Meert / Brown Debate

Except that Joe did agree to debate Walt's topic. He never said "I WILL NOT DEBATE UNLESS MY CHANGES TAKE PLACE". He said he requests that these changes take place, but if the editor doesn't like them he will continue the debate as written. What's the problem?? If Walt was correct and the request didn't have merit, or went against the contract then he had nothing to fear. The debate would occur on his terms.Murphy???

---

Asgara
"An unexamined life is not worth living" Socrates via Plato

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...

OK, if we accept your analogy you are saying that the defence lawyer should decide what is and is not admissible evidence, and that the judge should keep out of it. That isn't how real trials are run.The fact is that Walt Brown refuses to honour his agreement, and both you and he know it. So why keep on denying the truth ?

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...

In the analogy the editor takes the role of the judge. Walt won't put this matter to the editor. You know that.Walt Brown won't debate.

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]

The debate never started because Walt Brown refused to honour his agreement.

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

It doesn't matter what excuses you offer. Walt Brown is still refusing to honour the agreement he wrote.Walt Brown refuses to debate. And tries to blame his opponents.

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...

Nobody lost the debate ... there was no debate because Walt refused to debate.Joe was ready and willing to defend evolution based on the scientific evidence. Walt was unwilling to acknowledge the foundation of his "theory".

SO THAT'S how to win debates. You put out a challenge and if anybody accepts you make an excuse, go back on your word, and run away.I don't think so.Joe Meert didn't lose the debate because there WAS no debate. And the reason that there was no debate is that Walt Brown refuses to hounour the agreement.Those are the facts. But please go on twisting and squiriming. It just shows how empty and false creationism really is.

quote:

---

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...

---

In a fair trial, the defense does not get to decide what is and what isn't admissible, that is left to the judge. In this case, the would be editor is the judge. So, Walt has ducked his own rules and is acting as attorney and judge, going against his own rules.Secondly, Walt brings religion into the debate by the mere phrase "creation vs evolution". How can you claim a creationist view and not bring religion into the debate? All Meert wanted was for Walt to acknowledge the basis for Walt's own theory which is theology and religion. If no religion were discussed, why would you bring up creation, global flood, speciation only among BIBLICAL kinds, and so forth. Walt, by his own rules, would have to leave those things out because they are religiously based. He didn't like having that pointed out by having to write a two page intro stating the fact.

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...

Just FYI.