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 Roger Stanyard » Sun Feb 19, 2012 2:42 pm

jon_12091 wrote:
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?


It still amazes me the extent of outright fraud amongst creations. There's always dubious practice in business but nothing in business would every work, at all, if fraud anywhere near the same scale as amongst creationists. I assume that this is why creationists rarely, if ever, work in business. They are too pathologically dishonest to allow anything complex to work.
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 » Mon Jul 23, 2012 11:50 pm

Typical misleading Sarfati propaganda.
http://creation.com/feathered-dinosaurs-not-feathers

Which FAILS to mention Yutrannus huali. http://www.xinglida.net/pdf/Xu_et_al_20 ... rannus.pdf
Instead we just get:
"CMI has long pointed out that there is nothing in the biblical creationist model that states that dinosaurs must lack feathers. Having said that, however, we also point out that the examples to date have been far from convincing. There is good reason to believe that the feathers were just frayed structural collagen fibres.
Nonetheless, the fibres have their defenders as well, such as Prof. Zhang Fucheng of the Chinese Academy of Sciences and his colleagues, who to be "refuting recent claims that the filaments are partially decayed dermal collagen fibres"".

"And in a recent paper, [Prof Zhang Fucheng] has provided further evidence against this claim, and also inadvertently found strong evidence for the Genesis Flood". Well, there's nothing about a colossal flood here: http://www.springerlink.com/content/0383285508u76214/
And Sarfati's propaganda article only refers to 'rapid burial'. And to opisthotonus.

"The authors attribute the death to toxic volcanic gases, then burial by volcanic ash or mud flows." So WHY is Dr Sarfati disagreeing?
BECAUSE he is not doing science. He is doing Young Earth Creation Christian APOLOGETICS. Thus the likely facts need 'changing' in order to 'fit' the book of Genesis.

Despite any 'bird-like' lungs, Archaeopteryx has been re-classified as a dinosaur.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8578
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Devious Russell Grigg

Postby a_haworthroberts » Mon Aug 06, 2012 12:45 am

Message as sent to the extreme, serially lying, censorial Creation Ministries International:



http://creation.com/abandoned-transitional-forms
"Today detailed numerical analysis of their anatomy has shown that the australopithecines are not intermediates but are a unique, now extinct, ape-like group of creatures that “are more different from humans and African apes than humans and African apes are from each other”. However, evolutionists have nothing to fill the hole left by ‘Lucy’ and so she is still erroneously included in most treatments of human evolution.".
LIAR
LIAR
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/ ... 7.abstract
READ IT
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/331/6018/750.abstract
READ IT

Biblical Christianity makes many people become liars. Why?
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8578
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Devious US conservatives

Postby a_haworthroberts » Wed Aug 29, 2012 2:56 am

a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8578
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Dr Sarfati - I presume

Postby a_haworthroberts » Fri Sep 14, 2012 1:51 am

"A very noisy and embittered apostate who knows nothing about science and can't string two logical thoughts together."
http://www.piltdownsuperman.com/2012/09 ... appen.html

If this is indeed Dr Sarfati and assuming he is talking about myself he is LYING THROUGH HIS TEETH (as I have informed the ridiculous YEC blogger Bob Sorensen who writes "wish I had his way with words!").

Full details are in the Ken Ham thread, timed at 1.12 am.

I emailed Tas Walker (he emails me from time to time) as follows:
"Tas
Perhaps you may want to ask Dr Sarfati whether he made the comment
reported here (my email just now refers):
http://www.piltdownsuperman.com/2012/09 ... appen.html
I find it rather amusing in its stupidity and insecurity, whoever it
is.
Ashley".
Last edited by a_haworthroberts on Fri Sep 14, 2012 2:45 am, edited 1 time in total.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8578
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Devious Dr Sarfati

Postby a_haworthroberts » Fri Sep 14, 2012 2:10 am

Of course YEC fundamentalists sometimes lie.

They think that if people accept what their truthful critics say those people will end up in hell. Thus they have to attack their critics. For Jesus.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8578
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Devious Dr Sarfati

Postby a_haworthroberts » Fri Sep 14, 2012 3:55 am

I have sent the following feedback question to Creation Ministries International:


"What does Exodus 20:16 mean, please?

And is it Dr Sarfati who has described me as follows to YEC blogger Bob Sorensen - or will he deny it?
"A very noisy and embittered apostate who knows nothing about science and can't string two logical thoughts together".
http://www.piltdownsuperman.com/2012/09 ... appen.html

My latest three postings here refer:
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=2762&start=60

Dr Sarfati ignored my science-focused review of 'The Greatest Hoax on Earth' at Amazon, and ran away from the 2011 online discussion at LineofFire radio.

Answers would be welcome."
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8578
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Devious Dr Sarfati

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sat Sep 15, 2012 1:56 am

24 hours' later.

NO DENIAL FROM SARFATI.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8578
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Devious Dr Sarfati

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sun Sep 16, 2012 3:17 pm

Well, I see that the misleading comment - whoever said it - has now disappeared from the start of this blog post: http://www.piltdownsuperman.com/2012/09 ... appen.html
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8578
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Devious Dr Sarfati

Postby jon_12091 » Mon Sep 17, 2012 6:10 am

a_haworthroberts wrote:
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.

Wrong, and wrong, as I understand it the contamination was in part a result of the method and the equipment, and if there was any C14 in the diamond it would have resulted from a nuclear reaction and last I heard diamonds weren't radiation opaque.
'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 Dr_GS_Hurd » Mon Sep 17, 2012 1:06 pm

Here is a discussion of the C14 in diamond issue. This was preceded by a 45 page discussion between Kirk, and John Baumgardner on the Theology Web.
User avatar
Dr_GS_Hurd
 
Posts: 242
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2011 9:45 pm
Location: Dana Point, California

Re:

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sat Sep 22, 2012 2:36 am

http://creation.com/can-evolution-and-religion-co-exist

Mr Catchpoole's first answer is evasive propaganda and preaching.
Unfortunately the enquirer made the mistake of not quoting any of the evidence supporting the theory of evolution - thus allowing him to ignore this aspect. Catchpoole waffles but does NOT give an interpretation of any evidence. When YECs do such, they force-fit the evidence into a Bible-based scenario - or make vague claims that the 'evolutionist' interpretation 'must' be wrong because (a) we cannot observe past events and (b) mainstream science is 'ignoring' the supernatural. Also, Brittany never mentioned atheism! And there are many people who believe in both evolution and a god, even if the two beliefs may seem incompatible to some people.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8578
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Devious blogger

Postby a_haworthroberts » Tue Sep 25, 2012 11:57 pm

a_haworthroberts wrote:Absolute drivel about Lucy:
http://www.conservativenewsandviews.com ... nin-to-do/


More misleading pro-creationist propaganda concerning Lucy (which ignores recent scientific papers, from 2010 and 2011): http://yecheadquarters.org/

I tried to post a comment but it failed to appear and it would seem that Mr Bourne is chucking any comments from me into his 'spam' box, unread. He probably didn't enjoy being outed as making false claims - about myself and others posting on Amazon.com - under his previous blog post dated 16 August (the one about the anti Ken Ham article in the Belfast Telegraph).
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8578
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Devious CMI?

Postby a_haworthroberts » Tue Oct 23, 2012 3:47 am

If the stakes are high enough, the losing side in science will keep on shouting and fighting their corner:
http://creation.com/creation-videos?pag ... ue2-3Y1-sU
It's not scientific truth that matters to CMI, it's being 'equipped with answers' (answers most of which are not given in the Bible itself).
They don't actually CARE if somebody is given a nonsense 'answer' - if that answer might bring someone to saving faith in Jesus Christ.
(Of course they would never admit it was nonsense - unless another 'Arguments We think Creationists Should Not Use' article is in the offing from the YEC Bible lobby.)
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8578
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Devious CMI

Postby a_haworthroberts » Thu Oct 25, 2012 2:01 am

http://creation.com/creation-videos?pag ... H_irNewgp8
"Dinosaurs ARE mentioned in the Bible - Behemoth
A question people often ask is "Does the Bible mention dinosaurs"? You might expect that the Bible would mention the most impressive land-dwelling beasts of God's creation, since He created them on Day 6 along with people. Indeed, in Job Chapter 40, God directs Job to consider the crowning glory of his creation, "Behemoth", as testimony to his creative power. "Behemoth" is described as a colossal beast, feeding on grass like an ox and living in marshes, with great strength in its loins and power in the muscles of its belly. Its bones are like "tubes of bronze", and it has a tail that "sways like a cedar" — certainly not a hippopotamus or an elephant which have tails like a small piece of rope. The description in Job is consistent with the huge sauropod dinosaurs found in the fossil record, such as Apatosaurus or Brachiosaurus, which now appear to be extinct, but were still alive at the time of Job".

According to the CMI Facebook page, flagging this superficial drivel: "Dinosaurs ARE mentioned in the Bible. Behemoth is a good description of a large sauropod dinosaur, living with Job after the Flood."

UTTER GARBAGE

Where does Job describe such an enormous creature with an enormously long neck?
Job 40: 15-24 (NIV):
"“Look at Behemoth,
which I made along with you
and which feeds on grass like an ox.
What strength it has in its loins,
what power in the muscles of its belly!
Its tail sways like a cedar;
the sinews of its thighs are close-knit.
Its bones are tubes of bronze,
its limbs like rods of iron.
It ranks first among the works of God,
yet its Maker can approach it with his sword.
The hills bring it their produce,
and all the wild animals play nearby.
Under the lotus plants it lies,
hidden among the reeds in the marsh.
The lotuses conceal it in their shadow;
the poplars by the stream surround it.
A raging river does not alarm it;
it is secure, though the Jordan should surge against its mouth.
Can anyone capture it by the eyes,
or trap it and pierce its nose?""

It must have been a baby one if it was hidden among the reeds... So ... NOT 'colossal'. Which the NIV Bible does NOT state anyway.

EISEGESIS!
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8578
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 6 guests