Jonathan Sarfati's "The Greatest Hoax on Earth"

[RichardT]

I'm curious as to whether anyone was aware of the publication of this book. Has anyone here read it? It claims to be a chapter by chapter refutation of "The Greatest Show on Earth" but I expect it to be sub par regurgitated creationist crap. I doubt that this book will be truly revolutionary and I strongly doubt that there are going to be any new ideas. I'm wondering if it's worth downloading with torrents or would that be a waste of my time.

The Greatest Hoax On Earth? Refuting Dawkins on Evolution

"PZ Myers has labeled Sarfati's understanding of developmental biology as "hopelessly confused"."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Sarfati#cite_note-10

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

There hasn't been an original idea in creationism, ever.

 

[AV1611VET]

There hasn't been an original idea in creationism, ever.

Saying creationism doesn't come up with any ideas in science is like saying a fish doesn't come up with any ideas on irrigation.

Creationism did its part in BC4004.

It was a [start process] ... create universe in six days ... [/end process] event.

What more do you want?

 

[Tinker Grey]

Evidence.

 

[AV1611VET]

Evidence.

1

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

Evidence.

^^ This.

 

[AV1611VET]

^^ This.

Yup -- isn't it ironic when someone who is breathing the air and typing on a computer wants evidence of the creation?

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

Yup -- isn't it ironic when someone who is breathing the air and typing on a computer wants evidence of the creation?

Not when you understand what evidence is.

 

[sfs]

Yup -- isn't it ironic when someone who is breathing the air and typing on a computer wants evidence of the creation?

No, it isn't.

 

[Nathan Poe]

1

A simple "diddly-squat" would suffice.

 

[Skaloop]

Yup -- isn't it ironic when someone who is breathing the air and typing on a computer wants evidence of the creation?

Not "the creation" (a noun) but "creation", the act of creating (a verb).

If I ask someone "where did you get this pie" I am not inquiring as to the existence of the pie, I am trying to find out where the pie came from; was it home-baked just minutes ago, or bought in a bakery, or was it made by a series of machines in a factory and then frozen for my convenience? If it looks and tastes like the latter, but you insist it is the former, then I might want to check out your kitchen. But in neither case would I be asking for evidence that the cake existed.

 

[AV1611VET]

Not "the creation" (a noun) but "creation", the act of creating (a verb).

If I ask someone "where did you get this pie" I am not inquiring as to the existence of the pie, I am trying to find out where the pie came from; was it home-baked just minutes ago, or bought in a bakery, or was it made by a series of machines in a factory and then frozen for my convenience? If it looks and tastes like the latter, but you insist it is the former, then I might want to check out your kitchen. But in neither case would I be asking for evidence that the cake existed.

When Satan challenged Jesus to perform an act of creatio ex materia, Jesus told him, "No".

Now if Jesus were to make an exception for you "scientists" and perform an act of creatio ex nihilo or creatio ex materia -- what evidence would you collect?

I contend you guys wouldn't even know where to start.

In fact, the next day, you guys would be right back here begging us for something.

 

[Nathan Poe]

When Satan challenged Jesus to perform an act of creatio ex materia, Jesus told him, "No".

Now if Jesus were to make an exception for you "scientists" and perform an act of creatio ex nihilo or creatio ex materia -- what evidence would you collect?

I contend you guys wouldn't even know where to start.

In fact, the next day, you guys would be right back here begging us for something.

"Us," AV? You mean you and Jesus?

Prety high company you like to pretend to keep, isn't it?

 

[Hespera]

"Us," AV? You mean you and Jesus?

Prety high company you like to pretend to keep, isn't it?

You two ever think of setting up your own little thread all by yourselves?

 

[Skaloop]

When Satan challenged Jesus to perform an act of creatio ex materia, Jesus told him, "No".

Now if Jesus were to make an exception for you "scientists" and perform an act of creatio ex nihilo or creatio ex materia -- what evidence would you collect?

I contend you guys wouldn't even know where to start.

In fact, the next day, you guys would be right back here begging us for something.

Irrelevant. I wasn't talking about evidence, or lack thereof. I was merely pointing out that you changed your focus from "creation" to "the creation." It's your own little telephone game.

Anyway, as for evidence, well, if Jesus was in an empty room, monitored by videotape, and an apple suddenly appeared upon His command where no apple had previously been, that would be evidence. Not proof of creatio ex either nihilo or materia, but evidence nonetheless.

And for the record, the refusal of someone to recreate a miraculous feat that they claim to have performed is generally evidence that they did not do it, or at least cannot do it purposefully.

 

[RichardT]

You guys do realize that AV1611VET has sidetracked my thread. We are no longer discussing Sarfati's book. Regardless, I will acquire the free first chapter and tell you what I think. I might even post segments of it for us to collectively scrutinize.

 

[RichardT]

So I've read chapter one. Surprisingly it was ever crappier than I had first thought it would be. Do not bother with this book. The entire first chapter goes on about the definition of evolution and how Dawkins supposedly missed-defined it. [wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth]. It's a polemic game that Sarfati is playing and it's even low for Creationist standards. Evolution occurs in the present is a fact. Evolution has occurred in the past is also a fact based on incredible evidence. It is this evidence that Dawkins has presented, all Sarfati has presented was semantics, and what Sarfati presented was also a false depiction of Dawkins' argument.

 

[MoonLancer]

So I've read chapter one. Surprisingly it was ever crappier than I had first thought it would be. Do not bother with this book. The entire first chapter goes on about the definition of evolution and how Dawkins supposedly missed-defined it. [wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth]. It's a polemic game that Sarfati is playing and it's even low for Creationist standards. Evolution occurs in the present is a fact. Evolution has occurred in the past is also a fact based on incredible evidence. It is this evidence that Dawkins has presented, all Sarfati has presented was semantics, and what Sarfati presented was also a false depiction of Dawkins' argument.

thanks for the review

 

[USincognito]

So I've read chapter one. Surprisingly it was ever crappier than I had first thought it would be. Do not bother with this book. The entire first chapter goes on about the definition of evolution and how Dawkins supposedly missed-defined it. [wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth]. It's a polemic game that Sarfati is playing and it's even low for Creationist standards. Evolution occurs in the present is a fact. Evolution has occurred in the past is also a fact based on incredible evidence. It is this evidence that Dawkins has presented, all Sarfati has presented was semantics, and what Sarfati presented was also a false depiction of Dawkins' argument.

Kudos to you for actually reading it. All I had to see was Sarfati's name on it and knew I wouldn't be able to do more than read reviews on amazon.com.

 

[philadiddle]

There hasn't been an original idea in creationism, ever.

I dunno about that, some of the worst arguments for anything ever have come from the creationist camp. I'd score creationists pretty high when it comes to original ad hoc responses to evidence.