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 Dr Sarfati

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sat Sep 17, 2011 12:46 am

My emails just now to CMI (copied wider):

http://www.lineoffireradio.com/2011/08/ ... nt-page-2/

Post 44 (me): "Sarfati also spoke of carbon 14 traces in diamonds (see also ‘evidence’ 54 in the link provided earlier in this thread) which he doubts come from machine contamination. See also: http://creation.com/diamonds-a-creationists-best-friend (article mentioned during the interview). But – as this Christian points out under ‘Back to the Evidence’ at http://questioninganswersingenesis.blog ... ty-of.html – “in case one is still convinced that these diamonds did contain intrinsic 14C, however, I must pose this question: why should natural diamonds contain any 14C, ever? Diamonds are formed deep in the mantle, far removed from the atmosphere where 14C is actually produced. To suggest that radioactive diamonds are evidence for a young Earth requires an intentional ignorance, or downright dishonesty on the part of AiG”. A pity the thorough Michael Brown didn’t have the scientific expertise to ask chemist Sarfati this question."

Post 54 (Sarfati): "Ashley Haworth-Roberts (Mr) has long been known as an embittered apostate, and not very scientific either. If he was, he would realize this question is irrelevant: “however, I must pose this question: why should natural diamonds contain any 14C, ever?” I.e. they do, as has been shown, therefore they can’t have existed for millions of years."

Post 55 (me): "Sarfati’s empty pronouncement that my question about carbon 14 ‘in’ diamonds – first raised by Christian and scientist Jon Baker as shown in my ‘Questioning Answers in Genesis’ link above – is merely ‘irrelevant’ suggests to me that he has NO convincing answer. Why should there be any atmospherically produced carbon 14 deep within Earth’s mantle where diamonds are created?"

Post 56 (me): "Scientists who, unlike me, have studied this matter appear to consider that the carbon 14 came from contamination as the diamonds were carefully examined using appropriate laboratory equipment. I have seen at least two commentators who have cited this academic paper from 2007: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007NIMPB.259..282T"

Post 58 (geologist Christian Jon Baker): "Dr. Sarfati, I must contend that the question about 14C in diamonds is in fact relevant. How can 14C-bearing material be recycled that deeply into the crust within thousands of years? The challenge is perfectly valid. Secondly, you are mistaken that diamonds have been shown to contain any intrinsic 14C. Yes, radiocarbon analysis of diamonds yields a 14C activity, but this does not come from the diamond itself, and it’s easy to prove. Radiocarbon lab technicians are perfectly aware that it is impossible to prepare any sample (especially diamonds) without some atmospheric carbon contaminating the sample. If the 14C were intrinsic, it should covary with the 13C values of the sample, but it doesn’t. The 14C activity remains ~constant while 13C of diamonds varies widely. This is the best proof that 14C in diamond analyses is a product of contamination."

Post 60 (me): "I do now understand that eclogitic diamonds are thought to contain some organic carbon from organic detritus that has been pushed down from the surface of the Earth’s crust through subduction. I don’t know how long this process takes, but most diamonds that have been formed in the upper mantle and have then arrived at or near Earth’s surface are thought to be one or more billion years’ old (note that radiocarbon dating can only be used on organic material up to around 60,000 years’ old as after that point there is no longer any detectable – unstable – carbon 14 left)."

Post 79 (me): "I believe Taylor and Southon in their paper ‘Use of natural diamonds to monitor 14C AMS instrument backgrounds’ examined Palaeozoic era diamonds from Brazil. Presumably some or all of them would have been eclogitic diamonds (where the carbon source was probably originally organic – containing some carbon 14 if it died fairly recently – and contained within subducted basalt). After all, YECs could not rationally claim that peridoditic diamonds could contain intrinsic carbon 14 (as the carbon source for these diamonds is within Earth’s mantle). And for their claims that eclogitic diamonds do contain intrinsic carbon 14 to be of any real use to them they would need to be able to show that the amounts of carbon 14 remaining (half life 5,730 years), in all nine of the diamonds, was large enough to suggest that they were subducted, formed, stored and then lifted to Earth’s surface in 6,000 years’ maximum."

Sarfati did NOT return to the discussion after his post 54.

Yet Sarfati has written on Facebook around two hours' ago (within a discussion about radiometric dating):
"However, contamination can’t explain the widespread 14C in diamonds, which thus can’t be billions of years old as evolutionists claim."
http://www.facebook.com/creationnewsl?sk=wall

Same old young earth creationists, same old untruths.

PS When I say Sarfati "did not return to the discussion", I mean that he made no further post. I have no way of knowing whether or not he viewed the later posts, but - if I was him - I certainly would have done.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8113
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Devious Dr Sarfati

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sat Sep 17, 2011 1:46 am

One of the reviewers at Amazon.com of Sarfati's last book - gklauminzer - also briefly discussed the diamonds and contamination point. I don't know whether he read the review, though Dr S DID comment at Amazon.com on reviews posted in the first half of 2010. http://www.amazon.com/Greatest-Earth-Re ... ewpoints=0
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8113
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Devious Dr Sarfati

Postby Michael » Sat Sep 17, 2011 6:05 am

Ashley, you have the measure of the man -and the rest of them
Michael
 
Posts: 2786
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2006 1:30 pm
Location: Lancaster

Re: Devious Dr Sarfati

Postby cathy » Sat Sep 17, 2011 10:38 am

Post 54 (Sarfati): "Ashley Haworth-Roberts (Mr) has long been known as an embittered apostate, and not very scientific either. If he was, he would realize this question is irrelevant: “however, I must pose this question: why should natural diamonds contain any 14C, ever?” I.e. they do, as has been shown, therefore they can’t have existed for millions of years."

What an unpleasant man. The real meaning of this is "I cannot answer Ashley Haworth-Roberts questions, he is refusing to recognise my superiority and is in danger of making me look stupid in front of my target audience of morons-hence I must resort to cheap insults and certainly make sure I call him an apostate (as why else would he criticise the words that issue forth from my anus). His question is relevant and I can't answer it until I can manage to conjure up a convincing lie"

Being insulted by one of the leading lights of the creationist movement is a bit of an honour I'd say
cathy
 
Posts: 3662
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 6:51 pm
Location: Redditch

Re: Devious Dr Sarfati

Postby jon_12091 » Sat Sep 17, 2011 4:36 pm

Post 54 (Sarfati): "Ashley Haworth-Roberts (Mr) has long been known as an embittered apostate, and not very scientific either. If he was, he would realize this question is irrelevant: “however, I must pose this question: why should natural diamonds contain any 14C, ever?” I.e. they do, as has been shown, therefore they can’t have existed for millions of years."

No it has not been shown that diamonds contain C14 only that the mechanism by which the analysis is performed can introduce contamination that may be called 'background'. Safati is either utterly without understanding of this aspect of science or is lying to support his position.
'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 Roger Stanyard » Sat Sep 17, 2011 6:05 pm

a_haworthroberts wrote:
Post 54 (Sarfati): "Ashley Haworth-Roberts (Mr) has long been known as an embittered apostate, and not very scientific either. If he was, he would realize this question is irrelevant: “however, I must pose this question: why should natural diamonds contain any 14C, ever?” I.e. they do, as has been shown, therefore they can’t have existed for millions of years."



Strewth! Jonathan Sarfati claiming someone is "not very scientific". He should know.

Pot to kettle: you're black.
Those who believe absurdities will commit atrocities - Voltaire
User avatar
Roger Stanyard
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 6160
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: Devious Dr Sarfati

Postby Michael » Sat Sep 17, 2011 6:31 pm

jon_12091 wrote:
Post 54 (Sarfati): "Ashley Haworth-Roberts (Mr) has long been known as an embittered apostate, and not very scientific either. If he was, he would realize this question is irrelevant: “however, I must pose this question: why should natural diamonds contain any 14C, ever?” I.e. they do, as has been shown, therefore they can’t have existed for millions of years."

No it has not been shown that diamonds contain C14 only that the mechanism by which the analysis is performed can introduce contamination that may be called 'background'. Safati is either utterly without understanding of this aspect of science or is lying to support his position.



Sirfarty knows his science
Michael
 
Posts: 2786
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2006 1:30 pm
Location: Lancaster

Re: Devious Dr Sarfati

Postby Roger Stanyard » Sat Sep 17, 2011 7:17 pm

cathy wrote:
Post 54 (Sarfati): "Ashley Haworth-Roberts (Mr) has long been known as an embittered apostate, and not very scientific either. If he was, he would realize this question is irrelevant: “however, I must pose this question: why should natural diamonds contain any 14C, ever?” I.e. they do, as has been shown, therefore they can’t have existed for millions of years."

What an unpleasant man. The real meaning of this is "I cannot answer Ashley Haworth-Roberts questions, he is refusing to recognise my superiority and is in danger of making me look stupid in front of my target audience of morons-hence I must resort to cheap insults and certainly make sure I call him an apostate (as why else would he criticise the words that issue forth from my anus). His question is relevant and I can't answer it until I can manage to conjure up a convincing lie"



Spot on, Cathy; you've got him down to a teee!

The description I've heard of him is that he is on a giant ego trip, top of the "creationist" movement rather than in the obscurity of mainstream science, an adulating audience and the consequential arrogance. Even got a place in the sun where the money is - Florida (he heads CMI's US operation).

The hubris of arrogance will no doubt lead to his fall.

(PS, given the way he treats Ashley, imagine how he treats those that work for him.)
Those who believe absurdities will commit atrocities - Voltaire
User avatar
Roger Stanyard
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 6160
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: Devious Dr Sarfati

Postby Roger Stanyard » Sat Sep 17, 2011 7:26 pm

cathy wrote:What an unpleasant man. The real meaning of this is "I cannot answer Ashley Haworth-Roberts questions, he is refusing to recognise my superiority and is in danger of making me look stupid in front of my target audience of morons-hence I must resort to cheap insults and certainly make sure I call him an apostate (as why else would he criticise the words that issue forth from my anus). His question is relevant and I can't answer it until I can manage to conjure up a convincing lie"



Spot on, Cathy; you've got him down to a teee!

The description I've heard of him is that he is on a giant ego trip, top of the "creationist" movement rather than in the obscurity of mainstream science, an adulating audience and the consequential arrogance. Even got a place in the sun where the money is - Florida (he heads CMI's US operation).

The hubris of arrogance will no doubt lead to his fall.

(PS, given the way he treats Ashley, imagine how he treats those that work for him.)
Those who believe absurdities will commit atrocities - Voltaire
User avatar
Roger Stanyard
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 6160
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: Devious Dr Sarfati

Postby Michael » Sat Sep 17, 2011 8:23 pm

Sirfarty has written to me on webfora as he does to aShley and would do the same to Dean Ohlman, who accepts geology and not evolution so is as bad as me.
Michael
 
Posts: 2786
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2006 1:30 pm
Location: Lancaster

Re: Devious Dr Sarfati

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sat Sep 17, 2011 11:35 pm

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.
Last edited by a_haworthroberts on Sat Sep 17, 2011 11:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8113
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Devious Dr Sarfati

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sat Sep 17, 2011 11:36 pm

Which is Circular Reasoning.

I'd better tell Answers in Genesis about this ...
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8113
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Devious Dr Sarfati

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sun Sep 18, 2011 12:06 am

cathy wrote:
Post 54 (Sarfati): "Ashley Haworth-Roberts (Mr) has long been known as an embittered apostate, and not very scientific either. If he was, he would realize this question is irrelevant: “however, I must pose this question: why should natural diamonds contain any 14C, ever?” I.e. they do, as has been shown, therefore they can’t have existed for millions of years."

What an unpleasant man. The real meaning of this is "I cannot answer Ashley Haworth-Roberts questions, he is refusing to recognise my superiority and is in danger of making me look stupid in front of my target audience of morons-hence I must resort to cheap insults and certainly make sure I call him an apostate (as why else would he criticise the words that issue forth from my anus). His question is relevant and I can't answer it until I can manage to conjure up a convincing lie"

Being insulted by one of the leading lights of the creationist movement is a bit of an honour I'd say



I suppose I am an apostate and didn't get angry with him saying it following various exchanges at Amazon.com in 2010 (though it's his way of telling others 'don't listen to him').

But he also insists - blindfold chess champ genius and chemistry PhD that he is as I have always acknowledged at Amazon - that I am "not very scientific". Yet he has seemingly avoided my review of his book at Amazon.com like the plague. If my review is shoddy science, he (and the 37 invisible people who voted the review 'unhelpful') would surely point out my errors?
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8113
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Devious Dr Sarfati

Postby a_haworthroberts » Mon Sep 19, 2011 2:02 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.


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.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8113
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Devious Dr Sarfati

Postby Michael » Mon Sep 19, 2011 5:00 am

After forty years of reading creationist rubbish , I have found that every one of their supposed problems collapse when you check them out as they have either misunderstood or ,usually, grossly misprepresented the science involved. When I find this out, I find it almost impossible not to conclude that they are lying , so that is what I assume whenever I hear one of their new claims
Michael
 
Posts: 2786
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2006 1:30 pm
Location: Lancaster

Next

Return to Conversations with Creationists

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron