Can I be the antichrist too?
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.)
Ah, but the steps are 'micro' travelling, while a thousand mile journey is clearly 'macro' travelling!
Very, very different thing entirely!
Very excellent point there! Forgive me if I use it!
It wasn't my intent to embarrass you, but I will continue to publicly post mispresentations, especially those with an agenda - which is most. I will not let it slide.
Sorry...
didn't write it---
how about...
enormous BLATHERINGS---bias/schlock of the antichrist!
Does it matter where the demarcation line is located or how fuzzy or thick this line is? Are you now claiming that speciation is a term also reserved for creationists? My (helpful) post to you was that evolutionists indeed have something meaningful to say about the difference between micro- and macroevolution.
The creationists creative contribution to the terms is that evolution happens only on an undefined microscale.
Macroscale increases in entropy don't hold for microscales.
Now you've completely lost me.
To the best of my knowledge, this is not true. What is it I don't understand?
It's highly improbable, given the number of 'steps' that would have to be reversed, but I believe that there is nothing stating a creature couldn't evolve back into what it once was, assuming the environment so selected such a change.
Like the fish into wolves into whales thing, basically (broadly speaking).
They lost fins, then gained them again.
Am I wrong?
In writing a piece of software, the developer makes millions of changes. At some arbitrary point defined by evil beings called 'project managers' -- a point called a 'deadline' :-D -- they give the piece of software a name/number. 'Alpha'. 'Beta'. 'Gold'. '1.0'. Etc.
Then in making later versions, they make a gazillion changes and again at some other arbitrary point defined by evil project managers call this new release a new name/number -- '2.0'. 'Win95/98/2k/XP'.
This is 'micro' changes and 'macro' changes.
Seperating the two is impossible, as I understand it.
I wasn't interested in evidence. At that point in my life I was only interested in keeping my faith "pure" and my thoughts untouched by the godless evolutionists. There was no room for independant thought. Sad to say, I spouted party lines.
Fortunately for me though, my mentor at the time (and with tremendous tact I might add) convinced me that God didn't need my pitiful defense...that He and His creations were strong enough to withstand questions and searching. And so now I investigate Creation with great interest.
You've lost me. The antichrist is biased? You mean the media is the antichrist? And I always thought He was to be a Jewish male.
Speciation is not reversible. The direction of evolution is one-way. But at the micro-level, for instance, base changes are reversible.
Can I be the antichrist too?
Excuse me, but you've been trumpeted eohippus as an "apparent fraud" in post 1207. I invited you to furnish proof of this claim and all you've been doing is railing at my "misrepresentation" of your clear statement.
After reading quite a few articles on this topic I can't believe the eohippus is one of the best examples of evolution. The eohippus appears to be just another fraud. Strong words, yet how else can it be described after looking at the available evidence?Post 1207.
What is the mystery evidence you refer to in that post? I can only imagine you get all your articles from AiG or TrueOrigins. If that's all you let through your filters, you've basically made up your mind a long time ago and all your attempts to appear reasonable are a pathetic sham.
OK, strictly speaking, I refuted the gore3000 post (claiming that eohippus is "A hyrax! Just a hyrax!") to which scripter was nodding in 1207. Have to watch my Ps and Qs when accusations of misrepresentation are being let fly so freely here.
You're trying to change the subject again. You and I have not discussed the apparent fraud so you couldn't be mispresenting me on something we didn't discuss, and that's why I say you're trying to change the subject. Where you did misrepresent me is in post 1222, where you said: "you keep referring to Eohippus as if it were the only fossil ancestor for the horse". I never said or implied any such thing and explained this in post 1225. In mispresenting me there, I can only guess you had some agenda in mind to bolster your own case. Perhaps I missed it - in what post # did you "invite" me to furnish proof?
What is the mystery evidence you refer to in that post? I can only imagine you get all your articles from AiG or TrueOrigins.
I've read about 4 or 5 sources on the issue, none of which were AIG or TrueOrigins, plus the Talk.Origins piece many times. I'm busy working some other issues and don't have a whole lot of time for this back and forth stuff, especially when I have to repeat myself. As time allows I'm putting together a piece on the horse.
What you have to watch is context. We never discussed the hyrax.
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.