Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Christopher Hitchens—blind to salamander reality (evolutionists "desperate")
CreationOnTheWeb ^ | July 28, 2008 | Jonathan Safarti

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 ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: christopherhitchens; creation; crevo; dineshdsouza; evolution; hitchens; intelligentdesign; jonathansafarti; richarddawkins; safarti
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180181-197 last
To: SuziQ
“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.

The context of the words used in Exodus 20:11 as well as Genesis 1 can only mean a 24 hour day.
181 posted on 08/01/2008 1:25:31 AM PDT by Fichori (Obama's "Change we can believe in" means changing everything you love about America. For the worse.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Tribune7
“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.

A shallow glance at a subject will rarely give an accurate answer.

So while the quick answer may be that they are not incompatible, the long answer is that they are contradictory.
182 posted on 08/01/2008 1:36:43 AM PDT by Fichori (Obama's "Change we can believe in" means changing everything you love about America. For the worse.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic; MrB
“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....
183 posted on 08/01/2008 1:38:45 AM PDT by Fichori (Obama's "Change we can believe in" means changing everything you love about America. For the worse.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: Theo
“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.

(aka, elephant hurling...)
184 posted on 08/01/2008 2:07:16 AM PDT by Fichori (Obama's "Change we can believe in" means changing everything you love about America. For the worse.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: Oztrich Boy; metmom
“Aren't you familiar with the name of Issac Newton?”
“Actually no. Is he a friend of yours?”
What?

You've never met Issac?

Lets get together for lunch and I'll introduce you!

185 posted on 08/01/2008 2:11:07 AM PDT by Fichori (Obama's "Change we can believe in" means changing everything you love about America. For the worse.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

Comment #186 Removed by Moderator

To: Althist2

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.


187 posted on 08/01/2008 3:11:13 AM PDT by Deklane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies]

To: Fichori
Except that contradicts what he said he did....

It contradicts what the author of the Book of Genesis said he did.

188 posted on 08/01/2008 5:24:44 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: metmom
So which, modern day theocrats want to take us back to those bad old days (medieval) and when and where did he (they) state that?

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.

189 posted on 08/01/2008 5:31:52 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: Fichori
So while the quick answer may be that they are not incompatible, the long answer is that they are contradictory

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.

190 posted on 08/01/2008 5:36:46 AM PDT by Tribune7 (How is inflicting pain and death on an innocent, helpless human being for profit, moral?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 182 | View Replies]

Comment #191 Removed by Moderator

To: GodGunsGuts

“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...”


192 posted on 08/01/2008 8:52:02 AM PDT by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Tribune7

“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]

So you wish to reject literal interpretation of Genesis 1 because it might be a stumbling block?

Should we also cut out Romans 1 because it might be a stumbling block to the gays?

“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.

There are also many Christians who are deceived.

193 posted on 08/01/2008 10:37:08 AM PDT by Fichori (Obama's "Change we can believe in" means changing everything you love about America. For the worse.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies]

To: Fichori
So you wish to reject literal interpretation of Genesis 1 because it might be a stumbling block?

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?

194 posted on 08/01/2008 10:47:20 AM PDT by Tribune7 (How is inflicting pain and death on an innocent, helpless human being for profit, moral?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 193 | View Replies]

To: Tribune7
“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.

Actually, I asked two questions...
195 posted on 08/01/2008 11:49:34 AM PDT by Fichori (Obama's "Change we can believe in" means changing everything you love about America. For the worse.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 194 | View Replies]

To: Fichori
If you go back and read my post you will realize that I was asking a question.

Rhetorical ones based on a false presumption.

196 posted on 08/01/2008 1:54:15 PM PDT by Tribune7 (How is inflicting pain and death on an innocent, helpless human being for profit, moral?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 195 | View Replies]

To: Tribune7

I never said they were rhetorical questions....


197 posted on 08/01/2008 2:00:52 PM PDT by Fichori (Obama's "Change we can believe in" means changing everything you love about America. For the worse.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 196 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180181-197 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson