Scientific American threatens AiG : Demands immediate removal of Web rebuttal

AIG ^ | 2002/07/11 | AIG

[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.)

[gore3000]

These threads are filled with nothing but evidence for evolution.

Kindly give the post numbers. And I do not mean links, I can give you a few hundred links disproving evolution in a couple of minutes if you like. What is exactly the evidence for evolution? What is exactly the name of the species which has transformed itself from a less complex species which I have been asking for for a year? You folk are like McCarthy, you keep saying 'I have the proof right here' but never say what the proof is and never show it to anybody! What a joke evolution is!

[scripter]

You guys aren't getting anywhere again and repeating yourselves.

RightWingNilla said: "Yes, except you leave out how the organisms with the fittest genes survive. The "best" genes get through the filter.

gore3000 said: "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...You need new genetic material for evolution to be true, not destruction of it...You cannot get from a bacteria to a human without new genetic material.

gore3000 seems to be saying the destruction of organisms cannot produce new genetic material and RightWingNilla is saying the best genes get through. Do both of you agree that the best genes get through? If so, is your disagreement that the best genes are the new information?

[PatrickHenry]

Placemarker.

[gore3000]

If so, is your disagreement that the best genes are the new information?

Actually there is really no disagreement, what there is is the evolutionists being unwilling to admit to a very obvious fact you cannot add by subtraction. Evolution requires the addition of new genetic information, natural selection destroys genetic information. Whether those that survive are 'best' or not, they are not new information which is what evolution needs to be true.

[Gumlegs]

...you cannot add by subtraction.

Interesting ... coming from someone who cannot count to two.

[Gumlegs]

Sorry, until you can prove that there is no God, the alternative will always be there.

The existence of God is outside the realm of science, and therefore irrelevant.

If God were relevant to science, which religion would get to control science? (You may remember these and other unanswered questions from past posts).

[Virginia-American]

evolutionists can never point to a single species which has clearly transformed itself to another more complex one.

Ever hear of eohippus?

[Gumlegs]

No, G3K hasn't. It's also why G3K can post with a straight face that Darwin never did any experiments, that all (yes, all!), scientific discoveries in the last 150 years have disproven evolution, and that there's never been a rebuttal of anything he/she/it posts.

Curiously though, Gore cannot count to two. Gore is not aware that if "A" does something once, and "B" does something once, it is not the same as "A" having done something two times. Gore is not aware that a circle is a type of ellipse. Gore is not aware that 1⁷²⁰ is the same as 1. Gore is not aware that although Malthus inaccurately predicted that the food supply would be outstripped by human reproduction, this has nothing to do with evolution. Gore has posted both that there are no creationists, but that NASA astronauts were creationists. Gore claims he doesn't ignore posts to him, but has been ignoring the points in this paragraph for varying lengths of time ... some as long as months by now.

Gore3000 is the proud possessor of a Memory Hole that would be the envy of George Orwell.

[PatrickHenry]

I'm tempted to play with your last sentence, but I'll restrain myself.

[Gumlegs]

G3K ... the human(?) memory hole.

[PatrickHenry]

That's close to what I had in mind. I shall take this no further.

[UnChained]

Ever hear of eohippus?



I am convinced that the horse series is more wishful thinking than science. Checkout this url.

http://www.alternativescience.com/talk-origins-horses.htm

It's not a Creationist site.

[Gumlegs]

He's also got pages on Cold Fusion -- How Fleischmann and Pons are victims of the Vast Scientism Conspiracy, and Psychokinesis -- How the Vast Scientism Conspiracy refuses to recognize the existence of people's ability to move distant objects by brain waves alone.

There’s also a stirring defense of Wilhelm Reich and his “Orgone” theories. (These got him into trouble with the feds, who took a dim view of his selling “orgone accumulators,” which were nothing more than large boxes made of wood and metal. You stayed in the box to accumulate orgone -- duh. He also discovered the “bion,” which the Vast Scientism Conspiracy has ignored ever since).

Go ahead and go with this guy’s opinions and conclusions if you want. I say it’s spinach.

[Heartlander]

Eohippus? Ah yes, the Darwinian Mr. Ed.

Mr. Ed steps up to bat, Gould pitches - Strike Three! (as called by Berlinski)

And for those who are not willing or able to read through the play by play, some amusing pictures.

[VadeRetro]

That Christian Forum site has a lot of pictures along these lines.

"Selected data?" The picture is trying to prove that there are gaps at the bases of the phyla. But if they "selected" out all the known or suspected transitionals, what does that do to the validity of the demonstration?

That chart shows the phylum Arthropoda floating on air. But where's the data point for soft-bodied trilobite precursor Spriggina?

Where's the data point for bizarre not-fully-shelled Anomalocaris?

People wearing such blinders will not give you the straight dope.

What's really going on:

Phylum-Level Evolution.

[VadeRetro]

Could also have mentioned Aysheaia, as mentioned in the Phylum-Level Evolution link. Three arthropod precursors. On what grounds were they left off the UCSB-CF chart? Probably because they aren't full arthropods, and if you leave off anything that's not a full complete total certified arthropod you have exactly that which is to be demonstrated, QED.

[Heartlander]

So you have changed the definition of Phylum but please fill the gaps – where is this new tree? You have spun the wheel of fortune and are trying to buy a vertebra.

One can not determine entirely, what a transitional creature would look like by examining modern animals. You can't determine what your grandfather looked like by averaging between your appearance and that of a cousin. While there might be some similarities, such an averaging will not reproduce the picture of your grandfather. Nor will it reproduce an average in appearance between your grandfather and grand mother! A transitional form must be transitional between the phyla at the contemporary time of the split between the phyla”

This is bogus filler and you know it…

(By the way, I’ve been quite busy lately (I am still actually), but it is strangely nice to hear from you again Vade.)

[VadeRetro]

So you have changed the definition of Phylum but please fill the gaps – where is this new tree?

What are you talking about here? I pointed out precursors where your site put up "selected" data to show there are none. The demonstration is bogus. A distinct phylum is generally considered to be a unique body plan. I am changing nothing.

This ["A transitional form must be transitional between the phyla at the contemporary time of the split between the phyla"] is bogus filler and you know it…

And I know it? Your understanding would seem to not encompass mine.

The Cambrian phyla are much more like each other than their modern descendants are like each other. There's a similar lack of "derived" characteristics. That is, they're all rather small and simple. Even the vertebrates (early jawless fish similar to lampreys) are tiny and simple. It's the picture you'd expect from animals that are related, animals that are only recently diverged from each other.

That is what I know.

[rmmcdaniell]

The uncertainty of Darwinian theory is apparent even in the actions of those who claim to be strong adherants to the orthodoxy. By the very fact that they come here to debate, they acknowledge that there is something to debate. They acknowledge that there exists uncertainty, which even they recognize (even if they'd never publicly admit as much). I mean seriously, would these people waste time arguing on a thread where the poster was asserting the sun didn't exist? Of course not. Actions speak louder than words, as always.

I'll throw your stupid charge right back at you. By the very fact that you come here to debate, do you acknowledge that there is something to debate? Do you in some way doubt your faith? Using your logic, if you really believed in your religion there would be no need to debate with evolutionists. Unless of course you were trying to convert someone to your way of thinking, which is why anyone debates any issue.

[VadeRetro]

(By the way, I’ve been quite busy lately (I am still actually), but it is strangely nice to hear from you again Vade.)

You have a secret yearning to be saved from ignorance and superstition. ;)

I've been busy off-computer lately. It's a healthy trend. But I miss the hurly-burly when it's been too long.