Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8984 total)
56 online now:
DrJones*, jar, kjsimons, Kleinman, PaulK, Percy (Admin), Phat (AdminPhat), Tangle, vimesey (9 members, 47 visitors)
Newest Member: Jerry Johnson
Happy Birthday: Diomedes
Post Volume: Total: 877,658 Year: 9,406/23,288 Month: 421/1,544 Week: 135/561 Day: 38/50 Hour: 10/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Call for Evolutionists for radio show
Fred Williams
Member (Idle past 3405 days)
Posts: 310
From: Broomfield
Joined: 12-17-2001


Message 1 of 24 (595143)
12-06-2010 9:27 PM


Last Friday, Dec 3, we discussed this article on our half-hour 'Real Science Friday' show. We are interested in giving evolutionists the opportunity to call in and comment on either the article, or what we discussed on the radio. If anyone is interested, please reply here or feel free to contact me at fredw@usa.com. FYI, the host of the show, Bob Enyart, has some national exposure, having interviewed plenty of high profile names including Eugenie Scott, Ann Coulter, Dick Morris, etc, plus he has appeared on Bill Mahr's program, The Orielly Factor, Hannity & Combs, among others.

We believe the most efficient use of time would be for you to submit your question or comment via email beforehand with phone contact information, then we could call you directly to debate the question. I hope you understand the reason for this, that specialized "surprise" issues can make for boring radio if the opposing side needs to do some research to talk about it. This goes for both sides. Feel free to share your thoughts on this method. If we get some traction on this, we may make it a regular feature, perhaps calling the segment "Stump the Creationist". It makes for entertaining radio I believe for both sides, to have opposing views go at it! In fact when Enyart had a live TV broadcast back in the 90s, I believe it was the high volume of opposing debate that propelled his ratings to match Conan in several US markets.

I think this would be fun for everyone. We broadcast at 3pm MST on Friday on AM 670 (55KWatt). We have recently received encouraging news on the growing popularity of the show, and it now re-broadcasts Friday night at 11pm, and Saturdays at 8pm. It reaches most of Colorado and some adjacent states, plus all shows are archived at kgov.com. Because of my work constraints, I can't always do a live show, so chances are we would likely begin recording Friday's show somewhere around 12:30 to 1pm MST.

Look forward to your thoughts...

Fred Williams


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by subbie, posted 12-06-2010 9:41 PM Fred Williams has not yet responded
 Message 6 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-06-2010 11:24 PM Fred Williams has not yet responded
 Message 9 by Panda, posted 12-07-2010 5:35 PM Fred Williams has not yet responded
 Message 12 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-07-2010 5:49 PM Fred Williams has not yet responded
 Message 13 by onifre, posted 12-07-2010 6:02 PM Fred Williams has not yet responded
 Message 24 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-09-2010 3:28 AM Fred Williams has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 32661
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 2 of 24 (595145)
12-06-2010 9:31 PM


Fred, I read your so called 15 points refuted article and that forces me to ask a few questions. Is this talk show a comedy program?


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 293 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 3 of 24 (595147)
12-06-2010 9:41 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Fred Williams
12-06-2010 9:27 PM


I'm curious about something. Do the scientists who call in get to preview your responses to their previously submitted question or comment, or are you the only one with advance notice of what the other person is going to say?


Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Fred Williams, posted 12-06-2010 9:27 PM Fred Williams has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 19844
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.8


(1)
Message 4 of 24 (595148)
12-06-2010 10:37 PM


Reality Check
For those considering this opportunity I think it is important to take a careful look at Fred's 15 points and understand what their target audience considers effective evidence and argumentation. Fred and Bob know what their audience wants and responds to, and so they give it them. Scientists know what the evidence seems to indicate about reality, but as scores of creation/evolution debates have shown, the skills necessary to make that kind of presentation play effectively to an evangelical audience are possessed by very few, maybe Ken Miller for one, who said it took weeks of careful preparation.

Know your audience. If your intention is to push hard on the evidence you'll probably be disappointed with the result. My own suggestion would be to focus on creationist positions and proposals using the same approach creationists use on evolution, not because it's scientific but because it's what works with the target audience. But whatever you do, be nice, be positive, be informed, and have a plan and execute it.

--Percy


Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Taz, posted 12-06-2010 10:51 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 1841 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 5 of 24 (595149)
12-06-2010 10:51 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Percy
12-06-2010 10:37 PM


Re: Reality Check
Percy, this is easier said than done. I've been to debates where the scientist basically creamed the evangelist both on scientific and religious points but the end result was always the same. Religious folks will cheer for the evangelist and the more scientific minded folks will cheer for the scientist.

I've come to believe that these debates are pointless. The supersitious will remain so and there is nothing we can do about it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Percy, posted 12-06-2010 10:37 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16111
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 6 of 24 (595155)
12-06-2010 11:24 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Fred Williams
12-06-2010 9:27 PM


We believe the most efficient use of time would be for you to submit your question or comment via email beforehand with phone contact information, then we could call you directly to debate the question. I hope you understand the reason for this, that specialized "surprise" issues can make for boring radio if the opposing side needs to do some research to talk about it. This goes for both sides.

Except that apparently it doesn't, since you apparently do not propose to give advance warning of your answer.

I would point out that as far as having advance warning goes that advantage would lie with you anyway, since you can find out what an evolutionist is going to say about any given topic by looking up the facts, whereas creationists are for obvious reasons rather less predictable. You know that they're going to say something silly, but the specific blunder or equivocation will vary wildly from creationist to creationist.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Fred Williams, posted 12-06-2010 9:27 PM Fred Williams has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12705
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 7 of 24 (595161)
12-07-2010 12:20 AM


Fred's invitation might seem reminiscent of the poem that begins, "'Will you walk into my parlor?' said the Spider to the Fly," but I think we should leave those feelings aside. If you're interested in accepting the invitation then work constructively with Fred to make it work, otherwise it would be best to observe from the sidelines. For those who want to take potshots, please use the Peanut Gallery thread.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8409
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 8 of 24 (595241)
12-07-2010 4:18 PM


I find it strange that they want to have a debate on fossils on a radio show. How would this work being that the audience can not actually see the fossils that are being debated?

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 2262 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 9 of 24 (595256)
12-07-2010 5:35 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Fred Williams
12-06-2010 9:27 PM


Fred Williams writes:

Look forward to your thoughts...

I'll pick one 'gem' at random...

Natural selection in speciation

Gems writes:

REFUTED: Are St. Bernards evolved from Chihuahuas? This is yet another case of small-scale adaptation. The stickleback fish are still stickleback fish!

quote:
REFUTED: Are St. Bernards evolved from Chihuahuas?
A question does not refute anything.

quote:
This is yet another case of small-scale adaptation.
So you believe in some form of Lamarkism?
Any chance of something to back up your assertion?

quote:
The stickleback fish are still stickleback fish!
If you had read the article (that you are trying to refute) then you would see that the scientists agree that "The stickleback fish are still stickleback fish!".
That is why they call them 'stickleback fish'.
The quoted article was about Reproductive Isolation.

So, in summary:
Natural selection in speciation is refuted because you don't know if St. Bernards evolved from Chihuahuas; you don't know what 'Speciation' is; and you believe in Larmarkism.

TBH: I would sum up your arguments as pathetic, fatuous and knowingly wrong.

Why anyone would want to help someone so obviously dishonest is beyond my ken.

Edited by Panda, : typos

Edited by Panda, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Fred Williams, posted 12-06-2010 9:27 PM Fred Williams has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by jar, posted 12-07-2010 5:40 PM Panda has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 32661
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 10 of 24 (595258)
12-07-2010 5:40 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Panda
12-07-2010 5:35 PM


His first example was about as far as I got, but then that is good old Fred. He hasn't changed much over the years.

Honestly, reading the first refutation I came away totally clueless about what it was Fred was even trying to refute.

It is hard though to cram so many irrelevancies into one post, so gotta give him credit for that.

I'd reply to Fred but then Moose would suspend me again because the only appropriate response I could think of was
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

"Huh?"


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Panda, posted 12-07-2010 5:35 PM Panda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Panda, posted 12-07-2010 5:48 PM jar has not yet responded

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 2262 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 11 of 24 (595260)
12-07-2010 5:48 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by jar
12-07-2010 5:40 PM


jar writes:

It is hard though to cram so many irrelevancies into one post, so gotta give him credit for that.


He is a proponent of the 'gish gallup', I expect.

Is it possible for me to post a reply in the Peanut Gallery to a post in this thread?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by jar, posted 12-07-2010 5:40 PM jar has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16111
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 12 of 24 (595261)
12-07-2010 5:49 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Fred Williams
12-06-2010 9:27 PM


You're that guy from that evolutionfairytale site, aren't you?

Then I can think of one obvious problem with your suggestion. Based on your antics on that forum, what you would do is, the moment the evolutionist started proving you wrong, you'd hang up the phone, continue to make mistakes about science without anyone to refute you, and insult the evolutionist behind his back. 'Cos apparently you have no confidence in your ability to debate.

Now, if you were to pledge not to do that ... then I and others could decide what trust to place in the word of a creationist.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Fred Williams, posted 12-06-2010 9:27 PM Fred Williams has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Panda, posted 12-07-2010 6:03 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 1500 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


(1)
Message 13 of 24 (595262)
12-07-2010 6:02 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Fred Williams
12-06-2010 9:27 PM


Who's representing science?
My only question is, if you're an engineer, Fred, and Bob is a pastor, which one of you is the actual scientist that will refute whatever is brought up? Who's the expert?

So what's the point? It seems ridiculous to attempt a debate with an engineer and a pastor about evolutionary biology. Is either of you an evolutionary biologist?

More to the point though, are your listeners really into taking a DJ's point of view about evolutionary biology? I think that concerns me more than two DJ's pretending to know something about evolutionary biology.

BTW, if anyone is interested here's Bob Enyart's wiki page. Not a very Christ-like pastor if you ask me.

quote:
He was convicted for misdemeanor child abuse in 1994 after beating his girlfriend's child with a belt so hard that the beating broke the skin

Wow, nice guy.

- Oni

Edited by onifre, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Fred Williams, posted 12-06-2010 9:27 PM Fred Williams has not yet responded

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 2262 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 14 of 24 (595263)
12-07-2010 6:03 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Dr Adequate
12-07-2010 5:49 PM


Dr. A writes:

You're that guy from that evolutionfairytale site, aren't you?


He is.

For those interested in doing the chat show: here is a good example of how Fred Williams 'debates'.
I suggest people read that before making a final decision.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-07-2010 5:49 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Percy, posted 12-07-2010 7:38 PM Panda has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 19844
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 15 of 24 (595286)
12-07-2010 7:38 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Panda
12-07-2010 6:03 PM


Panda writes:

For those interested in doing the chat show: here is a good example of how Fred Williams 'debates'.

But it's a style of debate that mops the floor with evolutionist arguments.

You hear this in different forms, but it is often said that one definition of insanity is to keep doing the same thing while expecting something different to happen. We're no more going to convince an evangelical audience to embrace evolution then I'm going to teach my cat to love dogs.

Do we really care what evangelical's believe? Does anyone really care whether evangelicals understand the science behind the 15 points that Fred claims to refute? I don't think so. I think all we really want is for them to stop interfering with public school science education. How would you make progress toward that goal in a creation/evolution debate?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Panda, posted 12-07-2010 6:03 PM Panda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Panda, posted 12-07-2010 8:18 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply
 Message 17 by Fred Williams, posted 12-07-2010 11:24 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020