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 ...
Destroyer-of-Worlds Ping!
I don't see Hindus, or Inuit, or Buddhists, or Mayans insisting that their creation stories be taught in school, either.
Because God created all things as they are. While all creation has the ability to adapt to it's surroundings, it does change form. All we have been able to observe "scientifically" is extinction of species, not evolution of species, and that is in keeping with biblical accounts.
(even the Inuit believe in the creator which created all things)
Hmmm has evolution cured a disease or built a loner lasting light bulb? You could ask the same questions of the theory of evolution. Science not applied to solving problems is not the same as say engineering which is an applied science. Methinks you are confusing evolution with the applied sciences.
If anyone on either side of this debate were truly honest they would have to say that evolution/creationism debates are really a contest of philosophies. Both sides observe with their flawed eyes something and come to what often are very different conclusions.
I see. Literal interpretation of the Bible. So I assume you rightfully decry all the translations out there as they are clearly abominations of the literal "real" words of the Bible, right?
And of course, we know that God made the animals, but does the Bible say exactly how?
I can’t imagine living a live that is ultimately meaningless.
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?
Yes: "After their kind."
I see. So God created a dynamic, changing, adapting world. Yet the concept that He created a world that evolved based upon His laws that He created is unacceptable?
I don't see how evolution is at odds with anything but a strictly literal interpretation of the Bible. In which case the creation story is the least to be fretted over!
So God created the prototypical animal, then created more and more variants of it, right?
Or can you explain what you mean in more detail?
Check out what Jonathan Sarfati has written on this subject. Especially this: http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3831
Check out his “orchard model” for creation....
See my comment #71. Sarfati’s “orchard model” is quite fascinating.
Hogwash. Much of early science was done by priests and monks, supported by the Vatican. On what do you think the scientists of the "Enlightenment" based THEIR work?
Those prophets who wrote the bible wrote the word as inspired by God. They were separated by time and were unknown to each other, yet their writings are harmonious. The meaning of the word 'day' in the bible can mean several different time periods, it depends on the words surrounding it. A day can be 24 hours of 1000 years. 12 hours or 500 years. The lifetime of a person. Before the creation of the earth and sun, what was a day? A day to us on earth is one rotation of the earth. That "day" means nothing anywhere else in the universe. The "day of the Lord" it the reign of Christs kingdom (his church) on earth. Originally it was meant to be 1000 years but the bible says that has been extended to two days, which are nearly expired.
But only to the extent that it supported religious belief.
With the Enlightenment religious control waned, and not surprisingly, science flourished.
There are folks today who want to reverse that progress and return to "a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions." (Back to the Dark Ages, eh?)
==1. Einstein was a clerk in the patent office. His scientific ability was in no way retarded or advanced by his position. Believing in god was not his selling point for advancing his theories.
I am well aware of that. I made the connection, thus my reply. Are you suggesting I should slovenly follow your lead?
==I know of NO great scientist (& there are been some like Gauss & Maxwell whose sheer brilliance beggars belief) who published a paper detailing an experiment or even an intent connecting God to the creation of the Universe.
Again, you don't know what you're talking about. Ever hear of Creation Scientists? Ever hear of ID scientists?
‘This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent Being. … This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of his dominion he is wont to be called “Lord God” Παντοκράτωρ [Pantokratōr cf. 2 Corinthians 6:18], or “Universal Ruler”. … The Supreme God is a Being eternal, infinite, absolutely perfect.’
Principia, Book III; cited in; Newton’s Philosophy of Nature: Selections from his writings, p. 42, ed. H.S. Thayer, Hafner Library of Classics, NY, 1953.
adapting, not changing. I missed the “does (’NT) in #63
Absolutely NOT! Are you just making this up as you go?
==I don’t see Hindus, or Inuit, or Buddhists, or Mayans insisting that their creation stories be taught in school, either.
You forgot Temple of Darwin fanatics. They insist that their religion be taught in school...and they brook zero dissent.
Pure rubbish. It was because of religious unity that Europe was able to flourish and grow, and with that came discovery of new things, the development of a knowlage base that wasn't killed off every generation when war swept across the lands. Christianity was the glue that held Europe together and THAT was the beginning of the "enlightenment".
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.