[narby]

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.

[dead]

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.

[lelio]

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.

[rudypoot]

I think you miss the point. Creationists base their arguement on faith, not scientific fact. The only "affirmative arguement" they have is the bible.

[That Subliminal Kid]

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?

[Blood of Tyrants]

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?

[N. Theknow]

Creationist'sEvolutionists' 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.

Two edges on that sword.

[berned]

Evolution is the only "widely accepted" scientific theory that continually falls apart under scrutiny. Nobody is still, today, hotly debating Einstein's Theory of Relativity, or Newton's Theories about gravity, or many, many other theories, for the simple reason that they WORK. The math WORKS OUT. The numbers ARE THERE.

Evolution, is a very different matter. Every year, more and more scientists express grave doubts about the validity of it. More and more states are passing legislation to teach students that it is far from proven. The more we know about molecular biology and DNA, the shakier and more dubious "evolution" looks. Why?

Because it's a BOGUS THEORY. It doesn't work. It never did. If evolution was sound science, it wouldn't fall apart at the seams the minute somebody starts asking the hard questions that evolutionists CANNOT answer.

Evolution is the "Dreyfus Affair" of science.

[aruanan]

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.

Thanks for just revealing your depth of thought.

[MEGoody]

"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."

LOL Exactly what part of 'point by point critique' implies someone does not have any facts or ideas of their own? Have you read the critique to see if any facts or ideas were presented? By the way, evolutionists have used this same type of argumentation style. Does that mean they, too, have no facts or ideas of their own? Or are you 'biased' in your assessment of the tactic? (I suspect that is the case.)

[Centurion2000]

Creationist's tactics remind me of the Democrats.

Go look at the 22 physical constants of the universe. If they are off by 1% then the ENTIRE universe would be lifeless. The odds of that happening by chance make monkey-typed Shakespeare collections seem commonplace by comparison.

[Terriergal]

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.

Then you haven't been listening, at least not with an open mind. It's very easy to say "Oh hogwash" immediately when something starts to disagree with your point of view, and then miss the rest of the explanation.

[Terriergal]

Creationist's tactics remind me of the Democrats.

I also find it interesting that this lawsuit by the evolutionists is what is quite reminiscent of the tactics of the Democraps.

[Ann Archy]

You must not have any children...if you do and you think they were just some accident of nature, that would be even sadder.

[nmh]

You:"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."

Too funny and BLINDED by bias. You completely missed the point. It's YOU who behaves like a Demoncrat. To help you out, this is the point:

"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.)"

You ought to take a course in logic as well.

[Chad Brick]

Just a point to ponder:

There is easily several orders of magnitude more physical evidence that evolution happened than Jesus even existed.

Now, how come some people have such faith in the latter, yet doubt the former?