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.)
But only if the flies are in a controlled natural environment to begin with.
If you're just exposing them to mutagens, as all the experiments I've seen on the subject do, you're not testing Darwinian evolution at all.
Are there experiments with an actual complete environment showing no changes? I didn't think so.
EBUCK
RE:your last point. Again, relate the last time you viewed evidence in other than an evolutionary prism. Can't? Sounds the same to me. If your complaint is that creationists are intransigent due to their viewpoint or perspective then they can make the same claim about you, right?
I have no problem with your opinions or the points you have made here other than as stated above. You represent your side well. I just don't care for slander and/or innuendo in open discussions (even if it's due to frustration of fatigue). If we all get to generalize and trivialize by association, I get to group you with those other wise and learned evolutionists on this thread ... Nah, not going to go there. Don't like the looks of that gutter and don't want to hurt anybody's little high school feelings, either.
EBUCK
540 posted on 7/12/02 12:34 PM Pacific by Aric2000
Love is Truth--maturity...growing up---facing reality!
But they agree that a bunch of small changes would equal a big change. The only difference is time.
They only disagree with certain, specific examples of such, like 'man' evolving.
They all agree with Darwin, but disagree with some of the specifics.
Thanks, I'd like to see some info.
Altho, as I said, I believe you'd have to have a complete environment to test Darwinism.
Because Darwinism requires environmental pressures to drive the evolution, in order for the adaption to be successful.
I'm aware of many experiments and case studies that do test and seem to prove this -- for example, the idea that bugs become resistant to various chemicals thru generations.
And that is indeed the point.
As I understand Darwinism, it's the idea that as a species' enviroment changes to something that is not friendly to their survival, the species will evolve and adapt.
So to test Darwinism, you'd have to start with an environment that was good for a species, and then change the environment to be more hostile to the species.
I wonder what that would be, for fruit flies?
LOL Exactly what part of 'point by point critique' implies someone does not have any facts or ideas of their own? Have you read the critique to see if any facts or ideas were presented? By the way, evolutionists have used this same type of argumentation style. Does that mean they, too, have no facts or ideas of their own? Or are you 'biased' in your assessment of the tactic? (I suspect that is the case.)
Isn't this interesting?
They all believe species evolve to adapt to changing environments, but claim they don't agree with Darwin.
Like the folks who agree that Bill Clinton used the power of his office illegally, but that Clinton didn't do anything illegal.
These folks are Darwinists!
Go look at the 22 physical constants of the universe. If they are off by 1% then the ENTIRE universe would be lifeless. The odds of that happening by chance make monkey-typed Shakespeare collections seem commonplace by comparison.
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.