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 » Sun Nov 17, 2013 4:43 pm

There's some new material here - about to take a look.
http://www.greatesthoaxonearth.blogspot ... chive.html
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8061
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Devious Dr Sarfati

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sat Nov 23, 2013 6:25 pm

It looks like Dr Sarfati may have been doing some 'cherry picking'.
http://greatesthoaxonearth.blogspot.co.uk/
Apparently the genus Cerasus is native to the temperate regions of the Northern Hemisphere, with two species in America, three in Europe, and the remainder in Asia.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8061
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Devious Dr Sarfati

Postby a_haworthroberts » Wed Nov 27, 2013 5:21 am

A theory advanced by Dr Sarfati in his 2010 book makes sense.

If you ignore all the problems associated with it and exercise sufficient faith - the kind of reality-rejecting dogmatic faith that only committed young Earth creationists appear, from what they write at least, capable of exercising.

http://greatesthoaxonearth.blogspot.co. ... onics.html
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8061
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Devious Dr Sarfati fans?

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sun Dec 01, 2013 8:21 am

Recent exchanges here with Robert and Linda - two excellent reasons to be suspicious of YEC dogma and YEC dogmatists.
http://www.amazon.com/review/RHBBAKCND3 ... hisHelpful
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8061
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Devious Dr Sarfati

Postby a_haworthroberts » Mon Dec 09, 2013 10:50 pm

http://www.lineoffireradio.com/2013/10/ ... ent-577692

I have tried to reply to Dr Sarfati as below:

""AH-R was never an evangelical Christian—he always embraced evolution". I see Jonathan is making up his own 'facts' again. I did not consider the question of origins (the 'how') when I was a sincere evangelical Christian - before it dawned on me that God must either have rejected me or must not exist. I like to think I was never a bigot though.

I am also confused by Dr Sarfati's statement regarding those who embrace evolution (because they strongly believe it to be a proper science theory) - is he saying they cannot be a Christian AT ALL or merely that they cannot be an 'evangelical' Christian?

I very much suspect I will not get a clear answer."

I cannot see my new post at all - I can only assume I am suddenly on pre-moderation after having to make some changes to my computer today.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8061
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Devious Dr Sarfati

Postby a_haworthroberts » Fri Dec 13, 2013 10:19 pm

a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8061
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Devious Dr Sarfati

Postby theignored » Sat Dec 14, 2013 8:38 am

Your reply showed up. I don't know if mine will:

Met the man once in Edmonton in Oct 2010.

Wish I had asked him this in person since I never got a reply when I emailed him this problem a few years back.

=====================
Since Sarfati likes to blame anti-semitism on "darwinism"...


http://scienceblogs.com/erv/2008/04/30/ ... omment-376

Link points out that Sarfati had once called a fellow Jew, Rabbi Foxman, a "secular misochristic Jew" when Foxman said that the "Expelled" movie was baloney in blaming anti-semitism on Darwin.

"Misogynist" means "woman-hating". Therefore, "misochristic" means "christ-hating".

Look "christ-hating" up in the search engines and see who uses it: "darwinists" or some other group.

Sarfati prefers Richard Weikart as a "historian", since Weikart also pins the blame for the holocaust on "darwinism".

Weikart and the idea of what's to blame for the holocaust is discussed here:
http://fqa.digibase.ca/index.php?topic= ... #msg160283

Weikart, in addition to the problems that are exposed in that link, is a worker for the Discovery Institute: A right-wing religious think tank group.

Really non-biased there.
theignored
 
Posts: 9
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2013 7:13 am

Re:

Postby a_haworthroberts » Fri Dec 27, 2013 1:06 am

I cannot deny that this article is very wide-ranging:

http://creation.com/why-death-suffering ... t_specific
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8061
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Devious Dr Sarfati

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sun Jan 12, 2014 4:06 pm

I see that Dr Sarfati has a Facebook page, something I don't think I was aware of.

Among other things it currently flags this pile of fibs and unsupported dogmatic assertions (which I don't recall seeing during 2012)
http://creation.com/greatest-hoax:
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8061
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

DEVIOUS Dr Sarfati

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sat Mar 22, 2014 11:34 pm

http://creation.com/cosmos-neil-degrasse-tyson-review
J Sarfati wrote: "Tyson has adopted the strategy of atheistic groups like the NCSE and BCSE, of downplaying the obvious conflicts between Christianity and evolution..."


I have made CLEAR to Sarfati (on 27 Feb) that the BCSE is not atheistic. But he continues to ignore facts and to lie to Christians.
https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php? ... omments=73

He is also confused. It is usually theistic evolutionists - not atheistic evolutionists - who downplay conflicts between Christianity and evolution.

Sarfati acts in the typical hypocritical fashion that YECs have made their specialty within christendom. In his 2010 book he whinged about alleged strawmen used by those who criticise creationists like him. Yet he clearly appears to want to present an outdated and strawman version of what the BCSE is about on the CMI website.

I haven't bothered to read the whole Sarfati piece.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8061
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Devious Dr Sarfati

Postby a_haworthroberts » Fri Apr 04, 2014 11:42 pm

CMI refuted Cosmos 2 long before the programmes were even made! Aren't they clever?
http://creation.com/
http://creation.com/cosmos-neil-degrass ... -episode-2
(To be fair Sarfati appears to have written a new article, even if the content is 'some we wrote earlier', and does appears to relate it to specific Tyson statements. Since I have not seen Cosmos I have not ploughed through Sarfati's discourse.)
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8061
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Devious Alexander Gordons

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sat Apr 05, 2014 9:14 pm

Who has commented at 'The Question Evolution Project' as follows:
"He says that Dr. Jonathan Sarfati is devious, makes a claim about Creation Ministries International, and dismisses articles without having read them. If he showed a sign of honesty he would stand a chance of being heard."

MISTER GORDONS - tell the world exactly WHAT was 'dishonest' about my preceding comment (which you did not quote from). And HOW I have 'not' justified in this thread my original claim that Jonathan Sarfati has been devious. And WHY the only people who refuse to listen to my comments and indeed censor them when they can are young earth creationists - not other Christians (or non-Christians) who are it seems more honest and don't make false allegations that I am a 'liar'?

(Oops - might you be dismissing some material you have not READ - without in your case even ADMITTING that you have not read it? Oh I forgot - YECs are NEVER ever hypocritical, it's 'always' those people who criticise YECs who are the 'hypocritical' ones.)

Kindly Put Up. Or SHUT UP.

Memo to people from TQEP reading these threads! Kindly do not twist the meaning of what people write here. Kindly do not quote from it out of context so as to create a false impression. Thank You for your Co-operation.


EDIT AT 16.20 PM BST ON 6 APRIL:
More from Gordons:
"Moments ago I learned that he sent me a harassing message on Facebook. He has also singled me out on that forum. If I was given to emotional reactions I would be angry. He knows that people will be able to follow the link and plainly see that he is misrepresenting, using selective citing, manipulative, illogical, a liar, and more."

Note that he has NEITHER Put Up NOR Shut Up. (We have also exchanged brief Facebook messages, which I have not kept as life is too short.)


EDIT at 21.10 pm:
Now he's sent me a Facebook message calling me a 'lunatic liar'. He says he's not angry :)
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8061
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Devious Lying Dr Sarfati

Postby a_haworthroberts » Wed May 07, 2014 11:45 pm

http://creation.com/greatest-hoax

I've read either this or something very like it previously. It contains a number of lies.

For instance Sarfati writes that some of Dawkins' "statements are at odds with one another. For instance, he says that evolution means a “change of gene frequency over time” and in the same breath asserts that “40% of Americans deny evolution”. The former quote is on page 33 of 'The Greatest Show on Earth'. Whereas the latter comes from page 7. And note that on page 7 of his book Dawkins actually wrote "More than 40% of Americans deny that humans evolved from other animals, and think that we - and by implication all of life - were created by God within the last 10,000 years". That is what Dawkins is really concerned about rather than 'denial' of changes to genes within gene pools (which Sarfati accepts because it is observable - if not exactly found in the Bible).

Sarfati shows huge bias and a failure to examine all the evidence by declaring that 'Lucy' must have been an 'arboreal knuckle-walker' (though the article may have been written up to four years ago - and not updated).

"We do know of things that can change decay rate". That's another lie from Dr Sarfati. He of course offers no examples - simply spreads unscientific scepticism.


PS Tried to flag this post to CMI via the link on their website underneath it. But I am being told: "Your quota has been exceeded. Comments on articles are restricted to 50 in any 12 month period. Your quota has been exceeded for the moment, so this comment will not be visible to the editors and will not be published, though it will count towards your current 12 month total, which is now 75. As you let time pass, this will automatically ‘reset’ allowing further comments to be made."

That's a joke. There are so MANY lies in CMI articles that they have had to introduce a quota system to block the many objections they receive and cannot deal with from informed objectors.

Why does a blocked comment still count against me if they have nothing to hide?

PPS
Meanwhile 'The Question Evolution Project' are showing their true LYING colours on the CMI Facebook page:
https://www.facebook.com/creationministries
"I saw a comment on an anti-creationist forum where Dr. Sarfati was called "devious" by someone who has no real understanding of science and did not understand what was written. Some people are so locked into evolutionist ideology (and adoration of Dawkins) that they are unwilling as well as unable to understand some basic concepts. So, they attack the person."

My comments are 100% factual. TQEP are evil LIARS.

For TQEP's information, I have a copy of BOTH books. I have READ both books. I have REVIEWED Sarfati's book. I KNOW that Sarfati is lying about Dawkins. This is not about 'adoration' it is about complete contempt for LYING HYPOCRITICAL YOUNG EARTH CREATIONIST 'Christians' like The Question Evolution Project.
http://www.amazon.com/review/R20EDOWA9ET8XI
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8061
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re:

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sat Jul 05, 2014 11:21 pm

Some theology and some sheer hot air (though a peer review failure and the dangers of announcing a discovery prior to peer review have been in the news this past week). Take that KG!
http://creation.com/taking-bible-seriously
Of course, if CMI had a 'peer review' failure, would they announce it later on their website or in one of their learned journals? (The danger of premature announcement of 'discoveries' is unlikely to present itself to CMI.)
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8061
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Non-committal Dr Sarfati

Postby a_haworthroberts » Mon Nov 17, 2014 9:45 pm

http://creation.com/ichthyosaur-birth-g ... oft-tissue
One apparently rapidly buried marine fossil found in China. It must point to a recent worldwide flood a la Genesis!

These are the links Sarfati alludes to but does not discuss in detail:
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Ad ... ne.0088640
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... e-animals/
As Sarfati mentions, scientists believe the mother died during a difficult labour (of course a global flood would have made labour yet more difficult). A baby ichthyosaur in the process of being born head first suggests to the scientists that ichthyosaurs (some of them anyway) must have given birth on land and not in the sea. But it would be rather odd if just 1,500 years after creation of these marine reptiles, this ichthyosaur species was already moving onto land to give birth - as yecs would have to accept is where the creature was when it died unless they have an alternative explanation (they deny that this creature's ancestors lived on land and believe it was created as a marine reptile).
It is rather unclear from the article whether Sarfati does accepts that the creature was attempting to give birth on land (after being created by God as a sea creature just 1,500 years earlier) - or whether he would prefer to believe (based on Genesis alone) that it was still living in the sea at the time but was still (presumably) killed by a submarine landslide caused by 'Noah's flood'/'the fountains of the deep'. Somebody should ask him I think*. My hunch is that, whilst he appears rather unwilling to commit himself, he would prefer (despite the evidence eg that the fossil was found in Anhui province inland from Shanghai, both now and 4,500 years ago) to believe/claim that the species was (still) giving birth in the sea and not on land. After all, he writes: "the new fossil of a head-first birth may well have been pathological, perhaps the trauma of being buried causing premature birth from the wrong position" (other ichthyosaurs give birth tail first).


* In fact I just have.
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Dr-Jonat ... 3583015475
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8061
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