Gore plays this game with any evidence he doesn't like. That is, he demands the actual bones be crammed through his monitor.
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.)
As to indisputable truths, earlier in the thread, when one of you literalist types cited Christ's geneaogy in Luke Ch., 3, I noted that it conflicts with the genealogy of the Jews laid out in Genesis. Which of these two conflicting indisputable truths do you prefer?
That's a keeper!
I've told him what evolves and how fast enough times already. Anyone else who wants to try to shoot it into his skull with a nail driver is welcome to try.
Here's something you might find of interest, Christ's genealogy
The Environmental Factors.The ancestoral group of Eohippus/Hyracotherium: The Condylarths.
Another place where the subject of Hyracotherium came up:
Hovind: "Take, for instance, the horse theory. They have taken critters from all over the world, South America, Europe, and Asia, and put them all together in a predetermined idea. They have already decided to start off with the smallest to the largest animals. That is not the way they are found. They find them in all kinds of different layers...The eohippus is nothing more than the hyrax running around South America today....God created the horses."From: 300 Creationist Lies, Part G.Lie #111. Hovind again admits to evolution! Actually the correct name for eohippus is...hyracotherium - which is no doubt why this numb skull Hovind made the mistake of thinking it is pretty much a hyrax. The hyrax looks somewhat like a groundhog. It is about the size of a rabbit, but seems to be related according to internal anatomy to both elephants and...horses!.
Hyraxes have virtually no tail, but have toes on their feet (the same number in the same place as hyracotherium!) which are very well adapted to climbing steep rocks and trees. 'Eohippus' was about the size of a medium dog, and adapted to running. If Hovind can admit that eohippus can, over the course of 4,000 years, have evolved into something looking like a rodent that feeds on insects, lizards, eggs, berries and other plant material, then why cannot something akin to a chimpanzee evolve into a human? The chimpanzee, after all, shares with humans 99.6% of our active DNA. I would love to know what scientifically proven mechanism it was that allowed the former but prohibited the latter.
As to the order of discovery, yes, the horse fossils were not found (i.e. discovered) in the order they are arrayed to show evolution - but they _are_ arrayed in the order of their appearance in the fossil record. For Hovind to weasel his way around this by his inaccurate portrayal is deceitful at best, but it is the only way he can cast doubt on this.
The chain of horse evolution is an example. No one is claiming that every single specimen in this lineage gave rise to every subsequent specimen, but in terms of development, the animals grew larger (this is not a guaranteed facet of evolution, by the way), and their toes dwindled from four on the floor, to three and a splint, to three and a tiny splint, to one and two splints, to one and two tiny splints which is what today's horses have. Either this is a sequence of evolution, or god just absolutely could not get those critters perfect, could he?
By the way - the hyrax is not found in South America, but in the Middle East. It is what is referred to in the Bible as a coney. So if Hovind is right, not only did eohippus have to shrink to rabbit size in 4,000 years, it had to run all the way across the Atlantic in the process....
What I noted earlier was a discrepancy earlier in the line, about the time of Noah. If you understand what Luke was trying to do - show Christ's birth as the fulfillment of prophecy, not trying to show a literal line of descent from Adam - the fact that there are differences in reporting in an old genealogical line is not problematic. In a country far less tumultuous than the pre-Christian Holy Land (Ireland), my own genealogy between 1700 and 1800 is pretty speculative, and I'm lucky; most Americans can't even trace theirs back that far. There's only a problem with such discrepancies if you believe every word of scripture is literally true.
Well said. Reminds me of 1 Timothy 1:3-5 and Titus 3:8-10.
Gore plays this game with any evidence he doesn't like. That is, he demands the actual bones be crammed through his monitor.
G. A. Kerkut is also an evolutionist who recognizes that the theory has some faults. His main problem with the horse series is that the original fossils are not available -- everything on display is a reproduction, and there's no way of knowing which bones were really found and which were added from imagination. He wrote: G.A. Kerkut, "The Implications of Evolution," (New York: Pergamon Press, 1960)
Perhaps an apology is in order anddontholdyourbreath.
Having another bad day, Gumlegs?
I don't think a nail driver will do the trick.
Maybe a cannon?
Yeah, Gore3000 has been playing a lot of games lately.
Gotta love the "Ill just repost every message I wrote within the last three weeks" snow job.
Evolution is death...still birth of the soul-mind!
calling/CHANGING all the... residuals---technology/science === TO evolution via schlock science...animal morphing theories applied to technological physical sciences and philosophy is full blown madness---insanity---QUACKERY!
No wonder evos are paranoid---psychotic over-defensive about what they are doing!
Crisis management teams---red cross!
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.