Jump to content


Photo

A Rain Of Fire And Brimstone From Brown

flood hydroplate brown asteroid meteor comet noah

  • Please log in to reply
465 replies to this topic

#1 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,717 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 31 October 2013 - 09:43 PM

A couple days ago, I was researching refutations of Dr. Walt Brown's hydroplate theory and happened to get a hit on a message in this forum.  It was the first message of the "Dr. Walt Browns Hydroplate Theory Returning Material" of a couple years ago.
 
To my surprise, the subject was a "back of the envelope" calculation I had done on Walt Brown's Hydroplate model titled "A Rain of Fire and Brimstone from Brown."  There are multiple ways in which Brown's model would destroy all life on the planet and this analysis focused on just one of them.
 
As an advance note....   contrary to Dr. Brown's claims, I do understand the relevant physics and refrigeration effects.  At the urging of a third party, I contacted Brown in an attempt to arrange a debate on my claims.  Unfortunately, that effort was unsuccessful.  If a debate would have taken place, refrigeration would have been about the worst defense Brown could have offered.  There's a reason we don't air condition our houses with 700F water. 
 
My "Fire and Brimstone" work was written in three layers of increasing technical difficulty.  It dealt with one of the consequences of Brown's claim that the meteors, asteroids, and comets originated from Earth in what amounts to a huge steam explosion.  The first layer consists of an overview and some of the results.  Here it is:
 
 
Brown's Hydroplate Model includes sending all of the  asteroids and comets to space as the result of a huge rip in Earth's crust and  the
release of pressure from boiling super hot water that is stored 10  miles below the surface.  This will also send up a lot of material  that doesn't reach orbit.  As this material falls back to Earth, it  will reach an average velocity of over 12,000 mph.  The heat from  friction with the air during reentry will boil every drop of water on the  planet.... ten times over.

Even if Brown's launch mechanism has an extremely high 90+%  efficiency, there is still enough heat from friction to boil every  drop of water on the planet.

Of course, all life will cease to exist long before the heat has boiled  away all the Earth's water.  What will be observed isn't some kind of  cooling rain, it will be a rain of fire and brimstone.
  

A little more technical detail:
First, the orbits of the asteroids are all wrong to have the Earth as their starting point.  If Earth were the source of the asteroids, their  orbits would cross Earth's orbit.  Few asteroids have "earth crossing"  orbits.  Nearly all are in orbit around the sun between Jupiter and  Mars.

Brown's model sends over 3 million trillion tons of material to  space.  Brown says his launch mechanism is "inefficient".  If we  give him 50% efficiency (which is pretty good), then for every pound of material  that escapes the planet, another pound will be launched but will not have  the speed to escape Earth's gravity and will fall back to the surface.  By  splitting the difference between escape velocity (over 25,000 mph) and zero, the  average velocity of the returning material will be 12,500 mph.  It  will be a little less than this when it reaches the top of the atmosphere,  but it will still be traveling at well over 12,000  mph. 

At least 75% of the returning material will be rock.  Much of it will  be small particles the size of a grain of sand or a pebble, but some will be the size of a golf ball, some will be the size of an SUV, some will be the size of a locomotive, some will be the size of an aircraft carrier, and some will be the  size of Manhattan.  When this material falls back to the top of  the atmosphere at over 12,000 mph, it will have a lot of energy that will ultimately be absorbed by the atmosphere as (friction) heat ... or make a  big smoking hole in the ground on impact.

Because most of the falling material will be rock and it will have enough energy to boil the oceans many times.  What would be seen is a rain of fire and brimstone.

 



#2 cheeseburger

cheeseburger

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 324 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • (private)
  • Atheist
  • Western Canada

Posted 01 November 2013 - 03:01 PM

Is the rain of fire and brimstone a reference to Sodom and Gomorrah?  I have heard it argued that the popularity of allusions to fire and brimstone in Revelation might have been inspired by the eruption of Vesuvius in AD 79.



#3 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,717 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 01 November 2013 - 08:11 PM

It's not a reference to Sodom and Gomorrah specifically.  The term "fire and brimstone" is often used to refer to the punishments of hell.   When I used it, I was thinking of how the Hydroplate model would make Earth into a hellish place how the falling material would look like a rain of fire, the way volcanic eruptions do at night.

 

When I first heard of Dr. Brown's claims, he was talking about an energy release of 5 billion hydrogen bombs.  That was at a time when we were worried about extinction from a few thousand.  At the time I did the "Fire and Brimstone" analysis, that was up to 1,500 trillion.  The most recent number is 1,800 trillion.

 

That's 1,800,000,000,000,000.  If they are spaced out evenly over the planet, it would be more than 40 hydrogen bombs in the area of a bedroom in 40 days.  Picture this.... 66,000 hand grenades a second going off in your bedroom for 40 days and 40 nights.  What would your chances of survival be?

 

Brown can get rid of 99.999995% of the energy from his really big steam explosion any way he wants.  If the remaining 0.000005% gets into the atmosphere, it will heat air temperatures above the boiling point of water. 

 

( I hope we can all agree an atmospheric temperature above the boiling point of water would not be survivable.)



#4 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,717 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 01 November 2013 - 09:00 PM

Here is the second part of the "Fire and Brimstone" analysis.  The third part contains all the calculations. 


Some Q and A:

 


Q:  Why can't this heat simply be radiated to space?


A:  It can.  The problem is that Brown says the launch phase  of his model is over in only 40 days.  In order to radiate that much energy  to space in only 40 days, the atmosphere would need to have an average  temperature of over
7700F.  Even if we allow the entire time frame of  Brown's model (150 days) the average temperature of the atmosphere would  need to be over 5400F. 

 

From space, Earth would glow with about the color  of the star Betelgeuse.
 

 

Q:  Won't this material cool in space and help cool the surface as it returns?


A.  It will cool in space.  But, even if it cools to the lowest  temperature possible (absolute zero), it will still heat up by friction with the atmosphere when it returns to Earth.  That heating is enough to raise the temperature of the returning material to well over 10,000F.
 

 

Q:  Can't the returning water be stored in the atmosphere until the  heat can be transmitted to space?

 

A:  Doing that would have it be water vapor.... which would be a  "vapor canopy".  Dr. Larry Vardiman at the Institute for Creation Research has determined a vapor canopy containing  significant amounts of water would cause a greenhouse effect that would not be  survivable.  Dr. Brown and I both agree with Dr. Vardiman's findings. 

 

Q:  How about a layer of clouds radiating the heat back to  space?


A:  Clouds exist because the temperature is below the "dew point" temperature.  They can be very good at radiating light energy back to  space. Unfortunately, we're talking about heat from friction as this  falling material passes through the clouds.  Any cloud cover will quickly  evaporate as the falling material heats the atmosphere and the clouds  themselves above the "dew point".

 

Clouds also create another major problem.  Water is an even better greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.  Most of the light energy from the sun arrives in the form of ultraviolet light.  Most of the energy radiated back to space is in the infrared.  Clouds allow ultraviolet light to pass through.  (Ever get a sunburn on a cloudy day?)  Clouds also reflect infrared energy.  (Notice how much colder it is on a clear night than a cloudy one?)  By allowing solar energy in and blocking it from leaving we would have a runaway greenhouse effect.  (Think Venus.)

 


Q:  But can't the returning material heat up, then cool back down as  it passes through lower altitudes?


A:  At first it can.  But the cooling takes place by  releasing heat to the surrounding air.  The returning material  can't cool below the temperature of the air thru which it passes.  As the  air heats up, the falling material will descend to lower and lower altitudes  before it can begin to cool.  Eventually, those higher temperatures will  reach the surface and no cooling
will take place.  Also, keep in mind  that much of this material is falling rock that will continue to heat the  atmosphere around that falling water.  Simply stated, the water won't have  a chance to cool down so it can bring lower temperatures
to the surface.
 


Q:  What about other "heat sinks" like polar ice caps, existing  surface water, and land masses absorbing that heat?


A:  In Brown's model, there are no polar ice caps.  Existing  surface water will certainly absorb heat, but since there is more than enough  heat present to boil all of that water, surface water simply can't do the  job.  Land masses can't absorb much heat either because land has a lower  specific heat than water.  Finally, since this heat is raining down from  above, the surface won't have a chance to absorb the heat until it is already in  the atmosphere.
 



#5 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,717 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 03 November 2013 - 12:35 AM

This is the third and final section of my "Fire and Brimstone" analysis of Dr. Walt Brown's Hydroplate model.  As previously stated, I have attempted to engage Dr. Brown in a debate on the matter, but we were unable to come to an agreement regarding the terms and conditions of a debate.  It is worth note, I am neither the first nor the most qualified to be unable to get Dr. Brown to engage in a sciencitic debate of his model.

 

It seems the Hydroplate model is something of a work in progress.  As I've pointed out, Brown's estimate of the energy release has grown from 5 billion hydrogen bombs to 1,800 trillion.  Since this work was done about 5 years ago, the links don't go to the exact page, but it should be to within two or three pages.  Unfortunately, Brown's on-line book no longer has a search feature.

 

This section includes the calculations providing proof based on the relevant physics that Brown's Hydroplate theory is not survivable.


Links to statements by Brown used to support the claims made about his  model:
_In the  Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Energy
Required_ (http://www.creations...calNotes14.html
1)  The asteroids and comets are the result of his model. (Total mass  to
space 2.74e21 kg.)
2)  Material was launched that did not reach space.
3)  The launch mechanism is "inefficient".

_In  the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - The
Hydroplate  Theory: Key Assumption_
(http://www.creations...html#wp10169572)  

4)  Water was stored underground at extremely high temperatures (over  700F)
5)  Water was at extremely high pressure (over 62,000 psi).
6)  About half the water now in the oceans was stored  underground.

_In the  Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Did It
Rain before  the Flood?_
(http://www.creations...ook/FAQ218.html)  
7)  There were no polar ice caps before the flood.
8)  Restatement that about half the Earth's surface water was stored 
underground.

The technical stuff.... calculations:
Constants......
Surface area of Earth   5.14e14 square meters
Mass of water on Earth   1.36e21 kg
Mass of material sent to space according to Brown      2.74e21 kg
Specific heat of ice      2030 j/kg
Specific heat of water    4184 j/kg
Specific heat of steam    1860 j/kg
Latent heat of melting/freezing     334,000 j/kg
Latent heat of condensation/evaporation     2.5e6  j/kg
Velocity of material that did not escape Earth's gravity  (average)    5.6 km/sec
Boltzmann constant =      5.67e-8


########
Claim...the energy of re-entry will boil all the water on Earth 10  times.....
According to the Law of Conservation of Energy, energy cannot be  created or destroyed.  However, we can (and do) change kinetic energy to  heat energy all the time.  It's done by friction.  The material the  does not escape Earth's
gravitational field will return with a HUGE amount of  kinetic energy.  That energy will be transmitted to the atmosphere on  re-entry or to the surface by impact.

Amount of energy to raise all the water on Earth from freezing and  boil it.....
Multiply the mass of the oceans times the specific heat of water times the number of degrees (C or K) temperature change.  That would be 1.36e21  * 4184 * 100 =  5.39e26 joules to bring all the water on Earth from  freezing to boiling.  Then multiply the mass of the water times the latent heat of  evaporation.  This is 1.36e21 * 2.5e6 = 3.4e27 joules.  Adding the two gives us 3.97e27 joules of energy needed to bring all the water on Earth from freezing and boil it.

Amount of energy from material that did not reach escape  velocity...... Kinetic energy = one half the mass times the velocity squared.  Using Brown's model and an efficiency of 50% we multiply the mass of material sent to space times the velocity squared then divide by two.  That gives us  2.74e21 * 5600 * 5600 / 2 = 4.29e28 joules of kinetic energy in material  that did not reach escape velocity.

The number of times the energy can evaporate all the water on  Earth..... Divide the total amount of energy available by the amount of energy needed to boil all the water on Earth.  This gives us 4.29e28 / 3.97e27 = 10.82  times all the water on Earth can be boiled by the energy of re-entry.

########
Claim.....  Even if Brown's launch mechanism has an  extremely high 90+% efficiency, there is still enough heat from  friction to boil every drop of water on the planet......

The amount of material that will provide enough heating to boil every drop of water on Earth would need to have a kinetic energy of 3.97e27 joules.   Witha launch velocity of 5.6 km/sec, the mass of material needed is:  m = 3.97e27 * 2 / 5600 / 5600 = 2.53e20 kg will have enough kinetic energy to boil every drop of water on the planet.  Taking the total material launched in Brown's model (2.74e21 kg) and adding  2.53e20 kg that will need to return to boil all the water we find that the minimum total mass launched that will still boil all the water is  2.99e21kg.  Calculating the efficiency by 2.74e21 / 2.99e21 = 91.54% efficiency will still boil all the water on the planet.

######
Claim.....At least 75% of the returning material will be rock......

Brown says his model sends 2.74e21 kg of material out of Earth's  gravity. At 50% efficiency, an equal amount will be sent to space only to  return to the surface.  He also says about half of the present water in the  oceans is the result of his flood model.  The mass of Earths surface water  is 1.36e21 kg.   This means his model uses 6.8e20 kg of water.  While  Brown says his model continues to send water out of underground storage for some  time after the launch phase, that would only reduce the amount of water  available to return to Earth.  If we take all of the water Brown says ended  up in the oceans and compare that to the 2.74e21 kg returning to Earth in a 50%  efficient model, we get 6.8e20 / 2.74e21 = 24.82% of the material returning to  Earth is water.  The rest (75.18%) will be rock.  As stated, according  to Brown's model, a higher percentage would need to be rock since he doesn't  send all his water to space.

######
Claim...... If the material takes 40 days to fall, atmospheric temperatures will be over 7700F....

Using the Stefan-Boltzmann equation, we can calculate the average  temperature needed to radiate the heat of reentry to space.  The equation  is w = kat^4  where w= the watts; k= the Boltzmann constant (5.67e-8); a= the  radiating surface area and t = the temperature in Kelvin.  The energy of  the returning material is 4.29e28 joules and 40 days equals 3.46e6  seconds.  The number of watts equal the number of joules divided by  the number of seconds, so we get 1.24e22 watts.  Solving for t, we get  t= (w/ka)^.25 or t = (1.24e22 / 5.67e-8 / 5.14e14)^.25 = 4544.58K.   Converting 4544K to F, we find 7721F is the average temperature of the  atmosphere to radiate that heat to space in 40 days.

########
Claim..... If the material takes 150 days to fall, atmospheric temperatures will be over 6000F.....

All we need do for this one is change the time period from 40 days to 150 days.  Doing this, we find the number of watts changes from 1.24e22 to  3.32e21.  Using the same equation, we get a temperature of 3266K or about  5400F.  This is about the surface temperature of the star Betelgeuse.

#########
Claim.... If falling material cools to absolute zero, friction with the atmosphere will still heat it to over 10,000F.....

In order to be as favorable as possible to Brown, we will consider water which requires much more energy to heat than granite.  At 5.6 km/sec, each kilogram of falling material will have kinetic energy = 0.5 mass times velocity squared.  This is then =.5 * 1 * 5600 *5600 = 1.57e7 joules.   The energy to raise the temperature to freezing, melt it, raise it to  boiling, and boil it can be calculated by multiplying the specific heat of ice  by 273, adding the latent heat of melting, add the specific heat of water times  100 and add the latent heat of evaporation.

This is then (273 * 2030) + 334000 + (100 * 4184) + 2.5e6 = 3.81e6 joules  to raise a kilogram of water from absolute zero and boil it.  We can now take the remaining 1.19e7 joules and heat the steam.   Dividing 1.19e7 joules by the specific heat of steam (1860 j/kg), we find we can  heatthe water another 5936C.  The final temperature of the water will be  6036C which converts to  10898F.



#6 greg

greg

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 858 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 34
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • America

Posted 06 November 2013 - 07:27 PM


This is some amazing stuff. I would like to see what Dr. Brown has to say in his rebuttal. Hopefully someone could speak to this, or contact someone who can.

#7 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,717 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 08 November 2013 - 12:51 AM

Dr. Brown's rebuttal is his "Rocket Science" page at http://www.creations...icalNotes5.html .

 

He claims I don't understand refrigeration.  Well, I do.  There's a reason we don't cool our houses with 700F water. 

 

He claims the escaping supercritical water will cool by expansion from over 700F to nearly absolute zero (-460F). It can't.  Once it drops below 705F, it's just water.  Based on his use of 0.2 mi/sec for the speed of sound, the freezing temperature of water would be around 32F.  Solids don't expand.  If the expansion stops, so does the cooling.

 

He seems to think I'm confusing thermal energy for kinetic energy.  I'm not.  We convert thermal energy to kinetic energy and back to thermal energy all the time.  Some of that stuff Brown is launching to space isn't going to make it.  When it comes back down, that kinetic energy has to go somewhere.

 

And that's just ONE of the heat problems with the Hydroplate model.  Simply stated, mix equal amounts of 700F water and 32F water and you end up with 366F water.  (Yes, that's simplistic, but the intuitive argument should at least ring some alarm bells.)  There's just no way to keep all that energy out of the atmosphere.



#8 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,006 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 09 November 2013 - 09:54 PM

Dr. Brown's rebuttal is his "Rocket Science" page at http://www.creations...icalNotes5.html .

 

He claims I don't understand refrigeration.  Well, I do.  There's a reason we don't cool our houses with 700F water. 


He seems to think I'm confusing thermal energy for kinetic energy.  I'm not. 

 

I don't see any mention of you or the word "refrigeration" in the link you posted, so not sure how you can make such a claim.



#9 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,717 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 11 November 2013 - 12:26 AM

I don't see any mention of you or the word "refrigeration" in the link you posted, so not sure how you can make such a claim.

 

I'm not sure if I would have to be mentioned by name for that page to be a rebuttal of my claims.  Nor would it be necessary to use the word "refrigeration" to be discussing it.  Dr. Brown developed that page after my effort to engage him in a debate.  It is relevant to my claims.  In it, Dr. Brown discusses the process by which refrigeration works.  Basically, the evaporation of a liquid and expansion of a gas both of which cause cooling. 

 

In addition, we have this from post #9 in the topic that brought me to this forum.  (link: http://evolutionfair...?showtopic=4084 )

 

Here is the info I received from Dr. & Mrs. Brown:
Quote from Peggy Brown:
“Walt Brown is familiar with the argument raised by Geno Castagnoli, a high school science teacher in Oklahoma.  Walt says the argument is bogus, and frankly, that Geno really doesn't understand what he is talking about.
-------------
Data sent from Dr. Brown (excerpts):
When a fluid (liquid, vapor, or liquid/vapor mixture) flowing in a uniform channel accelerates, the fluid expands. (Its specific volume increases.) Expansion is a powerful cooling process that provides cooling for refrigerators and air conditioners. The greater the acceleration, the greater the expansion and cooling.

 

Brown then goes on to discuss his claim that the SCW cools from over 700F to about -460F.with material that is a summary of what is at the link I provided.

 

You may, of course, form your own opinion as to whether or not that page was intended as a rebuttal to my claims.

 

BTW, my analysis was reviewed by a university physics professor who teaches meteorology.  He found no errors.  I'm not alone in criticizing this aspect of Brown's model.  Another physicist wrote this... note, Dr. Brown's energy release is up to 1,800 triilion H-Bombs:

"Brown says the total energy released during eruption of the "fountains" was equivalent to three hundred trillion H-bombs! Already, his theory is in trouble. Although he assumes that this energy went into orbital kinetic energy, it would not do so with perfect efficiency. Indeed, he needs much of the water to remain here on Earth to produce the Flood waters. If only 0.001% of the ejected material and energy had wound up in the atmosphere, the temperature would be raised by 3,000 degrees Fahrenheit! But the heat leakage would almost certainly have been much greater than this..."

Link: http://www.amazon.co...#R2XNHME0KCHEEB

 

Most recently, YEC astronomer Dr. Danny Faulkner had this to say if only one millionth of the jet energy enters the atmosphere:

... we find an atmospheric temperature increase of 34C.  This is in addition to other heating

mechanisms, such as from volcanic activity and the latent

heat of vaporization from rainfall. This is an unrealistically high

temperature increase, and it is doubtful that the energy transfer

was this minimal. With more realistic energy transfer, it ought

to be obvious that trying to pass this much matter through the

earth’s atmosphere at such speed is not possible. ....

Link: https://www.creation...13 Faulkner.pdf 

 

Dr. Brown may have great explanations for all kinds of things... the Grand Canyon, limestone, radioactivity, and frozen mammoths.  However, since the energy release would sterilize the planet many times over, his model is DOA.  Nothing else matters.



#10 Bob Enyart

Bob Enyart

    RSF Co-host

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 6 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 53
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Denver, Colorado

Posted 12 November 2013 - 11:08 AM

Hello piasan! (BTW, my wife Cheryl and I love your restaurant in Little Italy in NYC, Piasanos smile.png )
 
Thanks for your challenge to Walt's Hydroplate Theory. I'm sorry that your attempt to get a debate going didn't work out a while back, but perhaps there's an easier way to go. I've heard Dr. Brown engage in an informal telephone discussion with a critic who had read Part II of his online book, and the relevant Technical Notes, side bars, etc., to that person's area of interest. If you have read, or will read, that material, and if you're willing to talk it through with me, so that I know that you're serious, I'll arrange the phone conversation between you and Walt, and I'll make sure that it's recorded, so that others here can later listen to it. Would you want to do that Geno? Thanks again!
 
-Bob Enyart, Fred's co-host, RealScienceRadio.com
 


  • MarkForbes likes this

#11 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,717 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 12 November 2013 - 11:32 PM

Hello piasan! (BTW, my wife Cheryl and I love your restaurant in Little Italy in NYC, Piasanos smile.png )

 

I wish I could claim credit, but have nothing to do with it.sad.png   I grew up near San Francisco and there was a well known restaurant on Fisherman's Wharf called "Castagnola's" that a lot of people thought had something to do with me.  Unfortunately, they were wrong too.

 

 

Thanks for your challenge to Walt's Hydroplate Theory. I'm sorry that your attempt to get a debate going didn't work out a while back, but perhaps there's an easier way to go. I've heard Dr. Brown engage in an informal telephone discussion with a critic who had read Part II of his online book, and the relevant Technical Notes, side bars, etc., to that person's area of interest. If you have read, or will read, that material, and if you're willing to talk it through with me, so that I know that you're serious, I'll arrange the phone conversation between you and Walt, and I'll make sure that it's recorded, so that others here can later listen to it. Would you want to do that Geno? Thanks again!

 

Dr. Brown has offered his telephone debate in the past and I have declined for reasons explained below.

 

I'm the Geno referred to on Terry Hurlbut's blogs here:

http://www.conservat...bate-challenge/  and here

http://www.examiner....geno-castagnoli

 

In those forums, I explain my issues with the verbal debate format.  Among them:

1)  The issues I raise require a lot of calculations.  For that reason, a written debate is much more suitable than a written one.

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.

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. 

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.

5)  My claims are narrowly focused.  I will not submit myself to the possibility of being victimized by the "Gish Gallop."

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.

 

There are others, but that should do.  Now, if you think any of those issues are unreasonable or groundless, please let me know which ones and why.



#12 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,287 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 13 November 2013 - 03:52 AM

You can have a written debate first, Piasan and then discuss the findings at a later stage recorded on audio. 


  • gilbo12345 likes this

#13 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,428 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 13 November 2013 - 05:13 AM

1)  The issues I raise require a lot of calculations.  For that reason, a written debate is much more suitable than a written one.

 

Huh?

 

5)  My claims are narrowly focused.  I will not submit myself to the possibility of being victimized by the "Gish Gallop."

 

Explain to us what the 'Gish Gallop' is, please.



#14 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 13 November 2013 - 08:43 AM

Huh?

Come on. You know what he meant.

#15 Bob Enyart

Bob Enyart

    RSF Co-host

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 6 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 53
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Denver, Colorado

Posted 13 November 2013 - 10:20 AM

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 smile.png, 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 smile.png , 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!

 

-Bob Enyart

rsr.org


  • gilbo12345 likes this

#16 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,717 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 13 November 2013 - 10:25 AM

You can have a written debate first, Piasan and then discuss the findings at a later stage recorded on audio. 

 

On November 10, 2010, I made that offer to Dr. Brown in an email to him with a copy to Terry Hurlbut.  The only "response" I got was the two articles linked above on November 18, 2010 on the blog pages of Dr. Terry Hurlbut, MD.  In those blog posts, my discussion with Dr. Brown was misrepresented by Hurlbut multiple times despite the fact that both Dr. Brown and I had provided Hurlbut with a complete record of our communication.

 

In addition, Nick Lally, Director of the Creation Science Hall of Fame suggested any formal debate between Dr. Brown and I be held on either the CSHF website or Dr. Brown;s.  The offer was made on Dec. 22, 2012, but I was not sent a copy.  I became aware of it because a copy was sent to an email group of which I am a member.  Out of respect for the Christmas holidays, I did not respond until Jan. 2, 2013 when I accepted the offer at 7:23 PM.  On Jan. 3 at 8:18 AM, Mr. Lally acknowledged my acceptance of his offer.  At 8:31, Mr. Lally advised me that Dr. Hurlbut (who is also a director of CSHF) would have to handle the arrangements.  At 11:01, Mr. Lally and CSHF backed out because "the CSHF isn't equipped at the moment to conduct a debate."  (Note:  CSHF has an area with a blog type format where the exchanges between Dr. Brown and I could easily be posted.  Hurlbut also handles the CSHF web pages.)  You may connect the dots, but it looks to me like it took less than 3 hours from the time CSHF got my message to the time Hurlbut (and/or Brown) killed CSHF participation.)

 

Dr. Brown claims everyone has been ducking a debate with him for over 33 years.  I'm neither the only one, nor the most qualifed who Dr. Brown has refused to engage in writing.  He has his terms and conditions and they are absolutely non-negotiable.  Witness the fact that at least two creationist journals have invited Dr. Brown to enter into a scientific discussion on their pages and he refuses to do so.  Does anyone believe a scientist who really wants to have a serious scientific discussion of his claims would be unable to find a worthy opponent in over a third of a century?

 

 

For Calypsis4:

1)  A verbal debate is inappropriate due to the extensive calculations involved.  Look at my first three messages and imagine trying to follow them on some radio show.  First, they require some understanding of physics.  Second, it would be easy to lose the train of thought in a verbal discussion.  With a written exchange anyone who doesn't understand the physics can copy the discussion and find someone who does understand the calculations .... any freshman university physics student should do.

2) The Gish Gallop is a tactic in which one opens up so many claims in a short period his opponent can't possibly deal with them all in the time allotted.  That is why I insist any debate be narrowly focused on the survivability of Brown's model. 



#17 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,428 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 13 November 2013 - 12:15 PM

For Calypsis4:

1)  A verbal debate is inappropriate due to the extensive calculations involved.  Look at my first three messages and imagine trying to follow them on some radio show.  First, they require some understanding of physics.  Second, it would be easy to lose the train of thought in a verbal discussion.  With a written exchange anyone who doesn't understand the physics can copy the discussion and find someone who does understand the calculations .... any freshman university physics student should do.

 

Well, I have never read Dr.Brown's stuff but I hope an agreement can be made. I'll let him defend himself but I am personally not impressed with the data you gave. How can you possibly know what the pre-flood/post flood atmospheric conditions and the geo-thermal conditions of the earth during that same period of consideration were without observation? It appears to me that your position involves a wholesale surrender to modern uniformitarian principles (the 'present if the key to the past') which none of us creationists here at EFF buy into.

 

Secondly, why do you trust nature above God's written word? Do you believe nature is infallibly inspired as the Bible is? (II Tim. 3:16).

 

Third, do you actually believe that the Lord waited until Darwin in 1859 to inform the world as to what he actually did in creating and developing life in our world? We say Moses got it right in the first place. What say you to this?

 

2) The Gish Gallop is a tactic in which one opens up so many claims in a short period his opponent can't possibly deal with them all in the time allotted.  That is why I insist any debate be narrowly focused on the survivability of Brown's model. 

 

Oh, I thought you were going to lay something of some consequence on Dr.Gish.



#18 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,801 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 13 November 2013 - 02:05 PM

Replying to Piasan:    I am David Willis of Indpls.  I have been replying directly to Pi (Geno) on this topic for about 5 years, and most of his calculations are wrong because they are based on his having a very poor understanding of Brown's theory.  Better understanding than most, but still in many instances, very poor.  Geno takes Brown's "inefficiency" term and then he decides for himself how much that term means...i.e. how much material falls back to Earth...first suggesting 50%, then 90% and then 99%, all of which are purely arbitrary percentages.  A launching system could indeed send up millions or trillions more weight than what might fall back to earth...it all depends on what sort of launching system it is.  To take as a given the type of "inefficiencies" we may see in internal combustion engines or rockets...and then say (as Pi has said in the past, as I recall) that must be similar (or even on the order of 1/1000th of those) to Brown's launch system, is capricious and misleading. 

 

The amount of material falling back would be minimal due to the energies Brown has postulated.  As the launch phase began, there would be an instant blasting away of a part of the atmosphere with a "training" effect where there is hardly any contact at all with the edges of the atm during the 1-2 seconds or less the jetting water-rock mixture would take to ascend above the atm.  During the launching phase, there would be no heating at all.  Even Piasan has conceded this.  Only when the launching ends would any amounts fall back, and that would depend on how quickly the "faucet gets shut off."  It could be very fast indeed for several reasons.  The main two are 1) that once the SWC's pressure & heat drops below a certain point, then all the launch capability is GONE.  Brown does not propose STEAM pressure as being the main force.  The forces and velocities are dramatically higher than mere steam release can produce.  (Yet Piasan still refers to it as merely a "steam explosion", indicating his poor understand of what Brown proposes)  Also, 2) there would be a point when the pressure of the SWC (subterranean water chamber) near the openings would fall to a point where the weight of the overlying granite crust could no longer be supported, and the mouth would close off suddenly, cutting off the jets.  Indeed, at about the same time, the ocean above would complete the shutting off of the jets as it fell into the 10 mile deep chasm and closed off all upward jetting with the weight of about a mile depth of ocean. 

 

The end effect is that the ratio of launched/falling back material could be very very low.  If the launching phase was 40 days and the shutting off period was 1 hour, during which half of the material got launched and half fell back...and BTW was very very cold...then you have about 1/1920 (.00052) of the weight of what was launched which falls back.  If one assumes 100% of all asteroids, comets and irregular moons were launched from Earth that is (acc. to Brown) about 2.8 e24 g.  (http://www.creations...calNotes19.html)  (I think Pi agrees since he used 2.74 e21 kg in his calc.)

 

In his calc above Pi says that if 10% fell back (I think his exact estimate is 8.46%), it would still be enough to "boil all the water on the planet."  This comment neglects how much heat would be used to heat continents, the atm, or any ice on the surface OR in the stuff falling back.  However, my "quick shut off" estimate above has only .00052 (.052%) which falls back.  That is far below the amount Pi says is needed to boil all the water.  Since the amount that falls back is about 1/2000th rather than the 1/10th, then there is 1/200th the energy Pi says is the minimum to boil all the water on Earth once.  I haven't calculated it but I am guessing that would raise the temp of the water (or ice, since Pi starts with all the water at 0dC) by about 5dC...maybe less. EVEN if you completely ignore other factors which would moderate the heating effect. 



#19 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,287 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 13 November 2013 - 02:20 PM

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.

...

Alternatively he one could make a program with each of them. First the challenger and then Walt Brown. 



#20 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,006 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 13 November 2013 - 02:26 PM

I think Bob put it well, in that a verbal debate would allow for an introduction into the arguments and then if it seems there is more to it then it can be dealt with in a more technical method.

 

Geno perhaps consider this. After all this time you've asked for a debate, and Brown will give you a verbal one, that isn't good enough for you, yet if you don't accept then you won't get either... As they say "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush".







Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: flood, hydroplate, brown, asteroid, meteor, comet, noah

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users