Unless he is guided by gawd.

(June 21, 2011 at 3:33 pm)FaithNoMore Wrote:

---

(June 21, 2011 at 3:28 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: What? Surely you are aware that Chemistry and Biology overlap at the molecular level.

This is true, but once that chemistry takes on life, the chemist is out of his element.

---

Not really FNM, it just becomes Biochemistry, which is still Chemistry right?

---

(June 21, 2011 at 3:33 pm)Epimethean Wrote: Sorry, pal, but the words stand: He's a toad.

Well then his arguments should be easy to refute since he is apparently so simple minded, care to try?

Why, when he has done nothing to discredit Dawkins?

He has nothing on Dawkins, Dennett or Sloan Wilson. The fact that he is so lonely in his contentions might be one of the best evidences against him.

(June 21, 2011 at 3:39 pm)Epimethean Wrote: Why, when he has done nothing to discredit Dawkins?

He has nothing on Dawkins, Dennett or Sloan Wilson. The fact that he is so lonely in his contentions might be one of the best evidences against him.

Yeah I figured you'd retreat on that one. How do you know he has not refuted Dawkins? You have not even read his book. Secondly, scientific fact is never based on consensus, so your appeal to it is completely fallacious. Thirdly, Dawkins does not have a degree in Philosophy nor Theology, so given your reasoning is he not allowed to right books on such matters? He has though.

(June 21, 2011 at 3:35 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Not really FNM, it just becomes Biochemistry, which is still Chemistry right?

You're right, but chemistry becomes specialized once you get to a certain point. An organic chemist is not really qualified to comment on extremely complicated biochemistry, and a biochemist can't comment on organic chemistry. I tell you what, I'll ask my dad, who is an organic chemist, what he knows about biochemistry and see if he knows enough to speculate on the origins of life.

(June 21, 2011 at 3:45 pm)FaithNoMore Wrote:

---

(June 21, 2011 at 3:35 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Not really FNM, it just becomes Biochemistry, which is still Chemistry right?

You're right, but chemistry becomes specialized once you get to a certain point. An organic chemist is not really qualified to comment on extremely complicated biochemistry, and a biochemist can't comment on organic chemistry. I tell you what, I'll ask my dad, who is an organic chemist, what he knows about biochemistry and see if he knows enough to speculate on the origins of life.

---

Well I am sure your dad’s knowledge does overlap; that’s cool he is an organic chemist- who does he work for? My specialty was more in Ecology, but I still had to take numerous courses in Organic, Bio, and Environmental Chemistry. If Sarfati was conducting research he'd probably stick to his specialty, chemistry. However, in order to write a book on such matters I believe he is more than qualified. Don't forget, Hitchens covers evolutionary matters in his books and is often cited by atheists and yet he has no science degree whatsoever. It's sad this only becomes an issue when the author is a theist.

(June 21, 2011 at 3:43 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

(June 21, 2011 at 3:39 pm)Epimethean Wrote: Why, when he has done nothing to discredit Dawkins?

He has nothing on Dawkins, Dennett or Sloan Wilson. The fact that he is so lonely in his contentions might be one of the best evidences against him.

Yeah I figured you'd retreat on that one. How do you know he has not refuted Dawkins? You have not even read his book. Secondly, scientific fact is never based on consensus, so your appeal to it is completely fallacious. Thirdly, Dawkins does not have a degree in Philosophy nor Theology, so given your reasoning is he not allowed to right books on such matters? He has though.

Nah, you're right there: I give Safarti zero credit for being anything other than a drone for the god squad. I didn't make it through Mein Kampf, either, as the narrator was just too unlikable. I've seen Safarti come up as a name to be reckoned with, but only amongst creationists. The real scientific community doesn't take him very seriously at all, and why should they? He argues for a young earth among other ridiculous things.

As for writing in philosophy, if you are doing it as a historical analysis, I would agree with you that a degree in the field would be good, but let's not sidestep the Safarti ball, shall we? Safarti is challenging scientists on science, and there, his mad chess skills be damned, he is outclassed by those who refuse to dignify his palaver with a debate. Creationism is malarky, and anyone who adheres to it is too dimwitted to be bothered with.

Theology is a shit field filled with turds. It has very low academic standing. Religious studies is its modern-and more respectable progeny (a sign of evolution, if you will [but you won't]).

---

Oh, and here is something that I did read which concerns Safarti. I am sure that it is completely incorrect, of course.

http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/sar..._henke.htm

(June 21, 2011 at 3:54 pm)Epimethean Wrote:

---

Nah, you're right there: I give Safarti zero credit for being anything other than a drone for the god squad. I didn't make it through Mein Kampf, either, as the narrator was just too unlikable. I've seen Safarti come up as a name to be reckoned with, but only amongst creationists. The real scientific community doesn't take him very seriously at all, and why should they? He argues for a young earth among other ridiculous things.

---

The Hitler reference is irrelevant, a non-sequitur, not to mention absurd. Like I said earlier he was published in Nature when he was only 22, so he is taken seriously, maybe just not by people like you who have never even read his work.

(June 21, 2011 at 3:54 pm)Epimethean Wrote:

---

As for writing in philosophy, if you are doing it as a historical analysis, I would agree with you that a degree in the field would be good, but let's not sidestep the Safarti ball, shall we? Safarti is challenging scientists on science, and there, his mad chess skills be damned, he is outclassed by those who refuse to dignify his palaver with a debate. Creationism is malarky, and anyone who adheres to it is too dimwitted to be bothered with.

---

Special pleading, you hold Sarfati to a higher standard than you do Dawkins. Dawkins even covers biochemical theories in his books and yet has no degree in Biochemistry.

“Yeah I don’t wrestle grizzly bears because they are just too week and I don’t want to give them credit!” is exactly how the “I don’t debate Creationists” excuse sounds to me.

(June 21, 2011 at 3:54 pm)Epimethean Wrote:

---

Theology is a shit field filled with turds. It has very low academic standing. Religious studies is its modern-and more respectable progeny (a sign of evolution, if you will [but you won't]).

---

Dawkins has a degree in neither so my point still stands.

(June 21, 2011 at 3:50 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Well I am sure your dad’s knowledge does overlap; that’s cool he is an organic chemist- who does he work for? My specialty was more in Ecology, but I still had to take numerous courses in Organic, Bio, and Environmental Chemistry. If Sarfati was conducting research he'd probably stick to his specialty, chemistry. However, in order to write a book on such matters I believe he is more than qualified. Don't forget, Hitchens covers evolutionary matters in his books and is often cited by atheists and yet he has no science degree whatsoever. It's sad this only becomes an issue when the author is a theist.

He works for Dow Agroscience and I'm sure his knowledge overlaps too. My point, however, was that such a question that is as complicated as the origins of life should be left to a specialist. Yes, Hitchens and Dawkins overstep their bounds too, but I could care less what Dawkins has to say about religion, or what Hitchens has to say on evolution unless it's being used as a stepping stone in an argument.

Sarfati is an intelligent man; there are creationists out there who do have an understanding of evolution and are not just peddling the same rubbish that people like Kent Hovind or Ken Ham use. People like Bill Dempski, Michael Behe, etc are all intelligent, and published multiple times in respectable journals.

The fact is that being intelligent doesn't stop one from believing in ridiculous things, or falling into the trap of bending the rules in order to accommodate a deeply held faith. There are intelligent creationists, and there are stupid evolutionists. It doesn't change the strength of the actual evidence behind either idea; the evidence for evolution is vast, the evidence for creation is not.