For Walt Brown fans...

this may be of interest (if you aren't too scared to read it. Elliott Sober terrified you):

The 'challenge'


(mod edit all CAPS title)


[edit on 26-9-2006 by pantha]
[edited off topic drama inducing comments -nygdan]

[edit on 1-10-2006 by Nygdan]

Here's a wiki entry on the man:

Controversy and criticism
[edit]

Comets

One key element of Brown's Hydroplate theory is that when water shot out from under the Earth it blew rock from underground into the solar system. This is necessary in order to account for the fact comets do not last long in the solar system and yet exist to this day despite the apparent lack of realistic natural mechanisms to create new ones. Comets also have features which at first glance seem to cast doubt on their origins given the appearance of a cold environment in outer space (scientists see these as only superficial problems):

* crystalline silicates could not have formed in near absolute zero outer space unless the temperature reached 1,300°F and then slowly cooled under some pressure
* minerals, such as calcium carbonates (limestone) and clays, that form only in liquid water

And a few links:

mypage.direct.ca...

www.talkorigins.org...



[edit on 26/9/06 by Jugg]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mod Edit - trimmed big quote ans added 'ex' tags

[edit on 26-9-2006 by masqua]

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.

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.

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.

Originally posted by JonN
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.
[/QUOTE]
ALL creationist speakes are expert in every single field of science. Somehow creationists just know alot more than everyone else.

See, they were the only one who knew that the second law of thermodynamics contradicted evolution. Somehow everyone else forgot

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.

Creationists dont experiemt. Why? Just because! That why.

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.

Its so obvious it dosent have to be proven. Duh!


[edit on 27/9/06 by Jugg]

amazing how the creationists don't know a whole lot about the second law of thermodynamics but always use is in their arguments. Nothing about the second law of thermodynamics that says in an open system which earth is cause it's getting most of its juice from the sun, will there be entophy on earth. The sun shure but not on earth until the sun blows out, then yeah everything falls apart just like their arguments.

When going to collage in Boston I had to share the bus with plenty of creationist activists. Unfortunantly for them they kept picking the bus that went down Massachusets Ave, right past MIT. The MIT kids would literaly toy with these guys shooting them down left and right. Eventually the only argument the creationists would resort to before retreating off the bus was "Yeah well your wrong! Read the Bible!" followed by the cartoon sound of the roadrunner booking out and a scoobie doo "Zoinks!"

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]

Originally posted by BASSPLYR
amazing how the creationists don't know a whole lot about the second law of thermodynamics but always use is in their arguments. Nothing about the second law of thermodynamics that says in an open system which earth is cause it's getting most of its juice from the sun, will there be entophy on earth. The sun shure but not on earth until the sun blows out, then yeah everything falls apart just like their arguments.

Not sure how SLoT got worked into this discussion, and I AM trying to break away from ATS in general, but I'd be more than happy to debate the second law of thermodynamics as it applies to the formation of living systems from non-living systems here with you. Should be easy, right?

When going to collage in Boston I had to share the bus with plenty of creationist activists. Unfortunantly for them they kept picking the bus that went down Massachusets Ave, right past MIT. The MIT kids would literaly toy with these guys shooting them down left and right. Eventually the only argument the creationists would resort to before retreating off the bus was "Yeah well your wrong! Read the Bible!" followed by the cartoon sound of the roadrunner booking out and a scoobie doo "Zoinks!"

How ironic given that Walt got his Ph.D. from MIT, and in fact is the one trying to engage in scientific debate.

Even schools like MIT have rogue individuals, they are the unaccepted exception for a reason. Hell, I went to music school and there are people there who will argue that their vision of music is the only one that is right and proper. Strangely the population of the school usually disagrees, for a reason.

How are the plants and animals of earth violating the 2nd rule of thermodynamics? Remember Earth is not a closed system. And how come 99% of the world scientists disagree with this statement? I know you'll come up with a few scientists, but why not statements from the overwhelming majority of scientists?

And on a totally random subject. What drove you to your intense interest in ID? Again just curious, it's part of my nature.

Originally posted by BASSPLYR
Even schools like MIT have rogue individuals, they are the unaccepted exception for a reason. Hell, I went to music school and there are people there who will argue that their vision of music is the only one that is right and proper. Strangely the population of the school usually disagrees, for a reason.

Whether or not an idea is popular has no bearing on its scientific potential or merit. The big bang, was initially pronounced as being unscientific, as was Darwin's stuff. Science isn't a popularity contest. And strangely enough the only people actually arguing for strict adherence to any set of beliefs in these threads is generally the evolution supporters.

I certainly don't do this. And since I am pretty much the only 'vocal' ID supporter (with the exception of Rren, who's not been logged on for some time... where are ya bud? I've tried to reach ya), and perhaps saint... but he doesn't spend too much time here... and I would more likely classify him as an evolution doubter than an ID supporter, who else are you referring to?

How are the plants and animals of earth violating the 2nd rule of thermodynamics?

They're not. They can't 'violate' it; that's why it's a law.

Remember Earth is not a closed system.

Ummm... thanks for the reminder.

And how come 99% of the world scientists disagree with this statement?

To my knowledge all scientists are in agreement re: the meaning of the 2nd law. Often times SLoT gets tossed around casually by people who don't understand it, but I think that there are no scientists who disagree with SLoT.

I know you'll come up with a few scientists, but why not statements from the overwhelming majority of scientists?

Nope... like I said to my knowledge all scientists, even Creationists who understand it agree on the meaning of the 2nd law.

As I stated in my earlier post, I am willing to discuss the thermodynamic contraints that preclude cells from non-living matter, not that I am willing to discuss how organisms violate the 2nd law. Organisms can't violate the second law, it's like saying organisms can violate the law of gravity. They can't violate either. They are absolutely bound by them. There is no argument as to whether or not organisms violate the 2nd law.

In fact there are no systems that violate the 2nd law. There are certainly ideas that stand in opposition to the 2nd law... biopolymer formation in the absence of enzymes, or other methods of directed synthesis is one such idea. And it's huge one, since all biological systems are composed largely of polymers.

And on a totally random subject. What drove you to your intense interest in ID? Again just curious, it's part of my nature.

This is a popular misconception about me. I am not intensely interested in ID per se. I AM intensely interested in biological origins ideas however. Thus I read more-or-less everything I can get my hands on. I am intensely interested in origins ideas in general, it's one of my main intellectual hobbys.

I end up talking about ID the most, because it's the idea that people are the most misinformed and hence the idea that is most frequently misrepresented; It is also currently one of the hotter topics with respect to origins ideas. Even the YECist's are swinging towards presenting more ID-like arguments these days.

So it's really by default. Believe me, if there were a bunch of IDists or Creationists misrepresenting the ideas here, I'd have it out with them to.

If you don't believe me, I'd encourage you to check out the book review in my blog where I criticize JC Sanford (an eminent geneticist at Cornell, inventor of the gene gun, and YECist), for completely ignoring the example of nylonase when he claims that mutation and selection can't produce new enzymes/biological functions.

It just so happens that at least three situations that preclude me from correcting IDists and Creationists on these boards.

1. There appear to be very few IDists/Creationists on this board.
2. The IDists and Creationists that are on this board post little if ever in the O & C forum (Rren
   ???)
3. There is no shortage of others who are willing to call any IDist/Creationist that does show up on these boards an ignorant moron. Thus there is no need for me to step in and offer assistance.

[edit on 3-10-2006 by mattison0922]

I was referring to the fact that alot of "scientists" who are pro ID/Creationism use the 2nd law of THermodynamics as proof that things can't evolve to become more complicated and would in fact travel tword entrophy. so, everything was designed and created. But they got their understanding of the 2nd law all wrong. THeir premis would be logical in a closed system which earth is not. Things on earth thanks to the suns energy supply can build off it's self and become more complicated.

So, I was bringing up the observance of:
How come 99% scientists if not more from around the world haven't seen this red flag in the evidence of evolution, and have it seriously hamper their opinion of Evolution. Are these scientists biased...really,really biased. Are they taking part of a massive world conspiracy, that they all must agree to at the international secret convention of world scientists.

Granted things we accept as true now have sometimes in the past been scoffed or ridiculed, but most of the stuff that is scoffed at are for a reason. The reasons change from instance to instance,but what do you think the reason is for this particular subject. Scoffing at things that are later prooven true are usually the exception to the rule, not the other way around.