Public Invitation to ThePhy for a One on One against Enyart
- Thread starter Bob Enyart
- Start date
- Status
Uh, fellas.... lets try to stay on track shall we?
Hey ThePhy....
If you turn down Bob's offer to have a friendly discussion I don't ever want to see another thread of yours calling out Bob. How many times have we all had to listen to ThePhy calling out Bob? (you have been kind enough to list many of those threads for us) And now you going to pass on the chance to make your point directly to Bob?
Bob is a busy guy, and he isn't exactly a TOL regular so its pretty cool that he is taking the time to flesh things out with you.
Accept the offer, have some fun, that's what TOL is all about!
If you turn down Bob's offer to have a friendly discussion I don't ever want to see another thread of yours calling out Bob. How many times have we all had to listen to ThePhy calling out Bob? (you have been kind enough to list many of those threads for us) And now you going to pass on the chance to make your point directly to Bob?
Bob is a busy guy, and he isn't exactly a TOL regular so its pretty cool that he is taking the time to flesh things out with you.
Accept the offer, have some fun, that's what TOL is all about!
Knight:
As you say, “Accept the offer, have some fun, that's what TOL is all about!” Let’s look at some others who did what you suggest – Zakath, Eugenie Scott, Michael Shermer, Samuel Lamerson. What happened? The “fun” they provided turned into an opportunity for Bob Enyart to make part of his living by mocking them, both in word and print. See, I don’t have a 50,000 watt station to periodically broadcast to the world just how perverted is the understanding of science your pastor has. And I don’t plan on publishing and making part of my living out of mocking him.
Indeed there are parts of TOL that are designed for lightheartedness and laughs. But debates, whether One-on-Ones or Battle Royales are not among them. Nor are either of these types of interchanges good mechanisms for the impartial examination of scientific ideas. Battle Royales and One-on-Ones are far more effective at providing entertainment than they are at seeing truth defended. In fact this “one-on-one” type of interaction is what your pastor engages in on a daily basis with callers to his show. It’s not that it is a good way of flushing out the truth, but it is great entertainment for the audience. Notice in the start of this thread are several posts reminiscent of people anticipating a gladiator show. But how many readers have posted to express their hope that Bob will fairly address the science questions that are on the table?
With the debates, you even provide separate forums where the audience discusses who is ahead. I don’t care if I am ahead, at days end I want to look at what I have posted and feel comfortable knowing I represented science to the best of my ability. But if I am moderately certain that the chosen forum will lead to science being ridiculed due the cleverly presented nonsense of someone like Bob, then no, I will pass.
Look at Bob Enyart’s Round 7 post in Battle Royale VII against Zakath. Enyart posted some nonsense about the HDF, complete with an inserted picture, but because that was something Zakath was not familiar with, it went unchallenged. That is a classic example of truth being sacrificed because of Bob’s talent for garnering scientific nonsense from places most people are not familiar with. Had I been active on TOL and aware of that debate, and had I been able to participate, I would have helped Zakath put that HDF nonsense to bed. In my exchanges with Bob, it is likely that Stratnerd, Johnny, aharvey, and others would have information that I do not have that is important to the subject.
The threads I linked to each dealt with a separate aspect of science that Bob has failed in. To lump them all in one thread, even as “rabbit trails” is about as effective as teaching a sermon looking in depth at Jewish history, the Garden of Eden, Moses’ life, principles of accurate Biblical translation, the Crucifixion, and the reliability of each competing Biblical manuscript. No pastor who really wanted to teach would do that, and I won’t either.
And the fact that Bob is busy is hardly a reason to do a one-on-one. The issues are already in the threads, with the errors identified, and not clumped together into one confused pile. A One-on-One is worse for resolving these issues than the threads they are in right now.
And I feel very sure that Bob’s demands on his time are not so severe that he will suddenly refrain from commenting on science. I can show you numerous shows recently where he spoke to scientific issues. It is not an issue of time, but of Bob knowing that his credibility might suffer if he were to answer the issues I raise. Perhaps he should seek not to declare science, but first seek to obtain an understanding of science.
If the only way you can keep me from showing that Bob’s science is fallacious is to ban me, then show your colors and ban me. Let’s see if you worship the god of truth spoken of in the Bible, or if your real allegiance is to your church buddy.
As you say, “Accept the offer, have some fun, that's what TOL is all about!” Let’s look at some others who did what you suggest – Zakath, Eugenie Scott, Michael Shermer, Samuel Lamerson. What happened? The “fun” they provided turned into an opportunity for Bob Enyart to make part of his living by mocking them, both in word and print. See, I don’t have a 50,000 watt station to periodically broadcast to the world just how perverted is the understanding of science your pastor has. And I don’t plan on publishing and making part of my living out of mocking him.
Indeed there are parts of TOL that are designed for lightheartedness and laughs. But debates, whether One-on-Ones or Battle Royales are not among them. Nor are either of these types of interchanges good mechanisms for the impartial examination of scientific ideas. Battle Royales and One-on-Ones are far more effective at providing entertainment than they are at seeing truth defended. In fact this “one-on-one” type of interaction is what your pastor engages in on a daily basis with callers to his show. It’s not that it is a good way of flushing out the truth, but it is great entertainment for the audience. Notice in the start of this thread are several posts reminiscent of people anticipating a gladiator show. But how many readers have posted to express their hope that Bob will fairly address the science questions that are on the table?
With the debates, you even provide separate forums where the audience discusses who is ahead. I don’t care if I am ahead, at days end I want to look at what I have posted and feel comfortable knowing I represented science to the best of my ability. But if I am moderately certain that the chosen forum will lead to science being ridiculed due the cleverly presented nonsense of someone like Bob, then no, I will pass.
Look at Bob Enyart’s Round 7 post in Battle Royale VII against Zakath. Enyart posted some nonsense about the HDF, complete with an inserted picture, but because that was something Zakath was not familiar with, it went unchallenged. That is a classic example of truth being sacrificed because of Bob’s talent for garnering scientific nonsense from places most people are not familiar with. Had I been active on TOL and aware of that debate, and had I been able to participate, I would have helped Zakath put that HDF nonsense to bed. In my exchanges with Bob, it is likely that Stratnerd, Johnny, aharvey, and others would have information that I do not have that is important to the subject.
I have made my point as directly to Bob as to anyone else that has access to these forums. Isn’t Bob just as capable of reading those posts as anyone else? If I had a forum centered on discussing one of my major occupations in life, as BEL is for Bob, then I would be intensely interested in monitoring it.
The threads I linked to each dealt with a separate aspect of science that Bob has failed in. To lump them all in one thread, even as “rabbit trails” is about as effective as teaching a sermon looking in depth at Jewish history, the Garden of Eden, Moses’ life, principles of accurate Biblical translation, the Crucifixion, and the reliability of each competing Biblical manuscript. No pastor who really wanted to teach would do that, and I won’t either.
Bob is not too busy to invite me to a debate. And if Bob is so busy, then you or Yorzhik or someone else in his church should have the integrity to tug on his sleeve and take just a minute to let him know that I have specifically challenged some of his scientific ideas. If your pastor is going to use science to make his points, as he has many times, don’t you want it to be correct? Bob maintains an on-line list of some of places where he has found that he did not previously “rightly divide” issues in theology. Is his science perfect but his theology is subject to correction?
And the fact that Bob is busy is hardly a reason to do a one-on-one. The issues are already in the threads, with the errors identified, and not clumped together into one confused pile. A One-on-One is worse for resolving these issues than the threads they are in right now.
And I feel very sure that Bob’s demands on his time are not so severe that he will suddenly refrain from commenting on science. I can show you numerous shows recently where he spoke to scientific issues. It is not an issue of time, but of Bob knowing that his credibility might suffer if he were to answer the issues I raise. Perhaps he should seek not to declare science, but first seek to obtain an understanding of science.
That is your call. If you are asking me to dilute the accuracy of my critiques of Enyart’s science, than you are asking something I will not give. If I see Bob saying things that I know are wrong, do you prefer that I let it pass? Is that how you show your respect for truth? Is your pastor above correction?
If the only way you can keep me from showing that Bob’s science is fallacious is to ban me, then show your colors and ban me. Let’s see if you worship the god of truth spoken of in the Bible, or if your real allegiance is to your church buddy.
ThePhy what are you talking about?
Uh... wasn't it you who requested that we setup a debate between you and Bob? Wasn't it you who refused to call Bob's show yet instead questioned his comments here at TOL?
You are getting what you asked for yet you are rejecting it when it is placed in your lap.
What does that leave us to think about you?
Uh... wasn't it you who requested that we setup a debate between you and Bob? Wasn't it you who refused to call Bob's show yet instead questioned his comments here at TOL?
You are getting what you asked for yet you are rejecting it when it is placed in your lap.
What does that leave us to think about you?
The Berean
Well-known member
ThePhy,
Just out of curiosity what area of physics are you an expert at? What physics degrees do you hold? B.S.? M.S.? Ph.D? From what universities did you acquire them from?
Just out of curiosity what area of physics are you an expert at? What physics degrees do you hold? B.S.? M.S.? Ph.D? From what universities did you acquire them from?
I have already addressed the fact that I had a debate offer on the table.Knight said:
I am far less interested in providing the entertainment you seem to seek in the form of a debate than I am in correcting the distortion of science originating from your pastor.
Once again you prefer to ask about how I appear (and I am little concerned with how I appear to you) and yet ignore what your pastor is doing. Don’t you have the integrity to address that issue?
Can't you tell? ThePhy must have a B.S. degree.The Berean said:
The Berean
Well-known member
:rotfl:Knight said:Can't you tell? ThePhy must have a B.S. degree.
A while ago I had a "difference of opinion" with ThePhy about the amount of time it would take for us to return to the moon. I said it would be about 7-10 years. I based it on my own experience in the aerospace industry and talking to a friend who worked on prepping the Space Shuttle for launches and other rockets. He told me given the current structure of NASA it would take at least seven years. ThePhy called my friend a "bureaucrat" and accused him of not knowing what he was talking about. So I asked ThePhy what were his credentials to give an "informed" opinion and he refused to do so. He argued that his "credentials" were irrelavent to the discussion. What a load of crap. I simply want to know what his academic credentials are. That's a simple enough question.
The Berean said:
A simple enough question that he apparently does not want to answer. Perhaps I will draw my son, the Christian physicist (okay, physicist in training, he is only a Junior right now). into the discussion. Maybe The Phy would feel more comfortable debating him, if they disagree on this matter, which I don't know enough about the question to anticipate whether they would or not.
The Berean
Well-known member
Cool! :thumb:docrob57 said:
We need more Christians in science and engineering.
aharvey
New member
This, I have to say, is a somewhat bizarrely misplaced sense of, what, hurt? Just looking at the posts to which ThePhy earlier linked, one is struck by 1) the enormous amount of time and effort ThePhy has already spent preparing a great many detailed responses to things BobE has said (whether you happen to "believe" what he said or not!), and 2) the almost complete lack of response by BobE to anything ThePhy has said. And yet I hear annoyance in this thread not for BobE failing to show us the error in ThePhy's analyses, but rather for ThePhy 1) burdening us with all that analysis, and 2) declining to repeat all of this again in a format that is more to BobE's liking. The bleatings of BobE's a busy man who doesn't have much time to visit TOL just ring kinda hollow, guys. He does visit this site, and certainly should have a keen interest in what ThePhy has to say about these things (as, we now see, he apparently does). How about if we did a simple copy and paste exercise to compile all of all ThePhy's unanswered responses to BobE into a single post, and BobE could just start working on that?Knight said:
JoyfulRook
New member
You stole my joke!!!Knight said:Can't you tell? ThePhy must have a B.S. degree.
JoyfulRook
New member
ThePhy = :Zimster:
- Status