RLBaty's Exercise is pointless

The title of a debate does not disclose the full intentions or premise of the person posting the debate, and so I clarified, and posted the entire premise in Round #1. Con's has accepted my Round #1 stipulations. _________________________________ My opening statement: By the end of this debate I will have shown that RLBaty's YECS exercise (GOG for Goliath of Gras, as RLBaty has named his exercise) is neither essential, nor sufficient in showing YECS have flawed logic. I will show there are much simpler exercises, ones that don't require any special names or deep intellectual inquiry, that can show YECS have flawed logic. To prove this, I will answer two simple questions: 1) Is GOG essential and/or necessary in showing that YECS have flawed logic? And 2) Is GOG sufficient in showing YECS have flawed logic? GOG was designed some years ago 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. " In paraphrasing RLBaty's entire exercise, it basically states that: 1- YECS interpret "God's word (the text)" as claiming God created everything in six 24hour days. 2- YECS interpret "God's word (the text)" as claiming God created everything less than 100,000 years ago. 3- Empirical evidence proves some things are older than 100,000 years old. 4- YECS interpret "the text" incorrectly. I assert the following: 1- For GOG to be essential, it must be a key factor in showing, as he states "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. " A) GOG does not sufficiently illustrate why YECS have failed in their scientific pretensions and legal challenges, and it does not sufficiently demonstrate the extent of their basic critical thinking skills. B) GOG cannot be a key factor in reaching the goal of the exercise if it fails to meet the goal of the exercise. 2- For GOG to be essential or sufficient, all the conclusions reached in the exercise must be true. A) Is the major premise, given the stipulations and the force and effect of sound, biblical, common-sense reasoning, true? 1) His major premise is untrue because it relies on false stipulations: a. God's word- communication from God in words that are no wrong. i. For this stipulation to be true, it must show that "God" has communicated to anyone who has, subsequently, recorded this communication in the form of text for all to read and interpret. ii. For this stipulation to be true, GOG must be able to show that God exists. iii. GOG does not identify what is purported to be God's word adequately ("the text" does not identify which body of work) iv. GOG fails to defend or show the infallibility of this body of work referred to only as "the text. " v. GOG does not adequately establish the existence of God, and therefore the stipulation cannot be true. b. Interpreted by some- what some folk think it means and what thinking might be wrong. i. For this stipulation to be true, GOG must show how YECS interpretation of the text is incorrect vs. the text itself being incorrect. ii. For this stipulation to be true, GOG must present an alternative interpretation vs. the text itself being incorrect vs. the interpretation of YECS. iii. GOG offers neither an alternative interpretation, nor proof that the text itself is not incorrect, and therefore cannot be held as true. c. 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" i. For this stipulation to be true, evidence must be empirical. ii. There is no such thing as "empirical evidence. " That's why it's called "evidence" and not "proof. " iii. If there is no "empirical evidence," the stipulation cannot be true. 2. GOG's major premise cannot be true because it does not establish a standard for "the force and effect of sound, biblical, common-sense reasoning. " a. GOG does not identify what is "biblical common sense reasoning. " b. "Biblical" itself can refer to any of 900 English translations according to the American Bible Society (. http://record.americanbible.org...) - all of which rely on the interpretation of the translators, and thousands of translations in hundreds of other languages. c. Because GOG does not adequately define "sound biblical common sense reasoning," the major premise cannot be true. 3- For GOG to be sufficient, it must sow that "YECS 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. " A) GOG does not, until Step #3, identify "God's word (the text)" as referring to the bible. 1) Even when "God's word (the text)" is identified as "the Bible" in GOG, there is no specification as to what version of the bible, which language, and why YECS interpretation should not be considered as correct. B) GOG offers no biblical interpretation countering that of YECS. 1) GOG accuses YECS of holding an incorrect interpretation, but offers no correctional rebuttal, only affirmations of inaccuracy. C) GOG fails to show that YECS hold to their interpretation for any reason other than the literal text. 1) While GOG admits "the text" indicates "God created everything in 6 days," and challenges the literal interpretation, GOG does not offer an adequate rebuttal to this interpretation. D) GOG fails to show how literal interpretation of "the Bible" is incorrect. My opponent will argue that the stipulations are hypothetical. If we examine the stipulations, nowhere does GOG state them as hypothetical. GOG presupposes the existence of God, and the Bible as his infallible word. GOG further attacks those who interpret the text literally as having flawed logic, but fails to show how. I offer the following alternatives to GOG that both meet the goals of GOG, and prove it's inadequacy: IF (A) The Bible states everything was created in 6 days, and IF (B) YECS believe everything was created in 6 days a few thousand years ago due to literal interpretation of the bible, then (C) YECS do not incorrectly interpret the Bible. ______ (A) The bible literally states God created everything in 6 days (B) YECS believe everything was created in six 24hr days a few thousand years ago due to literal interpretation of the bible. (C) YECS do not incorrectly interpret the Bible. _______ IF (A) The Bible states everything was created in 6 days, and IF (B) Scientific evidence suggests otherwise, then (C) The Bible is incorrect. ______ (A) The Bible states everything was created in 6 days. (B) Scientific evidence suggests otherwise. (C) The Bible is incorrect. GOG does not work given its own stipulations. It fails to demonstrate the extent of YECSs' basic, critical thinking skills. Because nothing is mentioned of their legal challenges, including alternative arguments to the ones they present, it fails to show how YECS have failed in their legal challenges. Because GOG does not mention any of YECSs' scientific pretensions beyond literal interpretation of the bible, and because GOG fails to show a scientific argument rebutting theirs (which GOG does not mention), it also fails to show YECSs' failures in their scientific pretensions. As such, GOG is neither essential, nor sufficient in reaching the goals presented in the introduction of GOG. Thank you.