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 » Wed Nov 16, 2011 11:15 am

Peter Henderson wrote:Garner would say this is simply appealing to authority, nothing more.


The entire bible is an appeal to authority and, unlike human scientists, the validity, accuracy and authenticity of the bible cannot be verified and relies soley on a matter of faith.

We appeal to authority all time, be it doctors, plumbers, police, politician, journalists.

When Garner says it's an appeal to authority what he really means is that it's an appeal to an authority he doesn't agree with.
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 Dr_GS_Hurd » Wed Nov 16, 2011 12:41 pm

Peter Henderson wrote:Garner would say this is simply appealing to authority, nothing more.


The point of the "Steves" list was to illustrate that the (factually false) "thousands of scientists supporting creationism" was an absurd appeal to authority. We actually were directly motivated by the Disco'tutes publishing their "desent from Darwin" list when they had just around 100 signatures. We insisted that all signatories must have real, relevent qualifications in science; biology, geology, paleontology, anthropology. That was relaxed to include "any living Nobel Prize recipient" when 'Steve' Hawking asked to sign.

We don't use the "Steves" list to "prove" evolutionary theory, we use it to illustrate how stupid the creationist lists are.

PS: as of 7 Nov. 2011, there are 1179 "Steves."
User avatar
Dr_GS_Hurd
 
Posts: 242
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2011 9:45 pm
Location: Dana Point, California

Re: Devious Dr Sarfati

Postby Roger Stanyard » Wed Nov 16, 2011 1:02 pm

Dr_GS_Hurd wrote:
Peter Henderson wrote:Garner would say this is simply appealing to authority, nothing more.


The point of the "Steves" list was to illustrate that the (factually false) "thousands of scientists supporting creationism" was an absurd appeal to authority. We actually were directly motivated by the Disco'tutes publishing their "desent from Darwin" list when they had just around 100 signatures. We insisted that all signatories must have real, relevent qualifications in science; biology, geology, paleontology, anthropology. That was relaxed to include "any living Nobel Prize recipient" when 'Steve' Hawking asked to sign.

We don't use the "Steves" list to "prove" evolutionary theory, we use it to illustrate how stupid the creationist lists are.


We have looked at the Disco Kids' list (specifically names from the UK) and found it to be near-fraudulent. We actually wrote to many of the names asking whether they actually accepted creationism or ID and found out afterwards that they had been instructed by the Disco Institute not to reply to any enquiries trying to establish what they actually believed.

There's an article on our wiki about what we found. What it is very much not is a list of IDers. Many were simply hardline YECers trying to bump up the length of the list. And, of course, it included people who are simply not scientists.
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 7:10 pm

I heard someplace that a significant number of signatories to the list (not just from the UK) signed it as they have honest doubts about the robustness of the current evolutionary theory but do not support a supernatural origin. They were unaware of the disco'tute's religion foundation.
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 » Wed Nov 16, 2011 7:30 pm

Natman wrote:I heard someplace that a significant number of signatories to the list (not just from the UK) signed it as they have honest doubts about the robustness of the current evolutionary theory but do not support a supernatural origin. They were unaware of the disco'tute's religion foundation.


That is also clear from some who signed and the wording - which I can almost agree with for my sins.
Michael
 
Posts: 2786
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2006 1:30 pm
Location: Lancaster

Re: Devious Dr Sarfati

Postby a_haworthroberts » Wed Nov 16, 2011 8:28 pm

Natman wrote:
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.



They're very keen on setting up dichotomies. Such as "will you trust Man's word or God's word?"
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 9075
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Devious Dr Sarfati

Postby cathy » Wed Nov 16, 2011 9:26 pm

They're very keen on setting up dichotomies.
False dichotomies. You can trust both, unless the men are creationists when you can't.
cathy
 
Posts: 3665
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 6:51 pm
Location: Redditch

Re: Devious Dr Sarfati

Postby Michael » Wed Nov 16, 2011 10:03 pm

cathy wrote:
They're very keen on setting up dichotomies.
False dichotomies. You can trust both, unless the men are creationists when you can't.



Where is Sylvia?
Michael
 
Posts: 2786
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2006 1:30 pm
Location: Lancaster

Re: Devious Dr Sarfati

Postby Brian Jordan » Wed Nov 16, 2011 10:22 pm

Michael wrote:Where is Sylvia?
Probably back in Cheshire by now, but surely not holy, fair, and wise is she, wherever she is. Though she probably thinks she's holy. Holier than thou, she came over as on Radio Sheffield.
"PPSIMMONS is an amorphous mass of stupid" - Rationalwiki
User avatar
Brian Jordan
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 4216
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: Devious Dr Sarfati

Postby Peter Henderson » Wed Nov 16, 2011 11:33 pm

Brian Jordan wrote:
Michael wrote:Where is Sylvia?
Probably back in Cheshire by now, but surely not holy, fair, and wise is she, wherever she is. Though she probably thinks she's holy. Holier than thou, she came over as on Radio Sheffield.


Any time I've seen her on Revalation TV (last time she was on with Paul Taylor) she came over as quite self opinionated.

Her church seems pretty strict. Not somewhere whee I would likely fit in.

Does anybody ever ask her about the age of the Earth ?
Peter Henderson
 
Posts: 4353
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:07 pm
Location: Jordanstown, Co. Antrim, Northern Ireland

Re: Devious Dr Sarfati

Postby a_haworthroberts » Thu Nov 17, 2011 5:32 am

http://creation.com/refuting-compromisi ... mi-seminar

I've just contacted CMI to point out how Sarfati totally ignored my book review of 'Hoax' at Amazon (where he had been posting earlier in 2010), my challenge over diamonds here (the new article of today repeats the lie that diamonds "contain" carbon 14) - http://www.lineoffireradio.com/2011/08/ ... nt-page-1/ - and a recent email I sent to Sarfati and co:
"
http://creation.com/rocks-to-reincarnation
I've read the fascinating article by Campbell et al, the response by Reed, the further comments by Jonathan B on the attached link and then the reply by Jonathan Sarfati.

I believe that Jonathan B is Jonathan Baker. I also rather suspect that he was not alerted that his comments would appear on the CMI website today - given that I had a similar experience of not being informed of that a few months' ago.

The response by Reed is one of the worst examples that I have come across of dogma-driven, denialist, deliberately non-specific (when it comes to science), rather childish, anti-science, almost propagandist argumentation by a young Earth creationist that I have yet come across.

Jonathan B's reply - which I read last - makes some cogent points that did not occur to me (I'm not a practising scientist). Clearly, the Campbell article touched a nerve. Note also that Reed's reply is littered with links; if their arguments are so good why not briefly summarise them?

Dr Sarfati's further response completely ignores Jonathan's scientific challenge - relating to rocks, a key part of what Christians believe God created - and instead seeks to lecture him that the Bible must always take precedence. He adds: "The Bible, as God’s written word, should be non-negotiable" and "No scientific model that overrules these clear teachings is acceptable."

But an old Earth and possibly worldwide Flood denying/questioning scientific model is based on the EVIDENCE - not on any prior policy of 'negotiating' or 'denying' scripture.

With respect, the YEC position is a COMPROMISE position for any genuine scientist.
And the problem of science not matching scripture is also GOD'S problem not Man's, is it not?

People are free to hold their own private opinions, but I do NOT believe that inconvenient but strong science should either be ignored and rejected on purely theological grounds, or alternatively 'refuted' with speculative pseudo-science. I would have said the same whilst a practising Christian (I knew rather less about science at that time).
Ashley Haworth-Roberts

PS
The only YEC evidence for an Earth of roughly 6,000 years' age that I know of is from the RATE project. As I understand it, the argument for a young Earth from high helium content in zircons is a very old one, but it is refuted by the simple fact that the creationists use diffusion rates under surface conditions, whereas in reality the zircons and surrounding mineral matrix have been compacted under high pressure, greatly slowing down diffusion. And it is not possible, barring 'divine intervention', for radioactive decay rates to have been different in the past, because they depend on the same fundamental constants that determine the laws of chemistry, and we know that the laws of chemistry were not different when the zircons were formed, otherwise they wouldn't have formed as zircons. Plus the completely unexplained and non-biblical massively vast radioactive decay rates, just 5,000 years' ago, required to falsify radiometric dates almost one million fold would have made life on Earth virtually impossible."

These ALL turned on matters of substance NOT style.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 9075
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Devious Dr Sarfati

Postby Dagsannr » Thu Nov 17, 2011 10:44 am

Brian Jordan wrote:
Michael wrote:Where is Sylvia?
Probably back in Cheshire by now, but surely not holy, fair, and wise is she, wherever she is. Though she probably thinks she's holy. Holier than thou, she came over as on Radio Sheffield.


I have an extreme dislike of moral high horse theists. Proponents of any religion are supposed to be humble and non-judgemental. Hell, even Jesus said so and if anyone had the right to be an arrogant prick, it's him!

Given the body count and list of moral transgression puportrated by followers of religion in the name of their God, and the utter fallacy that there's such things as absolute morals and divine origins, theists should be contrite and not arrogant.

Atheists have a right to be arrogant and moralistic as we (should) have determined our morals from first principles and not from an officially sanctioned holy book.
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 » Thu Nov 17, 2011 11:59 am

Natman wrote:I heard someplace that a significant number of signatories to the list (not just from the UK) signed it as they have honest doubts about the robustness of the current evolutionary theory but do not support a supernatural origin. They were unaware of the disco'tute's religion foundation.



Indeed. the way the statement was phrased would mean that alll scientists could sign it; even the likes of Richard Dawkins. The TE is not a proven fact!
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 jon_12091 » Thu Nov 17, 2011 12:26 pm

Roger Stanyard wrote:and found out afterwards that they had been instructed by the Disco Institute not to reply to any enquiries trying to establish what they actually believed.

The high principles of creation science in action.... if the results of the survey were robust what problem should the DI have with the people surveyed being asked about their actual beliefs?
'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

Hypocrite

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sun Feb 19, 2012 2:42 am

High priority email just sent to CMI:



http://creation.com/losing-ancient-technology (second answer)

I consider Dr Sarfati's response to Ehren somewhat impolite. And dishonest too. On page 7 of 'The Greatest Show on Earth' (the book you sought to refute) Dawkins unambiguously wrote: "more than 40 per cent of Americans deny that humans evolved from other animals". By making him apparently state merely that 40 per cent "deny "evolution"" (implicitly that they deny change of allele frequency over time - which Dawkins refers to later, on page 33), you are clearly TWISTING his words for your own propaganda purposes. Humans evolving from other animals would include BOTH change of allele frequency AND mutations (the latter are mentioned on page 334 of the book where it refers to natural selection favouring beneficial 'good' ones and removing harmful 'bad' ones). Dawkins of course does NOT agree in general with YECs about speciation and about evolution - because the position of the latter is on BOTH is mostly faith-based and unscientific.

I also consider your response hypocritical. Because you falsely chastise Dawkins for being dishonest by allegedly changing the meaning of a word so as to criticise Americans unjustly, and also criticise Ehren for failing to do 'the slightest research'. Whereas at the very same time - whether through sloppiness or deliberate intent (I suspect the latter) - your reply is highly dishonest about the position taken by Dawkins (whose book did not formally define 'evolution' incidentally).

I trust that Ehren will see through your intended deception and smears.

I am not going to sign myself 'Regards'.
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: Bing [Bot] and 10 guests

cron