Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
"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."
Negative there, chief. I hold them both to the same standard. Dawkins works in all sciences in his capacity for Oxford, but is specifically an evolutionary biologist, so his discussions of biology hold more water than do a chemist's. This was already gently pointed out to you, but you brushed that one aside pretty glibly. If you read a bit of the link I gave you, you might find that Safarti comes under major fire from geologists, as well. So, between the biologists and geologists, I am inclined to think a better grasp of evolution and its implications can be amassed than by a single rogue chemist with a massive god leaning.
Of course, you'll take that as you wish (which means Safarti wins, YAY!!!), but I couldn't give a rat's ass. You believe in creation, so right off the bat I think you're a bit daft.
June 21, 2011 at 4:35 pm (This post was last modified: June 21, 2011 at 4:38 pm by 5thHorseman.)
Very well said that man.
(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.
Maybe because religion can(is) man made, thus anyone can chat shot about it. Biology is facts with empirical evidence. Quite different I think you'll agree.
June 21, 2011 at 5:35 pm (This post was last modified: June 21, 2011 at 5:54 pm by Statler Waldorf.)
(June 21, 2011 at 4:17 pm)Tiberius Wrote:
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.
Kudos for being a bit more open-minded. However, I do disagree with your statement that there is vastly more evidence to support Evolution. In fact, that's one of Sarfati's points in his book; the evidence used to support Evolution is greatly overblown and can just as easily be used to support creation.
(June 21, 2011 at 4:09 pm)FaithNoMore Wrote:
(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.
I wish all atheists were as intellectually honest as you FNM, we'd all benefit if that were the case. However, I really don't think Sarfati oversteps his bounds though; he is very good about citing his sources and never just making an appeal to authority. I have actually had several email conversations with him, and he has always been very gracious and willing to help me find information on certain matters.
(June 21, 2011 at 4:18 pm)Epimethean Wrote:
"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."
Negative there, chief. I hold them both to the same standard. Dawkins works in all sciences in his capacity for Oxford, but is specifically an evolutionary biologist, so his discussions of biology hold more water than do a chemist's. This was already gently pointed out to you, but you brushed that one aside pretty glibly. If you read a bit of the link I gave you, you might find that Safarti comes under major fire from geologists, as well. So, between the biologists and geologists, I am inclined to think a better grasp of evolution and its implications can be amassed than by a single rogue chemist with a massive god leaning.
Of course, you'll take that as you wish (which means Safarti wins, YAY!!!), but I couldn't give a rat's ass. You believe in creation, so right off the bat I think you're a bit daft.
[hide]
Dawkins' doctorate is in Zoology, not Evolutionary Biology. Until you can actually refute any arguments Sarfati makes in his books rather than just making fallacious appeals to authority, circularity, special pleading, poisoning the well, and appeals to consensus I am afraid it is your who comes across as rather daft. Keep drinking the Dawkins' Kool Aid though by all means.
(June 21, 2011 at 4:35 pm)5thHorseman Wrote: [hide]
Maybe because religion can(is) man made, thus anyone can chat shot about it. Biology is facts with empirical evidence. Quite different I think you'll agree.
(June 21, 2011 at 7:41 pm)Epimethean Wrote: Wait: You mean that man invented something with no inspiration or plan from der kreator?
God ordains all that comes to pass, but Biology is still a creation of man. Let's not get into theology here though. I think we have hi-jacked Zenith's thread long enough.
Statler, stop twisting things, biology is a study of facts and the search of TRUTH unlike theology, which doesn't look past the pages of it's books (no evidence etc).
Secondly Zoology is a branch of biology. Look at any prospectus, part of the study will be in evolutionary biology.
It's the same as saying he can't be an expert of christianity because he studied theology. Do you see why?
Technically, research and discovery is not a search for "Truth", but a search for knowledge, evidence.
The truth, some would say, attends to itself. Other people would point out, like me, that "Truth" is a mutable, fogged concept subject to the organisms that conceive of it.
