80 of 136 people found the following review helpful
Just because you have a PhD doesn't give you the right to ignore reality,
This review is from: The Greatest Hoax on Earth? Refuting Dawkins on Evolution (Paperback)
This book was loaned to me by a religious friend who decided to see if I would be opened minded. Well, as a man of science, I am open to possibilities when the evidence is there to be peer reviewed. However, when I read the first few chapters I thought it was a joke. Elementary logical fallacies out the wazoo are present in this book. The author clearly does not understand the theory of evolution or anything else for that matter, due in part to his faith in a supernatural, cosmic space daddy. Everything in the book is creationist propaganda used to appeal to massive amounts of ignorant religious people who don't care about simple things like the truth. The authors motives are quite clear, they want to discredit anything that conflicts with a literal interpretation of the bible.
CHAPTER 2, the author attempts to justify a worldwide flood with no evidence at all; also make no attempt to explain exactly where the water originated from to support his statement. The total water supply of the earth is roughly 326 million cubic miles. A cubic mile is defined as the volume of a cube with sides of 1 mile exactly. Due to the rotation of the earth, the earth has a bulge on the equator compared to the poles, so some tricky math is involved to calculate exactly how much water is required for this ridiculous statement. Genesis 7:19 outlines that a flood covered all of mountains, and Gen. 7:20 states that "Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.", so that means that water was 15 'cubits' above the tallest mountain. I won't add that figure into the math below, I'll just use Mt Everest's height instead. Everest is 29,028 feet in height (Google; Height of Everest). Someone commented on my review and stated that Everest wasn't at it's present height 6000 years ago, but no matter what I've read about Everest it's been there for eons. This is yet another sad attempt to fix the holes in the bible by people who take it literally.
Per the bible, and the amount of water required to rise to a height of 29,000 feet in 40 days is around 360 inches an hour. 348,336 inches of rain in 40 days. (362.85 * 24) * 40 = 348,336 inches. (The rainiest place on earth gets 200 inches a year, for comparison.)
In order to justify how much water this is, we will have to perform some pretty difficult math as the Earth isn't exactly even due to tidal bulge. The volume of a oblate sphere is v = 4/3 * pi * a^2b, where a is 6378.137 km and b is 6356.7523 km. (Google: Volume of a oblate sphere) The earth's total volume is about 1.08321x10^12 km^3 in scientific notion (Williams, 2004 "Earth Fact Sheet"). To express this in math terms, V = 4/3 * a^2 * b * pi where a/b are the 2 different sizes of the earth, A for the equator and B for the polar region. (Wikipedia: Geodesy , Volume of the Earth), So, V = 4/3 * 6378^2 * 6356 * pi and V = 4/3 * 6386^2 * 6365 * pi for the formula. We subtract the height of Everest from the Earth, using this: (Everest - Earth) = (1.08773 x 10^12 cubic kilometers) - (1.083032 × 10^12 cubic kilometers) = 4.7×10^9 cubic kilometers.
4.7×10^9 cubic kilometers is 1.13×10^9 cubic miles. There is approximately 1,101,117,150,000 gallons of water in 1 cubic mile, so therefor the flood of 'noah' would need to leave behind 1,244,262,379,500,000,000,000 GALLONS (which is roughly 1.2442623795×10^21, aka 1.2 sextillion gallons of water). The final estimate is roughly 3.6 × volume of Earth's oceans (1.3×10^9 km^3). To place this into perspective, the 'flood of noah' would have [more/just slightly less] gallons of water than grains of sand on the Earth; ie (0.0012 to 12) × the number of grains of sand on the earth (~~ 10^20 to 10^24). So my questions, Where in the world did the water 'come' from and 'go' ? That much 'water' would have dynamically altered the various gases and density in the atmosphere. Since adding another few miles of water, the atmosphere would be pushed outward into space, causing /massive/ changes in the atmosphere. There, is however, another problem. HEAT.
To flood the Earth, we use the previous estimate 4.7 x 10^9 km^3 of water with a mass of 4.525 x 10^21 kg. When this 'flood water' is floating on the surface of the earth, it's storing a gigantic amount of energy, which is transferred to kinetic energy when it's falling from the sky (Per Genesis 7:12 where that it rained for 40 days and 40 nights continuously); When this happens it's turned into heat due to friction, for example:
E=M*G*H, M/G/H being
M = Water Mass
G = Gravity constant
H = Height of water (using previously mentioned calculation)
The flood has to last 40 days and nights, the amount of mass falling to Earth, daily, is 4.525 x 10^21 kg/40 over 1 day (24 hours, 86400 seconds)
This equals to 1.1068 × 10^17 metric tons daily. Using H as 10 miles, the energy released each day is 1.73584 x 10^25 joules. The amount of energy the Earth would have to radiate per m^2/sec is energy divided by surface area of the Earth times number of seconds in one day (86400 seconds, which is seconds * minutes * hours). That is: E = 1.735384 x 10^25/(4*PI* ((6386)2*86,400)) = 391,935.0958 j/m^2/s.
Currently, the Earth radiates energy at the rate of approximately 215 joules/m2/sec (Per Modeling Earth's Climate System with STELLA, PSU) and the average temperature is 280 K.
E (increase)/E (normal) = T (increase)/T4 (normal)
E (normal) = 215 E (increase) = 391,935.0958 T (normal) = 280.
T = 1800 Kelvin. 1800 Kelvin which is 1526.85C, therefor completely destroying the surface of the planet/all life. Noah wasn't equipped with Star Trek transporters, or force fields, to stop the heat from setting fire to his archaic tugboat. Of course, if I wanted to make a bronze age story seem rational, I'd 'inject' things to make it work as well.
Someone commented on this review by stating that the water originated from 'Fountains of the deep' (Gen 7:11-12). The deepest borehole in the world, Kola Superdeep Borehole, was drilled down to 40,000 feet. At that depth, the temperature was 365F / 180C (Per "Legendary Kola Superdeep" (in Russian). (Journal of Science and Life). The temperature gradient overall is 1º C for every 30 meters, so realistically there is a 166º C increase in temperature / depth ("The Heart of the Earth, San Francisco: Freeman & Cooper, 1968, p. 138.") 166 + 25º C (average earth surface temperature at sea level) = 191º C (Morton 1995). Since the bible doesn't explain how much water in terms of depth/size/layer, I'll just use a 1km , since creation.com and other nonsense sites try and justify it by using either no numbers or vague numbers.
So, 1km of water deep underground, below the crust, it would contain roughly 2.399×10^8 cubic miles of water using previously mentioned calculation with height/depth. At 191ºC, the high temperature water would contain energy equivalent of 1.7×10^17 tons of TNT (Steam Tables, New York: Combustion Engineering Inc, 1940, p. 5.) , which is 1.8 times energy output of the sun in one second. 1.7×10^17 tons of TNT /2.399×10^8 = 708.60 megatons of TNT as energy for every cubic mile of water released from 'fountains of the deep'. 700 megatons of TNT would've clearly destroyed Noah and his little leaky boat. This is a rough estimate, but no matter how much of a mistake I make, the released energy is enough to vaporize the atmosphere.
Chapter 11 "Is the earth ancient" is absolutely absurd. Amino acid racemization, Baptistina Asteroid family, Continental drift, Cosmogenic nuclide dating, Erosion, Geomagnetic reversals, Impact craters, Iron-manganese nodules, Length of the prehistoric day, Naica megacrystals, Nitrogen in diamonds, Petrified wood, Relativistic jets, Sedimentary varves, Stalactites, Space weathering, Radiometric dating, annual ice layers, tree ring dating, etc, all point to an ancient earth. The author clearly has an electrical fire in his head, by suggesting all modern scientific dating methods are wrong, and his goofy faith is right. China and many older cultures have history of pottery and some written that are far older than his goofy doomsday cult.
Page 177 - Runaway subduction. This is the same 'theory' purposed by John Baumgardner, which he stated that would release 10^28 joules of energy, about as much as the kinetic energy of the Moon in its orbit around the Earth, which is estimated at 3.856×10^28 joules. That much energy release would've left behind something, such as freaking evidence! Why is it people like the author 'make up' stories to fix the bible's flaws?
Page 189, Dr Sarfati states something about accelerated nuclear decay of isotopes in the past (more or less). There is obviously a problem with this statement; THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO THIS. The internal Earth's heat, 80% of it, comes from heat produced through radioactive decay (Turcotte, DL; Schubert, G (2002). "4". Geodynamics (2 ed.). Cambridge, England, UK: Cambridge University Press. pp. 136-7.), so if you cranked up the decay of isotopes, the internal heat of the mantle/core would rise by a factor of million (guesstimate), and would melt the crust of the earth, boil away the oceans, change the atmospheric gases, burn noah alive, etc. The Earth would look like a small sun! Clearly, the author doesn't care about explaining how the crust of the earth would state solid after being exposed sun-surface like temperatures from miles below, and increase in the atmospheric density, due to the simple fact that water vapor is mass, and Runaway greenhouse effect would cause Earth to become a Venus like planet with a super high atmospheric pressure. The Earth's upper atmosphere would have been contaminated with an enormous concentration of aerosols and solid particles (perhaps massive amounts of radioactive particles), rendering the atmosphere almost opaque due in part to the oceans boiling away. Why doesn't Sarfati explain this? Consider for the fact that there is simply ZERO evidence to support this nonsense, I guess people who voted 5 stars are ignorant of basic things like 8th grade science.
There are many other examples of dismal science in this book. It's clear to me that people like the author of this book want to perpetuate ancient bronze age nonsense as 21st century science. Speaking of dishonesty, the author's association with creation.com makes his 'position' clear. Under their 'About Us':
"(A) PRIORITIES: The scientific aspects of creation are important, but are secondary in importance to the proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ as Sovereign, Creator, Redeemer and Judge." and "(D) GENERAL: By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information. "
Tracked by 5 customers
Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-10 of 663 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Sep 29, 2011 1:30:22 PM PDT
Jon Hughes says:
Very informative about China having written documents going back 10,000 years. I've had 'bright sparks' telling me that Moses couldn't have written the first five books of the Bible because writing wasn't around then. Now I know otherwise, thanks to you ;-)
Posted on Sep 29, 2011 2:29:17 PM PDT
I don't know who's correct about the writing.
And I'm not going to argue with your water calculations!
Posted on Sep 29, 2011 3:11:25 PM PDT
"(If I am wrong, I do apologize and send me the corrections)"
"China has written documents and ruling family histories that date back 10,000 years." Please supply your sources. The best I can find is that the first dynasty in China, the Shang, which also developed the first written language, known as the Oracle Bone Script, dates from no more than 3,700 years ago.
"I have no idea why the author believes there is was a worldwide massive flood, when there is no evidence."
"The bible says it rained for 40 days, but later it says 150 days." No it doesn't. It says it rained for 40 days, & "the waters prevailed upon the earth 150 days".
It looks like you're as prone to "elementary logical fallacies" as you imagine the author to be. Not only that, you cite the perceived absurdity of just one chapter, then say nothing about its content, & why it is absurd. Yet Sarfati is, as in every other chapter, using scientific opinions & findings freely available from the published literature to show why Dawkins gets it wrong. This shows him to be far more responsible in the way he deals with these issues than Dawkins, who repeatedly resorts to a host of "elementary logical fallacies", not least of which is the same kind you succumbed to, i.e., reductio ad absurdum - your quip about a "supernatural, cosmic space daddy", as well as the establishment clause protecting you against "using leeches to heal the sick". And you want to carry on about so-called "creationist propaganda", not to mention "massive amounts (??) of ignorant religious people" ("religious" = "ignorance")??
I think your religious friend was hoping for way too much when he decided to find out if you were "open minded". It is obvious to all now that you are way too prejudiced against any alternative view to Evolution, not on the basis of scientific evaluations, but your own prejudice against "ignorant religious people".
In reply to an earlier post on Sep 29, 2011 3:51:47 PM PDT
I think you mean Genesis 7:11 not Genesis 7:19?
"Yet Sarfati is, as in every other chapter, using scientific opinions & findings freely available from the published literature to show why Dawkins gets it wrong. This shows him to be far more responsible in the way he deals with these issues than Dawkins, who repeatedly resorts to a host of "elementary logical fallacies"...".
That is UNTRUE. Which is why I said to you in one of the other two threads, either gklauminzer's review of 'Hoax' or The Correct One's review of 'Show', that your earlier comment was FICTIONAL. You did not challenge me. Yet now you repeat the same untruth.
In his book Dawkins cites many other scientists (though few agenda-driven young Earth creationists I would agree). I have a copy of Dawkins' book and I have READ it. I suspect that you have not.
In reply to an earlier post on Sep 29, 2011 4:24:25 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Sep 29, 2011 8:25:50 PM PDT
"I think you mean Genesis 7:11 not Genesis 7:19?"
I was responding to Monk's citing of 7:19. The fact that remains he got it wrong when he deduced that it said both 40 AND 150 days of rain, which was my point. But being a true Bible-scholar yourself (unlike our ingenuee reviewer) you would've picked that up, too. So is your nit-picking over verse numbers really just a little bit of a disingenuous attempt at point-scoring, perhaps?
"That is UNTRUE....FICTIONAL."
OK, then show me where the myriad quotations & opinions Sarfati uses in his book are not "scientific opinions". I'm sure of one point, though. He's far more scientific than Monk, whose best deductions come from "8th grade math".
EDIT: Ashley, you were quick out of the blocks with your Scripture reference, but were you as quick in accessing the web reference I cited?
In reply to an earlier post on Sep 29, 2011 4:29:30 PM PDT
Correction - from referring back to the thread about Dawkins' book, it appears that you did read it.
So, if I am correct, you are misrepresenting Dawkins.
At 2.51 am on 18 Sept you wrote at the Dawkins review thread: "As Sarfati's book is, when all is said & done, dependent on the written testimony of experts in their particular field of science, unlike Dawkins, then surely any criticism of Sarfati's book has to include criticism of the sources he is so overwhelmingly dependent on.
That being the case, the fact that Sarfati has mostly used either peer criticisms of Dawkins or research that reveals the flaws in Dawkins conclusions, mostly by scientists who are pro-Evolution, doesn't this suggest at the very least that Richard Dawkins is not the best choice to write a book that claims to "clinch the deal" for Evolution in the debate with Creationism?"
I replied at 7.06 am saying (among other things): ""Sarfati's book is, when all is said & done, dependent on the written testimony of experts in their particular field of science, unlike Dawkins...". That statement is FICTIONAL.
I am not suggesting that Dawkins' book is without any error whatsoever."
I assume incidentally that this website does not contain any review by yourself of 'The Greatest Show on Earth'?
In reply to an earlier post on Sep 29, 2011 4:33:01 PM PDT
Kim: "OK, then show me where the myriad quotations & opinions Sarfati uses in his book are not "scientific opinions".
For starters, a large number of Sarfati's citations come either from CMI's own articles or from their own Creation magazine, neither of which are subject to peer review other than by CMI's own YEC staff. And since both of those sources are required to adhere to a statement of faith that declares invalid any evidence that does not conform to scripture, it is absurd to characterize Sarfati's ramblings as 'scientific'.
In reply to an earlier post on Sep 29, 2011 4:40:05 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Sep 29, 2011 4:44:17 PM PDT
Yes - Monk's quoting of 7:19 was correct.
I largely skimmed the review (I did not vote on it) and I admit that I missed the incorrect suggestion by him that Genesis says it rained for 150 days, not for 40.
When I said FICTIONAL I was referring (originally and again now) to what you said about DAWKINS.
But if you read my review of Sarfati you will probably see at least one example of Sarfati offering unscientific opinions by other scientists who are ALSO young Earth creationists. He also misrepresented the conclusion of at least one scientific paper by mainstream scientists (I forget exactly how - it's in my review - I highlighted that he ignored the wording of the paper's TITLE).
If I was 'nitpicking' then so were you. Or else neither of us were?
[My edit was to add the word 'of' which was missing.]
In reply to an earlier post on Sep 29, 2011 7:59:12 PM PDT
Then are you admitting that Sarfati DOES, in fact, make use of expert testimony in various fields to show where Dawkins IS in error?
"I assume incidentally that this website does not contain any review by yourself of 'The Greatest Show on Earth'?"
Neither does it contain one for "Greatest Hoax", but I don't see why that should be of any consequence, do you? Unlike people like Monk (whose non-review we are responding to), I have the sense to leave reviews to those who I think are better suited to writing book reviews. I confess I've been tempted at times, particularly for my favourite Classical Music CD's, but then I see people who have already written about the same features I was wanting to praise, yet in a fashion I could only wish to equal.
In reply to an earlier post on Sep 29, 2011 8:21:33 PM PDT
"For starters, a large number of Sarfati's citations come either from CMI's own articles or from their own Creation magazine..."
Wrong! I just picked a chapter at random (Ch.9, "Ape-Men?"), & exactly 60% of the citations were from sources favourable to evolution, such as "Science", "Nature" & "Scientific American". I can check other chapters if you like, but I expect that we will find the same kind of occurrence. This only proves that YOU only see what you WANT to see.
"...neither of which are subject to peer review other than by CMI's own YEC staff."
So, it's STILL peer review then, isn't it! To suggest that THEIR peer review isn't conducted properly simply because they adhere to a particular religious faith is only evidence of your own blinkered prejudice. Besides, if all of those citations in "Greatest Hoax" from journals like "Science" & "Nature" are making similar points to those from CMI with which they are fairly evenly interspersed, then you have no grounds to criticize their peer review process, again showing you are simply prejudiced for a reason other than a scientific one.