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.)
You have the closed mind, not Elsie. She is quite correct about micro-evolution. All the examples given by evolutionists for it are far too quick to have had anything to do with mutations or any sort of genetic change. The moths existed in both spotted and unspotted flavors before the industrial revolution and after the pollution was cleaned up. Darwin's finches supposedly could not mate with each other and supposedly had their beaks change in a draught. Problem is that both the statements were false. The finches can mate with each other and when there was plentiful rain the beaks reverted to their previous size. All this within a matter of less than 10 years. So yes, there is no proof of micro-evolution.
In that case then you will have no problem telling us all what species the platypus descended from and what species euglena descended from. All you need to give us is TWO (2) words. Not excuses, just 2 words.
I already showed you that the most common examples of micro-evolution given by evolutionists are false. If you have examples which you think are valid we can discuss them.
I had linked to the list of parameters, complete with "non-theistic" references... here are those links again... the number of parameters is 47 for a universe to support life, even more once solar system and planetary factors are included:
This is a laundry list that does nothing whatsoever to address my point, but if this satisfies your need for refutation, that's what counts, I suppose.
Just what mechanism would you have in place to keep THEIR bias' from creeping in?
It's less a question of bias then flat out error. I don't have or need a mechanism, what I said was I have no faith in their interpretations. That doesn't mean I don't think they've got it all wrong, I just don't believe that they have all of it right. My faith in man's competency in this regard is no where near solid. If it's solid enough for you, that's all that should matter.
The response to the "please give 3 reasons or proofs" question is a good way to tell if someone had actually bothered to study an issue or if they are relying on the national media for accurate scientific information. (LOL)
I wanted to see why you believe what you believe. You will be surprised at how many people never question their own assumptions. Look at liberals and their love of big gov't welfare for example. The libs never ask if their spending does any good.
For example you mentioned Darwin. Are you a Darwinist? If so, how do you respond to those evolutionists who say Darwin's theory was wrong. (or vice versa.) Same with the Big Bang theory. If you accept it, then what do you say to those evolutionists who say the evidence contradicts Big Bang?
I think that evolutionists feel threatened by creationists. They will argue among themselves, and then close ranks when a creationist appears. Rather than admitting that there is any weaknesses in evolutionary theory.
What you call a species are just bones. We do not know what traits those bones had. No living species has anything close to the traits of the platypus.
Euglena: facts that support the Hypothesis that the chloroplasts of flagellate euglenoids evolved from symbiotic green algae
Nonsense. A hypothesis is not a proven fact. Euglena is both an animal and a plant and has an eye.
Euglena can be induced to lose their chloroplasts
Irrelevant, it is easy to destroy anything.
The taxa posses a large number of colorless species including; Serpenomonas costa, Entosiphon sulcatum and Peranema trichophorum
Which makes my statement truer. The trait could not have descended from similar species.
". . . it would be outright idiocy and stupidity to say otherwise. Each old fact thatis disproved, is replaced with a new set of facts . . ."
ROTFL Facts cannot be disproved, can they?
"Have you read the gospel of Thomas? how about the gnostic gospels? Dead Sea Scrolls?"Yes. However, I do not understand what The Gospel of Thomas (attributed to Didymos Judas Thomas), has to do with evolution since it is a collection of the sayings of Jesus and closely parallels the Synoptic Gospels of the New Testament (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) and in it Christ mentions Adam as the first man. Is that your point perhaps, or do you have another?
". . . 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."
And what is your point? That every ancient book dealing with Christians, gnostics or Jews wasn't included in the Bible? As I said, The Gospel of Thomas contains much of the same material covered by the New Testament Gospels. It is not as eloquent, as organized or as intact as the four gospels that were chosen.
"How about the conversion of Constantine, do you know about that?"Yes. And again, what is your point?
"How about the crucifiction, do you know what happened? before they added him rising from the dead of course."Yes and no. Who were "they"? When did "they" add this? How did "they" add this? You know this is a fact because . . . ?
"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?"
It seems to me that you were saying that in science old facts are disproved and replaced with new facts on a regular basis, which is true. In Christianity that is not so. The facts are what they are and they've remained rather constant for 2,000 years. Does that bother you?
Fools may blaspheme and deride belivers, but in so doing, they simply fullfill what the Bible says about scoffers and mockers. Facts do not change. Simon Bar Koziba was not Messiah, Christ was. Have you ever met a Kozibian Aric?
Science changes with the seasons and has a history of frauds, miscalculations and incorrect assumptions. God is constant and has never said, "Oh wait, I've realized I've made a mistake".
The whole point of these threads are whether God did it or the pond scum did it. We already knew your opinion on the subject.
There are fossils that show that we evolved from another species, "doesn't prove a thing, God did it"
No there are not. The chimps have been proven not to be ancestors of man. Neanderthal, the only relative in time to homo sapiens has been proven not to be an ancestor of man.
Prove the existence of god, "we are here. that proves it."
I already gave you the proof, but you ignored it - LIFE. Science has shown that abiogenesis is impossible. Also, the abilities which make mankind different from beasts - art, logic, conscience, geometry - have no possible materialistic explanation.
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.