Valentine Pontifex

Jonathan Sarfati has replied to Scientific American's recent debunking of creationism at <a href="http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/scientific_american.asp" target="_blank">this link</a>.

They even linked to the article they were replying to. This has got to be one of the signs of the Apocalypse!

tgamble

I knew this would happen.

tgamble

The bullshit tradition continues!

&gt;The previous editor, Jonathan Piel, refused to hire Forrest Mims III when Mims admitted he was a creationist, and when Piel asked Mims whether he was pro-life, Mims replied, ‘Of course—aren’t you glad your mother was?’

That's lie #1 (in this article anyway) Assumeing he got it right with the first editor. Which he probably didn't.

<a href="http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/discrim.htm" target="_blank">http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/discrim.htm</a>

The most recent creationist martyr is Forrest Mims, who was, as the creationists tell it, fired from a position at "Scientific American" because of his creationist beliefs. Unfortunately for the creationists, the truth is a bit different. Mims was a freelance writer who had sold several articles concerning electronics to "Scientific American". He was not an employee or a staff writer. When the magazine decided to find a new writer for its "Amateur Scientist" column, Mims applied for the job and was turned down--the job went to someone else. He was not "fired", since he had never been hired. Apparently, the creationists are of the opinion that anytime a creationist is turned down for a job, then religious bigotry must be involved.

At least, I think it's the same person.

He blathers on about abortion, and cloneing with the usual personal attacks but never says anything intelligent or noteworthy.

&gt;AiG has also advised against using this, in this section of Arguments we think creationists should NOT use, because a ‘theory’ in science means something with a reasonable amount of support, and gives evolution more credence than it deserves.

Well, finally they get it right. Sort of.

&gt;A dinosaur turning into a bird 150 Ma (million years ago) is neither observable in real time, directly or indirectly, nor repeatable.

I do wonder who claims that a dinosaur turned into a bird. Lie #2!

&gt;Here is another argument we have previously advised creationists not to use, in this section of Arguments we think creationists should NOT use.

About bloody time. To bad your followers still use it.

There's the usual lie about faked photos (#3 and counting!).

&gt;All observed change involves sorting and loss of genetic information, while goo-to-you evolution requires an increase in information.

Make it 5.

&gt;But ‘evidence’ doesn’t speak for itself; it must be interpreted.

and for the idiots at AIG, the interpretation must conform to preconcieved dogma that can't be challenged for any reason whatsoever.

&gt;Creationists interpret the same evidence but by a Biblical framework—see Creation: ‘Where’s the Proof?’.

A framework that is set in stone and dictates the results and conclusions allowed. That's not science.

&gt;DNA comparisons are just a subset of the homology argument, which again also makes sense in a Biblical framework.

Usual junk about claiming a common designer. No evidence given of course. Completely ignoring the details of the data.

&gt;For example, hemoglobin, the complex molecule that carries oxygen in blood and results in its red color, is found in vertebrates. But it is also found in some earthworms, starfish, crustaceans, molluscs and even in some bacteria. The a-hemoglobin of crocodiles has more in common with that of chickens (17.5 %) than that of vipers (5.6 %), their fellow reptiles.8 An antigen receptor protein has the same unusual single chain structure in camels and nurse sharks, but this cannot be explained by a common ancestor of sharks and camels.9

sigh, Safari still hasn't corrected his ignorance on evolution. I guess since his followers haven't he doesn't need to.

&gt;What the fossil record shows in reality, even granted the evolutionary ‘dating’ methods, is that this clear-cut progression exists only in the minds of evolutionary popularists.

I guess he doesn't consider bacteria to fish to amphibians to birds and mammals progressive.

&gt;Marvin Lubenow, in his book Bones of Contention (left), shows that the various alleged ‘ape-men’ do not form a smooth sequence in evolutionary ‘ages’, but overlap considerably.

Never mind that he does no such thing. Never mind that he disagrees with Gish on classification. Could it be that's because the fossils have features of both apes and humans and are thus transitional?

&gt;Of course I don’t believe the millions of years in the first place (see graphic, right, for some reasons), but I know enough to know that Rennie has made a blooper even under his own perspective. Evolutionists assign the date of 65 Ma to the K-T (Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary) not the Jurassic period, which is alleged to have been 208–144 Ma

Safari is right here at least. Damn, I feel so dirty!

&gt;Incidentally, it’s important to note that a non-complex life form is an impossibility, since it needs to have the ability to reproduce.

There was an article a few years ago about self replicating molocules formed in the lab. Guess Safari didn't notice it. Or doesn't care.


&gt;The Bible claims to be a revelation by the Creator of life and the Universe, who certainly has ‘claimed credit for creating life on Earth’, yet Rennie does not see this is casting doubt on evolution.

Of course not, since the bible is simplistic nonsense and myths.

more bitching about censorship (show me an article by Richard Dawkins in Creation ex nhilo and then we'll talk say I!)

&gt;For example, with the origin of birds, there are two main theories: that birds evolved ‘ground up’ from running dinosaurs (the cursorial theory), and that they evolved ‘trees-down’ from small reptiles (the arboreal theory). Both sides produce devastating arguments against the other side.

ROTFL!

&gt;The silliest thing of all is to write to the author and ask whether he had been misquoted, which some anti-creationists actually do, as surprising as it may seem.

Only a creationist would claim this as being silly.

&gt;All one needs to do to demonstrate misquoting is to compare the quote with the original.

And by george that's been done dozens of times. Words left out, preceding paragraphs ignored, grammer changed etc. etc. etc.

&gt;Easy to assert, but another thing to prove. If there is any ‘out-of-context’ quote on our Web site, for example, we would like to know about it, because we are not about misleading people.

I really REALLY hope that SA publishes a response to this with examples. Can you say quote book ladies and gentlemen?

&gt;But the raw material on which natural selection acts is random copying errors (mutations). If evolution from goo to you were true,

Oh very cure. "If goo to you were true, it wouldn't matter what you dooooooo." ROTFL!

&gt;If evolution from goo to you were true, we should expect to find countless information-adding mutations.

Again, SA should definitely respond to such lies.

The usual nonsense flaims about the 2LOT follows.

The nobody has seen a new species evolved is called a strawman but I've seen it used plenty of times. TO regulars probably see it daily.

There's the usual out of context quoteing (maybe SA should use those examples) of Gould and Darwin. They should also contact Feduccia to see what he thinks of being quoted.

Check out this article and prepare to puke.
<a href="http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/docs/tj_v15n3_miller.asp" target="_blank">http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/docs/tj_v15n3_miller.asp</a>

&gt;Kenneth Miller is an ardent evolutionist and anti-creationist. He has a long history of debating scientific creationists,1 and is credited with being a crafty debater. One of his techniques is known as ‘spread debating’, i.e. reeling off a series of arguments (many of them straw men) in rapid succession that can’t all be refuted in the time available, leaving the naïve in the audience with the impression that the creationist can’t answer them all.

I'm gonna throw up!

tgamble

LOL! How did that happen? Their disclaimer should be edited.

As a courtesy, we would like to inform you that the link you just clicked on is not a part of the Answers in Genesis international Web site and may contain actual factual information rather than the mindless bullshit and endless preaching found here. Reading such sites may be a cause of thinking which is clearly evil.

GunnerJ

[notserious]When I saw the title, I thought it was "AiG responds to Something Awful!" [/notserious]

bluefugue

Me too!

tgamble

I thought there would be more of a response to AIGs article. Are people working on it or is it that nobody cares enough? Anyone know if SA is planning a follow up article? Anyone planning to send a letter to the editor? Was the founder of SA really an AIG type creationist or was he a rational and thinking person? Any thoughts or comments on Safari's specific claims? I notice he made the claim about the viper being closer to a chicken that a crock which Lord Valentine explained on his page. What about his other claims?

Valentine Pontifex

tgamble,

Being the world's worst speller and a mediocre editor, I really should not talk. But...

His name is Sarfati, not Safari.

tgamble

ok.

Lizard

I doubt very much that Scientific American gives a hang what Jonathan Sarfati has to say about its editor-in-chief's article.

At one time, back in the 70s, Sarfati was just another lost acid-head stumbling around Lawrence, Kansas (KU). Now he's a major spokesperson for Young-Earth Creationism. My, how things change! (Or do they?)