Hitchen's (Whom I like a lot even though I am a Christian and a Creationist and Biblicial Literalist - Oh yeah - The big three!) article/argument that blind Salamanders are proof that God does not exist is the same ridiculous argument that I have been aware of since I got saved back in Nov. 1983 (Sharpen those sticks my Atheist friends).

I was watching a program about evolution and the reporter was interview a top evolutionist scientist (Also an atheist) and he asked him How did he know for certain that God did not exist? The scientist seemed taken aback as if he had never directly been asked that, he paused and reflected, and then said something about an animal (I forget which one) in the desert that back hooves that were different than its front hooves. That was it! That was his argument aganist God. He didn't understand why God would make an animal's hooves different in the front form the back.

This ridiculous argument has now been discovered by Christopher Hitchens, in a eureka moment, and he sounds overcome by his own brilliance. Christopher, (I repeat I am a fan of your well thought out articles and intelellectual defense of many positions I agree with) but simple because you don't understand why God did something is not proof that God does not exist. The universe is filled with orderly deisign eveywhere you look. Everywhere! Look at the smallest atom and it is shaped and performs a function. DNA is the code that marks every living thing down to the smallest cell of every person and animal. DNA is code. A code is something planned and designed for a fuctional purpose.

Why is the Tiger orange? Why is the sky blue? Why am I so handsome and other's are butt ugly? (I joke) Why does evil exist? Why do some live long and other's short? God hasn't told me the answers but God has placed the evidence for Himself everywhere in creation and the only way to miss it is to wilfully seek to avoid it and come up with explanations that go against common sense.

Evolution can be true within a species, as there can be natural selection to explain why Swedish people are mostly blondes etc. But no species can become another species and every species began from the mind of God (Yes, dinosaurs, birds, fish, lizards, people etc.).

Good strawman beating, there. Of course, it has nothing to do with the article, which was about how the bline salamanders are an argument against Creationism, but hey, why let details like what the article argues get in the way of thrashing a strawman?

Science has helped us draw a great many conclusions that have had practical impact on our lives. Your view is utterly intellectually bankrupt in that it leads nowhere. If people has ascribed to your view, we'd still be at a medieval level of development. Newton would have said to himself "why do things fall? Ah, well, who can know God's plan?" And that would have been that. There's no inquiry in your system, there's just God's plan that no one can know.

No thanks. I'll take what a few hundred years of science has given us over what several thousand years of fundamentalism gave us. After all, by their fruits you shall know them, right?

So you are saying that since the world is very complex (and somewhat orderly), a being of much greater complexity (God) must have been responsible. Do you really fail to see the logical problem here?

Please don't assume that those who disagree with you on evolution are atheists. Unless and until someone states their particular religious belief (or lack thereof), it would be foolish of you to assume that a belief about evolution can only be held by people with one particular view of religion. (And, in fact, I would bet that most of those who disagree with your views on creationism and biblical literalism are themselve religious.)

This particular article was about evidence against creationism -- and your response offers no real rebuttal. To the contrary, you point out the weakness of your own position by noting that we should observe the evidence around us and follow it to its logical conclusion. The only conclusion supported by the evidence of the world is that evolution is fact.

Evolution, that is, monkeys become human or vice versa, where nature proceeds from chaos to order takes a lot of faith. It would take faith for my glass of melted water to reverse entropy (chaos) and return to its icy crystalline form.

Besides the notion that creatures times more complex than my mechanical watch appear and thrive from unordered goop (but my simple-by-comparison watch somehow missed the evolutionary boat); how do the proponents for our arriving from the 'goo to the zoo to you' theory explain the suitability of life to spontaneously reverse entropy when our little sun has been burning off 1.2 million tons of mass per second over the past 4.56 billion years?

Working backwards, our little sun, or any fire for that matter, would have a LOT more fuel for the flames. Granted the sun will enlarge as it dies in the future, but with so much more mass in the sun 4.5 billion years ago, any 'egg' that was laid would have been a fried egg.

How do the ape-evolved humans explain the math? Unless they believe math evolved too like it Florida voter counts.

if you have an idea for us, you need to put it into sentences that have actual meaning, not your own personal code.

Nobody but creationist nutjobs claim that any scientists believe that monkeys became humans. It's more complicated and interesting than that. Do your research.

You explained it yourself!

Fusing 1.2 million tons/second of hydrogen nuclei represents a heck of an increase in thermodynamic entropy - far faster than any reverse of entropy that is occurring due to any evolutionary activities here.

Remember, a SYSTEM must increase in entropy. In this case, the Earth cannot be considered a closed thermodynamic system; the Sun is also a part of that system. So, you can have evolution, and not come close violating the second law.

You are confusing increased order with decreased entropy, but there are examples of non-biological systems that tend toward spontaneous order (galaxies, solar systems, etc.) that don't violate the second law.

Well Jonboy, let’s not assume a generalized conclusion based on a single instance. The only conclusion of fact is that race of salamander genetically differentiated to not having functioning eyes evidencing micro evolution within a species. Like Aryan's having blond hair and blue eyes. You know the whole eugenics theory espoused by the master race theorists. After all, when we are just fancy animals acting on survival of the fittest instead of beings created for the Higher Power's purposes you get the master race theory. Also, those blind salamanders can produce viable offspring with the un-blind salamanders, kinda like blind humans can get it on with sighted humans and make human babies (not monkey babies, dolphin babies, or amoeba babies)

Also, can atheism be called a religion when atheism does not acknowledge a higher rule at its core other than hedonism/survival of the fittest/carpe diem/master race theories, which I suppose is religious like at Burning Man in New Mexico for instance. Man, every human, unlike every other creature on the planet, worships something. You may worship or right to deny deity, or worship or car, or you heathen kids may be your god whom you server at cost to all else, or perhaps any one of the seven deadlies?

How about this rebuttal, which I have posted?

How can reverse entropy occur when 1.2 millions tons of mass per second, added to the sun over 4.56 billions years evolutionary time make anything other than a cauldron of unsuitability for life? Much less, the reverse entropy? I guess Newton laws of physics must be wrong.

nice. can you explain the math grammatician?

Here's a little math for you: <link>

the numbers do look huge, but they aren't that great when you consider the immensity of the sun.

Perhaps this doesn't answer your question - but I had trouble discerning what the point of your question was. Were you arguing for Creationism based on your evidence that the Earth must have been much hotter (too hot to hold anything other than a 'fried egg') than the scientific, biological, and geological communities consensus agreement of when life most likely began?

I'm glad you are asking questions, that's the root of inquiry that gives life to science.

...from existing species.

"But no species can become another species..."

Your statement is proven false by direct observation, I'm afraid: we've directly observed speciation events occurring, where one or more new species arise by descent from a previously existing species population.

"...every species began from the mind of God (Yes, dinosaurs, birds, fish, lizards, people etc.)."

>>From what evidence, exactly, does this premise arise? For that matter, what credible evidence demonstrates a god or gods exist?

Hitchens is an atheist, but his argument here is not that blind salamanders prove that God does not exist, but that blind salamanders are evidence that creationism is false. One can believe in God and accept evolution as the scientific explanation for the development of species.

Thank you for sharing about my question's point not being plainly stated. I should have stated that I don't buy any of the evolutionists claims, although I do give evolutionists credit for their faith in the physical universe being able to come from somewhere, existing in something, and produce the Kingdom, Phylum, Genus, Family, Species, Races as has happened.

By physics, adding mass to the sun burns up evolution. By zoology, spontaneous generation debunked by Ontogeny Recapitulates Phylogeny breeds out evloution. By Newton, order tends toward disorder scrambles evolution.

If it takes millions of years to happen, then the sun is a factor. If it has been millions of years, then where are the new species. Is anything not tending toward disorder.

thanks for talking

You say the blind salamanders can mate with sighted salamanders. I don't remember that from the article. Where did you discover this little factoid?