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.)
Phaedrus has announced he's ignoring me. I can take it. However, casual observers may be interested in the following.
Me: Not all [E]vols ... are in the "Materialist Atheist" camp.
Yes, I exaggerated to make a point.
Ah. You get to exaggerate. Do I?
However, those who maintain they believe in both Evolution and God do not subscribe to the Evolution of Dawkins or Gould, that is, mainstream Evolution, which is both Atheistic and Materialistic ...
Are you sure your characterization of "mainstream Evolution" is correct? Or might this be another "exaggeration"?
Some apparently delude themselves that Christianity is reconcileable[sic] with the Evolution of Dawkins and Gould. It's not. And that's why the Evols exhibit such delight in bashing "Creationists", which, incidentally, has nothing whatever to do with science.
Interesting. You actually know why people who believe in evolution do things. Mind reading? I'll ask you the same question I've asked Gore3000: I'm thinking of a number from one to ten. What is it?
Me: You appear to intend to allow the impression ...
There you go again, Gumlegs. You have the irritating habit of putting words into peoples mouths, then arguing your case, even while looking the words themselves straight in the face. My words require no interpretation. Please break this very bad habit.
I have a habit? Look in the mirror. My words you quoted above were paraphrasing ... you! Your objection only appears to make sense because you unaccountably deleted the context! Here it what you had posted, and the words I responded to:
Right Wing Professor intended to allow the impression that the Pope and the Catholic Church were in accord with the "theory" of Evolution (see his post), as have other Evol posters in recent months. The Church is not and it is thus a lie, Gumlegs, pure and simple.You clean up your act and mine will be fine. After all, I was paraphrasing you.
Me: [In response to material in the blockquote above]. Be careful about the casual use of the term, "lie."
A lie is a lie, Gumlegs, and I am not casual about lies or liars. You also have the irritating habit of giving unbidden and unnecessary guidance. Kindly direct it elsewhere. Your subsequent posts will be ignored.
It appears to me that it was you who was doing lying. However, I will comply with your unbidden advice and offer you no further advice. I hope other posters will note the lies and distortions in this exchange ... and their source.
942 posted on 7/16/02 9:54 PM Eastern by Gumlegs
I've now changed my mind about one item in the above. When you posted that all evolutionists here are atheists, it wasn't an exaggeration, it was a lie. An exaggeration would be "99.99% of the evolutionists here ... ," not an unequivocal "all." As I have been instructed, "a lie is a lie."
By the way, what is your term for intentionally distorting what others say?
In compliance with your request, I herewith offer no advice whatever.
This I believe.
Okay. No sarcasm ... no joke: Thank you. You have posted a gracious and generous thought, and I appreciate it.
Our differences appear to stem from your belief that one cannot be a Christian and believe in evolution. I disagree with that, and it is plain that I am not alone in that belief. However, I do not doubt your sincerity.
Now back to my regular fossil thumping.
Kindly address your posts to someone who's interested in what you have to say, Gumlegs.
They speak for themselves, don't they?
Translation: "I cannot defend myself except to flee."
That's a time-honored method of defense. Often a good one in evolutionary terms. It distinguishes the preditor from the prey. Both have a place in the great scheme of things.
Hehe! Kudos! :)
I gather you don't think anybody would return to their embryonic state and crawl back to where they came from.
I left off an end/sarcasm--but I'm always thrilled when someone has their thinking cap on!
Well, sometimes Gore3000 curls up in a fetal position after visiting these boards.
Does that count?
I experimented for a year with addressing replies to G3K. Nothing seemed to be getting through. Now I'm experimenting with not replying to him.
Same educational results with far less effort. Good deal!
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.