The greatest hoax on earth ?

50


Discussion by: Nathan Henderson
Recently, I have been rather obliged to read the book ‘The Greatest Hoax On Earth, refuting Dawkins on evolution’ by a friend, because I made him read the original Dawkins book, and I have written a 20 page response to the hideously erroneous and pseudo-scientific book. Before giving it to him, I was wondering if anyone else had read this book, and if so, do you have any points that could go into my response ? Thankyou 

50 COMMENTS

  1. Is there an on-line version we could peruse? I’d hate to buy the book and fund a person who is willing to write such a thing, let alone one who hasn’t had the good decency to go live in a cave afterwards.

    Posting your response as well would be helpful. Even if some of us haven’t read The Greatest Hoax, we might be able to correct/improve what you already have written.

  2. Have not read it and cant find any parts of the text online but here is a Youtube interview with the “expert”, there is link to the second part on the same page: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxJMMpTgDDo

    I did not have time to watch it all, although as he seems to be basing part of his argument on the size of Noah’s ark I am not sure how much of it I could stomach. Good luck to all who try.

    Finally, hello, I have been lurking around here for some while but only got round to signing up today.

    • In reply to #6 by Ignorant Amos:

      The book was also a discussion thread on the old site at…

      The Greatest Hoax on Earth – a new flea

      …and here…

      The Greatest Hoax on Earth? New Book Challenges Richard Dawkins on Evolution

      I just looked at your links to the old discussions. It seems to be quite an old flea!

      The Greatest Hoax on Earth? Refuting Dawkins on Evolution provides a penetrating examination of Dr Dawkins’ anti-creationist magnum opus. Drawing on his extensive knowledge of biology, geology, fossils, radiometric dating, and more, Dr. Sarfati thoroughly exposes the bankruptcy of Dawkins’ arguments.

      He seems to have missed out the key words!

      Drawing on his extensive YOUNG EARTH CREATIONIST PSEUDOSCIENTIFIC “knowledge” of biology, geology, fossils, radiometric dating, and more BIBLICAL LITERALISM and YEC DRIVEL! .. .. . .. Sarfati thoroughly exposes his cognitive biases and delusional ignorance.

      I will not waste my time on this opinionated idiot. Anyone who claims to have “REFUTED EVOLUTION”, or claims a “Young Earth”, is a scientific illiterate!

      If something specific turns up, I may step in to shoot it down.

      The greatest hoax on earth?

      YECs love reverse projection! – Creationism is indeed, “The Greatest Hoax on Earth”!

      • In reply to #12 by Alan4discussion:

        I just looked at your links to the old discussions. It seems to be quite an old flea!

        It is Alan, but Nathan appears to be relatively new to the site and wouldn’t be aware of them. I thought it couldn’t do any harm to let him know the “Hoax” flea had been discussed elsewhere…seeing as he has had to accept the challenge of reading the bilge as an exercise in parity of esteem.

        • In reply to #13 by Ignorant Amos:

          In reply to #12 by Alan4discussion:

          I just looked at your links to the old discussions. It seems to be quite an old flea!

          It is Alan, but Nathan appears to be relatively new to the site and wouldn’t be aware of them. I thought it couldn’t do any harm to let him know the “Hoax” flea had been discussed elsewhere…seeing as he has had to accept the challenge of reading the bilge as an exercise in parity of esteem.

          He would find that useful. Two of the most useful posts on one of your links were these:-

          Comment 62 by Roger Stanyard

          Just noticed that Sarfati’s tome is not published by any reputable publisher let alone a science book publisher.

          Instead it was published by an extreme fundie out:

          “Creation Book Publishers was founded in 2006 to further a Biblical understanding of God’s Creation. We’re committed to publishing books that promote a literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis, that defend the authority of Scripture, and that further the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.”

          So now you know Sarfati’s book isn’t science.

          Comment 67 by Roger Stanyard

          Just checked. Guess who owns Creation Book Publishers – there’s nothing on its web site to say so.

          It’s Creation Ministries International! Same PO box as CMI’s US subsidiary.

          Vanity Publishing!

          • *In reply to #24 by Alan4discussion

            Roger was a staunch advocate against the creationist bollocks in the UK…his input here is sorely missed.

            He also spoke his mind, which I admire.

      • Ignorant Amos @ Comment 46

        To Stickler – Is there a particular argument in the ‘hoax’ book that has got your dander up and isn’t properly addressed by real scientists elsewhere?

        I did point out as long ago as comment 12, that if someone brought a particular issue from the book I would be prepared to shoot it down!

        • #12 by Alan4discussion:*

        He seems to have missed out the key words!

        Drawing on his extensive YOUNG EARTH CREATIONIST PSEUDOSCIENTIFIC “knowledge” of biology, geology, fossils, radiometric dating, and more BIBLICAL LITERALISM and YEC DRIVEL! .. .. . .. Sarfati thoroughly exposes his cognitive biases and delusional ignorance.

        I will not waste my time on this opinionated idiot. Anyone who claims to have “REFUTED EVOLUTION”, or claims a “Young Earth”, is a scientific illiterate!

        If something specific turns up, I may step in to shoot it down.

        But nobody has quoted anything new!

    • In reply to #6 by Ignorant Amos:

      The Greatest Hoax on Earth? New Book Challenges Richard Dawkins on Evolution

      I love the title. What a complete misunderstanding. It should be

      New Book Challenges 1 million scientists on Evolution

      (Actually I’ve no idea how many scientists that should be the 1 million is a guess. Maybe it should be 10 million.)

      Michael

    • Maybe just perhaps. I thought, really in the relativistic tradition that is flourishing, could you theorize everything else? Just suppose? Yes. Just suppose.

      In reply to #7 by Mbee:

      I thought I had seen a review of this somewhere but cannot track it down. Anyone else seen it?
      I also won’t fork out the money to buy it and support these people.I

  3. A word of warning Nathan…the author, an arsehole named Safarti, is a member of Creation Ministries International, a group of clowns that believe dinosaurs were running about medieval Britain…I shit you not.

    “Other well-known stories involving medieval heroes and dragons include Siegfried of the ancient Teutons (possibly the same person as Sigurd of Old Norse, who slew a monster named Fafnir), Tristan (or Tristram), King Arthur, and Sir Lancelot, of Britain, and perhaps the most famous of all, St George who became the patron saint of England.”

    “Although doubtless over the years many of these dragon stories and drawings have gained embellishments, the fact of their virtual worldwide existence, and the many items of similarity between the creatures slain and known dinosaur fossils, clearly point to an underlying reality. Modern children’s story books about dragons invariably have drawings of fairy-tale creatures, but according to Paul Taylor, who has done extensive research on this issue, many (perhaps most) of the historical dragon stories do not have this imaginative element; usually the more ancient stories are more matter-of-fact in quality, while the more recent ones tend to be more fantastic. One explanation of this could be that as the evidence in the form of the dinosaurs became extinct, the storytellers felt free to make their stories more marvellous and to combine the features of several dragons into one.”

    Abandon brain all ye who enter here

    • In reply to #8 by Ignorant Amos:

      .”Abandon brain all ye who enter here

      Thanks for that. I didn’t know that one of the reasons creationists don’t like the idea of fossils, at least those apparently more than 6000 years old, was because there is evidence of death and suffering, which cannonically can’t have happened before “Adam’s actions … brought death into the world.”

      Always learning ’round here…..

      • In reply to #10 by djs56:

        I didn’t know that one of the reasons creationists don’t like the idea of fossils, at least those apparently more than 6000 years old, was because there is evidence of death and suffering, which cannonically can’t have happened before “Adam’s actions … brought death into the world.”

        Creationist sites are highly entertaining. The lengths the fuckwits will run to in order to shoehorn reality into scripture is flabbergasting. These are so-called educated people BTW.

        Take the problem of dinosaurs on the ark…

        “Although there are about 668 names of dinosaurs, there are perhaps only 55 different ‘kinds’ of dinosaurs. Furthermore, not all dinosaurs were huge like the Brachiosaurus, and even those dinosaurs on the Ark were probably ‘teenagers’ or young adults. Indeed, dinosaurs were recently discovered to go through a growth spurt, so God could have brought dinosaurs of the right age to start this spurt as soon as they disembarked.”

        So, 55 pairs of dinosaur infants among the 8,000 other pairs of “kinds”. All looked after by a 600 year old man, his missus and four others, for 6 months. Seems plausible enough to me…NOT!

        Always learning ’round here…..

        Me too.

  4. a group of clowns that believe dinosaurs were running about medieval Britain…I shit you not.

    Why? That makes perfectly good sense. Where do you think all those stories of fire breathing dragons originated? Haven’t you noticed the similarity in appearance between dragons and various dinosaurs?

    I checked my local library system (quite large – continuously gets national awards…) They don’t carry it. I even searched under his name – nothing. I found three copies in other libraries in my state. Richard’s Greatest show on earth – 15 copies plus 5 audio versions within my library system alone. Maybe you should start by asking your friend why this book is not considered legitimate by major library systems – one in particular that doesn’t censor but clearly doesn’t see a need in buying it.

  5. I haven’t read the book, but surely the title alone is not logically possible.

    ‘Dawkins on evolution’ presumably means Dawkins’ gene centric view of evolution. Since the gene-centric approach is a different interpretation of evolution rather than a change of any of the facts of evolution, it is surely impossible for it to be a hoax, since there is no factual difference with Darwinian evolution on which any hoax could exist.

    Unless they mean evolution itself is a hoax… in which case we hardly need read it.

  6. There is no alternate theory of life. Evolution, especially with its modern synthesis, tells all. Read on about alternate theories, but nothing can refute Darwin and DNA and Haldane et al.

    • In reply to #19 by kcjones10:

      There is no alternate theory of life. Evolution, especially with its modern synthesis, tells all. Read on about alternate theories, but nothing can refute Darwin and DNA and Haldane et al.

      There are plenty of new theories and studies on particular features of genetics, and of the life-cycles and evolutionary developments of particular species.

      BUT: There are no creationist scientific alternative “theories” of life. They just keep pretending that science, (pushing out the boundaries and frontiers of knowledge), is going to discover their god in his little gap! (Neuroscientists already have – but creationists insist on looking away from material scientific answers – with heads buried in the bronze-age.)

      They are also ignorant enough to think that scientific laws are going to be torn up and rewritten in their entirety! (The “New Creationist Fizzicks” that is going to refute gravity etc.)

      As regards the number of copies of this book he claims to have printed, we should bear in mind the level of capability in YEC arithmetic – any digital computation that does not include counting fingers and thumbs, is likely to be wrong by many orders of magnitude.

  7. All of these anti-evolution books would carry so much more weight if the authors actually believed what they wrote. These authors will write page after page explaining why evolution is wrong yet will trust their lives and the lives of their families on medicine that is based firmly on evolutionary biology. Seems to me a non-sequitur that should be pointed out to them repeatedly. Why should anyone believe anything that they write when their own conduct and lifestyle shows conclusively that they don’t believe it either. Wearing t-shirts with witty sayings, sporting bumper stickers and the weekly visit to St. Hypocrite’s Church means nothing.

  8. i’m begining to see a pattern emerging here.

    “god is no delusion”, “the dawkins delusion”, “the greatest hoax on earth”, “Letter from a christian citizen”,”actually god really is great so now who looks stupid?” (OK i made that one up but i might use it if i get short of cash)… there’s even a “Freedom From Atheism Foundation”!!! I found it on facebook.

    is this all religion has to offer? titles that effectively say “I know you are but what am I?” do authors of these fleas which, presumibly (like others here i’m buggered if i’m wasting any valuable reading time on that gobshite) harp on about lovely stuff in the bible and trot out every falacy in creationist bingo while evading actual evidence based points, actually do any work other than sit around judging a book by its cover then deciding the most original thing they could do is copy the cover?

    I guess when writing a hymnbook for the choir, content is nothing compared to an attempt at a pithy put-down of the title of a best seller but will someone please think of the poor trees?!!!

    • In reply to #28 by PlagioClase:

      What is the answer Sarfati’s stuff about molecular homologies? He seems to have addressed RD’s material pretty thoroughly. Has it been responded to anywhere?

      I don’t know what tripe Sarfati wrote, but here is a simple explanation of ;-

      Homologies: cellular/molecular evidence http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/lines

      All living things are fundamentally alike. At the cellular and molecular level living things are remarkably similar to each other. These fundamental similarities are most easily explained by evolutionary theory: life shares a common ancestor.

      Different species share genetic homologies as well as anatomical ones. Roundworms, for example, share 25% of their genes with humans. These genes are slightly different in each species, but their striking similarites nevertheless reveal their common ancestry. In fact, the DNA code itself is a homology that links all life on Earth to a common ancestor. DNA and RNA possess a simple four-base code that provides the recipe for all living things. In some cases, if we were to transfer genetic material from the cell of one living thing to the cell of another, the recipient would follow the new instructions as if they were its own.

      These characteristics of life demonstrate the fundamental sameness of all living things on Earth and serve as the basis of today’s efforts at genetic engineering.

      Here is a National Center for Science Education critique of creationists publication “Exploring Evolution”- on “Molecular Homology”, which probably answers the points.
      http://ncse.com/creationism/analysis/molecular-homology – It exposes the usual creationists false assertions, scientific illiteracy, and misquotations of scientists.

      If you want to look at creation nuttery look here

      http://creationwiki.org/Homology
      The concept of homology (as proof of Darwinism) is commonly taught as a matter of fact in public schools. Prentice Hall Biology, which may be the most widely used Biology textbook in U.S. public schools, describes homology as follows.

      “ By Darwin’s time, researchers had noticed striking anatomical similarities among the body parts of animals with backbones. For example, the limbs of reptiles, birds, and mammals—arms, wings, legs, and flippers—vary greatly in form and function. Yet, they are all constructed from the same basic bones, as shown in the figure at right. Each of these limbs has adapted in ways that enable organisms to survive in different environments. Despite these different functions, however, these limb bones all develop from the same clumps of cells in embryos. Structures that have different mature forms but develop from the same embryonic tissues are called homologous structures. Homologous structures provide strong evidence that all four-limbed vertebrates have descended, with modifications, from common ancestors.[3] ”

      In contrast, creationists view most “homologous” structures as a reflection that they were designed by the same creator. It is held that a brilliant and well functioning design would be applied to multiple organisms, much in the same way as human designers apply concepts.

      Jonathan Sarfati speaks to the significant of molecular homology from the creation point of view in his book Refuting Evolution 2.

      There is more about him on the link.

      It looks like the usual pretence that structurally similar body parts cannot have evolved from common ancestors, so must have been designed. It is just the usual incredulity , straw-manning, and clueless false assertions.

      They seem to be trying to extend this nonsense into “creationist pseudo-genetics” to blind the ordinary citizen with (pseudo)science, by bandying around a few scientific terms.

    • In reply to #28 by PlagioClase:

      What is the answer Sarfati’s stuff about molecular homologies? He seems to have addressed RD’s material pretty thoroughly. Has it been responded to anywhere?

      The answer is really quite simple: – While people like myself have been studying the competition and Natural Selection within ecosystems in order to understand both the history, and the on-going course of evolution of some of the millions of species on this planet, Sarfati has been fumbling his way through scientific papers he does not understand, to try to cast doubt on evolution by concocting misleading claims about particular features of it, in order to try to give credibility to the biblical stories of creation and Noah’s Ark.

      I have not read this particular book, but I have looked at some of his claims on the “creationwiki link”, where it is obvious to biologists who are familiar with the organisms and structures he mentions, that he has no idea what he is talking about.

      Unsurprising when considering the opinions of anyone who has rejected the Classification of genetic relationships in the International Rules of Zoological (and Botanical) Nomenclature (used by all the biologists on Earth), in favour of the creationist classification by “Kinds of animals on Noah’s Ark”, – which competent professionals laugh at!

      Even in the unlikely event of him succeeding in showing that some particular scientific study of a particular organism was flawed, – there are at least another couple of million other organisms on the planet, and thousands of competent studies of these showing details of their evolution.

  9. Perhaps Nathan should ask his friend what happened to the vocal cords of snakes. Seems they must have evolved out of existence, since Eve’s time ! Hmm signs of vestigial legs in modern snakes though !

  10. There are lots of critcal (1- and 2-star) reviews of this book on Amazon.com as well as many sycophantic 5-star, one or two sentence reviews from the faithful. There are also very extensive comments under many of the reviews, including David Levin’s, which reached the Amazon limit of 10,000 comments! I have never seen a review of the book in the science media.

    • In reply to #32 by Stickler:

      I have never seen a review of the book in the science media.

      I think there is as much chance of publications from Creation Ministries International, being peer-reviewed in the science media, as there is for astrologers’ fortune-telling being peer-reviewed in the astronomical journals!

      • In reply to #33 by Alan4discussion:

        Point taken, but these books are believed by a vast number of people, particularly in the US, and I think real scientists should take the time to refute them instead of just ignoring them. It is a constant battle here countering such nonsense, given the propensity of school boards and home-schoolers to look favorably on them. This type of book is too dangerous to simply ignore and the more critical reviews there are by qualified people the better. By the way, Sarfati himself participated in some of the discussions on Amazon.com, and he did a good job of confirming a previous evaluation that I saw on the web – namely that he is “an unpleasant, theocratic bully without a shred of intellectual honesty”.

        • In reply to #34 by Stickler:

          Point taken, but these books are believed by a vast number of people, particularly in the US, and I think real scientists should take the time to refute them instead of just ignoring them. It is a constant battle here countering such nonsense, given the propensity of school boards and home-schoolers to look favorably on them.

          I sympathise with the situation in the US, and provide material on this site when the issues arise. The pseudoscientist crowd are devious but usually very inept.

          If you want an example, have a look at this discussion http://www.richarddawkins.net/news-articles/2013/2/26/how-dinosaurs-grew-the-world-s-longest-necks?category=Science# at Alan4discussion comment 8.

          This type of book is too dangerous to simply ignore and the more critical reviews there are by qualified people the better.

          The problem is, that there are no limits on what the dedicated deluded minds can make up, or what lies they will tell while posing as pseudo-experts. Scientists are usually busy pushing forward the frontiers of real science. (It’s a bit like why astronauts are not busy refuting Flat-Earthists!)

          By the way, Sarfati himself participated in some of the discussions on Amazon.com, and he did a good job of confirming a previous evaluation that I saw on the web – namely that he is “an unpleasant, theocratic bully without a shred of intellectual honesty”.

          This type of theocratic bully, is best exposed as a gross incompetent, and then ridiculed in front of an audience. They have no shame!

          They keep trying here in the UK, but the majority of our children are protected – at least in science classes – by government OFSTED inspectors.

          In my own locality, I spent several years as chair of the board of governors at my children’s school, and as a metropolitan area parent representative at the Local Education Authority.

          • In reply to #35 by Alan4discussion:

            This type of theocratic bully, is best exposed as a gross incompetent, and then ridiculed in front of an audience. They have no shame!

            Exactly, that is why we need more critical reviews of books like Sarfati’s by practicing scientists. I’m not talking about peer-reviewed papers in journals, but book reviews on the internet or in science magazines – detailed reviews that expose the half-truths, distortions and omissions that are obvious to scientists but not to folks who want to believe that evolution is a lie. However, it is also apparent that Sarfati is a more formidable opponent than the guy with the BA (biology/bible) you mentioned. For starters, he has a real PhD in physical chemistry, although as far as I know he has never had an actual career in science, and people who are believers tend to trust him even when (as most of the time) he is talking about biology that lies well outside his area. In any event, I hope that Nathan Henderson posts his review here and hopefully elsewhere, for example on Amazon.com.

          • In reply to #36 by Stickler:

            In reply to #35 by Alan4discussion:

            This type of theocratic bully, is best exposed as a gross incompetent, and then ridiculed in front of an audience. They have no shame!

            Exactly, that is why we need more critical reviews of books like Sarfati’s by practicing scientists. I’m not talking about peer-reviewed papers in journals, but book reviews on the internet or in science magazines – detailed reviews that expose the half-truths, distortions and omissions that are obvious to scientists but not to folks who want to believe that evolution is a lie.

            However, it is also apparent that Sarfati is a more formidable opponent than the guy with the BA (biology/bible) you mentioned. For starters, he has a real PhD in physical chemistry, although as far as I know he has never had an actual career in science, and people who are believers tend to trust him even when (as most of the time) he is talking about biology that lies well outside his area. In any event, I hope that Nathan Henderson posts his review here and hopefully elsewhere, for example on Amazon.com.

            I largely agree, but as a strategy, I think picking out a few key elements and ridiculing them, as I did with the “Bible Biologist”, is much better than getting bogged down in details of whole books. (The links I put on that discussion, could be used by anyone challenging YECs about the evolution of vertebrate legs)

            There is no point in discussing details of science for sheeple audiences. Usually “YEC experts” are abysmally ignorant of biology and planetary sciences, regardless of any academic qualifications they may have managed to acquire, so they regularly make howlers in their claims, and frequently copy nonsense from each other.

            They love finding some obscure subject, too complex to quickly explain to novices, and then make stupid assertions which they claim cannot be refuted!

            Their gullibles who come here, are usually just quoting from some “scientists cannot answer list” on a cretinist website or book. The gullibles will have no understanding of ANY scientific answer they are given if they are the usual scientific illiterates, but will play the usual “cheer-leaders for ignorance” game, claiming these “expert” idiots are “superior” experts to the world’s top scientists!

            Have a look around the discussions and archives on this site, and you will see examples of the dissections of “flea-books” and the put-downs of the opinionated ignorant which can be used elsewhere!

        • In reply to #34 by Stickler:

          Point taken, but these books are believed by a vast number of people, particularly in the US, and I think real scientists should take the time to refute them instead of just ignoring them.

          You mean a book like “The Greatest Show on Earth” or “Why Evolution is True” or “Your Inner Fish” or “Climbing Mount Improbable” or “The Blind Watchmaker” or “The Ancestors Tale” or “Darwin’s Dangerous Idea” or….well, you get the picture.

          I think scientists do a reasonable job of presenting the evidence to refute the nonsense to those who seek it. Taking individual examples and giving them a stage “Will look better on their CV, than on mine” to paraphrase Richard Dawkins. Those that pick up a flea book are not interested in it being refuted…they have the “trooooof” on their side.

          It is a constant battle here countering such nonsense, given the propensity of school boards and home-schoolers to look favorably on them.

          Imbeciles cannot be forced to read the science.

          This type of book is too dangerous to simply ignore and the more critical reviews there are by qualified people the better.

          They are not ignored…

          Best Books on Evolution…

          By the way, Sarfati himself participated in some of the discussions on Amazon.com, and he did a good job of confirming a previous evaluation that I saw on the web – namely that he is “an unpleasant, theocratic bully without a shred of intellectual honesty”.

          Agreed…he’s a weasel. So I can’t figure out why you would expect any reputable scientist to even bother giving him the time of the day, let alone engage in refuting his bullshit scribblings.

  11. In reply to #37 by Alan4discussion:

    Have a look around the discussions and archives on this site, and you will see examples of the dissections of “flea-books” and the put-downs of the opinionated ignorant which can be used elsewhere!

    I have, and in my view just throwing out a few Wikipedia references will not do the trick. The reviews and discussions on Amazon have done a much better job of dismantling ‘Hoax’ than anything I have seen on this site. I’m done here.

    • In reply to #38 by Stickler:

      The reviews and discussions on Amazon have done a much better job of dismantling ‘Hoax’ than anything I have seen on this site. I’m done here.

      So that which you desired is already being done on Amazon…so your point here is??? What??? To let the members here know how incompetent a job they are doing here with all those silly wiki links??? I smell a Poe.

      There are many scientists that comment here…some, like Alan4discussion are even biologists would ya believe? I’d rather they used their time commenting on here, where their contributions are invaluable, than waste their time elsewhere thank you very much.

      You want scientists to give recognition the pish in this flea book authored by a low life liar, as worthy of addressing, so that an audience that has no interest in reading such a rebuttal, can, well, just ignore it, in the same way they ignore the mountains of literature that is already available refuting the nonsense in this ‘hoax’ nonsense??? Priceless!

    • In reply to #38 by Stickler:

      In reply to #37 by Alan4discussion:

      Have a look around the discussions and archives on this site, and you will see examples of the dissections of “flea-books” and the put-downs of the opinionated ignorant which can be used elsewhere!

      I have, and in my view just throwing out a few Wikipedia references will not do the trick. The reviews and discussions on Amazon have done a much better job of dismantling ‘Hoax’ than anything I have seen on this site. I’m done here.

      Pity you did not make it as far as the Recommended Reading section! http://old.richarddawkins.net/pages/books

      Ignorant Amos @40

      There are many scientists that comment here…some, like Alan4discussion are even biologists would ya believe? I’d rather they used their time commenting on here, where their contributions are invaluable, than waste their time elsewhere thank you very much.

      Thanks for the appreciation. I have been a bit busy with some rocket-science over here. http://www.richarddawkins.net/news-articles/2013/3/21/voyager-1-space-probe-reaches-outer-fringe-of-solar-system#

  12. “I smell a poe”, and “Pity you didn’t make it as far as the recommended reading section”.

    That’s more like it guys, show some passion! Now if only you could channel some of that energy into actually describing for the uninitiated the distortions and misrepresentations in books like Sarfati’s, instead of merely dismissing them as ‘pish’, or nonsense wrtten by an ‘arsehole’ or low life liar, then you might accomplish something.

    I’m told that more than 40% of Americans reject evolution and accept some sort of creationism. Not all of them can be dismissed as idiots, but they believe books like Sarfati’s because it fits with their religious presuppositions. I still think the best way to combat such insanity is to point out in detail the actual errors and distortions in Sarfati’s dishonest handling of the evidence. Saying ‘pish’ does not do that, neither does providing a list of Dawkins’ books.

    And as we are actually all on the same side I resent being called a poe. Why do you suppose that I bothered to write a negative review of ‘Hoax’ on Amazon?

    • In reply to #42 by Stickler:

      Now if only you could channel some of that energy into actually describing for the uninitiated the distortions and misrepresentations in books like Sarfati’s,…

      We do…here on this site, when a creationist pitches up. The uninitiated are by virtue uninitiated because they can’t be bothered checking out the ‘real’ books on science based arguments. They are not interested. Heck, even the creationists that drop by here are not interested in facts. They are more into preaching with their fingers placed firmly in their ears. Where do you suggest one might take an argument to the creationist audience in order to make the point that the ‘nonsense’ in the creationist books is ‘pish’?

      As I’ve pointed out already, the scientific literature already exists, both on paper and on the web, to refute the ‘distortions and misrepresentations’ in this sort of book. It is only of any use to the reader with an open mind and there ain’t too many of those about among the religious.

      …instead of merely dismissing them as ‘pish’, or nonsense wrtten by an ‘arsehole’ or low life liar, then you might accomplish something.

      But that is what the are. The refutation of creation nonsense has been done since RD.net began ad infinitum, the fact that you are unaware is your problem and something you might want to get a grip on.

      How to refute creationist nonsense on transitional species

      How to refute Creationist with only a bucket of feces

      Creationist textbooks are garbage, creationist textbooks are garbage, creationist textbooks are garbage

      Creationist literature attacks human chromosome number 2 fusion point

      These are just a few examples of the type of thing. There are many more. The arguments are in the comments. There are many more arguments on discussion threads that have been taken off topic by the creationist visitors. So what is it you are looking for here?

      I’m told that more than 40% of Americans reject evolution and accept some sort of creationism. Not all of them can be dismissed as idiots,…

      Yes, on that particular subject, they can I’m afraid. I will grant the caveat of ignorance in many cases, but if the individual can’t be arsed to do the leg work and accepts the nonsense, then yes, they are idiots I’m afraid.

      …but they believe books like Sarfati’s because it fits with their religious presuppositions.

      Or brainwashing. Yet the same people cast of all the other presuppositions they are indoctrinated with as a child. Most of which are less outlandish than creationism.

      I still think the best way to combat such insanity is to point out in detail the actual errors and distortions in Sarfati’s dishonest handling of the evidence.

      Which is done here day and daily…and not just here, all over the internet. But you can lead a horse to water, ya can’t make it drink.

      Saying ‘pish’ does not do that, neither does providing a list of Dawkins’ books.

      The books were not only Dawkins’ books, but no matter, the fact that you are struggling to find refutations of the ‘pish’ is your problem…a basic understanding of the Google search engine should be amble for even the most ardent of knuckle dragging creationist so it should not be a challenge to someone as articulate as oneself.

      AIG Creation Museum refuted by fossils below museum

      Perhaps it is just this particular flea to which you are referring. Still, I don’t get your position on this at all. Even on some creationist websites the debate exists.

      Dawkins and The Greatest Hoax on Earth

      And as we are actually all on the same side I resent being called a poe.

      I apologize profusely. It is sometimes the modus operandi of the troll to pretend to be ‘on the same side’ in order to stir the nest. By suggesting that Safarti’s argument merits addressing while agreeing that his credentials show “an unpleasant, theocratic bully without a shred of intellectual honesty”, threw me.

      Why do you suppose that I bothered to write a negative review of ‘Hoax’ on Amazon?

      I don’t know that you did, but sure if you did, it proves nothing. I assume if you wrote a review though, you’ll agree that the book is a lot of nonsense…lest I say ‘pish’.

      • Pish
        a reaction of frustration meaning to strongly disagree, or to express disagreement on what somebody may have to say.
      • In reply to #43 by Ignorant Amos:

        I apologize profusely. It is sometimes the modus operandi of the troll to pretend to be ‘on the same side’ in order to stir the nest.

        Apology accepted, but you seem not to grasp the point that a vast number of people of faith believe that the specific book ‘Hoax’ refutes Dawkins’ ‘Greatest Show”. So what better place to counter that claim than to have the experts here on Dawkins’ site show exactly where Sarfati is playing fast and loose with the truth? That is presumably why Nathan Henderson came to the site with his question in the first place. That material, in turn, could then be cited by others anywhere else it is needed to make the point, for example in commenting on sycophantic 5-star reviews. But by ignoring that specific book, or only complaining in a generic sort of way about all creationist books, the actual content of ‘Hoax’ achieve just as much credibility amongst the faithful as you claim it does by being addressed. You can disagree, but so what, I really am done now.

        • In reply to #44 by Stickler:

          …, but you seem not to grasp the point that a vast number of people of faith believe that the specific book ‘Hoax’ refutes Dawkins’ ‘Greatest Show”.

          I grab the point very well indeed, I’ve been commenting here for many years.You are not grasping the point. The vast number of people of faith that believe that the specific book ‘Hoax’ refutes Dawkins’ ‘Greatest Show” are not the sort of folk who frequent this site. Further to that, those creationists that do pitch up here think they have an epiphany on the subject that will convert us all in an instant. They are not here to read creationist refuting article or even engage in rational discourse on the subject. It has all been seen before…many, many times.

          So what better place to counter that claim than to have the experts here on Dawkins’ site show exactly where Sarfati is playing fast and loose with the truth?

          That is presumably why Nathan Henderson came to the site with his question in the first place.

          Nathan was curious as to whether anyone else here had read the book. It seems there are two of you including Nathan. Given that only two appear to have read it, why don’t you critique it instead of criticizing the rest of us who have not read it and in turn, for not critiquing the bloody hoax book.

          That material, in turn, could then be cited by others anywhere else it is needed to make the point, for example in commenting on sycophantic 5-star reviews.

          Go for it then.

          But by ignoring that specific book, or only complaining in a generic sort of way about all creationist books, the actual content of ‘Hoax’ achieve just as much credibility amongst the faithful as you claim it does by being addressed.

          Why? WTF makes that particular creationist nonsense get a special place in your opinion? “Credibility amongst the faithful” is a bit of an oxymoron, but who cares? Where do you draw the line on refuting individual creationist pish? Is there a particular argument in the ‘hoax’ book that has got your dander up and isn’t properly addressed by real scientists elsewhere?

          You can disagree, but so what,I really am done now.

          Jeebus wept…probably best, because I get the feeling you are a bit angry that none of the rest of us wasted our time and money buying this nonsense to read and refute it. Maybe Nathan will submit his 20 page summation to the mods for consideration, in the meantime, maybe you’d like to put your money where your mouth is instead of griping about all the slackers on here?

  13. It’s published by the YEC “Creation Ministries” – Review done!
    Anybody with more than half a brain will notice when this is pointed out. Anybody who orders books from “Creation Ministries”, cannot have much of an intellect or a propensity to try to understand science, anyway.

    Why would real scientists grace Safarti’s arguments with a review? As I pointed out earlier;- pick out a few examples of dishonesty or gross incompetence and ridicule the nonsense.

    He’s a YOUNG EARTH CREATIONIST PSEUDOSCIENTIFIC “expert” on biology, geology, fossils, and radiometric dating, – There should be plenty of scope there!

  14. I have never read the book, but now I might. I find it funny how many religious apologists try and use science to validate their claims. It all ends up being psuedo-science and circular logic tainted with massive amounts of regress.

  15. All your comments have been very helpful, and although this topic seems to have been debated in another thread, thankyou for your support. I shall not bother to type up my response because it is written for the most lamentably ignorant, which you guys aren’t. A lot of my response is based on quoting back some of dawkins quotes from other books, and also picking up on some of Sarfati’s writing errors ( such as confusing the name Darwin with Dawkins on at least one occasion in the book) . thanks again though for your support. Praise be to Dawkins.

    • In reply to #50 by Nathan Henderson:

      Would you guys like the response given to me about Dawkins’ book ?

      Not if it’s the great long screed of ignorant nonsense you pasted in the other day and that we have already removed once.

      • Oh sorry, yeah I thought it might be too long, sorry for the trouble In reply to #51 by Moderator:

        In reply to #50 by Nathan Henderson:

        Would you guys like the response given to me about Dawkins’ book ?

        Not if it’s the great long screed of ignorant nonsense you pasted in the other day and that we have already removed once.

Leave a Reply