|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Meert / Brown Debate | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1494 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Don't accuse people of lying, make a deal out of it, and then turn around and do it yourself. I used the same tactic you used on him to catch you doing the same thing. I took one of the quotes Trixie had and put it into Google:
quote: Very first link? Walt Brown's webpage. You're obviously in error.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mf Inactive Member |
Hah, you obviously didn't read my post. I didn't say all of the quotes were lies, I said that one of the quotes from his first post was completely made up.
You big literal face. Seems to me that this question is probably hypothetical... Hmm, could be wrong, but I don't know how he can contradict himself in a hypothetical question. Please don't take your literal face and stick it in a dictionary to look up the word probably. Probably is a sarcastic way of saying that it is pretty obvious that this is a hypothetical question. Surely you're joking crashfrog. EDIT: The quote I am referring to is "rock doesn't bend" in post number 7. This is not found anywhere on Walt's site. I assume that he incorrectly interpreted the hypothetical question to mean "rock doesn't bend," then put it in quotes, and claimed it to be "exact" words from the site. [This message has been edited by mf, 03-24-2004]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1494 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
I said that one of the quotes from his first post was completely made up. That wasn't a quote, though. That was simply a summary of some of Walt's statements. Everybody seems to have understood that but you. What's the deal? Your first two posts here haven't exactly knocked 'em out of the park. Why don't you try a little more well-researched argument and a little less "you're an idiot"?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mf Inactive Member |
Everybody seems to have understood that but you. What's the deal? Haha! How wasn't it a quote? What was the difference between that block of text in between quotes, and the other block of text right next to it that was in between quotes? He said that both of them were direct quotes. He obviously is leaving out the part that the first one is not a direct quote, rather, it is a misinterpretation of a hypothetical question posed by Dr. Walter Brown. In case you still don't believe that Trixie could have possibly made up a false quote, I have quoted it myself! FROM POST 7
Whatever, Walt says "Rock doesn't bend like putty" then later he states "Granite bends like putty". Now either he's contradicting himself within a single argument, or granite isn't rock. Here is his reference to this later on, claiming that he quoted all info "word for word." FROM POST 34
In my initial post I included direct quotes from the website, word for word!!!! I copied and pasted them into my message and I attributed them to his website. The words I pasted on are the EXACT WORDS HE USED!!!!! Got that? Not my interpretation of them, but HIS OWN ACTUAL WORDS!!!!!" Well, an analysis of this section of text reveals the use of the words "direct" and "quotes" together implies that he is talking about plural quotes as opposed to one single quote. Since there are only 2 quotes in his initial post, we can infer that he was talking about "Rock doesn't bend like putty" when he was talking about direct quotes. Perhaps it was an accident. I do not know. But it certainly is not the way that you seem to think.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mf Inactive Member |
Why don't you try a little more well-researched argument and a little less "you're an idiot"? And how is my argument not researched? I own Walt's book. I am not saying anything without direct evidence for what I say (as far as I can see, correct me if I am wrong [correct me with evidence too; you haven't really given me any reason to believe that what you are saying is any more valid than what I am saying]).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22498 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Crash and MF:
After reading the posts from Trixie in question, it appears to me that MF is correct. I've searched the pages she referenced at Walt Brown's book site:
And it leads me to two conclusions:
I have a feeling Trixie had a more significant point, but that it got lost while she tried to make this initial point about the strength characteristics of rocks. Maybe she'll let us know if that is the case next time she visits. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Trixie Member (Idle past 3733 days) Posts: 1011 From: Edinburgh Joined: |
I want to make something very clear. I DON'T TELL LIES! I may make mistakes in my life, but I DON't tell lies, especially lies that could be found out very easily since I was citing a site that the person I was responding to was very familiar with!!
OK, now that's out of the way. FromIn the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - How to Evaluate Theories Bent rocks, found all over the earth, often look as if they had the consistency of putty when they were compressed. They must have been squeezed and folded soon after the sediments were laid down, but before they hardened chemically. What squeezed and folded them?
However, I can't find the original quote which said "Rock doesn't bend like putty". I can assure you that it WAS there and I DID cut and paste it. Just like I DID cut and paste the other quotes I provided and which others have been able to find. The reason I remember it so vividly was that I couldn't believe how easy it was to find two contradictory statements which were BOTH using the putty analogy. I've just been back to the site and I can find EVERY quote except that particular one. Funny, isn't it? Not being a geologist, I was certainly not getting involved in a debate about the merits of different theories of rock deformation and which theory was more likely, given what we know about rocks and geology. I was pointing out only what was obvious to a non-geologist. That was a total contradiction in the two quotes I gave.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sylas Member (Idle past 5287 days) Posts: 766 From: Newcastle, Australia Joined: |
I hunted for the word "putty" in Walt Brown's site, Center for Scientific Creation – In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood, using the advanced search facility on google, which allows a search to be restricted to a given domain.
I found six matches; all of which appear to acknowledge that rock can deform like putty under certain circumstances. The pages are:In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - A Few of the Mysteries In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Key Hebrew Words In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - How to Evaluate Theories In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Phases of the Hydroplate Theory: Rupture, Flood, Drift, and Recovery In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - What’s Ahead In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Is the Hydroplate Theory Consistent with the Bible? Walt Brown does update this material periodically, so this is not a proof that he never made the quote... but the onus here is not on Brown. Fairness requires a presumption that he never made the purported quote. That is not a personal criticism of Trixie; it is just a matter of how we ought to fairly evaluate arguments. As matters stand, the prosecution has no case. If context for a quote is lost or misplaced, or if material has been updated to remove a previous error, or if there was a simple mistake in copying, or whatever else, then we just shrug and move on. Since there is nothing to work with, we can't make any check for errors by either side. As a general rule, quotes should be referenced from the first instant they are introduced, especially if they are used as a basis for criticism. As a secondary point, without proper context we can't conclude anything much from a short phrase like "Rock doesn't bend like putty." It could be used reasonably in a context where there is an implicit constraint on circumstances or time frames. There is plenty of stuff in Brown's site that can be criticised as it stands. Take it as an object lesson for how to make an effective case. Cheers -- Sylas (Edit here was quite substantial. I hope this gets out before the first version is quoted.... whew. It did get updated in time.) [This message has been edited by Sylas, 03-25-2004]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mf Inactive Member |
(Edit here was quite substantial. I hope this gets out before the first version is quoted.... whew. It did get updated in time.) Haha true.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5707 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
I think one of the issues is that Walt presents the bending of rock as a mystery to modern science. It is not. In the 1996 edition of his book, Walt lists under "A few of the mysteries" starting on page 71 "How did mountains form" (page 76). Walt claims that the formation of major mountain chains are a mystery to geology. He asks the following questions:
1. How did mountains form?2. What force could push a long, thick slab of rock and cause it to buckle and sometimes fold back on itself? 3. How could brittle rock, showing little evidence of heating or cracking, fold? and over on page 77 he asks the final question: 4. But what squeezed and folded them? The answers to these and other 'mysteries' can be found in a first year course on structural geology. Walt also makes (page 77, figure 33 under a picture of folded rock) the assertion that geology claims that vertical forces were responsible for the folding pattern in the rocks. THis shows that whatever source Walt is using for his geologic knowledge is incorrect. Walt is trying to make a mystery where none, in fact, exists. So yes, Walt does indeed acknowledge the putty-like behavior of rocks but DOES NOT acknowledge that geology has a perfectly viable explanation that does not require a hydroplate. Cheers Joe Meert
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jabadaw Inactive Member |
I ran across this thread and felt I needed to add my thoughts to the mix. Walt's ideas are a theory or at least a hypothesis, but one needs to remember that plate techtonics is also just a theory. Plate techtonics was not even taught when my father went to college. The steps of the scientific method are gauges of testing, likelihood, and reproducibility.
Ideas such as the laws of gravity are considered laws because they have been tested many times and the same results are found every time. An idea such as plate techtonics or Walt's ideas are supported by observation of evidence of past events, as truly testing something on a geologic scale is formidable at best. All theories are in flux as time passes. Atomic theory has progressed from the ideas of element, atoms, electrons, and so on into an all new level of sub atomic particles. I'll close with the idea that just because an idea comes from the past does not mean it is wrong. We have lost much knowledge throughout history. A good example of this is the use of concrete. It was used in ancient rome, but the advanced knowledge of this was lost to man for hundreds of years. That is it for now. Thank you for your patience on a long post.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
quote:--Credence is delivered to scientific hypotheses as a result of their ability to explain the data better than competing theories trying to explain the same data. Theories have variable plausibility in reality and variable credibility in scientific interpretation--they are therefore, not equivalent and your rational is rendered meaningless. Also, I believe it is 'tectonics'. --The bottom line is that the basic idea of plate tectonics explains the geophysical and geological data much better than any other in competition--including Walt Brown's hydroplate. Cheers,-Chris Grose
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jabadaw Inactive Member |
As a computer programmer, anything that can't be tested and proven correct step by step is hard to accept. Neither theory can be tested that way. You state that plate tectonics explains observed features better, yet that's the same as saying "close enough". I doubt you'd want to be charged an amount that's "close enough" to the shown price of something when buying something.
I know that you learn to parrot back exactly what your instructors tell you, since anything other that what they believe to be true is considered wrong. But remember, that very few of history's great scientists are known for agreeing with their peers. It's thinking outside of the box that lets us take great steps. Now, I'm not saying that you should believe every word that Walt Brown says. I'm just saying not to believe everything you read in a book. Take that leap, and if something doesn't fit but some parts might, try to find those missing links and complete the puzzle, even if it isn't what you were looking for in the first place.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1494 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
As a computer programmer, anything that can't be tested and proven correct step by step is hard to accept. You're not the first computer programmer I've met with wierd ideas about the world. Maybe working with computers skews your perspective until you come to believe that the entire universe operates like a computer. I dunno. But heed: the universe doesn't operate like a computer. There's limits to what can be known, not the least of which is the uncertainty principle. Science seeks the close-enough model because that's all we can ever have. We don't stop there, of course - science is a process of continually improving models - but you'd have to be an idiot to conclude that, since we don't know everything, we don't know anything. I can appreciate that you find the fuzziness of real-world models disconcerting. But you'd better get used to it, especially in the biological sciences.
But remember, that very few of history's great scientists are known for agreeing with their peers. Yeah, yeah. They laughed at Einstein. But they also laughed at Bozo the clown. Come to think of it they didn't laugh at Einstein. The point is, only an idiot considers departure from the dominant paradigm as evidence of correctness. We don't reject creationism because it's different than what we learned in Bio 101. We reject it because the evidence proves it wrong.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jabadaw Inactive Member |
Hey crashfrog,
I'm not saying that it has to be perfect. I just like facts that I can see with my own eyes and touch with my own hands. Drive down US 12 to the west for a bit. To your right you will find hills, lakes, and gravel deposits from the glaciers. To your left you will find very flat, black loam left when they melted and washed out to the south. I know this because I live in the flat lands and work feet away from one of the glacier created lakes. This I can see and touch. Can't say I've ever seen or touched a plate or fault. Hopefully a local example will help you understand what I'm talking about.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024