Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Scientific American threatens AiG : Demands immediate removal of Web rebuttal
AIG ^ | 2002/07/11 | AIG

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.)


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Extended News
KEYWORDS: creation; crevo; crevolist; evolution
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 601-620621-640641-660 ... 1,461-1,467 next last
To: Right Wing Professor
Then it's just weird that all modern science textbooks don't mention what all modern science has shown.

They sure do show that. They show that no mutation has ever added a single piece of information to the genome. It shows that every single organism is run by a program that controls every aspect of its life and reacts to and is affected by the environment around it. It shows that the creation of new genetic traits cannot occur at random and much more.

621 posted on 07/12/2002 6:56:55 PM PDT by gore3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 618 | View Replies]

To: Aric2000
Common sense is all that is needed for rejecting evolution. Every living thing will die below or above a certain temperature. Our bodies maintain those temperatures. What kept the parts alive while the blob developed into a complete animal?

I just see things as too complicated and too perfect to ever have came about by accident. Evolution is nothing more than a fairy tale. Take a more detailed look at things around you and you can only come to the conclusion that there was/is a creator.

622 posted on 07/12/2002 7:05:34 PM PDT by F.J. Mitchell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 423 | View Replies]

To: BMCDA
It's true that in this process no new information has been added since this particular gene is redundant. However, this copy can mutate and so you end up with new information. So the creationist "no new information" argument is bogus at best.

It is not bogus. First of all, the only mechanism that evolutionists have figured would make new information possible is gene duplication. This is a very restricted means of evolving for this reason - the size of the gene limits the possibilities. Secondly, all organisms have duplicate genes throughout the genome (except in the sex cells). The two alleles of the genes perform ssentially the same functions but with small differences. This shows that a gene with slight differences will not result in a transformation of a species.

But the problem is bigger than that. Essentially genes are factories - mostly of proteins and enzymes. Like a factory, they are told what to make and when to make it by others. In this case, the control mechanism is what tells the genes when and what to produce (because many genes can produce more than one product). So even a completely useful, working gene would not do any work because as a new unknown gene it would not be put to work by the program that runs the organism.

623 posted on 07/12/2002 7:08:21 PM PDT by gore3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 619 | View Replies]

To: Dominic Harr
Hi.
Do you believe that species evolve to adapt to a changing environment?

no.
624 posted on 07/12/2002 7:09:56 PM PDT by Elsie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 353 | View Replies]

To: Aric2000
.... anyone that tells you that they can trace thier genealogy back to Adam is either lying to you or straight up nuts...

How do you know this?

625 posted on 07/12/2002 7:29:51 PM PDT by Elsie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 456 | View Replies]

To: EBUCK
All you have to consider, at the least, for macroevolution is size. If localized populations become too large or too small (which I think we can all agree is very probable even in short time frames) to breed with other populations you have a new species. And once interpopulational breeding stops, the two (or more) populations will be forever split down different evolutionary paths due to them never again sharing slight genetic changes.
Sorry, but modern biologists ALL agree that if a population gets to SMALL, destructive inbreeding occurs and they ALL die out.

But, interestingly, this is the EXACT mechanism that "E's" claim is the start of another, distinct offshoot of life.


Ya can't have it both ways!


626 posted on 07/12/2002 7:50:32 PM PDT by Elsie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 501 | View Replies]

To: Aric2000
Your reality is based on the bible, a 1600 year old book, a conglomeration of much older books. My beliefs are based on the most current scientific findings about the earth and the universe. And... the age of the Bible!
Seriously: you need to get better resourses.
627 posted on 07/12/2002 7:54:41 PM PDT by Elsie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 552 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor

Luke 3:

35: Which was the son of Saruch, which was the son of Ragau, which was the son of Phalec, which was the son of Heber, which was the son of Sala,

36: Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech,

Genesis 10:

21: Unto Shem also, the father of all the children of Eber, the brother of Japheth the elder, even to him were children born.

22: The children of Shem; Elam, and Asshur, and Arphaxad, and Lud, and Aram.

23: And the children of Aram; Uz, and Hul, and Gether, and Mash.

24: And Arphaxad begat Salah; and Salah begat Eber.

So was Salah Arphaxad's grandchild, or his child? And if Cainan was Arphaxad's child, and Cainan begat Salah, then how come Genesis 10:6 says Canaan was the son of Ham?

My own theory is that Luke was trying to show how Jesus was descended from David, to fulfill prophecy, and he added the genealogy of David for completeness, but goofed (or one of his translators goofed) in adding Canaan to the direct line. And it wasn't important to the point he was making, so only a Biblical literalist would consider it a problem.


One.  There is a SPELLING difference in the names you point out,

Two. My child has the same name as  my grandfather - how is THAT possible?

Three.  Not to worry about literalists: if there WAS a problem with the lineage, the JEWS would have noticed it LONG before there were any 'christians' in the world!

King James Version
Genesis 10
 
 1.  Now these are the generations of the sons of Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japheth: and unto them were sons born after the flood.
 2.  The sons of Japheth; Gomer, and Magog, and Madai, and Javan, and Tubal, and Meshech, and Tiras.
 3.  And the sons of Gomer; Ashkenaz, and Riphath, and Togarmah.
 4.  And the sons of Javan; Elishah, and Tarshish, Kittim, and Dodanim.
 5.  By these were the isles of the Gentiles divided in their lands; every one after his tongue, after their families, in their nations.
 6.  And the sons of Ham; Cush, and Mizraim, and Phut, and Canaan.
 7.  And the sons of Cush; Seba, and Havilah, and Sabtah, and Raamah, and Sabtecha: and the sons of Raamah, Sheba, and Dedan.
 8.  And Cush begat Nimrod: he began to be a mighty one in the earth.
 9.  He was a mighty hunter before the Lord: wherefore it is said, Even as Nimrod the mighty hunter before the Lord.
 10.  And the beginning of his kingdom was Babel, and Erech, and Accad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinar.
 11.  Out of that land went forth Asshur, and builded Nineveh, and the city Rehoboth, and Calah,
 12.  And Resen between Nineveh and Calah: the same is a great city.
 13.  And Mizraim begat Ludim, and Anamim, and Lehabim, and Naphtuhim,
 14.  And Pathrusim, and Casluhim, (out of whom came Philistim,) and Caphtorim.
 15.  And Canaan begat Sidon his firstborn, and Heth,
 16.  And the Jebusite, and the Amorite, and the Girgasite,
 17.  And the Hivite, and the Arkite, and the Sinite,
 18.  And the Arvadite, and the Zemarite, and the Hamathite: and afterward were the families of the Canaanites spread abroad.
 19.  And the border of the Canaanites was from Sidon, as thou comest to Gerar, unto gaza; as thou goest, unto Sodom, and Gomorrah, and Admah, and Zeboim, even unto Lasha.
 20.  These are the sons of Ham, after their families, after their tongues, in their countries, and in their nations.
 21.  Unto Shem also, the father of all the children of Eber, the brother of Japheth the elder, even to him were children born.
 22.  The children of Shem; Elam, and Asshur, and Arphaxad, and Lud, and Aram.
 23.  And the children of Aram; Uz, and Hul, and Gether, and Mash.
 24.  And Arphaxad begat Salah; and Salah begat Eber.
 25.  And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg; for in his days was the earth divided; and his brother's name was Joktan.
 26.  And Joktan begat Almodad, and Sheleph, and Hazarmaveth, and Jerah,
 27.  And Hadoram, and Uzal, and Diklah,
 28.  And Obal, and Abimael, and Sheba,
 29.  And Ophir, and Havilah, and Jobab: all these were the sons of Joktan.
 30.  And their dwelling was from Mesha, as thou goest unto Sephar a mount of the east.
 31.  These are the sons of Shem, after their families, after their tongues, in their lands, after their nations.
 32.  These are the families of the sons of Noah, after their generations, in their nations: and by these were the nations divided in the earth after the flood.

Matthew 1

 
 1.  A record of the genealogy of Jesus Christ the son of David, the son of Abraham:
 2.  Abraham was the father of Isaac, Isaac the father of Jacob, Jacob the father of Judah and his brothers,
 3.  Judah the father of Perez and Zerah, whose mother was Tamar, Perez the father of Hezron, Hezron the father of Ram, 
 4.  Ram the father of Amminadab, Amminadab the father of Nahshon, Nahshon the father of Salmon,
 5.  Salmon the father of Boaz, whose mother was Rahab, Boaz the father of Obed, whose mother was Ruth, Obed the father of Jesse,
 6.  and Jesse the father of King David. David was the father of Solomon, whose mother had been Uriah's wife,
 7.  Solomon the father of Rehoboam, Rehoboam the father of Abijah, Abijah the father of Asa,
 8.  Asa the father of Jehoshaphat, Jehoshaphat the father of Jehoram, Jehoram the father of Uzziah,
 9.  Uzziah the father of Jotham, Jotham the father of Ahaz, Ahaz the father of Hezekiah,
 10.  Hezekiah the father of Manasseh, Manasseh the father of Amon, Amon the father of Josiah,
 11.  and Josiah the father of Jeconiah  and his brothers at the time of the exile to Babylon.
 12.  After the exile to Babylon: Jeconiah was the father of Shealtiel, Shealtiel the father of Zerubbabel,
 13.  Zerubbabel the father of Abiud, Abiud the father of Eliakim, Eliakim the father of Azor,
 14.  Azor the father of Zadok, Zadok the father of Akim, Akim the father of Eliud,
 15.  Eliud the father of Eleazar, Eleazar the father of Matthan, Matthan the father of Jacob,
 16.  and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
 17.  Thus there were fourteen generations in all from Abraham to David, fourteen from David to the exile to Babylon, and fourteen from the exile to the Christ. 
New International Version
Genesis 10
 
 1.  This is the account of Shem, Ham and Japheth, Noah's sons, who themselves had sons after the flood.
 2.  The sons  of Japheth: Gomer, Magog, Madai, Javan, Tubal, Meshech and Tiras.
 3.  The sons of Gomer: Ashkenaz, Riphath and Togarmah.
 4.  The sons of Javan: Elishah, Tarshish, the Kittim and the Rodanim.
 5.  (From these the maritime peoples spread out into their territories by their clans within their nations, each with its own language.)
 6.  The sons of Ham: Cush, Mizraim,  Put and Canaan.
 7.  The sons of Cush: Seba, Havilah, Sabtah, Raamah and Sabteca. The sons of Raamah: Sheba and Dedan.
 8.  Cush was the father of Nimrod, who grew to be a mighty warrior on the earth.
 9.  He was a mighty hunter before the LORD; that is why it is said, "Like Nimrod, a mighty hunter before the LORD."
 10.  The first centers of his kingdom were Babylon, Erech, Akkad and Calneh, in  Shinar.
 11.  From that land he went to Assyria, where he built Nineveh, Rehoboth Ir,  Calah
 12.  and Resen, which is between Nineveh and Calah; that is the great city.
 13.  Mizraim was the father of the Ludites, Anamites, Lehabites, Naphtuhites,
 14.  Pathrusites, Casluhites (from whom the Philistines came) and Caphtorites.
 15.  Canaan was the father of Sidon his firstborn, and of the Hittites,
 16.  Jebusites, Amorites, Girgashites,
 17.  Hivites, Arkites, Sinites,
 18.  Arvadites, Zemarites and Hamathites.   Later the Canaanite clans scattered
 19.  and the borders of Canaan reached from Sidon toward Gerar as far as Gaza, and then toward Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah and Zeboiim, as far as Lasha.
 20.  These are the sons of Ham by their clans and languages, in their territories and nations.
 21.  Sons were also born to Shem, whose older brother was Japheth; Shem was the ancestor of all the sons of Eber.
 22.  The sons of Shem: Elam, Asshur, Arphaxad, Lud and Aram.
 23.  The sons of Aram: Uz, Hul, Gether and Meshech.
 24.  Arphaxad was the father of  Shelah, and Shelah the father of Eber.
 25.  Two sons were born to Eber: One was named Peleg,  because in his time the earth was divided; his brother was named Joktan.
 26.  Joktan was the father of Almodad, Sheleph, Hazarmaveth, Jerah,
 27.  Hadoram, Uzal, Diklah,
 28.  Obal, Abimael, Sheba,
 29.  Ophir, Havilah and Jobab. All these were sons of Joktan.
 30.  The region where they lived stretched from Mesha toward Sephar, in the eastern hill country.
 31.  These are the sons of Shem by their clans and languages, in their territories and nations.
 32.  These are the clans of Noah's sons, according to their lines of descent, within their nations. From these the nations spread out over the earth after the flood.
Luke 3
 23.  Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli,
 24.  the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melki, the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph,
 25.  the son of Mattathias, the son of Amos, the son of Nahum, the son of Esli, the son of Naggai,
 26.  the son of Maath, the son of Mattathias, the son of Semein, the son of Josech, the son of Joda,
 27.  the son of Joanan, the son of Rhesa, the son of Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel, the son of Neri,
 28.  the son of Melki, the son of Addi, the son of Cosam, the son of Elmadam, the son of Er,
 29.  the son of Joshua, the son of Eliezer, the son of Jorim, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi,
 30.  the son of Simeon, the son of Judah, the son of Joseph, the son of Jonam, the son of Eliakim,
 31.  the son of Melea, the son of Menna, the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan, the son of David,
 32.  the son of Jesse, the son of Obed, the son of Boaz, the son of Salmon,  the son of Nahshon,
 33.  the son of Amminadab, the son of Ram, the son of Hezron, the son of Perez, the son of Judah,
 34.  the son of Jacob, the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham, the son of Terah, the son of Nahor,
 35.  the son of Serug, the son of Reu, the son of Peleg, the son of Eber, the son of Shelah,
 36.  the son of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem, the son of Noah, the son of Lamech,
 37.  the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch, the son of Jared, the son of Mahalalel, the son of Kenan,
 38.  the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.

628 posted on 07/12/2002 8:22:21 PM PDT by Elsie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 480 | View Replies]

To: Elsie
And what resources would those be?

I have been studying religion for over 25 years, tell me what I may have missed, I would be very interested in hearing it. Factual please, based on true historical references, documents etc. NOT the bible, because to use the bible to prove the bible is silly at best.
629 posted on 07/12/2002 8:40:40 PM PDT by Aric2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 627 | View Replies]

To: atlaw
Well I'll try.. I've had a few beers so forgive me if this is rambling gobbledegook. Basically, ID theory does not have anything to do with the creator. It implies a creator. I will readily admit that. But the theoretical work of ID has only to do with real physical, scientifically testable entities. It involves very advanced mathematics so it's no surprise that much of this work is not widely accepted. I will try to give you more later.. I'm toasted right now :)
630 posted on 07/12/2002 10:03:03 PM PDT by That Subliminal Kid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 610 | View Replies]

To: Aric2000
Zzzzzz...
631 posted on 07/12/2002 10:03:39 PM PDT by That Subliminal Kid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 605 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
LOL. I read Origin of Species in College. I just dont' see where the new genetic information is coming from.
632 posted on 07/12/2002 10:04:28 PM PDT by That Subliminal Kid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 602 | View Replies]

To: Doctor Stochastic; Centurion2000
The article in the latest issue of Chaos, Solitons, and Fractals would seem to disagree with your assertion.

Fine Tuning of Parameters of the Universe

Author: Rubin, S.G.a

Affiliations: a. Moscow Engineering Physics Institute, Centre for CosmoParticle Physics “Cosmion”, 115409, Moscow, Russia

Abstract (English): The mechanism of production of a large number of universes is considered. It is shown that universes with parameters suitable for creation of life are necessarily produced as a result of quantum fluctuations. Fractal structures are formed provided fluctuations take place near a maximum of the potential. Several ways of formation of similar fractal structures within our universe are discussed. Theoretical predictions are compared with observational data.

Does this periodical have a website where the entire article can be read?

The multiple (or really, infinite) universe theory is not new, it just appears in various flavors over time.

The biggest problem with such a theory is that it is completely unverifiable - the state, not to mention the very existence, of other universes outside our own is impossible to determine.

Picture a man before a firing squad, each soldier pulls the trigger and misses, leaving the man alive. No one would suggest it was an accident, due to the odds involved; no one would suggest there were an infinite number of alternate universes where the man was executed, and this was the fluke where he didn't. Obviously it was purposed by some intelligence that the man was to live.

The fine tuning parameters are more numerous than Centurion2000 suggested; there are at least 47 parameters that need to be met; the probability for this universe to have a life-supporting body is one in 10^237. It seems one would need, practically speaking, a near infinite number of (undetectable) universes to guarantee having one with a life-supporting body.

633 posted on 07/12/2002 11:50:24 PM PDT by apologist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 578 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor; gore3000
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

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.

So, you're suggesting that the undergrads are throwing a variety of amino acids into a beaker, and over time, they gradually sequence themselves into the necessary proteins, RNA and DNA molecules for this bacteria, which in turn started to work together to assemble themselves into this self-replicating small bacteria? Is that what they did? Somebody ought to tell Scientific American, because abiogenesis (which is what it seems Gore3000 was referring to) is one of those issues that even SA admits is troublesome.

Or perhaps you were suggesting that the undergrads were working with preexisting complex molecules, and added some intelligence (versus random molecular interaction) to "sequence" the bacteria....which doesn't seem at all to have anything to do with Gore3000's point.

634 posted on 07/13/2002 12:14:30 AM PDT by apologist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 618 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
To: Right Wing Professor


My mistake. In linking to the words of John Paul, I implicitly assumed that those reading them would possess some level of comprehension. It was a speech by a sophisticated metaphysician to an audience of scientists. Do you really think you should be responding to it without being sure you understand it?

In the preceding text, the Pontiff referred to a multiplicity of theories of evolution. In the section you quote, he discusses that subset of such theories which "regard the spirit either as emerging from the forces of living matter, or as a simple epiphenomenon of that matter".

Got it now, or would you prefer a translation into monosyllables?


209 posted on 7/11/02 2:02 PM Pacific by Right Wing Professor





5. The magisterium of the Church takes a direct interest in the question of evolution, because it touches on the conception of man, whom Revelation tells us is created in the image and likeness of God. The conciliar constitution Gaudium et Spes has given us a magnificent exposition of this doctrine, which is one of the essential elements of Christian thought. The Council recalled that "man is the only creature on earth that God wanted for its own sake." In other words, the human person cannot be subordinated as a means to an end, or as an instrument of either the species or the society; he has a value of his own. He is a person. By this intelligence and his will, he is capable of entering into relationship, of communion, of solidarity, of the gift of himself to others like himself. St. Thomas observed that man's resemblance to God resides especially in his speculative intellect, because his relationship with the object of his knowledge is like God's relationship with his creation. (Summa Theologica I-II, q 3, a 5, ad 1) But even beyond that, man is called to enter into a loving relationship with God himself, a relationship which will find its full expression at the end of time, in eternity. Within the mystery of the risen Christ the full grandeur of this vocation is revealed to us. (Gaudium et Spes, 22) It is by virtue of his eternal soul that the whole person, including his body, possesses such great dignity. Pius XII underlined the essential point: if the origin of the human body comes through living matter which existed previously, the spiritual soul is created directly by God ("animas enim a Deo immediate creari catholica fides non retimere iubet"). (Humani Generis)

As a result, the theories of evolution which, because of the philosophies which inspire them, regard the spirit either as emerging from the forces of living matter, or as a simple epiphenomenon of that matter, are incompatible with the truth about man. They are therefore unable to serve as the basis for the dignity of the human person.



487 posted on 7/12/02 10:31 AM Pacific by f.Christian

635 posted on 07/13/2002 3:05:38 AM PDT by f.Christian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 482 | View Replies]

To: apologist
Is that what they did? Somebody ought to tell Scientific American, because abiogenesis (which is what it seems Gore3000 was referring to) is one of those issues that even SA admits is troublesome.

Actually I was not referring to abiogenesis. In fact abiogenesis is totally laughable and even Darwin did not dare to touch it. Only a few wacked out atheists think that is possible. I was talking about the creation of new genetic material. What science has finally shown is how an organism grows from conception to birth. As it had long been suspected, even long before modern science, this is really a miraculous event. From one single cell, a program tells that cell how to divide, how to multiply, what kind of cell to make, where to make them, how many of them to make - this it does for each and every one of the trillions of cells in a human being. To say that such a program can be improved upon by random mutations is utterly absurd.

636 posted on 07/13/2002 4:27:35 AM PDT by gore3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 634 | View Replies]

To: Aric2000
Factual please, based on true historical references, documents etc. NOT the bible, because

Are you trying to say the bible is NOT an historical document? That things HAVEN'T been found by archeologists that previously were only documented in that book?

637 posted on 07/13/2002 5:16:52 AM PDT by Elsie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 629 | View Replies]

To: Elsie
Come on Elsie, you know exactly what I am asking you for, and you have decided to play word games with me.
638 posted on 07/13/2002 7:24:20 AM PDT by Aric2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 637 | View Replies]

To: Elsie
Have you heard of the council of Nicea? how about the other councils where they decided which stories and books would stay and which ones would not.

Have you read the gospel of Thomas? how about the gnostic gospels? Dead Sea Scrolls? and a great many others that the councils decided did not agree with them and therefore were thrown out and as many copies destroyed as possible. How about the conversion of Constantine, do you know about that? How about the crucifiction, do you know what happened? before they added him rising from the dead of course.

Do you know why Jesus Birthday is in December, or how about Easter being so near Spring equinox? Do you know the history and true origins of Christmas? How about the history and true origins of Easter? Could be very enlightening for you.

Do you know what an Essene was?Do you know who simon Bar Kochba is?

Do you know who wrote the gospels that are in the bible and when?

I have lots of resources Elsie, your point again was what?
639 posted on 07/13/2002 7:43:21 AM PDT by Aric2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 637 | View Replies]

To: medved
You suspect the problem might be that evolutionists are just too stupid to conduct experiments properly?

No, I suspect that you are so upset at Mr. Darwin for entirely mistaken reasons, and you deliberately misrepresent the findings of that research to try and deal with the cognitive dissonance.

You clearly dispise Mr. Darwin, yet you agree with him and his theory.

And to deal with that dichotomy, I think you mistakenly argue against the wrong thing.

The proof is in the idea, "I believe that species evolve to adapt to their surroundings, but I do *not* believe in Darwinism."

That is a logical contradiction.

640 posted on 07/13/2002 8:36:53 AM PDT by Dominic Harr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 589 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 601-620621-640641-660 ... 1,461-1,467 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson