Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Darwin was not a scientist, not even a mathematician. Darwin followers are not following a man of science in any degree.
Quote:
Darwin's black box
By Michael J. Behe Book overview
... For decades science has been frustrated, trying to reconcile the astonishing discoveries of modern biochemistry to a nineteenth-century theory that cannot accommodate them.
Darwin didn't do math, couldn't have learned physics, and couldn't hold a candle to Dr Walter Brown. He also could not have held a debate with him and won. Dr Brown offers to debate anyone -see below.
...
Written Debate
The issue is: Does the scientific evidence favor creation or evolution? Dr. Brown’s standing offer for a strictly scientific, written, and publishable debate is on page 420. 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.) Dr. Brown has consistently maintained his position for 28 years: the debate should be limited to scientific evidence. If someone says, “Walt Brown has refused to debate,” we suggest you ask to see that person’s signed debate agreement.
Recorded Phone Debate
For anyone who disagrees with the hydroplate theory (explained in Part II of this book), the recorded phone debate is appropriate. Anyone, regardless of their scientific credentials, can engage Dr. Brown, provided they have read the theory. For details, see page 423
Darwin was not a scientist, not even a mathematician. Darwin followers are not following a man of science in any degree.
Why is that even an objection to you? Your list had many that were not scientists. Yet you had no objection to them being on the list. If you think there is this huge number of these "scientists", do you really want to compare numbers? Did you even realize that Michael Behe is an evolutionists, and fully acknowledges common descent?
How is that possible that Darwin did science? If you would like to see his research, it is published on the web.
Tit-for-tat is the name of the game, and I can play this game as long as needed to show your blind allegiance to a non-scientist who had no degree of significance in any thing of science or math, and who has been debunked by evolutionists, even.
Tit-for-tat is the name of the game, and I can play this game as long as needed to show your blind allegiance to a non-scientist who had no degree of significance in any thing of science or math, and who has been debunked by evolutionists, even.
What blind allegiance? What debunking are you talking about? I already commented on Behe fully acknowledging common descent. YOu are commenting on things you really don't know much about. Did you look at the link i gave you. Go through that and show me how it isn't scientific.
Tit-for-tat is the name of the game, and I can play this game as long as needed to show your blind allegiance to a non-scientist who had no degree of significance in any thing of science or math, and who has been debunked by evolutionists, even.
So you really don't really have an issue with Darwin not having a Ph.D in Biology, per se. You just play this tit for tat game, as you say, when credentials of creation scientists are called into question. However, there is a big difference. This is more an apples and chainsaws comparison and really doesn't warrant a tit for tat game. Creation scientists really bring it upon themselves. They will highly tout and parade their Ph.Ds as their basis of authority of their expertise and not from any peer review of any actual scientific work, to the layperson and thus should be automatically relied upon for what they claim, no matter if it was printed on sheepskin or toilet paper, without any peer review whatsoever of their claims. So when it is found out that their self-claimed basis of authority, a degree of some sort, at best in an unrelated field which they may vary well and do get published after going through the peer-review process, or at worst, fraudulent all together from a degree mill and not worth the paper it is written on, well there goes their basis of reliance. On the other hand Darwin, Einstein, etc, it is their actual work that is scutinized, peer reviwed, verified, and built upon, regardless of degrees.
Darwin was not a scientist, not even a mathematician. Darwin followers are not following a man of science in any degree.
Are you STILL harping this Strawman?
So what that Darwin had no degree except in Theology.
The rest of the scientific community of today, all with related degrees and years of formal education in those fields, all agree that Evolution is a proven theory and valid science.
I immediatly noticed that NO names were used at all, so there is NO way to verify Brown's claims that people have attempted to debate him, and refused on any grounds, including "religion". I aso note, in attempting to follow links to "recorded phone debates" that they are none available. This shows me one of two things. Either Brown's site isn;t well known enough, or more liekly he is a dishonest man and does not post debates in which he gets thoroughly PWNED.
Considering the laughability of his "arguments", I would guess it's the latter.
I immediatly noticed that NO names were used at all, so there is NO way to verify Brown's claims that people have attempted to debate him, and refused on any grounds, including "religion". I aso note, in attempting to follow links to "recorded phone debates" that they are none available. This shows me one of two things. Either Brown's site isn;t well known enough, or more liekly he is a dishonest man and does not post debates in which he gets thoroughly PWNED.
Considering the laughability of his "arguments", I would guess it's the latter.
If you want to take the challenge I can get you in touch with him, but you can do so for yourself.
Recorded Phone Debate
For anyone who disagrees with the hydroplate theory (explained in Part II of this book), the recorded phone debate is appropriate. Anyone, regardless of their scientific credentials, can engage Dr. Brown, provided they have read the theory. For details, see page 423
Quote:
What Is the Recorded and Transcribed Telephone Debate Offer?
The hydroplate theory, explained in this book, shows how a catastrophic, global flood rapidly produced 25 otherwise mysterious features of the earth and solar system. The theory also explains where all the flood water came from and where it went. (Failure to understand the flood led to the mistaken belief in evolution over billions of years.)
If you know any credible individuals who disagree with the hydroplate theory, but are unwilling to enter a written, publishable debate as explained on pages 420–422, here is their opportunity to show, before a potentially large audience, that they have a scientific case. This is also your opportunity to see if their criticisms have merit. Critics—with your urging, if necessary—should send an email to phonedebate@creationscience.com
(1) requesting a recorded telephone debate with Dr. Walt Brown and (2) stating that they have carefully read the entire hydroplate theory (Part II of In the Beginning and pertinent references and technical notes). Please include full name, address, phone and FAX numbers, present job, and academic credentials. No particular academic credentials are required.
Walt Brown is able to participate in a 60-minute conference-call debate once a month. The debate will be recorded by goconferencecall.com and will be available to anyone immediately afterward. The recording, in MP3 and WAV format (or its transcription), can be distributed—or broadcast—anywhere by anyone if done in its entirety. Participants may also record the call.
If more than one person wishes to debate Dr. Brown in a given month, the individual with the strongest scientific credentials will be selected. Participants will be notified at least one month before each conference call, and a mutually agreeable time for the call will be arranged. CSC will post a transcript and an audio version of each month’s phone debate at Center for Scientific Creation Podcasts Others can do the same at their websites. (As of this writing, no one has accepted this offer.)
A neutral debate moderator, jointly selected by both debaters, will be a debate instructor/coach from a randomly selected university or college in the United States. The conference call would begin with the moderator introducing both participants to the listening audience and summarizing the debate rules—namely, that all of the hydroplate theory has been read, and that no religion (only science) will be discussed. The “no religion” rule would be violated in this telephone exchange by
referring to religious writings, such as the Bible or the Qur’an,
ridiculing a deity or religious belief, or
using a religious writing to support a scientific claim. However, using scientific evidence to reach a conclusion that happens to correspond to a religious writing would not be a violation.
After introducing the two debaters, the moderator will ask the hydroplate critic two questions:
Is it correct that you have read the entire hydroplate theory?
What is your first criticism of the theory?
Then Dr. Brown will respond and the discussion will begin. The moderator’s role is primarily to listen to the exchange, not to interview participants. If necessary, the moderator will intervene or edit out statements about religion or unprofessional comments (yelling, repeated interruptions, etc.) and will ensure that both sides have approximately the same speaking time and questioning opportunities.
If, in the moderator’s opinion, the hydroplate critic has not carefully read all of the theory, as previously stated, the moderator will end the conference call. Obviously, a debater’s credibility falls apart if it becomes clear that he has not read what he is criticizing. Also, the breadth of the hydroplate theory—purportedly explaining the origin of mountains, volcanoes, earthquakes, coal, oil, the Grand Canyon, ocean basins, the ice age, the frozen mammoths, the rapid drift of the continents, fossil sorting, layered strata, earth’s inner and outer core, earth’s magnetic field, comets, meteorites, asteroids, and dozens of otherwise strange features on earth—makes a thorough reading even more imperative. The events that formed each feature relate to and support those that formed all other features—and a global flood. (Dr. Brown will be happy to read before the debate any of the critic’s specific, written objections to the hydroplate theory.) If complex issues are raised, a follow-on debate could be scheduled for a future month with written exchanges occurring in the interim.
Note: Part II of this book, pages 104-316, explains the hydroplate theory. Scientific information in other parts of the book, such as the Technical Notes, also relates to the theory. All are referenced in Part II. A 170-word summary of the hydroplate theory is on page 47, and a one-chapter summary of the theory begins on page 106. Almost all critics of the hydroplate theory have not read the theory, choose to be anonymous, will not put their science to the test before Dr. Brown (as he will before them), or are scientifically uninformed.
Reading back over this thread, I was wondering how those explanations are coming along.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
