Hydroplate theory debate challenge
I would like to address Geno’s responses in the comment space of Conservative News and Views. I would also like to make an offer to anyone else who disagrees with the hydroplate theory.
In answer to Geno Castagnoli
Geno Castagnoli (a science teacher in Plainview High School in Ardmore, Oklahoma) either cannot read or he is trying to confuse readers.
Over the past year and in many letters, some of which Terry Hurlbut has seen, Geno has acknowledged to me and others that he is not qualified to accept my written-debate offer. For one reason, he doesn’t hold a PhD in the basic or applied sciences and he is unwilling or unable to find a qualified evolutionist to work with him. Besides, the written debate is a book-length effort that would address the entire creation-evolution issue—a major undertaking. Geno does not want to address that broad topic. Fine; I understand. So Geno should quit ducking my oral-debate offer by objecting to necessary requirements for the written debate.
The written-debate offer
The written-debate offer has been on the table since 1980. Other evolutionists avoid it as well, and dozens of the world’s leading evolutionists know about it. You can read it beginning here, and see that the exchange would be comprehensive, balanced, available for all to see, and would avoid separation of church-state issues. But notice, it is to be a strictly scientific debate; no religion allowed. Only scientific evidences and their logical consequences can be presented. (A few have written that I will not debate them, but they insist on including religion.) I suspect that almost all science teachers (at all levels) will be able to follow the scientific arguments and reconvey them to their students if appropriate to the curriculum.
The purpose of the written debate is to lay out the hundreds of pages of evidences that bear on the creation-evolution controversy and allow the opposite side to rebut those evidences—side-by-side and point-by-point. (I suspect that evolutionists would present few evidences, because the counter evidence that would rebut them would be withering, if not career ending.) That written debate would provide, for the first time, a dispassionate and comprehensive exchange of scientific data on both sides of a heated issue in which little constructive dialogue has occurred for 150 years. Millions of people would find such a written exchange enlightening.
The oral-debate offer
The appropriate debate offer for Geno, which he should already know, is the oral debate. It has no academic requirements. Geno has known about it since I responded to him the day after he first wrote me on 13 September 2010. You can read that debate offer here and see that Geno either has not read it carefully or is trying to mislead you. The oral debate is not, as he stated, “a comprehensive examination of Brown’s entire model [the hydroplate theory],” although the critic (in this case, Geno) must state beforehand that he has read the hydroplate theory. Our focus in the debate will be on Geno’s criticism—and relevant aspects of the theory. I suspect that 95% of what I have written will not be relevant to any single criticism.
If Geno hasn’t read the theory, he will be “flat-footed” when I respond to his criticism. I will not take my limited debating time to explain the supporting evidence to him and the physics involved (some of it at the graduate level)—and I am not sure he would understand it if I did. I also suspect he would obfuscate or interrupt me a dozen times before I completed my explanation. Besides, most of those topics are already explained in the theory—which I am confident he hasn’t read, because I believe it already answers, in various ways and places, his objections. The theory can be read beginning here at no cost, or in a hard-bound book that can be purchased here.
If Geno understands my rebuttals and disagrees with the physics, we can have an informative and interesting oral debate. I would be delighted if that happened. Geno should welcome the opportunity to expose my errors. I would appreciate that as well.
A red herring against the hydroplate theory
Geno raises, as he says, “a hypothetical”—usually to others in chat rooms: If the flood sterilizes the planet, is Brown’s theory valid? End of discussion. First of all, I do not respond to hypotheticals. (Readers should give them little credence as well.) However, I will gladly respond to his criticism if he has read the theory and is willing to raise his objection in my presence and before a live, listening audience. With today’s technology, that can be easily done by phone, with an internet recording service, a jointly selected debate moderator from some university, and a multitude of internet platforms to host the audio and transcribed versions of the debate. Radio stations might even broadcast it.
Wouldn’t readers like to hear this live, interactive debate? I hope they will urge Geno to quit ducking and misrepresenting my offer. He should put up or shut up.
This article is a direct reply to comments that Mr. Castagnoli has left in reply to these articles:
[amazon_carousel widget_type=”ASINList” width=”500″ height=”250″ title=”” market_place=”US” shuffle_products=”True” show_border=”False” asin=”1878026097, 0890515077, 0310234697, 0875523382, 0890511586, B002RBHDFK, 0949906689, 0890513600, 089051416X, 0890515050″ /]