doctrine in an effort to impeach my argument, the promoter demonstrates why it is that young-earth creation-science promoters fail in their scientific pretensions and legal challenges. :)

Breach of rule 6 removed.

[DallasDad]

God help me, I can't resist.(1)

Is my argument so constructed that if the premises
are true the conclusion will follow as true therefrom?

and

(2)

Does my argument, given the stipulations and the
force and effect of sound, biblical, common-sense
reasoning, have a true major premise?Yes, yes, yes. Now what? Please tell us. Someone has agreed, so you may go to the next step. Tum-tum-ta-da!

TIME FOR THE BIG REVEAL, PAL.

[gnawing nails in anticipation]

[RLBaty]

God help me, I can't resist.

Yes, yes, yes.

Now what?

Please tell us.

Someone has agreed, so you may go to the next step. Tum-tum-ta-da!

TIME FOR THE BIG REVEAL, PAL.

[gnawing nails in anticipation]



Someone has agreed?

Breach of rule 6 removed.

"Dallas", are you saying "yes", "yes" because that is your position; you actually agree with me?

Someone around here recently suggested that someone or another around here may be prone to lying.

So, I just want to make it clear as to whether or not you, "DallasDad", are affirming your agreement with me on those two fundamental matters.

In any case, there are also others who have been participating in the discussion, such as it has been, and we need to give them time to get up to speed before we consider moving on in the exercise.

There's no "big reveal" for those familiar with the popular public debate over young-earth creation-science and why its promoters fail in their scientific pretensions and legal challenges and how my exercise, in part, brings out a demonstration of such.

It's just a reasoned and reasonable, step by step process in getting to what is obvious for many informed on the issues.

But we will get there, here, depending on the level of legitimate interest in completing the exercise.

[DallasDad]

Oh, lord, everyone must agree?

Forget it.

[RLBaty]

Oh, lord, everyone must agree?

Forget it.



HMMM!

It appears "DallasDad" is not willing yet to say whether or not he actually agrees with me on those two fundamental matters!

[GeeMack]

You said the magic word; meet Goldsmith and Flank! :)

I think I must have missed it again. What were your answers to the questions:


You made some claims. You claimed that your argument, which appears to be babbling nonsense, "has been used successfully to demonstrate why it is, in part, that young-earth creation-science promoters have failed in their scientific pretensions and legal challenges"...

Here's the basic argument which, I have found, confounds the young-earth creation-science promoters I have encountered and has been used successfully to demonstrate why it is, in part, that young-earth creation-science promoters have failed in their scientific pretensions and legal challenges:


But for some reason you're unwilling or unable to support that claim. Causing "young-earth creation-science promoters" to shrug their shoulders and say, "Huh?," does not constitute successfully demonstrating anything. Well maybe it demonstrates that your argument is utter nonsense. Confounding people is not the same thing as making a clear, understandable argument. You have failed to do that.

So do you intend to support your claim? Or do you intend to continue spamming the forum with gibberish, all the while treating people with disdain and contempt?

[DallasDad]

I'm just too old to be rolled like this. I knew better, I really did, but there's always this secret hope that my mamma didn't beat out of me, that says, "Maybe if I give the guy one more chance, we can communicate."

Nope.

[marplots]

(1)


Marplots, are you proposing that God can make stuff older than it is or that he can simply make stuff look older than it is.

I don't know. I suppose either would work or some combination. However, it depends on what you mean by "older than it is" -- we do know it can't actually be older than when God created it.


Does my argument, given the stipulations and the
force and effect of sound, biblical, common-sense
reasoning, have a true major premise?

I'll try to fix it for you:

> God's word (the text) says
> everything began over a period
> of six days, and
>
> that means it
> was six 24-hour days occurring
> a few thousand years ago.
>
> IF there is empirical
> evidence that some thing is
> actually much older than a
> few thousand years,
>
> THEN the interpretation of
> the empirical evidence is incorrect.

How's that? Back on track?

Certainly you know that evidence can mislead and a mistake might be made?

[RLBaty]

So do you intend to support your claim?

Or do you intend to continue spamming
the forum with gibberish, all the while
treating people with disdain and contempt?



Asked and answered!

We can deal with my claims and any legitimate interests therein in due course.

My argument has been presented.

My basic stipulations have been presented.

Two fundamental questions have been asked.

If GeeMack has answered, I don't recall seeing his answers.

GeeMack, what say ye:

Breach of rule 6 removed.

[RLBaty]

I'll try to fix it for you:

(snip)

How's that? Back on track?

Certainly you know that evidence can mislead
and a mistake might be made?



No need for a "fix" in this exercise.

If you wish to discuss your wannabe argument, you are welcome to start your own thread and see if there is any interest.
Breach of rule 6 removed.

[GeeMack]

Asked and answered!

We can deal with my claims and any legitimate interests therein in due course.


The reluctance to support the claims is noted.

My argument has been presented.


Not in a rational intelligible manner, it hasn't.

My basic stipulations have been presented.


Your stipulations appear to be founded on some dishonest intent.

Two fundamental questions have been asked. [*and spammed and re-spammed, here and on other forums, claims without any apparent supporting arguments*]


Yep. It's all about you, isn't it? It's about creating a framework which you can control. Your argument, constructed on a foundation of dishonesty and deceit, appears to be that of a Christian proselytizer on a mission.

[RLBaty]

(1)

Not in a rational intelligible manner, it hasn't.

(2)

Your stipulations appear to be founded on
some dishonest intent.

(3)

It's about creating a framework which you
can control. Your argument, constructed on
a foundation of dishonesty and deceit,
appears to be that of a Christian proselytizer
on a mission.



(1)

The argument has been presented in a rational, intelligent manner and is repeated below along with those two fundamental issues that GeeMack seems to still be unwilling to openly, honestly address and/or discuss in a rational, intelligent manner.

(2)

The stipulations are quite simple, open, honest and go to the fundamental issues in the case:

"God's word" - communication from God in
words that are not wrong.

"Interpreted" - what some folks think, and
which thinking may be wrong.

"Empirical evidence that..." - some thing is
more than a few thousand years old and
we can so determine such independent of
the text.

If there is any dishonesty going on here, I think that problem is inherent in the course GeeMack has been taking.

(3)

I guess one of the problems with the anonymous, skeptical, snipers here is that they are so lacking in openness and honesty that they can't imagine their opposition being honest.

The argument has been designed for a specific group of folks (young-earth creation-science promoters), to address the fundamental issue they face, and demonstrate, in part, why it is that young-earth creation-science promoters fail in their scientific pretensions and legal challenges.

Opinions to the contrary are so noted for the record. Young-earth creation-science promoters are not the only with the kind of problems that have kept them from prevailing legally and scientifically; as this exercise has so demonstrated.
Breach of rule 6 removed.

[RLBaty]

(A)

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

(B)

> that means (is interpreted to mean)
> it was six 24-hour days occurring
> a few thousand years ago.

(C)

> IF there is empirical
> evidence that some thing is
> actually much older than a
> few thousand years,
>
> THEN the interpretation of
> the empirical evidence is incorrect.



Upon reconsideration, my earlier response to the above message may have been a little hasty.

Marplots' proposals, while avoiding the two fundamental questions, does address the typical young-earth creation-science position regarding the minor premise and, when properly considered, demonstrates why it is that young-earth creation-science promoters have failed in their scientific pretentions and legal challenges.

In effect, Marplots stipulates to (A) and (B) of my minor premise, and I take no issue with that (Note: I have parenthetically noted in the quote above that what Marplots proposes the text means is an interpretation and, as such, may be in error).

Marplots proposes that (C) of the minor premise is false.

Why is that? I propose that the position reflected in Marplots' message may be more briefly and easily understood when stated as follows:

> I, a young-earth creation-science promoter, have
> my interpretation of the text regarding the age
> of stuff, and that trumps any real world evidence
> (and the interpretation thereof) to the contrary;
> after all, God just made it "look" older than it is.

Now, does anyone here have a serious disagreement with that as demonstrating, in part, why it is that young-earth creation-science promoters have failed in their scientific pretensions and legal challenges?

Ken Ham, a popular promoter of things young-earth, states it this way on his website:

> By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed
> evidence in any field, including history and chronology,
> can be valid if it contradicts (our interpretation of)
> the scriptural record.

I've added the parenthetical words in order to clarify what it is that Ken is actually getting at; a distinction that is often overlooked by young-earth creation-science promoters.

So then, what has my exercise demonstrated, in part, in my opinion:

(1)

Young-earth creation-science promoters typically have
trouble recognizing and accepting properly constructed
arguments that challenge their fundamental position.

(2)

Young-earth creation-science promoters typically have
trouble recognizing and accepting properly constructed
true, mixed hypothetical premises that challenge their
fundamental position.

(3)

Young-earth creation-science promoters have their
interpretation of the text regarding the age of stuff
and that trumps any real world evidence (and its
interpretation) to the contrary.

And that's why, in part, they fail in their scientific pretensions and legal challenges.

That's also why I have indicated earlier that this exercise allows one to deal with the fundamental issues and avoid having to actually get into squabbling about the technical scientific details; though I am glad there are those who have the time, talent and interest of doing so.

[mutile]

The argument construction is flawed, in the unlikely event that god exists, logic and physical laws are meaningless independent of god. Truth is only able to be understood by god and any attempt at rational analysis is as pointless as arguing about which believers get to go to heaven.

[RLBaty]

The argument construction is flawed,
in the unlikely event that god exists,
logic and physical laws are meaningless
independent of god. Truth is only able
to be understood by god and any attempt
at rational analysis is as pointless as
arguing about which believers get to go
to heaven.



My argument's construction has not been shown to be flawed, whether God exists or not.

> If p (A,B,C), then q (D).
> P (A,B,C).
> Therefore, q (D).

Given the two choices, I would say the flaw is in the claim of Mutile above.

[mutile]

> If p (A,B,C), then q (D).


When an omniscient god exists there is no if.

[RLBaty]

When an omniscient god exists there is no if.



Is this your argument:

> If an omniscient god exists,
> then there is no "if".

> An omniscient god exists.

> Therefore, there is no "if".

Or maybe this:

> If an omniscient god exists,
> then there is no "if".

> There is an "if".

> Therefore, there is no omniscient god.

Do you consider either of those as being properly constructed??

[mutile]

no

[RLBaty]

no



So, you don't have an argument, you've just got an opinion?

[mutile]

I listed my argument above.

[RLBaty]

I listed my argument above.



Your argument is flawed!

Maybe it's the construction.

Maybe it's something else.

Maybe it's both.

But as for what you had to say about my argument, you were wrong about proposing there is a flaw in its construction.

Some agree with you.
Some don't.

I don't!

See my previous postings for details and the invitation for serious correspondents to take up the matter.

[mutile]

Some agree with you.
Some don't.

I don't!



I guess it is just your opinion then.

[RLBaty]

I guess it is just your opinion then.



No, regarding the proper construction of my argument, it is not "just my opinion".

The problem with your alleged argument, as presented here, is another matter.

Maybe you should start your own thread to discuss whatever it is you want to claim for your alleged argument on "if"; since your effort to derail this one is a violation of the posted rules here.

[Kopji]

I think that if you enclosed the Gods Word part in quotes, your logic seems sound. I'll bite. The real problem, as many of us and even yourself seem to admit - is that despite YEC claims to the contrary it is not a scientific argument.

Your logic fails to convince not because it is not logical, because their position is not falsifiable. This failure is illuminated by claims that 'maybe God created everything looking very old, but is really much younger'. Is there some way to disprove this idea? No. Is there some way to disprove that everything was not created 10 minutes ago? No.

The YEC arguments you are facing are not ones of science, so logic is pretty, but like trying to hit a mirage with a hammer. It is not that the hammer is not a good hammer, it is that the wall is not really there. This is why they fail, not because they have not yet faced some formidable new logic. And frankly, your argument sounds quite a lot like something many of us have already tried, with success similar to yours but without the long discussion thread about it.

To recap - a scientific argument would be able to be falsified. All a YEC needs to do is phrase their argument that way - what would it take to be NOT true?

[RLBaty]

I think that if you enclosed the Gods Word part in quotes, your logic seems sound. I'll bite. The real problem, as many of us and even yourself seem to admit - is that despite YEC claims to the contrary it is not a scientific argument.

Your logic fails to convince not because it is not logical, because their position is not falsifiable. This failure is illuminated by claims that 'maybe God created everything looking very old, but is really much younger'. Is there some way to disprove this idea? No. Is there some way to disprove that everything was not created 10 minutes ago? No.

The YEC arguments you are facing are not ones of science, so logic is pretty, but like trying to hit a mirage with a hammer. It is not that the hammer is not a good hammer, it is that the wall is not really there. This is why they fail, not because they have not yet faced some formidable new logic. And frankly, your argument sounds quite a lot like something many of us have already tried, with success similar to yours but without the long discussion thread about it.

To recap - a scientific argument would be able to be falsified. All a YEC needs to do is phrase their argument that way - what would it take to be NOT true?



Thanks for your comments.

I think I addressed most of those issues in my summary of the exercise in message #64 above.

As you suggest, my exercise offers nothing really new, no tricks; just a formalized statement of one of the fundamental issues facing the young-earth creation-science promoter.

As I think has been demonstrated here, and numerous other places, an analysis of my argument, especially when engaged in by a young-earth creation-science promoter, helps to demonstrate why it is they fail in their scientific pretensions and legal challenges; without having to deal with the technical scientific details.

Typically, the young-earth creation-science promoter rails against the construction of my argument.

Typically, the young-earth creation-science promoter rails against the truth of the major premise.

Typically, the young-earth creation-science promoter rails on and on as if to evade dealing with the force and effect of the minor premise which forces them to admit, as you note, that they have a non-falsifiable, religious position; confirming, in part, why it is they fail in their scientific pretensions and legal challenges.

[Kopji]

You go then, and good luck.

[marplots]

Typically, the young-earth creation-science promoter rails on and on as if to evade dealing with the force and effect of the minor premise which forces them to admit, as you note, that they have a non-falsifiable, religious position; confirming, in part, why it is they fail in their scientific pretensions and legal challenges.

Where can I get me some of those scientific pretensions and legal challenges? They sound important.

I don't see how this matters one whit though. The age of the earth seems like a petty dispute when compared to the major themes dealt with in the Bible. Are you trying to shoehorn Biblical truth into a framework of your own design -- one defined in such a way as to make it fail your test? Is the reason to give leverage to a more general argument that dismisses the rest of the Bible out of hand?

I think if I were arguing any of this in a legal context, I would shoot for freedom of speech as the basis instead of any pretense at hitting the scientific lore directly.

[RLBaty]

(1)

Where can I get me some of those scientific
pretensions and legal challenges?

(2)

I don't see how this matters one whit though.
The age of the earth seems like a petty dispute
when compared to the major themes dealt with
in the Bible.

(3)

I think if I were arguing any of this in a legal
context, I would shoot for freedom of speech
as the basis instead of any pretense at hitting
the scientific lore directly.



(1)

I hear there are folks in Dover that can testify on those matters. You might also try http://www.answersingenesis.org . I think there is a new thread around here that has suggested there's some legal fuss brewing in Texas over such things; something about a dull hypothesis or some such thing and the potential that it's all due to alien saltation.

(2)

I didn't start the discussion, I have just chosen to follow the lead of others who have insisted in bringing the issue into the public square. It looks like they are going to be around for a long time (e.g., Ken Ham is in the process of raising $150,000,000.00 for his ArkEncounter amusement park to supplement his $25,000,000.00 young-earth creation-science museum).

(3)

I don't think anyone denies the freedom of speech to those who wish to promote the notion that "nothing is more than a few thousand years old". However, such freedoms have limitations (e.g., you can be prevented of teaching your religious notions as science in a public school science class).

[marplots]

I don't think anyone denies the freedom of speech to those who wish to promote the notion that "nothing is more than a few thousand years old". However, such freedoms have limitations (e.g., you can be prevented of teaching your religious notions as science in a public school science class).

I never really understood the push to make Biblical truth a part of public education. I see no duty in the Bible to force learning on anyone through government mandate. I predict it will continue to backfire.

If we merely teach our children to read and then give them the truth to read, that is enough. The leap forward of Protestantism was the personalization of inspired Biblical truth by allowing each explorer the opportunity to see for themselves, to gain insight and inspiration directly from the source work. When we put teachers in the role of handing out God's message, we turn them into priests. They become a barrier more than a conduit.

Creationists who adopt the ill-fitting robes of science are as foolish as scientists trying to read the Bible as if it were a treatise on geology. Knowledge by way of science is born defective and meant to be criticized. This is thought to improve the genre in a stepwise fashion. Not so with Biblical truth that is already perfect and complete as written.

And this is why the syllogism fails. It is a blunt tool that doesn't capture the essence of what it attempts to address, as nonsensical as starting with the premise, "If some triangles have four sides..."

[RLBaty]

(1)

Creationists who adopt the ill-fitting robes of science
are as foolish as scientists trying to read the Bible as
if it were a treatise on geology.

Knowledge by way of science is born defective and
meant to be criticized.

This is thought to improve the genre in a stepwise
fashion.

Not so with Biblical truth that is already perfect and
complete as written.

(2)

And this is why the syllogism fails.

It is a blunt tool that doesn't capture the essence of
what it attempts to address, as nonsensical as starting
with the premise, "If some triangles have four sides..."



(2)

My syllogism does not fail, and is not as you propose.

If you would like to revist that conversation, I will ask you to start fresh and take up those two fundamental questions.

(1)

God's special revelation is no more perfect than his natural revelation for purposes of this discussion. This point, you seem to continue to misrepresent.

God's word may be perfect and complete, but that does not lead to the conclusion that any particular interpretation thereof (e.g., "nothing is more than a few thousand years old") is correct.

Theology, like science, is subject to defect and meant to be criticized (e.g., "try the spirits").

Breach of Rule 5 removed.

[RLBaty]

I might add that if it should ever be the case that my syllogism "fails", you won't have to worry about hearing the announcement from some anonymous sniper in such a place as this.

Not at all.

That news will be the headline story in all of the world's major media markets.

I have a habit of checking the headlines for the possibility.

As of today, Monday, May 9, 2011 at or about 12:15 PM MT, my syllogism has NOT failed.

My "Goliath of GRAS"...still the one to beat!

[marplots]

(2)

My syllogism does not fail, and is not as you propose.

If you would like to revist that conversation, I will ask you to start fresh and take up those two fundamental questions.

I feel as if I am the monkey who is resisting training here. I am the bad monkey.

My fundamental, unrebutted claims:

(1)

It is so constructed that if its premises are true
then its conclusion will follow as true therefrom.

My rebuttal was that even if the premises were true, the conclusion only follows under the rules of logic. But the input is not susceptible to that type of analysis. If you wish to claim that logical recipes give logical results, that's fine. How can I dispute what you assert by definition?

(2)

The major premise, given the stipulations and
the force and effect of sound, biblical, common-
sense reasoning, is true.

If the "stipulations and the force and effect of sound, biblical, common sense" yields falsehood, where do you think the flaw probably resides? My bet is that it happens with the adjectives you've used there.

Here's another way of saying it. If you think you are using sound biblical reasoning and you come to an erroneous conclusion, you weren't. It's an easy test. It would be the same in the scientific realm. If you used sound scientific reasoning to conclude that trees were impossible objects, you'd suspect the error was in your method, not the tree over there.

A logical structure doesn't inject truth. It can only move from one idea to another in a systematic way. You are misusing it like I might misuse mathematical truth ( 1 + 1 = 2) to claim that adding one pile of beans to another pile of beans gives me two piles of beans. What you put into your logic machine matters.

However, if you keep posting the same thing over and over again, eventually it gains traction through repetition and it may end up sounding true or profound. So there's that.

[marplots]

MAJOR PREMISE:

> IF (A) Scientific discoveries say the world is several billion years old, and
>
> IF (B) those discoveries are accepted by some as valid, and
>
> IF (C) there is an inerrant revelation from God that the earth is much younger,
>
> THEN (D) the interpretation of
> the scientific discoveries by some is wrong.

MINOR PREMISE:

> (A) Scientific discoveries say the world is several billion years old, and
>
> (B) those discoveries are accepted by some as valid, and
>
> (C) there is an inerrant revelation from God that the earth is much younger.

CONCLUSION:

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


Now I can cut and paste this and berate people to accept the form of my logical argument as pristine, pure and without challenge. I can thus move from being the monkey in the lab to the authority figure-- possibly with a slight increase in my wages.

[RLBaty]

(1)

I feel as if I am the monkey who is resisting
training here. I am the bad monkey.

(2)

My rebuttal was that even if the premises
were true, the conclusion only follows under
the rules of logic. But the input is not susceptible
to that type of analysis. If you wish to claim that
logical recipes give logical results, that's fine.

How can I dispute what you assert by definition?

(3)

If the "stipulations and the force and effect of
sound, biblical, common sense" yields falsehood,
where do you think the flaw probably resides?
My bet is that it happens with the adjectives
you've used there.

(4)

You are misusing it (logic)...



I'll get to your latest post shortly, but the above warrants consideration also.

(1)

You play the "bad monkey" role well, but for those who may be wondering; no, I am not paying you for your performance.

(2)

I have proposed that the argument is so constructed that if its premises are true then its conclusion will follow as true. You can attempt to rebut that by putting on the demonstration that the conclusion will not, necessarily, follow if the premises are true.

You could, similarly, attack the truth of the major premise, by putting on the demonstration as to how (A), (B), and (C), as defined, could all exist as true without contradiction.

You seem to really have a problem with that in this exercise, even while indicating that in other such exercises you would accept and actually use such logical, biblical, common-sense constructs.

Go figure!

"Bad monkey"!

(3)

It's not in the adjectives, and if there is a flaw in my argument and/or the claims I have made for it, you have yet to establish such.

(4)

Another ipse dixit. I am not the one misusing logic in this exercise.

Now, on to your next message.

[GeeMack]

It's not in the adjectives, and if there is a flaw in my argument and/or the claims I have made for it, you have yet to establish such.


Your lack of recognizing the flaws in your argument does not mean no flaws exists.

[Mick Houlahan]

Pretty sure Satan made those rocks look old to draw you away from God. I win.

[RLBaty]

MAJOR PREMISE:

> IF (A) Scientific discoveries say the world
> is several billion years old, and
>
> IF (B) those discoveries are accepted by
> some as valid, and
>
> IF (C) there is an inerrant revelation from
> God that the earth is much younger,
>
> THEN (D) the interpretation of the
> scientific discoveries by some is wrong.

MINOR PREMISE:

> (A) Scientific discoveries say the world is
> several billion years old, and
>
> (B) those discoveries are accepted by
> some as valid, and
>
> (C) there is an inerrant revelation from
> God that the earth is much younger.

CONCLUSION:

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

Now I can cut and paste this and berate people to accept the form of my logical argument as pristine, pure and without challenge.

I can thus move from being the monkey in the lab to the authority figure-- possibly with a slight increase in my wages.



OK, maybe we are making progress and can turn your "bad monkey" act into an "good monkey" act.

We'll compare your "David" to my "Goliath" and see how far you may wish to progress in the exercise. (Your terminology could be improved and so make the exercise better, and you didn't provide relevant stipulations regarding the meaning of your terms/phrases, but I will leave it as you have presented it for now and accommodate it without quibbling.)

Question #1:

Are RLBaty's and Marplots arguments so constructed
that if their premises are true their conclusions will
follow as true therefrom?

> RLBaty - Yes
> Marplots - ???

Question #2:

Are the major premises of RLBaty's and Marplots'
arguments true?

> RLBaty - Yes
> Marplots - ???

(For those watching in anticiaption, you will notice that Marplots appears to be determined to further demonstrate, just as I had proposed, why it is that young-earth creation-science promoters fail in their scientific pretensions and legal challenges.)

Here again is my "Goliath" for ready reference:

Breach of Rule 6 removed.

[mutile]

God is omnipotent, if he wants to make your argument false he can, therefore your argument is flawed.

[RLBaty]

God is omnipotent, if he wants to make your
argument false he can, therefore your argument
is flawed.



Nope!

There are some things God cannot do, as has already been addressed in this exercise:

God cannot make some things older than they are.

God cannot make round squares.

God cannot make "valid" arguments "invalid".

God cannot make a "true" premise into a "false" premise.

Regarding more fundamental matters, in this exercise the following is intended to be used by me:

> Proper premises are either true or false.

> Arguments are either valid or not valid.

> Arguments are either sound or not sound.

That some may disagree with one or more aspects of my argument and the claims I make for it is no evidence of any "flaw" in my argument.

Otherwise, "Mutile", you, like GeeMack, appear to continue to have problems with the rules of this venue.

Do not change a user's name so as to insult.

[mutile]

God must exist, proved by Anselm's syllogism.

Dead men can't be raised from the dead.

Lazarus was raised from the dead.

Therefore God can change the truth of a syllogism.

[GeeMack]

Nope!

There are some things God cannot do, as has already been addressed in this exercise:

God cannot make some things older than they are.

God cannot make round squares.

God cannot make "valid" arguments "invalid".

God cannot make a "true" premise into a "false" premise.


What a weakling piece of dirt that little worthless god is. Sounds like something Christians would believe in. Some mere human claims to be able to construct an irrefutable logic exercise in under 150 words, but it requires making the god in the exercise virtually impotent to make it work. This whole failed exercise in futility might get more traction in the religion category, and even more in the humor section. :D

[mutile]

so you are saying that your argument is valid but not true, what is the point of all this?

[marplots]

Question #1:

Are RLBaty's and Marplots arguments so constructed
that if their premises are true their conclusions will
follow as true therefrom?

> RLBaty - Yes
> Marplots - ???

No. Because logic in and of itself does not preserve truth. This has to do with the difference between the world outside of logic and how it must be molded and modeled to fit the structure required. I think others here have pointed that out to you as well.

In short, your premises must capture all that is meaningful about the terms when you export them back into the world beyond the word games. It revolves around what you mean by "true." There is a semantic flip involved between the definitional truth of givens and the larger truth of how things actually are.

This criticism applies to both of our constructs equally.
Question #2:

Are the major premises of RLBaty's and Marplots'
arguments true?

> RLBaty - Yes
> Marplots - ???

You can define them so in the abstract. This will devolve into a "yes it is"/"no it isn't."

(For those watching in anticiaption, you will notice that Marplots appears to be determined to further demonstrate, just as I had proposed, why it is that young-earth creation-science promoters fail in their scientific pretensions and legal challenges.)

You don't need a logical chain to solve your original problem. All you have to do is look at societies where there is less or no failing going on. In a theocracy, the roles would be reversed -- hence, it is a cultural judgement on relative merit that decides which types of evidence fail and which succeed. It has very little to do with some idea of truth that you hold in mind.

A better questions would be why appeal to religious dogma works in one society (that is, forms the basis for an ongoing culture) and why it does not in another?

Scientific pretensions and legal challenges fail in the US, for instance, because infallible, literal Biblical truths are not accepted as such by a majority. You will find they fail on a cultural level while maintaining authority at the level of the individual believer. If there were enough believers, the matter would fall the other way.

[gnome]

If nobody's said it yet, I feel like the OP falls into Achilles' dilemma in Lewis Carroll's What the Tortoise Said to Achilles (http://www.ditext.com/carroll/tortoise.html)

[RLBaty]

(snip)

[RLBaty]

Some mere human claims to be able to construct
an irrefutable logic exercise in under 150 words,
but it requires making the god in the exercise
virtually impotent to make it work.

This whole failed exercise in futility...



My exercise here has enjoyed considerable success.

Some mere humans, quite expectedly, might claim to have impeached my argument and the claims I have made for it, but such ipse dixit claims are of little or no consequence; but do contribute to the history of the discussion and demonstrates that it's not only young-earth creation-science promoters who have problems with the fundamentals regarding such things.

[RLBaty]

So you are saying that your argument is valid
but not true, what is the point of all this?



Properly stated premises are either true or false.

Arguments are either valid or not valid; sound or not sound.

I am saying my argument is valid, has true premises, and, as a result, is sound.

That, however, has been offered for discussion in the form of an exercise in the context of how it relates to the young-earth creation-science debate and why it is that young-earth creation-science promoters have failed in their scientific pretensions and legal challenges.

The point has been adequately demonstrated; though the discussion of the details may continue as there is time and interest.

There are other points/conclusions that might be drawn from the exercise in this venue, and each is welcome to their form their own opinions on such things.

[RLBaty]

If nobody's said it yet, I feel like the OP
falls into Achilles' dilemma in Lewis Carroll's
What the Tortoise Said to Achilles (http://www.ditext.com/carroll/tortoise.html)



I don't recall anyone mentioning it.

While it might be worthy of various considerations, I picked up the following that is relevant to my exercise (as adapted for relevance):

> A reader might say 'I accept as true the Hypothetical Proposition
> that, if A and B and C be true, D must be true; but, I don't accept
> A, B, and/or C as true.'

> There might also he some reader who would say 'I accept A, B,
> and/or C as true, but I don't accept the Hypothetical.

That's the nature of the modus ponens construction my argument follows:

> If A, B, & C, then D.
> A, B, C.
> Therefore, D.

The form, as they say, guarantees that, if the premises are true, the conclusion follows as true therefrom.

The hypothetical can be true and can be recognized as true even though it is possible that one or more of the hypothetical conditions is false.

Similarly, one may accept the truth of the hypothesized conditions of the major premise (the antecedent) and reject that D (the consequent) follows therefrom (e.g., the minor premise can be true while the major premise is false).

From my experience, that's just standard Logic 101 stuff; at least it is in the "authorities" I use for reference.

Apart from that, it makes common and biblical sense to me personally.

Don't you think so as well?

[RLBaty]

No.

In short, your premises must...

This criticism applies to both of our constructs equally.



"Valid", for purposes of this exercise, is defined as an argument that is so constructed that if its premises are true its conclusion will follow as true therefrom.

In response to the question as to the validity of your "David" and my "Goliath", you have answered that neither is valid with the "no" indicated above.

That's fine, and it helps identify a fundamental problem that you, and maybe others, are still struggling with in this exercise.

As was noted early on, the validity issue has to do with "form" and not "content".

Your narrative reflects that on this fundamental issue (e.g., if it isn't in valid form, the rest doesn't matter for purposes of this exercise) you simply aren't recognizing or accepting what is most commonly accepted.

That's fine, and it's important to make that clear regarding where we differ.

I propose that your criticism as to the "form" of the two arguments, yours and mine, is not sustainable.

So, maybe if we can't get over that disagreement, it's as good a stopping place as any and participants and observors can draw their own opinions therefrom.

In summary,

If my argument is not valid, the rest doesn't matter.

If my argument is not valid and does not have a true major premise, the rest does not matter.

If my argument is valid but does not have a true major premise, the rest does not matter.

If my argument is valid and has a true major premise, then the discussion is ripe for considering the minor premise and the further claims I make for the argument.

If there is further interest here in such things, fine.

If not, that's fine as well.

[DallasDad]

[Returning from cleaning up the blood on my desk and patching the dent where my forehead has impacted repeatedly]

Are you familiar with the term arguendo?

It means, more or less, that we're willing to assume something for the sake of the argument. It is a tool for moving ahead. "If such-and-such is true, then where can we go next?" "Ah, okay, let's assume it's true. Go ahead."

Arguendo, all of your major and minor stuff is valid, true, good, cool, wonderful, and awe-inspiring. WHAT COMES NEXT?

The suspense is killing me. Hurry. You have at least 30 minutes before the wood filler on my desk is firm enough for me to start banging again.

[RLBaty]

[Returning from cleaning up the blood on my desk and patching the dent where my forehead has impacted repeatedly]

Are you familiar with the term arguendo?

It means, more or less, that we're willing to assume something for the sake of the argument. It is a tool for moving ahead. "If such-and-such is true, then where can we go next?" "Ah, okay, let's assume it's true. Go ahead."

Arguendo, all of your major and minor stuff is valid, true, good, cool, wonderful, and awe-inspiring. WHAT COMES NEXT?

The suspense is killing me. Hurry. You have at least 30 minutes before the wood filler on my desk is firm enough for me to start banging again.



Asked and answered!

If you can demonstrate an understanding of my summary as reflected in message #62, and still have questions, feel free to deal with the specifics as to what is troubling you regarding my simple exercise in critical thinking as applied to the fundamental young-earth creation-science position.

[DallasDad]

So there is no "next." Okay, then, start crowing victory. I'm out of here.

[RLBaty]

If you can demonstrate an understanding of my summary as reflected in message #62, and still have questions, feel free to deal with the specifics as to what is troubling you regarding my simple exercise in critical thinking as applied to the fundamental young-earth creation-science position.





Okay, then, start crowing victory.

I'm out of here.



As I indicated earlier, the exercise has been successfully completed, even while one or more posters continues to demonstrate a problem with the fundamentals.

In summary,

If my argument is not valid, the rest doesn't matter.

If my argument is valid but does not have a true major premise, the rest does not matter.

If my argument is valid and has a true major premise, then the discussion is ripe for considering the minor premise and the further claims I make for the argument.

If there is further serious interest here in such things, fine.

If not, that's fine as well.

Thanks for adding your parts to the history of this popular, public discussion.

[marplots]

I learned something. I didn't know what "ipse dixit" meant.

It was also worthwhile for me to use my atheist skepticism in the service of Young Earth Creationists who may not be as practiced at this kind of discourse.

I feel as though I got my money's worth and will not be asking for a refund. However, I would like some discount coupons to use on another thread of my choosing.

[RLBaty]

I learned something. I didn't know what "ipse dixit" meant.

It was also worthwhile for me to use my atheist skepticism
in the service of Young Earth Creationists who may not be
as practiced at this kind of discourse.

I feel as though I got my money's worth and will not be
asking for a refund. However, I would like some discount
coupons to use on another thread of my choosing.



I know what you mean. I was introduced to "ipse dixit" some time ago. It seems kinda cool and I've had occasion to work it into a number of conversations.

I thank you for your participation, though we might have taken it further.

The Internet is littered with the remains of the efforts of bonafide young-earth creation-science promoters to try to impeach the "Goliath of GRAS" and the claims I have made for it.

The record here reflects that some skeptics suffer from the same problems; or that they are at least very good at pretending that they do.

To the extent that they have been helped or will be helped through this historical record...they are welcome to the enlightment I have brought to this forum regarding these matters.

If there is further, serious interest, such interests might be pursued.

If not, as previously noted, the exercise has already come to a successful conclusion and folks are welcome to draw their own conclusions regarding such things.

[Kopji]

Well, I do like the logic of the argument, although in the final reel it seems like: 'If we find things older than 6000 years, then the earth is older than 6000 years'. I would think this would have occurred even to YEC's using crayolas.

The human discussion side of this thread is the part I found more interesting. There is a sense that logic can become a barrier to communication and I think we've seen that. If we always go for "I win - you lose", is that really a good long term strategy? Logic is a valuable tool in the kit, but convincing people is after all, a human endeavor. We are chock full of pretenses and just sometimes, outsized egos.

[TubbaBlubba]

RLBaty, if you paste your argument one more time the flaws will suddenly disappear. Trust me.

[RLBaty]

Well, I do like the logic of the argument, although in the final reel it seems like: 'If we find things older than 6000 years, then the earth is older than 6000 years'. I would think this would have occurred even to YEC's using crayolas.

The human discussion side of this thread is the part I found more interesting. There is a sense that logic can become a barrier to communication and I think we've seen that.

If we always go for "I win - you lose", is that really a good long term strategy?

Logic is a valuable tool in the kit, but convincing people is after all, a human endeavor.

We are chock full of pretenses and just sometimes, outsized egos.



Thanks for the analysis.

I think that has "occurred even to YEC's".

That's one reason why I developed my argument with them in mind and having in mind a way to deal with the fundamentals without having to quibble about technical scientific details that mask the real problem (though, as noted, I do appreciate the time, talent and effort of those who deal with those details).

The problem is not that YEC's don't understand the consequences that follow the finding that some things are more than a few thousand years old. They have, fundamentally, a rebuttal to that prospect; such as has been referred to here in previous messages.

That YEC rebuttal (e.g., why they reject the C of the minor premise of my argument) is a demonstration, in part, as to why they fail in their scientific pretensions and legal challenges.

I think you understand just how simple an exercise was set up in this thread.

It could have been pursued quite easily, comfortably, and without the conflict which you reference.

I generally go with the flow and, while preferring the gentler course, have found that the more rough and tumble course adds its own valuable component to the record and insight into such adversaries as may show up and resist the simplicity to be found in the exercise and reaching the proposed and reasonable results of such an exercise.

Kopji, thanks again for your temperate participation in, perhaps, concluding the thread.

[RLBaty]

RLBaty, if you paste your argument one more
time the flaws will suddenly disappear.

Trust me.



Trust me, the argument is easy enough to find here and elsewhere.

The flaws which you suggest "ipse dixit" do not exist and so cannot disappear.

[mutile]

Your argument has not convinced anyone, therefore it fails.

[RLBaty]

Your argument has not convinced anyone, therefore it fails.



That sounds like an "ipse dixit" universal negative! :)

It's not about whether anyone here admits to being convinced of anything one way another as a result of the exercise.

What the opposition has done demonstrates the success of the exercise.

Some might have a different opinion about such things.

That's fine.

In any case, it is not the case that success or failure of the exercise is contingent upon the admitted conversion of any so inclined as to resist the simple truths presented in exercise.

[TubbaBlubba]

Do you have anything more substantive than sophistry (the philosophy forum is over there), perhaps an actual addressing of the flaws in your argument?

[RLBaty]

Do you have anything more substantive...,
perhaps an actual addressing of the flaws
in your argument?



For those that didn't notice, the successful completion of the exercise has been demonstrated and previously, repeatedly announced.

"Ipse dixit" claims regarding flaws require no substantive or other reply.

In respect of the successful conclusion, demonstrated and announced, of the exercise, I have been trying to conclude the thread.

However, if anyone has a serious, substantive matter worthy of consideration, I might find the time and have the interest to help them with their problem(s).

[mutile]

MAJOR PREMISE:

> IF (A) God's word (the text) says
> everything began over a period
> of six days, and
>
> IF (B) God's word (the text) is
> interpreted by some to mean it
> was six 24-hour days occurring
> a few thousand years ago, and
>
> IF (C) there is empirical
> evidence that the earth is flat

> THEN (D) the earth is flat.

ABC is true so the earth must be flat, your logic is great.

[RLBaty]

MAJOR PREMISE:

> IF (A) God's word (the text) says
> everything began over a period
> of six days, and
>
> IF (B) God's word (the text) is
> interpreted by some to mean it
> was six 24-hour days occurring
> a few thousand years ago, and
>
> IF (C) there is empirical
> evidence that the earth is flat

> THEN (D) the earth is flat.

ABC is true so the earth must be flat, your logic is great.



I posted my major premise.
I posted my stipulations.
I invited those interested to engage the exercise.
Despite diversions, the exercise was completed with success.
Now it seems some wish to revisit one or more aspects of the exercise.

Serious interests will be considered.

The above premise, while it may be true, is not quite analogous to my major premise because the reason why it may be true is quite distinguishable from why it is my major premise is true. Observors will also note that no stipulations have been provided regarding the above premise.

If there is any serious disagreement regarding the truth of the above premise, it may be that the poster will want to discuss the details with such as might disagree. I might even have somewhat to offer to that discussion if there is serious interest; I might not.

Of course, it might be more appropriate for the poster to take his problem to another thread where it will be more appropriate to consider it in detail; if there were to be interest therein.

As to the subject of this thread, if there be any serious interest in discussing the major premise of my "Goliath of GRAS", its stipulations, the principles of sound, biblical, common-sense reasoning that might be appropriately used in evaluating its claim, and/or why it is alleged to be true, such will be considered as I have time.

Perhaps, if there is any serious interest in that, y'all will reach a consensus on the matter (e.g., agreeing with me that my major premise is true in consequent of the stipulations and the force and effect of sound, biblical, common-sense reasoning) by the time I return.

If not, maybe I will be able to help resolve any continuing doubts about that simple matter.

[RLBaty]

MAJOR PREMISE:

> IF (A) God's word (the text) says
> everything began over a period
> of six days, and
>
> IF (B) God's word (the text) is
> interpreted by some to mean it
> was six 24-hour days occurring
> a few thousand years ago, and
>
> IF (C) there is empirical
> evidence that the earth is flat

> THEN (D) the earth is flat.

ABC is true so the earth must be flat, your logic is great.



It might also be worth noting here, considering the problems exhibited by my adversaries here, whether or not the above premise is true is independent of whether or not (A), (B), and (C) are true.

The poster may be continuing to exhibit a certain confusion on this point by ipse dixit giving his major premise and then jumping to alleging that the minor premise of his implied argument is true.

As I have proposed in my exercise:

If the argument is not valid, the rest doesn't matter.

If the argument is valid, but with a false major premise, the rest doesnt' matter.

If the argument is valid, with a true major premise, the discussion is ripe for consideration of the minor premise.

That's why I proposed a reasonable, step by step exercise in order that those interested in "criticial thinking" as applied to the fundamental young-earth creation-science problem might test their critical thinking skills.

The test has been completed with success, though I would have preferred a little bit different result.

We may yet get different, more successful results, if there is serious interest.

I'll check back in later and see if there is any serious interest in trying to re-engage the discussion or if we are any closer to actually bringing this thread to a reasonable conclusion.

[Marduk]

So are you going to link to a discussion between you and a YEC where you converted him to the church of christ or not ?

[TubbaBlubba]

"Ipse dixit" claims regarding flaws require no substantive or other reply.

Do you even know what "ipse dixit" means? It means "he said so himself", and is a form of argument from authority, e.g. "Aristotle said A, therefore A."

No one is asking you to have faith in the good standing of the posters who pointed out the flaws, merely to address their arguments (or, actually post anything that invites useful discussion), instead of reiterating your supposedly flawless logic for the umpteenth time.

[gnome]

I don't recall anyone mentioning it.

While it might be worthy of various considerations, I picked up the following that is relevant to my exercise (as adapted for relevance):

> A reader might say 'I accept as true the Hypothetical Proposition
> that, if A and B and C be true, D must be true; but, I don't accept
> A, B, and/or C as true.'

> There might also he some reader who would say 'I accept A, B,
> and/or C as true, but I don't accept the Hypothetical.

That's the nature of the modus ponens construction my argument follows:

> If A, B, & C, then D.
> A, B, C.
> Therefore, D.

The form, as they say, guarantees that, if the premises are true, the conclusion follows as true therefrom.

The hypothetical can be true and can be recognized as true even though it is possible that one or more of the hypothetical conditions is false.

Similarly, one may accept the truth of the hypothesized conditions of the major premise (the antecedent) and reject that D (the consequent) follows therefrom (e.g., the minor premise can be true while the major premise is false).

From my experience, that's just standard Logic 101 stuff; at least it is in the "authorities" I use for reference.

Apart from that, it makes common and biblical sense to me personally.

Don't you think so as well?

The point is, if someone doesn't accept the original syllogism, nesting it in another syllogism isn't going to get you much farther with them.

[RLBaty]

Do you even know what "ipse dixit" means?
It means "he said so himself", and is a form
of argument from authority, e.g.

"Aristotle said A, therefore A."



So, you seem to be aware of the value of stipulations and consider yourself to be a "literalist".

If you wish to digress into a discussion of your problem with my use of the term "ipse dixit" to identify certain claims in this discussion, we might do that.

For now, I'll simply suggest that your stipulated meaning is not the meaning of the term as I have been using it.

I'd suggest there may be more value in returning to the exercise and relevant stipulations I have already provided regarding the relevant terms used in my argument; if there is serious interest.

[RLBaty]

So are you going to link to a discussion between
you and a YEC where you...



Funny you should ask such a thing.

I was just thinking about how it is that one or more here have made reference to their private investigations of me and my argument, and yet have not be up front in discussing the relevant details.

So, try this link:

http://www.oabs.org/classes/logic/An%20Introduction%20to%20the%20Introduction%20to%2 0Logic.pdf

That class on logic, conducted by a young-earth creation-science promoter with whom I am familiar, uses my "Goliath of GRAS" argument in order to introduce the students to and as an example of:

> a valid modus ponens argument, and

> a valid modus ponens argument with a true major premise.

Seems there are plenty of folks here who simply haven't come that far in the exercise and, despite the claims of some, I count that as part of the success of the exercise.

Be careful, though, the instructor in that class has other problems with my argument (e.g., his quibble regarding the labels whcih he has since admitted to is in error).

If you pay close attention to his analysis of the minor premise of my argument, you will see there some substantiation of my claim regarding my argument being able to demonstrate why it is young-earth creation-science promoters fail in their scientific pretensions and legal challenges.

Enjoy!

If there is serious further interest, I will try to make myself available for further discussion in demonstration of the success of my little exercise.

[RLBaty]

The point is, if someone doesn't accept the
original syllogism, nesting it in another syllogism
isn't going to get you much farther with them.



I think my point(s) stand with specificity and direct application to this exercise.

If there was something in particular you are getting at, you should consider being explicit and making direct application to this exercise in order that, if you really, seriously think you have somewhat to offer to the success of this exercise, it might be considered further.

If we get further with my adversaries here, there will be further success.

If we don't get further with my adversaries here, the exercise will still have been a success and the formulation of opinions as to why that might be so (e.g., just such things as you have referenced) will follow.

Being able to identify folks who cannot or will not accept a reasonable, properly formed argument, and why they resist such is a level of success in evaluting any controversy, in my opinion.

That's why, in part, this thread makes reference to it being a "critical thinking exercise".

[GeeMack]

I'd suggest there may be more value in returning to the exercise and relevant stipulations I have already provided regarding the relevant terms used in my argument; if there is serious interest.


I'd suggest coming clean about the intent of dragging this here from the other places it's been spammed on the 'net...

It's a fight between Baty and some idiot Christians that has been dragged into this forum from elsewhere. Baty's argument is constructed in order to validate his position here so he can proclaim victory over some other nutty Christian ideas at other forums. The entire premise of the argument is dishonest. No discussion comes next. More "arguments" by repeating the same nonsense, insults, and unsupported assertions of supposedly unimpeachable logic will likely follow. There will be no supporting the claims implied within the logic exercise. There will be no attempt at productive conversation. It's an argument by irrational spam, a lie from start to finish.

Bring in some evidence to show that young-Earthers are actually swayed by the "exercise" and not just confounded by the ludicrous approach. Explain how "if something is assumed to be true, we can assume it is true" could be remotely compelling to any but the stupidest audience. (And yes, we know the audience is Christians who, for the most part, have already demonstrated by believing in magical crap that they aren't terribly capable of quality thinking.) And without the dishonest framework for the argument for a change, you know, if there is serious interest in being honest.

[RLBaty]

...the dishonest framework for the argument...

...if there is serious interest in being honest.



A plus and a minus, as the scoring goes.

That's another "ipse dixit" claim, but if there is serious interest in being honest in participating in this exercise, and any wish to take up an effort to demonstrate that there is any "dishonest framework for the argument", I will try to set aside time to consider such matters.

That such claims persist as a diversion from the successful presentation and completion of the exercise is quite interesting and adds to the demonstration regarding the problems some have in dealing with this important, public issue and the fundamental principles of reasoning.

[tsig]

My exercise here has enjoyed considerable success.

Some mere humans, quite expectedly, might claim to have impeached my argument and the claims I have made for it, but such ipse dixit claims are of little or no consequence; but do contribute to the history of the discussion and demonstrates that it's not only young-earth creation-science promoters who have problems with the fundamentals regarding such things.

You're not human?

[mutile]

I don't think a MP argument would ever be persuasive to a YEC.

[mutile]

You're not human?

There is empirical evidence to suggest a parrot.

[tsig]

Funny you should ask such a thing.

I was just thinking about how it is that one or more here have made reference to their private investigations of me and my argument, and yet have not be up front in discussing the relevant details.

So, try this link:

http://www.oabs.org/classes/logic/An%20Introduction%20to%20the%20Introduction%20to%2 0Logic.pdf

That class on logic, conducted by a young-earth creation-science promoter with whom I am familiar, uses my "Goliath of GRAS" argument in order to introduce the students to and as an example of:

> a valid modus ponens argument, and

> a valid modus ponens argument with a true major premise.

Seems there are plenty of folks here who simply haven't come that far in the exercise and, despite the claims of some, I count that as part of the success of the exercise.

Be careful, though, the instructor in that class has other problems with my argument (e.g., his quibble regarding the labels whcih he has since admitted to is in error).

If you pay close attention to his analysis of the minor premise of my argument, you will see there some substantiation of my claim regarding my argument being able to demonstrate why it is young-earth creation-science promoters fail in their scientific pretensions and legal challenges.

Enjoy!

If there is serious further interest, I will try to make myself available for further discussion in demonstration of the success of my little exercise.

Your argument seems to be that if two people disagree about an interpretation of a text then one of them is wrong and if the Bible disagrees with facts then the Bible is wrong.

[RLBaty]

I don't think a MP argument would
ever be persuasive to a YEC.



While some lesser sorts, just as has been demonstrated by skeptics in this exercise, fail to consider the persuasive character of the MP (modus ponens) form, those in the know accept the persuasive character of a sound modus ponens argument.

As a result, as reflected in my reference to the use of my "Goliath of GRAS" in that logic course, and claimed as part of this exercise generally, the problem is in determining whether or not the premises of such an argument are to be accepted as true or not.

So, when you find a knowledgeable young-earth creation-science promoter who knows he cannot successfully rebut the validity of the "Goliath of GRAS" or the truth of its major premise, you will find such a promoter, not denying the persuasive character of such an argument, but taking up a position that denies the truth of the (C) element of the minor premise.

And when properly considered, the promoter's reasons for denying the truth of the (C) element of the minor premise will explain, in part, why it is that such promoters fail in their scientific pretensions and legal challenges.

As far as actually persuading such promoter to change from one position to another, the problem is not with the argument, it's with the fundamental position briefly stated as:

> I have my interpretation of the text regarding
> the real world and the age of stuff, and that
> trumps any real world evidence, and its
> interpretation, to the contrary.

How very geocentric!

In any case, for us tyros, it's good to know that that is where the fundamental problem lies and avoids the necessity of actually trying to match wits over the complex, technical, scientific details regarding the age of stuff and whether or not we can really tell whether anything is older than "Last Thursday"!

[RLBaty]

...Some mere human claims...





You're not human?



Have you been following along?

I was accommodating the "mere human" language in my patronage of another poster's misguided rant.

If that's a problem for you, you should consider taking that up with that other misguided poster.

[mutile]

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 things are actually much older than
a few thousand years, then the interpretation of the text by some is wrong.

This is not valid, the existence of empirical evidence does not guarantee the truth of the conclusion, it may be weak evidence, possibly also more empirical evidence to the contrary.

It might be valid if the premise was there exists things that are older than a few thousand years.

[RLBaty]

Your argument seems to be that if two people
disagree about an interpretation of a text then
one of them is wrong and if the Bible disagrees
with facts then the Bible is wrong.



My argument proposes that if some things are more than a few thousand years old any interpretation of a "can't be wrong" reference to the contrary is what is wrong.

If two people disagree about something, both could be wrong.

While there is, as I have noted in an earlier post, a related argument dealing with the Bible, my "Goliath of GRAS" argument referenced in the OP does not actually reference the Bible.

For those who accept the Bible as the "can't be wrong" text, the "Goliath of GRAS" exercise will have application to it. Others may have a different text or it may be that they simply aren't among the folks for whom the "Goliath of GRAS" was designed.

For instance, one of the most staunch supporters of my "Goliath of GRAS" ministry is a preacher's kid turned atheist. Some of the secret researchers here may have already figured that out. In any case, he recognizes the simple, logical validity of my argument and the truth claim made as to the major premise. Obviously, however, he rejects the minor premise...but for reasons unrelated to why it is that young-earth creation-science promoters reject it. The "Goliath of GRAS" is simply not designed to address the age of stuff issue as to the atheist.

I just thought I would throw that in for free. Some might be interested.

[mutile]

My argument proposes that if some things are more than a few thousand years old any interpretation of a "can't be wrong" reference to the contrary is what is wrong.



Your argument does not assert the existence of things older than a few thousand years only some evidence, it is not the same thing.

[RLBaty]

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 things
are actually much older than a few thousand years,
then the interpretation of the text by some is wrong.

This is not valid, the existence of empirical evidence
does not guarantee the truth of the conclusion, it may
be weak evidence, possibly also more empirical evidence
to the contrary.

It might be valid if the premise was there exists things
that are older than a few thousand years.



Some whiners have been known to complain about the fundamental law of learning "repetition, repetition, repetition" and its application to this exercise, and now you come along and demonstrate why it is I have used the rule.

I quit, as you may have noticed, to pacify the whiners.

So, let me try again and see if the whiners come out or if they will let it pass.

For purposes of this exercise and the standard use of terms when considering formal logical exercises:

> Valid refers to the argument being constructed
> such that if the premises are true the conclusion
> will follow as true therefrom.

> True refers to the premise.

I have proposed that my major premise is, given the stipulations and the force and effect of the principles of sound, biblical, common-sense reasoning, is true.

One of those stipulations, quite reasonably so, is and has been stated in previous posts:

> "Empirical evidence that some things are
> actually much older tha a few thousand
> years" - - Some thing is actually much
> older than a few thousand years old
> and we can so determine from evidence
> independent of the text.

My argument and its analysis helps demonstrate that that is the fundamental issue facing the young-earth creation-science promoters and how such promoters propose to reject the truth of that claim demonstrates why it is that they fail in their scientific pretensions and legal challenges.

I would further repeat the evidence for that, but I figure I will not push the issue of repetition too far. Check the message archives for the details.

[RLBaty]

...My impression is that skeptics may be interested in critical thinking,
but are not very experienced in it,
and no better at it than laypersons...





I think my own, recent "critical thinking" exercise
here provides a little empirical evidence that the
above observation is justified.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=208300

:blush: :blush: :blush:




As I have suggested a number of times before (pardon my repetition here), my little exercise has a variety of utilitarian purposes.

One of them is reflected in the above comments from the related thread found at:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=208024

You are welcome!

[marplots]

I have been utilized!

Now I need a shower.