RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (2) < [1] 2 >   
  Topic: FtK Walt Brown book thread., For the discussion between FtK and I< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 27 2007,15:22   

If this seems excessive, well get rid then.

So FtK, shall we continue the discussion of all that evidence in his book, and a few other things you mentioned. Now, in order to keep this civil, I vote that all comments should be on topic, and polite, from BOTH parties.

Whaddaya say?

For Wes.

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 27 2007,15:42   

Ian,

What would be the point of just you and I discussing these issues?  If you have a problem with something you find in the book, you'll need to get input from the others.  I don't mind reading what they have to say about Brown's stuff, and I try to just skim past the numerous troll comments.  But, there is no sense in me defending him.  His notes do that for him.  If you don't agree with his position...no biggie.  I've questioned him numerous times and have actually gone straight to the source on several occassions.  Perhaps that might be an option for you because I certainly don't have the education in science to pretend to be Brown and defend everything he's written.

I hope you don't think that I believe Brown's work to be "fact" and above all other theories out there.  I just enjoy reading his work because it is very thought provoking.

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 27 2007,15:43   

I didn't say it was just going to be us, but I figured this would be a good place to locate this discussion.

I don't think you accept it as fact, no, but I also fail to see what's so thought provoking.

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
jeannot



Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 27 2007,15:49   

Isn't Walt Brown the one who claims that continents diverged during the flood?

I see a major evidence against that, Ftk, if you are interested in the truth, not biblical literalism.

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 27 2007,15:51   

FTK, you've always said you wanted civil discussions, here's your chance. We've agreed we'll back off and play nice on this thread.

Go for it. Conditions should be ideal.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 27 2007,15:53   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ June 27 2007,15:51)
FTK, you've always said you wanted civil discussions, here's your chance. We've agreed we'll back off and play nice on this thread.

Go for it. Conditions should be ideal.

Quite. Indeed, while I'm certainly not going to allow this to become a just the two of us situation, I'm thinking the majority of people will be at least a bit more in the background. Hell, I bet even Lenny will agree to be restrained.

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 27 2007,16:01   

Good luck, Ian.

I'll even promise to stay out of this, since it is clear that she already knows "know where the conversation is going to end up". And so do I. It will end up with her ignoring civil questions until somebody gets uncivil.

If you ever do decide to answer those two questions I posed on various other threads (the ones about how your position re icefish is similar to that of a TE, and where in Campbell et. al you have found unwarranted "speculations"), you know where to find me.

Carry on.

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
Bing



Posts: 144
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 27 2007,16:04   

Quote (jeannot @ June 27 2007,15:49)
Isn't Walt Brown the one who claims that continents diverged during the flood?

Yep, I think he's the one.  IIRC AFDave used Brown as a source to explain the breakup of the continents in a day.  Only AFDoodles couldn't explain how North and South America racing away from Africa at 145 kilometers per hour would not have boiled all the water off the planet.

  
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 27 2007,16:31   

I'm surprised she hasn't joined in here, I mean, it's going to be civil, and if anyone does play up, then I'll ask politely for them to go away.

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 27 2007,16:48   

Ok, this made a whooshing sound as it went over my head:

Right handed?

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 27 2007,17:04   

Quote (IanBrown_101 @ June 27 2007,16:48)
Ok, this made a whooshing sound as it went over my head:

Right handed?

try wikipedia instead. Interesting stuff as it goes.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 27 2007,17:07   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ June 27 2007,17:04)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ June 27 2007,16:48)
Ok, this made a whooshing sound as it went over my head:

Right handed?

try wikipedia instead. Interesting stuff as it goes.

Cheers. I'll give it a go.

It's not too bad so far.

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 27 2007,17:28   

Quote
Hell, I bet even Lenny will agree to be restrained.


Sure. And if not, we can arrange for SteveStory to have him lightly tased, as the need arises.  :p

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 27 2007,17:55   

I'll just sit here and quietly giggle to myself.


Have at it.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Mike PSS



Posts: 428
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 27 2007,18:05   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ June 27 2007,18:04)
   
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ June 27 2007,16:48)
Ok, this made a whooshing sound as it went over my head:

Right handed?

try wikipedia instead. Interesting stuff as it goes.

Although a final explanation is in "dispute" as the Wiki article claims there is no direct issue regarding the chirality of biologic systems OR in organic chemical synthesis involving chiral forms.

Brown's personal increduality not withstanding.  Brown presents some paragraphs of actual, factual statements interspersed with some doozies.
   
Quote
FROM WALT BROWNS REFERENCED PAPER.
If the first nucleotides formed by natural processes,they would have “mixed-handedness” and therefore could not evolve life’s genetic material. {wrong, there exist organic chemistry reactions that have shown that chiral molecules can be selectively formed}
...
No known natural process can isolate either the left-handed or right-handed variety.  The mathematical probability that chance processes could produce merely one tiny protein molecule with only left-handed amino acids is virtually zero. {wrong; there exists chiral molecules whose L- and D- melting temperatures are different, also solubility, also reactivity with other molecules;  QED}
...
Because sugars in living things are right-handed, random natural processes apparently did not produce life. {wrong, see above}
...
Because evolution favors slight variations that enhance survivability and reproduction, consider how beneficial a mutation might be that switched (or inverted) a plant’s handedness. {strawman; chirality is hard-wired into the fundamental chemical pathways of all life (possibly since the first lifeform), a single or even multiple mutation could not "switch" an organisms handedness}


I'm sure if pressed I could produce documentation that supports my rebuttals of Brown.  But I'm not sure I'm writing this to "prove" Brown is wrong.  Only to show that someone like myself has been exposed to numerous scientific papers and books that contain these rebuttal points.  And if I, a lowly engineer, has this knowledge then I find it VERY interesting that Walt Brown has NOT considered all these contradictory facts in his write-up.

Almost every page of Brown's book represents a lack of professional scholorship.  There is little or no effort from Brown (and many other creationist authors) to address ALL the facts that exist.  It's fine for someone to say "I don't know." but for some reason on certian subjects all we get from creationist authors is "It must be this way regardless of what the science says."

Now why do they take that stance?

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 27 2007,18:21   

Quote (Mike PSS @ June 27 2007,18:05)
 
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ June 27 2007,18:04)
       
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ June 27 2007,16:48)
Ok, this made a whooshing sound as it went over my head:

Right handed?

try wikipedia instead. Interesting stuff as it goes.

Although a final explanation is in "dispute" as the Wiki article claims there is no direct issue regarding the chirality of biologic systems OR in organic chemical synthesis involving chiral forms.

Brown's personal increduality not withstanding.  Brown presents some paragraphs of actual, factual statements interspersed with some doozies.
       
Quote
FROM WALT BROWNS REFERENCED PAPER.
If the first nucleotides formed by natural processes,they would have “mixed-handedness” and therefore could not evolve life’s genetic material. {wrong, there exist organic chemistry reactions that have shown that chiral molecules can be selectively formed}
...
No known natural process can isolate either the left-handed or right-handed variety.  The mathematical probability that chance processes could produce merely one tiny protein molecule with only left-handed amino acids is virtually zero. {wrong; there exists chiral molecules whose L- and D- melting temperatures are different, also solubility, also reactivity with other molecules;  QED}
...
Because sugars in living things are right-handed, random natural processes apparently did not produce life. {wrong, see above}
...
Because evolution favors slight variations that enhance survivability and reproduction, consider how beneficial a mutation might be that switched (or inverted) a plant’s handedness. {strawman; chirality is hard-wired into the fundamental chemical pathways of all life (possibly since the first lifeform), a single or even multiple mutation could not "switch" an organisms handedness}


I'm sure if pressed I could produce documentation that supports my rebuttals of Brown.  But I'm not sure I'm writing this to "prove" Brown is wrong.  Only to show that someone like myself has been exposed to numerous scientific papers and books that contain these rebuttal points.  And if I, a lowly engineer, has this knowledge then I find it VERY interesting that Walt Brown has NOT considered all these contradictory facts in his write-up.

Almost every page of Brown's book represents a lack of professional scholorship.  There is little or no effort from Brown (and many other creationist authors) to address ALL the facts that exist.  It's fine for someone to say "I don't know." but for some reason on certian subjects all we get from creationist authors is "It must be this way regardless of what the science says."

Now why do they take that stance?

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.  

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. ;)

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 27 2007,18:26   

Quote (Ftk @ June 27 2007,18:21)
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 credulity.

Maybe it's not that so much as the lack of Consilience. If some of the things in that book really did happen there would be consequences we could check today and see for ourselves.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 27 2007,19:10   

Quote
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.


1.  Everyone is expected to provide proof (no scare quotes, just normal everyday proof) and take all of the facts (not just the scare quoted ones) into consideration.

2.  Creationists have provided no proof and barely any content to anything at all.  For example, the many questions you have waiting for you:  how did the Egyptians survive the flood? (silence), why didn't the water boil away in the 60mph continental drift? (silence), etc.  This is what is meant by taking into consideration all of the facts.  Many facts have to be ignored in order to champion these theories.  If you have evidence, we'll all say rah and give you awards.

3.  Creationists often pose questions that do not rely on known facts (like the above things).  Creationist questions are almost entirely those of incredulity.  They have no (as yet) testable premises or predictions.  These questions are of the "Hey, what pathway did abiogenesis take?"

"I don't know yet" is a perfectly valid answer to these types of questions.  Indeed, if we give it some time, we might find the answer.  There is a qualitative difference between these types of questions and the "what happened to the Egyptians" kind.

Sorry, Ian, carry on, but I thought that Ftk's thought process should be pointed out to her.

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
Henry J



Posts: 5758
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 27 2007,20:47   

Re "ALL the facts that exist",

Not all the facts, just the ones that contradict the claim(s) being made.

Henry

  
Mike PSS



Posts: 428
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 27 2007,22:34   

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.  

Ftk,
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.

Quote
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. ;)

Interesting.
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.

  
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 28 2007,13:56   

Quote (Mike PSS @ June 27 2007,23:34)
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).

Mike, where did that get documented?  IIDB?  Could you post a link please?  I can't keep track of where all of these discussions are anymore.

--------------
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)
Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

  
Mike PSS



Posts: 428
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 28 2007,14:14   

Quote (improvius @ June 28 2007,14:56)
Quote (Mike PSS @ June 27 2007,23:34)
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).

Mike, where did that get documented?  IIDB?  Could you post a link please?  I can't keep track of where all of these discussions are anymore.

To All,
Here's my summary of the phone conversation between AFDave, R.H.Brown and myself.
Link to summary at RD.net
Read forward a page or so to see reactions and Dave's short summary.

It's unfortunate we couldn't tape the whole thing, but this covers most of the pertinent points.

EDIT:
Improvious.  I see you've kept that classic sig from Dave.  I've been picking up about one every few weeks from Dave.  Here's my latest from his Dendro debate comment thread at RD.net.
Quote
If you think "winning" this debate means pulling the black tarp off the termite infested wooden foundation of the House of Dendro so that all can see it in the light of day, then yes, by all means, BWE is winning. - afdave1

Hahahahahahahahahaha!!!!

  
RF Brady



Posts: 30
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 28 2007,16:05   

Quote (IanBrown_101 @ June 27 2007,15:22)
If this seems excessive, well get rid then.

So FtK, shall we continue the discussion of all that evidence in his book, and a few other things you mentioned. Now, in order to keep this civil, I vote that all comments should be on topic, and polite, from BOTH parties.

Whaddaya say?

Ian,
I don't know if anybody else has mentioned this before (I have just started visiting here) but this whole discussion has occured on the old KCFS boards. Beginning in June of 2005 and continuing for some time at http://www.kcfs.org/ubb....#000002 . Just thought you'd like to know. BTW, hi FTK.

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 28 2007,16:17   

Quote (RF Brady @ June 28 2007,16:05)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ June 27 2007,15:22)
If this seems excessive, well get rid then.

So FtK, shall we continue the discussion of all that evidence in his book, and a few other things you mentioned. Now, in order to keep this civil, I vote that all comments should be on topic, and polite, from BOTH parties.

Whaddaya say?

Ian,
I don't know if anybody else has mentioned this before (I have just started visiting here) but this whole discussion has occured on the old KCFS boards. Beginning in June of 2005 and continuing for some time at http://www.kcfs.org/ubb....#000002 . Just thought you'd like to know. BTW, hi FTK.

Thanks RF. Interesting stuff indeed. For example:

FTK
Quote
Walt Brown has asked me to thank Eric Burkhardt


So, FTK, I don't believe you've mentioned that you know Brown! Do you get a % of the hits you bring to his website? :) (don't answer that btw, last time I made a quip like that you responsed to that and that alone!)

Well it's news to me anyhow that you know him. That "book" has already been torn to shreds once alredy it appears, from glancing at that thread.

Just 1 question then FTK, one little tiny morsel of a question.

How many times has Browns Book been revised by Brown in response to new findings?

You can ask him if you like. Is there a changelog perhaps?
Nothing controversial there huh? Just a simple question, the answer is a number, I mean, there's nothing to get worked up about there right?

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 28 2007,17:52   

Quote (Ftk @ June 27 2007,18:21)
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. ;)

Mrs FtK, are you trying to seduce me?

Well, I'll certainly consider confronting him if I feel if he's lied, and I do, but I would be interested in finishing the book first, so I can do one big conversation rather than a few small ones.

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 28 2007,21:31   

Hi Brady.  

What's the problem...is it getting boring over there at kcfs?

Honey, I've posted that Brown link here at least twice now.  

Oldmanintheskydidn'tdoit, you've been keeping up with my posts, so what's your problem?  Obviously, from that link (which, again, *I* posted here before Brady did), you must realize that it was a debate thread that lasted over 3 months.  OBVIOUSLY, I talked with Brown throughout that time period.  Hell, I set the thing up with him for goodness sakes.

I've also stated several times that I've called him in the past to question him about various issues in his book.  

No, I don't know him personally.  I've only had phone and email conversations with him.  I get absolutely nothing by suggesting to others to read his work, and everything is on-line for all to read (free of charge).  

The reason I suggest his stuff, as I've said a million times before, is that I believe it is THOUGHT PROVOKING.  Other creationists have not put together such a comprehensive outline in regard to the issues in this debate (to my knowledge).  

You wrote:
Quote
How many times has Browns Book been revised by Brown in response to new findings?


At the start of the debate he mentioned in a post that if anyone found errors, he would certainly like to know about it and would make changes if necessary.  Personally, I believe that is the honest thing to do, don't you?

I remember at least twice where he did make changes...usually only a word or two for clarity.  Once it REALLY pissed someone off that he made a change, and to this day, I'm not sure why he was so thoroughly livid because one would think that if there was something in his work that was wrong or unclear, it should be changed.

Another person pointed out something that was unclear and Brown changed it as well.  That particular person told me privately that he was impressed that Brown changed the wording when it was pointed out.

Crap, now Dave is going to go off the deep end because I've answered a few questions here without pulling out his biology textbook and making an itemized list of speculative information contained within it.  

I'm going to be in big trouble for that... :(

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 28 2007,21:47   

actually FTK i think you'd satisfy everyone involved if you'd just tackle the icefish question.  for the love of baby jesus on the cross.  i really don't care if you haven't ever read Hurlbert 1984 or whatever.  i've met other idiot savants.  we are curious as to how you have somehow distinguished yourself from all the TE's.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 28 2007,22:04   

I answered Dave's question about the icefish...  

Microev. = supported by empirical science....common descent = loony speculation.

Ftk = microev....  TE's = loony speculation.

fish are fish...microev.

fish can adapt...microev.

fish evolves into a one legged jackrabbit...looney speculation.  

[please, oh please be aware that the last line in this post was sarcasm.  Yes, I realize that fish and rabbits are not on the same branch of the evo tree...they are merely long, long lost cousins.]

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 28 2007,22:09   

Quote (Ftk @ June 28 2007,22:04)
I answered Dave's question about the icefish...  

Microev. = supported by empirical science....common descent = loony speculation.

Ftk = microev....  TE's = loony speculation.

fish are fish...microev.

fish can adapt...microev.

fish evolves into a one legged jackrabbit...looney speculation.  

[please, oh please be aware that the last line in this post was sarcasm.  Yes, I realize that fish and rabbits are not on the same branch of the evo tree...they are merely long, long lost cousins.]

Quote

Microev. = supported by empirical science....common descent = loony speculation.


And you have no trouble believing Noah's ark. Wow.

Should've stayed in school, hon.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 28 2007,22:27   

I did stay in school, luv.

And, as I've stated in the past, Noah's ark has nothing on the fairytale mystical world of common descent.

Oh, look!  Out of the primordial ooze there arose from thin air a tiny little microbe making it's way out of the lovely ooziness.  Dang, that little microbe is growing a tale...or something.  Now it's mystically dividing and producing little minimicrobes!  Far out.  All of a sudden something happens...why, it's a mutation!!  Then the almighty natural selection works on that little rascal until he is better suited for his environment than his little brothers and sisters.  This beautiful little story rolls on until something as intricate as the human brain arrives on the scene.  

From *nothing* to a universe of expansive complexity beyond anything that we can imagine or even come close to completely understanding, and the *illusion* of design is everywhere.

Amazing...I don't know of any fairytales that beat that one.

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
  35 replies since June 27 2007,15:22 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (2) < [1] 2 >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]