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 ... 881-900901-920921-940 ... 1,461-1,467 next last
To: Dominic Harr
Natural selection (variables within a program) and natural evolution (the program becoming something else) are two different things.

Now some say that an infinite amount of monkeys typing on keyboards will eventually produce Shakespeare, but the internet has proved otherwise.

901 posted on 07/16/2002 1:31:05 PM PDT by Heartlander
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 896 | View Replies]

To: Dominic Harr
"It's ertainly possible"...

evo--whack moonie marx-darwin-zombie swill...!

Science/reality is anti-possibilty(infinite/irrational)...

Science has to be predictable-probable-facts(finite/rational)---

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

902 posted on 07/16/2002 1:33:06 PM PDT by f.Christian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 898 | View Replies]

To: Dominic Harr
You can't have misunderstood what was said that much!

Why not? It’s the same as what you are doing…

903 posted on 07/16/2002 1:33:15 PM PDT by Heartlander
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 898 | View Replies]

To: Heartlander
Natural selection (variables within a program) and natural evolution (the program becoming something else) are two different things.

Natural selection is actual changes in the program, not just a change in the parms.

As with the bugs who become resistant to the spray, you kill off one group of bugs in the species so another dominates. You have a 'different' group of creatures making up the species. A 'change' in the species.

Not in an 'input'.

What an interesting bit of denial -- suggesting that it's just a change in inputs, ignoring that you have a changed program.

Fascinating.

904 posted on 07/16/2002 1:34:38 PM PDT by Dominic Harr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 901 | View Replies]

To: Heartlander
It?s the same as what you are doing?

Or -- I'm pointing out that words have meanings, and that certain sentences are logical contradictions.

You could say, "I believe in monogamy, but I also believe it's okay to sleep around on my wife." But that doesn't mean it makes any sense.

You can make a lot of sentences, but when you directly contradict yourself in a single sentence, you should be aware it means something about your understanding of the topic of discussion.

905 posted on 07/16/2002 1:36:51 PM PDT by Dominic Harr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 903 | View Replies]

To: Dominic Harr
Was this ability there prior to the toxins?

I believe that there is a bug in your program…

906 posted on 07/16/2002 1:36:59 PM PDT by Heartlander
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 904 | View Replies]

To: Dominic Harr
Can you agree with part of a statement but not all of a statement?
907 posted on 07/16/2002 1:38:17 PM PDT by Heartlander
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 905 | View Replies]

To: Heartlander
Was this ability there prior to the toxins?

In most of the species, no.

So they died off.

And the species has fundamentally changed. Like changing the components of a piece of software. You change a component, you change the software.

908 posted on 07/16/2002 1:40:52 PM PDT by Dominic Harr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 906 | View Replies]

To: Heartlander
Can you agree with part of a statement but not all of a statement?

Yes, absolutely.

And that isn't what's happening here at all -- you claim to believe a theory, but don't believe the word that refers to that theory.

909 posted on 07/16/2002 1:42:07 PM PDT by Dominic Harr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 907 | View Replies]

To: Dominic Harr
Schizophrenia?
910 posted on 07/16/2002 1:42:25 PM PDT by f.Christian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 908 | View Replies]

To: Dominic Harr
Multi personalities...theories---'explanations'?
911 posted on 07/16/2002 1:43:35 PM PDT by f.Christian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 909 | View Replies]

To: Dominic Harr
We can play your game if you like…

Was this ability there (in the surviving bugs) prior to the toxins?

912 posted on 07/16/2002 1:43:40 PM PDT by Heartlander
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 908 | View Replies]

To: f.Christian
Schizophrenia?

:-D

Probably!

913 posted on 07/16/2002 1:44:46 PM PDT by Dominic Harr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 910 | View Replies]

To: Dominic Harr
The full statement was "IN YOUR MIND I pick and choose according to my belief system." Let's be accurate for the sake of respectful discussion.

YOU pick and choose selections from my posts to distort my responses, further your argument and subsequently sidestep any legitimate points I might make.

For the last time, if micro and macro are the same, show me the evidence. Give me examples from the fossil record of transitional species. Show me evidence of anything currently undergoing change on a species level.

You used the phrase "observed reality." Again for the last time, WHAT observed reality? Point it out already. Stop sidestepping and give me one example. Just one.

914 posted on 07/16/2002 1:45:01 PM PDT by agrace
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 899 | View Replies]

To: Heartlander
Was this ability there (in the surviving bugs) prior to the toxins?

Yes.

But it was *not* there in the dominant group of the species.

So the dominant group died off, and now the new bugs form the dominant group of the species.

So the 'species' is now comprised of a very different mix of 'objects'.

When you change the objects that a piece of software is built from, you change the piece of software.

915 posted on 07/16/2002 1:46:50 PM PDT by Dominic Harr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 912 | View Replies]

To: Dominic Harr
-- you claim to believe a theory, but don't believe the word that refers to that theory.

Natural selection is observable and gravity is observable. If a scientist merely names a function that is observable must you agree with everything that he/she does or the conclusions from there out?

916 posted on 07/16/2002 1:49:21 PM PDT by Heartlander
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 909 | View Replies]

To: Dominic Harr
Mcafee Anti-Virus… Windows and your hard drive remain.
917 posted on 07/16/2002 1:52:15 PM PDT by Heartlander
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 915 | View Replies]

To: agrace
For the last time, if micro and macro are the same, show me the evidence.

Since our idea of 'evidence' is so radically different, as I said before, such an exchange is pointless. If you find the 'young Earth' information to be 'evidence', then we don't even have any hope for any kind of fruitful scientific discussion. Let's just say I've seen a vast wealth of 'transitional' forms that you clearly won't admit exist, anymore than you can admit the truth in this simple, obvious dichotomy.

But you can easily prove it's likelyhood to yourself. Just consider every single system you know. If you make a million small changes to a thing, you end up with a very different thing than you started with.

You're reduced to ridiculing this obvious truth. Which should tell you something.

That, my friend, is congitive dissonnance. You have two opposing ideas that conflict.

918 posted on 07/16/2002 1:52:49 PM PDT by Dominic Harr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 914 | View Replies]

To: Heartlander
If a scientist merely names a function that is observable must you agree with everything that he/she does or the conclusions from there out?

No.

But it's extremely bad form to ridicule the scientist, or to ridicule the theory, if you believe in the basic theory.

It makes it appear you have another agenda, and the ridicule is calculated for another effect.

919 posted on 07/16/2002 1:56:12 PM PDT by Dominic Harr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 916 | View Replies]

To: medved
You see nothing to consider from thermodynamics? Oh well -- at least I thought of you.

I've seen you post most of this before.
I must tell you it's not clear why the vast bulk of it tells me why you believe as you do.

One would suppose there to be a cause and effect relationship, such as we have a, b and c, therefore d follows.

Your presentation is not unlike my sole complaint with Velikovsky:

He was right (without being wrong) so many times, I came to see him more as a latter day prophet rather than a scientist. However, little he compiled explained his phenomenially accurate predictions.

Maybe he was a time traveler who was forbidden to disclose it. Then when he traveled back to 1946 from 2000 with all those discoveries locked in his ken, "How will I disclose what I learned?" became a problem he never quite overcame. </humor>

Speaking of Dr. IV in earnest, do you have another thread where you discuss what you just dumped here where it relates to the topic? I'd like to discuss it there.

From what I recall, IV clearly connected Saturn (Kronos) with the flood. In the Greek myths, the titan Kronos was said to swallow his children. It was his son, the chief God Zeus, who made him to cough them up. What if it were Saturn which grew to be as bright as 7 suns? It would have obscured the view of all the other planets (swallowed) just as daylight does now.

IIRC, IV also suggested that Jupiter was once "the light of the night" rather than the moon. That when Venus was ejected "from the brow of Zeus," Jupiter lost just enough mass to lose it's binary sun qualifications.

Please forgive me if I'm botching this. It's been a long time. Velikovsky taught us what to consider that we were ignoring even if he didn't disclose how he got from a+b+c to t.

920 posted on 07/16/2002 1:56:15 PM PDT by Avoiding_Sulla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 882 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 881-900901-920921-940 ... 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