Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Arguments Creationists Should NOT use featuring Dr. Jonathan Sarfati

Expand Messages
  • lieutenantofthetower
    Has anyone else watched this DVD? I am new to this Creation/Evolution debate and just watched this DVD. Great material! I have a lot of respect for men like
    Message 1 of 2 , Jul 4 7:28 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      Has anyone else watched this DVD? I am new to this Creation/Evolution
      debate and just watched this DVD. Great material! I have a lot of
      respect for men like DR. Sarfati who lead the way.

      I see Dr. Sarfati has written several books. I will be sure to locate
      his other material.
    • Dave Oldridge
      ... He s a quack. If you like his material, I have two bridges on the east coast you might want to buy. ... I haven t noticed anything particularly scientific
      Message 2 of 2 , Jul 6 4:22 PM
      • 0 Attachment
        On 5 Jul 2005 at 2:28, lieutenantofthetower wrote:

        > Has anyone else watched this DVD? I am new to this
        > Creation/Evolution debate and just watched this DVD. Great
        > material! I have a lot of respect for men like DR. Sarfati who
        > lead the way.
        >
        > I see Dr. Sarfati has written several books. I will be sure to
        > locate his other material.

        He's a quack. If you like his material, I have two bridges on
        the east coast you might want to buy.

        > Read it for yourself - "Refuting Compromise" (See it for
        > yourself why the RTB staff will not comment on Dr. Sarfati's
        > scientific and logical arguments and Biblical critique of the
        > teachings of Dr. Ross and his devoted followers.) GO TO:
        > http://www.answersingenesis.org

        I haven't noticed anything particularly scientific about any of
        Sarfati's arguments.

        "The theory that Lerner and other materialists are really
        promoting, and which creationists oppose, is the idea that
        particles turned into people over time, without any need for an
        intelligent designer. This �General Theory of Evolution� (GTE)
        was defined by the evolutionist Kerkut as �the theory that all
        the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source
        which itself came from an inorganic form.�1"

        Sarfati loves to critique this straw man. Actually science has
        nothing to say about what (if anything) has been God's input into
        the history of the evolution of life. The only thing science can
        discuss is the real, physical evidence and that does not reveal
        God's hand to us. There is no really good theological reason
        that it should. You see, revelation is full of arguments that
        would seem to be urging us to take God on faith and to NOT try to
        test Him like some lab rat.

        So, it seems that Sarfati's principle objection to the science of
        evolution is that it won't do what science can never do and what
        is, in any case, forbidden in scripture. Interesting religion
        this man has!

        Here is another example of his reasoning:

        "The main scientific objection to the GTE is not that changes
        occur through time, and neither is it about the size of the
        change (so we would discourage use of the terms micro- and macro-
        evolution). The key issue is the type of change required � to
        change microbes into men requires changes that increase the
        genetic information content, from over half a million DNA
        �letters� of even the �simplest� self-reproducing organism to
        three billion �letters� (stored in each human cell nucleus).
        Nothing in Lerner�s paper (or anywhere else) provides a single
        example of functional new information being added. To claim that
        mere change proves information-increasing change can occur is
        like saying that because a merchant sells goods, he can sell them
        for a profit. The origin of information is a major problem for
        the GTE "

        Now I can understand why na�ve non-scientists make this argument
        but anyone with even a layman's knowledge of modern genetics
        knows that some mutations actually copy whole genes (sometimes
        even whole chromosomes but rarely in animals). Such mutations
        create redundant information in the genome and are not usually
        detrimental. More to the point, they provide writing space that
        is not dangerous so that subsequent mutations to the same gene
        can occur without disabling some functioning system. Doolittle
        has shown that this is exactly how the clotting system in
        lobsters arose--from the gene for egg yolk protein.

        Sarfati is a typical young-earth creationist. He has a glib line
        and a quick argument but the bottom line is that he is saying
        that all of the physical geologists, paleontologists, astronomers
        etc. who contradict him on the age of the universe are either
        dishonest or incompetent and only a tiny handful of young-earth
        creationists are the only honest or competent scientists in the
        world.

        If you believe this, then, I do suggest you consider investing in
        my bridges!

        And you complain about 'compromise' in religion. How can an
        apologetic that is riddled with false witness against honest
        scientists be anything BUT a compromise with evil?

        --
        God is an evolutionist.

        Dave Oldridge
        ICQ 1800667
        VA7CZ
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.