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 ...
Oppression by power hungry people is not the sole domain of religion. Plenty of atheistic regimes have suppressed intellectual anything. Can you say Pol Pot? Can you say Stalin? I knew you could. So we can conclude, therefore, that atheism is the enemy of scientific inquiry and learning.
There’s nothing in the religious teachings of the Bible that precludes or prohibits the pursuit of knowledge or scientific inquiry. Laying the blame for that on religion instead of rightly laying the blame for that at the feet of the men who abused their power and position is intellectually dishonest.
You've been to their countries to know that? My, you're well traveled.
I'd think an examination of any modern day theocracy should be sufficient.
I can actually stand liberal atheists more than I can “conservative” atheists.
Liberal atheists worship the state.
“Conservative” atheists worship themselves. That’s why you see such smarmy arrogance on the crevo threads.
Going against "accepted" science is always risky. They tolerate no heresy.
And then they complain about religion being intolerant. Pot meet kettle.
Yesterday I was wearing my Dinosaur Valley State Park t-shirt and a friend asked me if I had seen any of the places where dinosaurs tracks and human foot prints in the rock appear side by side. I was a little stunned by her question and gave her that deer in the headlights look.
She went on to explain that not only were those places extremely rare but they had to be hidden because certain people would destroy the evidence of humans and dinosaurs living at the same time.
I gave her a big hummmmmmmm and changed the subject.
Go clean your glasses, comb your hair, lift up your chin and look elsewhere because you won't find it here.
More so than you'll find it at evo only forums, like the ones which don't allow ANY opposing viewpoint to be presented. At least on FR, bringing up evo isn't prohibited. So much for the alleged open-mindedness of the evo crowd.
Yeah, sure, there are a bunch of different creation stories out there, but are you enough of an ignoramus to say they all have equal validity?
Earth is carried on the back of a giant turtle?
Earth is flat and resting on pillars?
Earth is carried on the backs of dolphins?
or
God hung the earth, sun, and stars on nothing. God “stretched out” the universe (expanding universe).
Accurate descriptions among others.
Which modern day theocracy would that be?
Nor is that statements by individuals saying that they wish they could live again as people did in the Dark Ages or that's where they're trying to take us.
I'm an evo-skeptic but the quick answer is that evolution and God are not incompatible. One of the best known critics of Darwinism -- which claims all life is definitively explained solely through natural selection acting on random changes to the genome -- is Michael Behe, a Catholic who accepts common descent.
Check out Uncommon Descent William Dembski's site. Those posting likely as not hold your view.
There seem to be a few in the Middle East.
Or, he created it as a singularity, all wound up like a spring, and then turned it loose.
I wasn’t going down that road.
I was pointing out to the
“all religions have a creation story, so they’re all equally valid or wrong” guy
that, no, other creation accounts are not equal to the Biblical one.
The comment was: “And many of our modern theocrats want to take us back to those bad old days.”
“our” implies the United States.
“modern” implies living today.
So who are the theocrats and which of the ones living in the USA today want to take us back to the Dark Ages?
No one has answered the question yet. I see no sources verifying the comment.
Besides, where in Islam is scientific inquiry prohibited? Seems to me that at one time, Islam was on the cutting edge of learning and scientific inquiry.
So tell me, which countries are it that are true theocracies?
Iran appears to be one. The Taliban in Afghanistan appear to be trying to establish one.
About the only "scientific research" i see there is research into how can steal or buy technology from other countries to make weapons.
By your standards of what constitutes an actual "theocracy", has there ever been one?
Actually, yes. I live about 1/3rd of my life in Asia right now (predominantly China, Singapore, and Malaysia), and have spent considerable time in India (Mumbai).
Before that, I've lived in Chile (6 months of each year, for two years), and Belgium (9 months straight). And of course the US. All as a private citizen.
Got 94 countries under my belt, and actually made it to all seven continents - yes, Antarctica included.
I'm a lifelong, practicing, orthodox Catholic who looks at His Creation, and matters of Science, using the brain God gave me. In my opinion, folks who push evolution as a SUBSTITUTE for God are quite wrong. They are the descendents of those in the Enlightenment who wanted to totally separate science from anything that smacked of religion. They sometimes have to wrap themselves into the same kind of illogical contortions that those who think that the dinosaurs and humans lived on the earth at the same time.
If the scientific evidence is the same, then yes. For example, the Bible has night and day created in in Genesis 1:5, plants in Genesis 1:11, the stars in Genesis 1:14, and the sun and moon in Genesis 1:16.
So essentially we have the rest of the stars created before the sun (possibly, but we do know many are younger), and we have day existing without the sun (not possible with our knowledge of physics), and more importantly plants existing without the sun.
And then there's that whole firmament thing in Genesis 1:6-8. Where there are still waters above the heavens (the sky). Yet we know there isn't a huge ocean of water around the world - we've seen what is above the earth!
So we see some pretty significant issues with how our understanding of the universe differs from the creation story. Some that are significant enough to not just "bend" things a bit, but run completely counter.
Is belief that we can have light and day and growing plants before stars or the sun exist any less fanciful than Brahma breaking a lotus flower into 3 parts to create the earth, the sky, and the heavens?
You have some inaccuracies there in your biblical reading, but I won’t attempt to disavow you of your beliefs.
I’ve found this to be futile when someone is pre-disposed to reject God and the Bible as authoritative - most people have other reasons and use these “discrepancies” as excuses to support their position.
What has changed over the centuries? God’s Word, or Man’s understanding?
I’m sure you put more stock in Man’s changing (ie, it has been wrong, will be wrong, and will change) understanding than in God’s Word, and I won’t attempt to change your atheology. That requires you to desire to understand.
Israel.
Or haven’t you read the OT?
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.