Freethought & Rationalism Archive

John Solum · 02-28-2002, 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by MrDarwin:

(4) No living taxa of any phyla appear among the earliest fossil representatives of those phyla; in fact, the oldest representatives of virtually all phyla are generally nothing like the modern representatives of those phyla, except in broadest "body plan" outline.

Exactly. I've been trying to think of a way to phrase that. Thank you.

Bait · 02-28-2002, 02:06 PM

Hello Faded,
Hey, I'm not called bait for nothing.

Quote:

Originally posted by faded_Glory:


>>>If I may, I too had a look at this theory. What I think? The guy is a total crackpot!

You may, and I don't necessarily disagree.

>>>The biggest problem of his theory is that it completely superfluous, unnecessary and pointless.

Why is that? The man is trying to defend his faith.

>>> When we build geological hypotheses and theories we do so to explain the observations we have made.

Sometimes, and sometimes they are made to disprove creationists. Where's the difference?

>>>Walt Brown builds a theory of a worldwide flood, but unfortunately there aren't any observations that such a flood ever happened - so what is the bloody point of his theory

He made some observations...even if they may be inaccurate. He's trying to prove if it is possible, based on geological features, that a flood could have happened. He's proposing a different view than what is generally accepted by the scientific community.

>>>I might as well build a theory how the Earth was transformed into cheese during the Permo-Triassic, and back into rocks during the Cretaceous....there is as much evidence for that as there is for his worldwide flood

Really? I'd be interested in hearing that theory, especially since I like cheese. Comon', he has SOME evidence....albeit a little cheezy (sorry, couldn't help myself).

>>>I won't go into the physical, chemical and biological nonsense that is dripping from every page.

Why not? That's exactly what I'm asking for. You say it's nonsense...go for it, prove it. Just ridiculing something does not prove it wrong...it just proves you know how to ridicule. I'm looking to LEARN something here.

>>>Just for tasters, he explains the kilometers thick salt layers present in many basins as formed by evaporitisation during a worldwide flood that was caused by the heaviest rainfall ever seen on the planet . Yeah, right

Ok...I'm a layman, and I don't know that much about geology (did I not admit that John?) You say that evaporation of that scale could not form that thick of layers of salt? What about the dead sea? What about Utah's salt lake? IF there was a flood of that scale, and waters evaporated from it, then it is impossible for that amount of salt to form from ocean water???

>>>Or this one: Similarly, waters escaping from under the western edge of the European hydroplate may have dumped the soft, fine-grained type of limestone known as chalk. Most famous are the exposed layers in England’s White Cliffs of Dover and France’s coast of Normandy. (See Figure 103 on page 161.) While chalk contains a few organic remains, most of it is inorganic.

>>Inorganic chalk. Yeah, right again....

Ok, now we are getting somewhere. Chalk is organic.

>>>Look, the only use for this book is when you're out of paper on the johns.

Well, ok, haven't done that in a while...but this is a theory that is out there, and is being promoted publically...even on tv. Average Joe won't know the difference unless you can logically dispute it. Ridiculing only makes you look bad...not him.

>>>PS I forgot the best: the reference he used to support his statement that most of the Chalk is inorganic:

W. A. Tarr, “Is the Chalk a Chemical Deposit?” Geological Magazine, Vol. 62, No. 6, June 1925 , p. 259.

Ok...so I take it that you do not consider his source very good. Cite a better one.

Look, I said up front that this one is not necessarily what I support...in fact, I asked ya'll to pick it apart. Otherwise, I have to assume that at least some of it is valid (which would be great news to me). Ridiculing only makes it seem that you cannot prove it wrong...so then that is what you have to resort to.

Bests,
Ron

[Edited by Oolon to try and get the format sensible. Ron: I don't know where the {code} {/code} bits are coming from in your post, but if you follow my instructions in the other thread, they shouldn't be there!

]

[ March 01, 2002: Message edited by: Oolon Colluphid ]

Bait · 02-28-2002, 02:08 PM

Thanks again Patrick, that again is what I was looking for. I wasn't saying faded Glory is wrong in his assessment...he just didn't show how Mr. Brown is wrong.
Ron.

Quote:

Originally posted by ps418:
I agree with Faded_Glory about Brown's suggestion that chalk is an inorganic deposit. Below is a slightly modified post I made to another forum a long time ago.

Brown made some statements on his page that I think speak volumes about his attention to detail. For instance, he says the Cretaceous chalk cliffs are inorganic (such as those in Dover). Just so everyone knows Im not making this up, his exact words are:

"Similarly, waters escaping from under the western edge of the European hydroplate may have dumped the soft, fine-grained type of limestone known as chalk. Most famous are the exposed layers in England’s White Cliffs of Dover and France’s coast of Normandy. While chalk contains **a few organic remains, most of it is inorganic**"

He probably couldnt have picked a worse example. In fact, these chalks are not only "organic," they consist almost entirely of fossils (mainly forams and coccoliths). Also present are whole shells and fragments of bivalves, ostracods, ammonites, echonoids, etc. They've been studied extensively.

The only sense in which Brown could be right is that all limestones are originally porous (30-70% porosity or so), but the pore spaces are filled in by the precipitation of aragonite and calcite 'cements' after deposition, forming hard rock from loose deposits. But this isnt what Brown is arguing.

The chalk deposits also have numerous firmgrounds and hardgrounds, proving that there were numerous breaks in deposition, but thats another post.

But please don't take my word for it. Judge Brown's accuracy for yourself. Here's a magnified thin section photo of the Cretaceous "Middle Chalk" from England:

The circles are coccolithophores and the little elongate thing in the bottom right is a foram shell.

The following picture is a thin section photo of some Cretaceous foraminiferal chalk in Mississippi:

And a Cretaceous chalk from Texas:

See also:

H�kansson. E., Bromley. R., and Perch-Nielson. K., 1974, Maastrichtian chalk of north-west Europe – a pelagic shelf sediment. Pelagic sediments: On land and under water. PP 211-23, Spec. Pub. Int. Assoc. Sed., No. 1.

Gale, A.S. 1996. Correlation and sequence stratigraphy of the Turonian Chalk of southern England. Sequence stratigraphy in the United Kingdom. In: Hesselbo, S.P. and Parkinson, D.N.(eds.) , Sequence Stratigraphy in British Geology. Geological Society, London, Special Publication 103, 177-195.

Regarding another one of Brown's claims about limestone, Cliff Cuffey highlights another one of Brown's false claims:

Cuffey again, taking Walt Brown to task:

"Concerning the origin of limestone grains, Brown (1996, p. 188) stated that "...few are ground-up sea-shells or corals..." This statement is factually wrong. I'm certain that all of us can think of a wide variety of limestones from throughout the Phanerozoic that are primarily composed of skeletal grains. In fact, the New Orleans Cotton Exchange, and some other New Orleans buildings, are constructed primarily from the Salem Limestone (Mississippian), an endothyrid foram - bryozoan grainstone from southern Indiana. The Burlington Limestone (Mississipp ian) and its equivalents throughout central and western North America are a vast blanket of crinoidal grainstones and packstones (Ausich, 1997). Such regional encrinites are common from the Ordovician through the Jurassic (Ausich, 1997, p. 513). Carbonate sediments composed primarily of skeletal grains are being deposited today on platforms and ramps such as southern Florida (Sellwood, 1986, p. 307), the Bahamas (Bathurst, 1975, p. 104, 108-121), and the Persian Gulf (Hughes Clarke & Keij, 1973; Wagner & van der Togt, 1973; Bathurst, 1975, p. 181-185). Such sediments accumulate in situ both in reef (James, 1983) and non-reef (Wilson & Jordan, 1983, p. 307-316) environments. Again, we can make the logical connection between process and result both in modern environments and the rock record."

<a href="http://www.gcssepm.org/special/evolution.htm" target="_blank">Evolution, Scientific Creation, Uniformitarian Geology, and Flood Geology </a>

Patrick

faded_Glory · 02-28-2002, 11:45 PM

Bait,

First of all, can you please do something about the formatting of your post? It makes my browser all queasy...

OK, I admit I reacted in an unscientific way to Walt Brown's 'theory'. In fact, I had to pick myself up laughing...except that it is in fact very sad to see someone who must have some intelligence, waste so much time and effort on a totally hopeless case.

I appreciate you want to learn. However, if you want to learn about geology, why do you come to a Web Forum? Why not go to your local library and pick up some introductory texts? That's all you need to find out very quickly that Brown's ideas are not based on facts and data - unless, of course, you would be willing to believe that geology textbooks are written as part of a worldwide conspiracy to hide the evidence for creation....

Brown is on the level of a flat-earther. His theories share nothing with mainstream geology. His 'facts' are wrong, his physics is laughable, his sources are 50-75 years out of date.

Do I need to refute a flat-earther? Do I need to tell you that the stage act where they saw a lady in half is just illusion?

I have already giving you two samples of how easy it is to refute Brown. Both examples are sufficient to utterly demolish his theory. What more do you need?

fG

John Solum · 03-01-2002, 03:19 AM

Hi Ron,

Brown has claimed that no evolutionist will debate him. You can read about his debate challenge here:

<a href="http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/HomePage5.html#1141807" target="_blank">http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/HomePage5.html#1141807</a>

Here are a couple of quotations:

Quote:

Please read the entire passage and note that a few initially agreed to a strictly scientific debate, but later changed their minds, insisting they would only take part if the exchange included religion. One evolutionist is so upset that a written debate will not include religion that he now misleads by saying that Walt Brown has refused to debate him. (Correspondence in our files shows how he no longer wanted a strictly scientific debate after reading the 6th edition of this book.)

Quote:

If someone says, �Walt Brown has refused to debate,� we suggest you ask to see that person�s signed debate agreement.

Now take a look at this page.

<a href="http://baby.indstate.edu/gga/pmag/walt_brown.htm" target="_blank">http://baby.indstate.edu/gga/pmag/walt_brown.htm</a>

Joe Meert first sent Brown a signed copy of his debate contract over four years ago. Meert wants to devote two pages of the written debate to discussing the biblical basis for Brown's work, however he agreed to drop that topic if the editor of the debate decided it was inappropriate.

Here's a section of the contract Meert sent:

Quote:

[INITIAL IF APPROPRIATE] I wish to propose a modification to the above conditions. However, I am willing to have the editor decide the matter after my opponent and I have presented our positions. I will abide by this ruling and participate in the written debate. My suggested changes and their justification are listed below.

The ball has been in Brown's court for years, and he's chosen to do nothing.

Peez · 03-01-2002, 07:26 AM

Quote:

Bait:
I also said that since everything was created after it's kind, that would mean that the "Darwin" part of the theory of evolution stating every living thing came from ONE source is incorrect. Mammals did not necessarily come from plants as an example.

Quote:

Peez:
Nobody thinks that mammals "come from plants." Mammals and plants share a common ancestor.

Quote:

Bait:
Hi Peez,

Hi Bait.

Quote:

I haven't been meaning to not answer you.

That's OK, it has been busy, and we all have lives offline.

Quote:

Actually, that is what was said to me, which is what I dispute.

Are you referring to the �mammals from plants' statement? Please explain what you meant, because you seemed to be presenting mammals not coming from plants as an example of something that contradicts common descent.

Quote:

I do have views where I believe the origin of man not being created as the animals were (as in the Biblical account), but I've admitted up front they were my views. That is a dispute that would go in circles because it requires faith over scientic [sic] "evidence", and I'm not trying to convert anyone.

Then you would agree that creationism has no place in a science class?

Quote:

I admit that there seems to be scientific evidence against the view of men being created by God...notice I said "seems"...because there is no "hard" evidence, and I choose faith.

What is "hard" evidence?

Quote:

If you do not...fine.

I chose to be guided by the evidence.

Quote:

As to the "other" animals...my point was that we...and the animals did not have a (one) common ancestor, rather evidence points that the ancestors should be more properly be ancestors.

Sorry, but I have no idea what you are trying to say there. Perhaps you could restate it?

Quote:

The cambrian and pre-cambrian era's give evidence of this, which you (and others) confirmed.

The Cambrian and Precambrian (and subsequent) fossils provide evidence that all chordates share a common ancestor (embryology, homology, biochemistry, and especially genetics confirm this), yes. Of course, humans are chordates.

Quote:

Now we can go on and debate on geological "flood" evidence/non evidences, or go on and debate whether there is any real evidence of single or multi celled organism's evolving into whatever creatures.

What sort of evidence would you accept, in principle, that there was no flood or that multicellular organisms evolved from unicellular organisms? You have already indicated that you will ignore evidence when it contradicts your faith.

Peez

Bait · 03-01-2002, 09:37 AM

Peez,
I haven't said I'll ignor evidence, but I might look at it from perhaps a different view. You said no one has said animals came from plants...but on the other "feeding and caring of a creationist" site, Oolon said:

“Oolon Colluphid

"Evolution, of course, says that every living thing shares a common ancestor"

"It is not even always possible to tell a plant from an animal."

"Here's a reasonable solution that Charles Darwin may have proposed: when an organism emerged from the primordial soup that was the early Earth's oceans, it started to eat that soup, absorbing the abundance of prebiotic molecules. One bacterium-sized organism cannot do much by itself, but since it gets well-fed, it can divide, with its two offspring becoming hungry soup-eaters, which in turn divide, until they eat up the Earth's accumulated prebiotic molecules and eat any new such molecules as fast as they are formed.
Thus, the first reasonably competent organism to emerge blocks off the emergence of any others -- and becomes the ancestor of all the life that came later. “
(end quotes)

Part of the debate was on a statement that said in essence that there can be no new life forms because the life forms already here prevents them from emerging...that the "pool of molecules" that the first life came from, couldn't exist today.

Here on this list, it has been admitted that perhaps it is possible, that the various forms of life came from separate, different ancestors (which was my point).
Ron

Kosh · 03-01-2002, 10:11 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bait:
Peez,
I haven't said I'll ignor evidence, but I might look at it from perhaps a different view. You said no one has said animals came from plants...but on the other "feeding and caring of a creationist" site, Oolon said:

Ron, weren't you the one who claimed that we
had genes identical to that of corn? So what is
your position? Do we share a common ancestor with
plants, or not? BTW, that common ancestor is
probably VERY VERY long ago, and VERY VERY
primitive. I think where you're getting confused
is Peez is saying that nobody thinks anything
that looks like a plant (as you would recognize
it today) evolved into an animal, etc.

Bait · 03-01-2002, 10:22 AM

Faded Glory,
I'm wasn't aware there was something wrong with my formatting. Please explain what is wrong, and if I can, I will be more than happy to correct it.

[
>>>First of all, can you please do something about the formatting of your post? It makes my browser all queasy...

>>>OK, I admit I reacted in an unscientific way to Walt Brown's 'theory'. In fact, I had to pick myself up laughing...except that it is in fact very sad to see someone who must have some intelligence, waste so much time and effort on a totally hopeless case.

I freely admit that Mr. Brown's theory is probably way off base. When I first brought it up, it was in context with another argument. I had stated that there are several theories that say that a flood was possible, and that identified certain earth physical features as evidence. One was a theory (actually two related) that says that it is possible that at one time earth had rings of ice similar to saturns, that kept getting closer until finally it either became a canopy of water or it collapsed into the earth...causing the "heavens to open up". Related is a theory that earth had a canopy of water in the upper atmosphere...again that (because of whatever mechanism)collapsed into the earth. On the latter a scientist trying to prove it wrong, came up with calculations that determined that there would not have been enough water to support a world flood, but the possibility of a canopy of water was physically viable. However, it was also pointed out that it would also have had a greenhouse effect that would have been too hot to support life.
A third theory was where the earth's continental plates moved suddenly (instead of slowly), again caused by a mechanism such as a meteor, and the movement of the plates would have caused a displacement of oceans, etc...potentially causing a world flood, etc. Lastly I mentioned Mr. Brown's theory (which I didn't know whose it was at the time.) John asked me where that theory was...which is why I posted it. But since I was posting it, I was curious what the reactions would be. I expected a lot of his material to be shot down. I don't trust anyone who puts forth a "challenge" like he did (and his "rules" did not seem fair to me). So my next question would be "is there anything in his theory that may be viable from a geological standpoint?" But before you say just flat out "no"...I was hoping for an honest, unbiased appraisal.

One of the reasons I also posted it is because these 3 - 4 theories are the main ones that seem to be promoted currently by various groups. When I get into debates,especially with well educated folks like some on this list, many times I'm quoted what some "other" Christian, or YEC has stated...(we've heard that before when...)therefore I get lumped into and shot down because of something someone else said. When I first started debating on this forum, people kept trying to lump me with the "young earth" crowd...which I am not. I already know I don't need any help getting myself into trouble, I'm real good at that all by myself...thank you.

>>>I appreciate you want to learn. However, if you want to learn about geology, why do you come to a Web Forum?

It's not as much I want to learn geology, John and Patrick wanted to start a debate on flood geology, I accepted the challenge, but I admitted up front it's not my strong suit, and that I recognized I was probably being set up by those waaaay more versed at it than I. However, I like to learn, and debate...period. I don't mind getting nailed on occasion either. Kosh calls me a "wiggle bait" in fact. In the process I get to see where your arguments lie, and where you are coming from.

>>>Why not go to your local library and pick up some introductory texts? That's all you need to find out very quickly that Brown's ideas are not based on facts and data - unless, of course, you would be willing to believe that geology textbooks are written as part of a worldwide conspiracy to hide the evidence for creation....

Well, actually that is what I'm doing as well. I'm still getting clobbered (I'm gettin hit faster than I can look it up)...which is alright BTW. I don't believe in conspiracies such as that.

>>>Brown is on the level of a flat-earther. His theories share nothing with mainstream geology.
His 'facts' are wrong, his physics is laughable, his sources are 50-75 years out of date.

ok...

Do I need to refute a flat-earther? Do I need to tell you that the stage act where they saw a lady in half is just illusion?

No, you don't. But remember too that this gentleman has proposed this particular theory on national tv, in a manner that to the average layman it makes sense.

I have already giving you two samples of how easy it is to refute Brown. Both examples are sufficient to utterly demolish his theory. What more do you need?

If this was a scientific paper presented seriously for those of his peers, by a scientist that was not a "Creationist", would not his peers pick apart the points (as you have) that are incorrect, but then seriously look at the points that are correct, to determine if there is any viability? I was given an article recently concerning an experiment that "appeared" to prove that they could send light protons faster than the speed of light. However, it was pointed out that what they had apparently seen was an illusion, not necessarily fact. If the experiment had been successful, then at least part of Einsteins theory would be proven wrong, and the equation would have to be re-examined. I twould NOT mean Einsteins entire theory was incorrect.

I saw where at least two theories had been proposed, both having some similarities. I do not think either of them is entirely correct, but is there parts (possibly common)that could be correct?
Ron

Bait · 03-01-2002, 10:25 AM

John,
I don't believe the "debate challenge" is a valid challenge. I was only interested if some of the suppositions (such as the rapid movement of the continental plates)could be valid. I'm only interested in his theory...nothing else.
Ron

Quote:

Originally posted by John Solum:
Hi Ron,

Brown has claimed that no evolutionist will debate him. You can read about his debate challenge here:

<a href="http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/HomePage5.html#1141807" target="_blank">http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/HomePage5.html#1141807</a>

Here are a couple of quotations:

The ball has been in Brown's court for years, and he's chosen to do nothing.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-28-2002, 11:45 PM	#54
faded_Glory Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Cairo, Egypt Posts: 1,128	Bait, First of all, can you please do something about the formatting of your post? It makes my browser all queasy... OK, I admit I reacted in an unscientific way to Walt Brown's 'theory'. In fact, I had to pick myself up laughing...except that it is in fact very sad to see someone who must have some intelligence, waste so much time and effort on a totally hopeless case. I appreciate you want to learn. However, if you want to learn about geology, why do you come to a Web Forum? Why not go to your local library and pick up some introductory texts? That's all you need to find out very quickly that Brown's ideas are not based on facts and data - unless, of course, you would be willing to believe that geology textbooks are written as part of a worldwide conspiracy to hide the evidence for creation.... Brown is on the level of a flat-earther. His theories share nothing with mainstream geology. His 'facts' are wrong, his physics is laughable, his sources are 50-75 years out of date. Do I need to refute a flat-earther? Do I need to tell you that the stage act where they saw a lady in half is just illusion? I have already giving you two samples of how easy it is to refute Brown. Both examples are sufficient to utterly demolish his theory. What more do you need? fG

03-01-2002, 09:37 AM	#57
Bait Regular Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Ohio Posts: 119	Peez, I haven't said I'll ignor evidence, but I might look at it from perhaps a different view. You said no one has said animals came from plants...but on the other "feeding and caring of a creationist" site, Oolon said: “Oolon Colluphid "Evolution, of course, says that every living thing shares a common ancestor" "It is not even always possible to tell a plant from an animal." "Here's a reasonable solution that Charles Darwin may have proposed: when an organism emerged from the primordial soup that was the early Earth's oceans, it started to eat that soup, absorbing the abundance of prebiotic molecules. One bacterium-sized organism cannot do much by itself, but since it gets well-fed, it can divide, with its two offspring becoming hungry soup-eaters, which in turn divide, until they eat up the Earth's accumulated prebiotic molecules and eat any new such molecules as fast as they are formed. Thus, the first reasonably competent organism to emerge blocks off the emergence of any others -- and becomes the ancestor of all the life that came later. “ (end quotes) Part of the debate was on a statement that said in essence that there can be no new life forms because the life forms already here prevents them from emerging...that the "pool of molecules" that the first life came from, couldn't exist today. Here on this list, it has been admitted that perhaps it is possible, that the various forms of life came from separate, different ancestors (which was my point). Ron

03-01-2002, 10:22 AM	#59
Bait Regular Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Ohio Posts: 119	Faded Glory, I'm wasn't aware there was something wrong with my formatting. Please explain what is wrong, and if I can, I will be more than happy to correct it. [ >>>First of all, can you please do something about the formatting of your post? It makes my browser all queasy... >>>OK, I admit I reacted in an unscientific way to Walt Brown's 'theory'. In fact, I had to pick myself up laughing...except that it is in fact very sad to see someone who must have some intelligence, waste so much time and effort on a totally hopeless case. I freely admit that Mr. Brown's theory is probably way off base. When I first brought it up, it was in context with another argument. I had stated that there are several theories that say that a flood was possible, and that identified certain earth physical features as evidence. One was a theory (actually two related) that says that it is possible that at one time earth had rings of ice similar to saturns, that kept getting closer until finally it either became a canopy of water or it collapsed into the earth...causing the "heavens to open up". Related is a theory that earth had a canopy of water in the upper atmosphere...again that (because of whatever mechanism)collapsed into the earth. On the latter a scientist trying to prove it wrong, came up with calculations that determined that there would not have been enough water to support a world flood, but the possibility of a canopy of water was physically viable. However, it was also pointed out that it would also have had a greenhouse effect that would have been too hot to support life. A third theory was where the earth's continental plates moved suddenly (instead of slowly), again caused by a mechanism such as a meteor, and the movement of the plates would have caused a displacement of oceans, etc...potentially causing a world flood, etc. Lastly I mentioned Mr. Brown's theory (which I didn't know whose it was at the time.) John asked me where that theory was...which is why I posted it. But since I was posting it, I was curious what the reactions would be. I expected a lot of his material to be shot down. I don't trust anyone who puts forth a "challenge" like he did (and his "rules" did not seem fair to me). So my next question would be "is there anything in his theory that may be viable from a geological standpoint?" But before you say just flat out "no"...I was hoping for an honest, unbiased appraisal. One of the reasons I also posted it is because these 3 - 4 theories are the main ones that seem to be promoted currently by various groups. When I get into debates,especially with well educated folks like some on this list, many times I'm quoted what some "other" Christian, or YEC has stated...(we've heard that before when...)therefore I get lumped into and shot down because of something someone else said. When I first started debating on this forum, people kept trying to lump me with the "young earth" crowd...which I am not. I already know I don't need any help getting myself into trouble, I'm real good at that all by myself...thank you. >>>I appreciate you want to learn. However, if you want to learn about geology, why do you come to a Web Forum? It's not as much I want to learn geology, John and Patrick wanted to start a debate on flood geology, I accepted the challenge, but I admitted up front it's not my strong suit, and that I recognized I was probably being set up by those waaaay more versed at it than I. However, I like to learn, and debate...period. I don't mind getting nailed on occasion either. Kosh calls me a "wiggle bait" in fact. In the process I get to see where your arguments lie, and where you are coming from. >>>Why not go to your local library and pick up some introductory texts? That's all you need to find out very quickly that Brown's ideas are not based on facts and data - unless, of course, you would be willing to believe that geology textbooks are written as part of a worldwide conspiracy to hide the evidence for creation.... Well, actually that is what I'm doing as well. I'm still getting clobbered (I'm gettin hit faster than I can look it up)...which is alright BTW. I don't believe in conspiracies such as that. >>>Brown is on the level of a flat-earther. His theories share nothing with mainstream geology. His 'facts' are wrong, his physics is laughable, his sources are 50-75 years out of date. ok... Do I need to refute a flat-earther? Do I need to tell you that the stage act where they saw a lady in half is just illusion? No, you don't. But remember too that this gentleman has proposed this particular theory on national tv, in a manner that to the average layman it makes sense. I have already giving you two samples of how easy it is to refute Brown. Both examples are sufficient to utterly demolish his theory. What more do you need? If this was a scientific paper presented seriously for those of his peers, by a scientist that was not a "Creationist", would not his peers pick apart the points (as you have) that are incorrect, but then seriously look at the points that are correct, to determine if there is any viability? I was given an article recently concerning an experiment that "appeared" to prove that they could send light protons faster than the speed of light. However, it was pointed out that what they had apparently seen was an illusion, not necessarily fact. If the experiment had been successful, then at least part of Einsteins theory would be proven wrong, and the equation would have to be re-examined. I twould NOT mean Einsteins entire theory was incorrect. I saw where at least two theories had been proposed, both having some similarities. I do not think either of them is entirely correct, but is there parts (possibly common)that could be correct? Ron

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.