Meert / Brown Debate

Joe writes: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. As a scientist, I feel it is imperative that we lay out the basis for our findings and in the case of the 'hydroplate theory' it was easy to understand that in the absence of the Noachian story in Genesis there would be no hydroplate

Joe writes:Because Dr. Walter Brown’s book and thesis on the hydroplate theory is based on the
Genesis account of the Noachian flood, to wit the following statements from his home
page:
1. Have you ever wondered about the evidence for creation and against
evolution? Have you ever considered the possibility that the earth is less
than 10,000 years old? Was there a worldwide flood during Noah's
lifetime?
2. The title of his book: In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and
the Flood. Note: It does not say ‘a flood’ or ‘floods’, but THE FLOOD.
3. His explanation for the ‘Special edition of the book.. The special edition is
intended for public school teachers and libraries, as well as people who would
not even consider the case for creation and the flood if the Bible is referenced.
4. His seminar description: The "In the Beginning..." Seminar is a seven-hour
program that examines Genesis, science, and our Christian beliefs. Dr. Walt
Brown, Director of the Center of Scientific Creation (CSC), conducts the
program. He is a retired Air Force full-colonel, holds a Ph.D. from M.I.T., and has
spoken on over 300 radio and TV programs.
This is but a small sample that clearly shows the source of the hydroplate theory. The
foundations of any scientific theory must be open to discussion during a debate on that
theory. Recognizing the fact that Walt Brown claims he is not qualified to discuss
theology (in spite of the fact that he lectures and writes about theology), I am willing to
limit this part of the debate to two pages each.. This represents a small fraction of the
total debate, but it is important to lay the groundwork for Brown’s thesis. If the Noachian
flood is not true, then Walt’ thesis is based on fiction.
Sincerely
Dr. Joe Meert

whatever writes:Yep, did you read where Joe said he wasn't qualified to debate religion, didn't want to debate religion, etc...

Joe Meert on http://gondwanaresearch.com/hp/walt_brown.htm writes: 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. As a scientist, I feel it is imperative that we lay out the basis for our findings and in the case of the 'hydroplate theory' it was easy to understand that in the absence of the Noachian story in Genesis there would be no hydroplate. So, once again, Walt has the signed agreement and if the editor decides that my request has no merit, then I agree to proceed with the debate as stipulated by the editor.

Matthew Foster writes:On a related point, I disagree with Dr. Brown's claim that Dr. Meert has made inclusion of religion a mandatory condition of participation in the debate. To the contrary, Dr. Meert says at Walt Brown that he "will abide by the independent judges [sic] ruling (even if it goes against me) and will debate Walt in writing or in public at any time.")More important, perhaps, is a different but related principle: Even if Dr. Brown's reading of "procedures" is correct, that does not free him from the separate obligation to proceed with selection of an editor under paragraph 5 -- after which Dr. Meert's proposed modification would be submitted to and decided by that editor. Stated differently, once Dr. Meert signed the contract (with or without a proposal attached), Dr. Brown had no choice but to proceed with selection of an editor -- which editor would then have sole power to decide whether Dr. Meert's proposal is proper or should be rejected.

Walt Brown in his original debate offer http://baby.indstate.edu/gga/pmag/debate.html writes:5. One side, selected by a flip of a coin, will nominate three possible and willing editors. The other side will select which of the three will be the editor. The editor should have no strong feelings on the creation/evolution issue.22. This agreement can be modified by mutual consent of the two sides.[INITIAL IF APPROPRIATE] I wish to propose a modification to the above conditions. However, I am willing to have the editor decide the matter after my opponent and I have presented our positions. I will abide by this ruling and participate in the written debate. My suggested changes and their justification are listed below.

Matthew Foster, creationist lawyer writes:Even if Dr. Brown's reading of "procedures" is correct, that does not free him from the separate obligation to proceed with selection of an editor under paragraph 5 -- after which Dr. Meert's proposed modification would be submitted to and decided by that editor. Stated differently, once Dr. Meert signed the contract (with or without a proposal attached), Dr. Brown had no choice but to proceed with selection of an editor -- which editor would then have sole power to decide whether Dr. Meert's proposal is proper or should be rejected. To be blunt, nothing in the agreement gives Dr. Brown any power either (a) to decide that Dr. Meert's proposal does not concern "procedures," and therefore does not fall within the modification clause, or (b) then to do nothing based on that determination, and thus kill the debate before it begins. By refusing to act in any way on Dr. Meert's agreement, Dr. Brown is effectively serving as judge and jury, as well as advocate -- which, of course, makes the "debate" inherently unfair as well as impossible. If Dr. Brown will pounce on "procedures" to avoid appointment of the editor in this case, what word will provide his next exit?

Either accept the offer, or reject it.

Thirdly, the intent is not to allow changes which one party has never seen, nor consented to

Walt Brown writes:[INITIAL IF APPROPRIATE] I wish to propose a modification to the above conditions. However, I am willing to have the editor decide the matter after my opponent and I have presented our positions. I will abide by this ruling and participate in the written debate. My suggested changes and their justification are listed below.