< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
|Jan-05-08|| ||Jonathan Sarfati: Darth, the origin of *first* life is totally related to chemistry, and is usually called "chemical evolution" and sometimes "abiogenesis". I am very experienced in the chemistry involved, and it just wouldn't go the way the chemical evolutionists hope. E.g. if I wanted to make proteins from amino acids, the last thing I would add is water, because this helps break up any peptide bonds. Yet the hypothesised primordial ocean is full of water. I would also add protecting groups to prevent the wrong reactions, then remove them at the right time. There were no chemists on the primordial earth to do that.|
Now do you have an intelligent CHESS-related comment to make?
|Jan-05-08|| ||Jonathan Sarfati: Thanx Benzol and RichardT.
Now has Darth any intelligent comments to make about my chess games or kibitzing?
|May-19-08|| ||Sularus: i guess darth is still trying to understand your comments.|
give him more time.
|Jul-11-09|| ||ILikeFruits: abiogenesis and...
|Oct-01-09|| ||Benzol: <Jonathan> Happy Birthday.|
|Oct-10-09|| ||Jonathan Sarfati: <ILikeFruits:> Yawn, abiogenesis is often called "chemical evolution." You need to inform Scientific American then, since their Sept 1978 issue on evolution included an article "Chemical evolution and the origin of life".|
|May-01-10|| ||Benzol: <Jonathan> Do you remember anything about the following game?|
[Event "The Gap Open"]
[White "Lovejoy, David"]
[Black "Sarfati, Jonathan D"]
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. O-O Be7 6. Re1 b5 7.
Bb3 O-O 8. c3 d5 9. exd5 Nxd5 10. Nxe5 Nxe5 11. Rxe5 c6 12. d4 Bd6 13. Re1 Qh4
14. g3 Qh3 15. Be3 Bg4 16. Qd3 Rae8 17. Nd2 Re6 18. a4 Qh5 19. axb5 axb5 20. c4
Nxe3 21. Rxe3 Be2 22. Qb1 Rh6 23. h4 Bf4 24. Re7 Bxd2 25. Qc2 Bf3 0-1
I found it in the 1999 February edition of the New Zealand Chess Magazine. An interesting encounter using the Marshall Gambit.
|Jun-07-10|| ||Jonathan Sarfati: <Benzol>, yes, that was a fairly early tournament success after I moved to Queensland. If 26.♕xd2, then 26... ♕xh4! forces mate on h1.|
|Oct-01-10|| ||Benzol: Happy birthday Jonathan.
Did you know you shared the day with
Kenneth William Lynn ?
|Jul-16-12|| ||wordfunph: FM Jonathan Sarfati is the author of The Greatest Hoax on Earth? Refuting Dawkins on Evolution..|
|Jul-16-12|| ||perfidious: Maybe Sarfati and Jeff Reeve should have a go at it one day.|
|Apr-15-14|| ||weary willy: <FM Jonathan Sarfati is the author of The Greatest Hoax on Earth? Refuting Dawkins on Evolution..>
Hardly a refutation - but developing the debate, which is a good thing in itself|
|Aug-19-15|| ||offramp: I once met Jonathan D Sarfati / At a play-the-Cochrane party.
He said we were all better off
Totally avoiding the Petroff.
|Feb-09-16|| ||Avun Jahei: I want to beliiiiiiieve!
So can anybody here tell me how the Pinguins managed to travel the whole way from Noah's ark to Antarctica?
|May-18-16|| ||Jonathan Sarfati: <Avun Jahei:> See http://creation.com/images/pdfs/cab..., which covers:|
* How did animals get to Australia?
* How did the animals get from remote countries to the Ark?
* After the Flood, did kangaroos hop all the way to Australia?
* What did koalas eat on the way?
|Aug-31-16|| ||PaulLovric: Why are there no kangaroos in other countries then?|
|Sep-23-16|| ||Jonathan Sarfati: <PaulLovric> More to the point: why would we necessarily expect them to survive elsewhere? There are problems with your view too, e.g.:|
“Living marsupials are restricted to Australia and South America … In contrast, metatherian fossils from the Late Cretaceous are exclusively
from Eurasia and North America … This geographical switch remains unexplained.” [Cifelli, R.L. and Davis, B.M., Marsupial origins, Science 302:1899–2, 2003.]
|Oct-14-16|| ||PaulLovric: Today, metatherians are abundant and taxonomically and morphologically diverse in Central America, South America, and Australia, and are the dominant mammals on only one continent, Australia. However, during the Late Cretaceous, they were a diverse group on the northern continents of Laurasia. In North America, metatherians were far more numerous and taxonomically diverse than were eutherian mammals, the stem placental mammalian group that is dominant across most of the world today.|
|May-17-18|| ||Peligroso Patzer: Dr. Sarfati –
Whilst recently giving a glowing recommendation of your work (including <Refuting Compromise>) to a friend from church (who, regrettably, is presently an admirer of Dr. Hugh Ross) in connection with your forthcoming visit to Utah, I provided the following summary of your stance regarding the age of the earth:
“I believe I would be fairly (if briefly) summarizing Dr. Sarfati’s position with the following points:
1. Scientific evidence is inconclusive on the age of the earth;
2. There is in fact considerable scientific evidence pointing to a young earth, but such evidence is typically dismissed out-of-hand [on the <a priori> assumption that there must be “something wrong with it”] by those who adhere to the prevailing paradigm of secular science, i.e., “Long Ages” or “Billions of Years” (which paradigm is based partly on the “Uniformitarian” paradigm in geology, a paradigm that is currently popular but not well-supported by evidence) ;
3. The Bible unambiguously teaches historically that the earth was created approximately six thousand years ago, and this is entirely plausible scientifically (albeit counter to the currently prevailing paradigm of secular science);
4. “Day-Age” and “Gap Theory” interpretations of the Biblical creation account only emerged after the “Long Ages” view became the accepted secular scientific paradigm, and only as an attempt to accommodate contemporary scientific fashion;
5. To interpret the Bible in an artificial way in order to accommodate scientific fashion undermines Biblical authority;
6. One particular problem with the “Long Ages” or “Progressive Creationist” position is that it leaves Christians without an effective response to the challenge of theodicy.
“On point 6, see the following article by a colleague of Dr. Sarfati’s:
Due to a desire to keep the above communication to my friend reasonably succinct, I felt compelled to forbear going into any reference to subjects on issues relating to radiometric dating or distant starlight, making Uniformitarian Geology the only ‘scientific’ point specifically mentioned (and that, only briefly). Although I would have loved to get into those other areas, I think Uniformitarianism is the first ‘scientific’ issue to mention in this discussion since Lyell’s <Principles of Geology> seems to me to be the <fons et origo mali> for the whole “Long Ages” / “Progressive Creationism” view (unless one wants to trace the evil back to Hutton, but he was not the successful popularizer that Lyell became).
I would welcome any observations you might care to offer on the foregoing.
|May-18-18|| ||Jonathan Sarfati: <Peligroso Patzer:>
That is a thoughtful and accurate summary of Refuting Compromise.|
|Jun-05-18|| ||Jonathan Sarfati: https://creation.com/wolves-placent...|
|Jun-10-18|| ||Jambow: <I want to beliiiiiiieve!
So can anybody here tell me how the Pinguins managed to travel the whole way from Noah's ark to Antarctica?>|
Penguins are easy they swim...
Kangeroos and such much bigger problem.
While I'm in direct contrast to the vast majority of my fellow crationsist I'm very convinced that while the topography of the land masses were greatly determined by the Genesis flood, the seperation of the continents occured during the days of Peleg shortly post deluge... Land animals would have simply traveled normally to arrive at their present locations for the most part. The empirical data for the flood is unmistakable. Likewise that pretty intense catastrophies occured after the deluge is also evident.
No offence or disrespect to Dr Sarfati, I simply disagree with the current paradigm on this subject.
|Jun-13-18|| ||Peligroso Patzer: Dr. Sarfati –
I think you might share my amusement at a sardonic remark I read in Sabine Hossenfelder’s just-published book, <Lost in Math: How Beauty Leads Physics Astray>, Basic Books ©2018. Commenting on the insouciant reaction of “Gordy” Kane, proponent of string theory and supersymmetry, to the failure of the LHC (Large Hadron Collider) to find “superpartner” particles that Kane has previously confidently predicted, Hossenfelder wrote:
“It’s the ability to adapt to new evidence that marks the true scientist.”
(<Op. cit.>, at page 46 of the Nook edition).
Although the context was as I described above, it strikes me that the remark applies a fortiori to “scientists” who advocate a Darwinian model of diverse speciation (including the so-called Modern Synthesis), as well as to proponents of “Big Bang” cosmogony. Those folks are always ready – whenever evidence comes along that would most reasonably be interpreted as falsifying their beloved paradigm – with a response along the lines of, “Wait, I have a patch for that problem.”
Typical is Richard Lewontin’s remark that he and his fellow neo-Darwinians are “forced by our <a priori> adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, <no matter how counterintuitive>, [emphasis added] no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated ….”
(From Lewontin’s review of Carl Sagan, <The Demon Haunted World: Science as a Candle the Dark>, New York Review of Books, 9 January 1997.)
The true believer in Darwinism or in “Big Bang” cosmogony never allows inconvenient evidence to undermine his or her blind faith in the favored paradigm.
|Jun-13-18|| ||Muttley101: For those who want to read more: Kuhn's book on "Scientfic Revolutions" is excellent.|
Or, the abridged version: "Scientists are human."
|Jun-14-18|| ||Jonathan Sarfati: <Jambow:> I think you have misunderstood the meaning of "days of Peleg"—see https://creation.com/in-pelegs-days...|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·