Hey Geno, thanks for responding and for the offer that if "any of those issues are unreasonable or groundless, please let me know..." Even with your concerns, I think if we press through this we can get a phone conversation between you and Walt Brown scheduled.
Please consider that he's the source, and you're the challenger. Walt is approaching 80 years old, and has a lot more research and writing that he hopes to accomplish, including getting out the major update of his book, the 9th edition (available now in draft as a pdf at rsr.org/9th-edition and online at creationscience.com). A written debate takes far more time and effort than a phone conversation. Your offer to debate Walt is directed at Walt Brown, that is, at one person. His offers for phone and written debates are open to the world, that is, to countless people. So, for direct interaction between you guys to happen, you would have to be a bit gutsy, and agree to the phone debate; and however it goes, I doubt it will kill you , and if you are mistreated, which I highly doubt would happen, you and others could point that out.
You have declined Dr. Brown's general offer to debate anyone (including you) because:
1) The issues I raise require a lot of calculations. For that reason, a written debate is much more suitable than a written one.
Bob: Countless debates occur regarding issues that at their base become extremely technical. (I've participated in such.) And I don't think that you're only willing to participate in a debate to end all debate. (That's not likely to happen , ever.) A verbal debate, by its more informal nature, may accomplish less, and may be less authoritative, but it also can help to focus opponents and any audience on where the real disagreements lie. Regarding your calculations, proponents, opponents, and audience members have the ability to encapsulate ideas. True, a verbal discussion is not the best forum for working through forumlas. However the discussion may very well illustrate how, if your calculations are accurate, that they thereby falsify the Hydroplate Theory. Alternatively, the discussion might show that your calculations, though they look impressive, are basically irrelevant. Some audience members may be able to discern from the conversation which of these possibilities, if either, is more likely the case. For many years Dr. Brown has been aware of the kinds of concerns that you are raising. If the discussion leads to the observation that if your calculations are correct, then Walt's theory is wrong, then that would certainly bring more attention to your claims. Even those of us at Real Science Radio would be digging into your specifics.
2) Since a lot of calculations would be necessary, it is likely there would be a need to do research in order to do some of them. A timed verbal format is not appropriate in that situation.
Bob: Please see 1.
3) Dr. Brown says he wishes to raise "related" matters, but has never disclosed what those matters are. While I am more than willing to engage him on the claims I make, I see no reason to debate matters not relevant to the issues I raise.
Bob: Walt's telephone offer doesn't require anyone willing to engage him to be ready to discuss irrelevant issues. He doesn't even require them to have read his whole book. Authors write books as a time-efficient way to make their case to a wider audience. Dr. Brown cannot take the time to personally teach those who challenge him the things that they may even readily agree to, which are already presented in his writing. Walt does require what I presented to you, that you've read Part II of his online book and the relevant Technical Notes.
4) Dr. Brown demands his opponent can be disqualified for not having done their "homework." It would be idiocy to accept a debate offer in which one could be disqualified for not having done his "homework" on undisclosed subjects... especially when those subjects may not be relevant to the claims made.
Bob: Please see 3.
5) My claims are narrowly focused. I will not submit myself to the possibility of being victimized by the "Gish Gallop."
Bob: Please see 3.
6) Dr. Brown says one of his reasons for refusing to engage a non-PhD in a written debate is to avoid claims of a mismatch should his opponent lose. Yet he has no hesitation in taking on such opponents in a verbal debate in which the mismatch would be more pronounced. No one has been able to explain this one.
Bob: Please see 1.
"...if you think any of those issues are unreasonable or groundless, please let me know which ones and why." Geno, I'm not saying that they're unreasonable. I am saying that they prevent you from having a conversation with Walt that might prove helpful. We're not at the U.N. here trying to avoid nuclear war. You're just challenging a theory on some technical grounds.
Please let me know if you will talk to Walt. Thanks piasano!