Jimmy Higgins

Dee Dee Warren was supposed to check out his credentials. I have my doubts. Socretes is most certainly related, probably, directly with AIG. The guy knows the site better than god could. I'm also pretty certain that the top people at T-Web know his true identity because they are way protective of him.

pangloss

That is possible, but Socrates did once post a link to a Sarfati essay 'disproving' chemical evolution (whatver that is). Socrates wrote that he had 'already explained' how chemical evolution is impossible.

When I pointed out that all Socrates had done was provide a link to Sarfati's AiG article, it was censored.

He is under protection, there is no dount about that. And that fact alone casts a huge shadow on that joint...

Valentine Pontifex

That seals it assuming he is not trying to trick us into believing he is Sarfati. It appears he briefly lost track of what he said under his real name and what his sock puppet said.

WinAce

With all the mutual backslapping, it would also explain why AiG and 'J.P. Holding' of Tektonics AM are bedfellows...

Kevbo

In addition to the above connections between "Socrates" and Sarfati, along with Socrates's peeve of people misspelling Sarfati's name, here is some more info I've accumulated:

I have found some rather strong evidence that this "Socrates" is either the creationist Warwick Armstrong or Johnathan Sarfati. Check out this AiG article entitled 'The Indoctrinator:'

"In response to some young-Earth arguments, The 'Indoctrinator' , despite a complete lack of qualification in the areas, spruiks:

• 'The more serious answer to this second point is that naïve creationists think we are dealing with a linear dating process but we are not. It's a convergent one. Take the famous Dr Thomas Barnes from the University of Texas at El Paso who was so widely quoted in Ex Nihilo 'proving' the Earth was only 12,000 years old by measuring the half-life of the Earth's magnetic field (about 1,400 years at present). But that's at present. We have ample evidence that this measure fluctuates wildly but do you ever see Ex Nihilo printing this when scientists point out the absurdity of Barnes' argument?'

It is clear that The 'Indoctrinator' has not read any creationist material for at least 10 years, if ever, or he would know that the fluctuations and reversals in the magnetic field have been given a good airing in creationist publications. This includes a [Creation] ex nihilo article by the second author (J.S.) which points out the very facts which The 'Indoctrinator' claims we have never mentioned!! This is on the AiG Web site - The earth's magnetic field: Evidence that the earth is young. This alone is enough to destroy The Indoctrinator's credibility as an informed, competent critic of creation science. In fact, these observations are part of the young-earth creationist model of the decay in the Earth's magnetic field developed over the last 10 years by research physicist Dr Russell Humphreys (from Sandia National Laboratories). Indeed the work of Coe and Prevot showing rapid deviation in the direction of the magnetic field during the solidification of a lava flow is rather a problem for the slow and gradual reversals model that The 'Indoctrinator' probably thinks is unassailable. So these reversals actually help the creationist argument! See The 'Principle of Least Astonishment'!"

There is no question that the same person who posts as "Socrates" wrote that part of the article. Who else uses the word 'spruiks' combined with the same inflammatory rhetoric and the same style of listing opponents' arguments? I challenge you to find anyone else's writing that even remotely resembles this. Since the only co-author of this article with the same "advanced degree in chemistry" that Socrates claims he has is Sarfati, the conclusion logically follows that the Socrates of TheologyWeb.

Let's tally this up... "Socrates" and Sarfati are both Australian, both creationists, both claim an "advanced degree in chemistry," both write with the same buzzwords and inflammatory rhetoric... you be the judge.

I ALSO found a whole page of reviews on AiG creationist literature at this location.

This person posts reviews under what is likely a pseudonym, "David Francais." This is likely the personage of the TheologyWeb "Socrates," if not his real name. If you read these reviews closely, they uncannily resemble the rhetorical style of "Socrates" to a T. They even use some of "Socrates's" favorite buzzwords. Here are some examples:

"(non-Australians can see the movie Evil Angels starring Meryl Streep)." -- [This reviewer is obviously an Australian]

"As would be expected from such an outstanding Bible teacher as MacArthur, he presents much fresh thought into a controversial topic. He correctly notes the futility of naturalism, with its pseudo-intellectual backing of Darwinism and in turn ITS pseudo-intellectual backing of the old-Earth dogmas of Lyell and Hutton. He also shows conclusively that EVERYWHERE else in the Bible the first chapters of Genesis are cited, they are treated as straightforward history." -- [note the 'as would be expected,' sometimes used by Socrates in such a phase as 'as would be expected from the non-scientist WinAce']

"WRONG -- as Dr Kelly shows, it's the billions-of-years interpretation that's the novelty." -- [I think that anyone at all familiar with the writing of the TheologyWeb "Socrates" would recognize this style immediately]

"Some might whinge that Mr Ham didn't refute the gap theory or local flood." -- [A straight "Socratism" from the horse's mouth]

"Another one is the technically correct statement that Creation Science Foundation (now AiG) had been investigated for fraud. Again, this is disgracefully misleading without mentioning that it was only a vexatious complaint by one of Plimer's fellow atheists/sceptics that instigated it, the Fraud Squad officers were annoyed at this complete waste of time, and most importantly, they ***completely exonerated CSF***, as shown by a letter from the head of the Fraud Squad to Dr Carl Wieland, the managing director of CSF, readily available. But mentioning the complete exoneration would destroy the force of Plimer's argument." -- [This reviewer is rather intimately informed of the legal and organizational history of Answers in Genesis]

"Critics also ignore the 19th Century Scriptural Geologists, documented by Dr Terry Mortenson's Ph.D. thesis at Coventry University, UK, outlined on the Answers in Genesis site."

...

"Answers in Genesis has answered them all point-by-point on their site." - [Propensity to constantly refer to AiG]

Go analyze for yourself, you'll find that this person is at least the same as the one who posts as "Socrates" on TheologyWeb, is Australian, and is intimately involved with reviewing AiG literature and referring to articles on their web site. Since the above information leads to the rather strong conclusion that "Socrates" is indeed Sarfati, that means that Sarfati is out there reviewing his own books under a 3rd party pseudonym! Interestingly enough, there is also a jonathansarfati who reviews chess and apologetics books at Amazon, but no AiG literature. Interesting...

And here's even more evidence! In this article authored SOLELY by Sarfati, he uses the phase "gutter pedophile smear." That's another UNCANNY coincidence with "Socrates's" 'gutter atheist website' slogan.

Edit: bad formatting

KnightWhoSaysNi

Last week, in this thread, I did a similar analysis and found that Sarfati and Socrates use the same rhetoric too. For example:

Sarfati:
"It illustrated the vitriol that can result when there is any attempt to mildly de-emphasize the treating of evolution from goo-to-you-via-the-zoo as fact..."
http://www.answersingenesis.org/new...ic_american.asp

vs.

Socrates:
"Rufus continues in his pejorative manner by identifying "science" with the pseudo-science of evolution from goo to you via the zoo."
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/sho...0428#post80428

RufusAtticus

LOL

In the thread in which Socrates is showing his "True Christian" (TM) nature to Lamoreaux, I posted "Can't you just feel the Christian love."

Needless to say it was removed by Dee Dee. To which Denis reponded that if she was going to edit anyone it should be Socrates.

Jimmy Higgins

The problem is that he's reading this stuff in here. We need to go "underground" if he is to be exposed by his own hubris.

As I said, his connection to AIG is undoubtful. That the owners of T-Web know him directly, probably even personally is extremely probable.

We need an angle, but it can't be shown here, as he'll read it. Who's game?

RufusAtticus

It seem to me that TW might have recruited Socrates to be their "YE-xpert" in E/C. That is why some of the staff have often gotten pissy when they have to moderate him and no one else.

Kevbo

I think it's not unreasonable to say by now that Socrates is either Sarfati or his twin brother. Go back to his earliest posts on TWeb and notice how he is basically an AiG link machine. He writes things such as, "I think AiG says it best in this article," and then links to something written by no one other than the big J.S. himself. Here are some gems from his early work:

"...It does not require infallible interpretation to know that some interpretations of Scripture are CORRECT, any more than one has to be an infallible mathematician to know that 1+1=2."

"Answers in Genesis is an organization of integrity."

"More revisionism. The 18th century was the time of the so-called 'Enlightment' which was really the Endarkenment."

' JJR: Socrates, what you are doing isn't tough love; it's slander.

Socrates: "Then call the flippin' police!"'