< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
|Dec-28-07|| ||micartouse: <Darth> I'm sure he's struggling hard to be as intelligent and accomplished as you, but let's be patient.|
|Dec-28-07|| ||Benzol: <Darth> You and I may not share Dr Sarfati's beliefs but anyone who obtains a doctorate in chemistry would have to be intelligent wouldn't you say?
Lets stick to chess and not get into a slanging match about religion OK.|
|Dec-28-07|| ||DarthStapler: Intelligent with regards to chemistry.... which is almost completely unrelated to evolution.|
|Dec-28-07|| ||Jim Bartle: "Lets stick to chess and not get into a slanging match about religion OK."|
I thought it was about science, but maybe that's where the disagreement starts.
|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.|
|May-18-18|| ||morfishine: There are no living marsupials (or metatherians) in Africa?|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·