Replies

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.

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.

In the end God wins everytime!

Hey, take it to court where only the strongest survive.

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.)

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.

I have to wonder how many of our "Free Thinkers" and "Rationalists" (you know, the goofy names atheists give themselves) will be reading the rebuttle. For some reason I suspect many won't.

I believe in Evolution, and think that Creationism is a bunch of hoey holding us back intellectually.

HOWEVER, I am *totally* behind AiG on this. They have EVERY RIGHT to rebutt S.A., and the latters reaction to the formers article is antithetical to the notion of true intellectual discourse. I am ashamed for them.

This is a pathetic move on the part of SCIAM.

The magazine used to be quite good. In recent years the science has been dumbed down (sometimes to the point of incoherence) and political/philosophical motivations have led to poor editorial decisions.

Alternative sources for collections of the latest advances in science can be found at numerous science web portals that link to original articles and bypass the SCIAM premastication.

bump

"(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.) "

Scientific American: " We think the best way to resolve the dispute is with the 'scientific method'... as refined by the WP/LAT."

I'm firmly in the Darwinist camp, but Scientific American has no right trying to suppress free speech with RIAA-like tactics. If it thinks that competing hypotheses can be attacked by use of lawyers, then it has no understanding of the scientific method.

STOP THE HATE!! THIS THREAD NEEDS MORE KITTENS

Feel better?

Thanks.

Some useful references:

Major Scientific Problems with Evolution

EvolUSham dot Com

Many Experts Quoted on FUBAR State of Evolution

The All-Time, Ultimate Evolution Quote

"If a person doesn't think that there is a God to be accountable to, then what's the point of trying to modify your behavior to keep it within acceptable ranges? That's how I thought anyway. I always believed the theory of evolution as truth, that we all came from slime. When we died, you know , that was it, there is nothing..."

Jeffrey Dahmer, noted Evolutionist

Social Darwinism, Naziism, Communism, Darwinism Roots etc.

Creation and Intelligent Design Links

Evolutionist Censorship Etc.

Catastrophism

Big Bang, Electric Sun, Plasma Physics and Cosmology Etc.

Finding Cities in all the Wrong Places

Given standard theories wrt the history of our solar system and our own planet, nobody should be finding cities and villages on Mars, 2100 feet beneath the waves off Cuba, or buried under two miles of Antarctic ice.

Intelligent Versions of Biogenesis etc.

Talk.origins/Sci.Bio.Evolution Realities

Whole books online

Blind Atheist

Ha-HA!

Scientific American used exactly the same tactics to silence Bjorn Lomborg's response to their criticism of his book "The Skeptical Environmentalist"

Scientific American no longer is a scientific magazine. It tolerates no dissent or questioning of its political views. Heil Hitler!

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.

The same tactic the Los Angeles Times and Washington Post used to try to shut down FR.

These materialist weasels will silence their critics before they ever engage in honest debate with them.

Geez! With posts like this, the bad mouthing of the technically correct decision on "under God" and government trying to shove religion down everyone's throats, no wonder people go ape when people try to shove this creationist crap down our throats.

Creationism is not science. Get over it.

And what makes people think God didn't design evolution? I think evolution IS His plan. God just set the whole thing in motion and sits back and watches what happens.

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).

SURPRISE, SURPRISE!

Supposedly these were the fifteen best arguments that evolutionists could use to discredit the Bible's account of Creation

They probably were.

If God is real - why don't church members win the lotto every week? My neighbor prays that he will win - but he doesn't. I'm sure MOST church members pray to win.

And then theres the church in Alabama that was leveled by a toronado? Why not sic the toronado on a gin mill??

The answer is we came for single celled microbes that were probably delivered here from some other life system via debris from an exploding star system. We are not unique - just one of millions of intelligent life forms.

So typical of leftists - Scientific American. They can't handle criticism or correction of their severely misguided view of Creation. Why am I not surprised that this:

"So Scientific American thought it would try to silence AiG with the threat of a lawsuit. "

was the response by Scientific American to a critique of their article on Creation? AIG had every right to correct their mistatements and put them in their place. Trying to silence the truth through legal action only emphasizes how ridiculous they are.