Posted on 01/05/2005 11:28:38 AM PST by Gamecock
AN FRANCISCO, CA – The creators of the notorious “Darwin Fish” car emblem have developed a controversial new product designed to win a decisive victory in a battle that has raged for a decade now. In a move hailed by supporters as “the final blow” in that battle, Ring of Fire Enterprises is set to release their newest product, a silver outline of a Tyrannosaurus Rex eating the creationist “Truth Fish.”
The ten-year clash began when Ring of Fire Enterprises released its first product, the infamous Darwin fish. Designed to counter the popularity of the Ichthus Fish, the original Christian fish symbol, the first Ring of Fire emblem featured an Ichthus Fish with evolutionary feet and the word “Darwin” emblazoned inside. The creationist response was the now-famous “Truth” emblem, a larger Ichthus fish containing the word “truth” swallowing the Darwin fish whole.
For years, the Truth fish has been the last word in automotive iconography—until now. In late 2003, the ROF board of directors commissioned a new image, one that would counter the popularity of the Truth fish.
“It’s a matter of finishing what we started, really,” says ROF co-founder Nona S. Williams with a chuckle. “The original Darwin fish stated our initial message well, but we had to admit the Christians responded pretty strongly. We don’t anticipate they can trump the new T-Rex emblem so easily!”
Indeed, the board of directors was hoping for a decisive blow when it commissioned the new piece; from the start, it was proposed to be the largest car emblem yet. For such a task, they called upon the talents of the anonymous designer of the original Darwin fish.
They were not disappointed. The new emblem is five to six times larger than its predecessor, and the dinosaur devours an actual-size Truth fish, leaving a broken fin at its feet. It is so large that it won’t fit on most compact cars. In fact, the instructions included with the new piece—which retails for $24.95—suggest purchasing an SUV or pickup truck in order to display it.
Williams admits this might deter some people from purchasing their newest product. But, she says, ROF was willing to accept that drawback on a statement that will be difficult if not impossible to thwart. “The creationists might be able to come up with something to eat our T-Rex—God knows they’re clever enough to come up with bogus theories about the primordial fossil record—but let’s see them fit it on their cars!”
The release of the T-Rex emblem has some in the Christian community worried. But the latest attack on the Ichthus fish doesn’t worry Bob Woodward, the creator of the Truth fish. In a recent press release, he argued that truth is more than a catchy slogan or trendy bumper sticker, and pointed out a fatal flaw in the Darwinists’ decision to include a dinosaur in their latest offering: extinction. “The last Tyrannosaurus Rex fell down dead over 60 million years ago. The Truth of literal biblical creationism, on the other hand, is the same yesterday, today, and forever.”
I think what reasonable Creationists claim is that their Hypothesis, Theory, Speculation, whatever you want to call it, is indeed consistant with the evidence. If it wasn't consistant, it would not only be an issue of faith, but a laughably misplaced faith.
Then there is the SETI crowd that actually believes that there is intelligent life in outerspace. This is the same crowd that looks around and says everything we see is NOT the product of intelligent design, it can't possibly be - impossible! It must absolutely be a product of pure random chance! Then they gaze up into the screens of their employer's computer as it is busy processing SETI data knowing all along that their proof for life in the cosmos is finding order and intelligece rather than chaos.
What do you do with people who want it both ways?
One thing for which the naturalist cannot give account is the laws of logic: B cannot be both B and non-B; The ratio of a circumference to a diameter is 3.141592653etc.; A number, say "3", which exists in in its purest form as a transcendental idea which can neither be observed or nor touched. These things were not invented, but discovered. How does naturalism account for such truths? They are reduced to making them stand on their own, with not ultimate Cause. They just are.
We can look at the pictures in the clear night sky: The constellations have the same meaning among all people, yet their origins are shrouded in history. They tell a story, born in remotest antiquity and passed down from the very dawn of time. We see that all peoples have a Creation story, invariably involving water. Many have a flood story as well. These anthropological facts represent a gigantic hurdle to the naturalist.
The question is, under which system does the reality in which we live make the most sense? Solomon gives us a hint: "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom."
Ping to 35, 38-42.
Obviously, this is a parody... a pretty good one, though.
Just stirring the pot.
I'm thinking: "ninjas"
Evolution, Gravity, Acidity... they are all theories, not "facts." Facts are things like: "when we measure weights on a balance, we find they are asserting approximately a force equal to their mass x what we think to be Earth's gravitational acceleration" or "when we put metal strips into hydrochloric acid, they dissolve at a rate consistent with what we believe HCl's pH to be"
Evolution is a theory, not a fact. It is a true theory.
Or the T-Rex being swallowed by a Liopleurodon, who is getting sucked into a gigantic maelstrom off the Norwegian coast.
"She swallowed the bird to swallow the spider,
which wiggled and jiggled and tickled inside her.
She swallowed the spider to swallow the fly.
I don't know why she swallowed the fly.
I guess she'll die."
Hehehe
Actually, I don't get involved in these debates. I have my beliefs on the subject, but have decided that this is not the Gospel message. I am called to preach Christ, period.
Far to many Christians make this the litmus test of what makes a true Christian. They would rather get red in the face about defending the Creation than worrying about reflecting Christ's love. As for me, I would rather see an evolutionist in Heaven than Creationists in Hell.
LOL. God's will. 8~)
Actually, the statement that evolution is a fact and not
a theory (and that Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection
best explains the fact) was made by Carl Sagan in one of
his books. It is confirmed by the the testimony of the
contemporary scientific community. (see the Nov. issue of
National Geographic for a good synopsis.) Essentially,
they are contending that evolution has independently been
empirically confirmed in studies of viruses, etc. And that
since Origin of Species was published (1859) there has
been such a massive array of data in support of evolution
that "theory" has become anachronistic. As always, terminology lags behind scientific actuality. We're
quibbling over semantics not scientific factuality.
If a weight is dropped it falls to the earth. This is a
fact. What best explains the fact is gravity. Likewise,
evolution is a fact and what best explains it is Darwin's
Theory of Natural Selection. All verified "theories" from
gravity to relativity describe certain phenomena that we
know reflect realities. As I've said before,the term
"theory", though useful, has become anachronistic and
terminology always lags behind scientific actuality.
That's a good response. But do you see the difference between the fact of gravity and the "fact" of Darwinian natural selection?
One has been observed, indeed is the very nature of reality. The other has not. Despite years of study, only adaptation within species has been oberved.
Moreover there is an ongoing debate within the scientific commuinty over the mechanism - Darwinian-flavored natural selection vs. punctuated equilibrium. Linneaus (who gave us the categorization system of genus-phylum-species-subspecies) held fervently to the fixity of the species because of the inability (or, sever limitations in the case of donkeys and horses) of interspecial breeding. We now know a dog has 78 chromosomes, for example, while a fox only has 37. They cannot breed (eliminating macroevolution), and deformed outcasts are usually killed by siblings (eliminating "hopeful monster" theory).
You will no doubt recall that Darwin himself, at the end of Origin of Species, expressed his hope that the fossil record would, in the coming years, fill out to provide smooth transitions from species to species. He even stated his theory depended upon this (see last chapter of Origin). This has not happened. For these reasons, it is not honest to call Darwinian evolution a fact.
It would be easy.
A picture of a fatherly image (G-d) waving his hand over the dinosaur, creating it, by implication.
Shush. Everyone knows dinosaurs were made extinct by smoking cigarettes.
Thanks for your comments which I think are good as well
as provocative. Perhaps the problem lies in your reference
to "observation" and perhaps my example is too oversimplified. There are many realities that cannot simply
be "observed" and quantified by simple empirical observation. The earth is believed to be about four and a
half billion years old. There are many things known to
be scientifically true that cannot have been observed, e.g.
the tectonic shift of the continents and many other
such geological phenomena. Einstein posited that the only
absolute in the universe is the speed of light and as that
speed is approached time diminishes and mass increases.
Obviously, this cannot be "observed" but it can be confirmed mathematically. You mentioned the "difference
between the fact of gravity and the fact of Darwinian
Natural Selection." I do see the difference but I think
that difference has to do with the matter of "observation"
as I sketched above. Of course, neither evolution nor
any other phenomenon which occurs over millenia is completly comprehended or explained to the fullest extent
possible. Electromagnetism is said to be one of the four
central forces of the universe - yet there is much we don't
know about it and more that we learn as time progresses.
This is why there is and must be "debate within the
scientific community." One of the points I made elsewhere
is that evolution has been verified by experiments with
such things viruses and certain bacterial life where time
ceases to impede "observation." I think one of the most frustrating things (to me) about a discussion of evolution
is how emotional, irrational, and nearly unhinged some
people become. If we all heard that some aspect of quantum
physics relating to quarks had been verified - it would
be met by these people with a big yawn. But assert that
evolution is true then LOOK OUT! Perhaps this still
unsettles certain religious beliefs. I accept evolution
and it is no threat whatsoever to my religious faith.
I'd like to hear back from you -- and congratulations
for an intelligent, rational response. It's much appreciated.
Of course, neither evolution nor any other phenomenon which occurs over millenia is completly comprehended or explained to the fullest extent possible.
Right. It becomes a matter of faith, an extension of one's noetic structure through which he interprets observed facts. Einstein posited a theory that, again, may or may not be fact. The speed of light has been measured for about 300 years, and has been shown to slow down slightly. Of course, that could just be tolerance error in the methods employed for the tests (Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle), but the reduction was pretty consistent over the centuries, albeit small. The only point is that it too is a theory.
Reality is a black box. The more science advances, the more we come to grips with our own ignorance and smallness in the universe. Yet we are able to observe these things and draw conclusions. Reason! Requisite to reason is a set of univerally accepted transcendental laws, like the laws of logic, which point to an absolute reference point, something unchangeable and eternal.
There is something really special about man, something that separates us from the animals. True, we contain many of the same building blocks. We all need food and drink, light and air, work and rest. We respond favorably to those we find pleasant, whose company we enjoy. Pavlonian responses. But science reaches its limits when we speak of beauty, morality, dignity, and nobility - experiences animals cannot be said to know. No animal ever prayed. Knowledge crosses the rubicon from science to philosophy, which is the outer sphere containing the truths on which scientific endeavor depends.
To your credit, you've indicated you make that distinction. I'm contending, though, that the implications of evolution by natural causes stand in opposition to the teachings of holy Scripture. It is not "In the beginning" to which I refer, but rather, "love your neighbor"; "pray for those that persecute you"; "do not resist an evil person"; "repay good for evil"; all of these teachings, pure and perfect, stand in irreconcileable contrast to the principle of survival of the fittest, taking advantage at the expense of another, and other Darwinian dogma that has given foundation to some of the bloodiest and most ruthless regimes in human history.
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.