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

Devious CMI

Postby a_haworthroberts » Thu Oct 25, 2012 2:11 am

My message to CMI:

"See my post at 3.01 am, regarding your delusions about 'behemoth'.
The Bible is NOT a biology textbook! It is thousands of years old! It cannot be used to refute modern biology and palaeontology!"
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8835
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Devious Dr Sarfati

Postby Peter Henderson » Thu Oct 25, 2012 5:24 pm

what power in the muscles of its belly!


Which is translated as "navel" in the KJV, so the creature cannot be a dinosaur since dinsaurs lay eggs.

They're so insistent on biblical inereancy and the KJV when it suits them.
Peter Henderson
 
Posts: 4350
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:07 pm
Location: Jordanstown, Co. Antrim, Northern Ireland

Message to Don Batten

Postby a_haworthroberts » Fri Oct 26, 2012 11:58 pm

http://creation.com/why-do-christians-defend-evolution
"Evolution is only really logical for someone who has decided that supernatural creation is ruled out, because then it is the only game in town and ‘has to be’".
There is masses of evidence for evolution that God has left lying around.
http://toddcwood.blogspot.co.uk/2009/09 ... ution.html
"It continually surprises us that Christians want to defend evolution. It is really the creation myth of the materialist (atheist) and has been ever since Greek philosophers thought of the idea before the time of Christ (BC) and also with its modern popularisation by Darwin and his disciples."
YEC Christians try to bully other Christians - who are convinced by the SCIENTIFIC THEORY of evolution - that they are 'compromisers' siding with the 'enemy'.
"I was once a theistic evolutionist, like you, but that was before I came to understand the implications for the Gospel ...". Your position, in a nutshell.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8835
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Message to Don Batten

Postby a_haworthroberts » Mon Oct 29, 2012 4:54 am

a_haworthroberts wrote:http://creation.com/why-do-christians-defend-evolution
"Evolution is only really logical for someone who has decided that supernatural creation is ruled out, because then it is the only game in town and ‘has to be’".
There is masses of evidence for evolution that God has left lying around.
http://toddcwood.blogspot.co.uk/2009/09 ... ution.html
"It continually surprises us that Christians want to defend evolution. It is really the creation myth of the materialist (atheist) and has been ever since Greek philosophers thought of the idea before the time of Christ (BC) and also with its modern popularisation by Darwin and his disciples."
YEC Christians try to bully other Christians - who are convinced by the SCIENTIFIC THEORY of evolution - that they are 'compromisers' siding with the 'enemy'.
"I was once a theistic evolutionist, like you, but that was before I came to understand the implications for the Gospel ...". Your position, in a nutshell.


Further message to CMI, which no doubt will NOT appear under the recent Batten article:

"Funny how you quote mine from this on your website but do not provide a live link so that your followers can read the whole article: http://www.omniology.com/HowEvolutionBe ... igion.html

See also the comments here: http://sensuouscurmudgeon.wordpress.com ... -red-meat/"
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8835
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Don Batten article

Postby a_haworthroberts » Mon Oct 29, 2012 4:57 am

I accidentally sent this 11 times - after getting NO apparent response from the website.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8835
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Devious David Catchpoole?

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sat Nov 24, 2012 8:42 pm

Looks a bit like a case of cherry picking, from 2009: http://creation.com/death-throes

Catchpoole very briefly quotes from this New Scientist article, which is his footnote 1 - but he fails to provide live link to it. Little wonder - the article does not reach the conclusion he desires (that creatures found in the opisthotonic position were rapidly overcome by floodwaters and drowned). http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg1 ... ?full=true

The pre-pay article includes this wording: "To Marshall Faux, this leaves only one possible explanation: death throes. Among veterinarians it's well known that animals sometimes go into the opisthotonic posture shortly before they die as a result of a severe malfunction of the central nervous system. While Marshall Faux was at the raptor centre, birds that had died in the night were often found in this position in the morning, she says. Humans go into it too, when suffering from strychnine poisoning or meningitis, for example. Few recover".

New Scientist also provides a link to this (and admits that the main scientist behind the research is "aware that her work isn't the last word on the matter"; I gather some since have suggested a role for water or have rejected the muscle spasms idea):
http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1666/06015.1
(Catchpoole did footnote this, but again without providing a live link to it.)
The Abstract states: "It is not postmortem contraction but perimortem muscle spasms resulting from various afflictions of the central nervous system that cause these extreme postures. That is, the opisthotonic posture is the result of “death throes,” not postmortem processes, and individuals so afflicted assumed the posture before death, not afterward. The clinical literature has long recognized that such afflicted individuals perish from asphyxiation, lack of nourishment or essential nutrients, environmental toxins, or viral infections, among other causes."

In fairness Catchpoole did fully describe the research that was summarised by New Scientist.

But what about that YEC cherry picking? Well, he writes: "For Marshall Faux there’s only one possible explanation: death throes. She and other vets affirm that animals go into the “opisthotonic posture” shortly before they die (not after) because of muscle spasms resulting from severe malfunction of the central nervous system. In short, a shortage of oxygen. So, what might have caused the asphyxiation of the many fossilized creatures beautifully preserved in the “dead dinosaur posture”?".

This is MISLEADING.

As I understand the Abstract, the problem is "various afflictions of the central nervous system" which cause perimortem (pre-death) muscle spasms. I also understand that the afflictions and severe pain as an animal is in the death throes that lead to the opisthotonic posture can result from NOT only asphyxia but also lack of nourishment or essential nutrients, environmental toxins, or viral infections. But of course the book of Genesis does not describe a mass die-off of wild animals and birds involving such afflictions, only a life-destroying enormous flood...
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8835
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Postby a_haworthroberts » Tue Nov 27, 2012 12:07 am

Despite their denials, YECs ARE fighting against scientific knowledge and theories: http://creation.com/evolution-breakup-of-christendom
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8835
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re:

Postby Roger Stanyard » Tue Nov 27, 2012 9:33 am

a_haworthroberts wrote:Despite their denials, YECs ARE fighting against scientific knowledge and theories: http://creation.com/evolution-breakup-of-christendom


Even Philip Bell's best friends would not call him an intellectual.
Those who believe absurdities will commit atrocities - Voltaire
User avatar
Roger Stanyard
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 6162
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: Devious Dr Sarfati

Postby a_haworthroberts » Fri Dec 21, 2012 5:45 pm

I have received an email from Creation Ministries International informing me of a new published article by Jonathan Sarfati as follows:
"WHERE DID ALL THE FEATHERS GO? The idea of transitional feathered dinosaurs evolving into birds has become a modern icon of evolution. In some cases there have been downright fossil frauds, but the latest research indicates that there were no feathers at all. Read it all in the latest issue of Journal of Creation, where Dr Jonathan Sarfati presents a short, incisive perspective on the issue". 'Feathers on dinosaurs are an invention of the atheopaths - the evidence shows they are no such thing but merely collagen fibres, in accordance with Genesis'.

Actually I made that last sentence up.

Of course the reality is that I CANNOT judge the article without actually seeing and carefully reading it...

Seriously, I cannot.

Even though the first (and almost the only) response I ever received from Mark Looy at Answers in Genesis - in response to my criticism of this http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs ... Ken+Ham%29 - informed me that "You don't necessarily need to read a book to know what's in it, especially when it's author is granting many interviews where he summarizes his book's content". Except that Ken Ham suggested, almost certainly WRONGLY, that Stephen Hawking in his book 'The Grand Design' (I admit I have not read this 2010 book) was abandoning belief in the Big Bang. (This link - NOT read - appears to suggest that Hawking is not rejecting the Big Bang as a scientific theory as claimed by Ken Ham in 2010: http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html)
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8835
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Devious Dr Sarfati

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sat Dec 22, 2012 12:45 am

Talking of Hawking: http://creation.com/Hawkings-end-of-the-universe

Ken Ham - you saw it here. Another YEC who provides confirmation that STEPHEN HAWKING STILL BELIEVES IN THE BIG BANG.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8835
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Devious Dr Batten?

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sun Dec 23, 2012 12:06 am

a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8835
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Devious Dr Sarfati

Postby Peter Henderson » Sun Dec 23, 2012 12:57 am

And of course the Journal of Creation is a peer-reviewed journal.


But not within the wider scientific community.

You may as well say astrology peer reviewed amongst other astrologers is peer reviewed science:

http://www.astrologyresearchjournal.org/
Peter Henderson
 
Posts: 4350
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:07 pm
Location: Jordanstown, Co. Antrim, Northern Ireland

Re: Devious Dr Sarfati

Postby Peter Henderson » Sun Dec 23, 2012 1:24 am

Another YEC who provides confirmation that STEPHEN HAWKING STILL BELIEVES IN THE BIG BANG


Russell M. Grigg M.Sc. (Hons.)
Creationist Chemist and Missionary


Education
M.Sc. (Hons.) — Chemistry


Why should anyone listen ??????

What qualifies Russel Grigg to comment on either cosmology, astro-physics, or astronomy ?
Peter Henderson
 
Posts: 4350
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:07 pm
Location: Jordanstown, Co. Antrim, Northern Ireland

Re: Devious Dr Batten

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sun Dec 23, 2012 1:28 am

Having just glanced through the article (I'm too rushed tonight to study very closely, having had to rebut the Sorensen online nonsense) it appears to be highly biased and evasive stuff linking to CMI articles almost exclusively. And pretending that creationists 'don't' bash science because 'evolution isn't science' - ha ha, you ARE bashing science BY saying it is not science without being able to demonstrate that it isn't.

Oh, and a link to Nature magazine - from 1929! Now that IS impressive, Dr Batten.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8835
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Devious Dr Sarfati

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sun Dec 23, 2012 1:29 am

Peter Henderson wrote:
Another YEC who provides confirmation that STEPHEN HAWKING STILL BELIEVES IN THE BIG BANG


Russell M. Grigg M.Sc. (Hons.)
Creationist Chemist and Missionary


Education
M.Sc. (Hons.) — Chemistry


Why should anyone listen ??????

What qualifies Russel Grigg to comment on either cosmology, astro-physics, or astronomy ?



No less qualified in cosmology than the fibber Ken Ham I think...
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8835
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 3 guests

cron