The God-Did-It Theory (was ... 10th Planet)

Good morning Dangus.

You obviously have not read much of the book or you would know that Dr. Brown received his doctorate from MIT (Don't believe they have a special ed. class there), and that the Bible is the basis for his theory, but it is not the science or evidence behind the theory. He makes much use of something called physics. Ever heard of it?

It's nice the Tom has all his ducks in a row, but Mr. Burford indicated that there were certian critera that EVERYONE must meet if they are to post in this forum. I'm sure he was not singling me out... I did not see anyone asking the gentleman who suggested that lightning carved the Grand Canyon to submit his testable data. In fact, there would not be much posting going on if everyone had to explain how the were going to test their far out theories, now would there?

Romans 1:25 "They exchanged the truth of God for a lie..."

By Unworthy1's own logic, since God told us everything in the Bible, any thoughts by Dr. Brown are unnecessary and even uncalled for.

This is a forum where mortal human beings can post their speculations - which can be challenged on the basis of logic, reason, non-contradiction. The level playing field is the axiom of proof positive. Substituting God for evidence is not valid.


Gregg Wilson

Brown's doctorate, according to his own website, is in mechanical engineering. His ideas seem generally similar to those of Henry Morris, who was also an engineer. The link between engineering and creationism or "ID" is well documented. Also, it's worth noting that creationism is not a monolithic idea; many creationists hold that the earth is anywhere from tens of thousands to billions of years old.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Unworthy1</i>

I'm sure he was not singling me out... I did not see anyone asking the gentleman who suggested that lightning carved the Grand Canyon to submit his testable data.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Um, did you even read the responses to the suggestion that the Grand Canyon was created by an electrical discharge? I posted a quite lengthy response on why the idea isn't feasible. Others have been less kind to that particular theory, which has been brought up repeatedly by a poster on this webforum.

While I do think it's uncalled for to harass someone about little details of every little thing they say, such a sweeping theory as that does warrant much scrutiny. Meta Model also warants much scrutiny, because what it suggests is very sweeping and refers to fundementals of our universe. If one were to come on here and say "Tacos are better than hamburgers" I doubt people would find that worth seeking clarification. There's a big step from questioning that to questioning Dr. Brown.

Anyway, you clearly are not listening to what I am saying. Dr. Brown, regardless of where he got his PhD, is not correctly citing the ideas which he is badmouthing. One cannot expect to be taken seriously when saying something like "Evolution is wrong" when you aren't even able to explain what evolutionists actually believe.

The main reason I bring this up in this thread, despite how much it has deviated from the point at hand(10th planet), is that you are doing the exact same thing with Meta Model. You don't even know in detail what Mr. Van Flandern suggests, you don't know why he suggests it, and you don't know what he cites for it, and what he cites may be against it. It's akin to saying your car finished first, regardless of where you actually placed in th race, because you're not counting any other drivers.

If you're going to say Tom is wrong, at least bother learning his position.

---

"Regret can only change the future" -Me

"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." Frank Herbert, Dune 1965

[unworthy1] "If you can show me that everyone else here is abiding by the same criteria you have just said that I should follow, I will comply."

Fortunately that isn't the way things work here. If it were you and several others would already be history. Each offender is unique, and even for the same offender each offense is unique. And of course there are other considerations that can lead to rejecting or keeping a post even if it does or does not comply.

These decisions are built by hand, on an ad hoc basis (*). We try, but do not guarantee, to be fair.

===

Being kooks ourselves, we tend to treat other kooks differently (better on average, I'm pretty sure) than most science sites. But we do have rules and limits. Some posters test these rules and push the limits from time to time for various reasons. And that's fine because even stuff that is eventually going to result in a deletion can be interesting and educational.

===

In fairness you actually have tried to make some evidence based arguments. But the evidence you have presented so far has been spectacularly unimpressive. Supporters of GDIT (the God Did It Theory) seem in general to not understand about evidence. We really don't care who is responsible. We want to know what happens, and how it works.

We want to understand how the world came to be so screwed up, not find someone to blame for it.


Good luck,
LB

(*) Perhaps this needs to change? If a post doesn't contain at least one astronomy word, or if it does contain certain words like "god", it is automatically deleted.

Astrodelugeologist,

I'm thinking about changing the name of this thread, since it has taken off on such an off topic tangent. Do you object?

===

I have in mind something along the lines of "The God Did It Theory"

===

To All,

Comments about this proposed course of action are solicited.


LB