Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum

Bob Enyart

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2 Neutral

About Bob Enyart

  • Rank
    RSF Co-host

Profile Information

  • Gender

Previous Fields

  • What is your Gender?
  • How old are you?
  • What is your affiliation/religion?
  • What is your Worldview?
    Young Earth Creationist
  • Where do you live (i.e. Denver, Colorado)
    Denver, Colorado

Recent Profile Visitors

112 profile views
  1. No Geno, there's nothing you need to know. My only suggestion has been that you accept Walt's generic phone offer, assuming you've read Part II of his book, and the relevant technical notes. As I recall, Walt says he likes the option of recording such conversations. If that happened, it might be fun to air. That's it. On a related note, thanks for forwarding this idea, but no, we're not interested in what you've emailed: "I left a message on EFT, if you want we can see about a debate with the Brown advocate of your choice." Last thing Geno. Above, you wrote that "Nick Lally, Director of the Creation Science Hall of Fame suggested any formal debate between Dr. Brown and I be held on either the CSHF website or Dr. Brown;s. The offer was made on Dec. 22, 2012..." You go on with some detail about how that never came to pass and that perhaps Walt "killed" it. Seems like there was nothing to kill. I haven't asked Dr. Brown about that, but I'm sure that Nick was suggesting such a debate merely of his own initiative. It's not like Walt had agreed to violate his own long-standing debate offer, and then backed out. Do I have that right? Again, thanks for your interest. And just fyi, I've said all I plan to about urging you to talk to Walt. -Bob Enyart Real Science Radio http://rsr.org
  2. Hey Geno, thanks for responding and for the offer that if "any of those issues are unreasonable or groundless, please let me know..." Even with your concerns, I think if we press through this we can get a phone conversation between you and Walt Brown scheduled. Please consider that he's the source, and you're the challenger. Walt is approaching 80 years old, and has a lot more research and writing that he hopes to accomplish, including getting out the major update of his book, the 9th edition (available now in draft as a pdf at rsr.org/9th-edition and online at creationscience.com). A written debate takes far more time and effort than a phone conversation. Your offer to debate Walt is directed at Walt Brown, that is, at one person. His offers for phone and written debates are open to the world, that is, to countless people. So, for direct interaction between you guys to happen, you would have to be a bit gutsy, and agree to the phone debate; and however it goes, I doubt it will kill you , and if you are mistreated, which I highly doubt would happen, you and others could point that out. You have declined Dr. Brown's general offer to debate anyone (including you) because: 1) The issues I raise require a lot of calculations. For that reason, a written debate is much more suitable than a written one. Bob: Countless debates occur regarding issues that at their base become extremely technical. (I've participated in such.) And I don't think that you're only willing to participate in a debate to end all debate. (That's not likely to happen , ever.) A verbal debate, by its more informal nature, may accomplish less, and may be less authoritative, but it also can help to focus opponents and any audience on where the real disagreements lie. Regarding your calculations, proponents, opponents, and audience members have the ability to encapsulate ideas. True, a verbal discussion is not the best forum for working through forumlas. However the discussion may very well illustrate how, if your calculations are accurate, that they thereby falsify the Hydroplate Theory. Alternatively, the discussion might show that your calculations, though they look impressive, are basically irrelevant. Some audience members may be able to discern from the conversation which of these possibilities, if either, is more likely the case. For many years Dr. Brown has been aware of the kinds of concerns that you are raising. If the discussion leads to the observation that if your calculations are correct, then Walt's theory is wrong, then that would certainly bring more attention to your claims. Even those of us at Real Science Radio would be digging into your specifics. 2) Since a lot of calculations would be necessary, it is likely there would be a need to do research in order to do some of them. A timed verbal format is not appropriate in that situation. Bob: Please see 1. 3) Dr. Brown says he wishes to raise "related" matters, but has never disclosed what those matters are. While I am more than willing to engage him on the claims I make, I see no reason to debate matters not relevant to the issues I raise. Bob: Walt's telephone offer doesn't require anyone willing to engage him to be ready to discuss irrelevant issues. He doesn't even require them to have read his whole book. Authors write books as a time-efficient way to make their case to a wider audience. Dr. Brown cannot take the time to personally teach those who challenge him the things that they may even readily agree to, which are already presented in his writing. Walt does require what I presented to you, that you've read Part II of his online book and the relevant Technical Notes. 4) Dr. Brown demands his opponent can be disqualified for not having done their "homework." It would be idiocy to accept a debate offer in which one could be disqualified for not having done his "homework" on undisclosed subjects... especially when those subjects may not be relevant to the claims made. Bob: Please see 3. 5) My claims are narrowly focused. I will not submit myself to the possibility of being victimized by the "Gish Gallop." Bob: Please see 3. 6) Dr. Brown says one of his reasons for refusing to engage a non-PhD in a written debate is to avoid claims of a mismatch should his opponent lose. Yet he has no hesitation in taking on such opponents in a verbal debate in which the mismatch would be more pronounced. No one has been able to explain this one. Bob: Please see 1. "...if you think any of those issues are unreasonable or groundless, please let me know which ones and why." Geno, I'm not saying that they're unreasonable. I am saying that they prevent you from having a conversation with Walt that might prove helpful. We're not at the U.N. here trying to avoid nuclear war. You're just challenging a theory on some technical grounds. Please let me know if you will talk to Walt. Thanks piasano! -Bob Enyart rsr.org
  3. Hello piasan! (BTW, my wife Cheryl and I love your restaurant in Little Italy in NYC, Piasanos ) Thanks for your challenge to Walt's Hydroplate Theory. I'm sorry that your attempt to get a debate going didn't work out a while back, but perhaps there's an easier way to go. I've heard Dr. Brown engage in an informal telephone discussion with a critic who had read Part II of his online book, and the relevant Technical Notes, side bars, etc., to that person's area of interest. If you have read, or will read, that material, and if you're willing to talk it through with me, so that I know that you're serious, I'll arrange the phone conversation between you and Walt, and I'll make sure that it's recorded, so that others here can later listen to it. Would you want to do that Geno? Thanks again! -Bob Enyart, Fred's co-host, RealScienceRadio.com
  4. Well, Paul was correct about Gamow and Supernovas. I do appreciate the fact checking! He was wrong, however, in his comparison with the pizeoelectric effect and the temperature of stars. Thanks Fred for maintaining this forum! -Bob Enyart rsr.org
  5. Bob Enyart

    The Bible And The Age Of The Earth.

    Hi Revelation, There's a lot of great info in this thread already, but to reinforce a couple points (from our YoungEarth.com website): Christ Himself reminded us in Mark 10:6, that, "from the beginning of the creation [not after billions of years], God made them male and female." So, scientific observations refute the claim of an old earth while God's word teaches us that the creation is young. Also, in the Ten Commandments at Exodus 20, God said that in six days He created the heavens, the earth, the seas, and everything in them. -Bob Enyart p.s. Hey Fred, our young earth site is climbing the charts (when googling: young earth), and might soon surpass the talk origins' page. That would be fun
  6. Bob Enyart

    May 2012 Show Of The Month - The Caveman Show

    Hello aelyn, thanks for asking. Chimp DNA: From toward the end of the show summary at RealScienceFriday.com/cavemen: Two Chimps Are More Different than Neanderthals Are To Us: Regarding Georgia Purdom's report that, "two modern chimps of the same species will have more DNA variation than Neanderthals or Denisovans have to modern humans," see creation geneticist Dr. Robert Carter in the Journal of Creation 23(1) 2009, p. 40-43 along with Becquet, C. et al., Genetic structure of chimpanzee populations, PLoS Genetics 3(4):617–626, 2007, as reported at sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070420104723.htm and Kaessmann, H., Wiebe, V. and Pääblo, S., Extensive nuclear DNA sequence diversity among chimpanzees, Science, 286:1159-1162, 1999 as reported at sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/11/991108090738.htm. The Flood: would have been less than 5,000 years ago. -Bob Enyart

Important Information

Our Terms