Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 73 (8962 total)
146 online now:
CosmicChimp, PaulK (2 members, 144 visitors)
Newest Member: Samuel567
Post Volume: Total: 870,726 Year: 2,474/23,288 Month: 665/1,809 Week: 97/225 Day: 0/28 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Science Disproves Evolution
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 1051 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 181 of 196 (445782)
01-03-2008 9:57 PM
Reply to: Message 177 by Pahu
01-03-2008 9:28 PM


Re: How Old Do Evolutionists Say the Universe Is?
Huh. Another cut and paste.

See you next week.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by Pahu, posted 01-03-2008 9:28 PM Pahu has not yet responded

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 153 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 182 of 196 (445783)
01-03-2008 9:58 PM
Reply to: Message 177 by Pahu
01-03-2008 9:28 PM


PLEASE, I BEG OF YOU!
Please try to understand the following, it will make everyone's life here much easier.

The Theory of Evolution says NOTHING about how old the universe is, except that it must be old enough for life to have evolved. I seriously doubt that there's anything substantial to the supposed problems in cosmology that you think you've outlined, but even if there is, it's all completely irrelevant to the Theory of Evolution.

"Evolutionists" study evolution. They don't study cosmology. I'd be absolutely amazed if any "evolutionists" have put forth any theories on the origin of the universe.

The more you continue to ignore this most basic of distinctions, the more you prove that you really don't have a clue about this subject or what you are talking about.


Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat


This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by Pahu, posted 01-03-2008 9:28 PM Pahu has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20537
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 183 of 196 (445786)
01-03-2008 10:17 PM
Reply to: Message 177 by Pahu
01-03-2008 9:28 PM


Another Liar for Creationism
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/index.html

quote:
(sidebar)
About the Author
Walt Brown received a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering ...

... and is a known liar and con man.

http://gondwanaresearch.com/hp/walt_brown.htm

quote:
I am not an evolutionist -- to the contrary, I am a Bible-believing, creationist Christian who has attended and enjoyed Dr. Brown's seminar, ... In this instance, Dr. Brown has disappointed me,

The debate 'challenge' was originally provided to me by a student in one of my classes. The student gave me Walt's e-mail and claimed that Walt had good evidence for a global flood using only scientific research. I was also informed that Walt wanted to debate an old earth evolutionist regarding the validity of his model and wanted only to debate the science. Hence, my first e-mails to Walt stating the 'no theology' stipulation (note however that these e-mails were NOT a signed debate agreement, but merely an inquiry with my initial bias). 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.

I would also like to remind everyone visiting these pages that Walt was likely to change the debate agreement. Indeed, I was absolutely correct. I saved a copy of the original (http://baby.indstate.edu/gga/pmag/debate.html) just in case. What's relevant? Point #22 in the original debate agreement includes an opportunity to modify point #4 in that agreement. The new debate agreement no longer contains point #4. Neither Walt nor Peggy mention this change in their letters! I wonder why?

Creationist Walt Brown claims that in over 15 years no evolutionist is willing to enter into a debate with him. Just how true is this claim? Nearly 4 years ago, I began a dialogue with Walt Brown to discuss the possibility of debating him.

It was precisely this clause that led me to begin a dialogue with Walt and engage him in his debate. 4 years ago, I signed the agreement with a clause requesting that we be able to discuss the veracity of the Noachian flood account. This issue is germane to Walt's entire thesis and is valid debate material. In nearly 4 years, Walt has refused to have the editor decide the issue.


So Walt has lied about this debate for over 4 years as of 2000 ... that makes it 11 years going on 12 as a demonstrated liar.

Why would he be a good source of information on anything? Why do creationists need to lie if creationism is true?

Enjoy.

ps - notice the use of source for evidence and then comment for argument.

Notice further that I don't need to address a single thing Walt Brown says, as you cannot demonstrate anything he says is true.

Sorry kid, but reality just is not your opinion.

Edited by RAZD, : No reason given.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by Pahu, posted 01-03-2008 9:28 PM Pahu has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by dwise1, posted 01-04-2008 1:44 AM RAZD has not yet responded
 Message 191 by Pahu, posted 01-06-2008 11:17 AM RAZD has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 184 of 196 (445801)
01-03-2008 11:03 PM
Reply to: Message 177 by Pahu
01-03-2008 9:28 PM


Re: How Old Do Evolutionists Say the Universe Is?
In the late 1920s, evolutionists believed that the universe was 2 billion years (b.y.) old.

Wrong.

I have already shown you a four-billion year date for the Earth from 1921:

"Taking the mean of this and the upper limit found above from the ratio of uranium to lead, we obtain 4 x 10^9 years as a rough approximation to the age of the Earth's crust." --- Russell, H.N., 1921. A superior limit to the age of the Earth's crust in Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, series A, vol. 99, pp. 84-86.

Evolutionists, even in the broadest sense of that term, do not set dates on the age of the universe.

In other words, a big bang would produce only the three lightest chemical elements. Therefore, big bang advocates have struggled to explain the origin of the heavier chemical elements (carbon, oxygen, iron, lead etc.).

This mechanism has been well-known for decades. No "struggle" is involved.

Evolutionists can undoubtedly resolve these time contradictions—but at the cost of rejecting some cherished belief.

What interesting daydreams this guys has.

I guess it's even easier to induldge in silly fantasies about the future than about the past or the present.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by Pahu, posted 01-03-2008 9:28 PM Pahu has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 185 of 196 (445804)
01-03-2008 11:18 PM
Reply to: Message 174 by JonF
01-03-2008 7:39 PM


Re: Crater Creep
Just noticed this old canard.

The "doubling at a rate of once every 15 years" number is derived by dividing the change in the mainstream age of the Earth in the last 150 years by 150, That is, it assumes that the mainstream age of the Earth has changed linearly over the last 150 years.

No, it's worse than that.

If the claim was true, then Darwin would have thought the Earth was only 4.5 million years old!

While he gives no estimate of the age of the Earth per se, but he estimated the denudation of the Weald (which he describes as a "mere trifle") as taking three hundred million years. (See Darwin, Origin of Species, chapter IX.)

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by JonF, posted 01-03-2008 7:39 PM JonF has not yet responded

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 186 of 196 (445820)
01-04-2008 12:06 AM
Reply to: Message 177 by Pahu
01-03-2008 9:28 PM


Pahu 2 days off
Pahu,
You continue to copy stuff that you don't understand. You have yet to engage any of those who have responded to your previous posts.

You are suspended for 2 days. It will be longer if you continue in this way.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by Pahu, posted 01-03-2008 9:28 PM Pahu has not yet responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3974
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 187 of 196 (445831)
01-04-2008 1:25 AM
Reply to: Message 178 by Jason777
01-03-2008 9:44 PM


... it would only prove Darwinian evolution was wrong and prove the theory of Punctuated Equillibrium was right.It would never occur to them that Evolution was wrong.

Uh, dude, punctuated equilibrium is evolution. And it is Darwinian evolution. Your statement certainly makes it look like you have no idea what you're talking about. If you want to oppose an idea, it would certainly help your cause if you were to break with creationist tradition and actually learn something about your opponent.

Even though Darwin knew and wrote that the rate of evolutionary change would vary greatly, he saw others abusing that idea by advocating near-instantaneous appearance of new characteristics, so he over-emphasized slow and gradual change. The only Darwinian idea that Punc.Eq. refutes is that over-emphasis on slow and gradual change.

But how sudden is "sudden"? I have stowed away somewhere an excellent quote from back in the day on CompuServe (hot-bed of creation/evolution discussion in the late 1980's) that addresses this. Since I cannot locate it just this instant, I will paraphrase it. Sudden to a person is in less than a second. Sudden to a generation is within a year. Sudden to geology is thousands of years. Thousands of years.

I also have a copy of the circa-1980 article in either Science or Nature (it's been a couple decades and I'm going strictly by memory right now; I moved a few years ago and everything is still packed away in boxes). But I remember vividly the diagrams in that article. Each generation was represented by a bell curve and the graphics showed a continuous line of bell curves over a very large number of generations "suddenly" changing over thousands of years.

Are you starting to get an idea of what Punc.Eq. is? Not at all what your creationist masters told you, is it? Of course not. Since when did they ever tell the truth about anything?


{When you search for God, y}ou can't go to the people who believe already. They've made up their minds and want to convince you of their own personal heresy.
("The Jehovah Contract", AKA "Der Jehova-Vertrag", by Viktor Koman, 1984)

Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote the world.
(from filk song "Word of God" by Dr. Catherine Faber, http://www.echoschildren.org/CDlyrics/WORDGOD.HTML)

Of course, if Dr. Mortimer's surmise should be correct and we are dealing with forces outside the ordinary laws of Nature, there is an end of our investigation. But we are bound to exhaust all other hypotheses before falling back upon this one.
(Sherlock Holmes in The Hound of the Baskervilles)

Gentry's case depends upon his halos remaining a mystery. Once a naturalistic explanation is discovered, his claim of a supernatural origin is washed up. So he will not give aid or support to suggestions that might resolve the mystery. Science works toward an increase in knowledge; creationism depends upon a lack of it. Science promotes the open-ended search; creationism supports giving up and looking no further. It is clear which method Gentry advocates.
("Gentry's Tiny Mystery -- Unsupported by Geology" by J. Richard Wakefield, Creation/Evolution Issue XXII, Winter 1987-1988, pp 31-32)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by Jason777, posted 01-03-2008 9:44 PM Jason777 has not yet responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3974
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 188 of 196 (445834)
01-04-2008 1:44 AM
Reply to: Message 183 by RAZD
01-03-2008 10:17 PM


Re: Another Liar for Creationism
BULLFROG!!

No, I agree with you. In my "BullFrog Affair" article, I included an incident with Walter Brown and his infamous "rattlesnake protein" claim which he still has hidden in a footnote of his on-line book; from my web page at http://members.aol.com/dwise1/cre_ev/bullfrog.html#RATTLESNAKE (original article written and posted on CompuServe in 1990):

quote:
One of Brown's claims that Arduini was especially interested in was that the rattlesnake's closest biochemical relative is humans. However, Brown demanded $70 from Arduini to provide that documentation.

. . .

Brown claimed that on the basis of data from a 1978 study by Margaret Dayhoff, comparisons of cytochrome c show that the rattlesnake is more closely related to humans that to any other organism. When Kenney asked Brown to provide the name of the scientific journal and the page number in which Dayhoff had reached this conclusion, Brown stated that he couldn't. Dayhoff had never reached such a conclusion, but rather Brown's son had used Dayhoff's data to reach that conclusion for a science fair project. It was Brown's son who had concluded that rattlesnakes are more closely related to humans by cytochrome c than to any other organism.

For fifteen dollars, Brown sent Kenney photocopies of his son's project (apparently, Brown's price depends on who you are). Kenney wrote:

quote:
In the project I quickly found that the rattlesnake and humans differed by only fourteen amino acids. Humans and rhesus monkeys differed by one amino acid. Later, Brown called me again and then explained that of the forty-seven organisms in the study, the one closest to the RATTLESNAKE was the human, not that the one closest to the human was the rattlesnake. You see, among the forty-seven there were no other snakes.
(Creation/Evolution Newsletter Vol.4 No.5 Sep/Oct 84, pg 16)

Most of the other organisms in the study were as distantly related to the rattlesnake as were humans; it is coincidence that human cytochrome c was just barely less different than the others. Obviously, this is just semantic sleight-of-hand which can serve no other purpose than to mislead and it is so blatant that Brown had to know what he was doing.

Later after a debate, Kenney found Brown telling a small group about rattlesnakes being more closely related to humans than to any other organism. When Kenney started explaining to the group how misleading that was, Brown quickly changed the subject.



Just to point out the end of the second-to-the-last paragraph, Brown's claim had to be worded with extreme precision to remain technically true. The personal effort that it would take to ensure that one words that claim precisely correctly would require that one know that looser wording would fail to be technically correct.

One of the perennial questions that "creation science" opponents ask themselves is, "Do these people (ie, the leading creationists who dream up all those lies) really believe that nonsense?" To me, this claim of Brown's was hard proof that he was purposefully lying. He had to know precisely how to word it, therefore he had to know that it was a false claim. His immediate action of changing the subject when his lie was being exposed is further evidence that he knew he was lying.

Edited by dwise1, : softened the ending

Edited by dwise1, : corrected quote tags


{When you search for God, y}ou can't go to the people who believe already. They've made up their minds and want to convince you of their own personal heresy.
("The Jehovah Contract", AKA "Der Jehova-Vertrag", by Viktor Koman, 1984)

Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote the world.
(from filk song "Word of God" by Dr. Catherine Faber, http://www.echoschildren.org/CDlyrics/WORDGOD.HTML)

Of course, if Dr. Mortimer's surmise should be correct and we are dealing with forces outside the ordinary laws of Nature, there is an end of our investigation. But we are bound to exhaust all other hypotheses before falling back upon this one.
(Sherlock Holmes in The Hound of the Baskervilles)

Gentry's case depends upon his halos remaining a mystery. Once a naturalistic explanation is discovered, his claim of a supernatural origin is washed up. So he will not give aid or support to suggestions that might resolve the mystery. Science works toward an increase in knowledge; creationism depends upon a lack of it. Science promotes the open-ended search; creationism supports giving up and looking no further. It is clear which method Gentry advocates.
("Gentry's Tiny Mystery -- Unsupported by Geology" by J. Richard Wakefield, Creation/Evolution Issue XXII, Winter 1987-1988, pp 31-32)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by RAZD, posted 01-03-2008 10:17 PM RAZD has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12657
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 189 of 196 (445870)
01-04-2008 8:17 AM
Reply to: Message 177 by Pahu
01-03-2008 9:28 PM


A Word to Pahu
Hi Pahu,

I think the problems you're having participating here are due to one fundamental misunderstanding. You think the other participants here don't understand the material you're cut-n-pasting any better than you do, and that you're just being more honest in admitting you don't understand it.

The reality is not only that most here understand the material, some of them even write it. A number of published researchers participate here. This is a science site. The people who participate most successfully here know quite a bit of science.

If you continue to post cut-n-pastes and avoid discussion you'll simply be suspended again, and since you've already demonstrated your willingness to violate the Forum Guidelines, there won't be any extended period of trying to nudge you into compliance before suspending you. The suspensions will be longer each time until the suspension finally becomes permanent. That's one possible future for you.

The other possible future is a productive one where you read and comprehend the information you'd like to discuss, then you compose posts where you construct arguments in your own words using the information you've learned. People will post rebuttals, and so next you will respond to these rebuttals, again in your own words, perhaps first doing more research. You will use links only as references to support your points, your cut-n-pastes will be occasional and short, and you will keep your focus on the topic of discussion.

The choice is really all yours. We'd love to have you here as a regular participant, but this is a debate board, and it isn't possible to debate someone who intersperses cut-n-pastes he doesn't understand with evasions.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by Pahu, posted 01-03-2008 9:28 PM Pahu has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by Pahu, posted 01-06-2008 11:19 AM Admin has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20537
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 190 of 196 (446096)
01-04-2008 9:25 PM
Reply to: Message 180 by Jason777
01-03-2008 9:54 PM


Jason, please use the message reply button at the lower right corner of the message:

... rather than the general reply button to link directly to the message you are replying to.

Sorry for the misunderstanding that article is 12 years old.But it is the only one i know of that shows a partial reconstruction,although made from a Homo Erectus heel,and the rest of the foot is Australopithicine.

Not all old information is bad - just outdated information, where new information supersedes, supplants or augments the old information. That same reconstruction is still used in the 2004 article I cited, although the fossil is now Australopithicus africanus, no mention of a Homo Erectus heel - do you have update information on that?

Perhaps we should continue this on the "{composite\Lucy\Australopithicus} was bipedal thread (see message 20)

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : sp


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by Jason777, posted 01-03-2008 9:54 PM Jason777 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by Jason777, posted 01-23-2008 6:52 PM RAZD has responded

  
Pahu
Member (Idle past 4335 days)
Posts: 33
Joined: 12-19-2007


Message 191 of 196 (446443)
01-06-2008 11:17 AM
Reply to: Message 183 by RAZD
01-03-2008 10:17 PM


Re: Another Liar for Creationism
Razd writes:

Walt Brown received a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering and is a known liar and con man.
So Walt has lied about this debate for over 4 years as of 2000 ... that makes it 11 years going on 12 as a demonstrated liar.
Why would he be a good source of information on anything? Why do creationists need to lie if creationism is true?
Enjoy. ps - notice the use of source for evidence and then comment for argument.
Notice further that I don't need to address a single thing Walt Brown says, as you cannot demonstrate anything he says is true.
Sorry kid, but reality just is not your opinion.

Pahu: Your assertion of lying is typical of evolutionists and others with your mentality. You have eagerly accepted one side of a story and have run with it waving it gleefully as proof the information Walt is providing cannot possibly by accurate and is therefore unworthy of any consideration. That is a cop out. His information is based on verifiable facts presented by scientists, most of whom are not creationists. Since you only presented the part of the story that supports your preconception, it seems someone is lying all right, but not Walt. The following is the rest of the story about the Joe Meert/Walt Brown Communications Concerning a Written Debate:

Summary of Joe Meert/Walt Brown Communications Concerning a Written Debate

For over twenty years Walt Brown has offered to engage in a written debate on the question, “Does the Scientific Evidence Favor Creation or Evolution?” The strictlyscientific aspect of this debate has always been the central part of the offer (To read the complete debate agreement, see: www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ418.html).

Joe Meert contacted Walt Brown in 1996 to accept the challenge. Soon after reading the copy of In the Beginning that Walt Brown sent him, Meert no longer wanted to debate just the scientific evidence. He now wanted to include religious discussions and the Bible, which was always contrary to the debate offer. Meert insists that an editor would decide if religious arguments could be part of the exchange, but according to the offer, the editor would decide procedural differences between debaters, not the actual debate topic.

Joe Meert falsely claims that Walt Brown refuses to debate him, but the truth is that Joe Meert refuses to participate in a strictly scientific debate. The following segments from email and letters will give readers more details:

On Aug 26, 1996, Joe Meert wrote Walt Brown:

“I am a faculty member in Geology at Indiana State University. At the present time, I would be interested in the debate form at providing there is NO THEOLOGY discussed. The debate will be on the intrinsic merits of the SCIENCE and no discussion of creationism or the Bible should be allowed. Once the debate enters this realm it becomes a debate about theology NOT geology.” [Emphasis his.]

A courtesy copy of In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood (6th Edition) was then sent to Joe Meert.

On Aug. 27, 1996, Joe Meert wrote:

“Yes, I am well qualified to enter a scientific debate IF there is science to be debated. I am not qualified to debate theological arguments that are based on faith alone. . . .You know, I would be more than happy to debate Walter on science if he was able to debate science. I found out very early on in life that you can’t debate theology and that is really what Walt wants.”

On Aug. 31, 1996, Joe Meert, after receiving the book, changed his position and wrote Walt Brown:

“I have one major problem with the format of the debate. You refuse to allow religious discussion and want to debate on purely scientific grounds.”

On Aug. 31, 1996, Walt Brown wrote Joe Meert:

“You contradict yourself. Either sign the debate agreement and propose any changes which the editor will rule on in a binding manner, or face the fact that you are unwilling to enter into a purely scientific debate on origins.”

Joe Meert then signed the debate agreement, but added the stipulation that the debate would include religious arguments and discussions. If Walt Brown did not agree, an editor would decide. Note that the debate agreement says an editor will resolve disagreements about procedures, not what the topic will be. Meert wished to change not procedures, but the topic itself from one dealing with scientific evidence to one that would include religion.

Meert wrote, “Your “Science” is based on a literal interpretation of the Bible and nothing more. In short: no Bible, no Genesis, no flood, no hydroplate theory. A debate about your science MUST include your basic underlying assumption which is entirely biblical not scientific.”

Walt Brown’s debate offer has always been for a strictly scientific written debate on the evidence pertaining to origins. The following is from CSC’s web site:

“The debate must be restricted to science and avoid religion, a broader, more complex, and less structured discipline. My focus is on the scientific evidence relating to origins. Scientific methodology is better understood [than theology] by most people. Indeed methods for reaching religious conclusions are vast, subjective, and cultural. Religious disagreements—often emotional and unresolvable—have been with us for thousands of years. A purely scientific debate will be broad enough.”

In addition, if even a few pages of “religious discussions” were part of this written debate, it would never
be allowed in the public schools. A strictly scientific exchange would be an exciting resource for public
school teachers and students.

On Nov. 7, 2002, Joe Meert wrote Walt Brown:

“Are you willing to follow this? [He then took three sentences from CSC’s web site and quoted them.]
“‘Evolutionists who disagree and wish to participate can propose alternatives. However, they must sign, as I will, that they will abide by the editor’s decisions resolving disagreements about debate procedures.”’

On Nov. 21, 2000, Peggy (CSC) wrote Joe Meert:

“We received your letter this week. You still wish to include religion in the written debate, but Dr. Brown’s debate offer has always been for a strictly scientific written debate on the evidence pertaining to origins, with no religion. A simple reading of the written debate offer clearly states that, as I am sure you realize. What you propose is not a change in debate procedures (which would be decided by an editor). You wish to change the debate topic itself from one dealing with no more and no less than the scientific evidence. You are eager to broaden the debate topic to include religion and you may be able to find others to engage in such a discourse. However, that is not the issue that Walt Brown has challenged evolutionists to debate.

Yours,
Peggy
CSC

P.S. Walt was more succinct when I showed your letter to him. “Either Meert chooses not to read accurately, or he is unable to base his case on science alone, or he is so angry at the Bible that it is his target.” Walt also said, that if you want to debate religion, go elsewhere.

On Aug. 8, 2001, Peggy (CSC) wrote a person who was communicating with Joe Meert:

“We understand Joe Meert’s position and also understand your frustration. Walt Brown’s debate proposal does include a provision for changing debate PROCEDURES, but what Joe Meert wishes to do is change the debate TOPIC to include discussions of religion. You are suggesting that all we need to do is find an independent editor and if that editor rejects Meert’s suggested change in the debate topic, the debate would then take place. Conversely, if the editor ruled religion in, then the debate would not be strictly on scientific matters. Why would anyone enter a debate and allow a third party to later decide what the topic will be? On the other hand, an impartial editor would be the best person to resolve any disagreement on rules, word lengths, time between submissions, format, number of submissions, etc. All of this is clearly laid out at our web site and in the book. Please reread either of those offers.

The topic Walt wishes to debate has always been, “Does the scientific evidence support creation or evolution?” (No religious views or writings permitted.) Joe Meert is not willing to debate that topic. If Joe Meert wishes to debate the question and include religious discussions, he will need to find another opponent. Walt Brown will only debate if the exchange is limited to scientific evidence.

On 8/24/01 Joe Meert posted the following at his web site:

Fact
1. Walt Brown’s challenge includes a provision for requesting a change in the rules.
Fact
2. Meert submitted the request for a slight change (2 pages) and agreed to have the request decided by an independent arbiter. He agreed to abide by that decision.
Fact
3. Walt Brown has both the request and my signed agreement and needs only to act on them.
Fact
4. Walt will never act on this debate because he does not really want debate. Debate spoils his party. The claim “No evolutionist will debate me” gives the outward appearance of ‘my arguments are so good no one can challenge them’. If that is removed, Walt does not look so good. I’ve done everything Walt requested and I can’t do anything more until he decides to have the issue heard by an independent editor. I have gone back and forth on this issue so many times on pages it gets boring. The agreement is signed and I agree to abide by the decision of an independent. If he/she says that 2 pages of biblical discussion is off limits, then so it shall be.

Cheers
Joe Meert

On Jan. 2, 2002, Peggy (CSC) wrote another third party who had seen Meert’s above accusations:

“You have been misinformed. Joe Meert wants the debate to include religion. Dr. Brown’s offer has for 21 years always been for a strictly scientific debate. Meert initially wrote us and insisted on a strictly scientific debate. We agreed and sent him a free copy of Dr. Brown’s book. Meert then said the debate must include religion.

It is always best to hear both sides of a controversy before drawing an opinion. Let me suggest that you urge Joe Meert to enter into a strictly scientific debate with Dr. Brown. In case of disagreements between the debaters, Walt Brown’s debate proposal has a provision for changing debate PROCEDURES, but what Joe Meert wishes to do is change the debate TOPIC to include discussions of religion. Why would anyone enter a debate and allow a third party to later decide what the topic will be? On the other hand, an impartial editor is the best person to resolve any disagreement on rules, word lengths, time between submissions, format, number of submissions, etc.

All of this is quite clearly laid out at our web site and in the book. At our home page (www.creationscience.com), scroll down to the bottom of the home p age or click on the bullet labeled “Written Debate.” There you will read:

The issue is: Does the scientific evidence favor creation or evolution? Dr. Brown’s standing offer for a strictly scientific, written, and publishable debate is on page 321. Please read the entire passage and note that a few initially agreed to a strictly scientific debate, but later changed their minds, insisting they would only take part if the exchange included religion . One evolutionist [Joe Meert] is so upset that a written de bate will not include religion that he now misleads by saying that Walt Brown has refused to debate him. (Correspondence in our files shows how he no longer wanted a strictly scientific debate after reading the 6th edition of this book.) Dr. Brown has consistently maintained his position for 21 years; the debate should be limited to scientific evidence.

If someone says, “Walt Brown has refused to debate,” we suggest you ask to see that person’s signed debate agreement. (Walt Brown has published his on pages 321-323.) After reading that, go read the written debate offer at www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ418.html and compare it with what Joe Meert is saying. If Joe Meert wishes to debate the question and include religious discussions, he will need to find another opponent. Walt Brown will only debate if the exchange is limited to scientific evidence.

The first draft of the debate agreement was a joint effort in 1982 by a world famous geologist, Dr. Robert S. Dietz, and Dr. Brown. (Dietz was one of the founders of the Plate Tectonic Theory.) Dr. Brown lectured on creation at Arizona State University where Dr. Dietz taught. During the lecture, Dr. Brown gave the written debate challenge to Dr. Dietz who was sitting on the front row along with an assistant editor and photographer from Arizona’s main newspaper, The Arizona Republic.

Although Dr. Dietz had earlier declined the offer when the University Activities Director took both men
to lunch, Dietz accepted it there in the auditorium, perhaps to save face. Much applause followed. (The Activities Director had spent weeks trying to set up an oral debate, but could find no willing
evolutionist.) The next day The Arizona Republic had a major article about the written debate agreement. (See “Debate Recalls ‘Monkey Trial’,” 6 February 1982, page F1). One sentence in that article read, “Each promised to present only scientific evidence for evolution or creation, and to avoid religious issues.” Over the next several weeks the two men communicated several times by phone and easily formulated the agreement without bickering or rancor. Months later, Dietz called Walt Brown and the assistant editor (who had agreed to be the debate’s editor) and formally backed out.

Dietz said he had tried writing his side of the debate but found he couldn’t avoid religion. The editor (who was an evolutionist) went to Dietz’s office and tried to get Dietz to stay in the debate. Dietz would not. Oddly enough, three years later, Dr. Brown moved from Chicago to Phoenix where he and Dietz had dozens of meetings and became friends. Dr. Dietz died several years ago.

Another false statement Meert is making is that Dr. Brown “claims he is not able to discuss theology.” Not true. Although Dr. Brown is not trained as a theologian, he is certainly able to discuss theology. He simply insists that the written debate be restricted to science. One simple reason for requiring this is that the debate would be of great interest to students and teachers in public schools. However, if the least bit of religious discussion is included, public schools would reject the debate.

Allowing religious wrangling would also reinforce the false impression many have that creationists are pushing religion, but evolutionists want to deal only with science. Yes, we all have our religious views, but let’s leave that out of our public schools. The issue will eventually be resolved based on science, which is what evolutionists fear.

We get frequent letters such as yours. People are surprised to find that the creationist wants to debate the evidence while the evolutionist wants to argue religion. Many then examine the scientific case and are excited by what they discover. To the extent that Meert is helping people see this, we are very grateful. (Most people can quickly see through Meert’s distortions.) Meert is also raising people’s awareness of the importance in having a thorough, written, scientific debate on this important issue. For that, we appreciate your interest and his bluster.”

Sincerely,
Peggy
CSC


This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by RAZD, posted 01-03-2008 10:17 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by RAZD, posted 01-06-2008 1:17 PM Pahu has not yet responded

  
Pahu
Member (Idle past 4335 days)
Posts: 33
Joined: 12-19-2007


Message 192 of 196 (446445)
01-06-2008 11:19 AM
Reply to: Message 189 by Admin
01-04-2008 8:17 AM


Re: A Word to Pahu
Percy: Hi Pahu,
I think the problems you're having participating here are due to one fundamental misunderstanding. You think the other participants here don't understand the material you're cut-n-pasting any better than you do, and that you're just being more honest in admitting you don't understand it.

Pahu: I think I do understand the problem. It isn’t so much a matter of their inability to understand the facts I am sharing, but rather a rejection of them. By the way, I have never “cut-n-pasted” anything.

Percy: The reality is not only that most here understand the material, some of them even write it. A number of published researchers participate here. This is a science site. The people who participate most successfully here know quite a bit of science.

Pahu: Now that is curious: They are published scientists who have published the very facts I am quoting, and yet they reject their own published facts?

Percy: If you continue to post cut-n-pastes and avoid discussion you'll simply be suspended again, and since you've already demonstrated your willingness to violate the Forum Guidelines, there won't be any extended period of trying to nudge you into compliance before suspending you. The suspensions will be longer each time until the suspension finally becomes permanent.

Pahu: Thanks for the warning. You must have missed the discussions I have engaged in.

Percy: That's one possible future for you.
The other possible future is a productive one where you read and comprehend the information you'd like to discuss, then you compose posts where you construct arguments in your own words using the information you've learned. People will post rebuttals, and so next you will respond to these rebuttals, again in your own words, perhaps first doing more research. You will use links only as references to support your points, your cut-n-pastes will be occasional and short, and you will keep your focus on the topic of discussion.

Pahu: Are those rules for everyone, or just me? I’ve noticed no one seems to be doing that here.

Percy: The choice is really all yours. We'd love to have you here as a regular participant, but this is a debate board, and it isn't possible to debate someone who intersperses cut-n-pastes he doesn't understand with evasions.

Pahu: What makes you think I don’t understand what I am sharing? The fact is, I do. When have I evaded? I really think you have a super web site here and the format is great. The problem is your rules tend to stifle the free exchange of information rather than encourage it. The title of your site is Evolution vs. Creation. With your rules, the title should be: Evolution vs. Science.

I am not a scientist. My formal education ended with one year of college. In my 78 years I have picked up some information by osmosis, etc. I am not here to debate, argue, quibble, etc. I am here to share scientific facts that disprove evolution. I am the messenger. Your argument is with the scientists and other authorities from whom I am sharing scientific facts. Most of the quotes and conclusions are from Walt Brown’s on line book, In The Beginning, at http://www.creationscience.com/. If your scientists really want to debate which model, evolution or creation, is best supported by scientific facts, he has offered to enter into such a debate for years, as I mentioned in my reply to Razd in post #183. His offer is in his book.

I cannot share scientific facts in compliance with your rules. Placing facts, conclusions, and supporting references into a couple of sentences is impossible. I think your best course of action is to change the rules so they are more information friendly. I’ve noticed a few of the answers to the information I have shared is insistence on obeying your oppressive rules rather than actually addressing the material. Others have resorted to denial, accusations of lying, etc. You seem to have a better class of participants in this site than some I’ve visited who not only respond with the above, but also with profanity, cursing, belittling, etc. Some others have presented good information that seems to contradict what I have shared. That is great. Science is not knowledge. Science is the search for knowledge and is constantly changing as new discoveries are made. The trash heap of history is full of scientific “facts.”

You might be interested to know that Walt Brown has recently deleted two of the items in his book. Here is his explanatory statement:

“Item 94, “Solar Fuel,” and Item 95, “Shrinking Sun,” which were on page 34 of the hardbound version of the book, have been removed from the web version of the book. Experiments conducted at the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory in Ontario, Canada, in June, 2001, discovered characteristics of neutrinos that explained this 30-year-old mystery.”

As you can see, he does keep up with current discoveries and is not the lying bigot some seem to think he is. His information is based on verifiable facts presented by scientists, most of whom are not creationists.

I would like to continue to share scientific facts with you, but if you are unable to accept them that is understandable, typical, and not surprising. I have been sharing them for several years and have heard just about all the erroneous responses that are available. Most evolutionists hate any suggestion their philosophy/religion is wrong and they use some of the darndest methods to try to shut me up. I suspect a lot of them have the same mentality that existed during the Inquisition: they would love to burn me at the stake as a heretic. When they are able, they ban me, instead of burn me, which is the only method that works. I will regret it if that is your choice. If it is your choice, you are not only preventing me from presenting scientific facts that disprove evolution, you are also preventing the other participants from “shredding” them. It was fun and interesting while it lasted.

Best wishes. [This is Pahu and I approve of this message!]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by Admin, posted 01-04-2008 8:17 AM Admin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by Admin, posted 01-06-2008 1:24 PM Pahu has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20537
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 193 of 196 (446480)
01-06-2008 1:17 PM
Reply to: Message 191 by Pahu
01-06-2008 11:17 AM


Re: Another Liar for Creationism
Pahu: Your assertion of lying is typical of evolutionists and others with your mentality. You have eagerly accepted one side of a story and have run with it waving it gleefully as proof the information ... blather blather blather.

No, Pahu, I have looked at his "information" and I know he is lying. About many things. I just used one example. That Peggy is still in denial of the essential part of the argument is not evidence that what Joe claims is not the truth. The bit about rattlesnake DNA is another, as is one you should also be familiar with from another board:

Yahoo! Message Boards - Agnosticism - Science Disproves Evolution

quote:
Re: Pahu quotes liar Walt Brown 19-Jun-07 03:39 pm
stat: I checked with Benet Labs and received a prompt email denying he was ever director. So Brown lies. I have not been able to check out his other claimed credentials.

There is multiple evidence that Walt lies. He is a demonstrated liar. I repeat: "Why would he be a good source of information on anything? Why do creationists need to lie if creationism is true?"

You, on the other hand want to believe Walt and you have done nothing to validate whether what he says is true or not.

The real question Pahu, is what do you use to validate a statement for truth? How do you test it?

Enjoy.

ps -- there is another way you can quote material

type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:

quote:
quotes are easy

You can use this style to quote your text from Peggy and others, and it helps distinguish your writing from the quoted texts.

Edited by RAZD, : ps


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by Pahu, posted 01-06-2008 11:17 AM Pahu has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12657
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 194 of 196 (446482)
01-06-2008 1:24 PM
Reply to: Message 192 by Pahu
01-06-2008 11:19 AM


Re: A Word to Pahu
Pahu writes:

By the way, I have never “cut-n-pasted” anything.

You're entire Message 191 after the first paragraph is yet another cut-n-paste, this time from http://www.trueorigin.org/Meert1.pdf.

You're hereby suspended for one week.

When you return, if you'd like to discuss moderation issues, please do not do it in this thread. Please post any responses to this message over at the General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures 14.0 thread.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by Pahu, posted 01-06-2008 11:19 AM Pahu has not yet responded

  
Jason777
Member (Idle past 3280 days)
Posts: 69
Joined: 11-08-2007


Message 195 of 196 (450781)
01-23-2008 6:52 PM
Reply to: Message 190 by RAZD
01-04-2008 9:25 PM


Thank you RAZD.I appreciate your interest in discussion.The only hominid that is left open to debate (sort of) is A.Africanus.And i say that because T.C. Partridge gave a date using geomorphological dating of less than 870 k.y. and that was supported by a date of about 1 m.y.a. by thermoluminescence analysis of calcite and uranium-series dates of 942,000 y.a. and 764,000 y.a. on limestone.We certainly know that Homo Erectus was around well before that.The evolutionist in need of a human ancestor reject those dates and gave the taung child a date that fits in with evolution.I call that fraud myself,circular reasoning with a vengance may be a better term.KP 271 is allegedly A.Africanus but all the analysis show it to be anatomicaly indifferent from modern humans,Yet they claim it cant be because of its date of around 4.4 m.y.a..You likely know all of this already,just thought i would share just in case you dont.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by RAZD, posted 01-04-2008 9:25 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by RAZD, posted 01-24-2008 2:47 PM Jason777 has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020