Aiyaeyaeyae... I'm trying to get away from this place, and as Carlito would say: "they keep pulling me back IN!"
Originally posted by JonN
this may be of interest (if you aren't too scared to read it. Elliott Sober terrified you):
The 'challenge'
I would imagine that this is directed at me.
The idea that I'm scared to read something is as laughable and absurd as your posts; and as your posting on ATS thus far also demonstrates, the
person in these discussions not actually reading anything is you... but whatever.
However, the exchange between Joe Meert and Walt Brown is well documented and described elsewhere also.
In looking at your link, one is forced to wonder if you actually read anything you post, or if you just find things that agree with your points and
blindly post them. I'm inclined to suspect it's the latter.
In any case... Joe Meert is unwilling to meet the
T & C as described by
Brown. Brown insists that the debate not include any mention of the bible, theology, religion, God, etc. and that the debate be limited to
science alone.
Ironically, Meert... for some reason is unable to debate Brown on science alone, and is insisting that he be able to mention the Noachian flood.
Something that is now, and always has been a violation of
Walt's T & C.
Meert in fact reversed his original position as is documented on the TrueOrigins archive
here. Here
are some highlights from this source (those statments that have been emphasized in bold demonstrate Meert's change in position after receiving
Brown's book):
On Aug 26, 1996, Joe Meert wrote Walt Brown:
“I am a faculty member in Geology at Indiana State University. At the present time, I would be interested in the debate form at providing there
is NO THEOLOGY discussed. The debate will be on the intrinsic merits of the SCIENCE and no discussion of creationism or the Bible should be
allowed. Once the debate enters this realm it becomes a debate about theology NOT geology.” [Emphasis his.]
A courtesy copy of In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood (6th Edition) was then sent to Joe Meert.
On Aug. 27, 1996, Joe Meert wrote (special emphasis by mattison0922):
“Yes, I am well qualified to enter a scientific debate IF there is science to be debated. I am not qualified to debate theological arguments that
are based on faith alone.... You know, I would be more than happy to debate Walter on science if he was able to debate science. I found out
very early on in life that you can’t debate theology and that is really what Walt wants.”
On Aug. 31, 1996, Joe Meert, after receiving the book, changed his position and wrote Walt Brown (emphasis by mattison0922):“I have one major
problem with the format of the debate. You refuse to allow religious discussion and want to debate on purely scientific grounds.”
On Aug. 31, 1996, Walt Brown wrote Joe Meert:
“You contradict yourself. Either sign the debate agreement and propose any changes which the editor will rule on in a binding manner, or face the
fact that you are unwilling to enter into a purely scientific debate on origins.”
(emphasis by mattison0922) Joe Meert then signed the debate agreement, but added the stipulation that the debate would include religious arguments
and discussions. If Walt Brown did not agree, an editor would decide. Note that the debate agreement says an editor will resolve disagreements
about procedures, not what the topic will be.
(emphasis by mattison0922)Meert wished to change not procedures, but the topic itself from one dealing with scientific evidence to one
that would include religion.
And just to head off any claims of quoting out of context, etc, the following was taken from
YOUR
source:
Several people have inquired as to whether or not the e-mails quoted on the TrueOrigins site are correct and taken in full context. Indeed, they
are faithfully reproduced on the TrueOrigin website (albeit without my permission). The chronology is also correct and quite important with regard
to the 'controversy' regarding this debate.
So there it is in plain English for all to see. Firstly your source admits that my source is both accurately reproduced and provided in correct
context. My source demonstrates that Meert in fact waffled, and was practically 'reduced to tears and hysterics' when presented with Walt's book,
and subsequently no longer agreed to debate the scientific merit of Walt's hypothesis alone, which is now, and always has been one of
Walt's T &C's.
IOW,
your source waffled, and tried to change the rules when presented with an opportunity to debate a creationist re: only the scientific
merits of his hypothesis.
It's amazing what they must have to study to get a PhD in Mechanical Engineering. This man is an expert on Mineralogy and related
fields.
What's amazing is your total lack of knowledge, combined with your hubris, and your apparent lack of desire to even be bothered with learning, at
least with respect to this topic.
Walt Brown has a Ph.D. in ME, but in fact studied Geology in a post-graduate capacity for some time at Arizona State under Robert S. Dietz. I
seriously doubt you have any idea who Dietz is, but he is quite well-known in his field, and was somewhat of a legend around ASU... at least until
Christensen showed up with his Mars Rover stuff. But Dietz was instrumental in demonstrating the phenomena of sea-floor spreading (important to
Walt's hypothesis), and was the first to recognize the Sudbury Basin as resulting from a meteor impact.
This info about Walt is of course widely known and freely available when one bothers to look.
I'd be interested to know what experiments he conducted to validate the claim that limestone and clays "only form in liquid water", although
I don't quite see how such a negative existential could ever be proven, even if he attempted to test it. It would just be a nice change to have a YEC
actually bother to do a bit of lab work by himself for once.
It's based on the observations of science in general. If you look at Brown's book, which is available in its entirety for free on his site, you'll
see where he gets his ideas. But just to make it easy for you: Some of it came from here: Harvey Blatt, Sedimentary Petrology (New York: W. H. Freeman
and Company, 1982), p. 241., while some came from here: Jeffrey S. Hanor, “Precipitation of Beachrock Cements: Mixing of Marine and Meteoric Waters
vs. CO2-Degassing,” Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, Vol. 48, No. 2, June 1978, pp. 489–501.
There's also some basic chemistry your M.BS didn't provide you with that you'll need to review.
Time for a riduculous 'So what you're saying statement:' So what you're saying is that Walt needs to go back and prove experimentally that which
has already been confirmed experimentally simply because he's a Creationist?
In addition, Brown has performed experiments on both liquefaction and sorting - experiments that
haven't already been done, and are related to
his hypothesis. This is of course also information that is freely available on his site for anyone who bothers to look.
When are any of them going to demonstrate how water pressure alone will fossilise a dinosaur? Should be quite feasible to do it in a lab, if it
was as "obvious" as these characters keep telling me.
Where, specifically, does Brown claim water pressure alone will fossilize a dinosaur?
[edit on 3-10-2006 by mattison0922]
???) 
