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 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 181-197 next last

1 posted on 07/30/2008 7:56:37 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor; metmom; Alamo-Girl; DaveLoneRanger; betty boop

ping!


2 posted on 07/30/2008 7:57:22 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
A well-known atheist’s ‘eureka moment’ shows the desperation of evolutionists

Desperation of evolutionist? Me thinks the Creationists are desperate.

3 posted on 07/30/2008 8:00:27 PM PDT by LoneRangerMassachusetts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Thanks for the ping!


4 posted on 07/30/2008 8:03:43 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

ping


5 posted on 07/30/2008 8:09:03 PM PDT by raygunfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: LoneRangerMassachusetts
==Desperation of evolutionist? Me thinks the Creationists are desperate.

You wouldn't know it by this article. Everywhere I look, evolutionist atheologians are grasping at straws to defend the crumbling Temple of Darwin, while Creationists and ID scientists beat them over the head with reality (and they're having fun doing it). That's the opposite of desperation in my book.

6 posted on 07/30/2008 8:17:33 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: LoneRangerMassachusetts

Methinks you had best consider the content of the article. It would help evolutionists be more credible if they would stop making absurd mistakes about something in the here-and-now (what creationists actually believe), before trying to demand authoritatively that we trust them about an unobserved past. As it stands, evolutionists have largely forfeited the contemporary debate because they are _not_ dealing with the issues in a credible manner (as this example demonstrates).

Degeneration is not evidence of molecules-to-man evolution, it is its opposite. It fits much better with the worldview of Genesis (perfect beginning followed by a Fall and Curse).


7 posted on 07/30/2008 8:19:33 PM PDT by Liberty1970
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: All
It's been my observation that some critics of intelligent design do not have a firm grasp of natural selection. They accuse religious people of being irrational; yet, to many of them, evolutionary steps happen almost magically.

Just try to explain that for a set of building blocks to come together to form a complex system the individual steps have to be favored by natural selection— which is the ID argument— and you'll get all kinds of counterarguments that do not address the ID claim (after they have finished calling you a hack for the Discovery Institute).

8 posted on 07/30/2008 8:20:40 PM PDT by JC85
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

I don’t post on these threads much, as I really don’t see any point. However: Why does evolution preclude the existence of God? I believe in both, and see no reason why they’re incompatible.


9 posted on 07/30/2008 8:22:34 PM PDT by lesser_satan (Cthulu '08! Why vote for the lesser evil?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

A theory in crisis since 1859. I wonder if Dembski will pay off on his current bet when he loses ... again.


10 posted on 07/30/2008 8:23:52 PM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: LoneRangerMassachusetts; Alamo-Girl; Amelia; Gabz; metmom

It’s the anti-Creationists that desperately strive to censor God in the classrooms and in the government.

Which was more virtuous, the praying 1700s US government or the 1950s Soviet atheist governent? Do a search for DEMOCIDE.

Which brought forth students with higher 3Rs and scientific skills, the pre-1962 schools with prayer and commonplace corporal punishment, or the modern atheist version?


11 posted on 07/30/2008 8:26:23 PM PDT by The Spirit Of Allegiance (Public Employees: Honor Your Oaths! Defend the Constitution from Enemies--Foreign and Domestic!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: lesser_satan

I totally agree with you. I realize that much of what motivates the anti-evolutionary movement is religious in nature. But an argument is true or false regardless of the motivation of the arguer.


12 posted on 07/30/2008 8:27:15 PM PDT by JC85
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: lesser_satan

==Why does evolution preclude the existence of God?

It contradicts the creation account in the Bible, it contradicts the Bible on how sin entered the world, it contradicts the effects of sin (death, disease, suffering, etc), and it contradicts science (which is an investigation of God’s creation).


13 posted on 07/30/2008 8:28:11 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
I respect both sides of this issue however, they are both belief systems, the anecdotal musings of evolutionists notwithstanding.

What strikes me about most of the essays which purport to challenge the tenets of ID and Creationism, is the thread of smarmy contempt and denigration for those who hold those beliefs, which seems to permeate the writing. I don't understand the necessity for doing this. IMO, one cannot with the wave of the arm, or wry smirk, dismiss the compelling arguments of the ID belief system.

I prefer to read studied responses and essays which do not contain attempts to ridicule.

14 posted on 07/30/2008 8:31:13 PM PDT by Banjoguy (Nancy Pelosi and the Democrat party are among the enemies of The Republic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
I've reviewed the claims made by ID proponents and then I've studied the rebuttals made by the anti-ID crowd. Some of the ID advocates make some well-reasoned arguments that just have not been “thoroughly debunked” as claimed.
15 posted on 07/30/2008 8:32:10 PM PDT by JC85
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Huge Flying Reptiles Ate Dinosaurs (StorkZilla LIVES!)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2022299/posts?page=18#18


16 posted on 07/30/2008 8:33:23 PM PDT by The Spirit Of Allegiance (Public Employees: Honor Your Oaths! Defend the Constitution from Enemies--Foreign and Domestic!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Which creation story? Genesis 1? Genesis 2? The Hindu creation story?


17 posted on 07/30/2008 8:33:36 PM PDT by PugetSoundSoldier (Indignation over the sting of truth is the defense of the indefensible)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: JC85
I realize that much of what motivates the anti-evolutionary movement is religious in nature.

The same can be said of the naturalism movement. Their fall-back position now is, "Hey, we're just defending science" but if you look at the movement in the days before they adopted Darwin as their naturalist Rosa Parks, you'll clearly see this.
18 posted on 07/30/2008 8:35:01 PM PDT by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: PugetSoundSoldier

What part of the word Bible don’t you understand?


19 posted on 07/30/2008 8:35:44 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Bump


20 posted on 07/30/2008 8:39:57 PM PDT by Sans-Culotte
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 181-197 next 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