Big Numbers

[fool]

ThePhy; I normally have great respect for your posts (and I'll get to answering over at the other thread when I have time). However, this is quite stupid of you to bring up. It changes you from a scholar to a snide teen. Are you sure you want to act like this?

Yorzhik:
If Bob had made those comments as part of an arguement about something else and a few goofs slipped in that would be one thing.
But in the quotes The Phy used Bob was specificly ridiculing people for not haveing a handle on big numbers. For him to do that and then screw up so badly himself is worth pointing out.

 

[allsmiles]

ThePhy; I normally have great respect for your posts (and I'll get to answering over at the other thread when I have time). However, this is quite stupid of you to bring up. It changes you from a scholar to a snide teen. Are you sure you want to act like this?

please, if an atheist scholar was arguing for evolution and made as many blunders as BE did you folks would be all over him like white on rice.

 

[Yorzhik]

please, if an atheist scholar was arguing for evolution and made as many blunders as BE did you folks would be all over him like white on rice.

I don't think I would create a thread about a slip of the tongue. And if I did, as soon as someone pointed it out, I would admit it and retract my statement.

 

[Yorzhik]

Yorzhik:
If Bob had made those comments as part of an arguement about something else and a few goofs slipped in that would be one thing.
But in the quotes The Phy used Bob was specificly ridiculing people for not haveing a handle on big numbers. For him to do that and then screw up so badly himself is worth pointing out.

If slips of the tongue are the best arguments that ThePhy can come up with, that puts more stock in the rest of Bob's argument.

There is another thread that ThePhy brought up about Io, and that's a better argument. ThePhy should disown this thread publicly.

 

[SUTG]

You might say that ThePhy is nitpicking, but Bob definitely earned this. I mean, if you're going to go on a rant about people not knowing how to handle big numbers, it's probably a good time to avoid blunders in handling big numbers. I think it was a good catch by ThePhy, and Bob asked for it with his arrogance.

Bob's comments are the equivalent of sending someone an email saying "Your grammar is bad."

 

[allsmiles]

I don't think I would create a thread about a slip of the tongue. And if I did, as soon as someone pointed it out, I would admit it and retract my statement.

how wonderful of you to reassure us, but we'll never know, now will we?

 

[Granite]

I am so biting my tongue right now.:shut:

 

[allsmiles]

give it a rest Granite... you know that everyone here can't get enough of your pearls of wisdom.

untape, ungag, spit out the soap and start yackin'.

 

[Granite]

give it a rest Granite... you know that everyone here can't get enough of your pearls of wisdom.

untape, ungag, spit out the soap and start yackin'.

Nah, I think my latest wag just might get me slapped around.:devil:

Sorry to disappoint my adversaries, but I'm trying to be a good boy.

 

[allsmiles]

 

[koban]

Nah, I think my latest wag just might get me slapped around.:devil:

Sorry to disappoint my adversaries, but I'm trying to be a good boy.

:Zimster:

 

[allsmiles]

hey, cut Granite some slack...

yeesh, you just can't win for losin' around here...:nono:

 

[koban]

:flamer:

 

[Johnny]

What an embarassment.

 

[ThePhy]

From Yorzhik:

If slips of the tongue are the best arguments that ThePhy can come up with, that puts more stock in the rest of Bob's argument.

I am not familiar with this logic. If you see a minor math mistake in a paper and point it out, then that automatically serves to show that the rest of the math is good?

There is another thread that ThePhy brought up about Io, and that's a better argument. ThePhy should disown this thread publicly.

Chill out. Not every thread I start about Enyart has to be a stab to his heart. I very specifically said in the opening post that Enyart’s slip-ups with numbers at the very time he is trying to show that atheists have problems with numbers was amusing. And I still think so.

I have a different take on issues like Io. In that case, I see deliberate misinformation being given by Pastor Enyart. I think that is much more serious, and calls into question his motives and standards.

 

[Mr. 5020]

I have a different take on issues like Io. In that case, I see deliberate misinformation being given by Pastor Enyart. I think that is much more serious, and calls into question his motives and standards.

So, why don't you just call him and tell him. He doesn't post here very much, and I think you're being somewhat of a coward.

What if I just went to some forum you post on 5 times a year and start ridiculing you, knowing that you might see one post someday? You would call me a coward.

 

[fool]

What if I just went to some forum you post on 5 times a year and start ridiculing you, knowing that you might see one post someday? You would call me a coward.

I will now point out, again, that if you go to the Kgov.com website http://kgov.com/
it says "BEL forum- click here" right under Bob's picture. That link takes you to this here forum. That would seem to me to be an invitation to discuss Bob's shows here.

 

[ThePhy]

From 5020:

So, why don't you just call him and tell him. He doesn't post here very much, and I think you're being somewhat of a coward.

What if I just went to some forum you post on 5 times a year and start ridiculing you, knowing that you might see one post someday? You would call me a coward.

Knight has extended the invitation to call Enyart’s show a couple of times, and I have answered him.

Enyart’s show is a large part of his livelihood. He is very skilled at making fun of opponents on his show, to the delight of those who follow him. I have no interest in meeting him in a situation where he will just turn it to ridicule.

But I am interested in science. And over the past few years I have posted a number of threads in this forum which show that Enyart has pretty badly distorted the science. These threads are still here, for anyone that can show that I am the one that is misrepresenting science. And forums like this are far more capable of showing what the true science is than a talk show hosted by someone who is strongly biased on what science he will accept. It seems that some of those who want to defend Enyart are far more interested in boosting his show ratings than they are in seeing that truth is not being distorted on his show.

I am not much worried about being called a coward. Enyart has as much right and ability to post here and defend his claims as I do to point out his errors. If he chooses not to, that is his right.

 

[Yorzhik]

From Yorzhik:I am not familiar with this logic. If you see a minor math mistake in a paper and point it out, then that automatically serves to show that the rest of the math is good?

No. If you had a paper where a student wrote a paragraph on how God created fossils just to trick mankind, would you spend much time pointing out a dangling participle and ignore the premise of the paragraph? If you did spend time on the participle, people would understand that you don't see the thesis of the paragraph as a serious problem.

The fact that I have to point this out is damning to your argument. I'm sure you realized it, but instead of being a man and saying, "This thread makes me look petty. Nevermind." You defend it.

Chill out. Not every thread I start about Enyart has to be a stab to his heart. I very specifically said in the opening post that Enyart’s slip-ups with numbers at the very time he is trying to show that atheists have problems with numbers was amusing. And I still think so.

Me chill out? I'm not really hot. I'm still regarding my exchange with you as one-liner status. This is the first indication that you realize you are being petty. You should edit your OP and start it with "I know this is nitpicking, but Enyart’s slip-ups with numbers at the very time he is trying to show that atheists have problems with numbers was amusing."

Here, I'll stick my neck out and answer for Bob: "Oh. Thanks for correcting those numbers. My point still stands."

I have a different take on issues like Io. In that case, I see deliberate misinformation being given by Pastor Enyart. I think that is much more serious, and calls into question his motives and standards.

Yes, Bob is wrong on Io as was I. He'd appreciate the correction as I did. Io's heat is still a problem for an old age solar system, so correcting that point doesn't help your ultimate point. It helps our view, actually.

 

[ThePhy]

From Yorzhik:

If you had a paper where a student wrote a paragraph on how God created fossils just to trick mankind, would you spend much time pointing out a dangling participle and ignore the premise of the paragraph? If you did spend time on the participle, people would understand that you don't see the thesis of the paragraph as a serious problem.

The fact that I have to point this out is damning to your argument. I'm sure you realized it, but instead of being a man and saying, "This thread makes me look petty. Nevermind." You defend it.

You would prefer that I move beyond this to the major point he was making when he said it – which was what? I have stated before that there is some of Bob’s material that I don’t disagree with. I specifically stated in my OP that the overall point Bob was making was probably correct.

Me chill out? I'm not really hot. I'm still regarding my exchange with you as one-liner status. This is the first indication that you realize you are being petty.

I’m sorry that you are so uptight that you can’t or won’t see the irony in Bob’s statements.

Here, I'll stick my neck out and answer for Bob: "Oh. Thanks for correcting those numbers. My point still stands."

At which time you will simply be confirming what I said from day 1 – that his overall point was valid.

Yes, Bob is wrong on Io as was I. He'd appreciate the correction as I did.

Knight, and maybe others who frequent these boards are in close personal contact with him. Should they personally bring it to his attention?

Io's heat is still a problem for an old age solar system, so correcting that point doesn't help your ultimate point. It helps our view, actually.

How is it still a problem for an old solar system? (The reply should be in the "Mooning Jupiter" thread, since that is the thread that consider's the question of Io's heat in depth)