Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
1 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
Asgara
Member (Idle past 2293 days)
Posts: 1783
From: Wisconsin, USA
Joined: 05-10-2003


Message 1 of 233 (80145)
01-22-2004 5:35 PM


Whatever, has brought this issue up in several threads here. I thought it would make a good topic on it's own. Possibly Joe can join in here himself?

Here is Joe's version of the issue:
Walt Brown

Here is TrueOrigin's version:
http://www.trueorigin.org/Meert1.pdf

Here is the link to the ORIGINAL debate offer from Brown
http://baby.indstate.edu/gga/pmag/debate.html
Item 22 is the item in question. This is the offer that Joe signed.
Center for Scientific Creation – In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood
If you click the 328 in the "Written Debate" section of this page and then click "next" at the bottom of the next page, you will come to the "NEW" debate offer. Item 16 of this new offer is the item now referring to modification of the debate.
You will notice that the original offer, item 22, refers only to modifications.
The new offer, item 16, refers to "procedural" modifications.
Joe, realizing that the flood was the basis for Walt's hypothesis, wanted this brought out in a limited section of the publicized debate. The basis for any theory being up for debate. He was also willing to forgo this at the request of the editor.

Asgara
"An unexamined life is not worth living" Socrates via Plato

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Mammuthus, posted 01-23-2004 3:22 AM Asgara has not replied
 Message 3 by Asgara, posted 01-24-2004 7:56 PM Asgara has not replied
 Message 113 by randman, posted 06-14-2005 4:38 PM Asgara has not replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6465 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 2 of 233 (80253)
01-23-2004 3:22 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Asgara
01-22-2004 5:35 PM


You might want to give Darwinsterrier a heads up on this. Joe Meert posts regularly over at infidels and so does DT.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Asgara, posted 01-22-2004 5:35 PM Asgara has not replied

  
Asgara
Member (Idle past 2293 days)
Posts: 1783
From: Wisconsin, USA
Joined: 05-10-2003


Message 3 of 233 (80545)
01-24-2004 7:56 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Asgara
01-22-2004 5:35 PM


bumpity bump bump
more from whatever concerning the great Walt Brown debate....
EvC Forum: $50 to anyone who can prove to me Evolution is a lie.

Asgara
"An unexamined life is not worth living" Socrates via Plato

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Asgara, posted 01-22-2004 5:35 PM Asgara has not replied

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


Message 4 of 233 (80614)
01-25-2004 9:16 AM


OK, Whatever, you say that we never see bent rock. Then how come Walt says that you DO see it? He even has pictures on his website that claim to show bent rock. Then says it must have ha

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


Message 5 of 233 (80617)
01-25-2004 9:18 AM


OK, Whatever, you say that we never see bent rock. Then how come Walt says that you DO see it? He even has pictures on his website that claim to show bent rock. Then says it must have happened when the rock was a soft sediment. Then he goes on to say that granite can bend!!! In fact he says that granite HAS to bend for his theory to work!!!! Total contradiction.
As for "doctorate scientists" scared to debate with him, well this particular doctorate scientist thinks that the internal contradictions in his declarations make them not worth debating. There's nothing there to debate. He has himself stated that the conditions required for his theory to work don't happen!!! Therefore he has disproved his theory all by himself, with no help from the "doctoral scientists". Why should the "doctoral scientists" waste the time trying to destroy his theory when he can and has managed that quite spectacularly on his own?
Also, having read the background to this whole "refusal to debate" nonsense, Walt's the one refusing to debate. Whatever, re-read the quotes I put above and see if your incisive thinking can spot the fatal flaws in his theory.
I suggest we now take admin's advice and take this to the other thread. See you there. I've copied this post to it.
Apologies for the problems with the post, a square bracket snuck in somehow and scuppered me!

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by johnfolton, posted 01-25-2004 10:59 AM Trixie has replied
 Message 11 by johnfolton, posted 01-25-2004 10:53 PM Trixie has not replied

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5582 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 6 of 233 (80622)
01-25-2004 10:59 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Trixie
01-25-2004 9:18 AM


Trixie, I have no idea what your talking about, I just browse his site like your probably are doing, if Walt is talking about when the sediments were soft, then he probably is talking about the sediment that settled out on the surface of the earth, or when the granite rocks were formed they could of bent, until they cooled, or if he is talking about the layers of the sediments of the flood, bending until they compressed forming sedimentary rock, but for rock to subduct under the earth, is not possible, it would of crushed, fractured, and if what you say is true then why are they finding fractured rock in all the super deep wells drilled, with water filling the voids, etc...
P.S. I'm not a scientists but took a vacation in the Rocky mountains, and they had a tour road to the top on one scenic outpost, what surprised me was how many big rocks, I had to jump from rock to rock, which was fun, but it sure didn't look like rock that had bent upward, it looked like rock that was thrust upward, however, if Walts correct and the Ocean plates crushed under the continents, a whole lot of heat would of been produced, as granite was transfomed from to metamorphic rock, the heat given off might of soften the above granite continental plates that didn't fracture to allow some bending as the continental plates upthrusted.
[This message has been edited by whatever, 01-25-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Trixie, posted 01-25-2004 9:18 AM Trixie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Trixie, posted 01-25-2004 4:05 PM johnfolton has replied

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


Message 7 of 233 (80686)
01-25-2004 4:05 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by johnfolton
01-25-2004 10:59 AM


You're missing the point
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. It truly is an either/or situation. If granite is rock, then he's contradicting himself, if granite isn't rock then he may be OK, but granite IS rock!!! Even you must admit that granite is rock. It can't even be considered sedimentary rock - it's igneous!!! It was never a sediment. And all this business about heat generation making granite softer - of course it will, even when you consider the well-accepted theory of mountain formation. So everything you've written in your message holds true for the original theory.
I'm finding explaining this really difficult because it's such a simple point! Answer this question - is granite rock?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by johnfolton, posted 01-25-2004 10:59 AM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by johnfolton, posted 01-25-2004 6:41 PM Trixie has not replied

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5582 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 8 of 233 (80709)
01-25-2004 6:41 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Trixie
01-25-2004 4:05 PM


Trixie, Whats interesting is all the fractured rock with fluids in the voids between the broken up rocks, being found in the super deep wells supporting the biblical reference to the fountains of the deep being all broken up, its plenty hot down this deep, so why are these rocks all broken up, if granite is supposed to bend, the bible says there were mountains pre-flood, so it might well be the bending happened when the granites were formed, and not by the upthrusting, etc...
P.S. Do you have any proof that granite can bend, and still remain granite, it would be interesting if they have proved that its even possible, thought when granite overheats it will deform the granite, it becomes metamorphic rock, and interestingly this is what they are finding below the granite mantle in the super deep well, etc...
Geophysics University of Bonn
Page not found | Geophysical Institute
[This message has been edited by whatever, 01-25-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Trixie, posted 01-25-2004 4:05 PM Trixie has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by JonF, posted 01-25-2004 6:49 PM johnfolton has replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 158 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 9 of 233 (80712)
01-25-2004 6:49 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by johnfolton
01-25-2004 6:41 PM


Re:
No, what's interesting is that Trixie has pointed out that Walt contradicts hmself, and you are refusing to address the issue.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by johnfolton, posted 01-25-2004 6:41 PM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by johnfolton, posted 01-25-2004 7:30 PM JonF has not replied

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5582 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 10 of 233 (80724)
01-25-2004 7:30 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by JonF
01-25-2004 6:49 PM


Re:
JonF, I was browsing his site and couldn't find where he said that, do you have word phrase I can type on his google search engine to see what he actually said, etc...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by JonF, posted 01-25-2004 6:49 PM JonF has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Trixie, posted 01-26-2004 3:45 PM johnfolton has not replied

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5582 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 11 of 233 (80747)
01-25-2004 10:53 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Trixie
01-25-2004 9:18 AM


Murphy's Law
Trixie, I've read Joe's stuff & Walt's stuff, etc...the problem is that Joe in his first (Aug 26, 1996) and second (Aug 27,1996)contact letters to Walt said, he wasn't qualified to debate religion, and was only willing to debate if religion was not discussed, etc...
P.S. On Aug 31,1996 Joe flipped 180 degrees, he even changed the topic to debate, to include what he admitted he wasn't qualified to debate, technically you could argue that Walt should change the topic he was willing to debate for over 16 years, but the topic was all Walt was interested in debating for 16 years, and has been now for over 23 year, what is interesting is no doctorate scientists is willing to debate Walt, Joe could of debated Walt, but opted instead to change the topic, Joe had no reason to flip a 180, if he was serious in debating Walt, Joe was qualified to debate the sciences, but that's all he was qualified to debate, etc...the debate topic was does science support creationism or evolution? etc...It wasn't does religion support creationism, two different topics, Joe wanted to include Murphy's Law to decide on the debate topic, and there was no reason to involve Murphy, when Joe decided it was a religious thing he admitted evolution couldn't be supported scientifically, etc...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Trixie, posted 01-25-2004 9:18 AM Trixie has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Asgara, posted 01-25-2004 11:47 PM johnfolton has replied

  
Asgara
Member (Idle past 2293 days)
Posts: 1783
From: Wisconsin, USA
Joined: 05-10-2003


Message 12 of 233 (80755)
01-25-2004 11:47 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by johnfolton
01-25-2004 10:53 PM


Re: Murphy's Law
Hi Whatever,
Did you read the reasoning behind Joe's request to modify the debate? Did you read where Joe agreed to abide by the editor's decision? Did you read where Walt still hasn't gotten an editor and submitted the request to him? Did you read the original offer, the one that Joe signed? Did you read the NEW offer, where Walt changed the rules to get out of the debate that Joe wanted?

Asgara
"An unexamined life is not worth living" Socrates via Plato

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by johnfolton, posted 01-25-2004 10:53 PM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by johnfolton, posted 01-26-2004 1:03 AM Asgara has replied
 Message 111 by randman, posted 06-14-2005 4:28 PM Asgara has not replied

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5582 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 13 of 233 (80772)
01-26-2004 1:03 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Asgara
01-25-2004 11:47 PM


Re: Murphy's Law
Yep, did you read where Joe said he wasn't qualified to debate religion, didn't want to debate religion, etc...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Asgara, posted 01-25-2004 11:47 PM Asgara has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Asgara, posted 01-26-2004 1:21 AM johnfolton has replied

  
Asgara
Member (Idle past 2293 days)
Posts: 1783
From: Wisconsin, USA
Joined: 05-10-2003


Message 14 of 233 (80776)
01-26-2004 1:21 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by johnfolton
01-26-2004 1:03 AM


Re: Murphy's Law
Joe writes:
Walt did send me a copy of his book. At that point, I realized that the basis of his argument was not at all scientific, but based on a literal reading of Genesis. As a scientist, I feel it is imperative that we lay out the basis for our findings and in the case of the 'hydroplate theory' it was easy to understand that in the absence of the Noachian story in Genesis there would be no hydroplate
Here is the actual request of modification in the original agreement...
Joe writes:
Because Dr. Walter Brown’s book and thesis on the hydroplate theory is based on the
Genesis account of the Noachian flood, to wit the following statements from his home
page:
1. Have you ever wondered about the evidence for creation and against
evolution? Have you ever considered the possibility that the earth is less
than 10,000 years old? Was there a worldwide flood during Noah's
lifetime?
2. The title of his book: In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and
the Flood. Note: It does not say ‘a flood’ or ‘floods’, but THE FLOOD.
3. His explanation for the ‘Special edition of the book.. The special edition is
intended for public school teachers and libraries, as well as people who would
not even consider the case for creation and the flood if the Bible is referenced.
4. His seminar description: The "In the Beginning..." Seminar is a seven-hour
program that examines Genesis, science, and our Christian beliefs. Dr. Walt
Brown, Director of the Center of Scientific Creation (CSC), conducts the
program. He is a retired Air Force full-colonel, holds a Ph.D. from M.I.T., and has
spoken on over 300 radio and TV programs.
This is but a small sample that clearly shows the source of the hydroplate theory. The
foundations of any scientific theory must be open to discussion during a debate on that
theory. Recognizing the fact that Walt Brown claims he is not qualified to discuss
theology (in spite of the fact that he lectures and writes about theology), I am willing to
limit this part of the debate to two pages each..
This represents a small fraction of the
total debate, but it is important to lay the groundwork for Brown’s thesis. If the Noachian
flood is not true, then Walt’ thesis is based on fiction.
Sincerely
Dr. Joe Meert
all bold text, formatted by me.
I don't understand what Walt is afraid of. All Joe asked for was two pages each to discuss the groundwork behind Walt's hypothesis. If the editor didn't agree to this Joe would debate under the unmodified format. Walt refuses to even submit this request to an editor.
Walt also claims to be unqualified to discuss religion...but it is clear that his hypothesis is based solely on a religious backdrop... and he sure discusses religion a lot for someone unqualified.
whatever writes:
Yep, did you read where Joe said he wasn't qualified to debate religion, didn't want to debate religion, etc...
Yes, and Joe doesn't want to "debate" religion, he wants the background for the hypothesis up front on the table. There is a BIG difference.

Asgara
"An unexamined life is not worth living" Socrates via Plato

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by johnfolton, posted 01-26-2004 1:03 AM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by johnfolton, posted 01-26-2004 1:46 AM Asgara has replied

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5582 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 15 of 233 (80782)
01-26-2004 1:46 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Asgara
01-26-2004 1:21 AM


Re: Murphy's Law
Asgara, Everyone wants to make a Mission Statement, Walt carefully chose his topic, but Joe wanted to make one of those Mission statement's, this is clearly inadmissible evidence, it was to be a debate based on the scientific evidence, Walt would of been quite capable of defending the evolutionists perspective, it was up to Joe to defend evolution by the scientific evidence, and Walt to defend Creation by the scientific evidence, etc...
P.S. It must be important or Joe would of simply agreed to debate Walts topic, the scientific evidence, without bringing in Murphy, etc...
[This message has been edited by whatever, 01-26-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Asgara, posted 01-26-2004 1:21 AM Asgara has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Asgara, posted 01-26-2004 2:00 AM johnfolton has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024