Meert / Brown Debate

Bull crap. The guy spelled it out. He offered to debate the scientific evidence, not theology.What you are saying is that the agreement meant that Walt would have to agree to any changes that the editor decided without respect to the intent of the agreement, effectively making the offer completely open-ended which is clearly not the intent.The evolutionist was trying to weasel the debate into religion, and as such, Walt's rejection is perfectly reasonable.Imo, he more than made it clear that such changes in the essential nature of the debate would never be acceptable. The idea of granting modifications is different than agreeing to do a non-scientific debate.He has since clarified that to make sure there are no misunderstandings, and imo, it is very revealing no evolutionist will take him up on the debate. In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - How to Become More UnifiedBut regardless, the original debate offer stipulated that any modifications had to be agreed by both sides, that the debate was to be only on the scientific data, and thus he did nothing dishonest, but it is dishonest to falsely smear the man by pretending he backed out of something when he did not.Debate the scientific data or don't. Put up or shut up!

Put up or shut up?it's called peer-review (and I'm sure he's got the normal atheistevilliehategodkisssatansbumhidetruth excuse most creationists have)! You think people are bad here? Brown should try jumping in that bear-pit.This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 14-Jun-2005 04:23 PM

Note to all. http://baby.indstate.edu/gga/pmag/debate.htmlWalt specified that he would not agree to debate religion at all in this debate. He stipulated that "can be modified by mutual consent of the two sides", and he inserted a clause where the evolutionist could make an offer for a change but agree to a 3rd party ruling on it.This agreement does not state that Walt would agree to a 3rd party ruling. He stated his agreement was by mutual assent, and plainly indicated he would not debate religion.It's as plain as day. You guys are just wrong. He never made an offer to agree, even by a 3rd party ruling, to include religion into the debate, and specifically stated he would not do that, and put absolutely no qualifications on himself as far as this in the offer.He absolutely did not withdraw an offer made. He merely held true to his original offer to debate the science and not religion.

Charles, Indeed. Funnily, he doesn't seem to be that keen on a scientific debate, it seems.Mark

Debates are peer-reviewed?Whatever. He made an offer to debate, and no one will take him up on it.

Bull, the old offer clearly indicated no religion, period, and Walt never agreed in the agreement to let a 3rd party moderator decide that issue.

Why would it depend on the agreement ? Surely simple fairness holds that it shouls only be modified as allowed for by the agreement itself. In this case by mutual consent or by decision of the editor. Why is Joe Meert wrong for following the procedures laid out in the agreement and Walt Brown right for refusing to accept the agreement he himself wrote ?You and Brown claim that there is no need to include any reference to religion in the debate. If that is so then why not trust the editor to make that decision ? Why would Brown rather go back on his word than allow a neutral third party to adjudicate ?

Imo, this guy is essentially misrepresenting both the principle and the letter of the agreement. Point #22 and the following section reads as follows: http://baby.indstate.edu/gga/pmag/debate.htmlFirst, it appears to me that the modification area is not part of Pt 22, but that doesn't probably matter in terms of the agreement.What does matter is that the person suggesting the change is the one agreeing to "abide by" the ruling of the 3rd party moderator. The other party, in this case Walt, does not agree to this condition since this is a section presented by one party and one party's initial. The clear intent is that the other party must also agree, prior to the 3rd party moderator ruling, since pt 22 says changes may only be agreed upon by mutual assent.The party not asking for the change does not give up it's right to either give it's assent or reject the change. Only the party requesting the change gives up it's right in initialling that section.Since Walt already stated the offer was for only scientific evidence, it is not surprising he refused to give his assent to changing the debate topic significantly.The web-site smearing him, imo, should retract their false claim, imo.

PaulK, Walt never agreed to let a 3rd party ruling decide his "mutual assent." The agreement is quite clear on that.Only the party requesting the change agrees to the 3rd party ruling according the agreement.Walt is thus right both in principle, in terms of the terms he stipulated including no religion, and in the letter of the agreement.

So your argument is:1) It is "bullcrap" to sy that the agreement menas what it says. Instead it means whatever Walt Brown says2) Allowing a neutral third party to decide changese makes the agreement "too open-ended" for Walt Brown. But allowing Walt Brown to make unilateral changes does NOT make it too open-ended for his opponents.3) The section I quoted clearly contradicted your claim that the agreement could be only modified by agreement of the two sides because it allows another way to modify it.

Meert was willing to debate either way! Walt was totally dishonest for claiming that no one wanted to debate him when there was Joe Meert sitting there saying I'll do it with or without the changes.The least Walt could have done was wait until the third party made their decision. Throwing his hands up in their air the moment the suggestion was even made is extremely childish on his part and exactly the kind of behavior I outlined in my other post.If he didn't want to admit the religious motivations for his work then fine, but he sure as heck should have been an adult about it and registered an appropriate counter proposal rather than running away and claiming victory!

---

Organizations worth supporting:
Electronic Frontier Foundation | Defending your rights in the digital world (Protect Privacy and Security)
Home | American Civil Liberties Union (Protect Civil Rights)
AAUP (Protect Higher Learning)

randman,The whole religion/science thing is a strawman. If Brown wants to debate, let him debate. Is he afraid to debate religion with evil-atheist-evolutionists?And in case you still haven't bothered to read the thread, at leat look at Message 1. There is a link to an article in which a creationist lawyer agrees that Brown is out of line.(By the way, why do creationists always call Brown by his first name? Are all creationists that buddy-buddy? It isn't some sort of... uh... conspiracy... is it? )

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

PaulK, read the agreement more closely. It does not say what you claim it does.It very clearly gives one party the right to initial a request for a change, and in so doing agree to abide by the 3rd party moderator.It does not mean that the party that does not initial that clause agrees to give up it's right for mutual assent, and abide by whatever a 3rd party decides.Read the agreement again because it's quite clear that the party requesting the change agrees to the moderator's wishes, not the other party. They can still choose to accept or reject that request, plain and simple (hence the mutual assent language).

The clause states that the editor will make the decision. It does NOT say that Walt Brown's consent is required. If mutual consent were the only way the agreement could be modified then there would be no need to involve the editor at all.Walt Brown is therefore wrong in principle since he refused to follow the agreement that HE WROTE. And you are wrong in principle since you misrepresent the clear words of the agreement.

If that's the case, then why doesn't Joe simply agree to debate him without the religion. It appears to me he is not willing to sign a document and debate Walt without first insisting that religion potentially be made part of the debate.Maybe he is willing, as you say, but has he agreed yet? It doesn't look like it to me. Why? He stated he was only interested in debating the science, not religion. There is no reason then to wait, which suggests he agrees to the 3rd party decision when that is not what the agreement says. Only the party asking for the changes agree to the 3rd party decision, not the other. Imo, what's childish is not to agree to do the debate. I don't Walt is being childish at all. He made a genuine offer to debate the science, and no one seems willing to take him up on that thus far.The only childishness I see are those that insist Walt has done something wrong.