ThePhy on Bob Enyart Live?
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
Re: July of 2005?
Re: July of 2005?
How about this....
You just tell me what Sunday works for you and I will arrange the rest.
Deal?
Maybe I will video tape it and make a webcast of it so everyone here on TOL can view it.
So, let me know ASAP what Sunday works for you so I can start planning.
Re: July of 2005?
OK. I understand completely.
How about this....
You just tell me what Sunday works for you and I will arrange the rest.
Deal?
Maybe I will video tape it and make a webcast of it so everyone here on TOL can view it.
So, let me know ASAP what Sunday works for you so I can start planning.
Looks good
Looks good
Obviously my schedule is not the only one that will need to coordinated. I know Bob gets rather busy at times as well (like his just completed trip to Turkey, and his seminars).
My best estimate now is for late this year. I imagine the schedule at your end crowds as the year-end approaches, so I would be willing to even slide into early next year if that fits Bob’s schedule any better. That is far enough ahead that I suggest we hold off on firming a date for about 3 more months. I will ping you again at that time.
I will probably take a few days for the debate and drive to Denver, and visit some folks coming and going. So you have to promise that I will not spend three days stuck in the snow in the Rockies west of Denver.
Looks good
Obviously my schedule is not the only one that will need to coordinated. I know Bob gets rather busy at times as well (like his just completed trip to Turkey, and his seminars).
My best estimate now is for late this year. I imagine the schedule at your end crowds as the year-end approaches, so I would be willing to even slide into early next year if that fits Bob’s schedule any better. That is far enough ahead that I suggest we hold off on firming a date for about 3 more months. I will ping you again at that time.
I will probably take a few days for the debate and drive to Denver, and visit some folks coming and going. So you have to promise that I will not spend three days stuck in the snow in the Rockies west of Denver.
cur_deus_homo
New member
Why bother. I thought debates presuppose the issue to be debated would actually be debatable.
Not so in this case, unless you're willing to debate over a few million years, take or give a few.
ThePhy, don't waste your time.
Not so in this case, unless you're willing to debate over a few million years, take or give a few.
ThePhy, don't waste your time.
Flipper
New member
I can tip off the local atheists groups regarding the debate, ThePhy, so you won't be completely outnumbered 
I think you're right though about being physically present for the call. Bob has a bad habit (not exclusive to him as a radio host either) of using the mute button judiciously if he doesn't care for the answers he gets. It's an unfair advantage.
I think you're right though about being physically present for the call. Bob has a bad habit (not exclusive to him as a radio host either) of using the mute button judiciously if he doesn't care for the answers he gets. It's an unfair advantage.
Re: Looks good
Re: Looks good
To bad you wont just go on his radio show as then we could do it anytime!
Re: Looks good
OK.... just PM me or something when you think it might work for you.
To bad you wont just go on his radio show as then we could do it anytime!
Not just atheists
Not just atheists
From Flipper:
I know that DBC loves to occasionally invite things like Mormon missionaries in to feast on. I think they look at me as a potential snack too.
But realistically, my position will not necessarily be from an atheistic perspective, but a scientific one. I think most physicists that are Christians will concur with what I say. The subject is age of the earth, not does God exist.
Not just atheists
From Flipper:
I don’t object, but when it gets closer check with Knight or Bob to see how big an audience they can accommodate. I wonder what Denver Bible church would do if they had a big one-night influx of heathens.
I know that DBC loves to occasionally invite things like Mormon missionaries in to feast on. I think they look at me as a potential snack too.
But realistically, my position will not necessarily be from an atheistic perspective, but a scientific one. I think most physicists that are Christians will concur with what I say. The subject is age of the earth, not does God exist.
when is it too simple?
when is it too simple?
From jhodgeiii:
I will give it my all to keep it within the grasp of the audience.
when is it too simple?
From jhodgeiii:
I hope I’m not too. But sometimes people forget that many of the ideas that we may be considering require years of advanced math and physics just to be capable of reading and understanding the technical issues involved. And then they want it brought down to the level of someone who abhors math, and has a very poor grasp of even rudimentary science. Part of the balancing act is how to make advanced scientific concepts understandable to the average non-scientist, but not simplify the science itself so much that it is more a parody than an accurate rendition.
I will give it my all to keep it within the grasp of the audience.
Flipper
New member
jhodgeiii:
Yeah, a good example of what ThePhy may be talking about is alleged violations of the first law of thermodynamics in the early stages of the Big Bang. Bob can take the path of apparent common sense by saying "a rock can't create itself and a fire can't burn forever." It sounds good, but it's really not a useful analogy.
ThePhy, on the other hand, must then explain how, as space-time becomes increasingly curved and non-Minkowskian , it becomes impossible to attach an energy value to it, and what that implies for the first law of thermodynamics. It requires a bit of relativity and a bit of cosmology, and a bit of geometry, as well as clearing up some fundamental misunderstandings of the LoT that Bob has been propagating.
See what I mean?
Yeah, a good example of what ThePhy may be talking about is alleged violations of the first law of thermodynamics in the early stages of the Big Bang. Bob can take the path of apparent common sense by saying "a rock can't create itself and a fire can't burn forever." It sounds good, but it's really not a useful analogy.
ThePhy, on the other hand, must then explain how, as space-time becomes increasingly curved and non-Minkowskian , it becomes impossible to attach an energy value to it, and what that implies for the first law of thermodynamics. It requires a bit of relativity and a bit of cosmology, and a bit of geometry, as well as clearing up some fundamental misunderstandings of the LoT that Bob has been propagating.
See what I mean?
It may not be perfect, but it sure isn't bad. 1st LoT basically says that energy is conserved, thus, "a rock can't create itself [from nothing]." 2nd LoT basically says that the entropy (disorder) of the universe increases over time, thus, "a fire can't burn forever."
But this is neither here nor there because I don't think that Phy will be able to make his case based on LoTs, nor is he obliged to. I think that very little time will be spent on LoTs, if any.
-J Bone
Flipper
New member
It's a pretty standard gambit for Bob. And it's a gross simplification - his fire not burning forever seems more appropriate an analogy for the first LoT, not the 2nd. And both analogies only work within closed systems under standard physics.
Furthermore, it appears that the 1st LoT becomes harder and harder to apply the closer you get to singularity. It is possible that the big bang was a violation of conservation of energy but it's not known because it can't be calculated using the very physics that Bob likes to tout as proof of a created universe.
Furthermore, it appears that the 1st LoT becomes harder and harder to apply the closer you get to singularity. It is possible that the big bang was a violation of conservation of energy but it's not known because it can't be calculated using the very physics that Bob likes to tout as proof of a created universe.
Flipper
New member
...Or one might expect these laws to fail as one moves into a quantum universe, just like standard mechanics and electrodynamics don't work as explanations in the quantum realm. No God required, just good theory backed with experimentation.
I would agree that the question is still wide open as to the cause of said expansion/big bang. The point is that the field is open to a naturalistic explanation, whereas Bob argues that it absolutely is not, using the laws of naturalism. He is mistaken.
I would agree that the question is still wide open as to the cause of said expansion/big bang. The point is that the field is open to a naturalistic explanation, whereas Bob argues that it absolutely is not, using the laws of naturalism. He is mistaken.
Update
Update
For the few that were interested in the proposed debate, this is not a dead issue. I have recently been in contact with Knight via PM (to preclude cluttering this thread with adminstrivia). I am suggesting an Oct or Nov timeframe for the debate, but I am still awaiting concurrence from Bob. Will update this thread as things firm up.
Update
For the few that were interested in the proposed debate, this is not a dead issue. I have recently been in contact with Knight via PM (to preclude cluttering this thread with adminstrivia). I am suggesting an Oct or Nov timeframe for the debate, but I am still awaiting concurrence from Bob. Will update this thread as things firm up.
- Status