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 a_haworthroberts » Wed Nov 09, 2011 12:58 am

A BIT OF A BOMBSHELL. I've just noticed Sarfati MISQUOTING Dawkins. On page 94 of 'The Greatest Show on Earth' Dawkins wrote "Carbon has three naturally occurring isotopes. Carbon 12 is the common one, with the same number of neutrons as protons: 6. There's also carbon 13, which is too rare to bother with, and carbon 14 which is rare but not too rare to be useful for dating relatively young organic samples...".

In contrast, on page 190 of 'The Greatest Hoax on Earth' Sarfati states that Dawkins wrote the following: "Carbon has three naturally occurring isotopes. Carbon 12 is the common one, with the same number of neutrons as protons: 6. There's also carbon 13, which is too short-lived to bother with, and carbon 14 which is rare but not too rare to be useful for dating relatively young organic samples...".

Changing one word - how this could have happened accidentally - changes the whole implied meaning.

Sarfati then claims: "Yet here, Dawkins makes a crass blunder: carbon 13 is NOT too "short-lived" but STABLE! If a creationist had made that blunder, Dawkins, true to form, would be using it as evidence of scientific incompetence ...".

How much YECs like Sarfati hate the likes of Dawkins!

Having just spotted this, whether or not Dawkins actually made a mistake regarding carbon 13 (and thought it was radioactive) is a moot point. He could perhaps have been clearer in his words, but I suspect that he did NOT. He was saying that EVEN IF carbon 13 was radioactive it's too rare to bother with for dating purposes.

THEREFORE I CONCLUDE THAT SARFATI IS EITHER A DELIBERATE LIAR OR INCOMPETENT (BUT HE PLAYS AND WINS AT BLINDFOLD CHESS!) - OR PERHAPS BOTH.

Perhaps this misquoting of Dawkins, in order to make him look ignorant, is ONE reason Sarfati has subquently advised during an interview in the US that there was no need for his readers also to read the Dawkins book first.

I could kick myself for previously missing this dishonesty by Sarfati when reviewing his book at Amazon.com and Amazon.co.uk.

Ashley
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 9075
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: NOT SO DEVIOUS Dr Sarfati

Postby a_haworthroberts » Wed Nov 09, 2011 3:01 am

http://www.amazon.com/review/R2YDNZOVN3 ... hisHelpful

NB Please see my exchanges here with Stickler, early on 9 Nov UK time.

It appears my copy of Dawkins' book has corrected a previous error...
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 9075
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Devious Dr Sarfati

Postby a_haworthroberts » Wed Nov 09, 2011 3:02 am

I look forward to a version of 'The Greatest Hoax on Earth' with errors corrected...
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 9075
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Devious Dr Sarfati

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sun Nov 13, 2011 6:11 pm

As sent to Jonathan Sarfati et al yesterday:

"
http://creation.com/sun-age

I note that a dichotomy is set up for the enquirer by Dr Sarfati: "Another article points out that certain features may have good design reasons, and are not there so people can work out ages while ignoring the eye-witness accounts:". He's really saying that if it's a 'design feature' it cannot be - alternatively or in addition - any indicator of age (would he say that if the scientific evidence DID point to a 6,000 year old sun?)

My understanding, from searching online, is that whilst there is no particular reason to expect a relationship between the luminosity of stars and their temperature, this viewpoint is contradicted by the discovery by Hertzsprung and Russell around 100 years' ago that the vast majority of stars do give such a pattern when plotted in a Hertzsprung-Russell diagram. Eddington showed that the only reasonable conclusion is that stars start out contracting (and shining from gravitational energy), but that they then eventually reach equilibrium along what is now known as the "main sequence". Gravitational energy cannot account for that equilibrium; a new energy source is needed, and that source is nuclear fusion.

Hence it would appear that the statements: "evolutionists assume that the sun’s core has 4.5 billion years worth of helium, but this has not been directly observed. No, we merely observe a certain amount of helium. And it seems like a design feature so that the sun is hot enough" and "a helium nucleus (alpha particle) takes up less room than four hydrogen nuclei (protons). This makes the core contract, and the higher temperature and pressure increases the rate of nuclear fusion, hence energy output" are largely red herrings.

"Any age calculations must make an assumption about the initial composition of the sun, assuming very little helium to begin with. Yet as shown above, this would make the sun colder. This is actually a severe problem for evolutionists. They believe that life appeared on the earth about 3.8 billion years ago. But if that were true, the sun would be 25% brighter today than it was back then. This implies that the earth would have been frozen at an average temperature of -3ºC. However, most paleontologists believe that, if anything, the earth was warmer in the past. This is called the young faint sun paradox". Sarfati is assuming a very simplistic relationship between solar output and climate on Earth (and whether life required a minimum - surface - temperature to be able to get started).

"The big bang theory predicts that elements higher than helium (‘metals’) were not formed in the bang but in the cores of stars via fusion. This entails that the first stars lacked metals; yet there is no evidence that such ‘Population III’ stars exist or have ever existed". I think supernovae - including some witnessed from Earth which exploded more than 6,000 years' ago - are evidence that some massive stars have already ended their lives. So might there not be second or third generation stars out there, and might not our Sun be ONE? And, if this is NOT the case, where does Sarfati think the metals on Earth and elsewhere appeared from?"
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 9075
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Devious Dr Sarfati

Postby Chris Sergeant » Mon Nov 14, 2011 1:10 pm

Regarding the previous post, here are extracts from a recent item:
For the first time, astronomers have found pristine clouds of the primordial gas that formed in the first few minutes after the Big Bang. The composition of the gas matches theoretical predictions, providing direct evidence in support of the modern cosmological explanation for the origins of elements in the universe. This is the first time we've observed pristine gas uncontaminated by heavier elements from stars. The researchers discovered the two clouds of pristine gas by analyzing the light from distant quasars, using the HIRES spectrometer on the Keck I Telescope. In the spectra from the gas clouds, the researchers saw only hydrogen and its heavy isotope deuterium. We do have excellent sensitivity for carbon, oxygen, and silicon, and these elements are completely absent. The spectrographic analysis of the pristine gas clouds places them in time at about 2 billion years after the Big Bang, or nearly 12 billion years ago.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 142050.htm

For completeness I note that Deuterium & Lithium were also formed in the Big Bang. Some of the Lithium will have been subsequently consumed in stars.
Chris Sergeant
 
Posts: 216
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 12:26 pm

Re: Devious Dr Sarfati

Postby Michael » Mon Nov 14, 2011 1:53 pm

Chris Sergeant wrote:Regarding the previous post, here are extracts from a recent item:
For the first time, astronomers have found pristine clouds of the primordial gas that formed in the first few minutes after the Big Bang. The composition of the gas matches theoretical predictions, providing direct evidence in support of the modern cosmological explanation for the origins of elements in the universe. This is the first time we've observed pristine gas uncontaminated by heavier elements from stars. The researchers discovered the two clouds of pristine gas by analyzing the light from distant quasars, using the HIRES spectrometer on the Keck I Telescope. In the spectra from the gas clouds, the researchers saw only hydrogen and its heavy isotope deuterium. We do have excellent sensitivity for carbon, oxygen, and silicon, and these elements are completely absent. The spectrographic analysis of the pristine gas clouds places them in time at about 2 billion years after the Big Bang, or nearly 12 billion years ago.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 142050.htm

For completeness I note that Deuterium & Lithium were also formed in the Big Bang. Some of the Lithium will have been subsequently consumed in stars.



Were you there?
Michael
 
Posts: 2786
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2006 1:30 pm
Location: Lancaster

Re: Devious Dr Sarfati

Postby Dagsannr » Tue Nov 15, 2011 9:15 am

Michael wrote:
Chris Sergeant wrote:For completeness I note that Deuterium & Lithium were also formed in the Big Bang. Some of the Lithium will have been subsequently consumed in stars.



Were you there?


Well, technically, given that the speed of light is constant and that we're viewing objects from over 12 billion light years away, yes, we are there. The objects we're seeing are doing their thing right now (relative to us)but it still happened billions of years ago.

The speed of light thing is a killer for creationists as it demands that they either use special pleading or some other insane physicial wrangling.
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 Michael » Tue Nov 15, 2011 9:18 am

All science is a killer for creationists. But they will not admit it.
Michael
 
Posts: 2786
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2006 1:30 pm
Location: Lancaster

Re: Devious Dr Sarfati

Postby Roger Stanyard » Tue Nov 15, 2011 9:38 am

Michael wrote:All science is a killer for creationists. But they will not admit it.


Pretty well all religion is a killer for creationists. But they will not admit it.
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 Dr_GS_Hurd » Tue Nov 15, 2011 3:18 pm

Sarfati posted on "Theology Web" for a year or two. He became so obnoxious that even those fundamentalists banned his ass. He is personally a vile creature.

My first article on Sarfati was Boiled Creationist with a Side of Hexaglycine:
Sarfati on Imai et al. (1999)
User avatar
Dr_GS_Hurd
 
Posts: 242
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2011 9:45 pm
Location: Dana Point, California

Re: Devious Dr Sarfati

Postby a_haworthroberts » Wed Nov 16, 2011 4:28 am

http://creation.com/rocks-to-reincarnation
A clear statement which reveals that Creation Ministries International are anti-science and opponents of the scientific method.
"The Bible, as God’s written word, should be non-negotiable. Its teachings are propositional truth, and must be the foundation for all our teachings, including about the Flood. This applies not only to explicit statements, but to anything logically deducible from these statements. In fact, Jesus Himself endorsed the Flood as a real event, the Ark as a real ship, and Noah as a real person (Luke 17:26–27), so how can any of His professing followers deny it? No scientific model that overrules these clear teachings is acceptable.
But where the Bible is genuinely silent, we are free to use science to help build models to help elucidate the clear teachings of Scripture. But these models are just man-made..."

Because of the principle of Sola Scriptura, Christians should adopt a 'ministerial' use of science - not a 'magisterial' one because the latter "overrules the clear teaching of the Bible to come up with a meaning inconsistent with sound hermeneutics". Except that real science only 'overrules' scripture if its conclusions, based solely on the available evidence and what is already considered factual, do that. It does not - usually - eliminate the Bible at the start of proceedings

Yet in the Foreword to Sarfati's latest book 'The Greatest Hoax on Earth?' fellow CMI PhD YEC David Catchpoole informs readers: "It's precisely those who feel smug in the belief that all the intellectual firepower is on the side of evolution who most need to read Sarfati's book - if only to understand better why it is that there are thousands of scientists and intellectuals today who are convinced that in a fair science showdown, stripped bare of rhetoric and ideological 'noise' by comparing each position within its own axioms, biblical creation outguns evolution."

However, all I have seen is a sometimes ideological Dawkins allegedly being refuted over a science theory by a man who presents (alongside theology) a travesty of science which is governed by whether or not the Bible said something to the contrary over 2,000 years' ago.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 9075
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Devious Dr Sarfati

Postby Dagsannr » Wed Nov 16, 2011 8:40 am

a_haworthroberts wrote:"...in a fair science showdown, stripped bare of rhetoric and ideological 'noise' by comparing each position within its own axioms, biblical creation outguns evolution."


That is the biggest flaw in creationist thinking; science isn't about rhetoric or ideology, it's about observed evidence and inferred conclusions.

Fundamentalists see everything in absolutes (like the Sith!), it's either 100% bible truth or nothing, 100% godditit or nothing, 100% creationism or christianity is false. Their faith is built on non-existant foundations they've had to create to justify their own belief.

When you strip all the rhetoric from creationism you're left with nothing, but the same is true of science. However, science is still holding all the massive level of evidence on its side which is completely separate from rhetoric.
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 Roger Stanyard » Wed Nov 16, 2011 9:40 am

a_haworthroberts wrote:Yet in the Foreword to Sarfati's latest book 'The Greatest Hoax on Earth?' fellow CMI PhD YEC David Catchpoole informs readers: "It's precisely those who feel smug in the belief that all the intellectual firepower is on the side of evolution who most need to read Sarfati's book - if only to understand better why it is that there are thousands of scientists and intellectuals today who are convinced that in a fair science showdown, stripped bare of rhetoric and ideological 'noise' by comparing each position within its own axioms, biblical creation outguns evolution."


The views of scientifically illiterate "intellectuals" (whatever that means) on science simply don't count.

As for "thousands" we've looked at that claim before and the figure, for scientists, appears to be no more than about 650 world-wide. Many are not practising scientists and no more than a handful - perhaps 20-30, are working scientists in the key fields of evolutionary biology and geology. None of those are in the UK. Even the 20-30 are mostly non-entities in their occupation/profession.

The emperor has no cloths.

If, of course, creationism was a valid intellectual position it would attract "intellectuals" who are not religious. Surprise, surprise, it doesn't.
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 Dagsannr » Wed Nov 16, 2011 10:15 am

Roger Stanyard wrote:As for "thousands" we've looked at that claim before and the figure, for scientists, appears to be no more than about 650 world-wide. Many are not practising scientists and no more than a handful - perhaps 20-30, are working scientists in the key fields of evolutionary biology and geology. None of those are in the UK. Even the 20-30 are mostly non-entities in their occupation/profession.


http://ncse.com/taking-action/project-steve

over 1700 Steves and counting!
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 Peter Henderson » Wed Nov 16, 2011 11:00 am

Garner would say this is simply appealing to authority, nothing more.
Peter Henderson
 
Posts: 4353
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:07 pm
Location: Jordanstown, Co. Antrim, Northern Ireland

PreviousNext

Return to Conversations with Creationists

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests

cron