[Event "The Gap Open"]
[Site "Australia"]
[Date "1998.??.??"]
[EventDate "?"]
[Round "?"]
[Result "0-1"]
[White "Lovejoy, David"]
[Black "Sarfati, Jonathan D"]
[ECO "C89"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]
[PlyCount "50"]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. O-O Be7 6. Re1 b5 7. Bb3 O-O 8. c3 d5 9. exd5 Nxd5 10. Nxe5 Nxe5 11. Rxe5 c6 12. d4 Bd6 13. Re1 Qh4 14. g3 Qh3 15. Be3 Bg4 16. Qd3 Rae8 17. Nd2 Re6 18. a4 Qh5 19. axb5 axb5 20. c4 Nxe3 21. Rxe3 Be2 22. Qb1 Rh6 23. h4 Bf4 24. Re7 Bxd2 25. Qc2 Bf3 0-1

:)

Did you know you shared the day with

Whilst recently giving a glowing recommendation of your work (including <Refuting Compromise>) to a friend from church (who, regrettably, is presently an admirer of Dr. Hugh Ross) in connection with your forthcoming visit to Utah, I provided the following summary of your stance regarding the age of the earth:

“I believe I would be fairly (if briefly) summarizing Dr. Sarfati’s position with the following points:

1. Scientific evidence is inconclusive on the age of the earth;

2. There is in fact considerable scientific evidence pointing to a young earth, but such evidence is typically dismissed out-of-hand [on the <a priori> assumption that there must be “something wrong with it”] by those who adhere to the prevailing paradigm of secular science, i.e., “Long Ages” or “Billions of Years” (which paradigm is based partly on the “Uniformitarian” paradigm in geology, a paradigm that is currently popular but not well-supported by evidence) ;

3. The Bible unambiguously teaches historically that the earth was created approximately six thousand years ago, and this is entirely plausible scientifically (albeit counter to the currently prevailing paradigm of secular science);

4. “Day-Age” and “Gap Theory” interpretations of the Biblical creation account only emerged after the “Long Ages” view became the accepted secular scientific paradigm, and only as an attempt to accommodate contemporary scientific fashion;

5. To interpret the Bible in an artificial way in order to accommodate scientific fashion undermines Biblical authority;

6. One particular problem with the “Long Ages” or “Progressive Creationist” position is that it leaves Christians without an effective response to the challenge of theodicy.

“On point 6, see the following article by a colleague of Dr. Sarfati’s:

“https://creation.com/billions-of-ye... ”

Due to a desire to keep the above communication to my friend reasonably succinct, I felt compelled to forbear going into any reference to subjects on issues relating to radiometric dating or distant starlight, making Uniformitarian Geology the only ‘scientific’ point specifically mentioned (and that, only briefly). Although I would have loved to get into those other areas, I think Uniformitarianism is the first ‘scientific’ issue to mention in this discussion since Lyell’s <Principles of Geology> seems to me to be the <fons et origo mali> for the whole “Long Ages” / “Progressive Creationism” view (unless one wants to trace the evil back to Hutton, but he was not the successful popularizer that Lyell became).

Penguins are easy they swim...

Kangeroos and such much bigger problem.

While I'm in direct contrast to the vast majority of my fellow crationsist I'm very convinced that while the topography of the land masses were greatly determined by the Genesis flood, the seperation of the continents occured during the days of Peleg shortly post deluge... Land animals would have simply traveled normally to arrive at their present locations for the most part. The empirical data for the flood is unmistakable. Likewise that pretty intense catastrophies occured after the deluge is also evident.

I think you might share my amusement at a sardonic remark I read in Sabine Hossenfelder’s just-published book, <Lost in Math: How Beauty Leads Physics Astray>, Basic Books ©2018. Commenting on the insouciant reaction of “Gordy” Kane, proponent of string theory and supersymmetry, to the failure of the LHC (Large Hadron Collider) to find “superpartner” particles that Kane has previously confidently predicted, Hossenfelder wrote:

“It’s the ability to adapt to new evidence that marks the true scientist.”

(<Op. cit.>, at page 46 of the Nook edition).

Although the context was as I described above, it strikes me that the remark applies a fortiori to “scientists” who advocate a Darwinian model of diverse speciation (including the so-called Modern Synthesis), as well as to proponents of “Big Bang” cosmogony. Those folks are always ready – whenever evidence comes along that would most reasonably be interpreted as falsifying their beloved paradigm – with a response along the lines of, “Wait, I have a patch for that problem.”

Typical is Richard Lewontin’s remark that he and his fellow neo-Darwinians are “forced by our <a priori> adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, <no matter how counterintuitive>, [emphasis added] no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated ….”

(From Lewontin’s review of Carl Sagan, <The Demon Haunted World: Science as a Candle the Dark>, New York Review of Books, 9 January 1997.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_S...