Meert / Brown Debate

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...

It is certainly not obvious that Joe Meert would have refused to debate if the editor's decision had gone against him. He signed an agreement accepting that the debate would take place whichever way the decision went. And we'll never know that because Walt Brown won't honour the agreement that he wrote.What IS obvious is that you are making groundless insinuations against Joe Meert - showing the lack of morality typical of creationists.

quote:

---

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...

---

I think what everyone else is trying to say is that Meert agreed to the arrangement that Walt set up on his website. Walt didn't like the way things were going so he bowed out. By Walt's own agreement, the editor has the final say on procedural rules. Walt never sent anything to the editor so Walt is in violation and Walt is the one that stopped the debate from happening.

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.

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...

Sorry but something doesn't become a fact jsut because you made it up.You do NOT know that Joe Meert would have refused to debate if the editor had decided agaisnt him. THAT is a fact. You knew full well that that Joe Meert signed an agreement saying that he WOULD debate no matter which way the decions went - because it has been pointed out to you often enough. And THAT is a fact.You're making groundless insinuations against Joe Meert because you want to make excuses for Walt Brown and that is a FACT. Walt Brown refuses to honour the agreement he wrote and THAT is a fact.You don't like the facts and that is why you are behaving so despicably. Because you want to deny the facts and pretend that Walt Brown somehow "won" by running away from his own challenge..

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!

Er, Dan's post was in referencdee to your posting the same claims over and over again and not entering into a debate.

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...

You should pick less easily checked lies. The search engine you have pointed to so often returns about 50 pages containing the word "bible" (most containing many more than one reference), and visits to those pages indicate that he's explicitly basing his theory on the Bible. Examples:"What Triggered the Flood? ... Later, because of the depth of man’s sin (Genesis 6:5—6), God flooded the entire earth. We may never know just how the physical chain of events for the flood began, but the Bible gives some intriguing clues. ... Although the Bible speaks in several places of considerable subterranean water (see page 274), why would its pressure increase sufficiently to form a globe-encircling crack in the earth’s crust? ... Recognizing that a large amount of water was under the preflood crust, as the Bible states ...""How Was the Earth Divided in Peleg’s Day? ... Rising Water Divided Continents in Peleg’s Day? The Bible uses peleg as a verb three times. Two usages, mentioned above, are translated simply as divided (Genesis 10:25 and I Chronicles 1:19). The third use is a division by water (Job 38:25). In the ten instances where peleg is used as a common noun, it always involves water. The New American Standard Bible translates it eight times as streams, once as stream, and once as channels. Therefore, peleg may imply a division by water. ... With sea level much lower for a few centuries after the flood, imagine how many migration paths existed for animals and man to populate today’s continents and islands.6 God’s commands (Genesis 9:1, 11: 4—9) for humans and animals to populate the whole earth after the flood must have been doable. If, after the flood, sea level was where it is today, repopulating the whole earth would have been difficult, if not impossible, for those first receiving God’s command."The number of hits on "Bible" doesn't even begin to enumerate the Biblical references. Every page is explicitly based on biblical references. The entire site is soaked in Biblical references. If you removed the Biblical references, the only thing left would be Walt's birth date! Well, that's a bit of an exaggeration .. but not much of an exaggeration. Add another to the list of things you don't know ... you don't knwo what Murphy's law is.Joe wanted to invoke a clause of the Walt's contract that Walt put there. Walt backed out. Thank goodness for the Constitution which protects our U.S. children from such religious crackpots! Thenm why did he write "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."?

JonF, I'm glad he refers to the bible, it's the standard, etc...P.S. Walt explained how rocks can fold, the rocks exibit a spring like quality, and under pressure it can reorintate its crystaline structure at the atomic level, he said this is refered to as creeping, etc...

Not for science.And not, apparently, for you. Ever heard of "thou shalt not bear falee witness"? Are you ashamed of your outrageous lie? Then why did he write that the rocks couldn't fold?

JonF, I thought he said it would have to be evenly applied as slow, or it would fracture, which he showed plenty of examples where rock did fracture, with lava's melding the cracks, etc...

Still no apology for your blatant lie? Do you claim to be any kind of Christian? No, he said it couldn't happen ... when he was claiming that conventional geology couldn't explain it.He said that is could happen ... when he needed it to support his fantasies.Of course there are plenty of fractured rocks. So what?And you got it exactly backwards ... it's mainstream geologists who say that the pressure must be "evenly applied as slow"; "slow" meaining over hundreds of thousands of years.

JonF, Perhaps a little heat accelerated the slow, but Walts theory is based on the hydroplates move quickly, not slow, perhaps all the fractured rocks found in the super deep wells supports his theory and not tecktonic theory, which was supposed to happen slow, subducting plates, interestingly they are not finding solid rock 7 miles into the earth, etc...P.S. I know, you all probably agree with Walt, that rocks fracture too, etc...Rock rubbing rock like isn't the lighter rock suppose to be above the denser rock, if so then why would a plate subduct, makes more sense it would crush under the continental plates, not subduct, etc...[This message has been edited by whatever, 01-26-2004]