Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 4/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Meert / Brown Debate
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1457 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 61 of 233 (94564)
03-24-2004 7:04 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by mf
03-24-2004 6:50 PM


Don't accuse people of lying, make a deal out of it, and then turn around and do it yourself. I used the same tactic you used on him to catch you doing the same thing.
I took one of the quotes Trixie had and put it into Google:
quote:
Other bent rocks are small enough to hold in one’s hand. How could brittle rock, showing little evidence of heating or cracking, fold? Rocks are strong in compression but weak in tension. Therefore, their stretched outer surfaces should easily fracture.
Very first link? Walt Brown's webpage. You're obviously in error.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by mf, posted 03-24-2004 6:50 PM mf has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by mf, posted 03-24-2004 7:25 PM crashfrog has replied

  
mf
Inactive Member


Message 62 of 233 (94571)
03-24-2004 7:25 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by crashfrog
03-24-2004 7:04 PM


Hah, you obviously didn't read my post. I didn't say all of the quotes were lies, I said that one of the quotes from his first post was completely made up.
You big literal face. Seems to me that this question is probably hypothetical... Hmm, could be wrong, but I don't know how he can contradict himself in a hypothetical question.
Please don't take your literal face and stick it in a dictionary to look up the word probably. Probably is a sarcastic way of saying that it is pretty obvious that this is a hypothetical question.
Surely you're joking crashfrog.
EDIT: The quote I am referring to is "rock doesn't bend" in post number 7. This is not found anywhere on Walt's site. I assume that he incorrectly interpreted the hypothetical question to mean "rock doesn't bend," then put it in quotes, and claimed it to be "exact" words from the site.
[This message has been edited by mf, 03-24-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by crashfrog, posted 03-24-2004 7:04 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by crashfrog, posted 03-24-2004 7:38 PM mf has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1457 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 63 of 233 (94574)
03-24-2004 7:38 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by mf
03-24-2004 7:25 PM


I said that one of the quotes from his first post was completely made up.
That wasn't a quote, though. That was simply a summary of some of Walt's statements.
Everybody seems to have understood that but you. What's the deal?
Your first two posts here haven't exactly knocked 'em out of the park. Why don't you try a little more well-researched argument and a little less "you're an idiot"?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by mf, posted 03-24-2004 7:25 PM mf has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by mf, posted 03-24-2004 8:09 PM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 65 by mf, posted 03-24-2004 8:16 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
mf
Inactive Member


Message 64 of 233 (94584)
03-24-2004 8:09 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by crashfrog
03-24-2004 7:38 PM


Everybody seems to have understood that but you. What's the deal?
Haha! How wasn't it a quote? What was the difference between that block of text in between quotes, and the other block of text right next to it that was in between quotes?
He said that both of them were direct quotes. He obviously is leaving out the part that the first one is not a direct quote, rather, it is a misinterpretation of a hypothetical question posed by Dr. Walter Brown.
In case you still don't believe that Trixie could have possibly made up a false quote, I have quoted it myself!
FROM POST 7
Whatever, Walt says "Rock doesn't bend like putty" then later he states "Granite bends like putty". Now either he's contradicting himself within a single argument, or granite isn't rock.
Here is his reference to this later on, claiming that he quoted all info "word for word."
FROM POST 34
In my initial post I included direct quotes from the website, word for word!!!! I copied and pasted them into my message and I attributed them to his website. The words I pasted on are the EXACT WORDS HE USED!!!!! Got that? Not my interpretation of them, but HIS OWN ACTUAL WORDS!!!!!"
Well, an analysis of this section of text reveals the use of the words "direct" and "quotes" together implies that he is talking about plural quotes as opposed to one single quote. Since there are only 2 quotes in his initial post, we can infer that he was talking about "Rock doesn't bend like putty" when he was talking about direct quotes. Perhaps it was an accident. I do not know. But it certainly is not the way that you seem to think.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by crashfrog, posted 03-24-2004 7:38 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
mf
Inactive Member


Message 65 of 233 (94589)
03-24-2004 8:16 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by crashfrog
03-24-2004 7:38 PM


Why don't you try a little more well-researched argument and a little less "you're an idiot"?
And how is my argument not researched? I own Walt's book. I am not saying anything without direct evidence for what I say (as far as I can see, correct me if I am wrong [correct me with evidence too; you haven't really given me any reason to believe that what you are saying is any more valid than what I am saying]).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by crashfrog, posted 03-24-2004 7:38 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 66 of 233 (94707)
03-25-2004 1:46 PM


Trixie and Walt Brown on Rocks
Crash and MF:
After reading the posts from Trixie in question, it appears to me that MF is correct. I've searched the pages she referenced at Walt Brown's book site:
And it leads me to two conclusions:
  1. Though Trixie claimed she cut-n-pasted from Walt Brown's site, I could not find the phrases she quoted on the pages she mentioned. I don't think she did a cut-n-paste, and am puzzled why she claimed she did.
  2. Trixie is incorrect in thinking she has detected an inconsistency concerning the strength characteristics of rock. She quotes Walt saying that rocks break when placed in tension:
    Walt Brown writes:
    Other bent rocks are small enough to hold in one’s hand. How could brittle rock, showing little evidence of heating or cracking, fold? Rocks are strong in compression but weak in tension. Therefore, their stretched outer surfaces should easily fracture.
    And then she quotes Walt saying that rocks like granite bend like putty when compressed:
    Walt Brown writes:
    If compressive forces are great enough, granite deforms (much like putty)
    Note that in the first case Walt is talking about tension, while in the second case Walt is talking about compression. I wouldn't think there's a contradiction there, except that there's a little bit more to that first passage. Adding the additional sentence to the end:
    Walt Brown writes:
    Other bent rocks are small enough to hold in one’s hand. How could brittle rock, showing little evidence of heating or cracking, fold? Rocks are strong in compression but weak in tension. Therefore, their stretched outer surfaces should easily fracture. Bent rocks, found all over the earth, often look as if they had the consistency of putty when they were compressed.
    Trixie is quite justifiably confused by this, and Walt's writings are full of similar confusions. Walt has mixed up a discussion of tension with compression, and I don't know that it is possible to tell what he really means here. But in other sections of the book it is clear that he really does understand how rock behaves.
I have a feeling Trixie had a more significant point, but that it got lost while she tried to make this initial point about the strength characteristics of rocks. Maybe she'll let us know if that is the case next time she visits.
--Percy

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Trixie, posted 03-25-2004 3:56 PM Percy has not replied

  
Trixie
Member (Idle past 3696 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


Message 67 of 233 (94749)
03-25-2004 3:56 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by Percy
03-25-2004 1:46 PM


Re: Trixie and Walt Brown on Rocks
I want to make something very clear. I DON'T TELL LIES! I may make mistakes in my life, but I DON't tell lies, especially lies that could be found out very easily since I was citing a site that the person I was responding to was very familiar with!!
OK, now that's out of the way.
From
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - How to Evaluate Theories
Bent rocks, found all over the earth, often look as if they had the consistency of putty when they were compressed. They must have been squeezed and folded soon after the sediments were laid down, but before they hardened chemically. What squeezed and folded them?
However, I can't find the original quote which said
"Rock doesn't bend like putty".
I can assure you that it WAS there and I DID cut and paste it. Just like I DID cut and paste the other quotes I provided and which others have been able to find. The reason I remember it so vividly was that I couldn't believe how easy it was to find two contradictory statements which were BOTH using the putty analogy. I've just been back to the site and I can find EVERY quote except that particular one. Funny, isn't it?
Not being a geologist, I was certainly not getting involved in a debate about the merits of different theories of rock deformation and which theory was more likely, given what we know about rocks and geology. I was pointing out only what was obvious to a non-geologist. That was a total contradiction in the two quotes I gave.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Percy, posted 03-25-2004 1:46 PM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Sylas, posted 03-25-2004 5:05 PM Trixie has not replied

  
Sylas
Member (Idle past 5250 days)
Posts: 766
From: Newcastle, Australia
Joined: 11-17-2002


Message 68 of 233 (94769)
03-25-2004 5:05 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Trixie
03-25-2004 3:56 PM


Re: Trixie and Walt Brown on Rocks
I hunted for the word "putty" in Walt Brown's site, Center for Scientific Creation – In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood, using the advanced search facility on google, which allows a search to be restricted to a given domain.
I found six matches; all of which appear to acknowledge that rock can deform like putty under certain circumstances. The pages are:
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - A Few of the Mysteries
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Key Hebrew Words
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - How to Evaluate Theories
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Phases of the Hydroplate Theory: Rupture, Flood, Drift, and Recovery    
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - What’s Ahead
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Is the Hydroplate Theory Consistent with the Bible?
Walt Brown does update this material periodically, so this is not a proof that he never made the quote... but the onus here is not on Brown. Fairness requires a presumption that he never made the purported quote. That is not a personal criticism of Trixie; it is just a matter of how we ought to fairly evaluate arguments.
As matters stand, the prosecution has no case.
If context for a quote is lost or misplaced, or if material has been updated to remove a previous error, or if there was a simple mistake in copying, or whatever else, then we just shrug and move on. Since there is nothing to work with, we can't make any check for errors by either side.
As a general rule, quotes should be referenced from the first instant they are introduced, especially if they are used as a basis for criticism.
As a secondary point, without proper context we can't conclude anything much from a short phrase like "Rock doesn't bend like putty." It could be used reasonably in a context where there is an implicit constraint on circumstances or time frames.
There is plenty of stuff in Brown's site that can be criticised as it stands. Take it as an object lesson for how to make an effective case.
Cheers -- Sylas
(Edit here was quite substantial. I hope this gets out before the first version is quoted.... whew. It did get updated in time.)
[This message has been edited by Sylas, 03-25-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Trixie, posted 03-25-2004 3:56 PM Trixie has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by mf, posted 03-26-2004 10:52 AM Sylas has not replied
 Message 70 by Joe Meert, posted 04-19-2004 3:52 PM Sylas has not replied

  
mf
Inactive Member


Message 69 of 233 (94936)
03-26-2004 10:52 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by Sylas
03-25-2004 5:05 PM


Re: Trixie and Walt Brown on Rocks
(Edit here was quite substantial. I hope this gets out before the first version is quoted.... whew. It did get updated in time.)
Haha true.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Sylas, posted 03-25-2004 5:05 PM Sylas has not replied

  
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 5670 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 70 of 233 (100968)
04-19-2004 3:52 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Sylas
03-25-2004 5:05 PM


Re: Trixie and Walt Brown on Rocks
I think one of the issues is that Walt presents the bending of rock as a mystery to modern science. It is not. In the 1996 edition of his book, Walt lists under "A few of the mysteries" starting on page 71 "How did mountains form" (page 76). Walt claims that the formation of major mountain chains are a mystery to geology. He asks the following questions:
1. How did mountains form?
2. What force could push a long, thick slab of rock and cause it to buckle and sometimes fold back on itself?
3. How could brittle rock, showing little evidence of heating or cracking, fold?
and over on page 77 he asks the final question:
4. But what squeezed and folded them?
The answers to these and other 'mysteries' can be found in a first year course on structural geology. Walt also makes (page 77, figure 33 under a picture of folded rock) the assertion that geology claims that vertical forces were responsible for the folding pattern in the rocks. THis shows that whatever source Walt is using for his geologic knowledge is incorrect. Walt is trying to make a mystery where none, in fact, exists. So yes, Walt does indeed acknowledge the putty-like behavior of rocks but DOES NOT acknowledge that geology has a perfectly viable explanation that does not require a hydroplate.
Cheers
Joe Meert

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Sylas, posted 03-25-2004 5:05 PM Sylas has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Jabadaw, posted 04-30-2004 7:42 PM Joe Meert has not replied

  
Jabadaw
Inactive Member


Message 71 of 233 (104396)
04-30-2004 7:42 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by Joe Meert
04-19-2004 3:52 PM


Re: Trixie and Walt Brown on Rocks
I ran across this thread and felt I needed to add my thoughts to the mix. Walt's ideas are a theory or at least a hypothesis, but one needs to remember that plate techtonics is also just a theory. Plate techtonics was not even taught when my father went to college. The steps of the scientific method are gauges of testing, likelihood, and reproducibility.
Ideas such as the laws of gravity are considered laws because they have been tested many times and the same results are found every time. An idea such as plate techtonics or Walt's ideas are supported by observation of evidence of past events, as truly testing something on a geologic scale is formidable at best. All theories are in flux as time passes. Atomic theory has progressed from the ideas of element, atoms, electrons, and so on into an all new level of sub atomic particles.
I'll close with the idea that just because an idea comes from the past does not mean it is wrong. We have lost much knowledge throughout history. A good example of this is the use of concrete. It was used in ancient rome, but the advanced knowledge of this was lost to man for hundreds of years. That is it for now. Thank you for your patience on a long post.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Joe Meert, posted 04-19-2004 3:52 PM Joe Meert has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 72 of 233 (104466)
05-01-2004 12:02 AM


quote:
I ran across this thread and felt I needed to add my thoughts to the mix. Walt's ideas are a theory or at least a hypothesis, but one needs to remember that plate techtonics is also just a theory.
--Credence is delivered to scientific hypotheses as a result of their ability to explain the data better than competing theories trying to explain the same data. Theories have variable plausibility in reality and variable credibility in scientific interpretation--they are therefore, not equivalent and your rational is rendered meaningless. Also, I believe it is 'tectonics'.
--The bottom line is that the basic idea of plate tectonics explains the geophysical and geological data much better than any other in competition--including Walt Brown's hydroplate.
Cheers,
-Chris Grose

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Jabadaw, posted 05-04-2004 10:53 PM TrueCreation has not replied

  
Jabadaw
Inactive Member


Message 73 of 233 (105403)
05-04-2004 10:53 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by TrueCreation
05-01-2004 12:02 AM


Variable
As a computer programmer, anything that can't be tested and proven correct step by step is hard to accept. Neither theory can be tested that way. You state that plate tectonics explains observed features better, yet that's the same as saying "close enough". I doubt you'd want to be charged an amount that's "close enough" to the shown price of something when buying something.
I know that you learn to parrot back exactly what your instructors tell you, since anything other that what they believe to be true is considered wrong. But remember, that very few of history's great scientists are known for agreeing with their peers. It's thinking outside of the box that lets us take great steps.
Now, I'm not saying that you should believe every word that Walt Brown says. I'm just saying not to believe everything you read in a book. Take that leap, and if something doesn't fit but some parts might, try to find those missing links and complete the puzzle, even if it isn't what you were looking for in the first place.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by TrueCreation, posted 05-01-2004 12:02 AM TrueCreation has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by crashfrog, posted 05-05-2004 3:30 AM Jabadaw has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1457 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 74 of 233 (105460)
05-05-2004 3:30 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by Jabadaw
05-04-2004 10:53 PM


As a computer programmer, anything that can't be tested and proven correct step by step is hard to accept.
You're not the first computer programmer I've met with wierd ideas about the world.
Maybe working with computers skews your perspective until you come to believe that the entire universe operates like a computer. I dunno. But heed: the universe doesn't operate like a computer. There's limits to what can be known, not the least of which is the uncertainty principle. Science seeks the close-enough model because that's all we can ever have. We don't stop there, of course - science is a process of continually improving models - but you'd have to be an idiot to conclude that, since we don't know everything, we don't know anything.
I can appreciate that you find the fuzziness of real-world models disconcerting. But you'd better get used to it, especially in the biological sciences.
But remember, that very few of history's great scientists are known for agreeing with their peers.
Yeah, yeah. They laughed at Einstein. But they also laughed at Bozo the clown.
Come to think of it they didn't laugh at Einstein.
The point is, only an idiot considers departure from the dominant paradigm as evidence of correctness. We don't reject creationism because it's different than what we learned in Bio 101. We reject it because the evidence proves it wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Jabadaw, posted 05-04-2004 10:53 PM Jabadaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Jabadaw, posted 05-22-2004 4:33 AM crashfrog has replied

  
Jabadaw
Inactive Member


Message 75 of 233 (109823)
05-22-2004 4:33 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by crashfrog
05-05-2004 3:30 AM


Hey crashfrog,
I'm not saying that it has to be perfect. I just like facts that I can see with my own eyes and touch with my own hands. Drive down US 12 to the west for a bit. To your right you will find hills, lakes, and gravel deposits from the glaciers. To your left you will find very flat, black loam left when they melted and washed out to the south. I know this because I live in the flat lands and work feet away from one of the glacier created lakes. This I can see and touch. Can't say I've ever seen or touched a plate or fault. Hopefully a local example will help you understand what I'm talking about.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by crashfrog, posted 05-05-2004 3:30 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by crashfrog, posted 05-22-2004 4:44 AM Jabadaw has not replied
 Message 77 by crashfrog, posted 05-22-2004 4:54 AM Jabadaw has replied
 Message 80 by jar, posted 05-25-2004 12:47 PM Jabadaw has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024