Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Joe Meert Falsely Accused Walt Brown

Expand Messages
  • jcampbell90
    While staying in a motel provided while working in the field I used a laptop with the free Juno email access provided by the motel, having to resort to use of
    Message 1 of 6 , Jul 1, 2002
      While staying in a motel provided while working in the field
      I used a laptop with the free Juno email access provided by the
      motel, having to resort to use of Eudora and my wife's email
      account. I couldn't figure out how to print the headers which
      supply evidence of the emails being authentic, though they remain
      stored on a Juno server. I had not set one up for myself. Please
      don't try to use her account should it become known. My wife is
      not at all interested in contacts other than from family.

      While there I dropped a note to Joe Meert, using the address
      supplied on his web site. I asked him whether there was progress
      in working something out with Walt Brown concerning the
      debate challenge found in "In the Beginning" at
      http://www.creationscience.com

      Following is a series of emails neither of us requested should be
      kept private. The only alterations I have made are to identify
      who said what by adding "JM" for Joe, and "Jim", leaving all the
      spelling errors and bad formatting untouched.

      I'm posting this for the purpose of proving the claims made by
      Joe Meert and his admirers are false accusations that Walt Brown
      is avoiding debate. The truth is that there are no evolutionists
      willing to take Walt up on Walt's challenge. It is obvious none
      are capable of meeting Brown's challenge for conducting an
      entirely scientific debate. This self-defense tactic used by
      evolutionists is that of claiming the only basis for
      creationism is the Bible, and the Noachin Flood being a story
      borrowed from Sumerian myths. They know there is no
      scientific proof in the Bible of that flood, refusing to debate
      the actual geologic facts that do support the world wide
      flood reported in the Bible. That is the height of "strawman"
      argument, reprehensible among scientists whichever side of the debate.




      >From: "Jim Campbell" <xxx@...> (wife's Eudora acct)

      >Date: Wed Jun 26 16:22:52 2002 (PDT)
      >To: jmeert@...
      >Subject: RE: question about Dr. Walt Brown

      >Jim,
      >Nothing yet from Walt, but you can watch for updates at

      >http://gondwanaresearch.com/hp/walt_brown.htm

      >You may also contact Walt and ask why he refuses to
      >debate and abide by his own rules (he's changed them
      >since I originally singed the agreement).� I
      >remain, as always, willing to let an independent party
      >decide whether or not my request is reasonable.

      Jim:
      Joe,

      Thanks for the quick reply. I've been researching the
      situation and have a few comments, though realize you
      are asking for a qualified independent party to decide
      this. I just have what I consider reasonable
      observations about the impasse.

      In both the original and current debate agreements I
      see Brown's request to keep religion out of the debate,
      insisting on limiting it to science only. I could care
      less about the relative opinions of both sides
      concerning the religious aspects at this point. It is
      the scientific basis of both sides that people can
      weigh and decide who is more right. Another science v
      religion or religion v. religion debate will accomplish
      nothing at all.

      Brown put forth *his* challenge, which appears not yet
      met. The way I see it is Brown has not accepted *your*
      challenge to debate the theological basis of his
      theory. There are two challenges going now, neither
      met.

      I got a copy of Brown's book that has no Bible
      references in it, and it seems to have a good deal of
      convincing science not requiring any reference to the
      Bible. Why would you insist on debating the very two
      pages Brown didn't include in his challenge, seemingly
      avoiding debate over the real, verifiable material?
      I've seen plenty of Bible debates over those references
      already, but no real debate over the science. It
      appears to me a little illogical to infer that all of
      Brown's theory hinges on the Bible when he has
      presented it without Bible reference. Therefore it
      appears moot to insist on a debate over Brown's alleged
      creating a theory to 'prove' his religious beliefs.
      Regardless the source idea behind the concept, if it
      has scientific merit, then it stands as a viable
      challenge to evolution, which he appears to have
      successfully proven has little actual scientific basis.
      If the theory was presented by a non-religious person,
      would you insist on the course you desire?

      I made copies of the two agreements from your website
      and highlighted line by line trying to discover the
      significant changes you claim. I see basically a
      re-arrangement, a simple condensing of words with
      insignificant changes in mode. All along Brown appears
      to have made it clear that changes to the challenge
      could be made *if* they were *mutually* agreeable. If
      your proposal is not agreed upon by Brown, then the
      proposed change is not mutually agreed to, and is to be
      disregarded. Meanwhile, Brown's holding to the terms
      of *his* agreement is valid. No contender has stepped
      forth to take him up on *his* challenge. I have yet to
      find the glaring changes he is supposed to have made.

      I can't blame Brown for wanting to avoid a theological
      challenge, since those seem to almost always wind up
      being ridiculed as 'not being science' in other debate
      forums. I don't think Brown's theology should
      interfere with a debate, nor should yours. He thinks
      he has sufficient scientific basis for his theory, as
      demonstrated in the book in hand devoid of Bible
      references.

      Even if the theology was debated, and even if you were
      successful in proving the Bible can't be verified, that
      debate would still leave the science dispute without
      consideration, the science of which theory has
      stand-alone merit apparently respected by many
      scientists.

      It is my hope you will reconsider your judgment of what
      you think Brown has done. It is my greater hope you
      would consider a debate on strictly scientific grounds
      as Brown has requested, or issue a retraction of your
      comments that Brown is avoiding a debate. Please
      consider fair play.

      I welcome your comments.

      Sincerely,
      Jim Campbell


      From: "Joe Meert" <jmeert@...

      Date: Wed Jun 26 21:46:07 2002
      To: <xxx@...>
      Subject: RE: question about Dr. Walt Brown

      I'll give a brief reply. If there were no bible and no story of
      Noah's flood, there would be no Walt Brown hydroplate 'hypothesis'.
      This is an important component of the scientific debate. Science
      does not start with a conclusion and then invent data to fit that
      conclusion. Walt does. His book is entitled "In the Beginning:
      Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood". Is it fair to
      ask 'what flood'? The biblical origins of Walt's ideas are
      unambiguous and should be noted at the outset of any debate. I'm
      playing by Walt's original rules which stated (unambiguously) that
      changes to the format would be considered by an independent party.
      Since I am willing to abide by the decision of an independent judge,
      you might ask yourself why Walt is so reluctant to follow his own
      rules? I know it surprised me. Bottom line is that I am willing to
      play by the rules so long as the other side does too. Considering
      that Walt MADE the rules and has since refused to abide by them and
      even CHANGED the rules after receiving a signed agreement, what
      confidence do I have that the debate will proceed
      fairly? I remain, as always, willing to abide by the original rules
      of Walt's agreement. That means if the independent party decides
      against my proposition, I will go forward with the debate anyway.
      Apparently, Walt is not willing to abide by his contract. That's
      fine, but it's a bit disingenuous to claim that no-one is willing to
      debate him.

      Cheers

      Joe Meert



      From: "Jim Campbell" <xxx@...
      Date: Thu Jun 27 16:50:41 2002 (PDT)
      To: jmeert@...
      Subject: RE: question about Dr. Walt Brown



      Jim:*I'm not in your league academically, being but a
      registered forester of 35 years specializing in
      wetlands restoration and management, entirely a
      biologically centered professional. I can't risk
      personal information since the remainder of my career
      could be jeopardized if I publically revealed my
      position and employer (strictly evolutionist with no
      tolerance for opposing views). But I am a contant
      student of all the sciences, and only here supportive
      of fairness toward a potentially very interesting debate.
      You or someone of your caliber is desperately needed
      to get on with the creation/evolution debate. I hope
      you will carefully consider my thinking on this, in
      this last appeal.*

      JM> I'll give a brief reply. If there were no bible and
      no story of Noah's flood, there would be no Walt Brown
      hydroplate 'hypothesis'. This is an important
      component of the scientific debate.

      Jim* I feel your conclusion is debatable in that there are
      many cultural "myths" about a catastrophic flood apart
      from the Genesis account. Secondly, in Walt's
      non-Bible-reference edition his entire case is built on
      scientific evidence for such a flood, including
      geological proofs.*

      JM> Science does not start with a conclusion and then
      invent data to fit that conclusion. Walt does. His
      book is entitled "In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence
      for Creation and the Flood". Is it fair to ask 'what
      flood'? The biblical origins of Walt's ideas are
      unambiguous and should be noted at the outset of any
      debate.

      Jim*Might it be possible that the theory of evolution
      might not have surfaced had there been no Bible mention
      of origins? Might it be possible that many of the
      hypotheses surrounding evoution are spawned by
      conclusions requiring scientific basis? Perhaps
      history shows some evidence evolution concepts
      partially came about as an answer to the apparent
      incongruences in the Bible, and to faulty though
      popular Church centrism beliefs. I read the book
      twice through trying to find evidence of "invention of
      data", finding a few erroneous reports of minor damage
      to his overall presentation, some misapplied quotes,
      but mostly reasonable interpretation of several fields
      of science.*

      JM> I'm playing by Walt's original rules which stated
      (unambiguously) that changes to the format would be
      considered by an independent party.

      Jim* And there's the rub. According to the original
      agreement the first step (point 5) to take was a
      flipping of a coin to determine who would do the editor
      nominations, and who would select from the nomination
      list. It never came to that, did it? That editor then
      would decide on what is fair. Instead, it appears to
      me you are proposing a change out of order, making
      demands that the debate be limited to the two pages
      about the Genesis account. Your proposal is not at all
      related to the request Brown proposed. You appear to
      be requiring Brown to make his entire case from that
      tiny part of his total presentation, the alleged
      religious basis for his hypothesis. I ask you, where
      in the edition devoid of Bible reference is such a
      foundation? Brown cites many proofs of "a" flood that
      caused most of the geological features of the earth's
      crust. It is you that asks "which flood", as in 'which
      of many', or at least acknowledging one. Brown set out
      to prove there was one based on an alternative
      interpretation of geological observations.*

      JM>Since I am willing to abide by the decision of an
      independent judge, you might ask yourself why Walt is
      so reluctant to follow his own rules?

      Jim*No coin flipped, no editors nominated, none selected.
      The first step was to accept the agreement, <then> seek
      a fair judgement from a neutral party concerning your
      input. That is the offer you did not accept. You made
      an entirely different proposition not related to the
      original, demanding a religious debate instead of a
      scientific debate. Since then, by not accepting the
      challenge by substituting a counter offer, Brown has
      made it more clear he doesn't want to make the debate a
      religious squabble. Your reasons for having that are
      not very convincing, and wouldn't at all address the
      scientic data surrounding origins. Since the Bible is
      not a book of data containing direct evidence of any
      geologic event I know of, debating around it would be
      like debating what the founding fathers of America
      really had in mind by reading only the U.S.
      Constitutution, excluding the Bill of Rights and other
      supportive documents. The real story is in the
      Federalist Papers and related documents contianing
      actual data. The final product, the charter, only
      generally refers to possible theological foundations
      behind the document. The Bible is just one of many
      historical inferences to a world-wide flood, none of
      which contain sufficient data to prove it. That was
      not the purpose of the Bible. Your demand make a
      demand of the Bible never intended for men to
      reasonably expect.*

      JM>I know it surprised me. Bottom line is that I am
      willing to play by the rules so long as the other side
      does too. Considering that Walt MADE the rules and has
      since refused to abide by them and even CHANGED the
      rules after receiving a signed agreement, what
      confidence do I have that the debate will proceed
      fairly?

      Jim* That is the job of the editor, whom you either
      nominate or select from among nominees.*

      JM>I remain, as always, willing to abide by the original
      rules of Walt's agreement.

      Jim*I am questioning whether you did that. I don't think
      you accepted the challenge, intending to allow an
      editor to consider your request to limit the debate to
      two pages of the entirity of Brown's hypothesis. It
      appears to me you made it clear you were only willing
      to engage in the opposite Brown proposed, seeking a
      third party that would judge which debate would be more
      reasonable. If you did't wish to take him on as
      proposed, then you should not have made the partial
      acceptance. I disagree Brown is avoiding you in
      debate. He is only avoiding a debate of a very small
      part of the Bible as the primary focus of the debate.
      He made it clear in the first agreement, and in the
      current, the emphasis must be science. He is willing
      to debate without a single reference to the Bible. Why
      must you resort to that book, when the latest version
      of his book lays out a compelling case for a flood
      without religious inferences?*

      JM>That means if the independent party decides against my
      proposition, I will go forward with the debate anyway.
      Apparently, Walt is not willing to abide by his
      contract. That's fine, but it's a bit disingenuous to
      claim that no-one is willing to debate him.

      Jim*Can you see now that the "independent party" can't be
      found until you agree to a proposed debate, followed by
      selection of an editor? But now, having ignored the
      original proposal that then excluded religious
      material, and still does in the current, you have
      forced his hand to strengthen the original intent to
      have a strictly scientific debate by removing from the
      editor's ability the decision whether to allow
      religious material, stated in clearer terms than in
      the original agreement. In reading the original
      agreement, it is not clear the editor could allow a
      religious mode of debate. It appears to me the editor
      had power to strike any reference to religion.

      The short of all this is that I am not convinced you
      accepted the Walt Brown challenge. You offered an
      alternative debate topic which Brown is not intersted
      in. I think it less than ethical to accuse someone of
      avoiding a debate when the terms of the debate were
      drastically altered as condition of acceptance.*

      Sincerely,
      Jim Campbell

      From: "Joe Meert" <jmeert@...>

      Date: Thu Jun 27 23:15:57 2002
      To: <xxx@...>
      Subject: RE: question about Dr. Walt Brown

      ----------------------------------------------------------------------
      ----------
      *I'm not in your league academically, being but a
      registered forester of 35 years specializing in
      wetlands restoration and management, entirely a
      biologically centered professional. I can't risk
      personal information since the remainder of my career
      could be jeopardized if I publically revealed my
      position and employer (strictly evolutionist with no
      tolerance for opposing views). But I am a contant
      student of all the sciences, and only here supportive
      of fairness toward a potentially very interesting debate.
      You or someone of your caliber is desperately needed
      to get on with the creation/evolution debate. I hope
      you will carefully consider my thinking on this, in
      this last appeal.*

      JM: Why? There is NO debate in the scientific community regarding the
      reality of the Noachian (borrowed from Gilgamesh) flood. This notion
      was put to rest by theologians (who were also scientists) in the
      1800's. The 'debate' stems solely from those who cannot fathom that
      the Hebrews incorporated the Sumerian mythos into their literature.
      The point of theNoachian story is to demonstrate that God is all
      powerful and can destroy what he wants. The story stands in stark
      contrast to the message of the New Testament which teaches us of a
      loving and forgiving god. Such contrasts arise naturally when myths
      are borrowed. However, there is no geologic evidence for a global
      flood and the only reason that it is brought up today is for
      religious reasons.


      Jim* I feel your conclusion is debatable in that there are
      many cultural "myths" about a catastrophic flood apart
      from the Genesis account. Secondly, in Walt's
      non-Bible-reference edition his entire case is built on
      scientific evidence for such a flood, including
      geological proofs.*

      JM: The key word is 'myth'. Science dispelled the Noachian myth long
      ago. There are a number of myths that claim Gods destroyed the world
      by fire. Should they be studied by modern science? The ONLY reason
      Walt has a hydroplate hypothesis is because of the bible. No bible,
      no Noah. No Noah, no hydroplate. See his discussion copied
      http://baby.indstate.edu/gga/pmag/theology.htm here.

      Jim*Might it be possible that the theory of evolution
      might not have surfaced had there been no Bible mention
      of origins? Might it be possible that many of the
      hypotheses surrounding evoution are spawned by
      conclusions requiring scientific basis? Perhaps
      history shows some evidence evolution concepts
      partially came about as an answer to the apparent
      incongruences in the Bible, and to faulty though
      popular Church centrism beliefs. I read the book
      twice through trying to find evidence of "invention of
      data", finding a few erroneous reports of minor damage
      to his overall presentation, some misapplied quotes,
      but mostly reasonable interpretation of several fields
      of science.*

      JM: No, your logic is in error. Science simply observes and makes
      conclusions based on the observations. It operates independently of a
      persons theology. For example, I know many Christian evolutionists,
      Muslim evolutionists, agnostic evolutionists, Buddhist evolutionists
      etc. There is a clear separation of their theological beliefs and
      the scientific evidence. Walt completely misrepresents the science of
      Geology in order to force it to appear on 'weak footing' and proposes
      the Noachian flood as a logical alternative. He gives no discussion
      to the history of Noachian catastrophism in the geologic literature
      and the rationale for abandoning the notion of a global flood. WHy
      is that? I'm playing by Walt's original rules which stated
      (unambiguously) that changes to the format would be
      considered by an independent party.

      Jim* And there's the rub.

      JM: If Walt truly wants a debate, he would agree to have an
      independent party decide the issue. I've said I am willing to abide
      by the decision even if it goes against me. When scientists debate,
      they are open to any and all relevant issues. They do not a priori
      exclude the basis of their ideas from the debate. Walt does this and
      is unyielding. So be it. I'll not play patsy to him.

      Jim:* Brown has made it more clear he doesn't want to make the debate
      a religious squabble. Your reasons for having that are
      not very convincing, and wouldn't at all address the
      scientic data surrounding origins. Since the Bible is
      not a book of data containing direct evidence of any
      geologic event I know of

      JM: But of course, Walt bases his entire hypothesis on the basis that
      the bible does speak of geology!

      Jim:*I am questioning whether you did that. I don't think
      you accepted the challenge, intending to allow an
      editor to consider your request to limit the debate to
      two pages of the entirity of Brown's hypothesis.

      JM: Well, that's your best excuse? I sent both letters to Walt. I
      even invited him to submit his scientific work to the journal I
      edit. If your last resort is to accuse me of a lack of integrity and
      honesty, then please don't waste anymore of my time. The agreement
      is signed and I fully intend to abide by the decision of an
      independent arbiter. Walt is not so inclined. Stalemate. However,
      Walt cannot honestly claim that no one is willing to debate him. He
      should say: "No evolutionist will debate me based on my own rigid
      rules". At least that would be honest. I will sign off by
      telling you what I told Walt and others who have contacted me. You
      know what else is funny about Walt's debate rules? He does not meet
      the qualifications he requires of his opponent! I remain, as always,
      ready and willing to debate following the decision of an independent
      arbiter.

      Cheers

      Joe Meert



      From: "Jim Campbell" <xxx@...>
      Date: Fri Jun 28 03:52:45 2002 (PDT)
      To: jmeert@...
      Subject: RE: question about Dr. Walt Brown



      Jim:*No appeal remains for debate, though a final comment
      on accuracy of your position.*

      >JM: The point of the Noachian story is to demonstrate that
      God is all powerful and can destroy what he wants. The
      story stands in stark contrast to the message of the New
      Testament which teaches us of a loving and forgiving
      god. Such contrasts arise naturally when myths are
      borrowed. However, there is no geologic evidence for a
      global flood and the only reason that it is brought up
      today is for religious reasons.

      Jim:*The Noachian story was endorsed by the central
      character of the New Testament, Christ, who did not
      contradict the literal belief, as well as the other
      writers, especially Peter. The flood story was
      analagous to the concept of water baptism. That the
      story was borrowed is pure conjecture. Considering
      that many cultures promoted a world-wide flood story
      would present a statistically slim likelihood of such a
      similar tale arising by chance between remote
      populations.

      That loving and forgiving God of the New Testmant is
      also revealed as the same God of justice who will end
      the grace period with punishment and eventual
      renovation of earth by fire.

      As to there not being gologic evidence of a
      catastrophic world wide flood, that is an opinion
      shared by many who would rather not chance verifying
      the Bible. Many would pefer to leave the whole book a
      myth.*

      Jim:> * I feel your conclusion is debatable in that there
      >are many cultural "myths" about a catastrophic flood apart
      > from the Genesis account. Secondly, in Walt's
      > non-Bible-reference edition his entire case is built on
      > scientific evidence for such a flood, including
      > geological proofs.*
      >
      > JM: The key word is 'myth'. Science dispelled the
      Noachian myth long ago. There are a number of myths
      that claim Gods destroyed the world by fire.
      Should they be studied by modern science? The ONLY
      reason Walt has a hydroplate hypothesis is because of
      the bible. No bible, no Noah. No Noah, no hydroplate.
      See his discussion copied
      http://baby.indstate.edu/gga/pmag/theology.htm here.

      Jim:*Nobody has ever proven the biblical account to be
      false. If they did, their names would be household pet
      names, having demonstated the Bible and Christ a hoax.*

      > JM: No, your logic is in error. Science simply
      observes and makes conclusions based on the
      observations.

      Jim:*When did it change from observing something not
      understood, or need to solve a mystery, answered by
      observation and interpretation of data? Seems to me it
      is a convenient definition to say a scientist just
      observe without some reason to begin observing,
      followed by making conclusions. I can only think of a
      few examples of that process in history, discoveries by
      pure chance without a preceeding idea. Isn't science
      really about solving problems? A mystery or problem
      arises, i.e, why is lava so hot, and what is it? It is
      observed and analyzed. Well, something is first
      suspected or questioned, like the mile thick layer of
      sediment covering earth. How high must mountains have
      been to erode so much sediment? Half of earth covered
      by 2 mile high mountains? One quarter of earth's total
      surface area covered in 4 mile high mountains, assuming
      equilateral triangle shapes representing mountains and
      adjacent valleys? Rediculous, huh? What force could
      have produced such massive mountains all over earth?
      That is just one question not logically answerd by
      modern geology, but is explained by the hydroplate
      theory. I think modern geology is built upon theory,
      also. Conclusions are based on interpretations of
      data, but nobody knows for sure, for instance, where
      the granites came from.*

      JM:> He gives no discussion to the history of Noachian
      catastrophism in the geologic literature and the
      rationale for abandoning the notion of a global flood.
      WHy is that?

      Jim:*Read the book. It's covered.*

      > JM: If Walt truly wants a debate, he would agree to
      have an independent party decide the issue.

      Jim:*But that opens the debate to religious input which has
      been demonstrated as fruitless. There still has been
      no 'high profile' knock down drag out debate over
      proposed scientific evidence for a flood. Those who
      oppose the flood event escape debate of the evidence by
      demanding proof of the Bible account. Since nobody can
      do that without looking at the rocks, debates have
      ended in ridicule of any thoughts that follow. You are
      avoiding real debate by insisting on rehashing a tired
      debate over proving the Bible true or false. Can't you
      get past that?*

      JM:> I've said I am willing to abide by the decision
      even if it goes against me. When scientists debate,
      they are open to any and all relevant issues. They do
      not a priori exclude the basis of their ideas from the
      debate. Walt does this and is unyielding. So be it.
      I'll not play patsy to him.

      Jim:*You rejected his proposal, wanting to define the
      debate topic, switching from science to religion.
      Apples and oranges. Whenever religion enters science
      debate, debate ends in ridicule. I appreciate that
      there is an offer out there that is willing to examine
      only the observable facts.*

      > JM: But of course, Walt bases his entire hypothesis
      on the basis that the bible does speak of geology!

      Jim:*Not so. He cites many geologic examples of evidence
      of a flood, and points out the verifications in the
      Bible.*

      JM:> However, Walt cannot honestly claim that no one is
      willing to debate him. He should say: "No evolutionist
      will debate me based on my own rigid rules". At least
      that would be honest.

      Jim:*He has not made that claim. His claim is that no
      evolutionists have been willing to debate strictly
      scientific topics as proposed. He knows their only
      salvation is in bringing up topics that kill the debate
      before their cherished theories are exposed as hoaxes.
      You need to re-read the introduction to the debate
      agreement. It is true that not one evolutionist has
      agreed to debate the scientific evidence alone. They
      all insist on bringing in the Bible, for which there is
      no proof without first examining the evidence in the
      earth. One either accepts it by faith, as Christ did,
      or requires proof. The Bible presents the challenge,
      the problem, the mystery. It is up to science to
      verify it. Brown does that in the true nature of a
      real scientist willing to put all on the line to
      provide logical answers.

      I still think you are misrepresenting Walt Brown's
      proposal. His stands unchallenged, and now, so does
      yours.

      The search for a noble <science> debater goes on. Is
      there not one lead scientist on earth willing to risk
      being wrong? Evidently not. Makes sense, for careers
      are at stake on both sides.*

      Sincerely,
      Jim Campbell


      Jim: There were no further contacts. The fact remains that Joe
      Meert failed to answer Walt Brown's challenge, substituting his own
      challenge while claiming Brown changed HIS mind.
      A new challenge exists now for Joe Meert to issue a retraction of
      false charges and drop out of the issue unless he can stand up like a
      man and accept the terms of Brown's challenge. If he can't, he needs
      to admit that he is not up to a scientific debate, able only to
      discuss myths.

      It is typical of evolutionists to avoid real debates. What we have
      going on is many scientists in many fields informally coordinated
      together to make up an imaginary evolutionist society all agreeing on
      the validity of evolution. Each one individually can't compete with a
      man like Brown who has a working knowledge of many science fields,
      therefore better educated and more experienced for a wide ranged
      debate convering many fields. Joe Meert is one of them, unable to
      tackle the biology and engineering Brown could toss his way, while
      Meert might be able to score higher in his own geology specialty.
      Hence the possible reason for his fear of accepting the Brown
      challenge.

      Evolutionists don't accept that the academic institutions that
      produced most of those specialists are stocked with evolutionist
      instructors that make it impossible to graduate without mastering the
      evolutionary dogma. Either bow to the religion of evolution or find
      another field like mechanical engineering. The very theories,
      hypotheses, conclusions, assumptions, beliefs, views, "findings",
      opinions, etc. of all the associated fields of science are worded
      mostly as one-sided beliefs stated as "we believe" statements
      concerning such phenomena as fossil sorting. What is plainly evident
      in reading the white papers that contain those "we believe", "I
      believe", "geologists think", "biologists agree" statements is that
      the researchers simply adopt the beliefs of the religion of
      evolution, ignoring viable alternatives. I've found many papers
      submitted at university sites that offered contrary professional and
      undergraduate thinking, adding them to my favorites list, only to
      find them pulled when needed most to expose academia suppression of
      truth.

      This will not go on for ever. The shame of evolution is well known.
      The tally of people becoming aware of the lies of evolution is
      growing, and many responsible people will increasingly demand their
      children are given the whole of the debate. It is already happening
      in private schools as public schools decline. Once the two sides are
      compared side by side, sensible people will be able to choose the
      truth of creation science.

      In His Royal Service,
      Jim Campbell
    • Brian Davis
      Jim: This self-defense tactic used by evolutionists is that of claiming the only basis for creationism is the Bible, and the Noachin Flood being a story
      Message 2 of 6 , Jul 1, 2002
        Jim:  This self-defense tactic used by
        evolutionists is that of claiming the only basis for
        creationism is the Bible, and the Noachin Flood being a story
        borrowed from Sumerian myths.  They know there is no
        scientific proof in the Bible of that flood, refusing to debate
        the actual geologic facts that do support the world wide
        flood reported in the Bible.  That is the height of "strawman"
        argument, reprehensible among scientists whichever side of the debate.

        You still don't know what "Strawman Argument" means, do you, Jim?


        I got a copy of Brown's book that has no Bible
        references in it, and it seems to have a good deal of
        convincing science not requiring any reference to the
        Bible.
         
         
        What is "convincing science"?  Can that be interpreted as, "things that look scientific to me, as I have not attempted to verify the results"?
         
         

        Jim:  Even if the theology was debated, and even if you were
        successful in proving the Bible can't be verified, that
        debate would still leave the science dispute without
        consideration, the science of which theory has
        stand-alone merit apparently respected by many
        scientists. 
         
         
        Of what use is the phrase "apparently respected by many scientists", and what weight should it carry here?


         
        Jim:  Once the two sides are
        compared side by side, sensible people will be able to choose the
        truth of creation science.
         
        And what is the (testable) hypothesis of "Creation Science"?
         
        - Brian

      • ggallin13
        Jim, I read your entire post and it yet again shows that you are totally clueless. First off, here is the definition of what a Strawman Argument is: The
        Message 3 of 6 , Jul 1, 2002
          Jim, I read your entire post and it yet again shows that you are
          totally clueless.

          First off, here is the definition of what a Strawman Argument
          is: "The author attacks an argument which is different from, and
          usually weaker than, the opposition's best argument."

          Secondly, I doubt that you would get fired if you admitted to your
          collegues that you are a Creationist. You might have to quit because
          of the merciless teasing you will endure, but that is up to you. Why
          do you hide your religion from people, Jim? Are you ashamed?

          And lastly, if Brown's hypothoses don't originate in the Bible then
          where do they come from?
        • jcampbell90
          ... Jim: Meert can t attack the science of Brown, so appeals to myths of Gilgamesh as a debate topic. THAT is a strawman argument, and VERY weak. Wise up,
          Message 4 of 6 , Jul 1, 2002
            --- In creation_evolution_debate@y..., "ggallin13" <ggallin@n...>
            wrote:
            > Jim, I read your entire post and it yet again shows that you are
            > totally clueless.
            >
            > First off, here is the definition of what a Strawman Argument
            > is: "The author attacks an argument which is different from, and
            > usually weaker than, the opposition's best argument."

            Jim: Meert can't attack the science of Brown, so appeals to myths of
            Gilgamesh as a debate topic. THAT is a strawman argument, and VERY
            weak. Wise up, clueless.

            > Secondly, I doubt that you would get fired if you admitted to your
            collegues that you are a Creationist. You might have to quit because
            of the merciless teasing you will endure, but that is up to you. Why
            do you hide your religion from people, Jim? Are you ashamed?

            Jim: When I appled for the present job I asked about Sundays off.
            They asked if I was Christian. I said yes. They would work with me,
            but not always concerning days off. Last Sunday was a travel day.
            While nobody asked how I believe, I was told to keep personal
            ideologies private, NEVER linking my employer to anything that might
            embarrass them. I've learned since then the issue of creationism,
            God, church-going, Christianity, Islam, or any other reference to
            deity or religion is not welcome. People don't remain here who
            insist on pressing views nobody wants to hear about. It's OK to sit
            up in the clubhouse talking about and getting drunk, sex, perversion
            while they play the porno flicks. But no religion or politics. I
            keep a straight tongue among people who know why I remain moral, go
            to bed early, don't drink alcohol, don't complain about the heat,
            snakes, poison ivy and bugs, set a good example. I let them be the
            ones who breach the rules, and it always them who bring up taboo
            topics. When they do, I'm free to engage until they get
            uncomfortable and stop the topics. I've already told them all most
            of the gospel of Christ and their destiny according to the Bible.
            Where I'd really have problems is to directly link the company to
            personal ideology publicly. They don't allow me to share technical
            information learned exclusively on the job, and they will be the ones
            putting anything in writing. I could be sued . I just work there.

            > And lastly, if Brown's hypothoses don't originate in the Bible then
            > where do they come from?

            Jim: Don't you believe it came from Sumerian myths? You don't read
            with good comprehension or retention. Brown has published an entire
            version of his book devoid of biblical reference. He uses physical
            evidence to prove a world flood. You have once again demonstrated
            your ignorance of the debate subject, refusing to look at the
            creation side. What are you afraid of? Getting saved?
            You don't remember the introduction to Brown and how he began as an
            evolutionist and remained so for most of his life? He became
            convinced there were too many problems with evolution, the study of
            which led him to change to believe in creation. As already pointed
            out in the quotes of famous evolutionists, there are no
            alternatives. One either believes evolution or creation. The
            evidence for evolution eroded, that of creation grew. It wan't a
            case of reading Genesis and exclaiming "Wow, here's what I've been
            looking for all these years to explain the science of origins!"
            As in my own case it begins with questioning the status quo and being
            willing to challenge current thinking. It got me redirected from a
            curriculum in geology to forestry. Meanwhile, I continue to reject
            false interpretations of geology, paleontology, and other sciences
            being used wrongly to support a false religion by the title Evolution.
            eologists have learned to work around the falsity and still get the
            results they look for. In word they agree with the tenets of the
            false religion, but in practice they just do whatever they have to to
            get and use the data they obtain. Oil is where you find oil, ore is
            where you chance upon it. One of the technicians here found a
            vanadium quarry entirely by accident where no geologist could have
            predicted it. Oil was and still is found and pumped from places not
            fitting the paleontologist recommendation. It boils down to hard
            work and following plain hunches based on the findings of other
            people.
            That is why the scientists here could care less about origins and
            college classroom theories. They believe in grunt work, luck and
            good machines.

            In His Royal Service,
            Jim Campbell
          • ggallin13
            ... of ... David F -- Thank you for proving my point, Jim. Please show where Meert said ANYTHING about the Epic of Gilgamesh. I brought that up. ... your ...
            Message 5 of 6 , Jul 2, 2002
              > > First off, here is the definition of what a Strawman Argument
              > > is: "The author attacks an argument which is different from, and
              > > usually weaker than, the opposition's best argument."
              >
              > Jim: Meert can't attack the science of Brown, so appeals to myths
              of
              > Gilgamesh as a debate topic. THAT is a strawman argument, and VERY
              > weak. Wise up, clueless.

              David F -- Thank you for proving my point, Jim. Please show where
              Meert said ANYTHING about the Epic of Gilgamesh. I brought that up.
              >
              > > Secondly, I doubt that you would get fired if you admitted to
              your
              > collegues that you are a Creationist. You might have to quit
              because
              > of the merciless teasing you will endure, but that is up to you.
              Why
              > do you hide your religion from people, Jim? Are you ashamed?
              >
              > Jim: When I appled for the present job I asked about Sundays off.
              > They asked if I was Christian. I said yes. They would work with
              me,
              > but not always concerning days off. Last Sunday was a travel day.
              > While nobody asked how I believe, I was told to keep personal
              > ideologies private, NEVER linking my employer to anything that
              might
              > embarrass them.

              David F -- Sounds like a good idea. Most people get emotional when
              involved in a religiousd discussion, and it is better that you
              concentrate on work than spend all your time trying to convert
              people. I notice that you think being open about Creationism would
              embarass them--which it would. I am never embarrassed because I
              accept the fact of evolution, nor have I ever been asked whether or
              not I accept it for any job. That's because evolution is science and
              science never embarasses anyone--except Creationists.

              I've learned since then the issue of creationism,
              > God, church-going, Christianity, Islam, or any other reference to
              > deity or religion is not welcome. People don't remain here who
              > insist on pressing views nobody wants to hear about.

              David F -- In a pluarlistic society it is best to respect the beliefs
              of others, especially in the workplace.

              It's OK to sit
              > up in the clubhouse talking about and getting drunk, sex,
              perversion
              > while they play the porno flicks. But no religion or politics.

              David F -- I gather that everyone you work with is a man. The porno
              would be a big no if there were women around.

              I
              > keep a straight tongue among people who know why I remain moral, go
              > to bed early, don't drink alcohol, don't complain about the heat,
              > snakes, poison ivy and bugs, set a good example. I let them be the
              > ones who breach the rules, and it always them who bring up taboo
              > topics. When they do, I'm free to engage until they get
              > uncomfortable and stop the topics. I've already told them all most
              > of the gospel of Christ and their destiny according to the Bible.

              David F -- So you break the rules also.

              > Where I'd really have problems is to directly link the company to
              > personal ideology publicly. They don't allow me to share technical
              > information learned exclusively on the job, and they will be the
              ones
              > putting anything in writing. I could be sued . I just work there.

              David F -- That just means that they own the intellectual protperty.
              No big deal.
              >
              > > And lastly, if Brown's hypothoses don't originate in the Bible
              then
              > > where do they come from?
              >
              > Jim: Don't you believe it came from Sumerian myths? You don't
              read
              > with good comprehension or retention.

              David F -- Have you read Gilgamesh? It doesn't describe a GLOBAL
              flood.

              Brown has published an entire
              > version of his book devoid of biblical reference.

              David F -- That's so he can fool the ignorant into thinking it is
              science. No scientific works have two versions, one Biblical and one
              not. None of them. And if he includes Bible references in one
              version, why not debate that one? Your position here is untenable.
              He won't debate what he includes in a version of his book. And if an
              independant judge says that Meert must stay on the "science" in
              Brown's work, Meert himself said he would go through with the debate.

              He uses physical
              > evidence to prove a world flood. You have once again demonstrated
              > your ignorance of the debate subject, refusing to look at the
              > creation side. What are you afraid of? Getting saved?

              David F -- If Brown's book is science, how would that lead me to
              being "saved"? Being saved is a religious concept. ANd I have told
              you time and time again that I have read Brown's book online, and I
              have provided you with countless links demonstrating his "science" to
              be bogus. Why don't you read those sites, Jim? Afraid of becoming
              rational?

              > You don't remember the introduction to Brown and how he began as an
              > evolutionist and remained so for most of his life?

              David F -- So? I would imagine that he never understood it. Nobody
              who understands evolution rejects it. Nobody.

              He became
              > convinced there were too many problems with evolution, the study of
              > which led him to change to believe in creation.

              David F -- Either that he had a conversion experience and then
              decided that Creation was true. Either way, it doesn't matter how
              Brown came to his nutty conclusions, they are still nutty and he has
              no evidence. And he is afraid to debate Meert.

              As already pointed
              > out in the quotes of famous evolutionists, there are no
              > alternatives. One either believes evolution or creation.

              David F -- False. This is a flase dichotomy fallacy. The Vedas
              could be true, or the Wodin legends--there are dozens upon dozens of
              Creation stories that are as equally valid as yours. And they all
              have the same amount of evidence supporting them. That is NONE.

              The
              > evidence for evolution eroded, that of creation grew.

              David F -- Guess again. There is no evidence for Creation. None.
              Brown is a hack and has no clue what he is talking about. Look it
              up. And he is no different than any of the others. If there is so
              much evidence for Creation, explain the ammonites. I have asked you
              that before. And you can't explain it. Unless you can explain why
              these animals are sorted the way they are Creationi falls apart. And
              you can't. No Creationist can. But please try.

              It wan't a
              > case of reading Genesis and exclaiming "Wow, here's what I've been
              > looking for all these years to explain the science of origins!"

              David F -- I'm sure. It was, "My parents told me that the Bible is
              entirely true and that if I didn't believe that I would go to Hell,
              so I beliieve it. As I have gotten older I have tried to find
              evidence that this is the case and couldn't find any, so I made
              things up."

              > As in my own case it begins with questioning the status quo and
              being
              > willing to challenge current thinking.

              David F -- Did you challenge the idea that the Earth is round? That
              gravity exists? Or how about the Earth revolving around the Sun? If
              not, why not?

              It got me redirected from a
              > curriculum in geology to forestry. Meanwhile, I continue to reject
              > false interpretations of geology, paleontology, and other sciences
              > being used wrongly to support a false religion by the title
              Evolution.

              David F -- Because you don't understand geology, paleontology or any
              other science. It is funny how you alone possess the intellect to
              see that these sciences are used "wrongly", yet men who have
              dedicated their lives to these sciences and actually gather the
              evdience you reject accept evolution to a man. How is it that they
              know more than you and they think that you are a moron, Jim?

              > eologists have learned to work around the falsity and still get the
              > results they look for.

              David F -- Show one instance of this happening or retract it. you
              are a liar, Jim.

              In word they agree with the tenets of the
              > false religion, but in practice they just do whatever they have to
              to
              > get and use the data they obtain. Oil is where you find oil, ore
              is
              > where you chance upon it.

              David F -- Evolution is not a religion, false or otherwise, and why
              is it that oil is found by geologists that accept an ancient Earth?
              Hmmm? And we can find ore and oil with remarakable precision, Jim.
              It isn't luck. Geology is s science. If you understand it, you can
              find oil and gold and all sorts of cool stuff. And you will discover
              that the Earth is ancient. It is at least 4.5 billion years old. It
              is a fact.

              One of the technicians here found a
              > vanadium quarry entirely by accident where no geologist could have
              > predicted it.

              David F -- I don't believe you. How do you know that a geologist
              couldn't predict it? Did you ask one? What was his name? Did you
              ask this same geologist how old the Earth is? What did he say when
              he stopped laughing at you?

              Oil was and still is found and pumped from places not
              > fitting the paleontologist recommendation.

              David F -- Nice swtich, Jim. Wouldn't it be the geologist who finds
              the oil? I always thought that was who found oil, not
              paleontologists. Thanks for the news flash. Oh, and I would like a
              reference for this instance of paleontologist incompetence, please.
              It is also important to note that peole can make mistakes, but that
              doesn't invalidate the science. Scientists know this, and that is
              why their findings are peer-reviewed. It weeds out the mistakes.
              Notice it's peer review. How many Creationists are sent the latest
              geological findingsa and asked for their opinion? Zero. Zilch.
              Nada. That's because Creationists aren't scientists and are not
              considered peers. Sucks for them, but of course, nobody is forcing
              them to hold to an untenable position.

              It boils down to hard
              > work and following plain hunches based on the findings of other
              > people.

              David F -- We are all standing on the shoulders of giants, Jim. The
              sad thing is you ant to jump off the shoulders of the giants of the
              Earth sciences in favor of a midget.

              > That is why the scientists here could care less about origins and
              > college classroom theories. They believe in grunt work, luck and
              > good machines.

              David F -- Ah, thank you for that last bit of anti-intellectualism,
              Jim. Way to wail! I don't think that you have ever been to
              college. I think that you are a liar. You have never taken a
              geology course in your life. You hate education and science so much
              you wouldn't laast five seconds in a college classroom. The theories
              that are taught in college classrooms are what lead to medicines,
              more efficient cars, faster computers, a greater understanding of the
              universe, how life works...the list is endless. And you hate it
              because all of those things make you look like an idiot and a liar.
              Sucks for you.
            • Dave Oldridge
              ======= At 2002-07-02, 17:26:00 ggallin13 wrote: ======= [stuff deleted] ... You have probably hit the nail pretty close to the head right here. Jim appears
              Message 6 of 6 , Jul 2, 2002
                ======= At 2002-07-02, 17:26:00 ggallin13 wrote: =======


                [stuff deleted]


                >David F -- If Brown's book is science, how would that lead me to
                >being "saved"? Being saved is a religious concept. ANd I have told
                >you time and time again that I have read Brown's book online, and I
                >have provided you with countless links demonstrating his "science" to
                >be bogus. Why don't you read those sites, Jim? Afraid of becoming
                >rational?

                You have probably hit the nail pretty close to the head right here. Jim
                appears to be one of those self-appointed crusaders who just HAVE to
                be seen as "fighting the enemy" at all costs. And in this case, the cost
                is the cost of being rational. The more false and irrational things he can
                require you and I to believe, the safer he feels in his isolation. What he
                fails to realize is that he is building his OWN hell, brick by brick.


                = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =


                Best regards.
                Dave Oldridge
                ICQ 1800667

                2002-07-02
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.