![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on January 9, 2008. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
Is an encyclopedia article really the place to refute someone's theories? This sounds pretty point-of-view to me.
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)
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.
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]
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
In response to Cadwallader's incivil attack:
Hrafn42 05:27, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
I think it is telling that the only sources on Brown uncovered to date are:
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)
<-- Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walt Brown (creationist) Ra2007 ( talk) 21:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
Continuation of an article he wrote for NCSE. Took information from 990 forms.-- Filll ( talk) 03:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
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)
Very good point.-- Filll ( talk) 23:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on January 9, 2008. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
Is an encyclopedia article really the place to refute someone's theories? This sounds pretty point-of-view to me.
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)
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.
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]
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
In response to Cadwallader's incivil attack:
Hrafn42 05:27, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
I think it is telling that the only sources on Brown uncovered to date are:
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)
<-- Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walt Brown (creationist) Ra2007 ( talk) 21:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
Continuation of an article he wrote for NCSE. Took information from 990 forms.-- Filll ( talk) 03:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
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)
Very good point.-- Filll ( talk) 23:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)