Talk:Walt Brown (creationist)

Biography Controversy

According to Brown's biography page he "Brown is a retired full colonel (Air Force), West Point graduate, and former Army ranger [sic] and paratrooper. Assignments during his 21 years in the military included: Director of Benet Research, Development, and Engineering Laboratories in Albany, New York; tenured associate professor at the U.S. Air Force Academy; and Chief of Science and Technology Studies at the Air War College."[1] Yet, being a Air Force Colonel, an Army Ranger, a Paratrooper, and a Professor within 21 years is high unlikely. For those who have the resources available a deeper look into his resume should be made to see if this is true.

The above paragraph was added to the article by an anon editor. Perhaps there is something to this, but the talk page and not the article is where we should hash it out, and as it stands unsourced allegations do not belong in the article. Gamaliel 07:54, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

There was a feedback at TalkOrigins by someone claiming to be from Benet Laboratories saying that Brown was never the director. Admitedly we might have a hearsay problem here in that we don't have an independent confirmation. MichaelSH 00:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

How hard is it to call up Benet Labs and ask for a list of prior directors? At any rate, the career of a West Point Graduate is usually 6-8 years in a combat arms branch (Infantry/Rangers etc.) followed by a branch transfer to a more logistical area. The Rangers don't keep junior officers long, they do two years and get moved on. Assuming Brown changed branches after 8 years as an infantry/Ranger officer, twelve years is plenty of time for him to have gotten a masters and PhD and still served 8 years as a director of whatever research. Negative speculation about someone's resume has no place here without hard references. There is no controversy here. Cadwallader 06:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

NPOV?

Is an encyclopedia article really the place to refute someone's theories? This sounds pretty point-of-view to me.

A decent article about a notable scientist (even one far outside the mainstream) should give an adequate description of the ideas that person has contributed. If those ideas are rejected by the vast majority of mainstream scientists, that should also be mentioned. I see no reason why some of the common positions from both sides shouldn't be represented in the article. OTOH, this article is needlessly hostile to Brown and his ideas. Phrases like "to those with little scientific background" and "Brown goes on to misinterpret outdated scientific literature" as well as the excessive criticism seem to be presenting a pov, rather just representing it. References to talk origins should probably be relegated to the external links section and kept to a minimum. The part about Brown rejecting both the Oort cloud and Kupier Belt (previously) should probably be cleaned up and kept, though. The objections about his debate policy could also be (carefully, neutrally) expanded into a larger secton with references to both his opponents and his replies. TheIncredibleEdibleOompaLoompa

I agree this article is harsh towards Brown, I read his book 5 years ago, it is incredibly well researched and I would like to see this article edited and added to by someone who respects him, instead of someone who obviously detests him. Wayne —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.176.1.81 (talk) 06:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the article is incredibly biased. There was no effort to be honest, forthcoming or fair. Wikipedia makes it clear that you can't just take an opinion ("John is the best") and make it neutral by ascribing it to others ("many people say John is the best"). But that's the kind of nonsense used in this wiki to attack Brown. (The article is filled with attacks along the lines of "some people say that he's wrong," "some people say that he misstates others views," "some people say he doesn't really want to debate.") Additionally, when scientific news came out showing large bodies of water deep in the Earth and it was added to this site, it was removed because the the authors don't care about the facts but only presenting those facts and opinions that present Brown in a negative light. Very sad and very disappointing, an embarassment to Wikipedia and to science. StrawberryShirt (talk) 19:12, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Brown is neither highly regarded in the scientific community *nor* the creationist community, and his theories are not supported by evidence sufficient to persuade either of them. The Wikipedia article is accurate. Lippard (talk) 12:37, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't know whether Brown is highly regarded among creationists, and it goes without saying that his theories are wrong because he's a creationist. But the article is unfair. StrawberryShirt (talk) 02:14, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

In a related matter, the external link: "A Few Silly Flaws In Walter Brown's Hydroplate Theory" by Joyce Arthur links to a private page. I'd remove it for falling short of WP standards, but long ago I gave up making any kind of substantive edits after trolls follow me around undoing what I do. So I'd rather just point this out in case anyone else agrees and wants to make the edit. Thanks! Bob Enyart, Denver radio host at KGOV (talk) 01:43, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

material on talkorigins.org

This section needs less POV, as it is now, it reads like a screed against talkorigins.org JoshuaZ 23:04, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Also I noticed that the section doesn't refer to any specific defenders of Brown, I am therefore putting the section here, pending sourcing:

Proponents of Dr. Brown claim that talk.origins misquoted him on their website[2] regarding shallow meteorites stating "Meteorites are never found in deeper strata." Dr. Brown's actual comments on shallow meteorites: "Meteorites are steadily falling onto Earth. This rate was probably much greater in the past, because planets have swept from the solar system much of the original meteoritic material. Therefore, experts have, expressed surprise that meteorites are almost always found in young sediments, very near Earth’s surface. Even meteoritic particles in ocean sediments are concentrated in the topmost layers. If Earth’s sediments, which average about a mile in thickness on the continents, were deposited over hundreds of millions of years, as evolutionists believe, we would expect to find many deeply buried iron meteorites. Because this is not the case, the sediments were probably deposited rapidly, followed by “geologically recent” meteorite impacts. Also, because no meteorites are found immediately above the basement rocks on which these sediments rest, these basement rocks were not exposed to meteoritic bombardment for any great length of time.

The 1989 and 1995 editions of Brown's book say (1989, p. 16; 1995, p. 27): "Experts have, therefore, expressed surprise that meteorites are found only in young sediments very near the earth's surface." The "almost" may have been added by Brown in a later edition, but in those fifth and sixth editions, no such qualifier appears. Lippard (talk) 04:10, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Similar observations can be made concerning ancient rock slides. Rock slides are frequently found on Earth’s surface, but are generally absent from supposedly old rock."[3]

• End of Removed Material JoshuaZ 23:09, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Geography needs to go

The geography section needs to go. First, Dr. Brown has an answer for that and a clear rebuttal if asked. Whoever wrote the geography section has not read Dr. Brown's book, but instead focuses on Dr. Hovind? WHAT???? Dr. Brown has written wikipedia and has given them the response to the comet section and has pointed out errors in the biography that were not even COPIED correctly from the source it cites. I find the same stuff on Dr. Duange Gish's article as well. I also have looked at the profiles of the some of the people contributing to this article, and they clearly have a bias against creation. To prove it, the whole geography section is actually an attack on Kent Hovind, which the author tries to make a link saying that Hovind uses Brown as a source sometimes, so that makes Brown guilty. WHAT IGNORANCE. Also, the website that he cites, is by a man named Carl Marychurch. HE IS NOT A SCIENTIST, and Dr. Kent Hovind has given plenty of radio time to answer his website. IF YOU WANT TO BE HONEST. Then represent both sides. I find it hard to believe that both sides will be represented here with the authors already have a bias. This is supposed to be encyclopedia, not a mainstream opinion volume set. I would not expect a white supremacists to write the article on Martin Luther King Jr. without smearing the man. I also noticed that Dr. Brown's reply went ignored by wikipedia or whoever recieved it. I think the geography section should be deleted and replaced by by a critique of Dr. Brown's work directly. --RyanDaniel 09:35, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know who "Carl Marychurch" is, but as neither Hovind nor Brown are "scientists" themselves, I fail to see the relevance of that comment. But corrections to Wikipedia aren't made by "writing to Wikipedia". --Robert Stevens

He was the webmaster of the website that was linked. Also, I never claimed they were scientists, but at least Walt Brown has a PhD in mechanical engineering. It also seems to be the cry of many that they don't publish in scientific journals, yet the rebuttal posted wasn't even a scientist. It is completely relevant.--RyanDaniel (talk) 03:43, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

You realise that you're answering a four year old comment about a section that likewise hasn't existed in years? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:24, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I do. I haven't contributed to Wikipedia in a long time. I felt the response to my response should be answered for clarity, despite the section being removed. It was to further elaborate on my previous post. I do want to thank you for notice.RyanDaniel (talk) 19:55, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Cadwallader 05:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC) I followed the link to Marychurch's web page to verify the citation used in the Geography criticism. Marychurch quotes Brown as saying the map of Africa was reduced by 35%, however the citation is just a link to creationscience.com with no direct quote or page. I Googled that entire site for "Africa" and none of the several pages mentioning Africa discuss the size of the continent relative to the map, or a reduction of any percentage. On the basis that this citation appears to be spurious, I am now deleting the Geography criticism because it is falsely sourced. Cadwallader 05:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Criticism Section

The criticism section is weak because it only attacks a relatively tangential part of Dr. Brown's theory - the origin of comets, which even if completely falsified, does not falsify his main theory of plate tectonic movement. Or to put it another way, if Brown's theory is truly scientifically unsound, then it should be fairly simple to present critical arguments against the main tenets of Brown's theory, rather than wasting a volley on the origin of comets.

Likewise, the reference to Kent Hovind (who may have quoted Brown, but Brown has never quoted Hovind), is a form of ad hominem to make someone look foolish by associating him with other foolish people. Since Brown has never attached himself or associated with Hovind, the Hovind reference is completely irrelevant to this article. Cadwallader 05:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I have no opinion on Hovind, so I won't question that. However, it doesn't matter how tangential comets are... it is a part of his overarching critique of mainstream science and is a part of his theory, and if there are errors in it, that is relevant in order to judge the thoroughness of his main theory. (If comets have a more reasonable origin, his hydroplate theory is not necessary to explain them. Moreover the hydroplate theory may have be modified so that it does not include creating comets.) If further criticism is forth coming on the main theory, then of course comets could be summarized to make room for more notable criticism. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 02:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Balance

Presently this article devotes zero paragraphs to the basic points of Dr. Brown's "Hydroplate Theory" but devotes six or seven paragraphs to criticizing a relatively minor prediction about the Oort Cloud and Kuiyper Belt (A minor one out of 100+ "predictions" in Brown's book).

Reading this article for the first time, I come away with little idea of what the Hydroplate Theory is, and might even be led to think it is primarily a theory about comets, which it is not. Since the Hydroplate Theory is Dr. Brown's main contribution to the creation science movement, and the main subject of his book, it merits a cursory overview.

The criticism section fails to point out published criticisms of Brown's main thesis. This may be because mainstream scientific journals have not considered Brown's work, critically or otherwise. But in creationist peer reviewed literature there have been a number of papers published criticizing Brown's theory. It seems like that would be a good place to start with critical references.

The criticism presently published here by RoyBoy amounts to original research. Yes, it quotes published sources about comets and the Oort cloud, but the application of these sources to Brown's theory is original work, as no one else appears to have published such a criticism regarding Brown's prediction about the Oort Cloud.

I will leave these comments up for a week or two. If RoyBoy doesn't clean it up, I will delete the criticism section altogether and replace it with published criticisms relevant to Brown's main theory.

Now I understand that RoyBoy is a self-styled weak atheist and Dr. Brown's claims may be a pet peeve for him. So, my challenge to RoyBoy is to do a much better job of referencing published criticisms of Brown's work, because there are some out there. Wikipedia isn't the platform for publishing your own critiques - even though I completely agree with your critique on the origin of comets. Cadwallader 06:22, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

The section originated from a supporter of Brown inserting POV in other articles, such as Oort cloud or Kuiper belt; so I was forced to actually address that issue directly to get them to stop. As to defining Brown's theory, I think Brown himself or someone tried, but it was removed by someone as original research or conflict of interest. I concur with your assessment of my work, though my attachment to it is merely effort based. (ie. I spent time research it, so I simply wrote it to help justify spending my time on the subject) - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 02:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Moved these new sections to the bottom. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 02:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Will look into alternative links and summarizing the section soon. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 02:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure criticing Brown's work this creationist material is the way to go. Since creationism is not science, you should avoid including that material even for the purposes of criticism. Plantocal 23:22, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Cadwallader 14:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)Plantocal, creationist scientists publish their material as "scientific research" in several peer reviewed research journals. Evolutionist scientists publish their material as "scientific research" in the same manner, but in a much larger volume. To take the position that "creationists cannot publish scientific research" is purely bigotry.

Given that many of the great founders of modern "science" like Isaac Newton, Carl Linnaeus, Gregor Mendel and Louis Pasteur were creationists, your claim that a creationist cannot publish scientific research is clearly without merit. When you study any kind of science you are standing on the shoulders of creationists who laid the foundations of physics, astronomy, pathology, biology, etc. Spit on them if you like, but don't pretend this is NPOV.

It may be customary for evolutionists to declare that creationists cannot be "real scientists". But what you are attempting to do is define "science" in terms of your metaphysical beliefs about origins - which is to say, your preferred unprovable origins myth - your religion.

Dr. Brown was a professor at the US Air Force Academy. He has solid scientific credentials as a physicist. He developed a theory about plate tectonics and published a book about it. Are there any evolutionists who have published technical criticisms of Brown's book and theory? Evidently not. However, there are creationists who have published technical criticisms of Brown's theory. Therefore, if you want to write a sourced criticism section here you have only two choices: cite creationist critiques, or publish your own critique somewhere and then cite it here. Put up or shut up. Cadwallader 14:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Brown is a mechanical engineer, not a physicist. As far as I can see from information contained in the article, he has no background in Geology, Geophysics, or Fluid dynamics, the fields that would provide some basis for his claims. He has never published his claims in any peer-reviewed scientific journal, so it is unsurprising that he has gotten no significant scientific attention. Most scientists have better things to do than rebut unqualified, self-published cranks. However he has not escaped criticism from the scientific community, e.g.:[4][5][6] Hrafn42 03:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I stand corrected that Dr. Brown's degree was in Mechanical Engineering, not physics. However, mechanical engineering could be described as the application of the laws of physics to achieve desired outcomes. Which is to say, Dr. Brown is certainly well qualified to apply the laws of physics relating to kinetics, heat transfer, and fluid dynamics, which are the areas that his hydro-plate theory deals with.

Of Hrefn42's three sources of criticism, only the first one actually deals with the mechanics of Brown's Hydroplate Model, and does so in the most cursory manner without any mathematical verification. Others are primarily composed of mocking insults. None of the critics cited by Hrafn42 as "the scientific community" have scientific credentials.

Ad hominem attacks are generally a tactic used by an established dogma to resist new ideas without having to deal with the actual merits of the argument. The evolutionist "community" uses this kind of language very similarly to how the Roman Catholic Church dealt with men like Copernicus and Martin Luther. Hrafn42's tone is highly POV. You can bring criticisms to bear on Brown's theory without calling him a "crank". The use of ad hominem pejoratives merely shows an inability or unwillingness to deal with the arguments rationally. RoyBoy, on the other hand, has done a good job.Cadwallader 20:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I removed strata from the criticism section; it seemed unimportant. Yeah, engineers... clever, yet get into trouble when they tackle un-linear subjects. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 04:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

In response to Cadwallader's incivil attack:

1. "Mechanical engineering is an engineering discipline that involves the application of principles of physics for analysis, design, manufacturing, and maintenance of mechanical systems." The Earth is not a "mechanical system" in any conventional sense, so Brown is working outside his field of expertise.
2. As Brown has no background in Geology or Geophysics, he does not have a detailed understanding of the evidence that his hypothesis would need to explain and be compatible. See:[7][8]
3. On the basis of 1 & 2, I am justified in calling him "unqualified".
4. That he is "self-published" is evident from the fact that In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood is published by his own Center for Scientific Creation.
5. A crank is a person who
   1. holds some belief which the vast majority of his contemporaries would consider false,
   2. clings to this belief in the face of all counterarguments or evidence presented to him.
6. Brown holds to Flood geology, which the vast majority of modern Geologists and Geophysicists consider to be false, and clings to this belief in the face of all counterarguments or evidence presented to him. Thus he can legitimately be considered a "crank".
7. On the basis of 3, 4 & 6, I am justified in calling Brown a "unqualified, self-published crank", which was not offered as an ad hominem attack, but rather as an explanation of why he tends to be ignored by most scientists.
8. As to my sources purported lack of scientific credentials, I would question if any of Cadwallader's "creationist critiques" come from critics with qualifications in Geology or Geophysics.

Hrafn42 05:27, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Note that Brown has not even published his major theory, hydroplate theory, in any scientific journal, not even a creationist journal. Lippard (talk) 01:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Brown seems to do very little in terms of engagement with scientists or other creationists -- to the extent that this disengagement has become a significant theme of the article. He is a "hermit creationist" as it were, in a world which has always tended to give more (current and historic) attention to more flamboyant and publicity-seeking ones. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Notability

I think it is telling that the only sources on Brown uncovered to date are:

• An article in the periodical of the Christian Reconstructionist Chalcedon Foundation
• That he was one of the Christian Men of Science profiled by a fellow creationist, rendered even more unreliable by the fact that this book is subtitled "Eleven Men Who Changed the World", which is ludicrously hyperbolic when applied to Brown
• Brown's online-book itself

More telling is the fact that he doesn't even warrant a passing mention in Ronald Numbers' authoritative and comprehensive The Creationists. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 01:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, but he still meets WP:Notability. In 1993 Dr. Brown was asked to narrate a five-minute animation of his hydroplate theory for CBS television. CBS television executives had noticed the interest that the public has in Noah's Ark, and they aired a two-hour special on Noah's Ark. That program was seen by 43 million Americans and Canadians. --Goo2you (talk) 04:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

No, he doesn't. Your assertion of his narration, even if it was substantiated (and it isn't as yet) is nothing like sufficient to establish notability. The segment you describe was only tiny. One 5-minute slot on TV 14 years ago is not notable. There have been nearly one and a half million such 5-minute slots on that single channel alone, since that time. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

That particular television show was best known for its promotion of a Noah's Ark hoax which exposed the credulity of its producers: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ark-hoax/jammal.html Lippard (talk) 04:14, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, he does. Just because you assert the contrary, doesn't make it so. WP:Notability guidelines make it clear that notability is established here. Goo2you (talk) 14:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

What with 1/3 of andy Warhol's 15 minutes of fame, 14 years ago? Your assertion is absurd. Read WP:N#TEMP. Brown's brief flash of limelight was so fleeting ("temporary") that if you blinked you'd have missed it. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 14:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:N#TEMP is talking about "whether, in a particular article, the names of specific individuals could be redacted without the loss of non-trivial information or necessary clarity," not about whether in your personal opinion a major television network news department's inclusion of Brown's theory in a two hour special is notable in your own POV. Goo2you (talk) 17:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

It says nothing of the sort. It specifically states "A short burst of temporary news coverage about a topic does not necessarily constitute evidence of long-term notability." The fact that the special was two hours is irrelevant, when Brown's hypothesis (not a theory -- please read WP:WTA#Theory) by your own admission only received 5 minutes of coverage -- i.e. it was only 1/24 of this programme. A "short burst of coverage" in anybody's book. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 18:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

<-- Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walt Brown (creationist) Ra2007 (talk) 21:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

ICR's research

The point is not whether it is any good or not (although in this case I think it is not so bad), but that they disagree with Brown.--Filll (talk) 03:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Failed verification

It says a scientist at CSC. Brown is the only scientist at CSC. Also it appears in the blog about finances which we can also cite.--Filll (talk) 03:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry -- missed that point. It is still however a fairly obscure and non-notable position. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I added an newspaper article cite about it confirming it was him by name.--Filll (talk) 03:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Lippard blog

Continuation of an article he wrote for NCSE. Took information from 990 forms.--Filll (talk) 03:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Notorious and obscure

How can you be notorious and obscure at the same time? And he got it published in a newspaper in Seoul. That says something.--Filll (talk) 03:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Obscure, in that nobody except for aficionados of religious right wingnuttery would have heard of him, notorious in that among such aficionados he is known to be one of the wingnuttiest. He typically publishes on The Conservative Voice (which specialises in such drivel) e.g. [9][10]. The Seoul Times is an "internet English newspaper for foreigners in Korea". I suspect its editorial standards may be somewhat dodgey. It regularly publishes Ranganathan's tripe. His byline claims that he has published in Pravda, but the famous communist newspaper of that name no longer exists, and 'Pravda online' (which is what I suspect he is refering to) is "an unrelated Internet-based newspaper". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

South Korea is probably the country with the most active young-earth creationists after the United States. It's also a hotbed of Pentecostal Christianity, with several of the worlds top ten mega-churches being located in Seoul. Lippard 23:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lippard (talk • contribs)

Very good point.--Filll (talk) 23:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Brown does have enough adherents, that at least one attempted to assert Brown's views on the Oort cloud. In response I researched and created a detailed criticism section here which was eventually removed as OR; but I certainly feel an article should be in place to present ideas and criticisms in case of future Good Faith attempts. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 02:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, WP:RSs on Brown are patchy to say the least, making for a somewhat skeletal article, that often can't cover areas that it ought to. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Why is Brown listed under Creationists and Creation Science? We66er (talk) 18:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

He is both a Creationist and a notable proponent of Creation Science, particularly claims about Hydroplates. Neither of the two is a subcat of the other, so it is unexceptional to have him in both categories. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 19:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

All creationists make some claim. Should all of them be included in both? Kent Hovind with the "Hovind Theory," Carl Baugh with "hexagonal water/Creation water," Russell Humphreys with "White Hole Cosmology," Robert V. Gentry with Radiohalos, and so on. It seems redundant. We66er (talk) 19:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Not all creationists are prominent for advocacy and promotion of specific pseudoscientific claims. It is possible that we should create a subcat for 'Creation Scientists' under 'Creationists', 'Creation Science' (and also of 'Pseudoscientists') , to avoid this duplication. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:35, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Walt_Brown_(creationist).jpg

Image:Walt_Brown_(creationist).jpg has been tagged as {{replaceable fair use}}. If somebody wishes to dispute this assertion, they can add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}} to the image description page and a comment explaining their reasoning to the the image talk page. [Paraphrased from a notice placed on the original image-uploader's user talk.]

My suspicion is that the image is unlikely to survive this challenge (regardless of whether it is disputed), so we should probably look for a free-use equivalent. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Proper name

This article should be titled Walt T. Brown. Would have done the move myself but someone has erroneously created the page as a redirect. Biofase ^flame| stalk  22:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:NAMEPEOPLE would appear to indicate that 'Walt Brown (creationist)' is more appropriate as he's far more commonly known as 'Walt Brown' than 'Walt T. Brown'. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:05, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Answers In Genesis Position

After 2-3 decades in studying Creation Science I have never seen media by Answers In Genesis which espouse an Old Earth Creationist viewpoint. Chugiak (talk) 16:46, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

The article states nowhere that Answers in Genesis is an old Earth creationist organization. It does mention Answers In Creation, which is an old Earth creationist organization and completely different from AiG, as being an old Earth organization. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:21, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Hydroplate Theory and Deletionism

Pages and sections of pages explaining what "hydroplate theory" means have been deleted repeatedly, leaving nowhere on Wikipedia any way to learn what it claims. I have added a short description to this page. While I believe there is room for debate whether it is notable or should be removed from Wikipedia entirely, I think it is quite clear that if it is *not* notable neither is Brown, and vice versa. Therefore, if you wish to delete that section for non-notability, delete the entire page. 157.131.155.7 (talk) 21:56, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Without discussion from mainstream sources as well it doesn't belong. If you wish to rewrite it using material from [wrong link, removing it] feel free. Doug Weller talk 09:35, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

First off, what you linked to there is a banned user, not a source. Second of all, there is no reason to restrict it to mainstream sources to explain *what his views are*. Describing his views is not an endorsement, and Wikipedia having numerous mentions of the theory and no description of its content is massively dispreferable to having a short description of its content based on a source biased in its favor (filtered through an editor who is, I assure you, extremely hostile to the idea). Reverting your revert now; as I said before, if you want to remove this, remove the page. 157.131.155.7 (talk) 19:55, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Wish I'd seen this at the time, removing the wrong copy-pasted link. Doug Weller talk 13:09, 29 March 2020 (UTC)