The Instigator
RLBaty
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Anti-atheist
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

YECS 101 - Critical Thinking Exercise, Step #1

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/18/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,904 times Debate No: 29337
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (57)
Votes (0)

 

RLBaty

Pro

This exercise/debate has been designed for certain young-earth creation-science promoters (i.e., Ken Ham, Kent Hovind) and their like-minded sympathizers with the intent to illustrate why it is that young-earth creation-science promoters have failed in their scientific pretensions and legal challenges and to demonstrate the extent of their basic, critical thinking skills.

Step #1:

> Is the argument so constructed
> that if its premises are true
> its conclusion will follow as
> true therefrom (i.e., is it
> logically valid)?
>
>> Robert Baty - Yes
>> ??????????? - No

Step #1 of this simple, 3-step exercise is about "form", and not "content".

I propose that the argument has the following, relevant, "form":

If p, then q.
p.
Therefore, q.

I propose that using normal mental processes, one can reasonably conclude that,

"if p, then q" is true, and
if "p" is true,

then "q" will follow as true therefrom.

Think about it. Let me know if there be any here who think otherwise as it applies, specifically, to determining whether or not the following argument is so constructed that if its premises are true its conclusion will follow as true therefrom.

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.
Anti-atheist

Con

Look us YECs know yecism is true. Even if there existed no proof, we would still believe by the conviction of the holy spirit. It's a truth that atheists can't understand.

Moon
The rate of the moons recession isnt constant, but it would be faster in the past. If you calculate this, the moon should have been in physical contact with the earth's surface 'just' 1.4 billion years ago. Here's the calculations

since tidal forces are inversely proportional to the cube of the distance,
the recession rate (dR/dt) is inversely proportional to the sixth power of the distance. So dR/dt = k/R6, where k is a constant = (present speed: 0.04 m/year) x (present distance: 384,400,000 m)6 = 1.29x1050 m7/year. Integrating this differential equation gives the time to move from Ri to Rf as t = 1/7k(Rf7 - Ri7). For Rf = the present distance and Ri = 0, i.e. the earth and moon touching, t = 1.37 x 109 years.

Supernova Remnants

Creationwiki writes

"... if the Milky Way galaxy were really billions of years old as evolutionary astronomers claim, then many SNRs should be observed. Mounting evidence however, reveals a wide discrepancy between the number predicted and the number observed. In fact, the numbers are far close to a galaxy of thousands rather than billions of years old. The numbers for the Large Magellanic Cloud, the Milky Way's satellite galaxy, also supports a young universe. The utter dearth of SNRs is a baffling mystery to secular astronomers but an affirmation to God's creation of the cosmos less than 10,000 years ago."[1]

[1] Exploding stars point to a young universe by Jonathan Sarfati. Creation 19(3):46"48. June 1997.
[2] creationwiki.org/Supernova_remnants
Debate Round No. 1
RLBaty

Pro

My opponent probably presents the best young-earth creation-science promoters have to offer regarding these simple, fundamental matters; though he does so in his own peculiar style.

He writes in response to my Step #1 challenge and presentation, in relevant part:

> Look us YECs know yecism is true.
>
> Even if there existed no proof, we
> would still believe by the conviction
> of the holy spirit.
>
> It's a truth that atheists can't understand.

If young-earth creation-science promoters were always so candid about the matter, the relevance of my exercise would be diminished. They aren't, so my exercise is able to retain its historic significance to the popular public debate over the merits of young-earth creation-science, without quibbling over the complex, scientific details better left to others with the time, talent and interest.

Some might have noticed that my opponent did not even come close to actually, explicitly posting his answer to the Step #1 issue (at least I didn't notice it if it's there):

Step #1:

> Is the argument so constructed
> that if its premises are true
> its conclusion will follow as
> true therefrom (i.e., is it
> logically valid)?
>
>> Robert Baty - Yes
>> Anti-Atheist - ???

Those who are doing as I asked, and actually thinking their way through the exercise, will realize that that issue does not require any consideration of the "content" of the argument.

Step #1 has to do with the "form" of the argument; the relationship presented as to the premises and conclusion independent of the "content" of said premises and conclusion.

Hopefully, if my opponent returns to this discussion, he will be explicit in indicating whether he actually takes up the negative to my affirmative on the Step #1 question and then present something relevant for my consideration as to why he might answer in the negative.

Anti-Atheist:

What sayeth ye on Step #1; "yes" or "no".

Explain your answer.
Anti-atheist

Con

1. If YEC were true the moon would be young
2. The moon is young and can't be old via recession
3. YEC is true.

1. If YEC is true than not many supernova remnents should be observed.
2. Not many supernova remnets are observed.
3. Therefore YEC is true.
Debate Round No. 2
RLBaty

Pro

Step #1 Issue For Debate:

Is the argument so constructed that if its premises are true its conclusion will follow as true therefrom (i.e., is it logically valid)?

> Robert Baty - Yes
> Anti-Atheist - ???

THE ARGUMENT

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.

For purposes of this debate, the argument has the following "form":

If p, then q.
p.
Therefore, q.

It is proposed that one can conclude that my argument, which follows that "form" is constructed in such a way that if its premises are true its conclusion will follow as true therefrom.

It is requested that my adversary answer the Step #1 question and then explain his answer. My adversary has not answered the question nor provided any rebuttal to my position. My adversary's entire second round submission consists of the following:

> 1. If YEC were true the moon would be young
> 2. The moon is young and can't be old via recession
> 3. YEC is true.
>
> 1. If YEC is true than not many supernova remnents should be observed.
> 2. Not many supernova remnets are observed.
> 3. Therefore YEC is true.

I find nothing in that response that purports to be an answer to the question or an explanation as to why my position should not be accepted.
Anti-atheist

Con

Yes

Just look inside yourself and you will know god and yec are true. Just breathe and you will be instantly converted. We can feel god and he proves it. Just hit your knees and ask jesus to come. Forget science for now for Jesus well show you it's wrong and that yec is true. Look on the inner side of yourself and it's obvious god is real. Atheism has no proof. Just accept christ and yec on faith, just do it!!!! Isn't it better to just believe in it?

just drop all logic and rationality and to just accept the god into your heart for old times sake. Do it

Glue proves yec (see vid)
http://youtube.com...

Just do it and believe.
Debate Round No. 3
RLBaty

Pro

The Step #1 question does not concern that which my opponent, whether real or just an imposture, spends his/her time. His/her opening "yes" is not connected to any statement, question or other matter so that it's relevance, if any, can be determined.

I'm inclined to consider him/her an imposture, but, alas, that also is not at issue in this debate.

The question remains for my opponent's consideration and response:

Step #1:

Is the argument so constructed
that if its premises are true
its conclusion will follow as
true therefrom (i.e., is it
logically valid)?

Robert Baty - Yes
Anti-Atheist - ???

I have given the basic reasons for my answer, and they remain un-rebutted.

Will my opponent "give an answer", with his/her explanation?

We will see.
Anti-atheist

Con

I debunked it by proving yec true. Your argument is fail. Just take glue. What's wrong with opponment that he cant see why it fails?
Debate Round No. 4
RLBaty

Pro

Step #1:

> Is the argument so constructed
> that if its premises are true
> its conclusion will follow as
> true therefrom (i.e., is it
> logically valid)?
>
>> Robert Baty - Yes
>> Anti-Atheist - ???

Did anybody else notice where an answer was given!

The full text of my opponent's latest submission is:

"I debunked it by proving yec true. Your argument is
fail. Just take glue. What's wrong with opponment
that he cant see why it fails?"

Nothing in there that addresses the issue in this debate.

Step #1 can be answered either "yes" or "no" regardless of whether or not anything is more than a few thousand years old or not (i.e., the YECS position).

I have answered "yes" and explained the basis for my decision on that fundamental, critical thinking issue.

I found no rebuttal in this debate.

And so my part in this debate comes to an end.
Anti-atheist

Con

Anti-atheist forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
57 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Mangani 4 years ago
Mangani
LMFAO@ New argument!!! Literally has me laughing out loud like an idiot!!!
Posted by RLBaty 4 years ago
RLBaty
Sounds reasonable enough.

Look for my appearance.
Posted by Mangani 4 years ago
Mangani
It merely requests for you to propose your exercise from the beginning as clearly and concise as possible.
Posted by RLBaty 4 years ago
RLBaty
Mangani,

If that latest from you is any indication, it looks more and more likely that my prophecy regarding what I am going to find when I visit that place is going to be fulfilled.

I would rather it were otherwise.

Gotta go now.

I'll drop in over there when I get my roundtoit.
Posted by Mangani 4 years ago
Mangani
That's bs. Just go to the forum. Stop being an azz.
Posted by RLBaty 4 years ago
RLBaty
Mangani,

I'll take a look at what you came up with.

It could be fun; maybe for awhile anyway.

I have nothing to resolve with you.

You either want to come out, come clean and pursue your interests in good faith regarding my little exercise, or you don't.

So far, you have shown that "you don't".
Posted by Mangani 4 years ago
Mangani
If you are truly trying to resolve this matter with me, and not just engorge yourself with self adoration, then by all means- enter the forum posting I put up for you.
Posted by RLBaty 4 years ago
RLBaty
Mangani,

Thanks for the further demonstration that you are not up to participating in a simple exercise, step by reasonable step.

You are the one seemingly so full of yourself that you presumed to try to run ahead and the blundering has overtaken you so that a recovery now is quite unlikely, but you are welcome to try.

I made the issue and the goal very clear for those with the eyes to see and not blinded by their on presumptions of superiority when it comes to critical thinking.

The "exacerbation" is a result of folks like you who cannot settle back and follow someone else through a very simple exercise, step by reasonable step and admit to their failures on the simplest of fundamental issues.

I use the term "man" generically. Thanks for reminding me that you remain anonymous and have been evading any disclosures regarding your personal identity and bio; justifying my giving what you say little credibility except as it justifies my course and my evaluations of your behavior.

For example, you write:

> "What professor?"

Really! That's the same sort of behavior that justified my statements regarding your blundering and comprehension problems. I made it quite clear "what behavior".

Guess I'll wait for Anti-Atheist to return and post his next installment.
Posted by Mangani 4 years ago
Mangani
http://www.debate.org...

Here you go...
Posted by Mangani 4 years ago
Mangani
"The issue in the debate was about as simple as it gets when it comes to critically evaluating arguments; is it valid."
- I understand this, but you didn't communicate this as your goal like a normal human adult.

"Like so many misbehaving students"
- Maybe students misbehave when they have inadequate teachers...? You have proven yourself quite inadequate; especially with your obsession with this very simple exercise to prove absolutely no point. O wait... you supposedly wanted to know why anybody wold disagree with you, after simply showing up and assuming everybody does... of course... your ego made you do it.

"you refused to openly, honestly deal with that issue and tried to run ahead; blundering all the way."
- The internet doesn't lie professor. Your idiotic demeanor is what has exacerbated this simple exercise into something completely ridiculous.

"Take your lumps like the man you claim to be"
- I've never "claimed" to be a man.

"try complete the exercise without all the evasions and misdirection."
- Hey idiot- I've invited you to present your Step #2 repeatedly. Rather than eating crap and beating your chest, present your Step #2.

"You've made no appearance at my place"
- Again, you are in an open debate website with several venues available to you. You are not important enough for me to pursue off this website as if you're some kind of guru. If you have a point, make it. Earn your respect here before trying to lure people away into your little world where you are the harbinger of all knowledge, Mr. Rand.

"Did you check out that OABS introduction to logic lesson I posted earlier?"
- No.

"Can you count to three?"
- No.

"Did you figure out what steps 2 and 3 deal with; without making the same blunders as that professor?"
- Here you go again. What professor?What steps 2 and 3? Take your head out of your arse... you are on DDO, not your own website, buddy.

"Did you set up the forum discussion here"
- No.
No votes have been placed for this debate.