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 ... 721-740741-760761-780 ... 1,461-1,467 next last
To: Dimensio
because a ‘theory’ in science means something with a reasonable amount of support,

and gives evolution... more credence---than it deserves.

741 posted on 07/14/2002 12:58:48 PM PDT by f.Christian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 736 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
2. Natural selection is based on circular reasoning: the fittest are those who survive, and those who survive are deemed fittest.

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.

742 posted on 07/14/2002 1:00:51 PM PDT by f.Christian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 736 | View Replies]

To: f.Christian
Evolution is just a theory, just as you believe that the bible is just a book.
743 posted on 07/14/2002 2:24:33 PM PDT by Aric2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 741 | View Replies]

To: Aric2000
Evolution is a materialistic ideology that butchers--mutilates the higher non material philosophical world...just like your comparison/analogy!
744 posted on 07/14/2002 2:28:38 PM PDT by f.Christian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 743 | View Replies]

To: Aric2000
Conclusion

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’.

745 posted on 07/14/2002 2:37:06 PM PDT by f.Christian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 743 | View Replies]

To: f.Christian
Poor F Christian, still hasn't a clue, We ought to let you and Gore just talk to each other. As a matter of fact, good plan, you're both as crazy as the other one. Have fun!!
746 posted on 07/14/2002 2:57:15 PM PDT by Aric2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 744 | View Replies]

To: Aric2000
You need some new material-moves...wrestling with your own self/demons---how about evo camp-refresher course!
747 posted on 07/14/2002 3:05:15 PM PDT by f.Christian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 746 | View Replies]

To: f.Christian
2. Natural selection is based on circular reasoning:

This is a misstatement of Natural Selection. NS is that organisms with traits that provide the best survival advantage are those who will pass their genetics on to the next generation and as such those traits will become more common within a population over successive generations.

the fittest are those who survive, and those who survive are deemed fittest.

That isn't circular reasoning, it's restating essentially the same statement in order to make it look like a circular argument. Those who are "best fit" for an environment will be the ones to survive in that environment. That isn't a circular argument, that's a single statement on its own.

I don't expect you to understand that, however, because you didn't even come up with the above quote. You cannot type in coherent sentences and you don't have any reading comprehension skills that I can discern.
748 posted on 07/14/2002 5:01:39 PM PDT by Dimensio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 742 | View Replies]

To: f.Christian
Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.

EVERYTHING IN SCIENCE IS A THEORY!!!

Why do creationists keep using this ancient line as though it means anything? Any scientist who isn't a shill or a complete moron knows that evolution is a theory, but any "explanation" in science never gets better than theory! Using this phrase like it means something shows that creationists are either incredibly dishonest and are trying to use it as a smokescreen to confuse those less aware of the scientific method or that they are too stupid to understand how the scientific method works -- in which case their "scientific" explanations shouldn't be given credence anyway.

f.Christian, go away until you have a coherent thought of your own. Your parroting old, not to mention stupid, creationist arguments don't give your side any help.
749 posted on 07/14/2002 5:04:24 PM PDT by Dimensio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 740 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
You can not have material/physical effects poorly--badly--wrongly defining-conjuring up cause/metaphysics...

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)!

750 posted on 07/14/2002 5:15:42 PM PDT by f.Christian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 749 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
You can not have material/physical effects poorly--badly--wrongly defining-conjuring up cause/metaphysics...

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)!

751 posted on 07/14/2002 5:15:59 PM PDT by f.Christian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 749 | View Replies]

To: f.Christian
Ah, see, I knew you didn't come up with the words of your previous postings. You are only capable of cut-and-past of other's works--plagarism--or mindless inane babble--psychosis!
752 posted on 07/14/2002 5:16:33 PM PDT by Dimensio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 750 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
Science/reality is anti-possibilty(infinite)...

it has to be predictable-probable-facts(finite)----

limit itself to the non-philosophical/spiritual higher world!

753 posted on 07/14/2002 5:32:56 PM PDT by f.Christian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 752 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
Science/reality is anti-possibilty(infinite)...

it has to be predictable-probable-facts(finite)----

limit itself to the non-philosophical/spiritual higher world!

754 posted on 07/14/2002 5:40:46 PM PDT by f.Christian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 752 | View Replies]

To: f.Christian
More AUTOSPAM from somewhere else. Why do you waste the time and bandwidth? Covering for Gore3000's losses?
755 posted on 07/14/2002 5:54:10 PM PDT by balrog666
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 754 | View Replies]

To: balrog666
I, also, don't understand why some people equate the theory of Intelligent Design with creationism. Perhaps they are too stupid to see the difference.

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.

756 posted on 07/14/2002 7:15:24 PM PDT by my_pointy_head_is_sharp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 695 | View Replies]

To: Dominic Harr
I absolutely do NOT believe in evolution. Actually, I am a young earth creationist. :) Therefore, I am precisely the type whom many on this thread think is simply delusional, but since that's between myself and God, it's beside the point.

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.

757 posted on 07/14/2002 7:18:28 PM PDT by agrace
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 365 | View Replies]

To: Dominic Harr
PS - adaptation is NOT evolution. I agree with Darwin's conclusions about adaptation, which is quite observable, but completely disagree with his suppositions that became the theory of evolution.
758 posted on 07/14/2002 7:22:57 PM PDT by agrace
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 365 | View Replies]

To: WyldKard
I believe in Evolution, and think that Creationism is a bunch of hoey holding us back intellectually.

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?

759 posted on 07/14/2002 7:27:51 PM PDT by JZoback
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Aric2000
ROFLMAO!!!! You are delusional,

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.

760 posted on 07/14/2002 7:43:23 PM PDT by gore3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 733 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 721-740741-760761-780 ... 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