|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Meert / Brown Debate | |||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5194 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
randman,
No, he clearly stated the opposite. Walt writes: Either sign the debate agreement & propose any changes that the editor will rule on in a binding manner. No, he stated that the 2nd party must accept the following, "I am willing to have the editor decide the matter after my opponent and I have presented our positions." This may mean that the proposal "might" be sent to a 3rd party. Or it might mean that the proposal "will" be sent. Everyone but you, Walt included, understands the meaning to be the latter. Given Walt wrote the bloody thing, it is therefore reasonable to expect Walt to actually send a legitimate proposal to modify clause 4, under Walt's intended meaning of the rules of clause 22 to the nominated 3rd party.
That he inserted the clause to refer to procedural changes, not changes in the content of the debate. Nope, clause 22 allowed "modification to the above conditions". And the religious/scientific nature of the debate was one of them (clause 4). Therefore inserting religion as a proposed modification was perfectly legitimate.
Let's all be honest here. You know and I know what Walt offerred and did not. He clearly offerred repeatedly to debate but only on the facts. Then he was foolish to allow a mechanism by which he may have to include religion. Not Joe's fault, Joe's just operating under the stipulations presented to him. It does mean Walt can't he claim that evo's haven't challenged him under his own rules, however.. For the record, were I the 3rd party I'd turn down Joe's proposal. Mark There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5194 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Ned,
I concur with Paul, the "I" is the second party. If you were to challenge, it would be you, if I were to challenge it would be me. But in this case, "I" is Joe Meert.
2) Do I remember correctly that Joe agreed to debate even though Brown would not accept religion in the debate? Absolutely true. Regardless of the "editors" decision, Joe accepted to debate anyway. Walt refused to send the proposal to the referee. I can't defend Joe's motives (as I understand it, he was only after a 2 page qualifier), but clause 4 is the clause that mentions the range of debate, ie. religion vs. science. Clause 22 allows a potential modification to that at the editors discretion. So randmans claim that religion is excluded as being a "cast iron" stipulation is demonstrably false. At best, Walt was sloppy. At worst, downright dishonest. Mark There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Mark, Walt clearly stated before, during and after this whole saga that he would only debate the facts, not religion.
Why are you claiming he agreed to do otherwise? Do you not believe he never intended to debate religion, or are you lying? The specious attempt by you to try to use the language to trap him into an agreement to debate religion is bogus, and you know it. You want to argue intent on this section, but then want to throw out intent and think trying to force someone to debate a topic they said all along they would never do is somehow convincing. It may convince people that are deluded, but I think an honest, objective observer would agree that the intent was never to allow a modification of point 4. You are claiming he put the issue of whether to debate religion on the table by the offer, and that's a lie, imo. As far as I am concerned, this whole episode speaks volumes to me about the type of people that would take up the cause here of trying to smear Walt Brown, and yet don't have the guts to simply agree with no appeal otherwise to debate on the facts. This thread alone is illuminating, and confirms a lot of what I feel about evolutionists. For the record, I am not someone that holds dogmatically to any view whether creationism or theistic evolution, or ID. I think there are a lot of sounds arguments in all of the various camps, although I don't agree on the "randomness" claim at all within much of evolution. But what is a bigger concern is what I see as the absolute cult-like behaviour of many evolutionists. I have seen that same mentality in religious cults, and I see it here. Maybe it's a product of the teach the conclusion first and demonize all the "non-believers" approach. But whatever it is, it's not good. The idea that a man like Walt Brown who puts forth a comprehensive, falsifiable theory should be treated in the manner evolutionists are doing in this matter, and moreover, you guys joining in, tells me there are serious, very serious problems with the way evolution is taught and advocated. Walt's theory may or may not be untenable, but he put forth an honest challenge, and no one seems willing to take him up on it without trying to insert religion. Imo, there may be a valid scientific theory of common descent ToE, but it's part of a false, cult-like ideology of evolutionism that deserves to be exposed and censured.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Two things: 1) I am confused by the above. Who is the "I" in that paragraph? The "I" here refers to the party proposing a change, and it seems that Joe refuses to go ahead with the debate unless he can try to appeal to a 3rd party to insert religion, something Walt said all along he had no interest in doing. All this says, contrary to what PaulK wants to make it say, is that the person proposing the change must agree to submit it to a 3rd party and abide by that rule. It is strictly a one-sided covenant in this clause. It is a way for one party to make an offer. The other party clearly and in no place is obligated to accept the change. What PaulK and others are claiming is that despite Walt repeatedly saying he will not debate religion, that he must agree to debate religion because that is a proposed change, if a 3rd party rules that way. It's just absurd logic. There is nothing in the agreement stating the "both parties" must accept the change. Walt states that he would, if the change was procedural, but not a change in the topic. To claim Brown is being unreasonable is the height of arrogance, imo. I understand evolutionists like to bring up religion and not just stick to the facts, but it is quite reasonable, in a scientific debate, to stick to factual evidence. But apparently, that's not quite reasonable to many evolutionists. Wonder why? This message has been edited by randman, 06-16-2005 02:09 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: I never said any such thing. As I have repeatedly told you. There is absolutely no chance of an honest mistake under such circumstances. I can only regard it as an intnetional and persistant lie.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22388 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
At the outset I should say that I found it exceedingly difficult to sort through the issues of the recent discussion in this thread. I finally gave up and went back to Message 1.
Joe Meert says this link is to the original agreement that he signed:
It is not the same as the one at Walt Brown's site. This is not a criticism, just a fact. Just as we update pages like the Forum Guidelines here at EvC Forum, owners of all websites are constantly making changes and improvements. Point 4 of this agreement says:
Point 22 of this agreement says:
This seems pretty clear to me. Given this information, can someone please explain what the current argument is about? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Joe Meert signed the agreement, proposing that a short section (2 pages) examining the religious background to Browns claims should be included.
Brown refused to go ahead with the debate unless the proposal was withdrawn. He refused to submit the proposed change to the editor or even advance to the step of choosing an editor. The rules for dealing with proposed changes clearly do not permit Brown to reject changes out of hand. If they did then it would state that the proposer would have to accept Brown's rejection - not the editor's decision. On that basis I state that the agreement did not permit Brown to act as he did. He would however be permitted to argue that the rules were unclear and invoke clause 7 to appeal to the editor to decide how the issue should be resolved - rather than simply getting the editor to adjudicate on the modifcations directly. That said I can see no good reason why this should be such a killer issue. If it is true that there is no good case for the modification then I cannot see that Brown had anything to lose by allowing the editor to decide.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5194 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
randman,
Why are you claiming he agreed to do otherwise? I'm not saying he did, please don't put words in my mouth, I am saying that under his own rules Joe proposed a modification to include it. That proposal should have been submitted to an editor, as per Walts rules, rather than be summarily dismissed.
Do you not believe he never intended to debate religion, or are you lying? Grow up.
The specious attempt by you to try to use the language to trap him into an agreement to debate religion is bogus, and you know it. This is as substance-free as the rest of your post. It is a fact that Walt stated that any proposed modifications were to be assessed by a nominated 3rd party. It is a fact that the scientific/religious nature of the debate is summarised in clause 4. It is a fact that clause 22 allows a modification to clause 4. It is therefore a perfectly legitimate move for any challenger to propose a change to the scienctific/religious nature of the debate, as outlined in clause 4, as per clause 22. It is also perfectly reasonable to expect Walt to submit this proposed modification to a 3rd party editor like he said he would. He summarily rejected a perfectly valid proposed modification rather than do what was required under his own rules. It doesn't matter what he said prior to this, it is a fact that Walt broke his own rules. Therefore, Walt cannot legitimately say that no evolutionist has challenged his hydroplate theory. Case closed. Mark This message has been edited by mark24, 06-17-2005 11:12 AM There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Well, what I clearly see is man that put a plain and simple offer to debate the facts, not religion, on the table, and no one has taken him up on that, to my knowledge, without trying to insert religion into the debate.
I suspect most objective, reasonable-minded people see the same thing. What some are doing here is trying to say that Walt essentially trapped himself in the language of the offer, but that is wrong: 1. Because the language does not state he has to send their change to a 3rd party. 2. And moreover, and perhaps in one way even more importantly, even if one was right on the technical langauge reguiring him to bring religion into the debate, he did not and the agreement does not, but even if he somehow had made a mistake and miscommunicated, he still would have done nothing wrong, and has acted appropiately, even if that were true, in clarifying what he means, which is what he said all along, that he does not intend, nor will he, debate religion, but rather only the facts. To try to twist the language around to get him to debate religion is very childish, imo, and the fact people here defend such behaviour and condemn the offer to debate only the facts is extremely telling, not of Walt who is very consistent, but telling about the posters here and the way they view things. Once again, I think most objective and reasonably-minded people without a dog in this fight so to speak would see this the way I do. Here is a guy making a clear offer to debate the facts only, and basically no one will take him on it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Sylas Member (Idle past 5259 days) Posts: 766 From: Newcastle, Australia Joined: |
There may be two views on what Brown's original debate offer implied. At best, the language was unclear, with good reason for someone to think that proposals for a change to the enumerated rules would be submitted to a third party. But this is moot, as Brown has since revised the wording.
There is another good reason that Brown is not being given many offers to debate. If you look at his proposal, it is not actually for a simple debate at all. It is for two conflicting views to collaborate on writing a book! Someone taking up this debate is basically committing to a major publishing venture, with an opponent who has very little credibility and prominence even by creationist standards. Answers in Genesis, for example, mentions Brown explicitly in their list of poor arguments by creationists. Now of course, it is the nature of the game that just about anyone who makes any kind of creationist claim with some veneer of professionalism is bound to get significant support. There are worse examples of this than Brown. But why would anyone bother writing a book with someone like this? If I was going to take the time to write a whole book, there's no way I'd want to collaborate with a second rater like Brown. It is entirely consistent and sensible to look at the calibre of Brown's work, judge it to be nonsense, and dismiss the debate offer as useless. The fact that Brown is not getting people to accept his offer is not an indication that he has a difficult position to refute; though naturally he will attempt to portray it in such terms. It is because he is not worth that level of engagement. Real scientific debate is carried out without all this hoopla about mano-a-mano grandstanding. You just make your case. Brown has done this, and very laughable it is too. The counter-case is made already, in libraries and universities and research institutes all over the world. Cheers -- Sylas
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5194 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
randman,
1. Because the language does not state he has to send their change to a 3rd party. False, Walt clarified his ambiguity. This has been pointed out to you several times now. You are equivocating.
but even if he somehow had made a mistake and miscommunicated, he still would have done nothing wrong, and has acted appropiately, even if that were true, in clarifying what he means, which is what he said all along, that he does not intend, nor will he, debate religion, but rather only the facts. It is a fact that Walt's challenge was taken up under his own rules as he intended them. He threw out the modified proposal & refused debate instead of passing it on to a 3rd party as he stated he would. Walt cannot claim that his challenge has gone unmet, as Joe made a perfectly legitimate challenge as per Walts own rules. End of story. Mark There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
I disagree on one point. The question of the rules is relevant to the question of whether Walt Brown retreated from a valid offer of a debate under the rules as he wrote them.
As I have stated earlier if the rules were unclear the proper recourse would have been to have the editor decide what the rules were. The rules certainly did not place any restrictions on the modifications that could be proposed, or state that they could be unilaterally rejected by Brown. Thus Joe Meert acted within the framework of the agreement and Walt Brown did not. As a conclusion any claim that evolutionists refuse to debate Brown is not only irrelevant to the merits of Brown's arguments as you correctly point out. It is also a lie.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Sylas Member (Idle past 5259 days) Posts: 766 From: Newcastle, Australia Joined: |
I disagree on one point. The question of the rules is relevant to the question of whether Walt Brown retreated from a valid offer of a debate under the rules as he wrote them. I don't disagree with that. I'm just not particularly interested in that aspect of the matter. Cheers -- Sylas
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Sylas, you make a reasonable point on why he may be getting few offers. Most may not want their names associated with the publication for various reasons.
On the other hand, if Joe Meert and others genuinely do want to debate the facts, they know they can by just agreeing to only debate the facts.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Sylas Member (Idle past 5259 days) Posts: 766 From: Newcastle, Australia Joined: |
On the other hand, if Joe Meert and others genuinely do want to debate the facts, they know they can by just agreeing to only debate the facts. Joe and others already debate the facts. The question is whether anyone should bother conducting the debate by writing a book in collaboration with Brown. I frankly think it remains far better to keep conducting the debate in the normal way. Just point out some of the many ways in which Brown's position is incorrect. One of the facts is that creationism is a religious position. A discussion of creationism which omits any mention of this aspect is necessarily superficial. Cheers -- Sylas
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024