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 Dec 23, 2012 1:32 am

"I hope this clarifies some things for you." Had Dr Batten written "I hope this muddies the waters for you and causes you to reconsider creationism" that would have been what he really meant.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8946
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Devious Dr Sarfati

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sat Jan 26, 2013 11:59 pm

I see that Dr Sarfati is continuing to lie to people about carbon 14 'in' diamonds: http://creation.com/6000-years-qa
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8946
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Devious Dr Sarfati

Postby Peter Henderson » Sun Jan 27, 2013 1:17 am

a_haworthroberts wrote:I see that Dr Sarfati is continuing to lie to people about carbon 14 'in' diamonds: http://creation.com/6000-years-qa


Well, he can play chess blindfold so he must be smarter than everyone else Ashley.

If Dr. Sarfati thinks the Earth is 6,000 years old, who am I to question such a conclusion from such a clever scientist.
Peter Henderson
 
Posts: 4351
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:07 pm
Location: Jordanstown, Co. Antrim, Northern Ireland

Re: Devious Dr Sarfati

Postby a_haworthroberts » Fri Feb 15, 2013 5:35 am

From chapter 10 of Dawkins' 'The Greatest Show on Earth: the Evidence for Evolution' "If feathers are a good idea within the bird 'theme', such that every single bird, without exception, has them whether it flies or not, why do literally no mammals have them? Why would the designer not borrow that ingenious invention, the feather, for at least one bat? The evolutionist's answer is clear. All birds have inherited their feathers from their shared ancestor, which had feathers. No mammal is descended from that ancestor. It's as simple as that".

It's a while since I read it, but judging from the index to Sarfati's 'The Greatest Hoax on Earth: Refuting Dawkins on Evolution' - which has no entry for 'feathers' - Sarfati did not even attempt to refute Dawkins' claims above.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8946
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Devious Dr Sarfati

Postby a_haworthroberts » Fri Feb 15, 2013 5:52 am

The relevant chapter in 'Hoax' is chapter 6 - which I have just skimmed.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8946
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Devious Dr Sarfati

Postby a_haworthroberts » Mon May 06, 2013 8:47 pm

Right wing anti-science bigot gets affronted when people point out that certain scriptures DO imply a flat Earth (the belief of many when the scriptures were set down) for instance Matthew 4:8 (NIV) - "Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendour" (assuming a similar word was used in the original scripture, YECs always insist that 'world' means 'whole planet' eg when it comes to Noah's Flood being 'global').
http://creation.com/flat-earth-myth

Sarfati's (new) article IGNORES this scripture and seeks to present historical evidence that the CHURCH did not believe the planet was flat (good for them).

The ONLY scripture he mentions (for obvious reasons I would suggest as mentioning scriptures does not help his argument) is Isaiah 40:22 - "He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth ...". Which of course rather implies that Earth is a flat, circular disc that you can look down on from 'above' (though the same is true, gravitationally speaking, of a sphere (though 'above' Australia could be thought of as 'below' the UK). Sarfati's argument is that if Earth is circular (rather than say square) it 'cannot' be flat. The reader should be the judge of that logic. To be fair he does also cite a Hebrew word which he says means 'ball-shaped'.

And of course all the CMI trademark arrogance is visible at their Facebook page. https://www.facebook.com/creationministries
"Peter: Please read the article before posting. Scripture in no way alludes to a flat earth. (post hidden)".
Of course! If somebody disagrees with a CMI article they either failed to read it in the first place, or else they misunderstood it...
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8946
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

I had a reply from Dr Sarfati

Postby a_haworthroberts » Mon May 06, 2013 11:08 pm

ashley haworth-roberts,

Nothing new there. All old news, long ago refuted in Does the Bible
teach that the Earth is flat? [this title was underlined in the email]


Matthew 4:8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high
mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory
of them...
This verse in Matthew by no means implies a flat earth, nor a
monstrous mountain large enough to oversee the earth. Indeed, I have
always thought that the trip to the mountain was a psychological ploy
by Satan -- indeed, given what we know of the honor and shame dialectic
of that social world, it fits as the premise of an "honor challenge" by
placing Jesus in a pre-eminent position -- and that the showing of the
kingdoms was accomplished by means of projecting images of some sort,
as on a computer screen.

Indeed, this is suggested by the parallel verse in Luke 4:5 -

The devil led him up to a high place, and showed him in an instant all
the kingdoms of the world.
However, as anyone who has climbed mountains knows - and the writer of
Matthew surely knew, if he lived in the area around Judaea, as Matthew
did - the higher up you go, the smaller things down below get, by your
perspective. So it seems unlikely that (even if he did believe it a
flat earth, personally) Matthew's offering is not compatible with a
globe.

Note that even on a flat earth, a high mountain would be a very poor
place to observe the kingdoms of the world "in their glory."
Furthermore, if Matthew was implying that a mountain existed from which
all the world was visible, then obviously, the mountain would be
visible from all parts of the world. It is ludicrous to suggest that
Matthew believed such a mountain existed.


(Dr) Jonathan Sarfati
Last edited by a_haworthroberts on Mon May 06, 2013 11:10 pm, edited 2 times in total.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8946
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

My response to Dr Sarfati

Postby a_haworthroberts » Mon May 06, 2013 11:08 pm

Dr Sarfati

Thank you. However, and I am not being funny, I CANNOT find an article
of that title either at your link below or on the CMI website. And your
online article for 6 May does not link to it either!

My message to CMI sought to point out that (a) I DID read your new
article and (b) it failed to discuss Matthew 4:8.

As my emails to CMI staff are all being blocked, I am sending this
reply to Tas Walker as well and also adding it under today's CMI
article.

Copy recipients may or may not wish to comment on your interpretation
of the Matthew verse (which does not appear overly literal). I simply
mention that - in the NIV - the verse suggests that when he was on the
high mountain the devil showed Jesus 'all the kingdoms of the world'.

Ashley Haworth-Roberts
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8946
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Devious Dr Sarfati

Postby theignored » Sun Aug 11, 2013 12:38 am

A few years back, I had my own meeting with Sarfati.

Didn't go as well as I'd hoped but then I'm not a professional at this.

I wish that I had thought to bring this up:
http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2007/03/ ... the-bible/
in response to being told that Rabbi Foxman of the ADL had said that the movie "Expelled" was baloney when it tried to blame the holocaust on Darwin:

Jonathan Sarfati
21.6.07 / 9pm


What would Foxman know? He is no historian, unlike Weikart who specializes in modern European history, but a secular misochristic Jew who is more interest in pushing liberal causes than Judaism. Indeed, he is an embarrassment to many of his fellow Jews; see Rabbi Daniel Lapin’s defence of James Kennedy and his film, Which Jews does the ADL really represent?. The group Jews Against Anti-Christian Defamation has also attacked Foxman and the ADL for other intemperant anti-Christian bigotry, calling the ADL “another liberal front group”.


Bolded points are mine and are discussed below:
Point 1) About Weikart, Larry Arnhart's blog:

The Journal of Modern History(March 2006) has just published a review of Weikart's book by Ann Taylor Allen, a professor of history at the University of Louisville.


Professor Allen confirms my criticisms. She agrees with me that Weikart's talk about "Darwinism" is not based on any careful reading of Darwin himself but on vague ideas by a variety of people who presented themselves as "Darwinian," although their thinking was not directly shaped by Darwin's ideas. She also agrees that some of the fundamental elements of Nazism--such as anti-Semitism--clearly cannot be attributed to Darwinism.


Larry Arnhart goes on to say:
Weikart's book was financed by the Discovery Institute as part of their "wedge strategy" for attacking Darwinian science as morally corrupting in its atheism. The book is now commonly cited by proponents of creationism and intelligent design as scholarly proof that there is a direct line of influence "from Darwin to Hitler." But as I have shown, Weikart doesn't actually show any direct connection between Darwin and Hitler. In fact, Weikart has responded to my criticisms by admitting that the title of his book is misleading, since he cannot show any direct link between Darwin's ideas and Hitler's Nazism.



Point 2) Yep. Sarfati, a Jewish convert to xianity went and called a Jewish rabbi a "secular misochristic jew" and says that a Rabbi is the one who doesn't care about Judaism! You know that misogyny means "women-hating", therefore misochristic means "christ-hating". Look that phrase up on the search engines and you'll see that it's not the Darwinists who used phrases like that, but rather xians, for hundreds of years before Darwin came along.


My email to him from Wed May 11, 2011 2:46AM

Funny. I've read all the names you love to call everyone who dares to disagree with you...remember you calling Rabbi Foxman a "secular misochristic (ie. christ-hating) jew"? I do. What the hell's wrong with you? Look that phrase up in the search engines. Guess who uses that phrase throughout history? Here's a clue...it ain't the "evolutionists".

Yeah, when it comes to tirades and pottymouths, jack, you're one to talk. I remember how you got your ass tossed off of Theology Web. Funny as hell. I guess the "holy spirit" doesn't help control your ego just like it doesn't help control your mouth.

About being let to talk on so long? Isn't it a coincidence that you chose to cut me off at the exact point where I was going to point out the historical xian basis of antisemitism? If I had mentioned that first, I bet you'd have cut me off right there, too.

If you really believe the facts of history are on your side, come on over to the SFN and we can bloody well settle it there.
theignored
 
Posts: 9
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2013 7:13 am

Re: Devious Dr Sarfati

Postby Brian Jordan » Sun Aug 11, 2013 11:25 am

Hello, theignored. Welcome aboard.
"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 Michael » Sun Aug 11, 2013 4:51 pm

Weikart is a crap historian. end of story
Michael
 
Posts: 2786
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2006 1:30 pm
Location: Lancaster

Re: Devious Dr Sarfati

Postby Peter Henderson » Mon Sep 09, 2013 11:36 am

Offensive "satire" from Sarfati today:

http://creation.com/new-compromise-bible-version-satire
Peter Henderson
 
Posts: 4351
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:07 pm
Location: Jordanstown, Co. Antrim, Northern Ireland

Sarfati has a go at William Lane Craig

Postby a_haworthroberts » Mon Sep 16, 2013 11:32 pm

http://creation.com/william-lane-craig-vs-creation
This article is overlong and I don't have the stamina or the motivation to study it in full. However, the headline accuses Craig of an 'intellectually dishonest' attack on biblical creationists. Yet - at a glance - Sarfati appears to ignore the gist of the correct comments by Craig that "over half of our ministers really believe that the universe is only around 10,000 years old. This is just scientifically, it’s nonsense, and yet this is the view that the majority of our pastors hold. It’s really quite shocking when you think about it". I can only assume that any 'intellectual dishonesty' Sarfati is discussing must relate to theological issues eg relating to 'creation days'. Also, the conclusion mentions that Craig "failed to interact with the leading biblical creationist literature". So what - he probably has better things to do than read pseudo-science.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8946
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re:

Postby a_haworthroberts » Mon Sep 16, 2013 11:47 pm

Maybe Sarfati thought the Craig comments implied that there's no reason for a Bible believing pastor to believe that the Earth is young because of scripture (as well as because of science) ie from reading the genealogies and so forth.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8946
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Dr Sarfati 'takes down' Craig

Postby a_haworthroberts » Fri Sep 20, 2013 1:46 pm

Plenty of comments under this lengthy article now. From people who think they are entitled to their own 'facts' - including Tas Walker - that are contradicted by science, because the Bible 'says so' (and in my view it probably does, because there's no real science in the Bible which is hardly surprising).
http://creation.com/william-lane-craig- ... ign=emails

I had an email exchange with Sarfati after I sent to CMI the comment "Too long; didn't read" (I think I accidentally deleted the exchange). He replied saying something like "no substance". By then I had taken a closer look and made my two comments on the article as recorded above. So I replied quoting my comments above. Needless to say, that comment has been neither acknowledged nor published by CMI.

I've sent the following email to one of the addresses given at WLC's website ('testimonials' whatever that means as there appeared to be no 'comment' or 'questions' or 'enquiries' address):
"Please see the attached article by Jonathan Sarfati and the ignorant
comments underneath it:
http://creation.com/william-lane-craig-vs-creation
I am a strong opponent of young Earth creationism, because it denies
clear findings of science. I have commented on the article - though I
did not have the time or the urge to read all of it - here:
viewtopic.php?f=18&t=2762&start=90"
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8946
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

cron