Meert / Brown Debate

OK, Whatever, you say that we never see bent rock. Then how come Walt says that you DO see it? He even has pictures on his website that claim to show bent rock. Then says it must have ha

OK, Whatever, you say that we never see bent rock. Then how come Walt says that you DO see it? He even has pictures on his website that claim to show bent rock. Then says it must have happened when the rock was a soft sediment. Then he goes on to say that granite can bend!!! In fact he says that granite HAS to bend for his theory to work!!!! Total contradiction.As for "doctorate scientists" scared to debate with him, well this particular doctorate scientist thinks that the internal contradictions in his declarations make them not worth debating. There's nothing there to debate. He has himself stated that the conditions required for his theory to work don't happen!!! Therefore he has disproved his theory all by himself, with no help from the "doctoral scientists". Why should the "doctoral scientists" waste the time trying to destroy his theory when he can and has managed that quite spectacularly on his own?Also, having read the background to this whole "refusal to debate" nonsense, Walt's the one refusing to debate. Whatever, re-read the quotes I put above and see if your incisive thinking can spot the fatal flaws in his theory.I suggest we now take admin's advice and take this to the other thread. See you there. I've copied this post to it.Apologies for the problems with the post, a square bracket snuck in somehow and scuppered me!

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. It truly is an either/or situation. If granite is rock, then he's contradicting himself, if granite isn't rock then he may be OK, but granite IS rock!!! Even you must admit that granite is rock. It can't even be considered sedimentary rock - it's igneous!!! It was never a sediment. And all this business about heat generation making granite softer - of course it will, even when you consider the well-accepted theory of mountain formation. So everything you've written in your message holds true for the original theory.I'm finding explaining this really difficult because it's such a simple point! Answer this question - is granite rock?

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!!!!! How many different ways do I have to say this? I've only got a finite lifespan, I could grow old just trying to get this point across. Go to In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - What’s Ahead
-there are even diagrams of the springiness of rock!!!
Then go to In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - How to Evaluate Theories
and have a look under the heading
Major Mountain Ranges
where you will find this little gem, and I quote directly

Other bent rocks are small enough to hold in one’s hand. How could brittle rock, showing little evidence of heating or cracking, fold? Rocks are strong in compression but weak in tension. Therefore, their stretched outer surfaces should easily fracture. Bent rocks, found all over the earth, often look as if they had the consistency of putty when they were compressed.

Please especially note the bit which says

...often look as though they had the consistency of putty

and then goes on to say

They must have been squeezed and folded soon after the sediments were laid down, but before they hardened chemically.

But, note very carefully, he also says on the first link I've given you

If compressive forces are great enough, granite deforms (much like putty)

Can you see the problem here or am I wasting my time? Please reply before I start tearing my hair out.

Whatever, if Walt wants to debate his theory that God's Flood caused this that and the other, how the hell can religion be left out of the debate??!! His whole theory is based on the belief that the flood happened. Maybe he's worried that he will be asked to prove that the flood happened and he can't do that. He's built his house on sand! And the rain came down and the flood came up and the house on the sand fell down (from a children's hymn) or in this case ran away!

The one I like is "like trying to knit fog"

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.From
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - How to Evaluate Theories However, I can't find the original quote which said 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.

If you're impressed with 8 feet, have a look at this sitehttp://neic.usgs.gov/neis/eq_depot/usa/1964_03_28_pics.htmlThe uplift during the 1964 earthquake was 33 feet!!

Randman, why don't you go and check out the links in the first message in this thread. Joe Meert has agreed to debate with Walt Brown NO MATTER WHAT THE DECISION IS. That means he will participate if his proposed ammendment is ACCEPTED OR REJECTED!!!!!! He has signed the document stating just that!!!! What is so difficult to understand here? Once more, he has SIGNED stating that he will debate with Walt Brown whether religion is included or not.Please understand that the capitalisation isn't shouting, it's just to make the points more noticable.

Randman, READ THE LINKS. The lawyer in question is a creation-believing Christian, yet he still thinks Walt is dodging the issue!! Yep, the lawyer may have an inherent bias, but that bias is in FAVOUR of Brown and he still finds against him. Sheesh!

READ THE LINKS!!! The original agreement sent to Joe Meert stated that with or without ammendments, an editor would be selected and that editor would then make all procedural decisions. These were Brown's proposals, so why won't he appoint an editor as he stated he would, why won't he send it to the editor once chosen and why does he refuse to agree to his self-appointed editor's decision?The only childish behaviour I can see is asking someone to sign an agreement, which they do, then refusing to stick to the agreement yourself.

You said Wrong. The agreement gave Walt Brown the obligation to sent the request for modification to a third party of his choosing and abide by the third party's decision

I've copied and pasted the bottom of the original agrement which was sent to Joe Meert. It may have escaped your notice that underneath clause 22 is a statement, written by Walt Brown and included BY HIM in the agreement, under which BOTH participants were to sign. If he wasn't willing to abide by his own rules that he wrote all by himself and asked Joe Meert to sign, then why did he bother including it in the first place? Get it? BOTH were to sign. If Walt Brown was going to refuse ANY changes, then why the blazes did he include the clause in the first place? The clause applies to BOTH OF THEM!!!! Why would he include a clause that he wouldn't agree to? Remember, Brown wrote it!!!What bit of this are you not getting? Brown wrote the agreement with the little bit at the bottom to provide for any changes to be sent to third party arbitration. By doing so HE AGREED to third party arbitration on the changes.

You say Nobody asked Walt to agree to arbitration. Walt himself stated he was willing to when he included that in the offer. At the top of the offer, Walt states So, the offer to abide by third party arbitration was MADE BY WALT HIMSELF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And as soon as someone asked for the offered third party arbitration, Walt disappeared like snow off a dry stane dyke (stone wall to our non-Scottish posters).

You say I am perfectly capable of reading and understanding English. Both parties were to be held to the agreement AND THAT INCLUDES Walt! That's why a wee space was included for BOTH PARTIES to sign and that was provided BY WALT. If he wasn't going to be held to any changes suggested by Joe Meert, why did he include it? Note that the clause allows for both parties to state their case for and against any changes, so Brown had provided for disagreement over proposed changes - third party arbitration - and then reneged on the clause.In the interests of forum guidelines and manners, I'm off to bed. I'll reply tomorrow. By then your manners may well have improved. Ho hum!