I note that the Rev. Enyart has found time to post about 40 times since this thread was last touched. So he has time to respond to TOL threads that catch his interest. So I am pinging this in hopes that he will use a bit of that TOL posting effort giving answer to the issues still floating in this thread.
Bob Should Really Learn to be More Hubble
- Thread starter ThePhy
- Start date
- Status
During my meeting with Enyart recently, I placed a copy of the HDF picture in front of him. He sensed what was coming, and immediately made a comment that new discoveries are confirming his viewpoint. But I asked him to point out the spiral galaxies in the HDF picture that he was talking about as referenced in the OP of this thread. He hesitated, and then indicated a few galaxies in the picture. I asked him the distance to the galaxies, but as I knew, he had no way of knowing on any specific one. He mentioned that scientists should then filter out the near galaxies so we can look at the older ones. This was a good request, and one I satisfied immediately since the book the HDF picture was in had exactly that type of filtered picture a few pages later. It was clear that Bob’s could say little about the HDF picture, with the exception of falling back on the “new data is supporting me” claim.
I did detect during my conversation with Bob that he had familiarized himself with some of the arguments I have made on several of my threads discussing his misportrayals of science. Several times as subjects came up as I started to verbalize arguments made in my threads, he injected the exact phrases I had used. He knows what I have written. His silence on responding is not accidental, or for lack of knowing what I said in my threads.
I did detect during my conversation with Bob that he had familiarized himself with some of the arguments I have made on several of my threads discussing his misportrayals of science. Several times as subjects came up as I started to verbalize arguments made in my threads, he injected the exact phrases I had used. He knows what I have written. His silence on responding is not accidental, or for lack of knowing what I said in my threads.
Bob and I have a history going back a couple of years. Bob first came to my attention when another TOL poster asked me to look at Bob’s science in Battle Royale 7 – “Does God Exist”. The Battle Royale was in progress, or just over, so I had no part in its outcome. But I did see some pseudoscience from Bob there, so that motivated me to listen to some of his recorded BEL shows. I found he occasionally talked about science, but it was usually when he wanted to mock it because he perceived it threatening his theology. During such mocking he was established as clearly incompetent in understanding much real science, though he makes up for that in being able to attractively package his nonsense in fundamentalist-friendly trappings.Tinark said:
I was unable to see that anyone with some scientific acumen was consistently standing up to him. One of the significant motivations I had was in Feb of 2004 when I traveled to Denver (just burning up some frequent flyer miles that were about to expire) to attend an age-of the earth debate between Bob and some Denver Christian old-earthers. Bob clearly won, but not by virtue of good science. His opponents were too “Christian”, entering the debate with the stated purpose of participating in a congenial study of the science involved with Enyart. But Bob (somewhat in violation of the rules) took his first turn at the microphone to unleash a full-speed no-holds barred assault on old-earth science, by unloading a typical load of selective nonsense. It was clear that Bob’s opponents had prepared for a much lower-key exchange than they found themselves faced with, and were unprepared to counter Bob’s non-science.
I came close to preemptively asking if I could join the old-earth debaters late in the debate, but decided that was not what had been agreed to, so I sat silent. Subsequently I started developing a list of specific scientific ideas that Bob had massacred in his radio show and the “Age-of the Earth” debate and the “Does God exist” debate. My scientific expertise is limited primarily to math and physics, so I limit my challenges to Bob’s ideas to where he tramples on these areas of science. I have strong reservations about using debates as a mechanism for presenting good science anyway. The “Age of the Earth” debate was a sterling example of good science succumbing to smoothly presented baloney primarily because of the style of presentation.
Even so, I felt I was secure enough in understanding Bob’s style and my counter-arguments that I offered to debate Bob in person in front of his own congregation. Bob’s schedule pressures prevented the debate from materializing in a timely manner, and I suspected (and still do) that Bob had other reasons for not taking me up on my debate offer. When it appeared that the debate was likely not to occur at all, I withdrew the offer and turned instead towards authoring detailed responses to Bob’s bad science. The half-dozen or more threads I have initiated in this forum are the result, and encapsulate the essence of what I would have relied on had the in-person debates materialized.
Note that with few exceptions, Bob has let these posts stand unchallenged for many months now. If he had had these ideas laid in front of his own congregation in a real-time debate, is it likely that he would have been able to there counter what he has failed to do in many months here? Dodging a debate can be the best way of avoiding an embarrassing situation.
Bob did try strenuously to get me to debate him on-line early this year. He wanted to focus that debate to the question of whether time is absolute or relative. I declined, partially because I am still not of the opinion that debates are good mechanism to teach science, especially when the opponent has a demonstrated history of proficiency at loading the debate with smooth-sounding but erroneous nonsense that must be then countered. Equally important is that fact that Bob was (and still is) effectively ignoring nearly all of the threads I have started, in which I went to some effort to make the science accurate but understandable. Milk before meat.
Anyway, sorry for the long answer to your simple question. In spite of the fact that I think Bob has no qualms about portraying many tens-of-thousands of scientists as intellectual idiots and morally bankrupt, yet Bob strikes me as a go-getter, a person who is animated about what he believes in.
I have been crystal clear on the internet about my lack of respect for the quality of Bob’s science, and Bob knows that. But I know Bob has not been reticent to talk to those who disagree with him, so when I found his family vacation would take him through Seattle, I contacted him and asked if he wanted to meet.
As his parishioners can attest, Bob is an interesting person to meet and talk with. If it were not for his knack for talking and expressing himself, and his dedication to his theology, I doubt he would be more than some obscure office worker unknown to all but his colleagues. No matter how fundamentally I think he is a scientific nincompoop, and no matter how much I dislike him using his pulpit to pollute the minds of his followers against good science, he is a likeable guy.
Nothing fundamental. Most of what he conceded are the few things already in his limited responses to these threads.
A little. (Ask him about jumping into Puget Sound on the Seattle waterfront fully clothed.)
I prepped for the meeting with him by zeroxing a few technical papers that deal with things he has said. Several I have already mentioned in recent addendums to the appropriate threads. A couple of issues we discussed I have not got around to commenting on in the relevant threads.
The primary benefit of the meeting was that I know for a certainty that Bob is now personally aware of most of the fundamental issues I have brought up in these threads. He indicated that he will be responding online to the “Abp” thread (Venus Spins Backwards). He did not commit to on-line responses to any other threads. I should have asked for a commitment from him on responding to them, but I didn’t.
In summary, Bob and I are friendly enemies. We both know that before we met, and yet we had absolutely no problem in congenially sitting down together and enjoying casual conversation, and in moving the discussion into the technical areas we disagree on.
I would gladly meet with Bob again, should the opportunity arise. I have toyed with the idea of dropping in unannounced to Denver Bible Church sometime (I may be going through Denver next month on my family vacation). At least then Knight will know who he is banning. (Knight was not at the debate I went to in Denver, I asked.) I may have met Yorzik there, or even some other TOLers, since none of the attendees used their TOL monikers.
That would be awesome!ThePhy said:
Maybe that night at Bible Study you and Bob could "go at it".
We met there. I had a nice, albeit short talk with you in the lobby. I was me to whom you said "Bob won the debate." At the time, I was an active member of the GODISNOWHERE Team, who hosted the debate.ThePhy said:
I do hope you get to Denver Bible Church sometime. I'd like to hear any informal debate that arises from that meeting.
Adambassador (formerly truthman)
I have not followed many of Bob’s radio shows for a while, but I sometimes peruse his science-oriented ones. I am not aware that he has responded to his faux pas on not being aware that he needed to know the red-shift data to intelligently interpret the HDF (the subject of this old thread). As I mentioned in my post way back in Sept of 2006, I personally showed him a copy of the HDF showing only the deeply red-shifted objects (the ones from the early ages of the universe). He had no response, because that picture put the lie to his oft-asserted falsehood that the early galaxies looked just like the ones we see around us now.
But, in true creationist fashion, after a few years have gone by, he knows that memories fade and people might not recall this thread. But I do remember this nonsense from him, and am disappointed (but not surprised) to see him still trying to milk some more mileage out of this untruthful silliness of his. I am referring to the BEL 161 program (Bird Brains and Trains) from August 19 of 2010. Starting at about 16:15 in to the show, Bob can’t help but gloat with Fred Williams once again in the lie he tells about him beating NASA on what the HDF would show. This time he says "It’s just like looking at galaxies next door".
I don’t know if Fred William’s acquiesce in this snake-oil claim from Bob is because Fred is ignorant that Bob is simply wrong, or that like Bob, for Fred "truth" is a 4-letter word.
But, in true creationist fashion, after a few years have gone by, he knows that memories fade and people might not recall this thread. But I do remember this nonsense from him, and am disappointed (but not surprised) to see him still trying to milk some more mileage out of this untruthful silliness of his. I am referring to the BEL 161 program (Bird Brains and Trains) from August 19 of 2010. Starting at about 16:15 in to the show, Bob can’t help but gloat with Fred Williams once again in the lie he tells about him beating NASA on what the HDF would show. This time he says "It’s just like looking at galaxies next door".
I don’t know if Fred William’s acquiesce in this snake-oil claim from Bob is because Fred is ignorant that Bob is simply wrong, or that like Bob, for Fred "truth" is a 4-letter word.
Frayed Knot
New member
Well, here we are 5 1/2 years later, and the estimate of the universe's age hasn't changed any appreciable amount since the 2003 data from the WMAP satellite resulted in the 13.7 billion year figure.
However, the Planck satellite is now up and has started surveying the sky, so that figure may be refined with the new data. We'll see. Our current estimate is 3 significant figures, which is way better than what preceded it, a window of time from about 10 to 18 billion years. My own prediction is that it will change by less than one percent.
By the way, the COBE data, and WMAP data, and the upcoming Planck data, all falsify Pastor Bob's claims about looking at farther away views and simply seeing more regular galaxies. These satellites all look back to the beginning of the universe, to within a few hundred thousand years of it, and they all show a glow of slightly clumpy stuff, but no galaxies.
OK. 4.5 years to go.
I don’t see what this is addressing. If science refines it’s measurements and finds their prior ideas were over 10% in error, so what?
Sure, it could mean nothing.
Frayed Knot
New member
It means that people shouldn't trust something that keeps changing - they should find something that doesn't ever change, like a book written 2000 years ago by pre-scientific sheep herders. Those sheep herders are dead and gone, so there's no way they're going to change the words at this point.
Hey! ThePhy has returned. :up:
Can you answer that question we talked about yet? If the moon turned into an apple, would its orbit change?
- Status