Scientific American threatens AiG : Demands immediate removal of Web rebuttal

AIG ^ | 2002/07/11 | AIG

[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.)

[Elsie]

I just don't think he's the God of the Bible. God is unknowable.

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.

---

Let me see if I've got this right........

 

You have no DATA to back up your 'belief' - you just merely 'choose' to do this???

---

In the words of DH, "Then you're a Creationist!"

[Elsie]

There is now overwhelming evidence of Mars having been inhabited in past ages

As it is EASY for me to be sidetracked, I did NOT go thru the links posted immediately above (#943)

IS this 'evidence' there, or somewhere ELSE on the Web?

[my_pointy_head_is_sharp]

It's just what I choose to believe.

Uh, how do you choose to believe something? As far as I'm concerned, belief is not an act of volition.

What is it an act of then? I see evidence of design all around me, so I choose to believe that it is the work of an Intelligent Designer. Who this entity is, I don't know. I don't think it's the God of the Bible, though.

[my_pointy_head_is_sharp]

You have no DATA to back up your 'belief' - you just merely 'choose' to do this???

In the words of DH, "Then you're a Creationist!"

I don't think the term Creationist applies to non-Biblical believers of the theory of Intelligent Design; it has more of a religious connotation.

Also, one of the main aspects of belief or faith is that it doesn't need reason or facts or any evidence whatsoever to back it up. You simply choose to believe or not to believe.

[medved]

There is now overwhelming evidence of Mars having been inhabited in past ages

As it is EASY for me to be sidetracked, I did NOT go thru the links posted immediately above (#943)

IS this 'evidence' there, or somewhere ELSE on the Web?

The official view towards the "Hydaspis Chaos region on Mars:

Richard Hoagland's version of the story.

NASA, as usual, sees this image as more tricks of light and shadow. To less jaded eyes, the image has a familiar look to it, i.e. that of ordinary city blocks and streets.

Tom Van Flandern's Press Club presentation resides here.

Take a careful look at item 46. That one does not show megalithic face images or pyramids; just ordinary rectangular structures in rows, for ordinary people to live in. You'll note that the upper right corners to windward are weathered while the lower left corners to leeward are still sharp and retain their 90 degree angles.

My own interpretation of recent face images and the images of the Cydonia main pyramid are on Bearfabrique.

[Elsie]

I don't think the term Creationist applies to non-Biblical believers of the theory of Intelligent Design; it has more of a religious connotation.

Ok: I'm baffled.  How does one have an Intelligent Designer WITHOUT having a 'god' of some type doing the Designing???

---

Also, one of the main aspects of belief or faith is that it doesn't need reason or facts or any evidence whatsoever to back it up. You simply choose to believe or not to believe.

Maybe in YOUR world, but in MY case there are many links in the chain leading to the point where I must have faith. 

Even E's have 'faith' that the C's gaps are bridgable; things that have no 'proof' are the way it COULD have happened.

[Elsie]

This picture looks just like a dried lake bottom in the hot summer sun: cracking and shrinking and pulling away in irregular blocks.

---

Take a careful look at item 46.

I did. What's the SCALE? No clues are given. I'd have to say that the 'occupants' would have been VERY big folks!

---

I also looked at 37: antlered animal.

What WERE they thinking?! Just as some people are disappointed that the lines connecting the stars that make up constellations are NOT there when they finally get out of a light-polluted sky and actually look up.

---

I had downloaded the #46's COMPLETE image once, and found MANY 'faces' in the pixels, NONE of which had been commented upon.

---

[Gumlegs]

This one might take more than one reply.

It might? Now there's a surprise!

[Dominic Harr]

Read the article if you are truly interested in knowledge.

I did.

From the article, "The controversy over the fossil record has to do with whether or not expected evidence of such transitional forms can be found. "

The entire point of that writer is the suggestion that transitional fossils have not been found.

Now not only is that logic desperately flawed (just because we haven't found them doesn't "prove" they don't exist), I have seen with mine own eyes volumes of evidence of transitional fossils, much of it -- volumes of it -- posted right here in these threads.

I can only assume you've ignored that evidence, which means we can not in any way have a meaningful discussion on the topic.

[Dominic Harr]

Furthermore, I don't believe you have any examples to provide.

I've provided examples above, in fact.

The bugs in a field example, where the bug species progressively becomes resitant/immune to a specific bug spray by natural selection.

So it would seem you *have* been ignoring my points. While I've been addressing yours.

[Dominic Harr]

Yes, you do, but those changes were done by intelligent designers.

This one error on your part is one I find *most* fascinating, and would like to comment on.

There *could* be an intelligent designer driving evolution. Altho it could just be the enviroment doing the 'selecting' . . . but it could also be an intelligent designer driving the environemental changes. Who knows?

But that is part of the point. Your theory does not contradict Darwin's. You just so misunderstand what Darwinism is, you're lost in your own words.

Just to address your other errors:

• Evolution is about the descent of one species from a simpler, less complex species.

  Wildly incorrect. Evolution is about the natural selection of members of a species, and how the environment guides that evolution.

• But the problem evolutionists have is that each one of those changes has to be beneficial.

  :-D This is so flat-out wrong I suspect you "misunderstand" on purpose. The environment selects the changes that live and the ones that die. Many are not beneficial. Many die. Many are *not* beneficial.

• But the question is how long can you keep saying that absence of proof does not disprove evolution?

  First, I've seen volumes of evidence of transitional forms that ya'll have been shown here. You're simply ignoring any evidence which doesn't agree with your creo theory.

  Second, saying "X can't be true because it isn't proven yet" is flat-out wrong.

Now the thing is, I've seen others explain these very same points to you over and over again, and you've willfully ignored their responses, only to repeat your already disproven errors.

I assume you'll do the same with me. Have fun.

But you, too, have to live with something new now -- the knowledge that if you believe in 'Natural Selection' you agree with Darwin.

Heehee.

Of course, it's possible you already know you're wrong, and just continue pushing the points because you've got an agenda . . . in that case, you won't care at all that you agree with Darwin while trashing him. If your agenda is to trash him, then you'll not much care if your criticisms are valid.

[Dominic Harr]

The ONLY point proven here is that Windows did NOT change itself from 98 to 2000.

Absolutely.

And with 'natural selection' it's the environment doing the "designing".

Altho it's possible that an intelligent designer is causing the environment changes . . . which is why 'Darwinism' doesn't dispute 'ID' or 'Creationism' at all.

Which is, in fact, my main point.

Your side attacks Darwin and Darwinism mistakenly.

[agrace]

Excuse me, but if you are referring to post # 849, said bug example was NOT addressed to me. I had to go back and read through this entire thread to find it, so to accuse me of not responding to your points when they haven't even been brought to my direct attention is hardly honest.

With regard to the bug example, first of all, this is not an ACTUAL DOCUMENTED CASE. This was a fictional scenario created by you to demonstrate natural selection. It does NOT address my - repeated - requests for (and I quote from my initial post on this) "one definitive example of one species that was changed to another...one definitive example of one species that is currently in process of changing into another." An example of such, scientifically documented, you have yet to provide, although you claim knowledge of many.

To specifically address your bug example, I'll repeat the points that I see that others have already made, not that it will do any good.

The bugs who survived in the first place already had in place a stronger resistance to the spray. The ones who did not, died. The surviving bugs produced offspring, which were more likely to possess the same strong resistance. The ones who did possess it survived the second spraying, evidencing to the farmer that a larger population was resistant, as in fact it now was. Those who did not inherit the strong resistance again died.

In your scenario, NOTHING NEW at a genetic level was introduced to CREATE a resistance. This is a classic example of natural selection. Those who survived already possessed the means to do so. They are more likely to produce offspring with that same means of survival; therefore subsequent generations have greater numbers that survive. This kind of scenario has been observed and tested repeatedly.

Regardless, surely you can do better than one fictional example. And if no scientifically documented examples are forthcoming, I believe I'm done chatting. Have a good afternoon.

[Dominic Harr]

This is a classic example of natural selection.

Congratulations, you are correct.

Darwin's theory of natural selection in action. And you agree with it. Even explained it very well.

But then you fall back on a deliberate error to try and avoid the obvious truth -- admitting you agree with Darwin.

Evolution in no way suggests that 'new' genetic info is added by natural selection. You repeat the theory very clearly, and show exactly how it does work, then lapse into such an obvious error, and one I see above has already been pointed out as an error multiple times to multiple people in this thread alone. This makes it seem like a deliberate "error" on your part. Which is one way to try and relieve the cognitive dissonance, I suppose.

I'll agree with you on this -- if any evolutionists claim that natural selection adds genetic info, I'll agree with you that they don't understand Darwin's theory and are likely incorrect.

How interesting, yes? You so agree with natural selection you can restate it's exact working mechanism, but then a simple misunderstanding on your part leads you astray?

Oh, and I am sorry I didn't repeat the example specifically to you. You may have noticed, I'm discussing this with more than a 1/2 dozen folks in this thread.

And it *is* a real-world example that is so "real" I suspect you don't doubt it happens every day around us. Yet you still ask for proof of what you already know to be true? Give you 'scientific proof' of what you already know to be true (or are you claiming that the bug example does NOT happen)?

I prefer this kind of example, because -- as I have pointed out -- what I consider 'evidence' and what you consider 'evidence' mean we can not possibly have a meaningful discussion about the evidence. We'd be talking about two entirely different things.

Now, consider how your understanding of 'Natural Selection' makes you in agreement with Darwin on all but one count: you don't believe that humans evolved, because of other information you have.

But you don't actually disagree with Darwin's theory, only with one specific application of this theory. That of the descent of Man.

You commented I hadn't given examples, I didn't realize you meant I hadn't repeated the examples to you.

[balrog666]

In your scenario, NOTHING NEW at a genetic level was introduced to CREATE a resistance.

Really? Either the loss of resistance was a mutation or the enhanced resistance was a mutation from the baseline organism. By definition, something new was created within the species at some point in the past (even if, at the moment, we have no idea when that was). Subsequent environmental stress introduced a differential survival rate favoring one genetic line and hence redefining the genetic "norm".

[Virginia-American]

Isn't the nylon-eating bacteria a clear exmple of new information being added to a genome?

[my_pointy_head_is_sharp]

I don't think the term Creationist applies to non-Biblical believers of the theory of Intelligent Design; it has more of a religious connotation.

Ok: I'm baffled. How does one have an Intelligent Designer WITHOUT having a 'god' of some type doing the Designing???

I never said there wasn't a god of some type. If you believe in an Intelligent Designer/s (as I do), then naturally there is a god of some type. I said I don't think the Designer is the same God as the one in the Bible. That's why I said "non-Biblical believer in the theory of Intelligent Design".

Also, one of the main aspects of belief or faith is that it doesn't need reason or facts or any evidence whatsoever to back it up. You simply choose to believe or not to believe.

Maybe in YOUR world, but in MY case there are many links in the chain leading to the point where I must have faith.

Not only in MY world, but in the dictionary:

Dictionary definition of "belief":

1. a) a person's religion; religious conviction (has no belief).
b) a firm opinion (my belief is that he did it).
c) an acceptance (of a thing, fact, statement, etc.) (belief in the afterlife).
2. (usu. foll. by in) trust or confidence.

Dictionary definition of "faith":

1. complete trust or confidence.
2. firm belief, esp. without logical proof.
3. a) a system of religious belief (the Christian faith).
b) belief in religious doctrines.
c) spiritual apprehension of divine truth apart from proof.
d) things believed or to be believed.
4. duty or commitment to fulfil a trust, promise, etc.; obligation, allegiance (keep faith).

The fact that you have "many links in the chain leading to the point where [you] must have faith" is good. It's easy to believe in something when you have evidence. I don't have the same evidence that you do. Or else, I have it, but I don't accept it or believe it.

Even E's have 'faith' that the C's gaps are bridgable; things that have no 'proof' are the way it COULD have happened.

Exactly. And that's why the theory of evolution is just a theory: 1 supposition or system of ideas explaining something, esp. one based on general principles independent of the particular things to be explained (atomic theory; theory of evolution). 2 speculative (esp. fanciful) view (one of my pet theories). 3 abstract knowledge or speculative thought (all very well in theory). 4 exposition of the principles of a science etc. (the theory of music). 5 collection of propositions to illustrate the principles of a mathematical subject (probability theory).

Sorry to be so heavy on the dictionary definitions. It's just that you said MY world, as if I invented the definition of "belief" or "faith" for my own specific purpose.

[Elsie]

Also, one of the main aspects of belief or faith is that it doesn't need reason or facts or any evidence whatsoever to back it up. You simply choose to believe or not to believe.

Sorry to be so heavy on the dictionary definitions. It's just that you said MY world, as if I invented the definition of "belief" or "faith" for my own specific purpose.

---

My point was the word 'whatsoever'. I feel it's IMPOSSIBLE to have ANY 'belief' in something without SOME kind of clues, hints, pointers..........

"I believe green fish with red stripes live on the surface of the Sun", is not rational.

"I believe green fish with red stripes live in the Pee Dee River", is.

[agrace]

Is a mutation an introduction of new genetic information or simply an alteration of existing data?

[Elsie]

If you believe in an Intelligent Designer/s (as I do), then naturally there is a god of some type.

---

Would it be too much then, to ask you to describe this(these) god(s), since you believe it(them) is(are) NOT the God of the Bible??