RLBaty's Exercise is pointless

The debate will be formatted as follows: Round 1- No arguments. Acceptance, rules, definitions, and any necessary clarifications will be laid out. Round 2- Opening statements- no rebuttals. Round 3- 2 parts each- A rebuttal, then any new counterpoints will be presented. Round 4- Same as 3. Round 5- Conclusion- 2 parts. Part 1 will be used for any rebuttals to counterpoints in Round 4. Part 2 will be used as a closing statement- no new rebuttals, no new counterpoints. Both Pro and Con have repeatedly attacked each other in separate venues with ad-hominem. Any argument that is attempted to be furthered by ad-hominem will, by rule, be considered moot. Ad-hominem will, as a rule, be ruled as bad conduct, and should be ruled as such. No insults will be tolerated. __________________________________________________________________ Pro's position: RLBaty's YECS exercise is neither essential, nor sufficient in showing YECS (young-earth/creation science proponents) have flawed logic (according to RLBaty: YECS have failed in their scientific pretensions and legal challenges and to demonstrate the extent of their basic, critical thinking skills). Con's position: RLBaty's YECS exercise is essential, and/or sufficient in showing YECS have flawed logic. ___________________________________________________________________ Background, and minor premise (note that though the minor premise can be argued to support or discredit the major premise arguments, the minor premise is not essential to winning the debate): RLBaty's Exercise (I have omitted some words for space; I have not changed the crux of his arguments) THE INTRODUCTION This exercise 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. The argument/exercise has been designed to accomplish such results without resorting to technical, scientific arguments better left to those with the requisite time, talent and skills to properly consider them. __________ Major Premise of RLBaty's exercise: 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 of RLBaty's exercise: (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. BASIC STIPULATIONS (of the exercise): "God's word" - communication from God in words that are not wrong. "Interpreted by some" - what some folks think it means and what thinking might be wrong. "Empirical evidence that some thing is actually much older than a few thousand years" - some thing is more than a few thousand years old and we can so determine from evidence and its interpretation independent of "the text". "Few thousand" - 100,000 or less. 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)? Step #2: Is the major premise, given the stipulations and the force and effect of sound, biblical, common-sense reasoning, true? Step #3: Do young-earth creation-science promoters reject the truth of the minor premise of the argument because they have their interpretation of the Bible regarding the age of stuff and that trumps any other evidence and its interpretation to the contrary. ______________________________________ Background: This debate is being presented as a response to RLBaty's and Mangani's confrontations in different areas of DDO regarding this issue. Regardless of the claims elsewhere, this debate will serve to show definitively, in the eyes of other judges, who is right, wrong, or more correct (if that is the limit our arguments allow your judgment to achieve). Again, this debate is not about whether or not RLBaty's arguments are sound, rather whether they are sufficient to determine what he says in the introduction the exercise is intended to determine, and whether or not they are consequential, or even essential to making the introductory point of his exercise. _______________________________________ I have not presented any definitions, nor do I expect the need for definitions. Should semantics become an issue, the most rational definition should be used within the context of the discussion. This may have to be argued, it may be mutually agreed on, or it may end up having to be determined by the individual judge. _______________________________________ Sources should appear as footnotes with a link at the bottom of each argument round. I hope I have not missed anything, and if I have, I'm sure my opponent will point it out.