Real Science Friday: Bird Brains and Trains

[Flipper]

Sounds like your beef is with Pastor Enyart, not the format.

Pastor Enyart does not only care about science. I see no need for him to devote air time to problems with scientific theories, especially when he has an active opposition audience who are not willing to raise these points themselves.

Science certainly isn't Bob's main focus but he does claim to care about "real science". Isn't acknowledging problems with a model a part of real science? Or doesn't the audience need to know that?

 

[The Barbarian]

Why don't you ask Bob to come here and debate with someone? Actually, he did that once, didn't he? But it didn't last long. Fred Williams, I happen to find personally likable; we had a rip-roaring debate many years ago that ultimately led to a sort of mutual respect for each other. But he doesn't debate me any more.

 

[Stripe]

Science certainly isn't Bob's main focus but he does claim to care about "real science". Isn't acknowledging problems with a model a part of real science? Or doesn't the audience need to know that?

I think the audience wants to claim to know everything. :idunno:

 

[Flipper]

That would be nice. The rest of us rely on experts to find and interpret data, ideally using the scientific method. What else do we have?

 

[Stripe]

That would be nice. The rest of us rely on experts to find and interpret data, ideally using the scientific method. What else do we have?

You don't even listen to the show?

What are your comments based on? Guesswork?

 

[Flipper]

You don't even listen to the show?

What are your comments based on? Guesswork?

What are you talking about? I heart Real Science Friday.

 

[Alate_One]

Might I suggest that RSF is much less about real science and more about reassuring the YEC faithful that they're not getting completely left behind scientifically?

That is exactly what all of "creation science" is really all about. It has nothing at all to do with science, or discovery. If it did, "creation science" would be giving us the same sort of breakthroughs secular science does.

Bob seems to have nothing better to do than to parrot Creation Magazine so that YECers listening to his show can feel better about themselves. Ultimately it is a disservice to listeners and Christianity in general since Creation magazine is merely a "folk-science" promoter.

Christian Folk-science

 

[Alate_One]

Oh, I'm sure you can think of a couple. :up:

You're the one that claimed advantages why don't you fill us in? :idunno:

And you couldn't do that with a written debate because......?

I'm thinking we have right here on this very site, something called the coliseum . . . . Text is also far more easily quoted, copied etc. If Bob was really interested in an open discussion he could easily post here or debate here.

But he likes doing *wrong* science Friday. It makes the listeners happy and other Christians feel embarrassed.

 

[Stripe]

What are you talking about? I heart Real Science Friday.

That's what I thought.

The comment was directed at you.

That is exactly what all of "creation science" is really all about. It has nothing at all to do with science, or discovery. If it did, "creation science" would be giving us the same sort of breakthroughs secular science does.

It is. Though most of the time the creationist source is obliterated. No other way to get through peer review. :idunno:

Bob seems to have nothing better to do than to parrot Creation Magazine so that YECers listening to his show can feel better about themselves. Ultimately it is a disservice to listeners and Christianity in general since Creation magazine is merely a "folk-science" promoter.

It's clear you never listen to the show. It is rare that I hear anything presented directly from Dr. Brown's work.

[y t="Christian Folk-science"]L8RqrD0kHQU[/yt]

http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/images/evolution.gif

You're the one that claimed advantages why don't you fill us in? :idunno:

Naw. I'd rather let you stew in your own juice. :up:

I'm thinking we have right here on this very site, something called the coliseum . . . . Text is also far more easily quoted, copied etc. If Bob was really interested in an open discussion he could easily post here or debate here.

He has.

And he has a radio show. :idunno:

If you were really interested in open discussion there is no reason why you couldn't go there.

But he likes doing *wrong* science Friday. It makes the listeners happy and other Christians feel embarrassed.

Great. So now Christians who don't listen to Pastor Enyart's show are embarrassed by what he says.

Dang, atheists are stupid.

 

[Granite]

Why the world does Enyart need some synchophant in Taiwan?:think:

 

[Stripe]

Why the world does Enyart need some synchophant in Taiwan?:thin k:

Hmm .. so when Barbara and Watties and Alate ... and whoever else was crowing about your discipline in being able to ignore certain posters ... they were wrong.

Right?

And if I might reference Mel... 'Why should I trade one supporter a thousand miles away for a granite-brained lump of lard?'

 

[Flipper]

The comment was directed at you.

I figured. I will tell you one thing though, I know enough to be aware that there's a very strong argument for trusting in expert research and analysis and the consilience of evidence, and a very weak one for trusting in a literal interpretation of the bible, particularly as there is still no coherent theory of creation.

Should I post Andrew Snelling's quote again? I have yet to see any YEC address what AIG's Director of Creation Research has to say on the parlous state of the YEC model, as opposed to the coherent (if incomplete) fusion of multiple scientific disciplines and strands of evidence. I don't find "it's in the bible so it has to be literally true" to be at all compelling; I wouldn't even if were a Christian.

It is. Though most of the time the creationist source is obliterated. No other way to get through peer review. :idunno:

Oh, right. Do you actually have any examples of where this has happened? I don't think most creationist organizations do enough original research for there to be that much worth stealing.

 

[Stripe]

I figured. I will tell you one thing though, I know enough to be aware that there's a very strong argument for trusting in expert research and analysis and the consilience of evidence, and a very weak one for trusting in a literal interpretation of the bible, particularly as there is still no coherent theory of creation.

Actually there is a coherent theory for creation.

It requires that you confess Jesus as saviour.

Should I post Andrew Snelling's quote again?

If it makes you feel any better. :idunno:

I have yet to see any YEC address what AIG's Director of Creation Research has to say on the parlous state of the YEC model, as opposed to the coherent (if incomplete) fusion of multiple scientific disciplines and strands of evidence.

So one man can't explain things well enough for himself? So what?

I don't find "it's in the bible so it has to be literally true" to be at all compelling; I wouldn't even if were a Christian.

You could discuss the evidence instead of waving your hands around like this. :idunno:

Oh, right. Do you actually have any examples of where this has happened?

People do not tend to acknowledge sources that they do not wish to credit. :idunno:

I don't think most creationist organizations do enough original research for there to be that much worth stealing.

Kinda bigoted of you, ain't it?

 

[Alate_One]

Naw. I'd rather let you stew in your own juice. :up:

Um, Stripe, YOU made the assertion. Its not my job to prove what you said is true . . . that's YOUR job. :nono: :kookoo:

Great. So now Christians who don't listen to Pastor Enyart's show are embarrassed by what he says.

Not hard to be based only on what is posted from wrong science Friday.

 

[Flipper]

Actually there is a coherent theory for creation.

It requires that you confess Jesus as saviour.

If it makes you feel any better. :idunno:

So one man can't explain things well enough for himself? So what?

Well he does represent the scientific wing of the largest and best funded YEC institute.

You could discuss the evidence instead of waving your hands around like this. :idunno:

lol irony

People do not tend to acknowledge sources that they do not wish to credit. :idunno:

So that's a no then?


Kinda bigoted of you, ain't it?[/QUOTE]

It's based on observation because I like to keep tabs on creation science journals and creation science blogs that write about interesting new papers.

 

[Stripe]

Um, Stripe, YOU made the assertion. Its not my job to prove what you said is true . . . that's YOUR job.

And if I cared about actually showing you why I think rdio has advantages over written debates I'd do so. I prefer to leave it as it is. Feel free to keep complaining as if I've done something wrong though. :thumb:

Not hard to be based only on what is posted from wrong science Friday.

You're too dense to keep talking to. :wave2:

Well he does represent the scientific wing of the largest and best funded YEC institute.

....

...so?

lol irony

Where's the irony? I present evidence, atheists talk about popularity and character. :idunno:

So that's a no then?

Not at all.

 

[The Barbarian]

Stipes upset again. Gender confusion time.

 

[Flipper]

Where's the irony? I present evidence, atheists talk about popularity and character. :idunno:

Here's your chance to put your money where your month is then, and support the following assertion you made:

It is. Though most of the time the creationist source is obliterated. No other way to get through peer review.

 

[Stripe]

Here's your chance to put your money where your month is then, and support the following assertion you made:

Not interested. Can we talk about something interesting?

 

[GuySmiley]

Bob has had plenty of debates that were not on his radio show.