Dr Jonathan Sarfati

Post Reply New Topic

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-HiHNhKuJM&NR=1[/youtube]
On the difference between observational versus interpretation.



[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7lnLCatp64[/youtube]
Interpretation: common ancestor versus common designer.



[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-WmiLA1mBE[/youtube]
Historical records versus ...



[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zzlG9RV54U4[/youtube]
Lower limit of gene count based on observation.



[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evuR14mWBRI[/youtube]
Concerning amino acids and abiogenesis in general.


If anyone wishes to contact Dr Sarfati, he is an admin on this facebook group:
http://www.new.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2891265643

I think he's a cool guy.

I listened to most of the last video, and I don't think his analysis or conclusions are well supported.

As a chemist, he should be familiar with the idea of vitalism. Vitalism is defined in various ways, including:

1. a doctrine that the functions of a living organism are due to a vital principle distinct from physicochemical forces
2. a doctrine that the processes of life are not explicable by the laws of physics and chemistry alone and that life involves some additional force(s) not subject to laboratory study

Vitalism was very much a part of chemistry - there was this idea that 'organic' compounds with certain carbon bonds could only be formed by living organisms. This idea fell apart when people started synthesizing organic compounds in labs in the 1800s. The vitalists retrenched and said well, amino acids and proteins are the real essentials of life, and they can only be formed by living organisms. The Miller experiment proved that wrong by showing that these compounds can form spontaneously under conditions something like we might have seen on Earth billions of years ago.

His arguments are sometimes trite - for example, the idea that since the Miller experiment was 'designed' by intelligent beings, you can't claim that it disproves the idea of vitalism or intelligent design (and that it suggests the opposite: the Miller experiment would not have happened without an external intelligence, thereby supporting ID). That is like saying that because we design experiments to study erosion, that erosion cannot happen spontaneously in the world ... it can.

Redox reactions are observed constantly, so I don't believe that's a good comparison.

Edit: yes erosion is also observed and observable, just as corrosion is.

Speaking of pagan mythology, Nicholas Steno wrote:

From the introduction of the Prodromus.

So, is history the records kept by men or is history something that can be invented however?

Who was speaking of pagan mythology? Was that in one of the other videos?

Those 2 definitions of history are not mutually exclusive. History is about seeing into the past. Records created by men may be helpful. But the historian that uses the records of others uncritically may be repeating an absurd invention. When it comes to natural history, the truth is written in rock strata, tree rings, and isotope concentrations. Natural history can be developed to be in agreement with the natural record - in which case, the explanations will grow in consistency over time, and be useful for understanding the universe. Or a natural history can be developed based on a religious text that was never meant to be a literal scientific explanation ... that will blind men to the truth.