Posted on 07/11/2002 9:44:50 AM PDT by ZGuy
The prominent magazine Scientific American thought it had finally discredited its nemesis—creationism—with a feature article listing ‘15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense’ (July 2002). Supposedly these were the fifteen best arguments that evolutionists could use to discredit the Bible’s account of Creation. (National Geographic TV also devoted a lengthy report to the article.)
Within 72 hours, Dr Jonathan Sarfati—a resident scientist at Answers in Genesis–Australia—had written a comprehensive, point-by-point critique of the magazine article and posted it on this Web site.
So Scientific American thought it would try to silence AiG with the threat of a lawsuit.
In an e-mail to Dr Sarfati, Scientific American accused him and AiG of infringing their copyright by reproducing the text of their article and an illustration. They said they were prepared to ‘settle the matter amicably’ provided that AiG immediately remove Dr Sarfati’s article from its Web site.
AiG’s international copyright attorney, however, informed Scientific American that their accusations are groundless and that AiG would not be removing the article. Dr Sarfati’s article had used an illustration of a bacterial flagellum, but it was drawn by an AiG artist years ago. AiG had also used the text of SA’s article, but in a way that is permissible under ‘fair use’ of copyrighted materials for public commentary. (AiG presented the text of the SA article, with Dr Sarfati’s comments interspersed in a different color, to avoid any accusations of misquoting or misrepresenting the author.)
Why the heavy-handed tactics? If AiG’s responses were not valid, why would Scientific American even care whether they remained in the public arena? One can only presume that Scientific American (and National Geographic) had the ‘wind taken out of their sails.’ Dr Sarfati convincingly showed that they offered nothing new to the debate and they displayed a glaring ignorance of creationist arguments. Their legal maneuver appears to be an act of desperation. (AiG is still awaiting SA’s response to the decision not to pull the Web rebuttal.)
I'd say it's obvious, happens in every system you can observe that I'm aware of, and has been proven by experiment and real-world experience, as I've noted.
You, I think it's proven, have other reasons for attacking Darwin. Reasons that have nothing to do with his theory. You agree with the specifics of the theory, but insult the man and anyone who admits to believing in the theory.
It appears you do this because you're actually advancing another agenda. You believe you have evidence that Man did not 'evolve'. So you attempt to discredit the entire theory of evolution, even tho you believe it's specifics.
This leads you to outright manufacture evidence, like with that pic of the big rock. Or in this case, misrepresenting the results of the fruit fly experiment.
Now I'm a big science fiction fan, so I read your posts enthusiastically. I love a good, unusual theory. But your definition of 'evidence' and mine are so different that there's no chance we could ever have a meaningful discussion about your other theories.
The only meaningful exchange we can have is me pointing out that you *do* believe in the specifics of evolution.
Then cognitive dissonance will set in.
Consciously, you can easily ignore me. But you brain is aware of the dichotomy. You will have to resolve the problem. You will think about it subconsciously. You're a human, you can't help it.
It's that point -- a bunch of small changes always equals a big change. Can't ignore it, even if you blindly deny it. The 'micro' v. 'macro' difference is only a matter of timespan.
That's interesting, to me. When faced with believing two ideas that contradict each other, some people freak out. Some people change their minds. Some people become morbidly depressed.
I'm curious how the various individuals will deal with this dichotomy.
So some presume. But there is a big jump from affirming that the size of a bird's beak can vary to making the claim that the bird turned into a whole other animal. The one has been observed, the other has not.
The Bible says..."the whole world would be deceived---the very elect(God won't allow it)---if it were possible"!
Religion was practicing 'evolution' long before Darwin...ever hear of Martin Luther---the reformation?
Life from non-life.
If this planet of ours was just bare rocks, sand, dust and water and a witches brew of chemicals, what did the FIRST little beastie EAT when it DID finally appear?
Ya fling a dead cat into a gravel pit and all the little microbes do NOT start a new, growing mound of life around its carcase.
So what shall we think?
ever hear of Martin Luther(no evolution)---the reformation(Truth/science)?
These were the Classical liberals...founding fathers-PRINCIPLES---stable/SANE scientific reality/society---industrial progress(no evolution...zero---ziltch/none)...moral/social character-values(private/personal) INTELLECTUAL GROWTH---expertise/professionalism!
I'll continue to disagree with you about adaptation being evolution, because I disagree that change within a species is evolution, and that's all adaptation is. I'll continue to disagree that the only difference between micro and macro is time because no one can prove that change from one species to another has ever happened, is happening or ever will happen, no matter what length of time is added to it.
And with regard to Darwin, I believe I said that I AGREE with what Darwin said about adaptation, but disagree with his further suppositions that became the theory of evolution.
I find it hard to believe that you can't find one bit of young earth evidence that looks at all compelling. If you are truly as opened minded as you indicate by saying anything's possible, then there has to be a point or two that seems plausible. The ONLY thing that really bothers me is the age of stars, and our ability to see so many light years away. Impossible to dismiss. But it is possible that there are time issues that we don't fully understand. Time doesn't always run the same, depending on where one is. It's a fascinating subject. But anyway...
As my husband likes to say, evolutionists have a problem with the idea that there is a designer, yet they want us to believe we came from a rock! :)
Thanks for the exchange. I don't usually post on the crevo threads because much of it is a bit too technical for me so I appreciate your responses. Have a good afternoon.
In every other system, when you make a large number of small changes to an object you end up with an object that is radically different than the object you started with.
This is no "jump", any more than it is surmising that if I push a ball down stairs, the ball will bounce down to the bottom.
It's observable in almost every system.
On a thread a few months ago, The rise of neo-paganism I tried my hand at appending to C.S. Lewis my own humble views on the subject where I addressed another comment similar to this of yours --
Now, for someone such as yourself, who finds failure in practices that do not measure up to your ideals (which, from what I garner, is that perfection must be perfect), this may indeed be a futile invitation. However, there is always the chance that you'll find some value in my view -- and I wanted to offer you that chance -- that it may be more a matter of us mere mortals misunderstanding perfection.
medved, I alerted you because I saw that you responded to pointy's same sentence. Perhaps you understand my invoking of thermodynamics here more than others and can add something.
"This is natural selection, a fact of nature."
I rest my case. You believe Darwin, and agree with natural selection. You insult Darwinism for other reasons.
Just consider the obvious contradiction in you sentence above.
They're different, more resistant, which means they are not the same.
Fundamentally changed.
And a bunch of small changes to an object means you will have an object that is very different from what you started with. That is a simple, observable fact.
Ah, I'm sorry, I did miss your saying this.
I just find it so interesting that ya'll agree with the specifics of the theory, and only disagree when his theory contradicts you other beliefs.
I find it interesting your attempts to seperate 'micro' and 'macro' changes, as if big changes weren't related to little changes. Your experience proves this untrue in everything you observe. If you make a bunch of small changes to something, you will end up with a very different something.
As for the young Earth evidence, no, I'm afraid I haven't seen anything even the least little bit compelling. In fact what I read makes it clear we have two very different ideas about what "evidence" means. But I love reading the stuff. It makes for an awesome story, and would make a tremendous movie someday.
And anything is possible. I certainly could be wrong.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.