Second Offer: To ThePhy for a One-on-One Against Enyart

[Bob Enyart]

Hey Phy, this is my Second Offer inviting you to a private One on One in The Coliseum debating "Is Time Absolute or Relative?"

To the first offer, you wrote, "Bob, thanks for the invite. My initial reaction to this offer was to summarily say, 'No thanks'." But Phy, after a couple hundred more words, you final answer was also No, as One-Eyed Jack observed, "That's an awful long post just to say no."

Aside from the linked theads you'd prefer to discuss, there are a thousand topics we could debate, but the nature of time, as absolute or relative, is certainly an extraordinarily fundamental issue, and one in which you must believe that your education as an atheistic physicist will give you great advantage. Phy, you titled a section in one of your replies, "Some Questions are Worth Asking," and wrote "Bob’s post starting this thread is rather long, and the question an excellent one." So, now I publicly make this Second Offer:

To: ThePhy
From: Bob Enyart
Date: Jan. 9, 2006 (orig. Jan. 6)
Re: Will you accept my invitation to a private One on One in The Coliseum?

Phy, Let's bring to conclusion the thread on time dilation that I began months ago that you jumped in on, but without the distractions (fool, etc.) of other participants. Knight has agreed to set up a mini One-on-One sidebar thread in the Grandstands for anyone who would like to comment.

WHAT One on One: Is Time Absolute or Relative?
WHEN On Mon. January 16, '06, I would post first (an edited version of my original absolute time post)
WHO ThePhy and Bob Enyart

One on Ones are less formal and demanding than Battle Royales; and this topic would be fun. AND PHY, YOU'VE ALREADY THOUGHT THROUGH THE ISSUE, POSTED EXTENSIVELY ON IT, AND INDICATED IT IS AN EXCELLENT QUESTION! So you should be ready to go. No? Please accept this offer.

Thanks Phy,

-Bob Enyart

 

[Bob Enyart]

Always pass a fool on the right...

Always pass a fool on the right...

In an email from fool to Bob Enyart:

I’ll do a One on One with you, if you can’t find any bigger fish.

In peace

Pass.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Pass.

:rotfl:

 

[PastorZ77]

In an email from fool to Bob Enyart:



Pass.

:ha:

 

[Vaquero45]

Pass.

 

[ThePhy]

Hey Phy, this is my Second Offer inviting you to a private One on One in The Coliseum debating "Is Time Absolute or Relative?"

To the first offer, you wrote, "Bob, thanks for the invite. My initial reaction to this offer was to summarily say, 'No thanks'." But Phy, after a couple hundred more words, you final answer was also No, as One-Eyed Jack observed, "That's an awful long post just to say no."

Aside from the linked theads you'd prefer to discuss, there are a thousand topics we could debate, but the nature of time, as absolute or relative, is certainly an extraordinarily fundamental issue, and one in which you must believe that your education as an atheistic physicist will give you great advantage. Phy, you titled a section in one of your replies, "Some Questions are Worth Asking," and wrote "Bob’s post starting this thread is rather long, and the question an excellent one." So, now I publicly make this Second Offer:

To: ThePhy
From: Bob Enyart
Date: Jan. 9, 2006 (orig. Jan. 6)
Re: Will you accept my invitation to a private One on One in The Coliseum?

Phy, Let's bring to conclusion the thread on time dilation that I began months ago that you jumped in on, but without the distractions (fool, etc.) of other participants. Knight has agreed to set up a mini One-on-One sidebar thread in the Grandstands for anyone who would like to comment.

WHAT One on One: Is Time Absolute or Relative?
WHEN On Mon. January 16, '06, I would post first (an edited version of my original absolute time post)
WHO ThePhy and Bob Enyart

One on Ones are less formal and demanding than Battle Royales; and this topic would be fun. AND PHY, YOU'VE ALREADY THOUGHT THROUGH THE ISSUE, POSTED EXTENSIVELY ON IT, AND INDICATED IT IS AN EXCELLENT QUESTION! So you should be ready to go. No? Please accept this offer.

Thanks Phy,

-Bob Enyart

Bob, I note that yet once again you assiduously avoid addressing even a single one of the threads that I linked to.

I have given my reply to Knight here. You can either address your claims about science in the threads where they already were being discussed, or you can find some other person to add to your so-called “debate victories”.

 

[Bob Enyart]

Phy, remember that time in November of '04...

Phy, remember that time in November of '04...

Bob, I note that yet once again you assiduously avoid addressing even a single one of the threads that I linked to...

Actually Phy, that took no effort whatsoever .

And from your rejection to my first offer, you wrote:

...for a year I had an offer on the table for me to take my time and my expense and travel to Colorado for an in-person debate with you in front of your own congregation. When it appeared that the offer was going to sit unaccepted, perhaps buried at the bottom of your overflowing in-basket, I finally withdrew it.

Phy, when you tell that story, try to add that in the fall of 2004, I did offer to take you up on a debate. Remember that I told you that I was scheduled to be the speaker at the Rocky Mountain Creation Fellowship's monthly meeting (attendance 120 people). I gave "A report on the Debate with Denver's Reasons to Believe" about The Age of the Earth, which you had attended in person. And I said to you that I would be willing to debate you on that topic, at that forum in front of a hundred creationists (you could have put us all in our place!!). That would have been way more interesting than simply reporting on a previous debate. I said to you that if you could make it, we would get an okay from RMCF (I was rather certain they would have LOVED it), and do it. Within a short time after my offer, you said you could not make it for that date. That's fine. I understand that. But it would be informative for you to add that to your litany. No?

You can either address your claims about science in the threads where they already were being discussed, or you can find some other person to add to your so-called “debate victories”.

Phy, I'm thankful that you make an effort to find errors in my statements about science. That way people who listen to the show can weigh your argument against mine. Also, if I I become convinced that I have made a mistake (through your posts or otherwise) I appreciate those who correct me.

Not being a scientist, it takes me many weeks to prepare to debate a particular science topic, and I spent two FULL months getting ready for the Age of the Earth Debate in 2004, and that's why I felt ready to take you on at that time on that topic. Believe it or not, being a pastor, author, talk show host, video producer, debater, seminar presenter and activist (and a husband and father) takes time.

So to be economical timewise, if we go One-on-One, and I can bring you to a draw, or even take you down on the nature of time, then that will undermine your credibility. Then, fewer readers may be inclined to think that just because you've weighed in disasgreeing with me, that your scientific insight trumps mine. So this would not only be fun, but I could leverage the outcome, and IT WOULD SAVE ME TIME , (of the absolute kind of course ).

I didn't chase you for a year asking for a debate; you were the one who was looking to debate, and I was happy to oblige you when my schedule permitted. And you seem convinced that you can show that I have a poor understanding of science. So, take me on. As Knight reminds us, you've not wanted to call into the radio show, because you've said that your turf is online at TOL. So, of a dozen different scientific topics that you think my views are easily shown to be false, take me on regarding the nature of time (absolute or relative). Come on. Make me look like fool. (Okay, not like him, but... like a regular fool.)

Now, unless you simply don't have the time (which I understand), I ask you to reconsider. If you just don't have the time, I'd be happy to drop this whole challenge thing. But if you have the time, come on! Let's do it! Prove to the readers that time is relative, and that my argument that time is absolute is absurd, easily shown to be false, and betrays a complete ignorance of fundamental physics. Tempting, no?

-Bob Enyart

 

[ThePhy]

From BobE:

Phy, I'm thankful that you make an effort to find errors in my statements about science.

I don’t believe you. Not even a little bit. If you are thankful for someone’s efforts, especially when those efforts point out errors in what you say, you do more than give lip service of thanks months or years later and nothing more.

if I become convinced that I have made a mistake (through your posts or otherwise) I appreciate those who correct me.

How can you appreciate my pointing out your mistakes if you don’t even acknowledge them? Is your “appreciation” demonstrated by your ignoring them?

Not being a scientist, it takes me many weeks to prepare to debate a particular science topic …

Some of the issues I have pointed to take all of a few minutes to determine if I am right or not. For example, how much time and investigation does it take to read two statements, both made by you, that are plainly reversed in technical content? Specifically, Bob’s evolution of astronomy. We are approaching the two year mark since that thread went up. You don’t even need to consult any technical books on that one. Just look at (or better- listen to) what you said in Feb of 2002, then do the same for what you said in Battle Royale VII. Are the stars in the belt of Orion gravitationally bound or are they flying apart? Does the fact that they are gravitationally bound lend credence to the inspiration of the Bible writers? Does the fact that they are flying apart lend credence to the inspiration of the Bible writers? You said both. If you don’t have time for that, then you are being ludicrous to claim to have time for a discussion on relativity.

And note that every single scientific claim from you that I have posted on is something that you already felt comfortable enough in your knowledge of to put it on the air. Is your modus operandi to talk on the radio about scientific items, but to pretend to insufficient time to go back and revisit when questions arise? Don’t you continually review and improve your understanding of the Bible? If you feel something in science is worth talking about, isn’t it also worth revisiting, especially if someone identifies the problems in it for you?

So to be economical timewise, if we go One-on-One, and I can bring you to a draw, or even take you down on the nature of time, then that will undermine your credibility. Then, fewer readers may be inclined to think that just because you've weighed in disagreeing with me, that your scientific insight trumps mine.

This is a surprisingly frank admission of your real goal in this offer – to discredit me. Not to investigate science impartially, but to trump another atheist.

So, of a dozen different scientific topics that you think my views are easily shown to be false, take me on regarding the nature of time (absolute or relative).

Refer to this thread and read (once again) the paragraph starting with “So let’s put the …”.

Make me look like fool. (Okay, not like him, but... like a regular fool.)

No, I will leave that attitude to you. I resent you misrepresenting science, but beyond that, I am not interested in making you look like a fool. Making money out of mocking others is your forte, not mine.

Now, unless you simply don't have the time (which I understand), I ask you to reconsider. If you just don't have the time, I'd be happy to drop this whole challenge thing. But if you have the time, come on!

I have some time, but not enough time to waste discussing science in the format you are insisting on. Since so far you have repeatedly ignored what I have said, let me try one more time. Please see if you can understand it this time. Person-on-person debates are not good forums for presenting science. Was that too deep for you?

Now let me ask you – since you have time to try to engage me in the debate you are asking for, do you also have time to read and respond to issues that you already felt qualified to comment on – the issues I linked to?

Prove to the readers that time is relative, and that my argument that time is absolute is absurd, easily shown to be false, and betrays a complete ignorance of fundamental physics.

Good job of choosing words that misrepresent what I have said. It should be “easily shown to be false” (yet that “ease” escaped the entire physics community for the several centuries between Newton and Einstein.) And I wonder if you can point me to where I said that a lack of understanding time dilation demonstrates a “complete ignorance of fundamental physics?” In contradiction to this assertion, Lord Kelvin (Christian father of science who was also a fiercely defensive old-earther) had am amazing mastery of fundamental physics, yet had no inkling of time dilation.

Tempting, no?

Not in the least. Discussing science in an open forum – now that is something that I have already participated in extensively in these forums. Are you afraid of discussing your views on science in open forums?

I suspect we are at a Mexican standoff – you are scared of going to the links I provided and giving answer to the issues I raised. And I am not going to argue science in a debate forum.

But I hold the edge here. You can ridicule me, or you can have Knight ban me, or you can just go on ignoring the threads I have linked to. In all of these scenarios, I might be put down, but the science I have addressed is not dependent on my reputation.

Or alternatively, you can give in and actually give scientific answer to the threads. But if you do, you know that you stand to be shown wrong. Being shown to be wrong is not necessarily a big deal, we all make mistakes. But since several of the ideas I link to are pertinent to age-of-the earth issues, to admit error there is to weaken your own YEC arguments. And I think that is a pill you don’t have the integrity to swallow.

 

[sentientsynth]

I think you're both acting like little girls. Put up or shut up, I say.

Sounds to me like you both have terms, and that you both have legitimate complaints about the other. Act like men.



Disaffected Observer,

SS

 

[Bob Enyart]

Olive branch to Phy

Olive branch to Phy

Some of the issues I have pointed to take all of a few minutes to determine if I am right or not. For example, how much time and investigation does it take to read two statements, both made by you, that are plainly reversed in technical content? Specifically, Bob’s evolution of astronomy.

As an olive branch, since you’ve singled this criticism of yours out, I’ll commit to responding to this (within days), in hopes that you will reconsider a One-on-One against me on whether time is absolute or relative (which I would now have to push until Jan. 23rd).

And here are two quotes from you, both within a couple of sentences:

Making money out of mocking others is your forte, not mine.

and:

Please see if you can understand it this time. Person-on-person debates are not good forums for presenting science. Was that too deep for you?

I guess I see your point. You mock people for free.

you can have Knight ban me

I’ve never asked Knight to ban anyone, and couldn’t imagine asking him to ban you of all people. I want to debate you, not ban you.

…since several of the ideas I link to are pertinent to age-of-the earth issues, to admit error there is to weaken your own YEC arguments.

And Phy, while we’re at this, for the sake of TOL readers, can you confirm my offer to you to debate The Age of the Earth at the regular meeting of the Rocky Mountain Creation Fellowship on Nov. 12, 2004, which you then turned down for schedule reasons?

 

[koban]

I’ve never asked Knight to ban anyone, and couldn’t imagine asking him to ban you of all people. I want to debate you, not ban you.

You may not be aware of it, but ThePhy was banned back around September or so, for an extensive post critical of your understanding of angular momentum titled "Weaving Baskets Around Jupiter".

 

[ThePhy]

From BobE:

As an olive branch, since you’ve singled this criticism of yours out, I’ll commit to responding to this (within days),

That would be much appreciated. It would have been far more genuine if you had done it voluntarily 2 years ago.

in hopes that you will reconsider a One-on-One against me on whether time is absolute or relative (which I would now have to push until Jan. 23rd).

And now the truth outs again. Your willingness to provide a response about the changing statements on astronomy showing Biblical inspiration is not prompted by your voluntarily recognizing or admitting an error, but rather it is being done as some kind of quid pro quo.

I have already given my answer three times about using debates as forums for discussing science. The last time I tried to make my position blazingly clear. But apparently even that went over your head. I see no point in again giving an answer that you have chosen to ignore every other time I have stated it. There are none so deaf as they who will not …

Some of your scientific nonsense is available on the posts in this forum. I thank Knight for touching each of the pertinent threads so they will stay close to the top of the thread queue for a few days. If you want to leave my comments unchallenged, as has been your norm till now, then retreat back into your studied ignoring of those threads. If you feel the arguments I have offered are specious or clearly flawed, then perhaps inaction on your part in the best course of action. If you have scientifically defensible answers, append them to the appropriate threads.

An unintended side effect of my focusing on those errors has been to expose how reluctant you have been to admit to or address those errors. I would like to think that your culpability was limited to dissemination scientific misinformation, but your demonstrated avoidance of even admitting those errors is a poor reflection on you.

And Phy, while we’re at this, for the sake of TOL readers, can you confirm my offer to you to debate The Age of the Earth at the regular meeting of the Rocky Mountain Creation Fellowship on Nov. 12, 2004, which you then turned down for schedule reasons?

Yes, that is correct.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

I guess I see your point. You mock people for free.

:rotfl:

Ok... now THAT was funny.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

It would have been far more genuine if you had done it voluntarily 2 years ago. And now the truth outs again. Your willingness to provide a response about the changing statements on astronomy showing Biblical inspiration is not prompted by your voluntarily recognizing or admitting an error, but rather it is being done as some kind of quid pro quo.

I have already given my answer three times about using debates as forums for discussing science. The last time I tried to make my position blazingly clear. But apparently even that went over your head. I see no point in again giving an answer that you have chosen to ignore every other time I have stated it. There are none so deaf as they who will not …

Some of your scientific nonsense is available on the posts in this forum. I thank Knight for touching each of the pertinent threads so they will stay close to the top of the thread queue for a few days. If you want to leave my comments unchallenged, as has been your norm till now, then retreat back into your studied ignoring of those threads. If you feel the arguments I have offered are specious or clearly flawed, then perhaps inaction on your part in the best course of action. If you have scientifically defensible answers, append them to the appropriate threads.

An unintended side effect of my focusing on those errors has been to expose how reluctant you have been to admit to or address those errors. I would like to think that your culpability was limited to dissemination scientific misinformation, but your demonstrated avoidance of even admitting those errors is a poor reflection on you. Yes, that is correct.

Phy help me out here.... are you saying you will now accept Bob's offer or are you still rejecting Bob's offer?

 

[ThePhy]

Phy help me out here.... are you saying you will now accept Bob's offer or are you still rejecting Bob's offer?

I’m forced to conclude that reading comprehension is seriously lacking in the membership and leadership of DBC. I have answered Bob time and again, but I will answer you in the hope that perhaps with you the message will take. NO – no debate on science.

I think determining what is correct science is not a good subject for a debate. In his career Bob has been quite successful at using the one-on-one format to “prevail” over his opponents, quite irrespective of whether or not he used good science to do it. I am perfectly willing to give your readers the opportunity to draw whatever conclusion they want about me in refusing to engage in such an exchange about science with Bob.

If you, or BobE, or any of the other readers are really interested in determining what science says about the issues I have focused on, then there are threads already extant for that purpose. To move the core of such discussions to a one-on-one contest between BobE and I would do nothing to improve the discussion of the involved science, and in fact may well degrade it. At the same time, it would provide BobE the vehicle he is so desperately seeking to discredit me, and therefore by implication (according to Bob), my science.

Bob wants me to meet him on his turf. I am a defender of science, and I will not knowingly subject science to Bob’s type of ridicule. I am asking that Bob play on sciences' turf – where a diverse and open exchange of scientific ideas is the norm. If Bob demands that the only place that he will meet is in a one-on-one debate then that will stand as testimony that he is more interested in building his ego than in accurate science.

Now for gosh sakes, are we going to have to go a bunch more posts on this one-on-one issue, or will BobE or any other YECers address science as science, by giving answer in the threads created for that purpose?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Bob wants me to meet him on his turf.

Apparently you have no turf.

In all the years I have been dealing with you, there is no pleasing you.

Not only that but you are a bitter bitter man aren't you? Your bitterness just oozes out in every word you type.

You really should consider shedding that crusty ol' exterior and start living a little! Bob is a really nice guy, TOL is a fun internet forum, Bob's offer to you is one that could be fun for eveyone involved including yourself.

 

[ThePhy]

Apparently you have no turf.

I thought I had responded to posts and initiated threads in this forum and others. That doesn’t count?

In all the years I have been dealing with you, there is no pleasing you.

Sure there is. Just admit that YECism is a bad joke.

Not only that but you are a bitter bitter man aren't you? Your bitterness just oozes out in every word you type.

Must be from years of dealing with YECers.

You really should consider shedding that crusty ol' exterior and start living a little! Bob is a really nice guy, TOL is a fun internet forum, Bob's offer to you is one that could be fun for everyone involved including yourself.

Are you Bob’s new snake-oil sales manager?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

I thought I had responded to posts and initiated threads in this forum and others. That doesn’t count? Sure there is. Just admit that YECism is a bad joke. Must be from years of dealing with YECers. Are you Bob’s new snake-oil sales manager?

There ya go!!!

A humorous post!

See... it wasn't that hard was it? The new and improved ThePhy with mini marshmallows!

Ya know... I could be wrong but I don't even think Bob is really looking for a debate per se. Instead, I think he is looking for a qualified person to help him flesh out his assertion about time. It isn't as if you are being ambushed here or anything. Come on now lets all hug, make up and get this thing going OK?

 

[GuySmiley]

So to try to summarize, ThePhy will debate science if its an open forum where many people can jump in, but will not debate science one-on-one. Weird.

 

[ThePhy]

Come on now lets all hug, make up and get this thing going OK?

It is going, and has been for a long time. Look at the dates on the OPs in the thread I linked to. They are ready and waiting.