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.)
That is basically the whole argument between evolution and intelligent design. All you are saying is that above is that you agree with the evolutionist side, you are not refuting the intelligent design argument. There are many examples of species with a wide variety of differences - races or breeds - which are in no way becoming or have become a new more complex species. Dogs are a great example. Look at the enormous variety, the enormous differences in sizes and features. And look also how in spite of their being called often a different species, they are still the same species as wolves from which they supposedly originated through human breeding. There have been many changes since they were wolves, many genetic traits have been 'drawn out' to make the different breeds, yet they are still genetically the same as wolves and can successfully interbreed with wolves.
If resistance to a specific antibiotic is not uniform in the population a mutation has spread one way or the other and which one is beneficial depends on the environment they subsequently encounter.
Now ask your friends to explain that to you sometime.
[...] Nope, just as I have not ignored your responses, I have not ignored those of others. [...]
Hilarious.
You just did here, in this post, ignore every comment I made about 'Natural Selection':
Natural Selection isn't "random chance". You didn't respond to the point I made about 'Natural Selection'. You ignored my point completely, and changed the subject.
Natural Selection is and always was a theory about the adaptation of species to their changing environments. So you didn't respond to the point about 'Natural Selection', and again changed the subject.
There are both beneficial and non-beneficial changes. The non-beneficial ones die off, as I pointed out. So again you didn't respond to the point at all.
I have seen several people link you very convincing examples several times, and you misunderstood each and every one -- now claiming you've never seen them at all. So yet again, you didn't respond to the point I made, and only claimed to have not seen something I know you've seen.
Presenting evidence you ignore and logical proofs you can't answer is 'proving' it. Again, you didn't respond to the point I made.
As I'm pointing out point by point, you *did* ignore my responses. And you ignored theirs. You do not respond to the points we make.
You don't even know what Natural Selection means, yet you argue it's wrong. That proves it all by itself.
Oh, no, I'm obviously right.
You *agree* with Darwin.
You just have no idea what Darwin actually said.
When his theory is presented to you without the title, you agree. You then disagree with the title. You're afraid of a word.
"I believe in honesty, but I believe it's okay to lie, cheat and steal."
"I believe that creatures adapt to their environment, but I don't believe in Darwinism."
Contradicting yourself in a single sentence takes *serious* talent.
You ignore what the other person says, then repeat one of your lines of dogma. You don't even address the obvious flaws in your dogma, simply repeat what you've said and has been disproven.
I'm sorry, I'm not familiar with that information.
May I ask for more?
Your argument is not with Darwin.
(Thanks to BMCDA)
Altho, from a merely 'technical' standpoint, in discussing this with these folks we're focusing purely on 'Natural Selection'.
Natural selection, I think, does not in any way add new info.
Mutation does, without a doubt. And sometimes those mutations get 'selected' for success by the environment, absolutely.
And you've just given an excellent example of that. Thank you. That's a fine example of a 'beneficial' mutation.
Taking any bets on certain folks now continuing to say they haven't seen any evidence of beneficial mutations?
If they refuse to look at the evidence you offer, perhaps they can say it with a straight face!
It's obvious that you've read and studied the Bible. I am constantly amazed at the things I find when I am re-reading and studying more.
NIV Ezekiel 28:11-17
11. The word of the LORD came to me:
12. "Son of man, take up a lament concerning the king of Tyre and say to him: `This is what the Sovereign LORD says: "`You were the model of perfection, full of wisdom and perfect in beauty.
13. You were in Eden, the garden of God; every precious stone adorned you: ruby, topaz and emerald, chrysolite, onyx and jasper, sapphire, turquoise and beryl. Your settings and mountings were made of gold; on the day you were created they were prepared.
14. You were anointed as a guardian cherub, for so I ordained you. You were on the holy mount of God; you walked among the fiery stones.
15. You were blameless in your ways from the day you were created till wickedness was found in you.
16. Through your widespread trade you were filled with violence, and you sinned. So I drove you in disgrace from the mount of God, and I expelled you, O guardian cherub, from among the fiery stones.
17. Your heart became proud on account of your beauty, and you corrupted your wisdom because of your splendor. So I threw you to the earth; I made a spectacle of you before kings.
You know that in the first couple of chapters of Genesis, 'God' is reported as doing all of this 'creating' stuff, and, at the end of each day, He says, 'It is good.' (now you know where Martha Stewart gets it from ;^)
It's not until Adam is given a choice does death appear, caused by HIS actions, not God's!
When the highway department puts in a new road thru rugged hills, it places guardrails on the curves, to protect people. It knows in advance that there WILL be some who will kill themselves, even with the CURVE AHEAD signs, even with the speed limit signs.
Similarly, God KNEW what choice Man would make, and set up a safety net, in the form of a promise. The design for this curve in the road was in place before the road was built.
NIV Ephesians 1:3-4
3. Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in the heavenly realms with every spiritual blessing in Christ.
4. For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight.NIV 2 Timothy 1:8-10
8. So do not be ashamed to testify about our Lord, or ashamed of me his prisoner. But join with me in suffering for the gospel, by the power of God,
9. who has saved us and called us to a holy life--not because of anything we have done but because of his own purpose and grace. This grace was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time,
10. but it has now been revealed through the appearing of our Savior, Christ Jesus, who has destroyed death and has brought life and immortality to light through the gospel.NIV Titus 1:1-31. Paul, a servant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ for the faith of God's elect and the knowledge of the truth that leads to godliness--
2. a faith and knowledge resting on the hope of eternal life, which God, who does not lie, promised before the beginning of time,
3. and at his appointed season he brought his word to light through the preaching entrusted to me by the command of God our Savior,NIV 1 Peter 1:20
20. He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake.NIV Hebrews 4:3-4
3. Now we who have believed enter that rest, just as God has said, "So I declared on oath in my anger, `They shall never enter my rest.'" And yet his work has been finished since the creation of the world.
4. For somewhere he has spoken about the seventh day in these words: "And on the seventh day God rested from all his work."
If you have kids, you know that there is danger all around, and you try to tell them about it, show them results of bad choices, and, if you are REALLY wanting to impress them, you'll stick their hand on the stove when it's hot so they get the message! (No, you probably won't, but short of chaining them up, when they run out in front of a speeding truck, you'll do what ever you can to save them.)
The death was caused by Satan, lying and creating doubt in Eve's mind.
NIV John 8:44
44. You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.
Either God is all good (which is one possibility), or he has within him both good and evil (another possibility), or there are different gods for both good and evil (a third possibility). I can't see it any other way. If there's yet another possibility, please let me know.
Well, I asked my neighbor about this, but he couldn't talk much as his allergies were flaring up. Besides, his family has had a lot heart disease problems and he is worried about himself.
Perhaps he's not as Human as I am: Or maybe, I'm not as Human as HE is!?
HMmmm...... maybe it's just his red haired children that are bugging him.........
I'll get back to you on that after I read his posts.
You just did here, in this post, ignore every comment I made about 'Natural Selection':
Oh really? What is the following:
But you, too, have to live with something new now -- the knowledge that if you believe in 'Natural Selection' you agree with Darwin.
You are absolutely wrong. Number one I totally disagree that there is a Malthusian struggle for life in which each species, or each individual, must fight for its life. Malthus was completely wrong and his chicken little theory has been proven to be totally laughable. This stupid theory is the basis of natural selection and it has been proven absolutely wrong. Second of all, even if such a struggle were occurring, destruction of organisms and their genetic material, is not and cannot be the source of new genetic material which is what evolutionists moronically state. No 4 -2 does not equal 6. 4 -2 = 2 and you do not get new traits by destroying traits which are in the genetic pool of a species. Never.
998 posted on 7/17/02 7:35 PM Pacific by gore3000
I have seen several people link you very convincing examples several times,
You are repeating what I have already answered. Your statement is meaningless since even after being asked you cannot give an example. I asked you for one of those numerous examples in the post you are responding to right now:
First, I've seen volumes of evidence of transitional forms that ya'll have been shown here. You're simply ignoring any evidence which doesn't agree with your creo theory.
Well I have not seen any. In fact, I have for a year been asking for one clear example of one species transforming itself into another more complex species. I have not received a single valid answer. If you know better, let's hear it. I don't want 'tons' of evidence, just one species, one single word, the name of the species that fits the requirements. Post 998
The first article "Probability for Life Support Body" is simply wrong. There is not derivation of his probabilities. He seems to have pulled them out of the air. Also he gives not evidence that cluster size and cluster density are unrelated. In fact the entire reference lacks any scientific foundation.
What is your basis for asserting the article is "simply wrong"... because he doesn't detail the derivation of probabilities? With a growing consensus among non "religious" scientists that our existence here is unlikely (see Ward and Brownlees "Rare Earth", for example), Ross seems more likely correct than "simply wrong".
Given that the first article references back to the second, and between the two of them, there are references to about 270 non-theistic scientific sources, your claim of no "scientific foundation" amounts to not much more than hand waving.
So yes, there is no proof of micro-evolution.-G3K 7/13/02
Seems like you have yourself twisted in knots here Gore.
Otherwise there is no way that we could have gotten from bacteria to humans without the intervention of The Creator
Please elaborate on this model. Did the creator create everything in a week as per Genesis? Or do you believe in something entirely different? Did the creator just guide things along? Was this done in 6000 years? What is your alternative hypothesis to evolution?
These types of phenomena are well documented. One group has been tracking one such example for years - pesticide resistant mosquitoes. They observe that amplification of the gene encoding the esterase enzyme was the primary adaptation to the chemical in the wild. An increase in esterase levels is observed in the flies with gene amplification events. Conversely there is no increase in esterase expression in the absence of these events. This type of genetic change (duplication) is very common in bacteria under selective pressure and has also been observed in many other organisms (including human cells). The human genome appears to be a large collection of duplicated gene clusters.
Not at all. What evolutionists refer as micro-evolution is just the adaptation of species to their environment thanks to traits already existing in the gene pool of the species. They have nothing to do with mutations or creation of new genetic information. As I have explained often, adaptation would be impossibly long if the genes were not already in the gene pool of the species. The two favorite examples used by evolutionists for micro-evolution - the finches and the moths - amply prove that.
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.