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.)
Nahhh...he hesitates in constructing complete sentences....
You didn't come within a tousand feet of answering the simple questions I posed to you. Care to try again?
Yes, that's why I called it *my* point.
For the record, I don't know why Jesus would believe such things. Perhaps he was all of those things you named (delusional, etc). You & I certainly don't know as we were not alive then and had no contact with him. All we're left with is a portion of a book written well past his death by his followers. Hardly an objective source of info.
Ta-taa. My day's over.
From now on, consider starting a discussion with a Creo by asking, "Do you agree that species evolve to adapt to their environment?"
They seem to, it appears.
Douglass Adams gave a keynote speach at a conference I attended a few years back, and gave this anecdote:
"I was sitting in a plane with a farmer, and he told me he was having trouble with bugs. He said he used spray on them, but the spray was less and less effective every year. I told him that the bugs that lived were the ones that were resistant to the spray, and they were passing that resitance on to their offspring.
He said that sounded exactly right, what do they call that? I said, 'evolution'.
The farmer said, "Oh, I don't believe in *that*"
Interesting, yes?
These folks *do* believe in evolution.
Originally the word liberal meant social conservatives(no govt religion--none) who advocated growth and progress---mostly technological(knowledge being absolute/unchanging)based on law--reality... UNDER GOD---the nature of GOD/man/govt. does not change. These were the Classical liberals...founding fathers-PRINCIPLES---stable/SANE scientific reality/society---industrial progress...moral/social character-values(private/personal) GROWTH!
Are you hard of reading...thinking---comprehending!
:-D
I enjoy that type of poetry, when the goal is to evoke emotions.
But when trying to actually communicate?
You believe in the evolution of species to adapt to their environment.
You, too, are an 'evo'.
Interesting to no end, yes?
Welcome to the Age of Reason, long may it reign.
EBUCK
I think he's just a really bad writer.
He's trying to use poetic punctuation tricks with words which evoke emotion. The only problem is, that kind of wordplay really degrades the 'comminication' ability of the written statement.
He's just trying to be e.e.cummings, and missing very badly.
According to the Gospels, JESUS believed that Adam and Eve were real, actual people who were created just the way they were portrayed in the Genesis account. Jesus believed that Jonah was in the big fish, etc etc etc. Jesus totally accepted the Old Testament accounts as being a literal intrepretation of the truthful, inerrant word of God. Was Jesus a liar? Was He stupid? Misinformed? Ignorant?
Who do YOU say Jesus was, gdani -- just a man?
Then YOU gdani, replied:
For the record, I don't know why Jesus would believe such things. Perhaps he was all of those things you named (delusional, etc).
Jesus said
Mat 10:32 Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven.
Mat 10:33 But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.
EBUCK
Everytime somebody says something pro or con on the issue the troglodytes on both sides come out snarling.
We won't know the truth til were dead, right 'dead'?
Everytime somebody says something pro or con on the issue the troglodytes on both sides come out snarling.
We won't know the truth til were dead, right 'dead'?
I think it's an interesting.
These folks believe that species do evolve to adapt to their environments, but will argue that they don't believe in evolution until the day they die.
Very interesting. Not quite sure what to make of it.
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.