Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
4 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: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Meert / Brown Debate
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4889 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 226 of 233 (218065)
06-19-2005 3:31 PM
Reply to: Message 225 by Sylas
06-19-2005 3:22 PM


Re: The real debate is going on all the time.
But Sylas, my point is that they want the appearance of agreeing to debate Walt while basically not agreeing to debate only the facts.
That strikes me as wrong.
Your approach is just saying, hey, why debate Walt is more honest, imo. If you want to debate just the facts, then agree and do so, but this little game of saying you will debate but not wanting to insert religion is wrong.
I do though disagree with your premise that creationism is religious in the sense you mean it. Evolution is just as religious, imo.
Both involve faith in presuppositions, and both are a believe first, then look at the facts type of approach. Teach the conclusion, accept it, and then present the data.
Ironically though, it seems to me that evolutionism is more dogmatically religious in nature than creationism.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by Sylas, posted 06-19-2005 3:22 PM Sylas has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 227 by CK, posted 06-19-2005 3:54 PM randman has replied
 Message 229 by PaulK, posted 06-19-2005 4:06 PM randman has not replied
 Message 231 by Sylas, posted 06-19-2005 4:30 PM randman has not replied

  
CK
Member (Idle past 4118 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 227 of 233 (218068)
06-19-2005 3:54 PM
Reply to: Message 226 by randman
06-19-2005 3:31 PM


Re: The real debate is going on all the time.
I've noticed that you offer lots of "IMHO" views and very little in the way of supporting material for your arguments - this walt brown thing is a case in point.
Do you ever plan to head over to one of the more suitable threads and explain WHY you think Brown's work has a case?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by randman, posted 06-19-2005 3:31 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by randman, posted 06-19-2005 4:03 PM CK has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4889 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 228 of 233 (218069)
06-19-2005 4:03 PM
Reply to: Message 227 by CK
06-19-2005 3:54 PM


Re: The real debate is going on all the time.
I've offered more substantive material via a clear textual analysis of the agreement than anyone else. I specify the exact subject and committment of the sentences in question, for example.
To pretend otherwise is absurd.
As far as including, imo, part of that is due to the fact that the nature of the people I am dealing with suggests there could, in fact, be litigation involved, and I want it clear that I am stating my opinion to avoid any litigation that could be directed at me.
That may seem like an unfounded concern, but at this point, I would put nothing past the camp of evolutionists in their determination to promote their ideology.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by CK, posted 06-19-2005 3:54 PM CK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by CK, posted 06-19-2005 4:25 PM randman has not replied
 Message 232 by Trixie, posted 06-19-2005 4:44 PM randman has not replied
 Message 233 by mark24, posted 06-19-2005 6:24 PM randman has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17815
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 229 of 233 (218073)
06-19-2005 4:06 PM
Reply to: Message 226 by randman
06-19-2005 3:31 PM


Re: The real debate is going on all the time.
Joe Meert was prepared to put his case for including 2 pages on religion before the editor, and debate regardless of the decision.
Walt Brown was not prepared to let the editor make that decision.
You have yet to offer a valid reason why.
I suggest that there is a reason why Walt Brown feared to have the matter fairly decided. He wants to abuse the debate to claim that his views are taken seriously by scientists. But if it is made clear that his ideas are religiously based it becoems more difficult for him to do that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by randman, posted 06-19-2005 3:31 PM randman has not replied

  
CK
Member (Idle past 4118 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 230 of 233 (218081)
06-19-2005 4:25 PM
Reply to: Message 228 by randman
06-19-2005 4:03 PM


Re: The real debate is going on all the time.
No you misunderstand me - are you ever going to explain why you think his SCIENTIFIC case has a leg to stand on.
You MO seems to be (on a number of subjects) to say "well I think that X has a lot of merit" and that argue trival points for 100s of posts. How about you head to a science thread and we can thrash out the finer points of his actual "theory".
As for the litigation - does that hairshirt itch?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by randman, posted 06-19-2005 4:03 PM randman has not replied

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


Message 231 of 233 (218082)
06-19-2005 4:30 PM
Reply to: Message 226 by randman
06-19-2005 3:31 PM


Re: The real debate is going on all the time.
But Sylas, my point is that they want the appearance of agreeing to debate Walt while basically not agreeing to debate only the facts.
I know what your point is. I disagree with it.
The fact is that the real debate is going on all the time, just fine.
Another fact is that religion is central to Brown's creationism. If he doesn't want to talk about that aspect, that's his choice. His insistence that no-one else can talk about it either is silly, but then so is just about everything else in his writings.
But it is not his choice to arbitrarily deny the reality of ongoing debate that does not take the form of collaborating with him in writing a book on his own personally chosen terms.
Brown's grandstanding about his debate "offer" is not the real debate. If anyone took it up, that would not make it the "real" debate. It would be just another bit of the debate. The real debate is going on all the time without any need for all this nonsense about having to write a book about it.
I think a natural reading of the original agreement is that it included the agreement that a third party would rule on variations of the written protocols, including scope. If Brown did not intend that, then the original wording was sloppy. He's fixed up the wording, so I am not inclined to fuss much about the matter.
However, one thing is clear at this point. Brown has a debate offer on the table that he is refusing to take up, because he insists that the other party of the debate may not mention religion, and he is unwilling to let that point be abitrated by a debate moderator.
Of course, Brown is free to set the terms under which he is willing to debate. But he looks very silly indeed posturing about how other people don't want to debate on his terms when he refuses to debate on theirs.
In my estimation, Brown is a lightweight in the rather comical parade of creationists, and not worth a great deal of time. If someone wanted to write a book on creationism, then Brown's debate offer is a lousy way to go about it.
Cheers -- Sylas

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by randman, posted 06-19-2005 3:31 PM randman has not replied

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


Message 232 of 233 (218087)
06-19-2005 4:44 PM
Reply to: Message 228 by randman
06-19-2005 4:03 PM


Re: The real debate is going on all the time.
Randman, have you actually looked at what Walt Brown is claiming? Do you know what this whole hydroplate theory is about?
His theory has been formulated to explain a global flood which would account for the Noah story. So not only do you need to be able to discuss evidence for or against a global flood, you have to have a global flood caused by something that will also let Noah and his menagerie survive. So the conditions must be conducive to a large, floating wooden boat, but also to the survival of the animals.
Many of the arguments against the hydroplate theory involve the lack of survival potential of the animals on the ark. How do you debate this without bringing in the story of Noah? Pointing out that the theory will involve steaming Noah and his animals alive and leaving them floating on fish soup would not be allowed because the "rules" don't allow religion to be mentioned.
How do you argue for or against Noah and his ark without mentioning Noah or his ark? Since the only evidence for a global flood is the story of Noah and his ark how is Walt going to handle this? His position seems to be to debate his theory of how a global flood happened without providing scientific evidence that the global flood happened in the first place. Do you see where this is leading? His whole theory rests on the Biblical acount of the flood and that's why he doesn't want to discuss religion - because that's his foundation stone for his theory. Knock that away and the whole argument is gone, along with the hydroplate theory.
This message has been edited by Trixie, 06-19-2005 04:46 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by randman, posted 06-19-2005 4:03 PM randman has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5185 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 233 of 233 (218109)
06-19-2005 6:24 PM
Reply to: Message 228 by randman
06-19-2005 4:03 PM


Re: The real debate is going on all the time.
randman,
I've offered more substantive material via a clear textual analysis of the agreement than anyone else. I specify the exact subject and committment of the sentences in question, for example.
Your "clear textual analysis" seems to steer clear of the fact that a legitimate challenge was illegitimately turned down by Walt, rendering the claim that no evolutionist has challenged him as false.
That's all anyone has to show, Walt can cry all he likes about the sort of debate he wanted, but what he can't say without entering into a lie, is that no evolutionist has challenged him under his own rules of engagement.
Mark

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by randman, posted 06-19-2005 4:03 PM randman 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