Meert / Brown Debate

I haven't read the whole thread, but what I have read confirms my beliefs about evolutionists and their specious charges against creationists.I am sorry, but Walt did the right thing. If the guy wanted to include religious beliefs into the debate, he clearly did not want to debate the issue on the facts, end of story.It would be nice if an evolutionist was willing to debate the facts with Walt. He has an interesting theory, but basically, fat chance of that happening.I don't see any dishonesty in Walt Brown in this matter at all. If an evolutionist does not want to debate the theory on scientific grounds alone, then that says a lot about the evolutionist, not Walt Brown

I think you are making a stretch on the rock bending angle. It's pretty clear that reading this is in context, there is no contradiction. He is saying sedimentary rocks don't bend. The bend has to occur prior to their hardening into rock.On granite, and I admit I haven't read the granite comment, but the idea is probably that they could bend while under heat.The way to disagree with Walt here is not to misrepresent him, but to posit how one thinks sedimentary rocks can bend. If by heat, is there evidence for that, etc,...But you are taking his words out of context and trying to twist them in order to argue against a straw man. The fact you even resort to such an argument is evidence for creationism here.

Why should he allow any changes? He's put a clear offer on the table. Debate the science with him, or don't. Trying to weasel changes, neutral 3rd party or otherwise, is already trying to dodge or change the straight-up deal.Why wouldn't an evolutionist be content to debate the facts?That's what I'd like to know.This message has been edited by randman, 06-14-2005 11:13 AM

You're making a mountain out of a mole-hill. If Walt meant by allowing a 3rd party moderator that only changes in the debate dealing with science, and not religion, then I see no dishonesty here.It seems to me you are treating the proposal as a lawyer would, and no, I have not read it, but if I said I'll debate the science with a 3rd party moderator, and then found out you were trying to get the 3rd party moderator to introduce religion into a scientific debate, I would think it fine and acceptable to either accept or just say, no, I am not interested in introducting religion into this debate which is suppossed to be on the facts.To me, the offer still stands. He said he would debate anyone on the data itself.My question again is why no takers? Why bother to try to introduce religion when the guy has already stated he won't do it, if that's a condition?You can be petty and claim, well, he said it would be up to the 3rd party moderator, and never said he couldn't introduce religion in the lette, but Walt can say that's a given and implied for a "scientific" debate.End of story.You can throw a hissy fit all you want, or offer to debate on the facts or encourage someone else to. I'd certainly like to see that.Wouldn't you?

That depends on the agreement. You seem to be treating this as a legal document instead of something to clarify what both parties agree to. Imo, Walt seems to have put up an offer to debate the science, not religion. If he failed to make that intent perfectly clear in the "offer", then he certainly is within his right to clarify exactly what he means, and should do so.I think an argument can be made that the implication was there in the offer to limit the debate to the science. If you feel otherwise, that's fine, but imo, somewhat silly.Walt has made an offer to debate the facts, and no one seems willing to do that without interjecting religion.

It's interesting that mainstream science for so long couldn't see how South America and Africa fit, even when children could, and how they too saw fault lines but rejected plate tectonics for so long.Wonder why? Do you know what their arguments were?

OK dude, here is the original offer. Walt's right and you're wrong. http://baby.indstate.edu/gga/pmag/debate.htmlClearly he indicates the offer is based only on "the major scientific evidences."No one seems willing to take him up on it. The creationist here is correct, it seems, and your rant is not.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.