Funny Evolution vs Creationism cartoons

[Sisyphus]

Give it up. Their cartoons are better than ours. Why not just embrace the inevitable?

It's very curious to me why some Christians, mainly among evangellical Protestants in the US, feel that attacking evolution is an important battleground for their faith in the 21st centruy. They refuse to embrace the inevitable scientific truth that evolution occurs. Many Christians are perfectly content to consider that a creator of the universe might well use evolution to spawn the incredible diversity of species seen on Earth.

Of course, those attacking evolution do so, not because of any problems with the scientific merit of the enormous body of knowledge, but because it conflicts with a literal reading of the Bible.

And yet a literal reading of the Bible suggests a geocentric Universe. Why is this not an important area of argument? It seems to have been abandoned by those taking a literal interpretation of the Bible?

Well ... other than these folks:

http://www.geocentricity.com/

[Henry]

It's very curious to me why some Christians, mainly among evangellical Protestants in the US, feel that attacking evolution is an important battleground for their faith in the 21st centruy.

My guess is because the best defense is a good offense.

[Zguy28]

Then why did he do what he did to Job?

I believe it was the request of someone else, was it not? Someone who accused people before God day and night? And God let that "someone" do those things, but not for His divine benefit.

[rincewind]

I believe it was the request of someone else, was it not? Someone who accused people before God day and night? And God let that "someone" do those things, but not for His divine benefit.

Just seems odd that if He knew Job was a believer He would allow such horrible things to befall Job.



What about asking Abraham to sacrifice his son as a test of faith?

[Zguy28]

Just seems odd that if He knew Job was a believer He would allow such horrible things to befall Job.



What about asking Abraham to sacrifice his son as a test of faith?

Obedience and saving faith are two different things. Its known as sanctification and justification.

[dfitzo53]

I see the militants are out looking for a scrap again...

Zguy, do you really buy most of the items on that list? They're the same kind of sweeping, generally erroneous generalizations that irk you, techboy and others when directed as creationists. Maybe your entire point was the show the uselessness of making such mischaracterizations, but I don't see it as productive.

Intra-species evolution is quite obvious, inter-species evolution is a differnt beast altogether . Sorry, my sense of humor has yet to evolve...

When you really study evolution it becomes clear that "intra-species" and "inter-species" evolution to use your terms are the same thing.

It's all a matter of natural selection acting on genetic variation present in a population.

My guess is because the best defense is a good offense.

Which also explains the War in Iraq! If I can somehow work in homosexuals, one of China's weird news stories and a Mickalino thread, we'll have summed up the entire Tailgate right here and we can all go home. Maybe China can find a story about somebody who gets lost under a glacier and gets rescued by a five-legged goat.

[Zguy28]

It's very curious to me why some Christians, mainly among evangellical Protestants in the US, feel that attacking evolution is an important battleground for their faith in the 21st centruy. They refuse to embrace the inevitable scientific truth that evolution occurs. Many CHristians are perfectly content a consider that a creator of the universe might well use evolution to spawn the incredible diversity of species seen on Earth.

Of course, those attacking evolution do so, not because of any problems with the scientific merit of the enormous body of knowledge, but because it conflicts with a literal reading of the Bible.

And yet a literal reading of the Bible suggests a geocentric Universe. Why is this not an important area of argument? It seems to have been abandoned by those taking a literal interpretation of the Bible?

Well ... other than these folks:

http://www.geocentricity.com/

Because many in the evangelical church are spiritual infants who are taught watered down theology.

Anywho, I refer back to my previous post which I love:
You love to castigate Christians for being "anti-science" if they deny evolution from goo to you via the zoo, and to preach that they should adapt their thinking to the "science" of our day. But you also castigate the Church of 400 years ago for being anti-science, when it DID adapt its thinking to the science of ITS day, i.e. Ptolemaic cosmology, then joined with the Aristotelian scientists of the universities in rejecting Galileo!

[alexey]

Of course, those attacking evolution do so, not because of any problems with the scientific merit of the enormous body of knowledge, but because it conflicts with a literal reading of the Bible.

I agree that rejection of evolution comes from conflicts with existing belief systems, but I do not think it conflicts directly with Bible interpretations. It seems the conflict is actually with other sources, sources that are otherwise considered credible. Those sources may in turn be grounded in the Bible, but it is an important distinction to make because revising credibility of secondary sources is easier. Recent developments of Evangelicals' stance on Global Warming is a good example of that

[Zguy28]

Zguy, Maybe your entire point was the show the uselessness of making such mischaracterizations,

Yes it was. Watch this thread long enough, you will begin to see it coming from Sysiphus, Chomerics, and Alexey and the rest. Eventually it will devolve (pun intended) into "creationists are stupid sheep who are anti-science" statements.

I'm going to take Techboys advice and not post in here anymore, because it seems people expect evangelicals to have knowledge of evolutionary science equal to a PHD to be considered intellectual. But hey, since we evolved from apes, I shouldn't be expecting to not be treated like one.

Perhaps they would like to debate/discuss theology seriously with me (can't speak for Techboy or Rebornempowered)?

- Z out.

[alexey]

Yes it was. Watch this thread long enough, you will begin to see it coming from Sysiphus, Chomerics, and Alexey and the rest. Eventually it will devolve (pun intended) into "creationists are stupid sheep who are anti-science" statements.

It's a good thing you decided to leave before the above mentioned names requested quotes of "creationists are stupid sheep who are anti-science" statements.

(btw, I do not appreciate to be lumped together with those two extremists hmm well i guess Sysiphus is alright... but you may have a hard time finding "stupid sheep" statements from him as well, that's all Chom )

[rincewind]

Obedience and saving faith are two different things. Its known as sanctification and justification.

Seems like if He knew you were faithful, He would know that you are obident. If that is true there is no need to put someone through the torture of thinking he had to kill his own son.

[PeterMP]

Because many in the evangelical church are spiritual infants who are taught watered down theology.

Anywho, I refer back to my previous post which I love:
You love to castigate Christians for being "anti-science" if they deny evolution from goo to you via the zoo, and to preach that they should adapt their thinking to the "science" of our day. But you also castigate the Church of 400 years ago for being anti-science, when it DID adapt its thinking to the science of ITS day, i.e. Ptolemaic cosmology, then joined with the Aristotelian scientists of the universities in rejecting Galileo!

The anti-science comes from three things:

1. Not understanding what science is and demanding that scientist prove something that can't be proven (as I stated before chemistry and biology are not math; it is not possible to prove something just to disprove the likely alternatives).

2. Demanding that Creationism or intelligent design be taught in a Science class (you want it taught teach it in philosophy) where it has no value because it has no real predictive value in terms of what can be tested.

3. The reaction of the Church, and I am Catholic. The Church did not engage Galileo in a debate. They did not say, well you can believe what you want, but we are right because God is on our side. They used force/threats to make him say what they wanted. They burned Bruno at the stake for his belief that the Sun was the center of the solar system.


These things are "anti-science" because science above all else is about reasonable (at least fairly reasonable) debate about the facts and ideas. Not threats and demands.

[thelongestbreath]

I've never actually commented in any of these threads due to the arguements that normally break out...but work is slow today.

I'm more of a evolutionism by creation believer. Why is it impossiable to believe that there's a greater being that set the process in order? The bible states God created the Heaven's and the Earth in six days. Also in the same bible it states a day for God is that of 1000 days for us if not more. Both scenarios could be right, working together. Just both sides are to arrogent to swallow their pride and realize there's more possibilities than just hot or cold.

Not that any of that has anything to do with insulting each other's opinions whether Evolution or Creationism so I'll return you to your normally broadcasted bickering on a subject we may never have a deffinitive answer to.

[PeterMP]

I've never actually commented in any of these threads due to the arguements that normally break out...but work is slow today.

I'm more of a evolutionism by creation believer. Why is it impossiable to believe that there's a greater being that set the process in order? The bible states God created the Heaven's and the Earth in six days. Also in the same bible it states a day for God is that of 1000 days for us if not more. Both scenarios could be right, working together. Just both sides are to arrogent to swallow their pride and realize there's more possibilities than just hot or cold.

Not that any of that has anything to do with insulting each other's opinions whether Evolution or Creationism so I'll return you to your normally broadcasted bickering on a subject we may never have a deffinitive answer to.

I believe what you are describing is formally called directed evolutoin. From a completely scientific stand point, there is nothing wrong w/ this line of thinking. It is also impossible for science to prove or disprove it. If somebody tells you this is against evolution, then they are wrong and being guided by something other than science, but I think most people really in science (i.e. myself) are fine if that's what you want to believe and is in fact similar to my own beliefs, but in terms of teaching, practicing, and talking science, the fact that evolution might be directed has no real relevance (i.e. it does not change the predictions that can be made or add any testable experiments). From a philosophical stand point, it is an interesting possiblity, which is why all of this, if it is to be taught belongs in a philosophy class.

[DCsportsfan53]

I've never actually commented in any of these threads due to the arguements that normally break out...but work is slow today.

I'm more of a evolutionism by creation believer. Why is it impossiable to believe that there's a greater being that set the process in order?

I don't think it's impossible at all. I think that's quite reasonable and I fully accept that as a strong possibilty. What I can't understand is denying all the evidence of evolution because the year's in the bible don't add up or because "I didn't come from a dirty, stinkin ape". To me, they're separate issues. All the evidence we have suggests evolution takes place. What we do not have is good evidence of what put it in place or got the ball rolling. God is as good an explanation as any for that and I don't see why the two ideas, an omnicient creator and his use of evolution, can't go hand in hand.