Joined: Sep. 2006
|Quote (Ftk @ June 27 2007,19:21)|
|It is interesting that creationists are always expected to provide "proof" and address "ALL the facts that exist", yet evolutionists fall back time and time again on the pat answer: "give it time...anything is possible over millions and millions of years". We're then told that we suffer from personal incredulity. |
You have it kind of backwards here. IIRC, the rebuttals I posted were already in the public domain when Brown published his work. Therefore Brown, when formalizing his hypothesis in his paper, did not account for the public domain information. Is this lazy scholorship, willful ignorance, or lack of proper research? I really don't know, and don't really care by the way.
The rebuttals of factual information speak for themselves and prove the weak scholorship of Brown's paper (no matter what reason). What seems to be your crutch is that Brown (or WAD, or Humphrey's, or any other creationist author) will always be correct in their scholorship no matter how old the published paper becomes. Why? Because the basis of these papers is the unchanging attitude of a literal bible; and we wouldn't want to prove a paper incorrect that has tried to explain the literal bible now would we.
Your reply above admits this fault with trying to deflect it to evolutionary papers. But the last time I checked any peer-reviewed paper in the past that has been shown to be at fault is now flagged with the most recent discovery. So a peer-reviewed published paper that for some reason overturns the conclusions of a past paper now holds precedence unless and until another paper comes along to discredit the present paper. The key here is peer-review, because the reviewers would not release the said paper unless the new conclusions that were found showed a clear refutation of the past papers conclusions.
That's how scientific progress works sometimes, by overturning past conclusions. But what you miss in your answer above is that the new conclusions incorporate all the factual evidence of the old paper plus any new evidence discovered. This is the essence of discovery, new evidence may require a new understanding of what is going on in the world.
|BTW, Ian, if you ever come across something that you believe is an outright lie, please consider confronting Brown yourself before making the assertion. He is always willing to explain his position further, and we can both carry on a discussion with him in a 3-way phone conversation. He has suggested that in the past. That might be kind of fun...I do have a thing for English accents. ;)|
I had a phone conference with AFDave, R.H.Brown (not Walt Brown by the way, this guy contributes to GRISDA) and myself about C14 dating. It turns out that R.H.Brown disagreed with Dave (and the RATE group) about nuclear decay in the past. R.H.Brown insists that nuclear decay has been invariant since creation. He also agrees that a lifeless earth may have existed for ?millions/billions? of years before creation week (where creation formed the ability of this universe to support life. Dave was taken aback with this stance and to this day still cannot come to some decision whether he agrees with R.H.Brown or RATE (who invoke Accellerated Nuclear Decay to explain radionucleide dating discrepencies in the past).
I warn you. You better have an open mind about your own beliefs and stances about the bible. You may find that your authority (Walt Brown) when pressed with specific questions to defend his stance, may invoke a belief that is troubling to you. Then you'll just have to make a choice you didn't anticipate, to agree with your authority or to disagree. It really has nothing to do with the facts but everything to do with your faith.