WinAce

Ass-toot awbsirwaitin, Holmes. </stupid British accent>

Sarfati (AiG): "Just how objective is Richard Lewontin’s a priori commitment demonstrated in this quote? Or Scott Todd’s rejection of an intelligent designer as a scientific hypothesis, even if all the evidence supports it, as shown by this quote?"

Socrates (here): "But Rufie would have us all believe that atheists are the epitome of objectivity. However, some have let the cat out of the bag that they have a bias too, into which all data must be fitted -- see the Lewontin and Todd quotes."

I bow to your detective skills.:notworthy

Valentine Pontifex

From the Socrates post linked to above:

It is somewhat similiar to Sarfati's rhetoric in his No Answers in Genesis review.

Still I don't consider any of this conclusive by any stretch. But it is an interesting hypothesis. If true he might be testing out stuff so he an anticipate critics when he writes using his real name. Of course he might also might not want to post under his real name because he might get his email box swampted. I would not blame someone with some notoriety from using a sock puppet. But then again with all the jerks on the web, I really don't blame anyone. My basic principle is that one can use a nom de plume on the web without giving your real name so long as one does not claim non-trivial credentials or use it for improper purposes (like Woody's citing himself).

Cretinist

Someone should setup a test. Maybe register another username and pretend to be a Creationist, and use some of the arguments in that AiG article that Safarty authored (Arguments We Think Creationists Should Not Use, or something). Or start a chess topic.

Coragyps

AiG's moles over here will have reported back to S&S by now - so it's probably too late.

KnightWhoSaysNi

Good observation! I've noticed some similarities too. I don't want to jump to conclusions though. It could be that he's just a really huge fan of Sarfati's articles and rhetoric.

--------

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/news...c_american.asp[/url]

- and...

Socrates:
"Rufus continues in his pejorative manner by identifying "science" with the pseudo-science of evolution from goo to you via the zoo."
TheologyWeb


Sarfati:
Article title: "15 Ways to Refute Materialistic Bigotry"
http://www.answersingenesis.org/news...c_american.asp

and..

Socrates:
Fact is, RA is bigoted against any non-materialistic belief system, and also supports discrimination against GENUINE Bible-believers...
TheologyWeb


Sarfati:
It’s very common for evolutionary propagandists to define evolution as (1) simply ‘change in a population over time’
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs...115anthrax.asp

and....

Socrates:
Evolutionary propagandists like Eugenie Scott FREQUENTLY use examples of "change" to try to convince the general public that creationists are wrong.
TheologyWeb


Sarfati:
"The World Book Encyclopedia 2000 says: ‘Vestigial organs are the useless remains of organs that were once useful in an evolutionary ancestor’ (emphasis added). This was clearly the understanding of evolutionary zoologist Scadding. He pointed out ‘…vestigial organs provide no evidence for evolutionary theory’, precisely because it is impossible in principle to prove that an organ has no function..."
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home...03June2002.asp

and...

Socrates:
"The evolutionist Scadding agreed with the title of this thread, and implicitly agreed with the definition of vestigial as useless (‘Do vestigial organs provide evidence for evolution?’ Evolutionary Theory 5:173–176, 1981). He even pointed out that the argument is unscientific, because it is impossible in principle to prove that an organ has no function; rather, it could have a function we don’t know about."
TheologyWeb


Korihor (formerly, 'Nightshade')

Valentine Pontifex

I doubt that AiG has people reading every thread every day here. Why would they? For heaven's sake it clear that Sarfati don't always read T.O. Archive FAQs that he is directly replying to. And I think that the Archive is far more important than this discussion forum that is read by far fewer people.

The biggest threat is that the thread refers to this thread.

So doing the experiment might still be possible if done quickly before someone mentions it on that board.

Dr.GH

I have entertained the idea that soc-rat is sarfati.

But, soc-rat lacked the chemistry to really follow the argument about 'homo-oligomer,' although I suppose that could have been a ploy. I backed of that point as an evo was making the same mistake as sarfati and soc-rat. They even PMed me about how "science" had lead them to dispute the point. Clearly soc-rat, and sarfati, and whoeveritwas have either not read Imai, E., Honda, H., Hatori, K., Brack, A. and Matsuno, K. 1999, Elongation of oligopeptides in a simulated submarine hydrothermal system, Science 283(5403): 831–833. , or don't understand what "homo-oligomer" really means. The reaction mechanism in Imai et al, did not produce a homo-oligomer, but rather an oligomere with 6 elements. For those who even care: Imai reported that hexagylcine formation followed by "... the chain elongation proceeds mainly by aminolysis of diketopiperazine." In other words, the six member chain formed when diketopiperazine was "opened up" and then linked to tetraglycine. This is an oligomer. A small point, I agree. The issue was the competence of Sarfati's reading of the original artical. He was wrong, and was abusing technical terms to appear knowledgeable.

Plus, it was clear that soc-rat had not read Imai te al (1999), and Sarfathead has at least done that (not very well, but he did read it).

soc-rat actually missed an error I made in my paper (this is the problem of web-publications without proper peer review). I have fixed that. But, I intend to replace the short article with a wider piece on OOL and Sarfati.

Valentine Pontifex

Well Sarfati clearly does not read all of what he cites. But then again chemistry is a big field. I believe he did his degree in p-chem which will not make one an expert in biochem.

I have not read enough of Socrates to fully judge the possible connection and whether there is much truth to the claim that he nearly always cites only AiG. Since I had not really spent much time in that forum in a while I searched for a thread I was in a while back. My hypothesis is that if Socrates was really Sarfati then he would be the one most likely to point to Sarfati's "rebuttal" to the T.O. Supernova FAQ. Sure enough, he was. And the thread does have some more Sarfati-esque rhetoric. Again it is not proof, but it certainly adds to a suggestive pattern.

The thread in question

Valentine Pontifex

Agreed. However that it appears at least three people independently had this thought, that he claims the same general profession, and is from the same part of the world is certainly very suggestive.

Easily there is enough for the grand jury to bring an indictment. But not quite enough yet for an easy conviction.

RufusAtticus

Just because Socrates is an ignorant prick and Sarfati is an ignorant prick, does not mean that they are the same person.

I do know that Socrates got upset when I mispelled Sarfati's name once. I wonder if someone should test how he responds to a thread on chess.