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
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 1,461-1,467 next last
1
posted on
07/11/2002 9:44:50 AM PDT
by
ZGuy
To: ZGuy
Within 72 hours, Dr Jonathan Sarfatia resident scientist at Answers in GenesisAustraliahad written a comprehensive, point-by-point critique of the magazine article and posted it on this Web site. Creationist's tactics remind me of the Democrats. They don't have any facts or ideas of their own. They can only ask "questions", and attempt to poke holes in other people's points, without making any affirmative argument of their own position.
2
posted on
07/11/2002 9:49:12 AM PDT
by
narby
To: ZGuy
In the end God wins everytime!
3
posted on
07/11/2002 9:50:06 AM PDT
by
drypowder
To: narby
I don't care about the never-ending creationist vs. evolutionist arguments, but I agree with this guy's interpretation of the fair-use principle, provided he's not charging a fee to access it.
4
posted on
07/11/2002 9:55:25 AM PDT
by
dead
To: narby
While I'm on SA's side on this (article was pretty good) the magazine doesn't take criticism well. Did you see their slam piece on Lomborg's book Skeptical Environmentalist? Just nitpicking on minor points, and then they didn't want to print a rebuttal. They eventually did and then tried to attack it.
5
posted on
07/11/2002 9:55:26 AM PDT
by
lelio
To: narby
I think you miss the point. Creationists base their arguement on faith, not scientific fact. The only "affirmative arguement" they have is the bible.
6
posted on
07/11/2002 9:55:32 AM PDT
by
rudypoot
To: narby
Blah blah blah.. You sound like such a broken record. You and your cohorts cry and whine about the dreaded "Creationist".. it's sooooo old, and sooo cliche. You've got the "Facts"! Why worry?
To: ZGuy
Hey, take it to court where only the strongest survive.
To: narby
They don't have any facts or ideas of their own.In a way you are right. We just rely on what God told us as the truth.
You can't prove a negative, but you CAN prove that the theory of evolution is so full of holes that it simply cannot be true. For example, do you care to explain how many fossils in the "wrong" levels are ignored and how a tree managed to remain standing for "millions" of years while TWO coal beds formed around it or how a whale managed to stand on it's head for "millions" of years as the silt drifted around it to fossilize it?
To: rudypoot
Naturalism *IS* a faith. All of science is based on the presupposition that *everything* has a natural cause. So, naturally (pardon the pun) they have faith that life arose naturally. You see, there's evidence- then there's the philosophical lense you interpret that evidence with. Evolution has taken place to be sure, but is nature capable of all this complex creation? Science cannot say. If you think it can you're delusional. It's so sad to see mislead atheists try to use science to support their inane world view.
To: Blood of Tyrants
What's really fun is watching them dance around the Cambrian Explosion and all the work Steve Gould did to "update" the theory of evolution and all the criticism from other evolutionists (Ricky Dawkins comes to mind) that he received after publishing his ideas.
To: ZGuy
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 SAs response to the decision not to pull the Web rebuttal.) No, that's not what one can "only assume." I hate defending SciAm because they're so off the deep end lately, but due to the way copyright law works, they're compelled to threaten anyone who uses anything of theirs in any way. This is why Disney goes after mom & pop day care centers that use a drawing of, say, Snow White based on the Disney design. There was a thread here on FR not long ago about how one avant garde musician wrote a :60 track consisting of total silence. He was promptly sued by the attorneys for an avant garde composer who had previously written a piece that was four minutes of silence.
Naturally, the musician said his silence was in no way related to the other silence.
At this point, I have nothing to say regarding the validity of the arguments on either side.
12
posted on
07/11/2002 10:04:28 AM PDT
by
Gumlegs
To: rudypoot
I think you miss the point. Creationists base their arguement on faith, not scientific fact... Evolutionist base their arguement on faith as well.
13
posted on
07/11/2002 10:05:43 AM PDT
by
DaveyB
To: That Subliminal Kid
What's really fun... No, what's really fun is listening to a bunch of people say that woman being created from a man's rib, Adam & Eve being the first humans, the Earth only being approx 6,000 years old and the story of Noah should all be taught in science classes.
14
posted on
07/11/2002 10:05:57 AM PDT
by
gdani
To: gdani
gdani, yeah that's fun too, no doubt. There are wack-jobs on all sides of the isle.
To: Blood of Tyrants
"We just rely on what God told us as the truth." Which is precisely why Scientific Creationism or Intelligent Design or whatever nom du jour has no place in science education -- it's a religion.
16
posted on
07/11/2002 10:07:23 AM PDT
by
OBAFGKM
To: DaveyB
Evolutionist base their arguement on faith as well. But they just won't admit it.
To: OBAFGKM
Why do you equate Intelligent Design and "Creationism"? Have you read any ID work? Can you explain to me, in your own words, what ID theory states and how this is equivalent to Creationism? Good luck!
To: lelio
I'm not a lawyer but I don't think they can claim copyright infringement when you only reprint sections and then give them full credit.
To: OBAFGKM
...has no place in science education -- it's a religion. Evolution is also a faith based with all the implications of a religion. If looks like a duck and walks like a duck...
20
posted on
07/11/2002 10:11:08 AM PDT
by
DaveyB
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson