Devious Dr Sarfati

Creationist bloggers can be infuriating. If one has infuriated you by persisting in nonsense even when corrected, or refusing to reply to your criiticsm, you may feel driven to recording the fact. If so, you may register your disapproval here and hope a response is forthcoming.

Moderator: Moderators

Re: Devious Dr Sarfati

Postby Dagsannr » Mon Sep 19, 2011 7:28 am

Ashley, by pointing out the mistakes in creationist thinking and methodology is, in a fantastic sense of irony, is actually contributing to a crude form of evolution himself.

If you consider Ashley's criticisms as an 'environmental condition', then he's slowly weeding out those creationists who are unfit to meet with the constant pressure of a changing environment. Those who resist the arguments are either too thick-skulled to be capable of change, and weather the storm, or adapt their strageties to meet the new conditions, thus evolving into a new species of creationist.

Unfortunately, there the analogy ends. If real-life were similar to the situation, we'd see extinct species, killed off by detrimental environmental conditions, ressurecting themselves once the bad conditions go away and using the same techniques and methods until the bad conditions come back.

:lol:
There are 2 types of people in the world:

Those who can extrapolate from incomplete data.
User avatar
Dagsannr
 
Posts: 830
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2010 12:57 pm
Location: Carlisle

Re: Devious Dr Sarfati

Postby jon_12091 » Mon Sep 19, 2011 11:14 am

a_haworthroberts wrote:Sarfati implies on page 191 of 'Hoax' that the supposed contamination was internal, but as diamonds are extremely hard that possibility is remote. But I do not know whether the non YECs say the contamination is internal - or external.

As far as I can see the C14 was introduced to the sample during preparation (at least one method requires the diamond to be 'burnt') and analysis - the real science paper attempted to account for this while basically the creationists ignored it.
'If I can shoot rabbits then I can shoot fascists'
Miners against fascism.
Hywel Francis
User avatar
jon_12091
 
Posts: 1476
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: Devious Dr Sarfati

Postby a_haworthroberts » Thu Sep 22, 2011 2:35 am

Actually I don't know for sure that Sarfati wrote this: http://creation.com/15-questions-responses-3

My response:
"What evolutionists should say instead is that fossilization events are rare in processes occurring today. That should lead them to realize that fossils are mostly the result of an extra-ordinary event—such as a globe-covering flood that buried lots of creatures very fast, and prevented them from decomposing or being scavenged as today."
And WHERE is the scientific evidence for such an event just 4,500 years' ago?

"Does the critic realize that question was based on a review by evolutionist Richard Lewontin who referred to “the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories”. That’s the whole point: if they were based on fact, then they wouldn’t be ‘just-so’ stories, as Lewontin admitted existed!"
Whoever wrote this text is a CYNICAL, DELIBERATE, LIAR.
"With great perception, Sagan sees that there is an impediment to the popular credibility of scientific claims about the world, an impediment that is almost invisible to most scientists. Many of the most fundamental claims of science are against common sense and seem absurd on their face. Do physicists really expect me to accept without serious qualms that the pungent cheese that I had for lunch is really made up of tiny, tasteless, odorless, colorless packets of energy with nothing but empty space between them? Astronomers tell us without apparent embarrassment that they can see stellar events that occurred millions of years ago, whereas we all know that we see things as they happen. When, at the time of the moon landing, a woman in rural Texas was interviewed about the event, she very sensibly refused to believe that the television pictures she had seen had come all the way from the moon, on the grounds that with her antenna she couldn't even get Dallas. What seems absurd depends on one's prejudice. Carl Sagan accepts, as I do, the duality of light, which is at the same time wave and particle, but he thinks that the consubstantiality of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost puts the mystery of the Holy Trinity "in deep trouble." Two's company, but three's a crowd.
Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen."
Clearly Lewontin, who was not discussing evolution is his book review, was explaining that claims of (observational) science are often seemingly absurd, against common sense, and sometimes unsubstantiated. He is NOT saying they are false - as you insinuate.
http://www.drjbloom.com/Public%20files/ ... Review.htm"
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 9075
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Devious Dr Sarfati

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sat Oct 01, 2011 3:14 am

http://creation.com/evolution-exams-fossil-fallacies
My message to Creation Ministries International:

"Item 1
I do not disagree that the Bible is not anti-scientific, but given the time it was written - in a largely PRE-scientific era - it is hardly likely to be very scientifically accurate (except by accident occasionally)! Science supports almost NONE of the Bible-inspired beliefs about origins held by young Earth creationists (eg Earth did not appear before the Sun and it was never totally covered in liquid water. Your 'two witnesses' stipulation for scientific conclusions about the past is impossibly idealistic - and is a smokescreen that allows you to reject any out of hand ANY science that appears to contradict Genesis. People are sometimes convicted of crimes on forensic evidence when there is no living witness (never mind more than one witness). The more than one witness test can be important when there are unproven or malicious accusations, but events can be factual without any living person having seen them - to some extent the planet and life 'records' its own past. Rather kind of God perhaps?

Item 2
Dr Sarfati dismisses transitional forms. On WHAT basis? Christians at Biologos certainly think some exist - http://biologos.org/blog/a-response-to- ... f-biologos - are they lying (why would they do that)? He also claims "we can safely dismiss excuses like “incomplete fossil record”, since the record is remarkably complete—except for the missing intermediates!" On WHAT basis does Sarfati claim this? He is not even a palaeontologist (nor am I!). I suspect this is pure wishful thinking which is almost certainly totally WRONG. Perhaps he is assuming Earth is only 6,000, not 4.5 bn, years' old - so there 'should' only be 'few' fossils? Fossils have been found at great depth under Newcastle-upon-Tyne: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13904791. At least one massive fossil was discovered when the Channel Tunnel was under construction. There might be many undiscovered fossils deep within sedimentary rocks that are difficult to access (some within cliffs may appear following future landslips).
Your example of the Wollemi Pine proves NOTHING. These trees are alive TODAY as well as in the distant past (but they do not live individually for millions of years). Your challenge - and I do not believe you are an idiot - was to eg explain why fossils of rabbits (a creature alive today and in just the 'recent' past) and very long EXTINCT dinosaurs are not found buried in the same layer.

Dr Sarfati and CMI - the scientifically blinkered leading the scientifically ignorant."
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 9075
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Devious Dr Sarfati

Postby Yorkie » Sat Oct 01, 2011 8:27 am

I think the guy is hilarious. Not Circular Reasoning was the single funniest thing I have read in a while.
RationalWiki on JS
Not Circular Reasoning (Warning contains extreme nuttery)
Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon — it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory.
http://alphahelices.blogspot.com/
User avatar
Yorkie
 
Posts: 72
Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2011 1:13 pm

Re: Devious Dr Sarfati

Postby cathy » Sat Oct 01, 2011 8:35 am

Your 'two witnesses' stipulation for scientific conclusions about the past is impossibly idealistic -
Does that mean two witnesses would have to have witnessed abiogenesis, early evolution etc. I'm guessing it would as there are far more than two witnesses to your average transition fossil and papers on anything genuinely scientific tend to go out to the scientific community as a whole to witness.

So in that case there are no witnesses to the first five days of the Christian creation story version one? Therefore why does Sarfati believe it?

People are sometimes convicted of crimes on forensic evidence when there is no living witness
So I would assume Sarfati would not convict the likes of Levi Belfield or any of the myriad others for whom there aren't two witnesses? The man is a moron!
cathy
 
Posts: 3665
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 6:51 pm
Location: Redditch

Re: Devious Dr Sarfati

Postby Moon Fire » Sat Oct 01, 2011 9:29 am

a_haworthroberts wrote:I think I've worked out the diamond reasoning:

Diamonds have tested positive for carbon 14.
Evolutionists claim diamonds are millions or even billions of years' old.
Carbon 14 should no longer be detectable in anything claimed to be that old.
But it is detectable so they are not that old.
The carbon 14 is not from contamination - because I know that it isn't.
Some diamonds were formed from carbon 14 containing organic material previously carried down into the mantle.
These diamonds were formed, and rose up into the crust, in well under 6,000 years.
We know this because the Bible tells us Earth is just 6,000 years' old.
Therefore the carbon 14 in the diamonds is intrinsic - which shows us that Earth is just 6,000 years' old.
If it wasn't only 6,000 years' old no diamonds would test positive for carbon 14.
But they do so it is.


The only thing I can think of off of the top of my head is that the radioactive decay of other materials must do something to the carbon whilst it's still in the earth.....but that would have to be a lot of it for there to still be some C14 left to detect in the diamonds. I'd been under the impression that the carbon that made the diamonds we found had never been to the surface let alone the upper atmosphere where C14 is made. However i'm open to being corrected on this.
Moon Fire
 
Posts: 366
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2011 12:50 pm

Re: Devious Dr Sarfati

Postby Dagsannr » Sat Oct 01, 2011 9:30 am

cathy wrote:So in that case there are no witnesses to the first five days of the Christian creation story version one? Therefore why does Sarfati believe it?


You don't understand; abiogensis is a materialistic theory, invented by godless scientists to undermine the Truth of the scriptures and lead people away from the saving grace of <insert god of choice here>. It needs witnesses as, by default, anything not founded on the Holy Truth and on man's own creation is falliable and false.

By contrast, the 6-day creation story is taken directly from the infalliable and factually correct bible of the King James Version and as such is beyond any contest and immune from criticism. It needs no witness as it's the Word Of <insert god of choice here> and, as we all know, gods cannot lie.

The man is a moron!


No arguments here.
Last edited by Dagsannr on Sat Oct 01, 2011 9:31 am, edited 1 time in total.
There are 2 types of people in the world:

Those who can extrapolate from incomplete data.
User avatar
Dagsannr
 
Posts: 830
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2010 12:57 pm
Location: Carlisle

Re: Devious Dr Sarfati

Postby Moon Fire » Sat Oct 01, 2011 9:31 am

jon_12091 wrote:
a_haworthroberts wrote:Sarfati implies on page 191 of 'Hoax' that the supposed contamination was internal, but as diamonds are extremely hard that possibility is remote. But I do not know whether the non YECs say the contamination is internal - or external.

As far as I can see the C14 was introduced to the sample during preparation (at least one method requires the diamond to be 'burnt') and analysis - the real science paper attempted to account for this while basically the creationists ignored it.


Oh the joys of sample preparation.
Moon Fire
 
Posts: 366
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2011 12:50 pm

Re: Devious Dr Sarfati

Postby Moon Fire » Sat Oct 01, 2011 9:33 am

Yorkie wrote:I think the guy is hilarious. Not Circular Reasoning was the single funniest thing I have read in a while.
RationalWiki on JS
Not Circular Reasoning (Warning contains extreme nuttery)


egads.......just scanned it, i'll read it later
Moon Fire
 
Posts: 366
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2011 12:50 pm

Re: Devious Dr Sarfati

Postby Michael » Sat Oct 01, 2011 10:14 am

Natman wrote:
cathy wrote:So in that case there are no witnesses to the first five days of the Christian creation story version one? Therefore why does Sarfati believe it?


You don't understand; abiogensis is a materialistic theory, invented by godless scientists to undermine the Truth of the scriptures and lead people away from the saving grace of <insert god of choice here>. It needs witnesses as, by default, anything not founded on the Holy Truth and on man's own creation is falliable and false.

By contrast, the 6-day creation story is taken directly from the infalliable and factually correct bible of the King James Version and as such is beyond any contest and immune from criticism. It needs no witness as it's the Word Of <insert god of choice here> and, as we all know, gods cannot lie.

The man is a moron!


No arguments here.


You are absolutely right
Michael
 
Posts: 2786
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2006 1:30 pm
Location: Lancaster

Re: Devious Dr Sarfati

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sat Oct 01, 2011 11:18 pm

Natman wrote:Ashley, by pointing out the mistakes in creationist thinking and methodology is, in a fantastic sense of irony, is actually contributing to a crude form of evolution himself.

If you consider Ashley's criticisms as an 'environmental condition', then he's slowly weeding out those creationists who are unfit to meet with the constant pressure of a changing environment. Those who resist the arguments are either too thick-skulled to be capable of change, and weather the storm, or adapt their strageties to meet the new conditions, thus evolving into a new species of creationist.

Unfortunately, there the analogy ends. If real-life were similar to the situation, we'd see extinct species, killed off by detrimental environmental conditions, ressurecting themselves once the bad conditions go away and using the same techniques and methods until the bad conditions come back.

:lol:



I'm aware that by making accusations against them in private and (I hope) showing how their arguments sometimes fail when examined closely, I might be helping them - as they see fallacies and then 'improve' their often pseudo-scientific apologetics.

But the alternative is to say and do nothing and leave them to it.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 9075
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Devious Dr Sarfati

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sat Oct 01, 2011 11:22 pm

cathy wrote:
Your 'two witnesses' stipulation for scientific conclusions about the past is impossibly idealistic -
Does that mean two witnesses would have to have witnessed abiogenesis, early evolution etc. I'm guessing it would as there are far more than two witnesses to your average transition fossil and papers on anything genuinely scientific tend to go out to the scientific community as a whole to witness.

So in that case there are no witnesses to the first five days of the Christian creation story version one? Therefore why does Sarfati believe it?

People are sometimes convicted of crimes on forensic evidence when there is no living witness
So I would assume Sarfati would not convict the likes of Levi Belfield or any of the myriad others for whom there aren't two witnesses? The man is a moron!


In fact that bit was written by a Shaun Doyle, not by Sarfati.

With Genesis just ONE 'witness' will do. Because that witness is God.

Wonder what the YECs might say if the forensic evidence is re-interpreted and Amanda Knox is declared 'innocent' on Monday?
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 9075
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Devious Dr Sarfati

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sun Oct 02, 2011 12:22 am

"The only thing I can think of off of the top of my head is that the radioactive decay of other materials must do something to the carbon whilst it's still in the earth.....but that would have to be a lot of it for there to still be some C14 left to detect in the diamonds. I'd been under the impression that the carbon that made the diamonds we found had never been to the surface let alone the upper atmosphere where C14 is made. However i'm open to being corrected on this."

My understanding - from a recent news story - is that some diamonds contain carbon from organic material (ie which was once on the surface) whilst others have a carbon source from the deep mantle (from cratons). http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 142402.htm

I made a further post early on 19 Sept incidentally - clarifying the likely (questionable) rationale for Sarfati rejecting contamination.
EDIT: I see you saw it.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 9075
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Devious Dr Sarfati

Postby a_haworthroberts » Wed Oct 05, 2011 2:14 am

As just emailed to Creation Ministries International:

"And STILL you continue to LIE that carbon 14 shows diamonds cannot billions of years' old.
http://www.facebook.com/creationnewsl?sk=wall

You are FRAUDS.
http://www.lineoffireradio.com/2011/08/ ... nt-page-2/"
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 9075
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

PreviousNext

Return to Conversations with Creationists

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron