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.)
Yes, obviously.
‘…The large crowd listened to him with delight. As he taught, Jesus said, "Watch out for the teachers of the law.’ (Mark 12:3, 38)
"Towards the beginning of this century, when Christianity was trying to thwart the advance of the evolutionary threat, an archbishop organized a conference of scientific persons, with a view to formulating a statement of the faith that would help maintain confidence. The meeting broke up without achieving its aim. Disappointed, the archbishop candidly stated, ’The religious faith of these men, real and deep as it is, will not go into articles and propositions'."
"At the latter end of the twentieth century, most people can still not house their faith in articles and propositions. The greater number of people do not, cannot think in categories familiar to theologians. A mother was reading Bible stories to her toddler; now and then she interrupted herself to give an explanation. Suddenly, the child turned to its mother and said, ‘I can understand it if you don't explain it.’ Not the facts, but the explanations of Christianity are a stumbling block to most people."
"The witness given by New Testament Christians was remarkable in its simplicity. It consisted in the recital of certain facts, known by the disciples through their contact with Jesus. Many followed in the Way, on the strength of those facts. They discerned by reason of the witness of Jesus that religion could be interesting and vital. Before Jesus, they had moved around religion with discomfort. They thought that the religious world was not for them. But in Jesus they found what they could understand and easily follow. He was absolutely germane, apt. They could relate to him because-to use a modern expression-he was where they were at."
"Christians must recall that the doctrines and creeds were built up as replies to persistent and subtle attacks on the gospel. They are there only as helps. If you or your non-Christian friends are not helped by them, they ought to be discarded. In the meantime, attach yourself to Jesus the best way you know how."
"There was once a Lord Chesterfield who, in retirement, wrote concerning himself and his friend Tyrawley: 'Tyrawley and I have been dead two years, but we do not want it known,’ he said. There are some church doctrines that have been dead for years and the church has conspired to keep it secret. But common people are not deceived. They know a corpse when they see one. The discipline of high learning has its part to play in God's scheme."
"There was a man who kept all of his wife's love letters. He made notes about each of them and put a synopsis on each envelope before tying them all together in neat bundles. What those arid synopses were to the messages of love inside each letter, so are interpretations to the real gospel. Explanations make many things clearer, but love left unexplained is clearer still."
"Christ is... his own evidence---his own explanation."
"As long as the Church bears witness to him, he will make himself known to men and women. They will understand him and adore him."
May it be so for you."
Many devices have been tried to stop or slow their appitites, but once they have a foothold, about the only thing that will save further destruction of the nylon, is to remove them from the legs.
I have no wife, but rather a husband, and am SHOCKED to find out that the easy destruction of my pantyhose is NOT of my own doing but of some miniscule munching predator! And by the way, while for half this thread I too thought you were a she, I did catch that you're actually a male LC. :) Been enjoying your comments.
Yes, it would. I think God (I call him the Higher Power) is unknowable. I can't describe the Higher Power any more than you can describe the God of the Bible. If I ask you the same question, what would your answer be? Can you describe your God?
Are you going to give me a list of attributes that you find in the Bible? Are you going to tell me God is good? I don't believe that. Are you going to tell me God is loving? What loving God creates death, disease, and suffering? Are you going to tell me God is merciful? How is he merciful?
But, that's fine. If you want to believe that he's good and loving and merciful, go right ahead. I just don't believe it.
Am I saying that my own Higher Power is not wholly good? Yes, that's what I'm saying. The Higher Power has within him both good and evil. It's kind of icky, but there it is.
The only other possibility is that there's a separate god for all that's good, and another god for all that's evil. That's why the ambiguity between god or gods.
Either God is all good (which is one possibility), or he has within him both good and evil (another possibility), or there are different gods for both good and evil (a third possibility). I can't see it any other way. If there's yet another possibility, please let me know.
Actually I had written out a lengthy response with more pointed questions but was hoping you could take me through it step by step in more layman's terms, but since not...
The details are certainly important. What are the components of nylon, surely they existed before the invention of nylon, so could it be that the bacteria reacts to a component of nylon and therefore could have been present prior to the invention of nylon in one of its components?
Did the T nucleotide appear as a result of the introduction of the nylon or was it somehow introduced to the bacteria as well? It is the mutation, or the start of it, in question, correct? It simply appeared after exposure to the nylon, right?
How did nylon get into the scum ponds in the first place? Was anything else put into the scum pond at any other point and how might this affect the results? How is this a closed experiment with trustworthy results?
Are my questions in any way valid or just completely devoid of any concept of biology? I'm no scientist, it's been a long time since I sat in biology class, and I'm not too proud to admit it, so please be kind.
Regardless, I'm still wondering how this is all relevant. That certainly might be due to my lack of knowledge of the makeup of proteins, but my original request to Dominic was to provide me with evidence of one species that has changed to another or one species that is in the process of changing to another. Neither his natural selection bug spray example nor this nylon-eating bacteria seems to fulfill that request. However, I do acknowledge that it does address my comment to Dominic - "In your scenario, NOTHING NEW at a genetic level was introduced to CREATE a resistance."
With that in mind, another question. How often does this happen? Can you point me to any other examples? The author of the page you linked to cited it as his "favorite example." How does change on a bacteria level - and it is still bacteria, even though I can accept the amount of change involved - translate to change on a species level, and if it does, why don't we see more evidence of it on a larger scale?
Look, I'm here to learn, not to dismiss out of hand. Your feedback is appreciated.
Nylon is a polymer and the components it consists of are called monomers. However, in any case I can think of, the polymers have different properties than the monomers they consist of. So even if the monomers existed prior to the invention of the polymer, the organism (in this case a bacterium) still has to develop a method to crack the polymer into it's components.
Did the T nucleotide appear as a result of the introduction of the nylon or was it somehow introduced to the bacteria as well? It is the mutation, or the start of it, in question, correct? It simply appeared after exposure to the nylon, right?
No, this mutation can happen wherever and whenever, but only in the presence of nylon it is beneficial and not deleterious. So it didn't happen because there was nylon but it was kept because the bacterium now needed nylon.
How did nylon get into the scum ponds in the first place? Was anything else put into the scum pond at any other point and how might this affect the results? How is this a closed experiment with trustworthy results?
I don't know but this isn't important to the fact that the mutation occurred.
Why shouldn't it be untrustworthy? I mean you have the bacteria with the mutation and those without. The former need nylon to survive and the latter have no use for it, so they would perish if you gave them nylon. Also the text says that this mutation happened more than once.
Are my questions in any way valid or just completely devoid of any concept of biology? I'm no scientist, it's been a long time since I sat in biology class, and I'm not too proud to admit it, so please be kind.
Sure, why not, you may ask whatever you want :)
...to provide me with evidence of one species that has changed to another or one species that is in the process of changing to another.
And herein lies the problem (not only yours, but that of many creationists): you have the wrong understanding of what a species really is.
Species is a man-made concept to categorize different populations or the different stages of a population over time.
You seem to have difficulties with the latter because you seem to think that a 'species' is something predetermined which it is not. It is just a subdivision of a continuum. You can compare this to the spectrum of the visible light (or rainbow): you can subdivide it into red, yellow, green, blue and violet but the boundaries between these categories are fuzzy and it's quite arbitrary to point out a certain wavelength which separates red and yellow for instance.
An other good analogy would be the ageing of a person: you have babies, toddlers, adolescents and adults. However, these categories are also quite arbitrary or do you know why a somebody becomes an adult when he turns 18? What happens to this person on this special day? Is there some radical change?
So that's why all species are in the process of changing into an other species. It's only up to us to decide when they've changed enough to deserve a new name. This change however is a very slow process so it is not easily observable within a lifetime of a human.
Darwin, like nylon, did not exist until recently. Apparently a few people had the chemical that enabled their belief while others did not. Per the Darwinian method, time will tell which chemical will win out – but it’s just a chemical, there is no right chemical or wrong chemical… Is there?
(Natural selection is just nature in action constantly tweaking it’s creation)
{predispositioned, natural selection sarcasm mode}
One must wonder why evolutionists are constantly trying to deceive people into thinking that evolution is not atheistic materialism. Evolution and intelligent design are complete opposites. Sure God could do anything, but to pass off life, his greatest creation as arising from random chance is totally ludicrous and implying a deceitfullness which no Christian would apply to their Lord.
* Evolution is about the descent of one species from a simpler, less complex species. -me-
Wildly incorrect. Evolution is about the natural selection of members of a species, and how the environment guides that evolution.
Wrong. In the first place, as I already mentioned, it was not for many years that Darwin called his theory evolution. It was alsways a theory about descent from one species to another. It was always, and still is about the descent of man from bacteria. You are just trying to confuse the issue.
* But the problem evolutionists have is that each one of those changes has to be beneficial. -me-
:-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.
Looks like in one paragraph you gave up on natural selection! Each piecemeal change that drives evolution has to be beneficial, whether a ton of them are killed off or not. It is very doubtful that the changes accepted towards the transforming of one species into another more complex one could all be beneficial. No way. Again, you are attempting to create confusion.
* But the question is how long can you keep saying that absence of proof does not disprove evolution? -me-
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.
Well I have not seen any. In fact, I have for a year been asking for one clear example of one species transforming itself into another more complex species. I have not received a single valid answer. If you know better, let's hear it. I don't want 'tons' of evidence, just one species, one single word, the name of the species that fits the requirements.
* Second, saying "X can't be true because it isn't proven yet" is flat-out wrong.
That is a total misrepresentation of my statement. Saying that evolution is true for 150 years when it has not been proven is the ultimate in dishonesty. And I am calling evolutionists on that lie. You cannot prove it, do not say it is true. You cannot prove it, do not call people names because they do not agree with you.
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.
Nope, just as I have not ignored your responses, I have not ignored those of others. What I have done with the responses of others is the same I have done with your responses above - I have refuted them. Now you may not like my refutations, you may not buy them, but I think they are perfectly legitimate points. I have made many points (and so have others) to you and other evolutionists which I think have been ignored and have in no way been refuted. so the same thing could be said about evoltionists. So let's stick to the facts.
But you, too, have to live with something new now -- the knowledge that if you believe in 'Natural Selection' you agree with Darwin.
You are absolutely wrong. Number one I totally disagree that there is a Malthusian struggle for life in which each species, or each individual, must fight for its life. Malthus was completely wrong and his chicken little theory has been proven to be totally laughable. This stupid theory is the basis of natural selection and it has been proven absolutely wrong. Second of all, even if such a struggle were occurring, destruction of organisms and their genetic material, is not and cannot be the source of new genetic material which is what evolutionists moronically state. No 4 -2 does not equal 6. 4 -2 = 2 and you do not get new traits by destroying traits which are in the genetic pool of a species. Never.
Okay, we agree that natural selection only destroys genetic information then. However, since natural selection is supposedly the engine of evolution and evolution says that new traits were produced to turn a bacteria into a man then evolution is false. If the engine of evolution does not add genetic information, but instead destroys it, then natural selection disproves evolution.
Wrong. A mutation does not create new genetic information. It destroys genetic information or at most it changes it, but it does not create new information. For evolution to be true you need to create tons of new genetic information. A small bacteria has some 600 genes and about a million base pairs of DNA, a human has some 30,000 genes and some 3 billion base pairs of DNA. That's a lot of new genetic information you need and mutations do not create any new information, they just change or destroy information that was already there.
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.