What do you think of Creationist Scientist debunking Scientists who believe?

Question

The world is billions of years old?
http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/275993.aspx

Director of the Center for Scientific Creation, Dr. Walt Brown challenges many of the accepted theories, while offering scientific evidence backing a global flood and a young earth. He says evolutionists are unwilling to debate his scientific findings.

Brown believes there should be no contradictions between faith and science because the Creator of the universe is also the God of science.
A West Point graduate and tenured associate professor at the U.S. Air Force Academy, Dr. Brown taught physics, mathematics and computer science at the college level. He served as head of science and technology studies at the Air War College and was a National Science Foundation fellow

Answer 1

I heard Dr Brown lecture once - he is brilliant geologist

Sadly, I suspect most responses by people who are not willing to reason about this will be:

1. "It does not happen"
2. "Creation science is not science"
3. "Only fools/idiots/uneducated people believe in creation"

Pretty canned responses to your question, I fear

Answer 2

Just goes to show you that some people will say anything to get monetary endorsements from religious organizations and make an easy name for themselves--the real golden standard would be" has Dr. Brown's findings been reviewed by his peers, and found to offer a reasonable argument with evidence which backs his claims?" If not, it doesn't matter how many credentials he has under his belt--he still is not practicing science!

As an example consider the career of Dr. Peter Duesberg, a member of the National Academy of Sciences and the first researcher to isolate a cancer gene--pretty impressive, eh? However Dr. Duesberg denies that there is any such thing as HIV or AIDS, claiming instead that some people just get sick because of their diet, previous health conditions etc., and that Human Immuno Defieciency Virus does not cause AIDS! His support of this concept and his numerous papers stating this as fact are what African government officials have used as supporting evidence for refusing to recognize an epidemic in their own countries. So when a respected scientists takes an irresponsible stance and bases it on pseudoscience the results can prove diastrous.

And the scientific community often encounters individuals who will doubt accepted scientific consensus--in fact, science thrives on descension within the ranks--however it does not benefit science when an individual with high standing within the scientific community refuses to accept scientific concensus, and teaches as fact something which has not ever been accepted by scientists without offering the proof needed to refute accepted science.

Answer 3

I think they are a joke.


He makes a lot of assumptions about the 'pre flood' Earth.


Where are the facts to back up these assumptions?


The only way that this can work is if God Did It. God needs to work a series of multiple miracles to have the Earth build mountain ranges and reform at a speed that has never ever been seen. Miracles to move water around at incredible rates. And then it all stops and goes back to a normal rate of change.

Can an omnipotent God do this? Sure. But it is not science.

All that he is doing is starting with a preconception and then coming up with a half-baked explanation of how it might happen. He has no facts to support this.

Meanwhile the real geologists look at the actual known facts, and then come up with a theory that supports those facts. The make predictions about what else they should find and test it, then refine the theory based on the results.

An omnipotent God could have created the entire universe 10 seconds ago. Complete with people with memories, ancient rocks and light from stars etc. But it is not scientific for me to claim that this happened.

Answer 4

Okay, seriously, read this article. What he claims is a scientific theory is just complete speculation using earth processes that are possible. Just because these separate earth processes are possible doesn't mean his random decision that all these certain processes happened at this one time, with absolutely no evidence to back that up, is possible.

This is a trap that a lot of people who are not educated in the sciences fall into - you see a piece of a theory that is possible and assume that the whole thing is possible. In addition, you are being swayed by titles and luster. It really doesn't matter where this guy got his education or where he taught, his "theory" is pure speculation not based on any actual evidence that is existent in our earth's geography.

Basically he takes a bunch of scientific processes and throws them together and makes it sound possible, when it's pure speculation.

I'm also not sure how the possibility of a world-wide flood means that the earth couldn't be 5 billion years old. Please, don't fall for this poor "science". In the end, he still has to fall back on "God did it."

Answer 5

There is not a single piece of legitimate evidence to back up the claim that the Earth is not billions of years old, or that there was a global flood. And the reason scientists are not willing to debate his findings, is because it would be a complete and utter waste of their time. They don't have time to waste "debating" every pseudo-scientific claim that creationists make. His claims are debunked without the *need* for a debate. There's nothing "scientific" about them.

Answer 6

I've watched your clip and read the attached article.

This man makes unfounded assertions, and sweeping statements that attribute causes to phenomena, without the slightest heed to logical structure or rules of evidence.

It is clear that his entire conception is tailored, not in order to explain a set of facts, but to prove the pre-existing explanation contained in his religion.

This is not science.

The descriptive article is educational, also. Lots of repetitions of "Dr. Brown says" and full blown assertions without evidence. The earth, and the entire solar system, are demonstrably billions of years old, and all the "Dr. Brown says" doesn't prove diddly-squat.

This drivel can only be taken seriously in a country where scientific illiteracy is at an all-time high.

And we can only expect more insanity in this era of the decadence and decline of the U.S. empire.

If things go far enough, the day may come when the people of the nation-state that went to the moon are taught in public schools that it's made of green cheese, after all. And museum curators will have to hide their moon rocks for fear of being burnt at the stake.

I understand the reluctance of some scientific-minded people to deal with this stuff. It is profoundly stupid, ignorant, and evil, and leaves a foul taste in your mind when you read it, but you cannot deal with it properly without dipping your hands in the sh*t it represents.

It's a crying shame that this sort of anti-science, anti-humanist superstition is actually transmitted over a Net that is the fruit of science and logical thinking.

Answer 7

Nobody will debate him because it is a useless exercise while he dances around having heard all the challenges before.
As a starting point - if there was a world wide flood, where did all the water go? Did it pile up higher than the mountains just on the earth and leave the oceans empty?
Creation is ancient people's best explanation of what was going on connected to a local flood. People who consider every word in the printed Bible inerrant are irrelevant nuisances.

Answer 8

First off, he is a mechanical engineer, which has nothing to do with geology, paleontology, anthropology, biology, genetics, or anything else he is talking about in that article. So he is outside his expertise.

Scrutiny is very healthy for science, but there are systems set up as a way to present your science, and have it reviewed. Going outside of this format means you don't really have the science you claim to have. This guy just seems like a pseudo-science enthusiast who is actually using faith, not facts.

Answer 9

""If the solid earth were perfectly smooth, water depth would be 9,000 feet everywhere," says Brown, author of In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood. "Therefore, the flooded earth has enough water to cover the smaller mountains that existed before the flood.""

That's why other scientists won't debate him. They can't stop laughing long enough.

Answer 10

he should stick to mathematics and computer science.
Even if he were right (and it does sound like complete bullshit) can he explain how Noah managed to survive all the events he is so vividly imaging? Those events would have sunk the most seaworthy boat. His ideas cause as many problems for creationism as they solve. There is plenty of evidence for local flooding but none for a worldwide flood.

Answer 11

Anything on CBN is total crap.

Creation Science is laughable. It's not even worth discussing.

Real scientists crushed this idiotic notion in the Dover school board case, in front of a Bush-appointed federal judge.
What does THAT tell you?
And then the moronic Pat Robertson had the nerve to threaten "god's wrath" on Dover!... What an idiot.

You make me laugh.