$50 to anyone who can prove to me Evolution is a lie.

Did you not read the material referenced? Joe is willing to debate even on Brown's terms. However, Brown's original agreement, as a creationist lawyer notes does allow the editor to make the decision about religion. Brown chickend out.Sorry, but you have been shown to be wrong on this one too. You have yet to get anything right.

---

Common sense isn't

JonF, Perhaps Joe is too religious to stay on topic, Walt wins by default, if any doctorate scientists in basic or applied sciences actually believed that their science supported evolution they would of answered the challenge, because no scientist with a doctorate degree in the sciences will meet the challenge, Creation wins by default, etc...P.S. I find it interesting that no scientists is willing to debate Walt on the sciences, and feels the need to change the topic, which is the whole point of the debate, does science support creation or evolution, we all know religion supports creation, but that wasn't the topic, etc...[This message has been edited by whatever, 01-21-2004]

whatever, are you blind? Joe has agreed to debate on brown's terms but also has followed brown's orignial contract in suggesting changes.Brown ducked! Let's see if you can demonstrate an ability to read, both what is posted here and the references given.

---

Common sense isn't

NosyNed, Joe admitted he wasn't qualified to debate religion, but then changed his mind that he wanted to debate what he said he wasn't qualified to debate, etc...P.S. Joe reminds me of one of American's Great President's, George Bush Senior who said, these famous words, read my lips, I'm sure Joe is qualified to debate science with Walt, but from his own lips he admitted he wasn't qualified to debate Religion, etc...http://www.trueorigin.org/Meert1.pdf.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.]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.

from brown's web site: The Center for Scientific Creation: Home of the Hydroplate Theory

quote:

---

One evolutionist is so upset that a written debate 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 23 years: the debate should be limited to scientific evidence.

---

That same paragraph is quoed on the site where Joe describes his attempts to debate Brown.Your source is wrong. As evidenced by Brown's own site!I can sort of understanding you getting the science wrong but now you get this wrong too. Good job.

---

Common sense isn't

NosyNed,If Joe wants to debate Walt about theology, let's change the topic to prophecies, and if Joe doesn't like the change in topic, he's wimpin out, etc... the problem is with Joe changing the topic to be debated, and Joe's qualifications to debate a topic hes admitted that he is not even qualified to debate, etc...P.S. Its Common Sense isn't it!

The PROBLEM is that Brown refuses to honour the agreement.Joe Meert is NOT insisting on changing the debate topic. All he wants is that the EDITOR should decide on the relevance of some additional information. If the ruling goes against him then Joe Meert will still debate - that is what the agreement that he signed says. But Walt Brown won't allow it to go to the editor. He says that he didn't mean what he wrote and that therefore he shouldn't be held to the agreement.

PaulK, If Joe wants to include theology on a debate on geology, perhaps a live debate with Dr. Gene Scott, etc...[This message has been edited by whatever, 01-22-2004]

Joe Meert did not try to change the subject to theology.The facts are simple. Joe Meert signed up for the debate and Walt Brown refuses to honour the agreement.Walt Brown refuses to debate.

Joe apparently doesn't want to debate Walt, we all understand, he tried to change the topic to include religion, which would of made this debate meaningless, etc...P.S. Joe isn't qualified to debate religion, even admitted he wasn't qualified to debate religion, then said he wanted to include religion into the debate, etc...[This message has been edited by whatever, 01-22-2004]

Whatever,This drives me mad, why do ALL of your paragraphs end with "etc..."? It makes me feel like you can't be bothered to complete a post.Mark

Wrong on so many levels ...Whatever that status of Walt's "debate", truth is not decided by debate.If creation is to "win", it must win in the arena of scientific results and evidence. Debates just don't matter.The doctorate scientists in the basic or applied scientists are busy doing science. The vast majority of them can't be bothered to debate crackpots like Walt. I find it incredible that someone of Dr. Meert's standing bothers with such a loon.

quote:

---

Joe apparently doesn't want to debate Walt, we all understand, he tried to change the topic to include religion, which would of made this debate meaningless, etc...

---

All Dr. Meert wanted to do is have Dr. Walt explain the basis for his hypothesis. Of course, for the hydroplate theory the basis would be the story of Noah in Genesis. Meert did not choose what Walt based his theories on, Walt did. Therefore Walt was bringing religion in no matter what, Meert just wanted this out on the table for everyone to see. If you look at Genesis as being a historical record, as Walt does, then the question of religion is avoided. Genesis just becomes a historical record, not a religious issue. It would seem that Walt does not want to say that his theories are Biblically based because it would weaken his argument. My final judgement is that Walt is ducking while Meert wants a fair scientific argument where the underlying evidence for each side's theories are fully discussed.

Whatever, if the flood caused the glaciation as you assert, why is there no mention of it in the Bible? It tells us about the flood, it tells us about Job, it tells us about Sodom and Gomorrah.....no glaciation. Anyway, wouldn't the ark have tobogganed down Arrarat at a great rate of knots? When Noah let the animals off the ark, there's no mention of ice or glaciation. Also, the rainbow in the sky was God's promise that he wouldn't wipe out life again. So what's with freezing the backsides off them?!? A joke?? Strewth!!! If you want to believe in the Flood as it's written in the Bible, you can't then cobble on stuff which isn't even there and then state that this proves the validity of the Flood cos if the stuff you've cobbled on falls down, then so does your "proof" for the Flood. If you think the Bible is the "proof" for the Flood, then you have to admit that you don't have the same "proof" for your glaciation. Any chance we could maybe move the goalposts back to where they started? I'll settle for still inside the stadium.

Its believed the reason the glaciers are melting is simply due to less heat being reflected back into outer space, however, the northern and southern hemisphere show evidence of glaciation, the biblical flood explains how this could of happened quickly, however, Noahs ark is believed to of landed in the mountains of ararat, which is near the equator, might explain why the rains there didn't freeze, its believe the waters erupted upward because of the excessive heat as they erupted out of the fountains of the deep, so they cooled and came back down, as rain snow, etc...P.S. Its called the hydro-plate theory, if it wouldn't of been for some of this excessive heat escaping the flood waters would of caused the oceans and the earth to over heat, etc...http://www.cryingvoice.com/Evolution/Hydroplate1.html Has 4 parts, will explain an alternative theory to how the flood waters erupted out of the earth, etc...Center for Scientific Creation – In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood type: glaciers on his google search engine,