Dr. Walt Brown on Evolution

[Jefferson]

Dr. Walt Brown on Evolution

This is the show from Monday January 8th, 2007.

SUMMARY:

* Favorite Scientist: Here at BEL, Dr. Walt Brown is our favorite scientist. He wrote In the Beginning, a best-selling book on creation and the global flood. Brown authored the Hydroplate Theory, which explains 25 major features of the earth and its environment, and he's made many specific predictions that have come true, and his current book contains 36 others, many based upon his Hydroplate Theory, that the global flood resulted after the earth's crust broke open, and released water from a subterranean sea beneath the earth's crust. Walt Brown received a Ph.D. from MIT, has taught science at the U.S. Air Force Academy, and was Chief of Science and Technology Studies at the Air War College.

* Can Life Begin By Chance: Bob and Walt Brown discuss complexity, information, and what reproduction means to evolution.

* Can a Leg Evolve into a Wing: Regarding survival of the fittest, with the force of a sledge hammer, natural selection would obliterate any reptile species whose leg started to evolve into a wing, because it would have very bad legs long before it had good wings.

* Evidence Against Millions of Years: C-14 appears in everything tested that is "millions of years old;" today's bacteria is just like that from "220-million year-old" amber, and living bacteria has been found in "million-year-old" fossilized bees; the continents would erode in 25 million years, yet "far-older" fossils are in the mountains; the Earth is missing billions-of-years worth of missing volcanic matter; the Earth is missing millions of years worth of impacts, since meteorites have only hit shallow strata. Etc.

* Tune in Tomorrow: To hear Dr. Brown discuss his Hydroplate Theory. On Day Two, God created the Earth's crust, the firmament, to separate the waters below (a worldwide subterranean sea) from the waters above (surface water). The global flood occurred when the Earth's crust broke and "the fountains of the great deep broke forth," and the mid-Oceanic ridge is one relic of that catastrophe.

Today's Resource: Order this week and get an autographed copy of Dr. Walt Brown's fabulous book, In the Beginning! Order by clicking the link, or calling us at 800-8Enyart (800 836-9278)!

 

[Jukia]

I am listening to this in bits and pieces so perhaps the good Dr. and the good Pastor explain a little later but it seems to me to be more creationist fluff.

First Pastor E states that evolutionist claim that certain organs or limbs develop because there is some "need" and then natural selection works. Not sure that evolution posits that organs or limbs develop because there is a "need". Perhaps he can provide a cite for that statement.

And then Dr. B, when describing macroevolution, the evolution of legs to wings, scales to feathers or the evolution of the heart from 1 to 2 to 3 to 4 chambers, claims that this has never been observed and despite the fact that there have been "all sorts of experiments trying to cause it to happen". Can the good Dr. provide us with citations to the scientific literature to at least several of these experiments.

I'll try to listen to the rest of the show during the day, in the meantime, perhaps someone could ask Dr. Brown and Pastor Enyart for some backup to their claims.

 

[Jukia]

Just finished listening to this. Can Dr. Brown or Pastor Enyart provide me with more information concerning the 1 mile deep sedimentary layer all around the earth as stated by Pastor Enyart? I live in Connecticut and would appreciate any info you could provide me to support that claim here in CT.
Thanks ever so much.

 

[Stripe]

First Pastor E states that evolutionist claim that certain organs or limbs develop because there is some "need" and then natural selection works. Not sure that evolution posits that organs or limbs develop because there is a "need". Perhaps he can provide a cite for that statement.

I think the point is that evolution claims organisms have definitely gone from point A (no arms) to point B (with arms). Given this assumption, referring to the process as derived from a 'need' or derived from an 'accident' is utterly irrelevant. Evolution claims it has happened therefore it is incumbent upon evolution to demonstrate the viability of such a process.

It's funny that whenever a creationist says 'need' an evolutionists will counter 'chance' and whenever a creationist says 'accident' the evolutionist will posit 'need'.

 

[Jukia]

While we are on the subject of the mile of sediments laid down by The Flood, can Pastor Bob point to info on such mile thick layer of sediments on Mt. Everest, or, closer to home, in the Rockies. Thanks.

And, perhaps Dr. Brown can provide a cite to the statement regarding 1 cubic mile of vocanic output per year. Thanks one more time.

 

[GuySmiley]

Walt Brown visited my church when I lived in C Springs in 96 or 97ish. That was the first time I heard anyone speak against evolution and millions of years. I thought to myself, you know, in school when I was taught all that, no one ever bothered to prove it, they just said it. In chemistry and physics we have labs, but in biology we just get to see a picture of a bunch of apes transmogrifying into a person. I bought 3 copies of In the Beginning and gave 2 away.

 

[Jukia]

Walt Brown visited my church when I lived in C Springs in 96 or 97ish. That was the first time I heard anyone speak against evolution and millions of years. I thought to myself, you know, in school when I was taught all that, no one ever bothered to prove it, they just said it. In chemistry and physics we have labs, but in biology we just get to see a picture of a bunch of apes transmogrifying into a person. I bought 3 copies of In the Beginning and gave 2 away.

Thats all you got to "see" in biology? Then your education is lacking.

 

[GuySmiley]

Thats all you got to "see" in biology? Then your education is lacking.

I also got to see the inside of a frog, a cell in a microscope, and more. But I never got to see an iguana grow wings. That would've been cool!

Oh, and I did go to public school, so yes, my education was lacking.

 

[Bob Enyart]

Need vs Survival of the Fittest (aka Jukia vs Jukia)

Need vs Survival of the Fittest (aka Jukia vs Jukia)

Jukia,

It seems that when an evolutionist on TOL says, "Oh yeah, what evolutionist ever said that?" all you have to do is search their own posts for an example. That happened in a really funny way with Stratnerd right here in this forum.

See http://theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1187953&postcount=3 (and also post 5).http://theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1187953&postcount=3(and also post 5).

Perhaps these ideas might sound remotely, vaguely familiar to you:

1. Evolution is faster during times of great environmental upheaval, like after an asteriod impact, so that species can survive.

2. Giraffes evolved long necks because...

3. About 20 million biology textbooks have shown graphics of creatures jumping off tree branches trying to dine on flying insects, so they eventually grew wings to meet their nutritional needs.

4 - 6,728 ... etc., etc., etc.

I know it's all inane, but hey, it's evolution.

So, I just don't have the time to search your posts, Jukia, to find you saying what you've suggested no evolutionist has ever said, but it's happens so often (I know I only gave one example, that's because I only searched ONCE to find such an example), I wouldn't be surprised if you're guilty yourself. What a silly obfuscation you've offered. Ha! Ever hear of evolution being based upon survival of the fittest?

-Bob Enyart

 

[Granite]

http://gondwanaresearch.com/hp/walt_brown.htm

Anyone care to speak to this?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

http://gondwanaresearch.com/hp/walt_brown.htm

Anyone care to speak to this?

Looks real credible Granite. :chuckle:

 

[Granite]

Looks real credible Granite. :chuckle:

I could say the same thing about some of the links websites and sources trotted out here by people who disagree with me, too, but dismissing how it looks does not address the link's claims.

Anyone?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

I could say the same thing about some of the links websites and sources trotted out here by people who disagree with me, too, but dismissing how it looks does not address the link's claims.

Anyone?

Granite, go ask him yourself.

 

[Granite]

Granite, go ask him yourself.

That's fine. Does Brown post here at all and if not what's the means of getting in touch with him.

I would hope or think Enyart or someone else personally acquainted with the man would be able to address this. Kinda what I was shooting for.

 

[Bob Enyart]

Jukia requested a citation...

Jukia requested a citation...

Here's what Walt Brown said that Jukia questioned...

Macro-evolution involves increases in complexity, like a leg evolving into a wing, or scales evolving into a feather, or a one-chamber heart evolving from a who-knows-what, or a two-chamber heart evolving from a one chamber heart. ... That's [an example of] macro-evolution, and its never been observed, and there have been all sorts of experiments trying to cause it to happen.




​

Jukia asked Walt Brown to provide "citations to the scientific literature to at least several of these experiments."



Jukia, haven't you heard of decades of breeding experiments based upon Darwinian notions, experiments which have failed, with fruitflies, bacteria, etc., and breeding efforts to cross the barriers of a species, barriers which the breeders continually banged into and couldn't cross.


Since Walt doesn't post here, let me provide citations for him:

See:
1) 20th-century science
2) Late 19th-century science

-Bob Enyart

 

[Nathon Detroit]

That's fine. Does Brown post here at all and if not what's the means of getting in touch with him.

Go here.

I would hope or think Enyart or someone else personally acquainted with the man would be able to address this. Kinda what I was shooting for.

It's your issue Granite, not ours. Any knucklehead can make a website and say anything they want. If you want to give every Joe Schmoe credibility that's your prerogative. You should see some of the stuff people accuse me of! I am surprised there aren't websites dedicated to smearing me.

 

[Granite]

Go here.

It's your issue Granite, not ours. Any knucklehead can make a website and say anything they want. If you want to give every Joe Schmoe credibility that's your prerogative. You should see some of the stuff people accuse me of! I am surprised there aren't websites dedicated to smearing me.

Cool, thanks for the link.

I'm not giving this guy any credibility at all--I was curious to know if what he says is true, namely, that Brown has consistently refused to debate him. That's it. It struck me as one-sided which is why I asked if, for example, Enyart could shed light on this. Seemed like it was worth a shot, anyway.

I've been accused of being a Mossad agent and far worse on this place, so I can relate.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Here's what Walt Brown said that Jukia questioned...

Macro-evolution involves increases in complexity, like a leg evolving into a wing, or scales evolving into a feather, or a one-chamber heart evolving from a who-knows-what, or a two-chamber heart evolving from a one chamber heart. ... That's [an example of] macro-evolution, and its never been observed, and there have been all sorts of experiments trying to cause it to happen.


​

Jukia asked Walt Brown to provide "citations to the scientific literature to at least several of these experiments."


Jukia, haven't you heard of decades of breeding experiments based upon Darwinian notions, experiements which have failed, with fruitflies, bacteria, etc., and breeding efforts to cross the barriers of a species, barriers which the breeders continually banged into and couldn't cross.


Since Walt doesn't post here, let me provide citations for him:

See:
1) 20th-century science
2) Late 19th-century science

-Bob Enyart

:rotfl:

:first: POTD

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Cool, thanks for the link.

I'm not giving this guy any credibility at all--I was curious to know if what he says is true, namely, that Brown has consistently refused to debate him. That's it. It struck me as one-sided which is why I asked if, for example, Enyart could shed light on this. Seemed like it was worth a shot, anyway.

I've been accused of being a Mossad agent and far worse on this place, so I can relate.

Hey did you know that Bob refuses to debate people all the time?

Did you know that?

Do you know why?

Nevermind, we are getting way off topic.

 

[Granite]

Hey did you know that Bob refuses to debate people all the time?

Did you know that?

Do you know why?

Nevermind, we are getting way off topic.

I can imagine! What kills me is that he does so, yet people here who are told all the time to "Call Bob up if you disagree with him!" have equally valid reasons for not calling, either.

Sorry about the digression.