Originally posted by Cyclo Rider
Evolutionists have refused to debate Dr. Walt Brown unless religion is included in the debate. Dr. Brown will only debate on the grounds that religion is left out, but evolutionists insist that it be included. Gee, I wonder why?
The first question has already been dealt with, so I snipped it, but I'll respond to the remainder.
You're incorrect about the debate. "Religion" wasn't to be discussed, merely the factual basis for the Noachian deluge, which is the basis for hydroplate hypothesis. Brown's book is called
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood. Evidently Brown thinks that such issues are germane to his hydroplate hypothesis, so it's odd that he'd balk about discussing it in debate. The only reason I can see is that he distrusts that the evidence will truly bear out the idea of a global flood and therefore doesn't want to subject it to critical, informed scrutiny.
See this site for more details:
http://baby.indstate.edu/gga/pmag/walt_brown.htm
Brown has debated before, however I can understand his reasons for keeping his performance there a secret. He engaged in a written debate with Jim Lippard in the pages of Creation/Evolution magazine in 1989 through 1990 and didn't fare too well in it. Lippard had nothing more than a bachelor's at the time (as a graduate student) and yet demolished his arguments, which is perhaps one reason for the Ph.D. requirement in his debate now. It's less embarrassing to be eviscerated in print by a Ph.D. than a grad student.
See:
"An Examination of the Research of Creationist Walter Brown" by Jim Lippard. Creation/Evolution Issue 25, Vol. 9, No. 1, Fall 1989, pp. 23-35.
"Brown Responds to Lippard" by Walter T. Brown, Jr. Creation/Evolution Issue 25, Vol. 9, No. 1, Fall 1989, pp. 35-48.
"A Further Examination of the Research of Walter Brown" by Jim Lippard. Creation/Evolution Issue 26, Vol. 9, No. 2, Winter 1989-1990, pp. 17-33.
"A Second Response to Jim Lippard" by Walter T. Brown, Jr. Creation/Evolution Issue 26, Vol. 9, No. 2, Winter 1989-1990, pp. 34-54.
"Letter to the Editor" by William H. Jefferys. Creation/Evolution Issue 26, Vol. 9, No. 2, Winter 1989-1990, pp. 55-56.
"A Final Response to Walter Brown" by Jim Lippard. Creation/Evolution Issue 27, Vol. 10, No. 1, Summer 1990, pp. 28-36.
"Letter to the Editor" by Edward E. Max, MD, PhD. Creation/Evolution Issue 27, Vol. 10, No. 1, Summer 1990, pp. 45-49.
If the unscientific theory of evolution is true, evolutionists should be able to explain the origin of giraffes with documentation and illustrations that explain each pre-giraffe species on the evolutionary ladder leading up to the "completed" giraffe we see today. Alas, they cannot.
You've already been provided a list of transitional fossils leading to the modern giraffes, so I won't argue that point. However, I am curious, would you accept the argument that if a creationist cannot provide a complete series of ancestors from them to Adam that it would invalidate creationism? If not, why?