JoyfulRook
New member
Were you? Bob said you Chickened out. :chicken:Originally posted by Freak
I'm scheduled to be back on the radio and satellite March 26th. So, we'll see.
ThePhy on Bob Enyart Live?
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
An Extended Silence
An Extended Silence
Knight,
Have you approached Bob about my previously stated request for a public debate about the age-of-the earth?
I realize I am not a “big fish” like Michael Shermer or Eugenie Scott. But I am confident that I can credibly represent the side of mainstream science in the issue. If Bob would like to talk to me about the possibility of the debate, I would be happy to oblige. Have him PM me, or I can call at a pre-arranged time.
Bob probably does not remember, but I was the visitor that came the farthest (from Seattle) to his late-February debate with the Hugh Ross group. I briefly introduced myself to Bob before that debate. It was partially the totally inadequate defense offered by the Hugh Ross people that stimulated my reversal of position (from declining your original debate offer in this thread). Had it been an open forum at that February debate, I would have gladly brought up relevant answers that were not forthcoming.
Bob has repeatedly said that the evidence against an old earth is overwhelming. I disagree, in fact I think the reverse it true. He also frequently says that scientists who debate him try to focus on the religion, and avoid the science. I am proposing that one of the ground rules be that the science is the focus, and religion is only allowed to the extent that it directly talks about things that have scientific import.
I am challenging Bob to show that he was serious when he said he would like another debate on the age-of-the-earth, but with a tighter focus, and have it one-on-one. Still waiting an answer.
An Extended Silence
Knight,
Have you approached Bob about my previously stated request for a public debate about the age-of-the earth?
I realize I am not a “big fish” like Michael Shermer or Eugenie Scott. But I am confident that I can credibly represent the side of mainstream science in the issue. If Bob would like to talk to me about the possibility of the debate, I would be happy to oblige. Have him PM me, or I can call at a pre-arranged time.
Bob probably does not remember, but I was the visitor that came the farthest (from Seattle) to his late-February debate with the Hugh Ross group. I briefly introduced myself to Bob before that debate. It was partially the totally inadequate defense offered by the Hugh Ross people that stimulated my reversal of position (from declining your original debate offer in this thread). Had it been an open forum at that February debate, I would have gladly brought up relevant answers that were not forthcoming.
Bob has repeatedly said that the evidence against an old earth is overwhelming. I disagree, in fact I think the reverse it true. He also frequently says that scientists who debate him try to focus on the religion, and avoid the science. I am proposing that one of the ground rules be that the science is the focus, and religion is only allowed to the extent that it directly talks about things that have scientific import.
I am challenging Bob to show that he was serious when he said he would like another debate on the age-of-the-earth, but with a tighter focus, and have it one-on-one. Still waiting an answer.
Re: An Extended Silence
Re: An Extended Silence
Please... please... please....
Remind me about this again in about two weeks or so... OK?
Re: An Extended Silence
Bob will be out of the country for about two more weeks.
Please... please... please....
Remind me about this again in about two weeks or so... OK?
An empty challenge?
An empty challenge?
I am getting the feeling that for reasons not yet expressed Bob is not interested in an Age of the Earth debate with me. At least there has been no hint of him even considering it more than three weeks after I first formally offered to take him up on his request for a debate.
I can surmise that his interest would be much higher if he could advertise that he was taking on a well-known scientist who carried some name recognition. I will not pretend to that, but I will openly declare that I am strongly of the opinion that his prior success in debates on this issue has been more due to the lackadaisical preparation of his opponents than to Bob’s silly parody of science.
As it stands now, Bob’s challenge has been answered, and it is he who is failing to stand up to his own challenge.
An empty challenge?
I am getting the feeling that for reasons not yet expressed Bob is not interested in an Age of the Earth debate with me. At least there has been no hint of him even considering it more than three weeks after I first formally offered to take him up on his request for a debate.
I can surmise that his interest would be much higher if he could advertise that he was taking on a well-known scientist who carried some name recognition. I will not pretend to that, but I will openly declare that I am strongly of the opinion that his prior success in debates on this issue has been more due to the lackadaisical preparation of his opponents than to Bob’s silly parody of science.
As it stands now, Bob’s challenge has been answered, and it is he who is failing to stand up to his own challenge.
Under Turbo's skin?
Under Turbo's skin?
From Turbo:
Even if Bob were still overseas, it is clear that he was maintaining enough contact with the home team to do the daily shows. I suspect even there it would have been trivial to forward the question to him.
You may interpret my questioning as an “attitude” if you like. Bob is a full-scale braggart about his prowess at winning debates with scientists. That is what I call an attitude.
Under Turbo's skin?
From Turbo:
Asking should take about 10 seconds, and Bob’s answer another 10 (even if it is “let me think about it”). I have already heard several recent shows that sounded very much like Bob was in studio (with the youth from his church).
Even if Bob were still overseas, it is clear that he was maintaining enough contact with the home team to do the daily shows. I suspect even there it would have been trivial to forward the question to him.
You may interpret my questioning as an “attitude” if you like. Bob is a full-scale braggart about his prowess at winning debates with scientists. That is what I call an attitude.
Re: An empty challenge?
Re: An empty challenge?
I heard he went overseas just to avoid you!
Darn!!!! And you didn't forget did you?
Let's see... maybe Bob can apply for entrance into the witness protection program so he wont have to face your interrogation!!!
LOL! :chuckle:
Give me a break!!!
When I get time... the next time I talk to Bob I will ask him if he is interested in having you on his show.
And if you get to impatient you can always call him yourself. 1-800-8Enyart the show is taped weekdays Monday - Friday at 3PM MDT.
Re: An empty challenge?
LOL... yea... uh.... Bob is scared to death of you.
I heard he went overseas just to avoid you!
Darn!!!! And you didn't forget did you?
Let's see... maybe Bob can apply for entrance into the witness protection program so he wont have to face your interrogation!!!
LOL! :chuckle:
Give me a break!!!
When I get time... the next time I talk to Bob I will ask him if he is interested in having you on his show.
And if you get to impatient you can always call him yourself. 1-800-8Enyart the show is taped weekdays Monday - Friday at 3PM MDT.
Still dodging
Still dodging
From Knight:
Perhaps I have located the problem. It may not be Bob, but you. I stated very clearly, and have not changed my stance that my debate with Bob must be a formal person-to-person debate, not on as a caller on his show. I have expressed a willingness to debate in the Denver area to minimize any impact on Bob’s time.
I have funneled my requests through you since you since you initially proffered the request for me to bring my issues up to Bob. I have gathered from comments on his programs that he has some staff that arrange for him to appear as a guest on various shows, and arrange for guest appearances on his show. I assumed from your comments that you may be involved in part of that. To approach Bob about a formal debate, do you recommend that I contact him directly, or is there someone else whom I need to talk to?
Still dodging
From Knight:
Knight,
Perhaps I have located the problem. It may not be Bob, but you. I stated very clearly, and have not changed my stance that my debate with Bob must be a formal person-to-person debate, not on as a caller on his show. I have expressed a willingness to debate in the Denver area to minimize any impact on Bob’s time.
I have funneled my requests through you since you since you initially proffered the request for me to bring my issues up to Bob. I have gathered from comments on his programs that he has some staff that arrange for him to appear as a guest on various shows, and arrange for guest appearances on his show. I assumed from your comments that you may be involved in part of that. To approach Bob about a formal debate, do you recommend that I contact him directly, or is there someone else whom I need to talk to?
In his defense, Phy's latest posts surely fall within Knight's "about two weeks or so" timeframe to be reminded of this. He obviously feels that he has what it takes to make the better case; moreover, he has an advantage since he's already heard much of Enyart's case within a debate format. Shouldn't be that big of a deal though if the debate is restricted to science. Facts are facts.
But I think it's crazy to suggest that Bob is shying away from this debate. Phy, you really mustn't know the guy (HA HA)! I must admit that I, too, anxiously await the answer. I may need to reserve my plane tickets!
Let's get this party started!
-J Bone
But I think it's crazy to suggest that Bob is shying away from this debate. Phy, you really mustn't know the guy (HA HA)! I must admit that I, too, anxiously await the answer. I may need to reserve my plane tickets!
Let's get this party started!
-J Bone
I will call him right now!
No answer.
I left him a message.
I left him a message.
The Phy... I just got off the phone with Bob and he would love to have you clarify the oppositions position.
I don't think a formal in-person debate would work since that usually requires that both sides bring marketing and audience following to the table etc.
However, Bob said he would be more than willing to dedicate an entire broadcast to you and possibly two entire shows assuming you do a good job presenting your case and all.
Thoughts??
Please feel free to PM me your phone number or a way I can contact you if you are interested in this offer.
I don't think a formal in-person debate would work since that usually requires that both sides bring marketing and audience following to the table etc.
However, Bob said he would be more than willing to dedicate an entire broadcast to you and possibly two entire shows assuming you do a good job presenting your case and all.
Thoughts??
Please feel free to PM me your phone number or a way I can contact you if you are interested in this offer.
Think small debate
Think small debate
With all due respect to Bob’s counter offer for a guest slot on his show, I see too many drawbacks. First is that there are pertinent scientific arguments that are much better presented with visual aids. Second, a formal debate gives both sides equal opportunity to develop their ideas without interruption from the opposing side. Third, as was evident in the February debate, even giving each side a full 30 minutes for their opening presentation and a follow-up 20 minute rebuttal period was almost too brief to do much more than skim over parts of the subject matter. Bob’s current 30 minute shows are too short to even accommodate a single full opening presentation of the sort that were given in February.
I have been thinking over the logistics of the debate. Holding it in Denver would essentially eliminate me bringing a support group for my side. As you mention, there are marketing issues if you want to draw a large audience, and I don’t have any particular credentials that would be effective in that respect. But I am not bothered with the realization that my audience may be small, and may be largely adversarial. I would hope to correct some scientific ideas that I think Bob is misrepresenting. Bringing people already in agreement with me might make me feel that I am not alone, but much of what I would say they already know and agree with, so it would be of little benefit to them. I would hope that Bob’s audience would come to understand the science more clearly than the poor presentation of it Bob has fed them.
Perhaps we could reach a mutually agreeable intermediate arrangement. For example, (and I have no idea if this would be commensurate with your church schedules), I would be willing to hold the debate with primarily just interested members of the Denver Bible church as the audience, on a Sunday or at whatever time would be convenient. Even though it would be much scaled down in size from the February debate, I would still ask for essentially the same time allocation (30 min opening, 20 min rebuttal, and Q&A time) so we are talking about a 3-hour block of time. I would want the proceeding videotaped by both sides. I would require both video and sound for my presentation. I can arrange to bring my own video projection and sound equipment if needed. Bob or his staff would need to make arrangements for a suitable location.
Since the core of the debate revolves around science, and realizing science is not a field most people understand well, I would endeavor to keep the presentation at a level understandable by the average person, but not sacrifice scientific accuracy in the process.
Pass this by Bob and see what he thinks.
Think small debate
With all due respect to Bob’s counter offer for a guest slot on his show, I see too many drawbacks. First is that there are pertinent scientific arguments that are much better presented with visual aids. Second, a formal debate gives both sides equal opportunity to develop their ideas without interruption from the opposing side. Third, as was evident in the February debate, even giving each side a full 30 minutes for their opening presentation and a follow-up 20 minute rebuttal period was almost too brief to do much more than skim over parts of the subject matter. Bob’s current 30 minute shows are too short to even accommodate a single full opening presentation of the sort that were given in February.
I have been thinking over the logistics of the debate. Holding it in Denver would essentially eliminate me bringing a support group for my side. As you mention, there are marketing issues if you want to draw a large audience, and I don’t have any particular credentials that would be effective in that respect. But I am not bothered with the realization that my audience may be small, and may be largely adversarial. I would hope to correct some scientific ideas that I think Bob is misrepresenting. Bringing people already in agreement with me might make me feel that I am not alone, but much of what I would say they already know and agree with, so it would be of little benefit to them. I would hope that Bob’s audience would come to understand the science more clearly than the poor presentation of it Bob has fed them.
Perhaps we could reach a mutually agreeable intermediate arrangement. For example, (and I have no idea if this would be commensurate with your church schedules), I would be willing to hold the debate with primarily just interested members of the Denver Bible church as the audience, on a Sunday or at whatever time would be convenient. Even though it would be much scaled down in size from the February debate, I would still ask for essentially the same time allocation (30 min opening, 20 min rebuttal, and Q&A time) so we are talking about a 3-hour block of time. I would want the proceeding videotaped by both sides. I would require both video and sound for my presentation. I can arrange to bring my own video projection and sound equipment if needed. Bob or his staff would need to make arrangements for a suitable location.
Since the core of the debate revolves around science, and realizing science is not a field most people understand well, I would endeavor to keep the presentation at a level understandable by the average person, but not sacrifice scientific accuracy in the process.
Pass this by Bob and see what he thinks.
Hmmm yea... that sounds good.... Sunday night July 11th at DBC.
If that sounds good to you... I will ask Bob if that works with him.
- Status