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 ... 841-860861-880881-900 ... 1,461-1,467 next last
To: medved
That's not only non-obvious, but it's been coercively disproven by experiment as I have noted.

I'd say it's obvious, happens in every system you can observe that I'm aware of, and has been proven by experiment and real-world experience, as I've noted.

You, I think it's proven, have other reasons for attacking Darwin. Reasons that have nothing to do with his theory. You agree with the specifics of the theory, but insult the man and anyone who admits to believing in the theory.

It appears you do this because you're actually advancing another agenda. You believe you have evidence that Man did not 'evolve'. So you attempt to discredit the entire theory of evolution, even tho you believe it's specifics.

This leads you to outright manufacture evidence, like with that pic of the big rock. Or in this case, misrepresenting the results of the fruit fly experiment.

Now I'm a big science fiction fan, so I read your posts enthusiastically. I love a good, unusual theory. But your definition of 'evidence' and mine are so different that there's no chance we could ever have a meaningful discussion about your other theories.

The only meaningful exchange we can have is me pointing out that you *do* believe in the specifics of evolution.

Then cognitive dissonance will set in.

Consciously, you can easily ignore me. But you brain is aware of the dichotomy. You will have to resolve the problem. You will think about it subconsciously. You're a human, you can't help it.

It's that point -- a bunch of small changes always equals a big change. Can't ignore it, even if you blindly deny it. The 'micro' v. 'macro' difference is only a matter of timespan.

That's interesting, to me. When faced with believing two ideas that contradict each other, some people freak out. Some people change their minds. Some people become morbidly depressed.

I'm curious how the various individuals will deal with this dichotomy.

861 posted on 07/16/2002 9:57:12 AM PDT by Dominic Harr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 857 | View Replies]

To: Dominic Harr
"The only difference between micro and macro evolution is time."

So some presume. But there is a big jump from affirming that the size of a bird's beak can vary to making the claim that the bird turned into a whole other animal. The one has been observed, the other has not.

862 posted on 07/16/2002 10:29:39 AM PDT by MEGoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 852 | View Replies]

To: Gumlegs
Originally the word liberal meant social conservatives(no govt religion--none) who advocated growth and progress---mostly technological(knowledge being absolute/unchanging)based on law--reality... UNDER GOD---the nature of GOD/man/govt. does not change. These were the Classical liberals...founding fathers-PRINCIPLES---stable/SANE scientific reality/society---industrial/technological progress(no evolution--zero)...moral/social character-values(private/personal) INTELLECTUAL GROWTH!
863 posted on 07/16/2002 10:30:40 AM PDT by f.Christian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 854 | View Replies]

To: f.Christian
See gratuitous compliment in my post 858 in this thread.
864 posted on 07/16/2002 10:41:00 AM PDT by Gumlegs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 863 | View Replies]

To: Dominic Harr
But they claim they don't agree with so-called 'macro' evolution, even tho the only difference is 'time'.

This statement simply has not been demonstrated, in experiment or in nature.

The bugs have changed.

The bugs more resistant have reproduced, but the bugs are the same. This is natural selection, a fact of nature. No morphing into something else. Others on this thread have also already pointed out that no new information has been or is being added.

You are claiming that natural selection=Darwinism=belief in evolution. This is you big point that you've been making, and therefore asserting that everyone is an evolutionist. This is not the case, for Darwin makes the jump from natural selection to evolution, which are not the same thing.


From Macro vs. Micro Evolution
by David Skjaerlund

"Charles Darwin sparked a revolution in scientific thought with the publication of his book, The Origin of Species, in 1859. With his concept of evolution by natural selection, Darwin attempted to render invalid the biblical idea that "every living thing produces life after its own kind."
In the first half of Species, Darwin cited evidence for "micro-evolution," or changes on a small level between species. His discovery of the several different types of finches on the Galapagos Islands with similar characteristics, derived from a common ancestor, comprised his evidence for micro-evolution. The 14 different species of finches vary according to plumage, size (from the size of a sparrow to that of a large blackbird), beak morphology, behavior and environmental habitat. They were each very different, yet closely related.

From this observation, Darwin then extrapolated his explanation for the origin of life forms from a common ancestor, or "macro-evolution." He used the evidence from the first half of his book on micro-evolution to suggest that the same mechanism could produce all life forms. However, this concept of macro-evolution is not supported by modern scientific evidence. Although we can explain and understand the mechanism behind micro-evolution, we still can only theorize about possible explanations for macro-evolution - since it has no scientifically valid occurrences."



So the evidence of the morphing process-macro evolution as it's called, is nil. With this morphing process happening "every day" as you claim, we should see fossil evidence of transitional species everywhere. We don't.

You can claim that natural selection=Darwinism, but it's not true. Darwin made the case for evolution and morphing, which isn't supported by the fossil record or demonstrated in nature.
865 posted on 07/16/2002 10:46:55 AM PDT by Blowtorch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 849 | View Replies]

To: Blowtorch
As I have noted, the experiments conducted with fruit flies in the eearly decades of the 1900's provided coercive proof that no amount of microevolution will ever produce macroevolution. End of story.
866 posted on 07/16/2002 11:07:09 AM PDT by medved
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 865 | View Replies]

To: Gumlegs
"You appear to intend to allow the impression that the Pope rejects all theories of evolution no matter how formulated. That's simply false. The Church does accept the theory of evolution, just not certain versions of it. It also rejects any interpretation that would be used to ... but you say you don't need my help on the issue, so I'll drop it with the note that the theory of evolution is taught as a valid scientific theory in Catholic schools up to and including the University level."

The Bible says..."the whole world would be deceived---the very elect(God won't allow it)---if it were possible"!

Religion was practicing 'evolution' long before Darwin...ever hear of Martin Luther---the reformation?

867 posted on 07/16/2002 11:16:16 AM PDT by f.Christian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 858 | View Replies]

To: medved
MV, this is getting to be no fun at all. Neither side wants to listen to the other on this subject, so let's vector off into another, similar one.

Life from non-life.


This planet has many megatons of bio-mass - living tissue of some type, stored as ants, bacteria, slugs, whales, oak trees, krill, lizards and Dolly Parton's ample..... no, scratch that one (two).

If this planet of ours was just bare rocks, sand, dust and water and a witches brew of chemicals, what did the FIRST little beastie EAT when it DID finally appear?

Ya fling a dead cat into a gravel pit and all the little microbes do NOT start a new, growing mound of life around its carcase.

So what shall we think?

868 posted on 07/16/2002 11:19:49 AM PDT by Elsie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 866 | View Replies]

To: f.Christian
And all this time we thought you were a Creationist.
869 posted on 07/16/2002 11:22:20 AM PDT by Gumlegs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 867 | View Replies]

To: Gumlegs
Religion(false) was practicing 'evolution' long before Darwin...

ever hear of Martin Luther(no evolution)---the reformation(Truth/science)?

870 posted on 07/16/2002 11:31:29 AM PDT by f.Christian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 869 | View Replies]

To: narby
You must not have any children...if you do and you think they were just some accident of nature, that would be even sadder.
871 posted on 07/16/2002 11:33:51 AM PDT by Ann Archy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: f.Christian
Thanks for clearing that up. I was beginning to worry.
872 posted on 07/16/2002 11:34:57 AM PDT by Gumlegs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 870 | View Replies]

To: Gumlegs
Originally the word liberal meant social conservatives(no govt religion--none) who advocated growth and progress---mostly technological(knowledge being absolute/unchanging)based on law--reality... UNDER GOD---the nature of GOD/THEOLOGY/man/SCIENCE/govt. does not/NEVER change.

These were the Classical liberals...founding fathers-PRINCIPLES---stable/SANE scientific reality/society---industrial progress(no evolution...zero---ziltch/none)...moral/social character-values(private/personal) INTELLECTUAL GROWTH---expertise/professionalism!

873 posted on 07/16/2002 11:57:20 AM PDT by f.Christian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 872 | View Replies]

To: Dominic Harr
I don't find any thought threatening. I am completely secure in my beliefs, proven and unproven, and while I am no scientist (as I said before), I feel comfortably well-read all around. I'm familiar with evolution, young-earth creationism, progressive creationism, and basically everything in between.

I'll continue to disagree with you about adaptation being evolution, because I disagree that change within a species is evolution, and that's all adaptation is. I'll continue to disagree that the only difference between micro and macro is time because no one can prove that change from one species to another has ever happened, is happening or ever will happen, no matter what length of time is added to it.

And with regard to Darwin, I believe I said that I AGREE with what Darwin said about adaptation, but disagree with his further suppositions that became the theory of evolution.

I find it hard to believe that you can't find one bit of young earth evidence that looks at all compelling. If you are truly as opened minded as you indicate by saying anything's possible, then there has to be a point or two that seems plausible. The ONLY thing that really bothers me is the age of stars, and our ability to see so many light years away. Impossible to dismiss. But it is possible that there are time issues that we don't fully understand. Time doesn't always run the same, depending on where one is. It's a fascinating subject. But anyway...

As my husband likes to say, evolutionists have a problem with the idea that there is a designer, yet they want us to believe we came from a rock! :)

Thanks for the exchange. I don't usually post on the crevo threads because much of it is a bit too technical for me so I appreciate your responses. Have a good afternoon.

874 posted on 07/16/2002 12:08:20 PM PDT by agrace
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 850 | View Replies]

To: MEGoody
But there is a big jump from affirming that the size of a bird's beak can vary to making the claim that the bird turned into a whole other animal.

In every other system, when you make a large number of small changes to an object you end up with an object that is radically different than the object you started with.

This is no "jump", any more than it is surmising that if I push a ball down stairs, the ball will bounce down to the bottom.

It's observable in almost every system.

875 posted on 07/16/2002 12:08:48 PM PDT by Dominic Harr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 862 | View Replies]

To: Elsie
Evolutionists have basically sold-out and bet the farm on their own position. The situation you'd compare it to is that of the behavior of the Japanese government after the fall of the Marianas; in other words, they'll delay the inevitable as long as they possibly can but, after that, the collapse will come swiftly.
876 posted on 07/16/2002 12:11:36 PM PDT by medved
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 868 | View Replies]

To: Dominic Harr
uh...hmmm---you see the ball bouncing up the steps---evolution!
877 posted on 07/16/2002 12:12:44 PM PDT by f.Christian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 875 | View Replies]

To: my_pointy_head_is_sharp; medved
What you seem to be believing borders on or intrudes upon Dualism. Read C.S. Lewis on the subject (in Mere Christianity in the chapter "The Invasion"), and he'll provide you with more to chew on than most who post here.

On a thread a few months ago, The rise of neo-paganism I tried my hand at appending to C.S. Lewis my own humble views on the subject where I addressed another comment similar to this of yours --

At that thread I concluded my comments:
I'll try to tailor my response to your declaration with this suggestion.
Combine God's potential with His granting free will. Then consider that granting as having been done so as to similarly unfetter the potential of His highest creatures.
This may provide you at least another perspective to view your considerations. Do that, and gain an understanding of the laws of thermodynamics, and you may reconsider your assessment of what you call failures. I see those "failures" as consequences of tangible existence, creation if you will, arising out of The Potential.

Now, for someone such as yourself, who finds failure in practices that do not measure up to your ideals (which, from what I garner, is that perfection must be perfect), this may indeed be a futile invitation. However, there is always the chance that you'll find some value in my view -- and I wanted to offer you that chance -- that it may be more a matter of us mere mortals misunderstanding perfection.

medved, I alerted you because I saw that you responded to pointy's same sentence. Perhaps you understand my invoking of thermodynamics here more than others and can add something.

878 posted on 07/16/2002 12:13:55 PM PDT by Avoiding_Sulla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 842 | View Replies]

To: Blowtorch
The bugs more resistant have reproduced, but the bugs are the same. This is natural selection, a fact of nature.

"This is natural selection, a fact of nature."

I rest my case. You believe Darwin, and agree with natural selection. You insult Darwinism for other reasons.

Just consider the obvious contradiction in you sentence above.

They're different, more resistant, which means they are not the same.

Fundamentally changed.

And a bunch of small changes to an object means you will have an object that is very different from what you started with. That is a simple, observable fact.

879 posted on 07/16/2002 12:14:47 PM PDT by Dominic Harr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 865 | View Replies]

To: agrace
And with regard to Darwin, I believe I said that I AGREE with what Darwin said about adaptation, but disagree with his further suppositions that became the theory of evolution.

Ah, I'm sorry, I did miss your saying this.

I just find it so interesting that ya'll agree with the specifics of the theory, and only disagree when his theory contradicts you other beliefs.

I find it interesting your attempts to seperate 'micro' and 'macro' changes, as if big changes weren't related to little changes. Your experience proves this untrue in everything you observe. If you make a bunch of small changes to something, you will end up with a very different something.

As for the young Earth evidence, no, I'm afraid I haven't seen anything even the least little bit compelling. In fact what I read makes it clear we have two very different ideas about what "evidence" means. But I love reading the stuff. It makes for an awesome story, and would make a tremendous movie someday.

And anything is possible. I certainly could be wrong.

880 posted on 07/16/2002 12:21:29 PM PDT by Dominic Harr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 874 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 841-860861-880881-900 ... 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