Posted on 11/25/2009 1:26:24 PM PST by Pyro7480
CNN correspondent Max Fosters short report about Richard Dawkins on Tuesdays Situation Room played more like a commercial which promoted the militant atheists new book. Despite Dawkinss past inflammatory statements about Christianity, Foster only labeled him an outspoken critic of creationism....[whose] atheist views have put him at the center of controversy [audio clip available here].
Anchor Suzanne Malveauxs introduction for the correspondents report highlighted the 150th anniversary of the printing of Charles Darwins On the Origin of Species, and how Dawkins was a controversial successor [to Darwin] carrying the torch for evolution. Foster gave a very basic description of Dawkinss career during his report, only mentioning his controversial stances only in passing. Video straight from the Richard Dawkins Foundation ran on-screen as Foster, an anchor for CNNs sister network CNN International, gave his voice-over....
A CNN graphic during the report also described the biologist as Charles Darwins Rottweiler, but this doesnt describe the extent of Dawkinss intolerance for religion, specifically Judaism and Christianity. MRC President Brent Bozell highlighted one key quote from the atheists best-selling book, The God Delusion in a 2008 column:
The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, blood-thirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsbusters.org ...
You presented two logical fallacies in your post. You now ignore them, and I don’t blame you, because they are blatant. If calling you a “bigshot” for attacking a straw man strikes you as ad hominem, then simply take that out of my post, then respond. Don’t let my lack of reasoning distract you.
I don’t recall making an assertion beyond ridicule of the exactness of the 364,000, other than the assertion that you are illogical. I supported that to the point that you can’t respond to it. If you think you can, show me where I referenced God.
I’ll tell you what, I will find a link (known as “evidence” to you) that suggests that the evolution of the human eye took longer than 364,000 years. Then you can point out where I referenced God. We will both have resolved our debt to logic. Ready? I give this a 36/64 chance of working.
Your assertion that I was appealing to God fails. Just man up and admit it.
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.