Christopher Hitchens—blind to salamander reality (evolutionists "desperate")

CreationOnTheWeb ^ | July 28, 2008 | Jonathan Safarti

[GodGunsGuts]

ping!

[LoneRangerMassachusetts]

A well-known atheist’s ‘eureka moment’ shows the desperation of evolutionists

Desperation of evolutionist? Me thinks the Creationists are desperate.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[raygunfan]

ping

[GodGunsGuts]

==Desperation of evolutionist? Me thinks the Creationists are desperate.

You wouldn't know it by this article. Everywhere I look, evolutionist atheologians are grasping at straws to defend the crumbling Temple of Darwin, while Creationists and ID scientists beat them over the head with reality (and they're having fun doing it). That's the opposite of desperation in my book.

[Liberty1970]

Methinks you had best consider the content of the article. It would help evolutionists be more credible if they would stop making absurd mistakes about something in the here-and-now (what creationists actually believe), before trying to demand authoritatively that we trust them about an unobserved past. As it stands, evolutionists have largely forfeited the contemporary debate because they are _not_ dealing with the issues in a credible manner (as this example demonstrates).

Degeneration is not evidence of molecules-to-man evolution, it is its opposite. It fits much better with the worldview of Genesis (perfect beginning followed by a Fall and Curse).

[JC85]

It's been my observation that some critics of intelligent design do not have a firm grasp of natural selection. They accuse religious people of being irrational; yet, to many of them, evolutionary steps happen almost magically.

Just try to explain that for a set of building blocks to come together to form a complex system the individual steps have to be favored by natural selection— which is the ID argument— and you'll get all kinds of counterarguments that do not address the ID claim (after they have finished calling you a hack for the Discovery Institute).

[lesser_satan]

I don’t post on these threads much, as I really don’t see any point. However: Why does evolution preclude the existence of God? I believe in both, and see no reason why they’re incompatible.

[js1138]

A theory in crisis since 1859. I wonder if Dembski will pay off on his current bet when he loses ... again.

[The Spirit Of Allegiance]

It’s the anti-Creationists that desperately strive to censor God in the classrooms and in the government.

Which was more virtuous, the praying 1700s US government or the 1950s Soviet atheist governent? Do a search for DEMOCIDE.

Which brought forth students with higher 3Rs and scientific skills, the pre-1962 schools with prayer and commonplace corporal punishment, or the modern atheist version?

[JC85]

I totally agree with you. I realize that much of what motivates the anti-evolutionary movement is religious in nature. But an argument is true or false regardless of the motivation of the arguer.

[GodGunsGuts]

==Why does evolution preclude the existence of God?

It contradicts the creation account in the Bible, it contradicts the Bible on how sin entered the world, it contradicts the effects of sin (death, disease, suffering, etc), and it contradicts science (which is an investigation of God’s creation).

[Banjoguy]

I respect both sides of this issue however, they are both belief systems, the anecdotal musings of evolutionists notwithstanding.

What strikes me about most of the essays which purport to challenge the tenets of ID and Creationism, is the thread of smarmy contempt and denigration for those who hold those beliefs, which seems to permeate the writing. I don't understand the necessity for doing this. IMO, one cannot with the wave of the arm, or wry smirk, dismiss the compelling arguments of the ID belief system.

I prefer to read studied responses and essays which do not contain attempts to ridicule.

[JC85]

I've reviewed the claims made by ID proponents and then I've studied the rebuttals made by the anti-ID crowd. Some of the ID advocates make some well-reasoned arguments that just have not been “thoroughly debunked” as claimed.

[The Spirit Of Allegiance]

Huge Flying Reptiles Ate Dinosaurs (StorkZilla LIVES!)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2022299/posts?page=18#18

[PugetSoundSoldier]

Which creation story? Genesis 1? Genesis 2? The Hindu creation story?

[aruanan]

I realize that much of what motivates the anti-evolutionary movement is religious in nature.

The same can be said of the naturalism movement. Their fall-back position now is, "Hey, we're just defending science" but if you look at the movement in the days before they adopted Darwin as their naturalist Rosa Parks, you'll clearly see this.

[GodGunsGuts]

What part of the word Bible don’t you understand?

[Sans-Culotte]

Bump