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.)
More accurately, when you do a Windows update it changes code on your system. And when you install a new version of Windows, to deal with changing software and hardware environments, you have a very changed bit of code on your hard drive.
The 'Windows' you use today is very different from the Windows 3.1 I used years and years ago. It's "evolved".
That's exactly the point.
That's not "proof", as I understand it. That's the argument that, "if we haven't found it yet, it doesn't exist".
Which is not, in my experience, even close to true. Yet you consider that "proof".
We can't even begin to have a useful discussion if that's your idea of logic.
That's interesting. I'd like to hear more about it.
It appears obvious to me that the being who created humans and cats and the being who created biting flies, mosquitos, ticks, and chiggers, were not the same being.
That's what I'm starting to believe, too. That's why I said: "I think it is an unknown or unknowable entity (or entities)."
The other thing which appears obvious to me is that God, while omnipotent within his own spiritual realm, has limited powers within the physical realm which we inhabit.
How so?
You have no way of knowing what I will or will not admit because you haven't showed me anything, and it seems like you refuse to. You're making assumptions.
Furthermore, I don't believe you have any examples to provide. Or you would. Plain and simple. To put it bluntly, you wouldn't act like a stubborn child and say "you won't believe me so I'm not telling you!" if you actually had something to offer.
Show me where I've ridiculed anything you've offered. In the meantime, all you have done is ignored pointed questions and picked apart my opinions without defending your own.
Make up your mind!
If He's 'unknowable', how do you KNOW He's NOT the God of the bible?
I don't. It's just what I choose to believe. Just as you may or may not choose to believe that He is.
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.
That is a whole different subject, but since you brought it up... If God's creatures have failings (and we do), it's because we were created this way. You say it's because we were given free will. Our free will is so limited as to be negligible. With my free will I can choose what to eat, what to say, what to wear. Perhaps I can make a few moral decisions with my free will. I can choose to rob or not rob that store, kill or not kill someone, fight or not fight. I can make behavioral choices that may or may not affect my life. But in the more important things (what I consider more important), I have no free will at all. I can't choose not to die, or suffer, or cry, or feel pain. (What good God would deliberately allow his creatures to suffer and die?) My free will is only useful for the little things in my day-to-day life. If that's all it's good for, it's not very much. I'd much prefer that my free will had a broader range. The moral aspect of free will only pertains to fitting in with society. The religious will think it has afterlife consequences.
...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.
Based only on these comments, if the laws of thermodynamics exist at all (and they do), it's because God -- however you think of him: Intelligent Designer, Creator, Higher Power, God of the Bible, whatever -- God designed and created thermodynamics and its laws. If there are any failures resulting from it, it is something that God was well aware of from the beginning. If he had wanted it to be different, it would be. That is a failure of God. The fact that we suffer and die is also a failure of God.
Free will in action: I'll check out the other thread later tonight. Maybe I'll be able to offer something more (or maybe not).
BTW, I'll pick up a copy of Mere Christianity. It's worth re-reading.
Sorry for butting in - Never stop searching for truth my friend, and you will be fine. No one can make you believe any truth – you must find it- it is written within us all.
Mere Christianity is an excellent read.
Uh, how do you choose to believe something? As far as I'm concerned, belief is not an act of volition.
Yes, I exaggerated to make a point. However, those who maintain they believe in both Evolution and God do not subscribe to the Evolution of Dawkins or Gould, that is, mainstream Evolution, which is both Atheistic and Materialistic. Some apparently delude themselves that Christianity is reconcileable with the Evolution of Dawkins and Gould. It's not. And that's why the Evols exhibit such delight in bashing "Creationists", which, incidentally, has nothing whatever to do with science.
You appear to intend to allow the impression ...
There you go again, Gumlegs. You have the irritating habit of putting words into peoples mouths, then arguing your case, even while looking the words themselves straight in the face. My words require no interpretation. Please break this very bad habit.
Be careful about the casual use of the term, "lie."
A lie is a lie, Gumlegs, and I am not casual about lies or liars. You also have the irritating habit of giving unbidden and unnecessary guidance. Kindly direct it elsewhere. Your subsequent posts will be ignored.
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.