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.)
Bottom line is, the only difference between 'micro' and 'macro' changes is time.
I hope you don't mind if I disagree. Some folks like to think for themselves, please allow us that liberty.
If you believe in so-called 'micro' evolution, you agree with the theories of Darwin.
Okay - you've changed your statement a little. It's no longer "you agree with Darwin" it's "you agree with the theories of Darwin." One can agree to some speciation, natural selection, adaptation, variation and microevolution without agreeing to "the theories of Darwin," where the "theories of Darwin" include phyletic evolution. You may disagree. I'll certainly let you think for yourself. Will you allow others the same?
Yes, they ignore everything said to them and just repeat themselves endlessly hoping to 'win' by repeating the same mantra. They refuse to engage in discussion and shamelessly say that their comments are being ignored.
The real proof against evolution is that even though evolution is suppossed to happen 'all the time' evolutionists can never point to a single species which has clearly transformed itself to another more complex one. In 150 years of claiming that evolution is irrefutably true, they have not been able to find a single example of it.
I think it's deeper than that. The deepest question is: "what is reality?" To the true cultist, his dogma is the ultimate reality; so what you and I would regard as devastating evidence against the dogma is ... not real!
Does anyone have a link to the discussion several months back regarding Morton's Demon? I think VR posted it...
It addresses EXACTLY what you and Dominic are discussing.
And thus you have succinctly summed up the entire difficulty with some posters.
Ah; tip o' the hat to "jennyp," and thanks for the link to it.
Almost seems that we are in a co-dependant situation, doesn't it?
Ironically enough, the tactic of holding onto a preconceived interpretation of the Bible and sweeping everything under the rug only builds up subconcious doubt that will eventually spill over to atheism. We've all heard of the kids who were raised to be YEC fundamentalists, and were confronted with evidence to the contrary--and had no choice. JediGirl is one of them.
YEC and aversion to evolution often results in fewer Christians, not more. Just ask anyone who went to college and found out that there was not asingle fossil out of order, and who took a few science classes and became appalled by the lack of education presented on the AiG websites and such.
IMHO, all Christians need to confront the evidence out there. They need to answer the simple question of why there is not a single fossil out of order--or to answer the question of why there is no evidence of a global flood. That absolutely contradicts an interpretation of the Bible held for millenia.
I have a nagging suspicion that Christians who have no answer to why there are no Precambrian fossils with vertebrate fossils, for example--are simply setting themselves and their children up for a huge faith crisis.
Then again, just as many of them will never take relevant classes beyond the high school level and 100s college courses will go through life truly believing that evolution is a hoax, just like those who truly believe that Apollo moon landings were faked.
I wish Gallup didn't start charging for their "premium content" service, or I'd make a direct link. Gallup Poll Results--Strength of creationist beliefs are inversely porportional to education and income. Also, note that 75% of evolutionists are not atheist; 40% believe in evolution with only 9% not believing in God.
(hey, gotta have my own font, too!)
Hey, PH, let's get back with our evolutionist-communist-nazi Left Wing takeover of public schools and America.
High probability...evolution teaches the balls are falling up the the table---'Patrick Henry'/Dominick Harr calls this "thinking"--'science'!
I was given a glimmer of hope recently though by a fascinating individual. Jamestown, Heaven's Gate, YEC's etc. (yes, I lump YEC's in with rest because the conviction involves delusion) will continue to happen because individuals can be easily preyed upon. The difficulties in the Middle East however, are the result of a traditional culture being forced into modern society. Eventually, the transition will be accomplished, but you are quite right, not without a lot of violence and bloodshed.
High probability...
evolution teaches the balls are falling up the the table---
'Patrick Henry'/Dominick Harr call this "thinking"--'science'!
High probability...
evolution teaches the balls are falling up the the table---
'Patrick Henry'/Dominick Harr call this "thinking"--'science'!
Perhaps that's their problem. If so, the future for them is very unpromising. When you view the sweep of history and see what's happened to such societies when confronted with more advanced cultures, it doesn't look good. Consider the fate of the native societies of the Western Hemisphere -- even those with relatively advanced civilizations -- the Incas, the Aztecs. Or consider the current condition of Africa. Russia certainly botched itself up trying to modernize. Very few cultures have handled the transition successfully. Only Japan seems to have made the leap. Perhaps India, but I think the jury's still out there. Turkey is perhaps another.
Science has to be predictable-probable-facts(finite/rational)---
Science must limit itself to the non-philosophical/spiritual higher world!
This discussion gets addictive for the E side, at least sometimes. I've found myself hating to leave the computer when things were heating up.
But you learn that it never goes anywhere. The same people always come back saying the same things and no new evidence will stop them.
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.