Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#1542 Dec 5, 2012
And remember, your cretinist site has a very very poor record. It is not a reliable source.
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#1543 Dec 5, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
And remember, your cretinist site has a very very poor record. It is not a reliable source.
No
You said that a PhD physical chemist could NOT have said what I claim he said

Now you're saying that even if he DID say ot it would not make it true

Two can play this game, you wally

So, YOU have changed what you said earlier....

Do you admit to that???
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#1544 Dec 5, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
I seriously doubt it. If a PhD pchem said something that stupid publicly his school would probably rescind his diploma if they could.
Someone who has taken pchem would know that chemical reactions are not random which would throw out his whole "proof" instantly.
There
I have re-posted what you said, so that there can be no doubt

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#1545 Dec 5, 2012
Hmm, still waiting.

Russell, do you think this is the first time that creatards have pulled this odds bullshit? All it ever did was illustrate that the creatards had no idea of how evolution works.

I always say that you cannot disprove a theory if you don't understand it and the various creatards that come to this site keep proving that every day.

Very few people are actively dishonest. It is not in our genes. If a creationist actually really learns what the theory of evolution says, how it works, and the evidence for it he has two choices, either believe the theory is right or lie to himself so badly that he knows he is lying to himself.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#1546 Dec 5, 2012
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
No
You said that a PhD physical chemist could NOT have said what I claim he said
Now you're saying that even if he DID say ot it would not make it true
Two can play this game, you wally
So, YOU have changed what you said earlier....
Do you admit to that???
Actually I said his college would take his degree away from him if they could.

I did say that no real Pchem PhD holder would say it. Let's see what you have. Put up or shut up.

There is a very slight possibility that somebody was that stupid. It is very embarrassing for a PhD to say something that a freshman could debunk but it has happened before.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#1547 Dec 5, 2012
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
There
I have re-posted what you said, so that there can be no doubt
Very good, and I did not say what you claimed I said. Another loss for Russell who once more shoots himself in the foot.

So what do you use those feet for when you are not using them for target practice? I bet they make a fine colander.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#1548 Dec 5, 2012
And after all that noise Russell still has nothing?
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#1549 Dec 5, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Very good, and I did not say what you claimed I said. Another loss for Russell who once more shoots himself in the foot.
So what do you use those feet for when you are not using them for target practice? I bet they make a fine colander.
You may still back out....if you wish?
Do you wish to back out of this now....?

I will allow it....

As I said I am not keen on walloping your backside...

But RULES OF ENGAGEMENT Rule Number 3

....applies to this situation...

And, who knows, I may not be able to prove that a PhD Physical chemist did say what I claim he said....

So,

Backing out?

Or do you still firmly believe that you are right?

I want you to have no doubt about this.
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#1550 Dec 5, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>This is hwy you need an education. That is either one of the funniest posts ever or saddest. All you have illustrated here is that you know nothing of biology, chemistry, or statistics. Since we do observe those chemicals in nature we know without even checking your horrendously poor math that you got it wrong.
Here
Re-posting your comments again....
That's your self-assured mockery above
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#1551 Dec 5, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
I seriously doubt it. If a PhD pchem said something that stupid publicly his school would probably rescind his diploma if they could.
Someone who has taken pchem would know that chemical reactions are not random which would throw out his whole "proof" instantly.
Here we go AGAIN

Your words, clear as day...

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#1552 Dec 5, 2012
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
You may still back out....if you wish?
Do you wish to back out of this now....?
I will allow it....
As I said I am not keen on walloping your backside...
But RULES OF ENGAGEMENT Rule Number 3
....applies to this situation...
And, who knows, I may not be able to prove that a PhD Physical chemist did say what I claim he said....
So,
Backing out?
Or do you still firmly believe that you are right?
I want you to have no doubt about this.
I stand by my original statement.

How are your feet doing, biatch?

And you are seriously delusional if you think you have ever whipped anyone's backside. that pain you feel is you sticking your own foot right up your ass.
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#1553 Dec 5, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>Actually I said his college would take his degree away from him if they could.
I did say that no real Pchem PhD holder would say it. Let's see what you have. Put up or shut up.
There is a very slight possibility that somebody was that stupid. It is very embarrassing for a PhD to say something that a freshman could debunk but it has happened before.
Would you change your mind if I said that this PhD Physical chemist was also a chess champion?

You are sounding distinctly shaky in your comment above....

Thinking of withdrawing?

Or are we on?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#1554 Dec 5, 2012
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Here we go AGAIN
Your words, clear as day...
And Russell takes careful aim and shoots himself in the foot again.

Biatch, I know you do this for my entertainment, but I can't stand to laugh too much more today.
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#1555 Dec 5, 2012


Dr Jonathan D. Sarfati B.Sc.(Hons.), Ph.D., F.M.
Creationist Physical Chemist and Spectroscopist (Australia)

Biography
Dr Jonathan Sarfati was born in Ararat, Australia in 1964. He moved to New Zealand as a child and later studied science at Victoria University of Wellington. He obtained a B.Sc.(Hons.) in Chemistry with two physics papers substituted (nuclear and condensed matter physics).

His Ph.D. in Chemistry was awarded for a thesis entitled ‘A Spectroscopic Study of some Chalcogenide Ring and Cage Molecules’.

He has co-authored papers in mainstream scientific journals on high temperature superconductors and selenium-containing ring and cage-shaped molecules. He also had a co-authored paper on high-temperature superconductors published in Nature when he was 22.

Dr Sarfati has been a Christian since 1984. He has long been interested in apologetics, the defense of the faith, and was a co-founder of the Wellington Christian Apologetics Society (New Zealand).1 Creation vs evolution is of course a vital area, because of the ramifications for the doctrines of Creation, the Fall which brought death into the world, and their links to the doctrines of the Incarnation, Atonement and Bodily Resurrection of the God-man Jesus Christ.

In August 1996, he returned to the country of his birth to take up a position as a research scientist and editorial consultant for Creation Ministries International in Brisbane. In this capacity, he is co-editor of Creation magazine, and also writes and reviews articles for Journal of Creation, CMI’s in-depth peer-reviewed publication, as well as contributing to CMI’s < creation.com > website.

In 1999, his first book was published—Refuting Evolution, which countered a teachers guidebook by the National Academy of Sciences, Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science, which had been widely circulated and publicized. Refuting Evolution now has 450,000 copies in print. Later that year he was a co-author of the updated and expanded Answers Book [note: now entitled The Creation Answers Book], answering 20 of the most-asked questions about creation/evolution. He later wrote Refuting Evolution 2, countering the PBS Evolution series and an anticreationist article in Scientific American.

In 2004, he wrote Refuting Compromise, defending a straightforward biblical creation timeline and a global flood, and answering biblical and scientific objections, concentrating on the errant teachings of day-age/local flood advocate Hugh Ross. It has been acclaimed as ‘the most powerful biblical and scientific defense of a straightforward view of Genesis creation ever written!’ See the introductory chapter and some reviews.

Creation.com
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#1556 Dec 5, 2012
Dr Sarfati is also a keen chess player. He is a former New Zealand Chess Champion, and represented New Zealand in three Chess Olympiads, and drew with Boris Spassky, world champion 1969–1972, in a tournament game (those interested in the game score and ‘post-mortem’(i.e. post-game analysis) photograph can see this chess site). In 1988, F.I.D.E., the International Chess Federation, awarded him the title of F.I.D.E. Master (FM). Dr Sarfati regularly accepts challenges from multiple players where he plays ‘blindfold’, i.e. from memory without sight or any physical contact with the board, so moves are communicated via a recognized chess notation (See an example at the Croydon Chess Club). Twelve is the most played simultaneously to date—see photo, above right.

http://creation.com/dr-jonathan-d-sarfati

I have been a witness to his blindfolded chess with 12 "sighted" opponents

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#1557 Dec 5, 2012
I grant you one thing, the cretinists found an idiot dumb enough to say that tripe. It still is so mind numbingly idiotic that it can be debunked with a wave of a hand. Do you seriously want me to point out some of the worst of the errors in his lecture.

And it looks like you guys would definitely hear each other than see each other if you were to meet on the street.

You would hear the squish and squarsh of your holy feet long before you saw each other.
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#1558 Dec 5, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
I grant you one thing, the cretinists found an idiot dumb enough to say that tripe. It still is so mind numbingly idiotic that it can be debunked with a wave of a hand. Do you seriously want me to point out some of the worst of the errors in his lecture.
And it looks like you guys would definitely hear each other than see each other if you were to meet on the street.
You would hear the squish and squarsh of your holy feet long before you saw each other.
So,
You admit you were wrong?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#1559 Dec 5, 2012
So what part of his "proof" should we debunk first. How about the fact that he was arguing about the wrong topic. His argument was supposed to be against evolution and yet it was against abiogenesis.

Russell, this is the sort of guy that I was talking about when I said it would get to the point where an educated person would have to lie to himself so badly that even he would know that he was lying.

Now, I know that you are not all that bright, but do you seriously think that your lying pchemist does not know the difference between abiogenesis and evolution?
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#1560 Dec 5, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
So what part of his "proof" should we debunk first. How about the fact that he was arguing about the wrong topic. His argument was supposed to be against evolution and yet it was against abiogenesis.
Russell, this is the sort of guy that I was talking about when I said it would get to the point where an educated person would have to lie to himself so badly that even he would know that he was lying.
Now, I know that you are not all that bright, but do you seriously think that your lying pchemist does not know the difference between abiogenesis and evolution?
DO YOU ADMIT YOU WERE wrong?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#1561 Dec 5, 2012
Oh crap, he is another example of Australia dumping its crap on the U.S.. He emigrated here.

Second the idiot does not believe in the Big Bang, even though we can see stars moving exactly according to that theory, and the uniform background radiation confirms it.

Third, he acts as if reactions are random. As a chemist he knows that that is nowhere near the truth.

Fourth, he is trying to compare modern day cells to ancient early cell. The number of enzymes necessary would be nowhere near his proposed figure.

It is very late so I will cut it short. Here is a video to counter your video. They got it right, they know they are talking about abiogenesis:



And a website:

http://exploringorigins.org/

Try to keep your arguments straight. If you want to argue against abiogenesis say so from the start, if you want to argue evolution the same rule applies.

Nimrod, and biatch.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 40 min Tinka 117,499
Darwin on the rocks 2 hr replaytime 190
It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 7 hr DanFromSmithville 137,387
The Satanic Character of Social Darwinism 11 hr Bluenose 659
Humans DID evolve from apes! 15 hr Daz Ma Taz 3
Why are there no dinosaur pen is fossil? 16 hr John K 3
Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) 20 hr Dogen 174,462

Evolution Debate People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE