Posted on 07/30/2008 7:56:37 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Feedback archive → Feedback 2008
Christopher Hitchens—blind to salamander reality
A well-known atheist’s ‘eureka moment’ shows the desperation of evolutionists
In a recent article in the leftist online magazine Slate, prominent atheistic journalist Christopher Hitchens (b. 1949) thinks he has found the knock-down argument against creationists and intelligent design supporters. Fellow misotheist Richard Dawkins (b. 1941) and another anti-theist Sir David Attenborough (b. 1926) agree. Not surprisingly, there have been questions to us about this, so Dr Jonathan Sarfati responds. As will be seen, their whole argument displays ‘breathtaking inanity’ and ignorance of what creationists really teach, and desperation if this is one of their best proofs of evolution...
(Excerpt) Read more at creationontheweb.com ...
“Since the men who 'wrote' the Bible were not there at the moment of Creation, how to they know exactly how long it took God to do His work? Why are we so arrogant to assume that we know how long one of God's days might be?”Actually, in Exodus 20:11, God (Who was there) told Moses (who wrote it down) exactly how long it took.
“I'm an evo-skeptic but the quick answer is that evolution and God are not incompatible.” [excerpt]The quick answer is not always the right answer.
“Or, he created it as a singularity, all wound up like a spring, and then turned it loose.”Except that contradicts what he said he did....
“Why? Its nonsense. Its science twisted to fit a particular narrow religious view (created kinds).” [excerpt]Theo, this is a textbook example of a poorly endowed argument that is based mostly if not entirely on religious faith.
What?“Aren't you familiar with the name of Issac Newton?”“Actually no. Is he a friend of yours?”
Well, there’s this...
http://oregonstate.edu/dept/ncs/newsarch/2006/Oct06/bee.html
Bees are thought to have evolved from wasps, and here’s a primitive bee, the oldest known and like none in existence today, found preserved in amber, and it has wasp characteristics. It would seem to be a transitional form, somewhere between wasp and bee.
It contradicts what the author of the Book of Genesis said he did.
Politically, all of them. Establishing a theocracy will mean effectively destroying the US Constitution and the republic, and abandoning the ideas of self-government and consent of the governed.
As one's faith in God, and Scripture, increases one may come to see the remarkable wisdom of the Old Testament and begin to understand that the motives of the most outspoken Darwinists have nothing to do with science or the pursuit of truth.
If, however, one insists on fidelity to a literal interpretation of Genesis by others then one will be putting a pretty big stumbling block in front of their acceptance of the New Testament, and that we must not do.
Regardless, there are those who hold a sincere belief in the Resurrection and divinity of Jesus, and fully accept his teachings, yet also believe in evolution and common descent. i consider them Christians.
“while Creationists and ID scientists beat them over the head with reality”
I recall a recent court case where the ID’ers went down in flames after their prime witness declared that “most probably God was dead...”
So you wish to reject literal interpretation of Genesis 1 because it might be a stumbling block?“As one's faith in God, and Scripture, increases one may come to see the remarkable wisdom of the Old Testament and begin to understand that the motives of the most outspoken Darwinists have nothing to do with science or the pursuit of truth.
If, however, one insists on fidelity to a literal interpretation of Genesis by others then one will be putting a pretty big stumbling block in front of their acceptance of the New Testament, and that we must not do.” [excerpt]
“Regardless, there are those who hold a sincere belief in the Resurrection and divinity of Jesus, and fully accept his teachings, yet also believe in evolution and common descent. i consider them Christians.” [excerpt]Many people reject Christ because of Evolution.
If you want to hold to literal interpretation of things you have to learn to read literally. Why do you say I wish to reject a literal interpretation of Genesis?
“If you want to hold to literal interpretation of things you have to learn to read literally. Why do you say I wish to reject a literal interpretation of Genesis?”If you go back and read my post you will realize that I was asking a question.
Rhetorical ones based on a false presumption.
I never said they were rhetorical questions....
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.