Mooning Jupiter
- Thread starter ThePhy
- Start date
- Status
taoist, I replied to the portions of ThePhy's post that I took issue with. It is entirely possible that Bob was in error. It wouldn't be the first time nor the last. I don't think Bob was lying, because I know Bob well, and I know that isn't his style. To do so would be counterproductive and he recognizes that.taoist said:
taoist
New member
Okay, Turbo,Turbo said:
I'd say it was a whole lot more than "entirely possible" he was wrong. The phrase "wrong beyond the shadow of a doubt" is a lot more accurately descriptive. Lying? Well, you know I don't care for the word, not just because of its incendiary overtones, but because it's simply weaker than a well thought out riposte. People who'd object to it on visceral grounds will still nod and shake their heads in agreement at equivalent phrasing that's more to the point.
Bob loves mocking evolution -- biological evolution -- let me be clear about that. But it's just as clear he's clueless about its fundamental usefulness to biology. He loves mocking astronomy, and we've just had a wonderful demonstration how far out in space he is there.
He loves spouting off about absolute truth and logic, and I'm telling you true, he's just as clueless there. You know him, ask him to describe something simple, say the Axiom of Choice. What are the "atoms" of a boolean algebra? What's the double-sided distributive law? He's forever going on about the infinite and the eternal. Ask him what an infinite cardinal is and how it differs from an infinite ordinal. If he hasn't been boning deep since the Post-Game show, he'll be talking out of his hat.
The point of all this is he's misinforming his audience, whether it's deliberate or just bumbling. Lying? What difference does that make? Whether he is or isn't, he's still saying things that aren't true. And not just saying them, broadcasting them, with all the inherent authority of a man of god, as far as his christian listeners know.
***
Anyway, nothing I've said here means I hate the dude. I'd probably enjoy putting a couple beers down with him and arguing all night, even heatedly. I'd probably enjoy doing the same with you. Well, if I was a drinker that is ... *chuckle. I'm hitting the hay so I can catch my Sunday morning talking heads. Give my best to the Sibbie and a pat to the Sibbie-ette, Tom. I'm thinking happy thoughts at you both. Make sure and post newbie pics as soon as you can. I'm just as curious and interested as the rest of the gang.
I don't think there's a god or a heaven or a hell, but I'm on toward certain there's a lot of us humans around here. And when all is said and done, here on this earth anyway, we're all in it together.
Best, Jesse
I'm going to completely eschew protocol and answer this one. Bob could answer with the same answer bobb answered with: "Going back to Io I feel that it is very likely that Io has gained heat since its inception, and tidal heating is undoubtedly the most likely mechanism, although there may be others.
The concept advanced by some creationists that a hot Io implies its youth is undoubtedly not correct and ill advised, for it may well be that it started out cold just a few thousand years ago and has rapidly heated up since then.
At this point, this comment on Io ironically joins my similar concept that variation occurs much more rapidly than typically believed, since there were only a few thousands years after the Flood to repopulate Earth with all the variety we see today (of course mutations may have had little to do with it)." and, if I'm not mistaken, he would also asked "In regard to Io. Do we have current data on how this changes the orbits of the moons involved?"
The concept advanced by some creationists that a hot Io implies its youth is undoubtedly not correct and ill advised, for it may well be that it started out cold just a few thousand years ago and has rapidly heated up since then.
At this point, this comment on Io ironically joins my similar concept that variation occurs much more rapidly than typically believed, since there were only a few thousands years after the Flood to repopulate Earth with all the variety we see today (of course mutations may have had little to do with it)." and, if I'm not mistaken, he would also asked "In regard to Io. Do we have current data on how this changes the orbits of the moons involved?"
temple2006
New member
taoist Online
radical strawberry
Rep Power: 28
Reputation: Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,497
(4.51 posts per day)
And one more word ...
SPotD
I thank you Phy for taking the time for such a wonderful explanation. GREAT!!!!!!!!!
radical strawberry
Rep Power: 28
Reputation: Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,497
(4.51 posts per day)
And one more word ...
SPotD
I thank you Phy for taking the time for such a wonderful explanation. GREAT!!!!!!!!!
My Debate window has timed out
My Debate window has timed out
Calling to oppose Bob on his show is tantamount to insanity, since he has almost absolute control of what goes over the air, and of the way he wants the conversation to go. As I alluded to in a recent post, he has a demonstrated history of demanding that callers abide by an agenda acceptable to him, or they are subject to being summarily kicked of f the air. On those few times where I have seen Bob allow contrary statements stand largely unchallenged is when they came from a caller who was well-known before coming to the show, and therefore giving a rude treatment to might backfire. But for us no-names, we are just fodder for his audience.
My offer to debate him in person was only extended after careful consideration on my part. It is no secret that there is a significant history of Creationist-scientist debates that have turned out poorly for science and given bragging rights to the Creationist. Too many scientists found out too late that a firm understanding of science is not nearly adequate to carry such a debate.
Several of the recent threads here show one reason why. Notice those threads that provide the exact text of Bob Enyart’s commentary on science. In almost every case, Bob’s claims took no more than a minute or two to put out to the listeners. But to counter them required presenting enough technical background for the non-scientific audience to at least follow the thrust of the answer. Presenting the necessary information to counter just a single one of Bob’s nonsense claims would take 10 or 20 minutes of the allotted debate time. So in a typical debate format, where each side is given 30 or 40 minutes for their opening statements, Bob could put forth a dazzling array of charges against science. I would then be faced with deciding which 3 or 4 of the 25 charges I will give answer to. I might allude to why the rest are wrong, but an answer that only skims the surface comes across as shallow and unconvincing. In Creationist-scientist debates, particularly those held in front of audiences of fundamentalist Christians, the average audience member comes in with a pre-existing leaning to the Creationist side. Then they hear a blur of charges levied against science, of which only a few are they likely to know more than a little about. So when the scientist gives answer to only a few, and very likely not the ones the audience member most clearly remembers, the impression is left that the scientist was almost totally ineffective, even if he was absolutely perfect in handling the few charges he had time to engage.
Experienced debaters know this technique of overloading your opponent with charges to respond to. Bob used this tactic to good effect in his February 2004 debate on the age of the earth with the Reason’s to Believe representative in Denver.
In addition to being invited to call in to Bob’s show, I was mentioned as a potential Battle Royale candidate. Had that materialized more quickly, with me opposing Bob, I think I would have accepted. Battle Royales allow each round to go into some depth, and allow the 2-day recess between posts to research and compose responses, and 10 rounds instead of the much more restrictive time at the podium given in oral debates.
Threads like this one have benefits and drawbacks. The focus on the arguments between just two opponents is diluted, but in science that is not bad. I don’t know of any major advance in science that was the direct outcome of just 2 protagonists sparring. Many are the scientific advances that bear the imprimatur of many scientists over decades of refinement.
The effectiveness of these threads are diluted by the posts from the posting sheep – those who just bleat their poorly informed opinions without any pretense of support beyond their own bleatings. But these threads can also allow for many exchanges, which when conducted among people with open minds, can actually educated and edify.
So for me, I think there is little need to hold my offer to debate in Denver open longer. My ideas are here, and open for not only Bob to respond to, but any who feel he is right and can lend him the technical backing he so sorely lacks. I am thinking in particular of Don, Bob’s partner in the February 2004 debate in Denver. Don is a High-school science teacher at Maranatha. If my ideas about Io, or gravitational time dilation, or other science are seriously wrong, Don should be able to help show why. But if Bob’s science has been wrong, I wonder why Don, as a friend of Bob, has not stepped forth to help Bob with his science? Don had one stricture not saddling Bob. Don is teaching science, and aware that if he were to involve himself in an informal TOL debate, then his science could be deeply scrutinized. If he has been teaching any of the scientific nonsense that Bob has expounded on, then the science standards at Maranatha are seriously lacking. Bob is a preacher, and is not expected to be scientifically literate (though that has not stopped him from making pretenses of scientific literacy).
Anyway, novice, you have your answer from me about calling in to Bob’s show. If I, or taoist, or fool, or Johnny are in error, show us where, or feel free to ask those in your camp who have the technical background to show us where. We are open to correction.
My Debate window has timed out
I have had that option presented to me before, see here. If you follow the flow of that thread, you will find that (perhaps unwisely) I offered to travel to Denver at my expense to debate Bob in person in front of his own congregation. That offer has been on the table from me since last year. Bob extended a very short-notice invitation to meet me in front of a creationist group in Denver late last year (which I could not accept becasue of the insufficient lead time that I need to arrange my work and travel plans. Since then, Bob has not seen fit to pick up my offer.novice said:
Calling to oppose Bob on his show is tantamount to insanity, since he has almost absolute control of what goes over the air, and of the way he wants the conversation to go. As I alluded to in a recent post, he has a demonstrated history of demanding that callers abide by an agenda acceptable to him, or they are subject to being summarily kicked of f the air. On those few times where I have seen Bob allow contrary statements stand largely unchallenged is when they came from a caller who was well-known before coming to the show, and therefore giving a rude treatment to might backfire. But for us no-names, we are just fodder for his audience.
My offer to debate him in person was only extended after careful consideration on my part. It is no secret that there is a significant history of Creationist-scientist debates that have turned out poorly for science and given bragging rights to the Creationist. Too many scientists found out too late that a firm understanding of science is not nearly adequate to carry such a debate.
Several of the recent threads here show one reason why. Notice those threads that provide the exact text of Bob Enyart’s commentary on science. In almost every case, Bob’s claims took no more than a minute or two to put out to the listeners. But to counter them required presenting enough technical background for the non-scientific audience to at least follow the thrust of the answer. Presenting the necessary information to counter just a single one of Bob’s nonsense claims would take 10 or 20 minutes of the allotted debate time. So in a typical debate format, where each side is given 30 or 40 minutes for their opening statements, Bob could put forth a dazzling array of charges against science. I would then be faced with deciding which 3 or 4 of the 25 charges I will give answer to. I might allude to why the rest are wrong, but an answer that only skims the surface comes across as shallow and unconvincing. In Creationist-scientist debates, particularly those held in front of audiences of fundamentalist Christians, the average audience member comes in with a pre-existing leaning to the Creationist side. Then they hear a blur of charges levied against science, of which only a few are they likely to know more than a little about. So when the scientist gives answer to only a few, and very likely not the ones the audience member most clearly remembers, the impression is left that the scientist was almost totally ineffective, even if he was absolutely perfect in handling the few charges he had time to engage.
Experienced debaters know this technique of overloading your opponent with charges to respond to. Bob used this tactic to good effect in his February 2004 debate on the age of the earth with the Reason’s to Believe representative in Denver.
In addition to being invited to call in to Bob’s show, I was mentioned as a potential Battle Royale candidate. Had that materialized more quickly, with me opposing Bob, I think I would have accepted. Battle Royales allow each round to go into some depth, and allow the 2-day recess between posts to research and compose responses, and 10 rounds instead of the much more restrictive time at the podium given in oral debates.
Threads like this one have benefits and drawbacks. The focus on the arguments between just two opponents is diluted, but in science that is not bad. I don’t know of any major advance in science that was the direct outcome of just 2 protagonists sparring. Many are the scientific advances that bear the imprimatur of many scientists over decades of refinement.
The effectiveness of these threads are diluted by the posts from the posting sheep – those who just bleat their poorly informed opinions without any pretense of support beyond their own bleatings. But these threads can also allow for many exchanges, which when conducted among people with open minds, can actually educated and edify.
So for me, I think there is little need to hold my offer to debate in Denver open longer. My ideas are here, and open for not only Bob to respond to, but any who feel he is right and can lend him the technical backing he so sorely lacks. I am thinking in particular of Don, Bob’s partner in the February 2004 debate in Denver. Don is a High-school science teacher at Maranatha. If my ideas about Io, or gravitational time dilation, or other science are seriously wrong, Don should be able to help show why. But if Bob’s science has been wrong, I wonder why Don, as a friend of Bob, has not stepped forth to help Bob with his science? Don had one stricture not saddling Bob. Don is teaching science, and aware that if he were to involve himself in an informal TOL debate, then his science could be deeply scrutinized. If he has been teaching any of the scientific nonsense that Bob has expounded on, then the science standards at Maranatha are seriously lacking. Bob is a preacher, and is not expected to be scientifically literate (though that has not stopped him from making pretenses of scientific literacy).
Anyway, novice, you have your answer from me about calling in to Bob’s show. If I, or taoist, or fool, or Johnny are in error, show us where, or feel free to ask those in your camp who have the technical background to show us where. We are open to correction.
taoist
New member
Greetings once again, ThePhy,
I'm happy to see our opinions converge on the advisability of taking up such an offer. The barely concealed drooling coming from the sheep among his flock made me step back and reconsider. Even in his studio itself, the communication controls are under his thumb, literally, allowing him far more freedom to illegitimately silence opposition than he deserves.
I'd previously documented his rhetorical style, pointing out how in the space of a single sentence, he's developed the ability to turn the word "disapprove" from Zakath into the word "approve" without so much as taking a breath to feed his starved intellectual conscience. After spending some time considering the motivations of such a speaker, and considering as well some of his more public spankings, including his arrest for child abuse, I've come to the tentative conclusion he is motivated by rage. Certainly, he projects this emotion freely enough, as you've been kind enough to document, to make the hypothesis viable, and his soft spoken words describing how he "despises" his opponents are verified for me by private communication from christian members of the forum.
But in the end, the problem turned out to hinge on a far more simple criterion. What effect would participation on his show have upon his Arbitron ratings. While he does not benefit directly from advertising revenues, I've participated in the number workup from similar measurements enough to know how it affects fund-raising appeals. And so, in sum, I find my decision on a scientific basis harmonizes with my spiritual beliefs. The most effective opposition is to refrain from direct opposition, and instead degrade the arguments along with the audience by methods more analogous to the geologic weathering of rain against stone.
As ever,
In peace,
Jesse
I'm happy to see our opinions converge on the advisability of taking up such an offer. The barely concealed drooling coming from the sheep among his flock made me step back and reconsider. Even in his studio itself, the communication controls are under his thumb, literally, allowing him far more freedom to illegitimately silence opposition than he deserves.
I'd previously documented his rhetorical style, pointing out how in the space of a single sentence, he's developed the ability to turn the word "disapprove" from Zakath into the word "approve" without so much as taking a breath to feed his starved intellectual conscience. After spending some time considering the motivations of such a speaker, and considering as well some of his more public spankings, including his arrest for child abuse, I've come to the tentative conclusion he is motivated by rage. Certainly, he projects this emotion freely enough, as you've been kind enough to document, to make the hypothesis viable, and his soft spoken words describing how he "despises" his opponents are verified for me by private communication from christian members of the forum.
But in the end, the problem turned out to hinge on a far more simple criterion. What effect would participation on his show have upon his Arbitron ratings. While he does not benefit directly from advertising revenues, I've participated in the number workup from similar measurements enough to know how it affects fund-raising appeals. And so, in sum, I find my decision on a scientific basis harmonizes with my spiritual beliefs. The most effective opposition is to refrain from direct opposition, and instead degrade the arguments along with the audience by methods more analogous to the geologic weathering of rain against stone.
As ever,
In peace,
Jesse
Mustard Seed
New member
ThePhy said:
With all the silly technicalities on words I couldn't help ring in. (I really don't cheer for either side on this as Bob is a pompous ignoramus much of the time and ThePhy's a pompous Theoretical Physicist much of the time)
I'm, in ThePhy's view, his 'Mormon stalker' (though he initiated the stalking of Mormons online) so I'm just living up to his expectations in this trivial/inane posting.
ThePhy has accused me and my faith (and it's leaders) of dishonesty in not disclosing all possible points about our faith that promote doubt ASAP. He's accused us of not presenting stuff 'honestly' without ever really exactly defining what honesty consists of for himself.(plenty ready to get into 'silly' definition battles here)
Anywho when I saw this I just had to chime in, for old times sake, and because I do occasionally give in to more juvenile tendencies at times. I'm human.
Technically there’s no such thing as a centrifugal force. It’s an apparent force. Kinda like the whole hot and cold thing. Cold doesn’t really exist only as a concept for describing a lack of heat.
Well there you go. I’ve added one more in a series of inane posts in this rather silly (good to see ThePhy is still a primo sillyoligist!) thread.
Last edited:
A trivial stalker
A trivial stalker
From Mustard Seed:
Indeed centrifugal force is a pseudo force, in a Newtonian frame of reference. Any effect from pretending this force is real can be mathematically reproduced by translating into the appropriate non-Newtonian frame. So speaking of it as real is to use a term that best carries the message to non-scientific audience, yet sacrifices nothing technically. An excellent book for those wanting a readable volume on General Relativity is Kip Thorne’s “Black Holes and Time Warps” (SUTG take note). In that book Kip (the Feynman Professor of theoretical physics at CalTech) unapologetically likewise has chosen the phrase “centrifugal force” as the one best suited to his audience.
A trivial stalker
From Mustard Seed:
Greeting MS. I will let your own admission in your message as to your demonstrated need to proselytize under any guise carry its own message.
Indeed centrifugal force is a pseudo force, in a Newtonian frame of reference. Any effect from pretending this force is real can be mathematically reproduced by translating into the appropriate non-Newtonian frame. So speaking of it as real is to use a term that best carries the message to non-scientific audience, yet sacrifices nothing technically. An excellent book for those wanting a readable volume on General Relativity is Kip Thorne’s “Black Holes and Time Warps” (SUTG take note). In that book Kip (the Feynman Professor of theoretical physics at CalTech) unapologetically likewise has chosen the phrase “centrifugal force” as the one best suited to his audience.
Zakath
Resident Atheist
As it should. As a former radio show host myself, I also turned down the opportunity to be a "guest" on Enyart's talk show, acting consistently with my belief that to do so would only serve to potentially enrich Mr. Enyart while accomplishing little or nothing to benefit my position.taoist said:
:think: Perhaps I missed this one. Could you point out where the impeccable intellect of St. Bob the Broadcaster made such a sophomoric blunder (or purposive misrepresentation)?
taoist
New member
What's even more amusing is the blatant way he telegraphs his low blows. The only reason I knew to look for such a "sophomoric blunder" was because he'd just engaged in his typical pre-emptive strike against dishonesty.Zakath said:
With that phrase in the beginning of the post. I just knew he was going to be deliberately misstating your position in the sequel. The foul I spoke of was the same, though I must admit the specific infraction was different. My original flag was thrown in one of the grandstands. Here's the original reference from the Does God Exist debate.
In the space of a single breath, he changed your "horror" to "comedy."Bob Enyart said:
:devil:
- Status