Meert / Brown Debate

Trixie, I have no idea what your talking about, I just browse his site like your probably are doing, if Walt is talking about when the sediments were soft, then he probably is talking about the sediment that settled out on the surface of the earth, or when the granite rocks were formed they could of bent, until they cooled, or if he is talking about the layers of the sediments of the flood, bending until they compressed forming sedimentary rock, but for rock to subduct under the earth, is not possible, it would of crushed, fractured, and if what you say is true then why are they finding fractured rock in all the super deep wells drilled, with water filling the voids, etc...P.S. I'm not a scientists but took a vacation in the Rocky mountains, and they had a tour road to the top on one scenic outpost, what surprised me was how many big rocks, I had to jump from rock to rock, which was fun, but it sure didn't look like rock that had bent upward, it looked like rock that was thrust upward, however, if Walts correct and the Ocean plates crushed under the continents, a whole lot of heat would of been produced, as granite was transfomed from to metamorphic rock, the heat given off might of soften the above granite continental plates that didn't fracture to allow some bending as the continental plates upthrusted.[This message has been edited by whatever, 01-25-2004]

Trixie, Whats interesting is all the fractured rock with fluids in the voids between the broken up rocks, being found in the super deep wells supporting the biblical reference to the fountains of the deep being all broken up, its plenty hot down this deep, so why are these rocks all broken up, if granite is supposed to bend, the bible says there were mountains pre-flood, so it might well be the bending happened when the granites were formed, and not by the upthrusting, etc...P.S. Do you have any proof that granite can bend, and still remain granite, it would be interesting if they have proved that its even possible, thought when granite overheats it will deform the granite, it becomes metamorphic rock, and interestingly this is what they are finding below the granite mantle in the super deep well, etc...Geophysics University of BonnPage not found | Geophysical Institute[This message has been edited by whatever, 01-25-2004]

JonF, I was browsing his site and couldn't find where he said that, do you have word phrase I can type on his google search engine to see what he actually said, etc...

Trixie, I've read Joe's stuff & Walt's stuff, etc...the problem is that Joe in his first (Aug 26, 1996) and second (Aug 27,1996)contact letters to Walt said, he wasn't qualified to debate religion, and was only willing to debate if religion was not discussed, etc...P.S. On Aug 31,1996 Joe flipped 180 degrees, he even changed the topic to debate, to include what he admitted he wasn't qualified to debate, technically you could argue that Walt should change the topic he was willing to debate for over 16 years, but the topic was all Walt was interested in debating for 16 years, and has been now for over 23 year, what is interesting is no doctorate scientists is willing to debate Walt, Joe could of debated Walt, but opted instead to change the topic, Joe had no reason to flip a 180, if he was serious in debating Walt, Joe was qualified to debate the sciences, but that's all he was qualified to debate, etc...the debate topic was does science support creationism or evolution? etc...It wasn't does religion support creationism, two different topics, Joe wanted to include Murphy's Law to decide on the debate topic, and there was no reason to involve Murphy, when Joe decided it was a religious thing he admitted evolution couldn't be supported scientifically, etc...

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

Asgara, Everyone wants to make a Mission Statement, Walt carefully chose his topic, but Joe wanted to make one of those Mission statement's, this is clearly inadmissible evidence, it was to be a debate based on the scientific evidence, Walt would of been quite capable of defending the evolutionists perspective, it was up to Joe to defend evolution by the scientific evidence, and Walt to defend Creation by the scientific evidence, etc...P.S. It must be important or Joe would of simply agreed to debate Walts topic, the scientific evidence, without bringing in Murphy, etc...[This message has been edited by whatever, 01-26-2004]

Asgara, Perhaps you should look at this as a trial by jury, Walts not on trial, hes the lawyer defending his client Creationism, and Joe is defending his client Evolutionism, If your going to have a trial, you would need a jury, the people that would read the debate would be the jury, to make a biased pre trial religious statement to the jury, is inadmissible evidence, it would bias the jury to the scientific evidence, etc...P.S. The editor is a potential Murphy, hence Murphy's Law, Walt wanted to debate, where he wasn't the one on trial, etc...

PaulK, Walt didn't mind having a judge, but Walt didn't want to be the one on trial, all he wanted was a fair trial for his client, creationism, which wouldn't of happened if religious evidence was presented in a trial based on the scientific evidences, Joe wanted religious bias to be presented to the jury, etc...P.S. Joe did not want to have a strictly scientific debate on the evidence, he wanted inadmissible religious evidence admitted to bias the jury, that would be us, he also wanted to bring into play Murphey's Law, to try to put Walt on trial, in the eyes of the jury, etc...

The debate was over the moment Joe tried to overstep his bounds, and put Walt into a position where he could of been on trial in the eyes of the jury, etc...[This message has been edited by whatever, 01-26-2004]

PaulK, Joe wanted to bias the jury, it wasn't proper protocol, in a trial you need a jury that's not biased, etc...

PaulK, Joe lost the debate, he wasn't willing to defend evolution based on the scientific evidence, without putting Walt in a postion to be the one put on trial in the eyes of the jury, etc...

Loudmouth, I'm quite sure Walt could of defended evolution off the sciences, thats why he was willing to defend creation without bring religion into it, etc...P.S. The Intelligent Design is not even a theory, its all just sound science, but you find the evolutionists saying its based on religion, etc...I can see Walt asking Joe questions about the chromosomes, micro-evolution/macro-evolution, bringing up questions on tecktonics, C-14 dating, leaching problems, etc...it should be obvious Joe just wasn't up to a fair debate, Walt could of debated only the sciences, when Joe brought in the statistical probablilities of Murphy's Law, that would of put Walt in a position where he could of been the one on trial, in the biased eyes of the jury, making the debate meaningless, Joe didn't want to make procedural changes, he wanted to redefine the topic, so in essence Joe was unwilling to debate the topic, so Walt won, by Joe default when he threatened to make Walt the subject of the debate(Walts religious beliefs), etc...

Dan Carroll, I agree, its time to close this thread, it takes two to debate, if Joe isn't willing to come to an agreement that Walt accepts, its not going to happen, etc...

PaulK, I'm just stating a fact, Joe wanted to put the emphasis on Walts religious beliefs, we see the same thing going on in America in respect to federal judge noiminees, where the lady from California, voted by a democratic majority in her state, yet denied nomination because of her religious conservative beliefs. Joe did the same thing to bring in Murphy's Law, the issue would of shifted to Walts personal religious beliefs, if Joe really wants to debate Walt it shouldn't be based on Walts religious belief, any more than the lady from California, should be judged by Kennedy and company because she has conservative religious beliefs, its a non issue, but they have made it into an issue, etc...P.S. I wouldn't trust the topic to be decided by the editor, it was hitting below the belt, to put Walt in this position, etc...

Trixie, I just checked out Walts site, what I found interesting he didn't mention the bible once, he just continually shows how science supports creationism, and not evolution, etc...After reading this its no wonder no doctorate scientists is willing to defend evolution, debating Walt would be like debating Einstein on the the theory of relativity, it would be a great high school or college text book, to opening students to the scientific evidences supporting creationism, etc...If Joe read this book, he realized he wasn't going to win, no wonder he wanted to bring into play Murphy's Law, but looking at Walts book he only deals with the scientific evidences supporting Creationism, I never read his book but browsed his site occasionally when I have a question, he has answers to questions, its probably is the greatest scientific text book ever written, etc...P.S. Think he probably agrees rock can bend slowly like putty, under pressure, at the atomic level, the crystals apparently are able to reorientate and he called this creeping, given its seen in the natural, makes sense, given rock has a certain spring like quality, if you would try to pressurize the rock faster than the crystals could reorientate at the atomic level they fracture, the reason you see all the fractured rocks and water in the fountains of the deep, etc...