• |RSS|
  • Facebook|
  • Twitter|
  • Mobile|

Hot Topics :

more topics »

Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free. (JN 8:32)

RBaty's Comments

Home > Comments
All comments on this page are subject to our Terms of Use and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Christian Post or its staff.
  • The Only Game in Town? Richard Dawkins and the Limits of Reason

    The recent experience with USAsoccer may be also further evaluated in the broader context of my previous rout of the Baptist Champion posting under the ID "mathetes" (most of the personal archives on "mathetes" history here have since been deleted). He had an impressive resume as well: > B.A. > Three masters > Ph.D. > Instructor status a at Baptist university When I outwitted him with ...more

    The recent experience with USAsoccer may be also further evaluated in the broader context of my previous rout of the Baptist Champion posting under the ID "mathetes" (most of the personal archives on "mathetes" history here have since been deleted).

    He had an impressive resume as well:

    > B.A.
    > Three masters
    > Ph.D.
    > Instructor status a at Baptist university

    When I outwitted him with my simple approach to the fundamental issue facing young-earth creation-science, he "literally" ran off rather than do right by me.less

    Thu Apr 07, 2011 11:32 pm|Agree (1)|Desagree (1)|Report abuse (0)
  • The Only Game in Town? Richard Dawkins and the Limits of Reason

    I previously recommended the archives here for reference and as a home work assignment for those so interested. I just thought, in light of USAsoccer's recent, UNgodly antics, that I would provide a little example as to the value to be found in the archives. See: http://www.christianpost.com/comments/USAsoccer/page20.html http://www.christianpost.com/news/science-and-religion-arent-frien...more

    I previously recommended the archives here for reference and as a home work assignment for those so interested.

    I just thought, in light of USAsoccer's recent, UNgodly antics, that I would provide a little example as to the value to be found in the archives.

    See:

    http://www.christianpost.com/comments/USAsoccer/page20.html
    http://www.christianpost.com/news/science-and-religion-arent-friends-47178/

    > From: USAsoccer
    > To: The Christian Post
    > Date: October 13, 2010
    > Time: 9:10 PM
    >
    > Subject: Science and Religion Aren't Friends?
    >
    > (excerpts)
    >
    > (I) have a J.D. and a M.S.S. on top of my B.A....
    >
    > Any you?
    >
    > Ad hominen attacks only makes you look
    > like the fool you are.
    >
    >> USAsoccer

    Can we all say:

    > Matthew 7:1,2
    > James 3:1

    While we may have differing opinions about that, I think it adds some context and explanation as to why USAsoccer would take losses in these discussions sooooooooo hard.less

    Thu Apr 07, 2011 11:22 pm|Agree (1)|Desagree (1)|Report abuse (0)
  • The Only Game in Town? Richard Dawkins and the Limits of Reason

    What do you think? Could USAsoccer be demonstrating a "sour grapes" attitude because he claims to have some kind of great legal mind and I've beat him here on one or more legal issues? Could be! But, of course, on matters of such opinions, we are free to disagree.

    Thu Apr 07, 2011 10:01 pm|Agree (1)|Desagree (1)|Report abuse (0)
  • The Only Game in Town? Richard Dawkins and the Limits of Reason

    Please note that USAsoccer makes his appearance demonstrating the tendency of some of the favorites here to wax more and more UNgodly in their antics towards me for daring to present a simple, straightforward argument that, implicitly or explicitly, is everywhere discussed where the merits of young-earth creation-science is taken under consideration. USA doesn't quite digress to the level of so...more

    Please note that USAsoccer makes his appearance demonstrating the tendency of some of the favorites here to wax more and more UNgodly in their antics towards me for daring to present a simple, straightforward argument that, implicitly or explicitly, is everywhere discussed where the merits of young-earth creation-science is taken under consideration.

    USA doesn't quite digress to the level of some, but he's clearly headed that direction. See those archives for details.

    At least he's admitted he's "mean-spirited", but he's wrong on the truth he claims to be telling.

    Why don't some of you self-righteous sorts exercise a little of your moral influence towards USAsoccer and see if you can't get him to sweetly post his answers to those two questions that y'all still can't figure out despite their simplicity?less

    Thu Apr 07, 2011 9:57 pm|Agree (1)|Desagree (0)|Report abuse (0)
  • The Only Game in Town? Richard Dawkins and the Limits of Reason

    I am not talking in circles; that characterization goes to my "adversaries" who are not willing to follow me in examining my argument and the claims I have made for it...step by reasonable step. That circumstance is historically typical and helps the perceptive sorts to understand why it is, in part, that young-earth creation-science promoters have failed in their scientific pretensions and leg...more

    I am not talking in circles; that characterization goes to my "adversaries" who are not willing to follow me in examining my argument and the claims I have made for it...step by reasonable step.

    That circumstance is historically typical and helps the perceptive sorts to understand why it is, in part, that young-earth creation-science promoters have failed in their scientific pretensions and legal challenges (e.g., struggling so to admit the obvious regarding a properly constructed argument and a true, hypothetical premise).

    I do appreciate the further demonstration, though I would have preferred we had reached a quick consensus regarding those two fundamental questions.

    Just because I have my adversaries on the matter, does not mean we can't be friends and that my adversaries have to refuse my efforts to point them to the truth.

    However, as the RLBaty and related archives here clearly demonstrate, those who formerly sought to try and deal with me and these issues resorted to some of the most UNseemly, UNgodly antics.

    So far, the present discussion is somewhat of an improvement.

    If your are interested in my argument, the claims I have made for it...step by reasonable step, and its historical place in the popular public debate over the merits of young-earth creation-science, let me know. Otherwise, see my earlier statement of the rule regarding dealing with questions.less

    Thu Apr 07, 2011 9:50 pm|Agree (1)|Desagree (3)|Report abuse (0)
  • The Only Game in Town? Richard Dawkins and the Limits of Reason

    While hardly perfect in application, I do try to follow the rules. One rule that I have tried to follow is the one common to preachers when they deal with their adversaries. One of my adversaries, a preacher, in a debate with one of his other theological enemies, put the rule this way: > Sometimes it has been a debater's > tactic to take attention away from a > point by bringing up unre...more

    While hardly perfect in application, I do try to follow the rules. One rule that I have tried to follow is the one common to preachers when they deal with their adversaries.

    One of my adversaries, a preacher, in a debate with one of his other theological enemies, put the rule this way:

    > Sometimes it has been a debater's
    > tactic to take attention away from a
    > point by bringing up unrelated issues
    > to fog the clarity of the discussion.
    >
    > I plan to evaluate only those points
    > that have to do with this proposition.
    >
    > If I am convinced that material offered
    > in response to mine is off the topic, I
    > plan to either expose it as such
    > or totally ignore it.

    Pretty good rule, it seems to me!

    I hope this helps those with legitimate concerns about the course any serious discussion of my argument might reasonably take to understand why I may not allow myself to diverted off-topic or to matters premature.less

    Thu Apr 07, 2011 8:32 pm|Agree (1)|Desagree (1)|Report abuse (0)
  • The Only Game in Town? Richard Dawkins and the Limits of Reason

    (1) Lpepperw still didn't answer the two, simple, fundamental questions. (2) GiG1 wrote of me, "You said you had empirical evidence for evolution" and cited no such comment by me. (3) The minor premise of my argument is irrelevant at this point should there be any serious interest in discussing my argument and the claims I have made for it. Is there interest here? Who will answer? I...more

    (1) Lpepperw still didn't answer the two, simple, fundamental questions.

    (2) GiG1 wrote of me, "You said you had empirical evidence for evolution" and cited no such comment by me.

    (3) The minor premise of my argument is irrelevant at this point should there be any serious interest in discussing my argument and the claims I have made for it.

    Is there interest here?

    Who will answer?

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

    Is the major premise of my argument,
    given the stipulations as to the meaning
    of its terms/phrases and the force and
    effect of sound, biblical, common-sense
    reasoning, true?

    Basic stipulations:

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

    > Interpreted by some - what some think
    > the text means and which thinking
    > might be wrong.

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

    As the recent record here indicates yet again, the very profitable demonstration from my adversaries helps explain why young-earth creation-science promoters have failed in their scientific pretensions and legal challenges (e.g., they refuse to recognize simple, logical formulations and statements that are logically true).

    If we can get a consensus here regarding the two fundamental questions, then maybe we can revisit the empirical evidence issue as reflected in the minor premise; I say revisit because some have apparently missed how that matter might be easily disposed of in explaining why it is young-earth creation-science promoters reject the evidence of age and have otherwise failed in their scientific pretensions and legal challenges.

    If that changes, maybe we can work out a deal to take any successful rebuttal to my argument "public" and change the course of world history.less

    Thu Apr 07, 2011 8:19 pm|Agree (1)|Desagree (2)|Report abuse (0)
  • The Only Game in Town? Richard Dawkins and the Limits of Reason

    GiG1, If you really believed no one wanted to read fluf and sputter, you should not have posted your false and misleading post. If you wish to seriously consider the fundamental reason why young-earth creation-science promoters have failed in their scientific pretensions and legal challenges as demonstrated through a proper analysis of my argument, feel free to engage that discussion. If ...more

    GiG1,

    If you really believed no one wanted to read fluf and sputter, you should not have posted your false and misleading post.

    If you wish to seriously consider the fundamental reason why young-earth creation-science promoters have failed in their scientific pretensions and legal challenges as demonstrated through a proper analysis of my argument, feel free to engage that discussion.

    If you wish to discuss what I have "said", and considering your false and/or misleading claims regarding such things, I would recommend that you quote me and then take up the matters of interest to you.

    To help you deal with your problems regarding my presentations here, why don't you show the folks how easy it is to get past steps one and two and answer the following:

    (1)

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

    (2)

    Is the major premise of my
    argument, given the stipulations
    as to the meaning of its terms/
    phrases and the force and effect
    of sound, biblical, common-sense
    reasoning, true?

    No tricks there; just simple fundamental questions that many a young-earth creation-science promoter has stumbled over.

    GiG1, are you going to stumble again and post your fluff and sputter, or seriously engage these important public issues that deal directly with why it is that young-earth creation-science promoters have failed in their scientific pretensions and legal challenges?less

    Thu Apr 07, 2011 7:09 pm|Agree (1)|Desagree (1)|Report abuse (0)
  • The Only Game in Town? Richard Dawkins and the Limits of Reason

    In response to lpepperw's latest, I deal with substantive, legitimate inquiries as may be required by the circumstances. And I note, as to answering simple questions, lpepperw did not answer the two set forth as steps one and two in the evaluation of my argument: (1) Does lpepperw recognize that my argument is so constructed that if its premises are true its conclusion will follow as tr...more

    In response to lpepperw's latest, I deal with substantive, legitimate inquiries as may be required by the circumstances.

    And I note, as to answering simple questions, lpepperw did not answer the two set forth as steps one and two in the evaluation of my argument:

    (1)

    Does lpepperw recognize that my argument
    is so constructed that if its premises are
    true its conclusion will follow as true
    therefrom?

    (2)

    Is the major premise of my argument,
    given the stipulations as to the
    meaning of its terms/phrases and the
    force and effect of sound, biblical,
    common-sense reasoning, true?less

    Thu Apr 07, 2011 2:38 pm|Agree (1)|Desagree (1)|Report abuse (0)
  • Supreme Court Rules to Protect Religious Scholarship Funds

    Since Lpepperw is one of those who has been known to delete posts to effectively cover up for her bad behavior, I thought I better add this note and provide an alternative record of what she posted that I was responding to in the message that I posted below. http://www.christianpost.com/news/supreme-court-rules-to-protect-religious-scholarship-funds-49706/ > From: Lpepperw > To: Christian P...more

    Since Lpepperw is one of those who has been known to delete posts to effectively cover up for her bad behavior, I thought I better add this note and provide an alternative record of what she posted that I was responding to in the message that I posted below.

    http://www.christianpost.com/news/supreme-court-rules-to-protect-religious-scholarship-funds-49706/

    > From: Lpepperw
    > To: Christian Post
    > Date: Thursday, April 7, 2011
    > Time: 2:10 AM MT or thereabouts
    >
    > Subject: Supreme Court...
    >
    > Actually RL Baty was offensive, asking for
    > personal information and trying to get a
    > poster to meet him in person to "talk it over",
    > and that's just the beginning.
    >
    >> lpepperwless

    Thu Apr 07, 2011 4:35 am|Agree (0)|Desagree (0)|Report abuse (0)
  • Supreme Court Rules to Protect Religious Scholarship Funds

    Actually, if "offensive" is going to be the characterization to be measured, I didn't come close to the offense sent my way by some of the popular posters here and some not so popular. Lpepperw should be ashamed of herself for misrepresenting the facts of the matter as she just did; talk about offense. Isn't bearing such false witness typically considered offensive by self-professing Chris...more

    Actually, if "offensive" is going to be the characterization to be measured, I didn't come close to the offense sent my way by some of the popular posters here and some not so popular.

    Lpepperw should be ashamed of herself for misrepresenting the facts of the matter as she just did; talk about offense.

    Isn't bearing such false witness typically considered offensive by self-professing Christians?

    The person to whom I suggested we meet and chat revealed that he lived in "my town". Does lpepperw really consider my invitation, made in good faith, an offense?

    Lpepperw also is conspicuous in failing to mention the as yet unresolved false charges against me by some of the popular posters here regarding my alleged history of using other, anonymous, false ID's.

    That, along with the rest, might give Todd some valuable, additional insight into how things go around here sometimes.

    I do agree, however, that it's "just the beginning" when it comes to trying to faithfully recite my history here.

    Interested folks can browse the archives here for additional details, though some of the archives of my adversaries have been deleted.less

    Thu Apr 07, 2011 4:24 am|Agree (0)|Desagree (1)|Report abuse (0)
  • The Only Game in Town? Richard Dawkins and the Limits of Reason

    Lpepperw, I think we've had that dance. (See RLBaty archives here.) As to questions, did you ever say whether you recognize my argument as being so constructed that if its premises are true its conclusion will follow as true therefrom and that, given the stipulations regarding the meaning of its terms and phrases, the major premise is true simply based on the force and effect of sound, bibli...more

    Lpepperw,

    I think we've had that dance. (See RLBaty archives here.)

    As to questions, did you ever say whether you recognize my argument as being so constructed that if its premises are true its conclusion will follow as true therefrom and that, given the stipulations regarding the meaning of its terms and phrases, the major premise is true simply based on the force and effect of sound, biblical, common-sense reasoning?

    As far as I can tell, things are going OK at the FFRF. The U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in the Arizona tuition case (elsewhere discussed on the Christian Post), and so its challenge to the income tax free ministerial housing allowance (recently considered by Senator Grassley in his investigation of those million dollar preachers) can now move forward.

    Formal status reports about that case should be filed within the next few days and then we'll see how Judge Shubb wants the case to proceed.

    Stay tuned for further developments.less

    Thu Apr 07, 2011 4:08 am|Agree (1)|Desagree (2)|Report abuse (0)
  • The Only Game in Town? Richard Dawkins and the Limits of Reason

    The exercise regarding my argument does not require a dispute regarding the details of the empirical evidence. It has been designed to present what young-earth creation-science promoters are up against and why, to date and in part, they have failed in their scientific pretensions and legal challenges. The evidence supporting the claim that some things are more than a few thousand years old is,...more

    The exercise regarding my argument does not require a dispute regarding the details of the empirical evidence. It has been designed to present what young-earth creation-science promoters are up against and why, to date and in part, they have failed in their scientific pretensions and legal challenges.

    The evidence supporting the claim that some things are more than a few thousand years old is, for those informed on the issue and best able to engage in a serious, public discussion of the popular public dispute over the age of stuff, not really subject to dispute.

    Similarly, it is not disputed that some reject the evidence of age. Why is that?

    I think I know. From the AIG articles of faith:

    > 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.

    Typically, I have considerable trouble getting my adversaries to even progress in the exercise so that the evidence of age is even an issue. They have trouble admitting that the argument is so constructed that if its premises are true its conclusion will follow as true therefrom and that, given the stipulations regarding the meaning of its terms/phrases, the major premise is true.

    What say y'all now (there is considerable fussing about this in the archives under my RLBaty ID):

    (1)

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

    (2)

    Is the major premise true?

    If "yes" is not the correct answer to those two questions, then one's position on the empirical evidence really doesn't matter as far as the argument's soundness is concerned.

    If you agree that "yes" is the correct answer and you've got the goods to falsify the claim that some things are more than a few thousand years old, you need to get away from here and get about earning that Nobel prize and changing the course of world history.less

    Thu Apr 07, 2011 1:00 am|Agree (1)|Desagree (1)|Report abuse (0)
  • The Only Game in Town? Richard Dawkins and the Limits of Reason

    USA - - You are smart enough to do your own homework on that matter, and I'll leave you to it. That is an issue that has plenty of Internet play. -- If you wish to actually deal with anything I have said, feel free to do so.

    Wed Apr 06, 2011 11:31 pm|Agree (4)|Desagree (2)|Report abuse (0)
  • The Only Game in Town? Richard Dawkins and the Limits of Reason

    GIG1 wrote, in part: > Logic tells us that if people who believe in a > young earth Creationist model are considered > wrong because they cannot prove that this is > the case, then... I don't think that is quite what is going on here. Young-earth creation-science promoters are considered wrong, not because they cannot prove their scientific case, but because their claim that "nothin...more

    GIG1 wrote, in part:

    > Logic tells us that if people who believe in a
    > young earth Creationist model are considered
    > wrong because they cannot prove that this is
    > the case, then...

    I don't think that is quite what is going on here.

    Young-earth creation-science promoters are considered wrong, not because they cannot prove their scientific case, but because their claim that "nothing is more than a few thousand years old" has been falsified.

    That issue, in simple, valid, logical form can be set forth as follows (one of a number of ways that might be proposed):

    Major premise:

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

    See archives here for an interesting discussion about that. It's under my RLBaty ID.

    I'm hoping if there is any continuing interest in that little exercise, that my adversaries might be better behaved this time around.less

    Wed Apr 06, 2011 11:28 pm|Agree (3)|Desagree (1)|Report abuse (0)
  • The Only Game in Town? Richard Dawkins and the Limits of Reason

    Mohler is as certain about evolution as he is that > "nothing is more than a few > thousand years old." Again, if one wants to play that game, the young-earth creation-science promoter is going to come out on the losing end. Why? Because it is quite clear that their fundamental position is, as reflected in the AIG statement of faith, as edited for clarity and relevance: > No appar...more

    Mohler is as certain about evolution as he is that

    > "nothing is more than a few
    > thousand years old."

    Again, if one wants to play that game, the young-earth creation-science promoter is going to come out on the losing end.

    Why?

    Because it is quite clear that their fundamental position is, as reflected in the AIG statement of faith, as edited for clarity and relevance:

    > 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.

    If we lived a few hundred years ago, I would have framed that as:

    Mohler is as certain about evolution as he is that

    > "the sun moves around the earth".less

    Wed Apr 06, 2011 9:29 pm|Agree (2)|Desagree (2)|Report abuse (0)
  • The Only Game in Town? Richard Dawkins and the Limits of Reason

    If you want to play at that game, the young-earth creation-science crowd always come out the losers.

    Wed Apr 06, 2011 4:12 pm|Agree (6)|Desagree (4)|Report abuse (0)
  • The Only Game in Town? Richard Dawkins and the Limits of Reason

    There are transitiional fossils, but, by definition, those that don't believe in transitional fossils (e.g., see AIG article of faith I recently posted here) reject the transitional fossils as identified by those whose specialty is in fossil matters. They say "transitional"! You say "potatoe"! Perhaps if they ever reach an agreement on what qualifies as a "transitional", then they can wor...more

    There are transitiional fossils, but, by definition, those that don't believe in transitional fossils (e.g., see AIG article of faith I recently posted here) reject the transitional fossils as identified by those whose specialty is in fossil matters.

    They say "transitional"!

    You say "potatoe"!

    Perhaps if they ever reach an agreement on what qualifies as a "transitional", then they can work on agreeing on whether or not any particular specimen is one.less

    Wed Apr 06, 2011 4:09 pm|Agree (4)|Desagree (2)|Report abuse (0)
  • Supreme Court Rules to Protect Religious Scholarship Funds

    Todd - - It wasn't a matter of me offending people to the point that they kicked me off. I was way ahead (e.g., better behaved) than my adversaries here who enjoyed being favored members of the management of this place. They got the pass and I got the boot.

    Wed Apr 06, 2011 4:03 pm|Agree (3)|Desagree (1)|Report abuse (1)
  • Supreme Court Rules to Protect Religious Scholarship Funds

    GMG, I don't see it as being a rules change but rather an evaluation of the rules regarding specific cases. There are factual and legal distinctions between a charitable donation to churches (e.g., the Salvation Army), the Red Cross and the Arizona Tuition program. Do the factual distinctions provide a basis for reaching a different legal result? For now, we don't know. The Arizona la...more

    GMG,

    I don't see it as being a rules change but rather an evaluation of the rules regarding specific cases.

    There are factual and legal distinctions between a charitable donation to churches (e.g., the Salvation Army), the Red Cross and the Arizona Tuition program.

    Do the factual distinctions provide a basis for reaching a different legal result?

    For now, we don't know. The Arizona law is presumed to be constitutional and it looks like no one is going to be able to challenge it...at least not on Establishment Clause grounds based solely on "taxpayer standing" as presented by the Flast and related cases.

    My issue, however, is not the Arizona issue.

    I'm interested in how the case this week will affect the FFRF IRC 107 suit.

    After further considering of the details in the decision this week, I would argue that the decision in Winn, when properly understood, actually supports the "standing" claim made by the FFRF and its members in the FFRF IRC 107 suit.

    We'll see if the lawyers and courts agree with my analysis. For now, the parties in the FFRF suit have about 8 days left to get that case moving again with the filing of status reports.

    Meanwhile, Grassley and his legislative branch co-horts, have already recognized the constitutional problems with and offensive nature of IRC 107; though they, being political animals with a religious majority as constituents, didn't have the character to fix the problems...preferring to pass off the matter for a private group to think about for awhile.less

    Wed Apr 06, 2011 3:57 pm|Agree (0)|Desagree (1)|Report abuse (0)
Pages: 12