The Statler Waldorf Balcony

[Statler Waldorf]

Still, those great minds have come up with zero evidence for their claims of creation... Good, at least you can't complain that evidence isn't found because no smart people work for creation. And reading from the bio, no wonder you like them so much, the first even works for answers in genesis...

If you would read their work you would find out that your claim that they have "zero evidence" is just as fallacious as your claim that no great minds were Creationists. Sarfati actually does not work for AIG (he used to), now he works for CMI. He will do lectures for AIG, but that is not his employer.

---

---

I am sure you are aware, or you at least you should be, that Egyptians today call themselves Misr, which derives from the name Mizraim, who was Noah's grandson. They believe Noah's grandson started Egypt. I am sure you will say modern Egyptians are wrong and the more primitive Egyptians were right, but this is more of a "he said, she said" type argument.

As you are surely aware, anyone one having a similar complete idiot's faith as your do in the infallibility of a piece of crap (koran) that is closely related to your crap (bible), will very likely try to scipt themselves into a crap story (Noah) that appears in both of those pieces of crap. So yes, recent Egyptains, who's awareness of what went on in their own history and prehistory from 2500 years remove has been dimed and polluted by 1700 years of forceful foreign crap influence, first from Koptic Christians crap and then from Islamic crap, would most certainly be less reliable than their ancient Egyptain ancesters, who were describing events of their life time.

---

Sweet I called it! You did use the "Primitive Egyptians were smarter than modern Egyptians" argument! You're getting very predictable. Since these primitive Egyptians were so smart in your eyes why did they also believe in gods and the super-natural? Or were they only "smart" when they agreed with you?

---

---

He is also more educated in the field of Science than Richard Dawkins (having actually earned his doctorate).

From the Oxford University Website on Richard Dawkins - http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/previous-hol...rd-dawkins

"A graduate of Oxford, he did his doctorate under the Nobel-prizewinning ethologist Niko Tinbergen."

Furthermore, from Wikipedia:

"[Richard Dawkins] continued as a research student under Tinbergen's supervision, receiving his M.A. and D.Phil. degrees in 1966, while staying as a research assistant for another year."

Yes, Richard Dawkins has many honorary doctorates. He also has a real one which he worked for. I should also mention that Dawkins' PhD is in zoology, whereas Sarfati's is in Chemistry. So you'll excuse me if I place a little more trust in what Dawkins has to say on the subject of biology and evolution.

---

Well I will have to do more research, one source I looked at said he never finished his doctorate work, Wiki says he did. If he did then I will admit I was wrong. However, your "well he's a zoologist so men!" argument doesn't hold much water since I am sure you are aware that Biology and Chemistry are very closely related and Sarfati has done loads of work at the genetic level. Sarfati even openly invited Dawkins to debate when Dawkins was in Australia for some Atheist Convenetion. Of course Dawkins declined, the debate would not have even been close, Sarfati is one of the smartest gents I have ever seen, and is scared of no one.

---

---

I am sure you are aware, or you at least you should be, that Egyptians today call themselves Misr, which derives from the name Mizraim, who was Noah's grandson. They believe Noah's grandson started Egypt. I am sure you will say modern Egyptians are wrong and the more primitive Egyptians were right, but this is more of a "he said, she said" type argument.

You're grasping at straws.

Miṣr, the Arabic and modern official name of Egypt (Egyptian Arabic: Maṣr), is of Semitic origin, directly cognate with other Semitic words for Egypt such as the Hebrew מִצְרַיִם‎ (Mitzráyim), literally meaning "the two straits" (a reference to the dynastic separation of upper and lower Egypt).[7] The word originally connoted "metropolis" or "civilization" and means "country", or "frontier-land".

It is more likely that Noah's "son" was named with the meaning of "two straits" than the word being defined after him. Occam's Chainsaw is in full force today.

Dr. Jonahtan Sarfati (Ph.D in Physical Chemistry) was published in Nature when he was only 22 years old. He is actually a really interesting person. He has beaten a dozen peolple simaltaneously at chess while he was blind-folded. He is also more educated in the field of Science than Richard Dawkins (having actually earned his doctorate).

Dr. Kurt P. Wise- holds a B.A. with honors in geophysical sciences from the University of Chicago and an M.A. and Ph.D. in geology from Harvard University. He studied under Professor Stephen Jay Gould. Dr Wise has written a wide range of articles on origins issues. He is a member of the Geological Society of America. (Taken from his biography)

Kurt Wise? Really. Check this out:

Wise has written that "if all the evidence in the universe turns against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate."

There you go.

Then one of my Professors was an Atmospheric Researcher for NASA for 15 years before becoming a professor, and he is a Creationist.

Looked them up. Quite an interesting thing to see, their consistent attempt to model the world after scripture. Here's why playing the name game on people fails.

Andrew Schlafly, son of the wingnut Phyllis Schlafly (we recall her consistent attacks on equal protection clause, argues against disarmament even though it has shown tangible results and was against intervening in Bosnia because "it was a world trouble spot"), holds a degree in engineering physics and yet argues that there cannot be imaginary numbers in electrical engineering, publicly called Dr. Lenski a liar after attempting to obtain the samples in a dishonest manner without providing any verification of appropriate training or faciltities and founded Conservapedia to combat the "liberal bias" in Wikipedia (which prides itself on it's neutrality). His current pet project is removing liberal "taint" from the Bible.

Conservapedia hosts the Conservative Bible Project, a project aiming to rewrite the English translation of the Bible in order to remove terms described as "liberal bias".[76] The project intends to remove sections of the Bible which are judged by Conservapedia's founder to be later liberal additions.[77] These include the story of the adulteress in the Gospel of John in which Jesus declares "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone".[76] The project also intends to remove Jesus's prayer on the cross, "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing", since it appears only in the Gospel of Luke and since, according to Schlafly, "the simple fact is that some of the persecutors of Jesus did know what they were doing. This quotation is a favorite of liberals but should not appear in a conservative Bible".[76] The adulteress story and the "forgive them" line are missing from many early manuscripts, and many modern textual scholars consider that they are not authentic parts of the gospels, though possibly historically valid.[78][79]

The Bible project has met with extensive criticism.[80][81] Rod Dreher, a conservative editor and columnist, described the project as "insane hubris" and "crazy"; he further described the project as "It's like what you'd get if you crossed the Jesus Seminar with the College Republican chapter at a rural institution of Bible learnin'".[12][82] Ed Morrissey, another conservative Christian writer, wrote that bending the word of God to one's own ideology makes God subservient to an ideology, rather than the other way around.[83] Joseph Farah, editor-in-chief of WorldNetDaily, stated that "I've seen some incredibly stupid and misguided initiatives by 'conservatives' in my day, but this one takes the cake" and "There's certainly nothing 'conservative' about rewriting the Bible".[84]

On October 7, 2009, Stephen Colbert called for his viewers to incorporate him into the Conservapedia Bible as a Biblical figure and viewers responded by editing the Conservapedia Bible to include his name.[85][86] This was followed by an interview between Colbert and Schlafly on December 8, 2009.[87]

There you go. Well educated people can turn out to be shit slinging apes with culpable delusions that everyone finds self evident. What does it prove? The science, not the person, actually matters.

So when you sit there (not having even an undergraduate degree in Science) and call these guys "stupid" it actually makes you look.....well...stupid.

A stupid action by a smart man doesn't change the fact that the action taken by said man is stupid.



Ok, I get it. You're an ideologue - you'll do anything to bend the facts to fit your will.

That's enough.

You're certifiably a wingnut.

---

Somebody can't admit when they were wrong :-) First it was, "There are no Creationists who have been published in nature, graduated from Harvard, or worked for NASA!". Then when I prove you wrong on that, instead of saying, "Wow Statler, you were right, those guys do exist, I guess I don't know much about Creationists". You throw a hissy fit and start talking about other Creationists and a bunch of ideas that don't even relate to one another. Like Andrew Schlafly, when did his name ever come up in my post? The Bible project? What does that have to do with my post? You will notice Wise did not say the evidence was not on his side, he just understands the nature of evidence better than you do. That's probably because he graduated from HARVARD! haha. Even though a couple hours ago you asserted that guys like Dr. Wise didn't exist, no wonder people tend not to believe you guys when you say God doesn't exist. You're pretty small-time.