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.)
That was exactly what Darwin called evolution - the survival of the fittest. The Origin of Species is online . See for yourself.
I'm not sure that there's any new genetic information being added to the pool.
I'm not sure what you mean by adding 'new genetic information'. If I generate all posible combinations of 50 letters and spaces, I've written the first line of every one of Shakespeare's sonnets. But is the information really in there? Information theorists would say no; you only add information when you choose the combinations that are meaningful. So, the addition of information isn't in the random mutation, it's in the selection.
This is a joke, right? How old are you, F.Christian? Nine? Grow up. Adults don't make little sister jokes.
Gender/truth/age confused?
Creationism is not science. Get over it.
And what makes people think God didn't design evolution? I think evolution IS His plan. God just set the whole thing in motion and sits back and watches what happens.
You could tell that I'm a transvestite from just two posts? Impressive. lmao
Creationism is the belief of a few fire-breathing fundamentalists. ID is the same thing, but its advocates have learned to tone down the fire-breathing part, while pretending to be scientific. They're not fooling very many people.
You have it backwards. Evolution is not science. It has been totally disproven by all modern science. The one thing that all modern science has shown is that organisms are just plain too complex to have ever arisen by any sort of random means.
It's also shown that humans and great apes share the *exact same* mutation that blocks formation of vitamin C. Amazing coincidence, don't ya think?
BTW, what's your take on the example I was using on another thread, about how sickle cell shows natural selection and Mendelian genetics working together?
Then it's just weird that all modern science textbooks don't mention what all modern science has shown.
This is the 'I'm too stupid to figure out how, so everyone else must be too stupid too' fallacy. Actually, if one of the more minimalist bacteria is too complex, it's sure escaped me. We can sequence a small bacterial genome in under a day. The whole thing is a bit of circular DNA, a membrane, a few ribosomes, a few hundred enzymes, 21 tRNAs. Even our undergrads can handle that list of components. And the whole thing pretty much self-assembles.
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.