Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Trudeau insults Christians in Easter Day Doonesbury cartoon
Doonesbury Cartoon ^ | April 20, 2003 | Gary Trudeau

Posted on 04/20/2003 10:36:35 AM PDT by JHL

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 281-300301-320321-340 ... 501-513 next last
To: BMCDA
Interesting site. He quotes under 14 billion as the universe age. I thought we are currently closing in on 20 billion years old, not 15. Thus, his white dwarfs need to have come into being when the universe was already 5 billion years old. My memory is suspect though.

I appreciate your, Dr. Scholastics and ThinkPlease's very reasoned arguments against my theory. I've got to continue this research tonight, or my boss is going to big bang me.

301 posted on 04/22/2003 2:15:09 PM PDT by Diplomat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 297 | View Replies]

To: ThinkPlease
I wish I understood the math for the redshift phenomonon. I'll check out the site BMCDA posted and do my own research. Funny thing is, if the big bang doesn't have a center or original point, isn't your current understanding of this process more consistant with the biblical account of, "let there be light" than the original big bang theory as it was proposed?
302 posted on 04/22/2003 2:19:34 PM PDT by Diplomat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 299 | View Replies]

To: JHL
I stopped reading Doonesbury quite awhile ago so I didn't see this. I prefer B.C. and the King of Id. And, of course, Dilbert. Did you notice the basher character is a priest/minister?
303 posted on 04/22/2003 2:19:43 PM PDT by sorrisi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
time for yet another smoldering, "wildly elliptical" blue flatulence-free placemarker
304 posted on 04/22/2003 2:21:50 PM PDT by longshadow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 267 | View Replies]

To: CCCnative
I'm sure Trudeau used the exact same line of reasoning. "It's not an insult, it's historical truth,"
305 posted on 04/22/2003 3:17:36 PM PDT by Hillary? Hell no!
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]

To: eagleman
Why Christians don't defend themselves from the cancer of creationism is something I don't understand.

There are some of us Christians (mostly Catholics) that do make the effort. Of course, our "Christian" brethren on these threads cast us as atheists for our efforts. Sometimes, you just can't win...

306 posted on 04/22/2003 3:19:54 PM PDT by Junior (Computers make very fast, very accurate mistakes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 217 | View Replies]

To: MississippiMan
When did written debates become the norm?

You've evidently never encountered 18th century correspondence. People used to debate at great length on all sorts of topics via the mail. I believe they used to call them "commitees of correspondence" or some such.

307 posted on 04/22/2003 3:26:46 PM PDT by Junior (Computers make very fast, very accurate mistakes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 229 | View Replies]

To: Diplomat
Funny thing is, if the big bang doesn't have a center or original point, isn't your current understanding of this process more consistant with the biblical account of, "let there be light" than the original big bang theory as it was proposed?

I don't think this is a change in the theory as originally proposed; the "explosion" idea was more of a popular explanation than an accurate summary of the actual theory. But yes, to those of us who believe in God and modern science, the Big bang Theory is indeed very reminiscent of genesis 1:3.

308 posted on 04/22/2003 4:02:24 PM PDT by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 302 | View Replies]

To: Junior; MississippiMan
When did written debates become the norm?

There is also the ancient legal practice of written arguments for appeals. The written brief contains the lawyer's arguments, presumably logically presented and carefully footnoted to indicate the sources of the propositions presented. The opposing side then responds, also in writing, to answer each of those points. Oral arguments get lots of attention by the press, especially in cases before the US Supreme Court (reporters rarely visit state appellate courts); but oral arguments are definitely not the core of the process. (And the oral arguments are always about what's contained in the written briefs; no wild surprises ever happen.) In many appellate cases the lawyers waive oral argument and just rely on their briefs (perhaps not US Supreme Court cases, which are great publicity opportunities).

Anyway, the law operates with written arguments, clearly defined issues presented in numbered paragraphs, footnotes, and opposing briefs in the same format. That's the very best way to have a careful debate about important issues. Creation "scientists" always avoid going the route of written, carefully documented debate. They favor the razzle-dazzle of the lecture circuit. Good entertainment, perhaps, but it's no way to decide important scientific questions.

309 posted on 04/22/2003 4:35:29 PM PDT by PatrickHenry (Felix, qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 307 | View Replies]

To: Diplomat; BMCDA
Interesting site. He quotes under 14 billion as the universe age. I thought we are currently closing in on 20 billion years old, not 15. Thus, his white dwarfs need to have come into being when the universe was already 5 billion years old. My memory is suspect though.

At one point, about 15 or so years ago, per Hubble Space Telescope, we were closing in on a 20 billion year age. However, with the Key Project of the HST complete, it narrowed down quite a bit to the current estimate. It's been hovering there for almost 5 years now.

I wish I understood the math for the redshift phenomonon. I'll check out the site BMCDA posted and do my own research. Funny thing is, if the big bang doesn't have a center or original point, isn't your current understanding of this process more consistant with the biblical account of, "let there be light" than the original big bang theory as it was proposed?

Some people think so. I'm generally not one of them, though I used to be (long long ago). I do happen to think that religion should not be diametrically opposed to science in anyway. They are two different endeavours.

310 posted on 04/22/2003 4:47:28 PM PDT by ThinkPlease (Fortune Favors the Bold!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 302 | View Replies]

To: Diplomat
Big misconception. The Big Bang -is- the expansion of the universe. Think about the surface of a balloon expanding... all physical matter is contained within the surface of the balloon, and the balloon is continuously expanding.

Now, the universe is infinite, just like you can wander around on the surface of the earth infinitely. However, current theory says that if you go in one direction forever (data points towards Virgo), you will eventually come back to the other side of Earth.

There is no center of expansion, just like there is no center on the surface of a balloon. Therefore the concept of a "center" to the universe is meaningless, just like there is no center on the Earth's surface. The balloon's surface can expand, without a center of origin, and the universe is the same way.

It's a non-inituitive concept, and you didn't learn it in school in this way... because, well, it's hard to get 12-year-olds to visualize that. It's so much easier to say "boom". Besides, the concept of the big bang works -against- atheism because a beginning is implied... not for atheism. People used to think the universe was eternal and all that. That's not the case now.
311 posted on 04/22/2003 6:14:54 PM PDT by Nataku X (Never give Bush any power you wouldn't want to give to Hillary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 293 | View Replies]

To: Doctor Stochastic
In addition, as ice changes from new-snowfall type ice to glacial ice, there is about a 90 to 1 compression.

Even with 90 to 1 compression from one inch snowfall (if true, you have given no supporting evidence for your claim) wou would need a mile of snowpack for every 5 million years. Let's see, the earth is close to 5 billion years old so the snow in greenland must be a thousand miles high correct?????

312 posted on 04/22/2003 8:29:09 PM PDT by gore3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 256 | View Replies]

To: eagleman
No wonder so many scientists become atheists.

Wrong, they become atheists because they love themselves more than the Creator of the marvels that they are discovering. Arrogance, which we see displayed so fully in evolutionists on these threads is the path to atheism.

313 posted on 04/22/2003 8:31:44 PM PDT by gore3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 258 | View Replies]

To: eagleman
It is for the above reasons that not even the most die-hard atheists are able to even formulate a hypothesis as to how life could have come from non-life. -me-
Spoken without a whit of knowledge of the actual literature.

Since you know so much more then take apart my statement yourself. Explain what I said has been proven wrong. You cannot. The atheists cannot explain how life arose and no I will not waste my time with your snow job of articles. If they prove me wrong, show it right here.

Hint: The first life had to be able to reproduce. Proto-organisms do not cut it. Proto-organisms, not being reproductive beings cannot evolve.

314 posted on 04/22/2003 8:37:19 PM PDT by gore3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 260 | View Replies]

To: whattajoke
Why did you stop answering Dr. Stochastic's questions after one? I believe the next question was:

Because refuting the first one was enough to refute the whole dumb theory of evolution. How come none of you 'scientists' can refute it?????????????

315 posted on 04/22/2003 8:41:04 PM PDT by gore3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 261 | View Replies]

To: whattajoke
You are another lame evolutionist who only insults. If my posts are soooooo easily refuted how come you cannot do so?????

If my posts have been refuted so many times how come none of you guys can cut and paste the refutation? Fingers impaired? Unable to type anything but insults?

316 posted on 04/22/2003 8:44:09 PM PDT by gore3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 263 | View Replies]

To: george wythe
Apparently, you did not bother to read the link I kindly provided nor did you become familiar with the Catholic position before reacting.

I have read the ENTIRE statement in question several times and believe it or not the Pope is Catholic! He has been seriously misquoted by the press. The first thing that you have to realize is the title of the encyclical "TRUTH CANNOT CONTRADICT TRUTH". He is not praising evolution, he is condemning it. He starts: "rather than the theory of evolution, we should speak of several theories of evolution. On the one hand, this plurality has to do with the different explanations advanced for the mechanism of evolution, and on the other, with the various philosophies on which it is based. Hence the existence of materialist, reductionist and spiritualist interpretations. What is to be decided here is the true role of philosophy and, beyond it, of theology." Now, he really goes after Darwinian evolution: "man is "the only creature on earth that God has wanted for its own sake" (No. 24). In other terms, the human individual cannot be subordinated as a pure means or a pure instrument, either to the species or to society; he has value per se. He is a person. With his intellect and his will, he is capable of forming a relationship of communion, solidarity and self-giving with his peers."And now for the final kick at evolution:" " Consequently, theories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider the spirit as emerging from the forces of living matter or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter, are incompatible with the truth about man. Nor are they able to ground the dignity of the person. " "
The whole encyclical can be found at:   Encyclical

Evolution is materialistic beyond a doubt and the Pope is specifically warning against materialistic evolution.

317 posted on 04/22/2003 8:51:11 PM PDT by gore3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 265 | View Replies]

To: whattajoke
You can continue to live what I'm sure is a lovely life, full of "Goddidit"

We can see God's design everywhere in life and the Universe. We cannot see random materialistic creation of anything anywhere. It is the evolutionists that do not have a single iota of evidence for their theory that is why they must insult opponents at every post. They seem to think that insults are proof of evolution. You are all like spoiled children having a tantrum. None of you can discuss an issue like human beings.

318 posted on 04/22/2003 8:55:21 PM PDT by gore3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 269 | View Replies]

To: whattajoke
they have an incredible amount of evidence to back them up,

Yup, somebody else has the proof of evolution, but no one can tell us what it is! It's a deep secret!

319 posted on 04/22/2003 8:58:11 PM PDT by gore3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 284 | View Replies]

To: Junior
There are some of us Christians (mostly Catholics) that do make the effort.

You are not a Catholic, you are not a Christian. You constantly attack just about everything in the Bible. You have said called both Genesis and the Words of Christ fairy tales. You refuse to even believe that God created life or man. You are a deceitful person trying to induce (like your hero Darwin who you believe in more than your supposed religion) into your atheistic philosophy.

320 posted on 04/22/2003 9:04:21 PM PDT by gore3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 306 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 281-300301-320321-340 ... 501-513 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