Dr. Brown Interviews Young Earth Creation Scholar Dr. Jonathan Sarfati

[Download MP3]

This is your day to call in with your most difficult questions about science, evolution, and the Bible. If you are confused about the Bible and science, if you hold to an old earth creation view, or if you are a devoted Darwinian evolutionist, your calls to Dr. Sarfati are welcome. Listen live here 2-4 pm EST, and call into the show at (866) 348 7884 with your questions and comments.

 

Hour 1:

Dr. Brown’s Bottom Line: The more you look at science rightly the more you understand God is the glorious, amazing, infinitely wise Creator.

 

Hour 2:

Dr. Brown’s Bottom Line: Let us step back from the controversies and the disagreements; and with awe let us worship God the Creator.

SPECIAL OFFER! THIS WEEK ONLY!  

This week only Dr. Brown is offering Jonathan Sarfati’s classic book, “Refuting Evolution?”, plus a CD copy of Dr. Brown’s two hour Line of Fire interview with Dr. Sarfati for the special discounted price of just $20 Postage Paid!

Call 1-800-278-9978 or Order Online!

Other Resources:

Scientific Discoveries that Point to the Creator

An Interview with Dr. Fazale Rana on the Origins of Life

Dr. Brown Interviews Dr. Hugh Ross and Dr. Fuz Rana on Hidden Treasures in Job, Why the Universe Is the Way It Is, Creating Life in the Lab, and the Cell’s Design

322 Comments
  1. Now let’s see if I can follow this argument. The ancients knew trees can’t reach the sky [which they thought was solid and held back water, called the firmament] but thought they could build a tower to the sky. Sure, and the cow jumped over the moon. Bible believers want the stories, claims and every word really in the Bible to be taken literally except for the ones that are just totally indefensible. Then and only then, as with this tree in Daniel it’s symbolic, an allegory, a parable or whatever.
    Most people recognize the Garden of Eden story for what it is, a theological expression of man’s position in the universe. However you two self proclaimed literary experts can’t even decipher that story. I don’t think you’re in any position to be lecturing anyone on ancient literature. I mean can you point be to some historical document where we have Nebuchadnezzar carrying on conversations with people? For most people that would be a dead giveaway that what they were reading is fiction. That is unless they’ve let another person or persons convince them they MUST believe every word or suffer a fate far worse than death.

  2. Hello Van,

    I would be interested to hear what your background and experience has been with regard to Christianity?

    Personally, I grew up in the church, but I would have dumped it all, about when I was in Jr. High to High School (I’m now in my 30s), and probably become a militant atheist, if I did not see that evolution had (in my final opinion, of course not yours) no basis, and thus it did not nullify the radically at odds scriptural account of special creation.

    Anyways, just curious what your background is. Were you always of the same persuasion as you are now?

  3. Van,

    Just because a story contains dialogue does not make it fiction as you assert. I am guessing that if you were to tell one of your friends about the great time you are having proving us religious folks wrong that you might include some quotes. Most journalists use quotes in their stories. I am wondering if you have read the Bible. You certainly were mistaken about the passages that you referenced in Daniel, Isaiah, and Luke. Are you a critic of something that you have not read or tried to understand?

    Since you seem to not pay attention to what is posted I will let you read CS Lewis one more time. He certainly was a literary expert that remembered everything he read.

    “Another point is that on that view you would have to regard the accounts of the Man (Jesus) as being legends. Now, as a literary historian, I am perfectly convinced that whatever else the Gospels are they are not legends. I have read a great deal of legend and I am quite clear that they are not the same sort of thing. They are not artistic enough to be legends. From an imaginative point of view they are clumsy, they don’t work up to things properly. Most of the life of Jesus is totally unknown to us, as is the life of anyone who lived at that time, and no people building up a legend would allow that to be so. Apart from bits of the Platonic dialogues, there are no conversations that I know of in ancient literature, until about a hundred years ago when the realistic novel came into existence. In the Story of the woman taken in adultery we are told Christ bent down and scribbled in the dust with His finger. Nothing comes of this. No one has ever based any doctrine on it. And the art of inventing little irrelevant details to make an imaginary scene more convincing is a purely modern art. Surely the only explanation of this passage is that the thing really happened? The author put it in simply because he had seen it.”-CS Lewis, God in the Dock, pgs. 158-159

    And for the fun of it, you might like this also:

    “I do not think there is a demonstrative proof (like Euclid) of Christianity, nor of the existence of matter, nor of the good will and honesty of my best and oldest friends. I think all three are (except perhaps the second) far more probable than the alternatives. The case for Christianity in general is well given by Chesterton…As to why God doesn’t make it demonstratively clear; are we sure that He is even interested in the kind of Theism which would be a compelled logical assent to a conclusive argument? Are we interested in it in personal matters? I demand from my friend trust in my good faith which is certain without demonstrative proof. It wouldn’t be confidence at all if he waited for rigorous proof. Hang it all, the very fairy-tales embody the truth. Othello believed in Desdemona’s innocence when it was proved: but that was too late. Lear believed in Cordelia’s love when it was proved: but that was too late. ‘His praise is lost who stays till all commend.’ The magnanimity, the generosity which will trust on a reasonable probability, is required of us. But supposing one believed and was wrong after all? Why, then you would have paid the universe a compliment it doesn’t deserve. Your error would even so be more interesting and important than the reality. And yet how could that be? How could an idiotic universe have produced creatures whose mere dreams are so much stronger, better, subtler than itself?”― C.S. Lewis

  4. Van utters more falsehoods:

    “How come every Protestant denomination still held to the belief that the earth is flat until the 19th Century, 200 years after Galileo?”

    Absolute nonsense. The notion that the church ever held to flat-earth belief is a thoroughly discredited 19th-century humanist lie designed to marginalize opponents of Darwinian dogma. Not much has changed. Try the Venerable Bede in the 8th century:

    “We call the earth a globe, not as if the shape of a sphere were expressed in the diversity of plains and mountains, but because, if all things are included in the outline, the earth’s circumference will represent the figure of a perfect globe. … For truly it is an orb placed in the centre of the universe; in its width it is like a circle, and not circular like a shield but rather like a ball, and it extends from its centre with perfect roundness on all sides.”

    See for example The flat earth myth.

    Van further spruiketh: “Can either of you tell me exactly why the Church persecuted Galileo? Can you tell me why the Church hid the findings of Copernicus for 70 years after he died?”

    More mythology. The Galileo debate was far more one of science vs. science, because Galileo challenged the Aristotelian scientific establishment of his day. Giorgio de Santillana, philosopher of science and historian of science at MIT, wrote:

    “It has been known for a long time that a major part of the church’s intellectuals were on the side of Galileo, while the clearest opposition to him came from secular ideas.”

    More at Galileo Quadricentennial: Myth vs fact.

    However, Van is acting consistently with his evolutionary worldview by promoting known falsehoods. See Evolutionist: it’s OK to deceive students to believe evolution.

    Van also spouts: “I think the Hebrew word for a sphere is “kadur.”” He evidently doesn’t realize that the lemma is dûr while the “ka” is a preposition. But then a passage which uses the compound kadur is Isaiah 29:3, I will camp against you encircling kadur you, And I will set siegeworks against you, And I will raise up battle towers against you.” Does Van really think that the enemy soldiers were champion gymnasts who could form a three-dimensional hemispherical formation around Jerusalem, as in the Stephen King novel (and new TV series)
    Under the Dome
    ?

  5. This might be interesting for our readers: The Dark Age Myth: An Atheist Reviews God’s Philosophers [by James Hannam, Ph.D. in the history of science at Cambridge University, UK]. Some highlights:

    About once every 3-4 months on forums like RichardDawkins.net we get some discussion where someone invokes the old “Conflict Thesis”. That evolves into the usual ritual kicking of the Middle Ages as a benighted intellectual wasteland where humanity was shackled to superstition and oppressed by cackling minions of the Evil Old Catholic Church. The hoary standards are brought out on cue. Giordiano Bruno is presented as a wise and noble martyr for science instead of the irritating mystical New Age kook he actually was. Hypatia is presented as another such martyr and the mythical Christian destruction of the Great Library of Alexandria is spoken of in hushed tones, despite both these ideas being totally untrue. The Galileo Affair is ushered in as evidence of a brave scientist standing up to the unscientific obscurantism of the Church, despite that case being as much about science as it was about Scripture.

    It’s not hard to kick this nonsense to pieces, especially since the people presenting it know next to nothing about history and have simply picked up these strange ideas from websites and popular books. The assertions collapse as soon as you hit them with hard evidence. I love to totally stump these propagators by asking them to present me with the name of one – just one – scientist burned, persecuted, or oppressed for their science in the Middle Ages. They always fail to come up with any. They usually try to crowbar Galileo back into the Middle Ages, which is amusing considering he was a contemporary of Descartes. When asked why they have failed to produce any such scientists given the Church was apparently so busily oppressing them, they often resort to claiming that the Evil Old Church did such a good job of oppression that everyone was too scared to practice science. By the time I produce a laundry list of Medieval scientists – like Albertus Magnus, Robert Grosseteste, Roger Bacon, John Peckham, Duns Scotus, Thomas Bradwardine, Walter Burley, William Heytesbury, Richard Swineshead, John Dumbleton, Richard of Wallingford, Nicholas Oresme, Jean Buridan and Nicholas of Cusa – and ask why these men were happily pursuing science in the Middle Ages without molestation from the Church, my opponents usually scratch their heads in puzzlement at what just went wrong.

    Also, C.S. Lewis was fond of pointing out that the standards astronomy textbook for the Middle Ages, Ptolemy’s Almagest, stated:

    The Earth, in relation to the distance of the fixed stars, has no appreciable size and must be treated as a mathematical point.

    Hannam points out that Buridan, and especially Oresme, a bishop as well as a scientist, thought that it could be much more elegant if the tiny earth rotated rather than the enormous heavens. Oresme also realized that many of the biblical passages that were later hijacked to support dogmatic geocentrism were equivocal. That is, they used the earth as a convenient reference frame because it reflected everyday perception, that is, “by saying that this passage conforms to the normal use of popular speech just as it does in many other places … which are not to be taken literally.” Dr Hannam says that “Oresme refuted most of the objections to a moving earth two centuries before Copernicus had suggested that it might actually be in motion.” Yet he had no opposition from the Church.

  6. Oops, apologies for the repetition, although evidently the first time didn’t get through to those perpetuating the discredited “conflict thesis”, and there was new material on medieval geokinetic theories.

  7. Several atheopaths have attacked both Isaiah and Bede because the earth is not a perfect sphere, because it has irregularities “similar to a potato” such as mountains and deep-sea trenches; and is an oblate spheroid, i.e. flattened at the poles.

    In reality, ‘sphere’ is a very good approximation for the shape of the earth, not an error. Most astronomers today are OK with calling the earth a ‘globe’ or ‘sphere’, knowing full well that it’s an approximation. So the same allowance should be made for the Bible. Actually, Sir Isaac Newton, a creationist, was the one who first predicted oblateness from the earth’s rotation.

    Simple arithmetic should demonstrate how vacuous and desperate this objection is. The earth’s equatorial radius 6,378.1 km, while its polar radius 6,356.8 km. The deepest point in the ocean, Challenger Deep, is 10.916 km deep—<0.2% deviation from sphericity. Ever seen a potato, or even a rubber ball, this spherical? Also, the oblateness, given that the difference between polar and equatorial radii is only 21.3 km, is only 0.3% deviation from a sphere.

    In most usages, there are degrees of perfection or accuracy. The earth is a perfect sphere down to about 0.3%, which is perfect enough for most people. Scale this down to the size of some playing balls: if a ball were 63.781 mm in one radius and 63.568 mm in a perpendicular radius, one could safely call its shape a ‘globe’ or ‘sphere’. It would take a sharp eye indeed to notice that a ~6½-cm ball bulged a bit in the middle, by merely a fifth of a millimetre.

  8. ashley haworth-roberts
    “Dr Sarfati and others may wish to comment on this?
    http://forums.bcseweb.org.uk …”

    Sure thing:

    “BCSE: Revealed” – Welcome

    This website exists to show you the activities and deceptions of the self-proclaimed “British Centre for Science Education”. Have you come across this group? Do you want to know who they are?
    The evidence presented on this website tells a clear and damning story. I am confident that after reviewing the evidence on it, you will agree that the truth is clear. The BCSE are a fraudulent group of religiously-motivated con-men with whom no reputable scientist or educator would want to ever have anything to do with. In particular:
    1. The BCSE is a “Centre for Science Education” which contains no actual science educators. Science teachers, lecturers, professors: none.
    2. None of its leaders are employed either as scientists or educators at all. They are mainly IT workers and businessmen.
    3. Almost all of the BCSE’s core leadership have been exposed as dogmatic atheists. Those who aren’t atheists share, for their own reasons, a commitment to oppose historic Christianity.
    4. The BCSE’s own website is characterised by gross slurs, innuendos and fact-free slander-mongering.…

  9. Trust a young Earth creationist to change the subject.

    I was asking for any comments on the following:

    “Communication difficulties?
    It
    seems God must have experienced self-imposed communication difficulties when speaking to humanity when various people wrote down much of the Old Testament. Most of the writers who thought they heard from God had the Hebrew language. At the time human languages were rather poorly developed and I learn that the Hebrew language had no word for a sphere. Thus I understand that at Isaiah 40:22a* the Hebrew word was used that means a ‘circle’ (ie something two dimensional instead of three dimensional). Perhaps this was because the people at the time did not really know what a sphere was – or, if they did, did not talk about spheres. Either way, it seems that God was either unable to persuade the writer of Isaiah that his creation included a spherical rather than a flat Earth, or else the person in question could not convey to the rest of humanity what God revealed because he did not have the words to do so. (YECs reject the notion that God communicated in a way that ‘accommodated’ the limited knowledge of those who received and wrote down his messages ie God meant ‘exactly’ what he said. So either he said Earth was spherical but the message got lost in ‘translation’ or else God thinks Earth is – mainly from HIS perspective presumably – a circle rather than a sphere – which is not very scientific.)

    Or a person THOUGHT he had heard from God.

    One may ask why didn’t God communicate (infallibly) with humanity in today’s more informed and scientific era. Someone else may suggest that almost nobody today would be persuaded that it really was God.

    * “He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth…” (NIV)”

    If anyone else is wondering, Dr Sarfati has cut and pasted text from a defunct pro-YEC website:
    http://www.bcse-revealed.info/bcse/bcse.rev/Main/HomePage.html

  10. Dr. Sarfati posted something that asked for the name of one scientist who was burned at the stake for his findings. Just one? That’s easy. How about Michael Servetus (1511-1553)? He was the Spanish physician who discovered pulmonary circulation. He wrote a book about his findings which was deemed to be heretical. His life was threatened by angry Christians and so he escaped from Spain and the Catholic Inquisition but Servetus was caught up in the Protestant Inquisition in Switzerland. Under orders from John Calvin who was of course a flat earther, Servetus was arrested, tortured and burned at the stake on the shores of Lake Geneva along with copies of his book. We don’t know how many thousands of innocent people Christian hero John Calvin had burned at the stake.

    Then we have the absurd claim that an evolutionary worldview [whatever that is] says it’s okay to spread falsehoods. Yet in the Bible we read, “But if through my falsehood God’s truthfulness abounds to his glory, why am I still being condemned as a sinner?” – Romans 3:7 Christian morality and ethics on full display here. I don’t think people who live in glass houses should through stones.

    I’m not sure what Dr. Sarfati was trying to prove with this story about BCSE but again how hypocritical can you get? What about the Discovery Institute, the group of Young Earth Creationists that has never discovered anything and their research consists solely of quote mining the work of legitimate scientists? Again, people who live in glass houses…

    And Dr. Sarfati, creationism, young, old, whatever isn’t even a subject because it isn’t taught anywhere, even in the most conservative Christian schools. In fact schools like Baylor go to great lengths to distance themselves from creationism and people like you and William Dembski. I’m not trying to be unkind or facetious but how does one become a scholar in a field that isn’t even recognized as a subject? One more question. William Dembski wrote a book that claims that animals suffered and died for hundreds of millions of years before the fall of Adam. He claims that because God knew in advance Adam would sin that brought sin into the world retroactively. Have you read his book?

    What is “atheopath” supposed to mean? Is that supposed to be an insult Anyway I forgive you, if it is. Love the Christian, hate the Christianity is what I say.

  11. Nicolas,
    So in Junior High School you become instantly more knowledgeable on the subject of evolution than all the evolutionary biologists in the world who spent years studying evolution in college and then working in the field for years for a living. That is arrogance gone into orbit. You know the world has suffered far less from ignorance than it has from pretensions to knowledge. I asked you what it would take to change your mind about evolution. You don’t know enough about the subject to even try answering that question. You could easily educate yourself on the subject of evolution right here on the Internet. But you’re not going to do that reading anti-evolution propaganda coming from other people who also don’t know anything about the subject. You’d have to read what legitimate scientists who work in the field have written on the subject. It’s fascinating, much more interesting than a bunch of Bronze Age nonsense made up by animal sacrificing primitives, so that other primitives would follow them blindly.

    I have always been an atheist. Unbelief is the natural position to take on anything until something is proved. Since the existence of God has not been proved and so unbelief or atheism is the position to take on the question of the existence of God. It isn’t just this God you people believe in. You people believe in all sorts of other bogie entities, heaven, hell, Satan, demons, angels, this supposed invisible cosmic war between good and evil and on and on. I believe none of it and I find it all to be completely ridiculous. My experience with Christianity my knowledge of this religion has taught me this: No one can believe any of this stuff until they have been frightened by some other person or persons with the fear of eternal damnation in hell. Once that happens the subject is willing to attempt to believe anything to avoid the flames of hell. What you need to recognize is that hell is simply a tactic your religion uses to command obedience and discourage doubt. Once you understand that you won’t feel the need to defend the indefensible anymore. You’ll be free.

  12. I can not believe that God does not exist, for it’s never been proven. I believe it never will be, for the idea is false.

  13. Van really remains clueless. The charges against Servetus had absolutely nothing to do with blood circulation and everything to do with his anti-trinitarianism. Everyone wanted to execute him for that; Calvin’s role was minor, only an expert witness at the trial, and he wanted a more humane method of execution. No one else was executed for heresy in Geneva while Calvin was there. Naturally, in line with Van’s evolutionary faith that denies objective morality, he deceives by accusing Calvin of being a flat-earther; no church leader was. Later, William Harvey had no problems when he published a proper theory of blood circulation. His career was at St Bartholomew’s Hospital founded by the church.

    Van’s evidence-free comments about the Discovery Institute can easily be dismissed. He calls them Young Earth Creationists but if they comment on the earth’s age at all, they are clearly old-earthers.

    CMI has several articles refuting Dembski’s absurd idea of retro-active death, so it should be assumed that I am familiar with it. CMI also has articles about Baylor’s appeasement of atheopaths.

    It’s hard to believe that Van could handle any subject more ineptly than he handles history, science, philosophy, and morality, but I see that he has exceeded this ineptitude with his mangling of Scripture. Romans 3:7, in typical Greco-Roman rhetoric, Paul presents his case in the form of arguments by the opposing view then his refutation. Just see this in context of the preceding and following verses (atheopathic attacks on the Bible are almost always contextually illiterate):

    5 But if our unrighteousness serves to show the righteousness of God, what shall we say? That God is unrighteous to inflict wrath on us? (I speak in a human way.) 6 By no means! For then how could God judge the world? 7 But if through my lie God’s truth abounds to his glory, why am I still being condemned as a sinner? 8 And why not do evil that good may come?—as some people slanderously charge us with saying. Their condemnation is just.

    See, Paul clearly says that the part Van wrenched out of context is something that opponents have claimed falsely that the Apostles taught.

    Finally, Van claims, “Unbelief is the natural position to take on anything until something is proved.” But he fails to prove that position, so it’s self-refuting. Further, he believes without proof that the universe is either eternal or came into existence uncaused, non-living matter evolved into living cells by pure undirected chemistry, complex specified information arose without intelligence, design features arose without a designer, moral sensibilities arose out of amoral matter, etc. See also Atheism is more rational?.

  14. It looks like nobody here wishes to comment on my post at the BCSE community forum after all. Oh, well.

  15. Van,

    Concerning your assertion:”Unbelief is the natural position to take on anything until something is proved.”

    Is it really? I must ask? Do you believe that you mother is your mother? Did she somehow prove it to you by scientific means? Did you believe it before she proved it by the sworn testimony of independent witnesses or historical documentation? Did you believe it before you saw your birth certificate? Wasn’t it totally natural for you to assume that she was your mother simply because you had grown up in her home? Once you realized that there had been no scientific proof, did you conduct DNA experiments and such?

    Were you really ever skeptical of your nationality or your citizenship or did you assume it? Did you ever make the writers of the books you quote prove that they had done exhaustive research? Did you ever question the idea that 2+2=4 or did you assume that those that told you had good reason to believe it and you just went along? Did you do manuscript research and archaeological research to find out firsthand if the Bible might be true?

    If you did not do all of these things firsthand to find out for yourself, you are taking somebody’s word for what you believe. And yes you are taking so many things on faith that cannot be proven that your statement is completely damning to your position.

    Be honest…have you ever been truly skeptical of your skepticism? Have you proved or even attempted to prove that it is the best or natural philosophy or have you taken someone at his word that it is the best way? Were you even ever skeptical of those that taught you that skepticism is the “natural position”?

    Have you ever been skeptical that your mind is capable of true skepticism? How do you know for sure that you have not been brainwashed from infancy to believe certain things without proof? Or to think a certain way that might not be the natural and best way? Or to have assumptions built into your thought processes that are so basic that you could never doubt them?

    I suggest that you do have these assumptions built in that cannot be doubted by you. We all have them. And how do you know that yours are the best or the right ones? By what standard do you judge your’s best? How can you say anything is for sure without absolute truth by your philosophy? You cannot! You do not have absolute truth about anything! You are a man of great faith. Blind faith, in many areas.

    You might want to reconsider your premise. Maybe doubting something is better in some cases, but it is not best in all cases nor is it the “natural position to take on anything.” I am betting that you would simply go with the flow if the fire alarms were going off and people were running and screaming and shouting fire. I am skeptical that you would fight your way against the crowd to find out for sure that there was really a fire…but you might.

    The universe is screaming that there is a Creator and you are fighting against it to hold on to an unproven belief that there isn’t one, even though you have not searched in every place and in every way to find out for sure. Right now you are doing even worse than going to find out if there is really a fire. You are standing there in a burning building with your arms crossed and your eyes closed proclaiming that there is no such thing as fire.

    Shalom

  16. “The universe is screaming that there is a Creator …”.

    Sound is inaudible in the near vacuum of outer space. 🙂

  17. Hold on there Van,

    I was not in an ‘evolution class,’ rather it was supposed to be a biology class (i.e. a class that teaches real science, things like the genetics discoveries of creationist Gregor Mendel). Therefore, I of course deferred to the teachers then, as a Jr. Higher, on issues of empirical science, which is what the class was supposed to be about anyways!

    But you, in apparently much ignorance, seem to think of evolution as the sum total of ‘science’:

    Nicolas,
    So in Junior High School you become instantly more knowledgeable on the subject of evolution than all the evolutionary biologists in the world who spent years studying evolution in college and then working in the field for years for a living. That is arrogance gone into orbit.

    In fact, I went on to study 2 years of college-prep Chemistry with the very same teacher (hello Ralph! God bless you!) that initially taught the evolution courses in Jr. High. Why would I do that if I was rejecting science? And of course why would people like Jonathan continue onto the Dr. level in that same field, if he was rejecting true science? Though Ralph and I had many debates, we came to deeply respect and honor one another. He initially didn’t want me in his chemistry classes (thought I wasn’t up to par for it, which might have partially been due to bias, but may have also been partially my fault), but he ended up telling the whole class once in the second year that I was now his best student in this advanced chemistry class, despite his earlier reservations.

    So much for your insinuations that I was somehow rejecting science since I had rejected evolution!

    Second of all, Van, what you seem to have absolutely no knowledge of is the question of paradigms and world-views, which many times have been overturned in the scientific community. Plate tectonics is a terrific example of this, which was ridiculed for decades before it was accepted as the ruling paradigm (and one which I myself adhere to as matching the evidence).

    All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident. — A possible saying of Arthur Schopenhauer

  18. Those who reject biological evolution (other than adaptation and speciation within ‘kinds’) are rejecting a major scientific theory. They may accept other science but they are picking and choosing.

  19. Ashley,

    There is more vacuous space in the fossil record than in the minds and hearts of those that believe it. The gaps are enormous between birds and reptiles and between plants and animals and between mammals and amphibians…and astronomical between chemicals and the simplest life. The gaps are there because there were no intermediary organisms between them. It is all imagination. There is no evidence to fill the gaps.

    And yes I know about the common ancestor idea. The problem is that we haven’t found any certain common ancestors between these groups either. There is some speculation, but no certainty. So evolutionists believe that different types of animals had common ancestors, but they haven’t proven one yet. That, my friend, is called faith not observation. It is religion and not science.

    Shalom

  20. That should have been…There is more vacuous space in the fossil record than in the minds and hearts of those that believe [in evolution].

  21. Bo

    If you think scientists believe that plants evolved into animals or vice versa then you are seriously misled or even deluded.

    And there have been plenty of recent discoveries of feathered dinosaurs or reptile-like birds – the Answers in Genesis website acknowledges such discoveries (many from China).

    The theory may require some exercise of faith but it is not unscientific. It makes predictions and it is falsifiable (as discussed earlier in this thread).

    I believe you have a closed mind on the subject. It no doubt helps when you evangelise. My mind is open ie I cannot be certain molecules to Man evolution is true but there is evidence from numerous sources and circumstances for the theory.
    http://toddcwood.blogspot.co.uk/2009/09/truth-about-evolution.html
    http://toddcwood.blogspot.co.uk/2010/06/evolution-still-not-in-crisis.html

    Dr Sarfati felt the need to write a detailed book refuting one by Mr Dawkins on the evidence for evolution.

    Ashley

  22. Ray
    October 26th, 2013 @ 10:16 pm
    I can not believe that God does not exist, for it’s never been proven. I believe it never will be, for the idea is false.

    Using that bit of anti-logic we can assume you believe in leprechauns, werewolves and invisible pink unicorns because it has never been proven that these things don’t exist either. I mean we can use typical Christian apologetc argumntation to prove these things exist. We know invisible pink unicorns are invisible because we can’t see them and we have faith that they are pink. Now all I have to do is convince you that you’ll burn in hell for all eternity if you don’t believe that and you will believe in Invisible Pink Unicorns. I mean that’s exactly how you let someone else frighten you into believing in Jesus. Isn’t it?

    Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D.
    October 27th, 2013 @ 1:30 am
    “Van really remains clueless. The charges against Servetus had absolutely nothing to do with blood circulation and everything to do with his anti-trinitarianism. Everyone wanted to execute him for that; Calvin’s role was minor, only an expert witness at the trial, and he wanted a more humane method of execution. No one else was executed for heresy in Geneva while Calvin was there. Naturally, in line with Van’s evolutionary faith that denies objective morality, he deceives by accusing Calvin of being a flat-earther; no church leader was. Later, William Harvey had no problems when he published a proper theory of blood circulation. His career was at St Bartholomew’s Hospital founded by the church.”

    I’m being called clueless by a guy who is promoting the Fred Flintstone version of prehistory. Now that’s funny! I love setting up creationists so that they’ll say somthing to humiliate themselves and then I watch them try to back track their way out of it. They never see it coming. I know why Servetus was murdered by angry Christians. He criticized YOUR religion Dr. Sarfati. And your post above clearly shows us that you are perfectly okay with that. The fact that you willingly became a Christian knowing why Christians murdered their critics for centuries also proves you have no problem with critics of Christianity being tortured and murdered. In fact I’m sure that if you could get a way with it you’d love to see people like me silenced with violence right now. Right Dr. Sarfati? Gee, I wonder why you Christians cannot hunt down witches, scientists and heretics and do away with them anymore. Could it be that Christians all of a sudden grew a conscience and decided all on their own that murdering people who disagreed with them wrong? Sure. No, if it were not for the rise of secular humanism and atheism Christians would still be as uncivilized as they were just a few centuries ago and they would still be murdering anyone who criticized Christianity. We have your own words to prove that Dr. Sarfati. Now folks, watch the back tracking begin. Now here we have a quote from flat-earther John Calvin.

    “The heavens revolve daily, and, immense as is their fabric, and inconceivable the rapidity of their revolutions, we experience no concussion — no disturbance in the harmony of their motion. The sun, though varying its course every diurnal revolution, returns annually to the same point. The planets, in all their wandering, maintain their respective positions. How could the earth hang suspended in the air were it not upheld by God’s hand? (Job 26:7) By what means could it [the earth] maintain itself unmoved, while the heavens above are in constant rapid motion, did not its Divine Maker fix and establish it? Accordingly the particle, ape, denoting emphasis, is introduced — YEA, he hath established it.”
    – John Calvin, Commentary on the Book of Psalms, Psalm 93, verse 1, trans., James Anderson (Eerdman’s, 1949), Vol. 4, p. 7

    I don’t know why someone would even try to claim John Calvin was only responsible for murdering one person. This monster even threatened small children and burned thousand of supposed witches. This is well documented.

    “Van’s evidence-free comments about the Discovery Institute can easily be dismissed. He calls them Young Earth Creationists but if they comment on the earth’s age at all, they are clearly old-earthers.”

    Anyone can google the Quote Mine Project and not only will you see quotes taken out of context by the Discovery Institute but quotes taken out of context by Jonathan Sarfati as well. He did this to make it seem like a legitimate scientist agreed with him when the opposite was true. Someone who adheres to the insanity of Divine Comand Morality would have no basis for knowing that quote mining is wrong. Just so you’ll know Dr. Sarfati, quote mining is the same as lying. Why do we atheists always have to explain the difference betwen right and wrong to you Bible believers? That’s a rhetorical question.

    “CMI has several articles refuting Dembski’s absurd idea of retro-active death, so it should be assumed that I am familiar with it. CMI also has articles about Baylor’s appeasement of atheopaths.”

    Oh yeah Baylor wants to appease atheists. Tell me another one. No Dr. Sarfati, at Baylor they are interested in doing real science that produces real results. Tell us all about all the scientific advances you creation scientists have made that will make the world a better, s fer and healthier place, using your creation science.

    “See, Paul clearly says that the part Van wrenched out of context is something that opponents have claimed falsely that the Apostles taught.”

    If lying for the faith isn’t given the green light by the Bible then why do you take quotes out of context from legitimate scientists to make it seem like they agree with you when they clearly do not?

    “Finally, Van claims, “Unbelief is the natural position to take on anything until something is proved.” But he fails to prove that position, so it’s self-refuting. Further, he believes without proof that the universe is either eternal or came into existence uncaused, non-living matter evolved into living cells by pure undirected chemistry, complex specified information arose without intelligence, design features arose without a designer, moral sensibilities arose out of amoral matter, etc. See also Atheism is more rational?”

    I have an invisble pink unicorn in the trunk of my car. Apparently you believe that. Or would you want some proof? You might be able to fool the other creationists by conflating atheism and science but not anyone else. Those are scientific explanations that are taught at every Christian colllege and university in the world. Dr. Sarfati you should realize that your arguments are only good enough to convince people who desperately want to belive them anyway. As you can see the rest of us will just make a mockery of them.

    Bo
    Your post is just ridiculous. You’re asking me if things have been proved to me. Yet you believe in all sorts of absurd boogymen and an aferlife without ever seeing even a tiny shred of evidence that these things even might exist. As for the Bible, I have studied the Bible enough to know that none of the stories in the Bible can be verified using independent sources. Apparently you haven’t done that. I know that the existence of the major figures in the Bible from Adam to Jesus and the disciples also cannot be verified using any independent sourcs. You didn’t know that either. But now thanks to me you do. See when Christians buy into their religion they assume that the Bible can be verified using independent sources. When they find out no such evidence exists it’s too late because they’ve been manipulated into being afraid to question the Bible. So now you’re reduced to making absurd arguments to defend what you’e to afraid to question. What a mess. I feel sorry for you, for all of you.

    Nicholas Petersen
    Hold on there Van,
    “All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident. – A possible saying of Arthur Schopenhauer”

    You just described precisely how your religion has always responded to advancing science, new scientific dicoveries and theories:
    “First, the Church tries to crush the “heretical” view, often through censorship and persecution of the scientist.
    But as the evidence supporting the scientific viewpoint inevitably grows, the Church struggles to find a compromise position that incorporates both viewpoints.
    Eventually, the scientific victory is complete, and the Church is left to indulge in apologetics, a field of study that explains away and defends the Church’s actions. In this stage, it is common for apologists to claim that there is not, and never was, any conflict between the Church and science.” – Infidels.org

  23. Van,

    You wrote:
    “Your post is just ridiculous. You’re asking me if things have been proved to me. Yet you believe in all sorts of absurd boogymen and an aferlife without ever seeing even a tiny shred of evidence that these things even might exist.”

    I never said that I didn’t believe in things that I have not seen. And for the record, I do not believe in boogymen. Your the one that claims that you only believe what has been proven. So why didn’t you answer the questions? You would rather divert attention away from yourself and your false claims because you do no want to admit that you believe in things that have not been proved…actually most things. You do not want to admit that you have been suckered into your beliefs because of your gullibility which is brought on by your disdain for morality. You still pridefully insist upon worshiping yourself.

    So who is writing ridiculous things?

    As far as the Bible being verified by independent sources, you fail to realize that the Bible writers are independent sources to one another many times. The Bible is a collection of writings from many men in throughout time.

    You also obviously are not up to speed on archaeology…over and over it confirms the Biblical record.

    Then there are ancient historians such as Tacticus, Suetonius, Pliny the Younger, Lucian of Samosata, Julius Africanus, Thallus, Phlegon, and Josephus. All these wrote things confirming Y’shua’s life, death on the cross, things associated with it, His family and His early followers.

    But I am sure that you have not read these histories in the books and websites that you get your false information from.

    So who is writing ridiculous things?

  24. So Van the clueless admits that he’s prepared to lie in debates. So how can we trust anything else he says? For the record, nothing I said condoned any execution of heretics, and Hannam overtly criticised this practice. My own belief, which is informed by Scripture, is that belief can’t be coerced but must be adopted freely.

    I was just refuting Van’s falsehood (which now we know was deliberate) that Servetus was executed for discovering blood circulation. Also we should note that the challenge is unmet to produce someone executed for his science.

    Van also apparently can’t differentiate between flat-earth, which no one believed, and geocentrism, which is all that Calvin quote proved, and was the view of the scientific establishment of the day.

    Also, when it comes to things like the witches trial of Salem, the numbers were minuscule, and Christian leaders objected partly because the unbiblical standards of prosecuting “evidence”. The atrocities of atheopathic regimes of the last century alone are thousands of times worse than all the atrocities of “religion” in all previous centuries combined. Note carefully the points in ‘Christian’ vs evolutionary atrocities.

    Van also has failed to deal with the fact that his criterion for belief is self-refuting, and that the many corollaries of atheopathic belief are baseless positive assertions.

  25. Van, you are right that horrific things have been done in the name of Christianity. In the 1-3rd centuries the ‘little-Christs’ (Christians) were persecuted ruthlessly, but then the political empire hedged its bets on assimilating with this still fastly increasing in numbers group, and unfortunately, so many of the Christian leaders unwisely entered a marriage with the then ‘Holy’ Roman Empire. Many (not all) of the problems then came from essentially political powers that came in the name of Christ.

    This was not the way of Jesus of Nazareth, who said:

    “Give to Caesar that which is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s [which Caesar is clearly not therefore!].”

    Jesus also died on a Roman torture stake. Us absurd Christians are so foolish to see the mercy and wisdom of God in this. Jesus also demanded us who would follow him “to deny himself, to pick up *his* cross, and to follow me.”

    Michael Brown has a book “Our Hands are Stained With Blood,” concerning the church’s evil persecution against the Jewish people, but in addition, many other evils have been done in the name of Christianity. Certainly there is another side to the story if we go into that history, that you are not representing, but I still think that *much* (though certainly not all, or even most) of the reason for the complete fall of faith in Europe today traces to the evils you were referring to (even extracting the many errors you reported) with for instance the persecutions and even stake burnings brought on by even the Protestants.

    None of that was the way of Jesus of Nazareth though, who gave us this very different way:

    Matthew 5:43 You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. 46 For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? 47 And if you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Nations do the same? 48 You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

    Beware of practicing your righteousness before other people in order to be seen by them, for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven. Thus, when you give to the needy, sound no trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may be praised by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. 3 But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, 4 so that your giving may be in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you.

  26. Bo,
    >You can call invisible beings for which there exists no evidence that they are real anything you want, angels, demons, whatever. I call them boogymen. I believe in things that have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. You believe what you’ve been told to and yet I’m the one who is supposedly gullible. No one is more gullible than a Bible believer. All one has to do is turn on TBN or some other Christian TV show to see that. On what basis do you make the accusation that I have a disdain for morality? The only morality you know is, “God wills it.” So the command not to murder, really means not to murder unless God wills it to be so. See with the insanity of Divine Command Morality anything is permissible as long as the believers imagine God wills it. That’s dangerous as history clearly tell us. I don’t worship anything. It’s degrading and dehumanizing.

    “As far as the Bible being verified by independent sources, you fail to realize that the Bible writers are independent sources to one another many times. The Bible is a collection of writings from many men in throughout time.
    You also obviously are not up to speed on archaeology…over and over it confirms the Biblical record.”

    > Oh sure it does. Give me your two best examples of that. Some proof of the zombie invasion described in Matthew. I need to see some corroborating evidence for that. Apparently you don’t.

    “Then there are ancient historians such as Tacticus, Suetonius, Pliny the Younger, Lucian of Samosata, Julius Africanus, Thallus, Phlegon, and Josephus. All these wrote things confirming Y’shua’s life, death on the cross, things associated with it, His family and His early followers.”

    > None of those men were alive during the time Jesus supposedly lived. None of them mention Jesus by that name or any of the disciples. The entries in the works of Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny and Josephus are widely thought to be Christian forgeries. Even if they are authentic they are far to late to be anything but hearsay. Josephus is the most obvious forgery because no one ever saw the so-called “golden paragraphs” about Jesus until Church propagandist Eusebius produced a copy of Josephus’ book that contained them. Origen mentioned Josephus extensively so if the paragraphs supposedly about Jesus had been there he surely would have seen them. But Josephus also thought Hercules was a real person/godman and he claimed to have seen a ten-foot tall giant casting out demons. So much for Josephus the “historian.” So you have stuff written 70 – 85 years after Jesus supposedly died by men [maybe, if they aren’t forgeries] who got all their information from other people who got their information from who knows where? That might be okay for some obscure historical figure that no one really cares much about anyway. However Christians make some very extraordinary claims about Jesus and you know extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You just don’t have the evidence to back up your claims, never have, never will. Jesus was supposedly seen and followed by thousands of people in his travels. Are we supposed to believe none of these people could write? There’s no record of this trial, no empty tomb, no reliable witnesses outside of the gospel stories themselves. You’ve got nothing and yet you say I’m the one who has been suckered into beliefs. That would be funny of it weren’t so ironic, so sad. I’m quite sure no such person as Jesus Christ never existed. I actually looked into this story. You should have too before you committed your life to a bunch of false beliefs.

    I’mssure that you have not read these histories in the books and websites that you get your false information from.

    >You’re a creationist and you are accusing someone else of getting false information off of a website? That is hilarious! Why do you think creationism isn’t taught anywhere even in conservative Christian schools? Those Christian schools will tell you that creationism is supported by false information. This is why you can only find creationist literature on the Internet and in books printed by publishers of Bibles and Christian literature and not in any legitimate schools.

    Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D.
    October 28th, 2013 @ 4:37 pm
    So Van the clueless admits that he’s prepared to lie in debates. So how can we trust anything else he says? For the record, nothing I said condoned any execution of heretics, and Hannam overtly criticised this practice. My own belief, which is informed by Scripture, is that belief can’t be coerced but must be adopted freely.

    > Yeah it will be adopted but it isn’t free. A person has to be frightened by the myth of hell to the point where they become hyper-suggestive and will try to believe anything in order to avoid hell. Just like you were. What’s up with all he anger and name calling Jonathan? You are supposed to be giving a reason for the hope you have with gentleness and respect. That’s one of the many parts of the Bible you simply choose to ignore.

    I was just refuting Van’s falsehood (which now we know was deliberate) that Servetus was executed for discovering blood circulation. Also we should note that the challenge is unmet to produce someone executed for his science.

    >Wow, you still don’t get it do you? I never said Servetus was executed for his science.You asked for a scientist who had been executed. Then you admitted that Sevetus was murdered because he criticized your religion. That’s why I mentioned Servetus. I set the trap and you stepped right in it. And you still can’t figure out what just happened.

    Van also apparently can’t differentiate between flat-earth, which no one believed, and geocentrism, which is all that Calvin quote proved, and was the view of the scientific establishment of the day.

    > What do you mean of the day? The Association for Biblical Astronomy insists that the Earth is the center of the universe and does not move. That’s still the the scientific view according to these people. You mean you disagree with them and with what the Bible clearly implies? These people use the same scientific method you do: they make stuff up.

    Also, when it comes to things like the witches trial of Salem, the numbers were minuscule, and Christian leaders objected partly because the unbiblical standards of prosecuting“evidence”

    > Thousand of witches, maybe millions were burned in Europe over quite a long period of time. The Salem incidents were but a drop in the bucket. The problem is that the Bible says witches exist and gives warrant for murdering them. Is this yet another part of the Bible you disagree with?

    The atrocities of atheopathic regimes of the last century alone are thousands of times worse than all the atrocities of “religion” in all previous centuries combined. Note carefully the points in ‘Christian’ vs evolutionary atrocities.

    > There haven’t been any “atheopathic regimes” in history, and the only evolutionary atrocity occurred because the communists rejected evolutionary theory. Stalin thought evolution by natural selection was some bourgouis philosophy from the West and so he embraced something called Lysenkoism. It failed and millions of people starved to death. It was Stalin’s rejection of modern science, the exact same science you reject that caused millions to starve to death. You think Stalin was right to reject evolution don’t you? Nazi Germany was of course a Christian nation. Adolph Hitler banned the teaching of evolution in the German public schools which taught biblical creationism and he banned abortions. Aren’t these things that you would like to see done? So where do you differ with these two regimes I mentioned?

    You Christians all make the exact same arguments. You purposely try to conflate atheism with communism. No one killed anyone for the cause of atheism. The human rights violations you are talking about came about because of the leadership’s power-mad political ambitions. No one in Russia or China today condones the behavior of their predecessors and no atheists are condoning it either. So if you’re trying to blame atrocities on atheism, evolution or anything else you fear because you don’t understand it, you have failed miserably to make your case. But you must be used to that by now. Young earth creationism predicts a young universe and that has been falsified and you know it. You play chess. How do you feel when you say “checkmate” and your opponent just attempts to keep right on playing? Because that’s exactly what you are doing. All of your arguments have been refuted yet you just keep right on making the same ones over and over again completely ignoring the objections to them as if none were ever made. Your audience has been trained to believe criticisms of your claims are evil and from the devil so they ignore them as well. There’s nothing like a captive audience is there?

    Van also has failed to deal with the fact that his criterion for belief is self-refuting, and that the many corollaries of atheopathic belief are baseless positive assertions.

    > That is as vacuous as your arguments promoting a young earth. You can say that my criterion for belief is self-refuting but unless you can demonstrate that you have said nothing. Exactly why is it self-refuting? There are no “atheopathic” beliefs. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in any and all gods. There are no positive assertions at all. You really should read up on subjects you are not familiar with before you post things that prove you have no idea what you are talking about. I guess you’re not going to tell us why you purposely misquoted scientists in order to distort what they had actually written. Since they dragged an apology out of you for doing this I’ll drop the subject. People really should know what kind of tactics you are willing to use to promote your ideology.

    Nicholas Petersen
    October 29th, 2013 @ 1:24 am
    Van, you are right that horrific things have been done in the name of Christianity. In the 1-3rd centuries the ‘little-Christs’ (Christians) were persecuted ruthlessly, but then the political empire hedged its bets on assimilating with this still fastly increasing in numbers group, and unfortunately, so many of the Christian leaders unwisely entered a marriage with the then ‘Holy’ Roman Empire. Many (not all) of the problems then came from essentially political powers that came in the name of Christ.

    > In “Myth’s of Persecution” Candida Moss shows that stories of Christian persecution and martyrdom are complete fabrications of the Church. There just isn’t any evidence to support the claim that the early Christians were ever persecuted. It’s all propaganda from the world’s largest fabrication factory: Christianity.

    I’m not blaming modern Christians for atrocities done by Christians centuries ago. Is it fair to blame a particular school of thought because people perverted its teachings? Your friend Dr. Sarfati wants to blame human rights violations in China and the Soviet Union on atheism and/or evolution rather than admit to the real reasons these things occurred. What do you think about that?

    “Jesus also died on a Roman torture stake. Us absurd Christians are so foolish to see the mercy and wisdom of God in this. Jesus also demanded us who would follow him “to deny himself, to pick up *his* cross, and to follow me.”

    > Well I see it as a gross misinterpretation of mythology.

    Michael Brown has a book “Our Hands are Stained With Blood,” concerning the church’s evil persecution against the Jewish people, but in addition, many other evils have been done in the name of Christianity.

    > Here’s one you may not know about. The churchmen got it in their heads that cats were demon possessed. So they convinced the Christians to round up all the cats in Europe and burn them, which they did. Guess what happened next. With no cats in Europe the rat population exploded and this brought on the Black Plague which was immediateley blamed on the Jews. So Christian superstition wiped out much of the population in Europe. Nowadays Christians are doing their best to cause another massive human tragedy by denying the science behind climate change. They want to stop medical progress by denying the science behind the use of embryonic stem cells. We can no longer let your evil religion stand in the way of advancing science. Move or get run over. Those are your only two choices. Science will sweep your religion into the dustbin of history. Something that should have been done about 2000 years ago.

    ” Certainly there is another side to the story if we go into that history, that you are not representing, but I still think that *much* (though certainly not all, or even most) of the reason for the complete fall of faith in Europe today traces to the evils you were referring to (even extracting the many errors you reported) with for instance the persecutions and even stake burnings brought on by even the Protestants.”

    >That is probably part of the reason. But people are running from Christianity in much larger numbers than ever before. According to Christian apologists 3 out of 4 Christian college students reject their faith before they graduate. So there have to be multiple reasons people are leaving the faith and in my discussions with ex-Christians this is what I have found to be true. Now Dr. Sarfati would probably tell us it’s the teaching of evolution that is causing people to leave the faith. I maintain that the ludicrous arguments creationists make against evolution, geology, cosmology, paleontology, astronomy – really all science is the cause of far more new unbelief than is the teaching of evolution. Dr. Sarfati with his war on science and Dr. Brown with his battle against gay marriage are doing a great job of killing their own religion. We atheists don’t have to do a thing except sit back and watch you people and your religion self-destruct.

    By the way, for you young earth creationists, Hank Hanegraaff, aka The Bible Answer Man, does a really thorough job of annihilating the arguments young earthers use to defend their beliefs. So you don’t even have to listen to or read what legitimate scientists have to say about Dr. Sarfati’s claims. You can hear your Christian brother Hank destroy them right on your own radio.

  27. – I’m quite sure no such person as Jesus Christ never (sic) existed.

    It just shows how blind you are Van. The vast number of totally secular scholars believe Jesus of Nazareth existed. I’ve tried to reason with you, as have others here, but you prove immune to even the most basic form of self-criticism.

    We can no longer let your evil religion stand in the way of advancing science. Move or get run over. Those are your only two choices.

    I take your threat very seriously. Hitler also wanted to do away with us, but I have news for you as well:

    62 The high priest stood up and said, “Have you no answer? What is it that they testify against you?” 63 But Jesus was silent. Then the high priest said to him, “I put you under oath before the living God, tell us if you are the Messiah, the Son of God.” 64 Jesus said to him, “You have said so. But I tell you, From now on you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven.” (Matthew 26:62-64)

  28. Van,

    I guess you have proven what you have proven to who you can prove it to. And I have done the same. The conversation seems to be over.

    I still find it strange that many intelligent people, some of them atheists,throughout the ages have come to believe in the reality of YHWH and Y’shua…both physically and spiritually and that you deny even the physical existence of Y’shua. It is your choice. They have investigated the evidence that has not changed much in 2000 years (except for more evidence for the accuracy of the Bible) and they think that it is proved beyond a reasonable doubt. I do not know of many believers in the gospel to have been scared into it. You think that that is the only reason for their belief. If that is what it takes for you to believe, I hope that you get scared out of your mind…and into your heart.

    Shalom

  29. Van, consistent with his evolutionary beliefs, still has a problem with truth. About Servetus, Van bloviates (October 30th, 2013 @ 12:48 pm):

    I never said Servetus was executed for his science. You asked for a scientist who had been executed. …

    Then he dreams:

    I set the trap and you stepped right in it. And you still can’t figure out what just happened.
    However, on October 26th, 2013 @ 9:03 pm, Van spruiked:

    Dr. Sarfati posted something that asked for the name of one scientist who was burned at the stake for his findings. Just one? That’s easy. How about Michael Servetus (1511-1553)? He was the Spanish physician who discovered pulmonary circulation. He wrote a book about his findings which was deemed to be heretical.

    Note how the italicized parts show that Van is lying. And he clearly implied that it was Servetus’ science that got him into trouble.

    Also, my original challenge was (October 8th, 2013 @ 11:44 am and October 25th, 2013 @ 2:17 pm) actually from an atheist, i.e. a hostile witness:

    The assertions collapse as soon as you hit them with hard evidence. I love to totally stump these propagators by asking them to present me with the name of one – just one – scientist burned, persecuted, or oppressed for their science in the Middle Ages.

    See, the challenge for Van, which he lies about, was to find a scientist executed for his science.

    About Van’s revisionism about Hitler (and who can trust someone who lies?), Germany was the place were Bible-denying liberal theology was rife. The Nazis planned to exterminate Christianity entirely. More documentation at The Darwin–Hitler connection.

  30. Excellent, Jonathan, some of those lies needed a rebuttal. As for Van’s desire to see us Christians “run over,” a part of the article Jonathan cited on the Nazis and Christianity nicely illustrates how this desire of Van’s actually fits in with the Nazi’s attempt to eradicate Christianity (citing Dinesh D’Souza):

    ‘In his multi-volume history of the Third Reich, historian Richard Evans writes that “the Nazis regarded the churches as the strongest and toughest reservoirs of ideological opposition to the principles they believed in.” Once Hitler and the Nazis came to power, they launched a ruthless drive to subdue and weaken the Christian churches in Germany. Evans points out that after 1937 the policies of Hitler’s government became increasingly anti-religious.

    The Nazis stopped celebrating Christmas, and the Hitler Youth recited a prayer thanking the Fuhrer rather than God for their blessings. Clergy regarded as “troublemakers” were ordered not to preach, hundreds of them were imprisoned, and many were simply murdered. Churches were under constant Gestapo surveillance. The Nazis closed religious schools, forced Christian organizations to disband, dismissed civil servants who were practicing Christians, confiscated church property, and censored religious newspapers. Poor Sam Harris [atheist propagandist] cannot explain how an ideology [Nazism] that Hitler and his associates perceived as a repudiation of Christianity can be portrayed as a “culmination” of Christianity.31

    Indeed, the Nuremberg prosecutor, General William Donovan, documented copious proof that the Nazis planned to exterminate Christianity. The documents are now being posted online at the Rutgers Journal of Law and Religion. Indeed, the Nazis wiped out 3 million Polish Christians (see Poland’s Holocaust: 6 million citizens dead: (3 million Christians and 3 million Jews).

  31. “Van, consistent with his evolutionary beliefs, still has a problem with truth”. I have seen many young Earth creationists who have a problem with truth (or than Bible theology).

    Jonathan – head of science at CMI I believe – should note that 36 hours I sent the following email to CMI via their website:


    https://www.facebook.com/creationministries
    Please tell me why I was suddenly and without warning banned from your Facebook page yesterday? In addition, all my posts in the humans – chimps thread were removed. One informed somebody that human DNA is NOT closer to bananas than chimps. Another informed somebody else that evolution theory does NOT say monkeys turn into humans and that we are descended from apes.
    I’m a longstanding opponent of YEC creationist dogma but not anti-Christian. I contend that I did NOT break the rules of your page by ‘trolling’ or posting links to other websites. I am not aware than any other user complained about my behaviour.
    I’m also flagging my enquiry at the BCSE community forum – which Dr Sarfati and others know about. Obviously, if you respond to my enquiry I will also post your response there. Equally, if you fail to respond I also plan to flag that.
    Please tell me why I was silently banned and whether the ban is permanent. I’m under an impression that I have been banned for politely correcting nonsensical statements by others.”

  32. Ashley,

    Some times the squeaky wheel gets replaced instead of greased. 🙂 And squeaking about it afterwards on other machines does not necessarily convince the mechanic to try you out again.

    Life is not fair and freedom of speech is only guaranteed, though often not granted (creationism in public schools anyone), in the public arena and not in private venues. Sometimes we need to get over it and move on.

    No one likes a tattle tale or a whining little kid that thinks he always gets the smaller half of the candy bar. And he is liked even less when he makes it his campaign to let everyone know how badly he has been treated.

    I am not saying that you are these things, but a short pause for self evaluation may be in order.

    Shalom

  33. Bo

    Since Dr Sarfati is back on this thread and accusing evolutionists of ‘having a problem with truth’ it is in order and relevant for me to point out that so do Creation Ministries International. They have YET even to acknowledge my enquiry about their Facebook page. If they refuse to explain themselves I will conclude that I was NOT banned for breaking their rules but for posting facts and for what I MIGHT do by way of posting facts if I was not stopped.

    Many YECs have a problem with free speech and readily censor (as I’ve detailed at the BCSE community forum). Why? Because the scientific evidence is not – with the odd rare exception perhaps – on their side. They don’t want anybody pointing out to their fans the shortcomings of their pseudo-science.

    Shalom

  34. Ashley,

    Nevertheless it seems that you are using a form of extortion and threating…and whining, if I may say so. Do you not think that public education censors out creationism and intelligent design? When the shoe is on the other foot it becomes uncomfortable…no? Some forums are open to every topic and its intricacies…others are not. If you want to be heard on creationist forums because you think it is just and fair, why don’t you lobby for creationism and intelligent design to be taught along side evolution in the classroom? Fair is fair.

    Shalom

  35. Your comparisons between my recent comments here and public education are entirely inappropriate. In the former facts are censored. In science education what is ‘censored’ is pseudo-science.

    It is rather ironic that a creationist seeks to preach ‘fairness’ since they generally detest notions of fairness or tolerance because they are alien to the Bible.

  36. Ashley,

    I was not preaching fairness. I was exhorting you to not think that you deserve “fair”. Life is not fair. Creationist websites are not fair. Public education is not fair. Just deal with it. And no my comments about public education are not inappropriate. You want to have your cake and eat it too. If you lambaste someone for removing your comments then you should allow creationist comments in school. If you attempt to use a form extortion to get your way, you should allow the same tactics to be used for creationists to get their way in education.

    That is all I was saying.

    Pseudo-science is in the eye of the beholder. The latest news is that the scientific establishment can’t find any dark matter that should be there according to their theory. If it is in fact not there, they have been teaching pseudo-science. The same goes for evolution.

    Shalom

  37. Ashley,

    Your wrote:
    “…creationist[s]…generally detest notions of fairness or tolerance because they are alien to the Bible.

    Are you enough of a Bible scholar to state emphatically that fairness and tolerance is not in the Bible? Or are you just “scientifically” emoting?

    Shalom

  38. Bo
    There is a difference between a public education system and a discussion forum. Is there not?
    If I misunderstood you perhaps you should not have said “fair is fair”.
    I am grateful that Michael Brown allows disagreement here. Outfits like CMI tend to stamp on disagreement, on their Facebook pages or blogs, with their position (even from those already familiar with their website articles).
    Your claim that I am somehow using ‘extortion’ is lie.
    “The same goes for evolution.” What on EARTH has dark matter got to do with evolution? Or should that be evilution?
    I am not aware that the Bible ever preaches ‘fairness’ in English translations. Justice yes, ‘fairness’ no.
    http://answersforhope.com/q-answers-hope-disable-comments-videos/
    Ashley

  39. Ashley,

    No dark matter…no evolution. Both are pseudo-science. Not proven, but taught as fact.

    The parable is about: A deal is a deal. It is about not being envious and covetous. If we agree to work for a dollar a day and someone else agrees for a dollar for the last hour. The owner is righteous if he keeps his end of the deal. We have no right to complain or think that we deserve more. The vineyard owner is generous to offer a good paying job to whoever will come and work. Does that vineyard owner owe those that refuse to work anything, though?

    I once had a car full of 10 children, all mine, that were complaining about something not being fair. I told them that tomorrow all of us would have fair. They were ecstatic. I wasn’t, because I was one of the all of us. They did not realize that I was being generous to supply half a candy bar to each to them. They all got more than they deserved. They should have been thankful instead of envious about a couple of percent difference in amounts.

    Well, my second born son was completely handicapped. He was about 16 and had never spoken or fed himself and was completely immobile. To make it fair, we all had to come down to his level. We had to eat only what he could eat and only play the way he could. He could not chew, so he ate applesauce and baby food.

    I could have made it worse and made all of us wear diapers and not be allowed to use the toilet…I was not comfortable with things being that fair. Nonetheless, the point was made quite well. None of us ever wanted fair again.

    Fair is not good for anybody. Justice is good for everybody because the final outcome can be known in advance and can be counted on. That is what we need…justice. We will all have justice in the end. Some of us will have our punishment paid for by a generous Messiah. It will not matter if we served Him from our youth or gave our life to him in the last moment. (Though I wouldn’t try to time it that close.)

    Those that have refused to work in the vineyard will not get the reward of the all day long workers or the last minute workers. And it will be justice that they get too. And since they have no savior but themselves, they will have to pay themselves.

    I still say that threatening to flag and bringing a problem in front of an unrelated group and trying to force an answer with a threat involved is a form of extortion. The owner of the website was being generous to let you post at all. You being envious of what others get to do is not being thankful for what you did receive.

    Shalom

  40. Bo

    You are a liar. Extortion is threating to do something bad if you don’t receive something. Re-read my message to CMI and kindly stop trying to twist my words.

    “No dark matter…no evolution”. Kindly explain why not.

    YECs don’t believe in fairness. I do – where it is possible to identify what is fair and ensure that comes about as far as humanly possible. You are an apologist for unfair behaviour.

  41. All I was ‘threatening’ was either to reproduce their response or signal that they failed to respond – the choice being theirs. The BCSE community forum serves as a place to bring to light those things creationists prefer would remain hidden from view. But it is open to ALL and disagreements and corrections are permitted.

  42. Asley,

    I do not think that you allowed to call me a liar on this website. I am not one and I did not lie. My opinion is that you are using force to gain something or to discredit someone if they do not comply. Posting your intentions and threats on this site to gain attention is not appropriate. I think that you are tattle tailing and whining. I was encouraging you to step up and be a man.

    I know nothing of BCSE, and it sounds like a big place to complain about mistreatment instead of a place where actual science is discussed on level terms. If it is open to all then it is open to all. If the site that unposted your comments is not then it is not.

    And no, I am not an apologist for unfair behavior. I just know that there is unfairness in this world at every turn, and that complaining about it does more harm than good. If you really want fair, I suggest that you go to a third world country and divest all your wealth to some tribal village and live their with them in fairness. If you have more than the poorest people do, you do not really want what is “fair as far as [is] humanly possible.”

    Does you concept of “humanly possible” carry with it the notion of a deity that is more capable?…just wondering.

    One more time.
    There is no proof of dark matter.
    There is no proof of evolution.
    They have both been taught as fact by the pseudo-science establishment that is known as public education.
    Religion is the entity that teaches things as fact to which there is no testable proof.
    Real science does not.
    Evolution and the big bang are basically religion and not real science.

    And I am not saying that real scientists do not gather information and do real experiments inside these frameworks…they do. It is just that the framework is a belief system and not science.

    Justice will be served in the end…not fairness. A deal is a deal. Justice is a bigger and manlier idea than fairness. I trust in the former. I like the phrase, “with liberty and justice for all.” It just wouldn’t be as good if we substituted, “with liberty and fairness for all.”

    Shalom

  43. Boy, my spelling and typos were bad in that last post.

    As an added thought…we cannot have fairness and freedom at the same time. To force someone to be fair is take away his liberty. Justice does not do this. It produces the framework for the possibility of real freedom. Liberty without justice is anarchy…and there is no real freedom in that.

    So I guess that I am an apologist for justice, but I am still fine with trying to cut the birthday cake into equal shares for those that come to my party. But if someone complains about getting the smallest piece, I will still hold that they got more than they worked for and should not be covetous and envious.

    Shalom

Leave Your Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


*