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.)
and gives evolution... more credence---than it deserves.
Here is another argument we have previously advised creationists not to use,
in... this section of Arguments we think creationists should NOT use.
Why should we argue this, since tautology is quite common in science, and natural selection is an important part of the Creation/Fall framework?—See... Q&A: Natural selection.
Evidently the evolutionists fear the increasing spread of creationist information, despite their best efforts at censorship. So they are desperate to counteract this information. But their efforts don’t withstand scientific scrutiny, and in the end evolution is admitted to be a deduction from a materialistic belief system.
It is... philosophy/religion---dressed up as ‘science’.
esp. on speculation-desire-fantasy(possibility)---this is false anti-science/tautology(backwards)!
Science/reality is anti-possibilty(infinite)...it has to be predictable-probable-facts(finite)----limit itself to the non-philosophical/spiritual higher world!
Evolution is over-developed/fertile--horny frogs smashed trying to change/leap swamps--ponds!
More like an audio tape system...voices---to the evo-frog leg factory(hell)!
esp. on speculation-desire-fantasy(possibility)---this is false anti-science/tautology(backwards)!
Science/reality is anti-possibilty(infinite)...it has to be predictable-probable-facts(finite)----limit itself to the non-philosophical/spiritual higher world!
Evolution is over-developed/fertile--horny frogs smashed trying to change/leap swamps--ponds!
More like an audio tape system...voices---to the evo-frog leg factory(hell)!
it has to be predictable-probable-facts(finite)----
limit itself to the non-philosophical/spiritual higher world!
it has to be predictable-probable-facts(finite)----
limit itself to the non-philosophical/spiritual higher world!
You mean they don't overlap at all? So one is design without creation and the other is creation without design?
Wow, I hadn't thought about it that way!
Oops - I guess I didn't express myself very well. I should have said, I don't understand why people in the media seem to ALWAYS equate the theory of Intelligent Design with Biblical creation, because one CAN believe in the theory of Intelligent Design without being a Biblical creationist.
I accept the theory of Intelligent Design from a non-Biblical viewpoint. My view of who the Intelligent Designer is, is different than the creationists' view. I don't have a specific entity in mind; whereas the creationists believe the Intelligent Designer is the God of the Bible.
Yet, people in the media claim that only Biblical creationists believe in Intelligent Design. I am here to disprove that notion.
At any rate, no amount of time is going to change one species to another, and no amount of argument is going to convince me differently, because it can't be proven. Unless you have intermingling of species, no extra-species data is being introduced. There are only mutations within species.
You may disagree, which is fine, and no doubt your scientific knowledge far exceeds mine, but you can't show me one definitive example of one species that was changed to another. You also can't show me one definitive example of one species that is currently in process of changing into another. Of course the typical response is that such huge lengths of time necessary for such evolution do not allow for eyewitness examination of particulars, but to delusional folks like me, that just seems all too convenient.
Yes, it must be very difficult to actually have people who don't buy into a theory so full of holes and where the core beliefs are changing almost daily based on "new evidence" that it holds the human race back from "leaping" forward to our evolutionary "potential"
You do realize the last logical step in that type thinking is?
I guess you consider that a refutation of Post#731 ?
You evolutionists are so predictable! When given evidence against your stupid theory you insult the messenger.
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.