Trudeau insults Christians in Easter Day Doonesbury cartoon

Doonesbury Cartoon ^ | April 20, 2003 | Gary Trudeau

[JHL]

On Easter of all days, Gary Trudeau uses his Doonesbury cartoon to insult Christians in general, and George Bush's faith in particular. How quick the liberals are to condemn someone else's faith and belief system, but just let a Christian say anything negative about another's belief system and how quick they are to invoke an injunction against "judgementalism."

You can read the cartoon for yourself at the following link CLICK HERE for cartoon

[MississippiMan]

Thanks for your post MM, and do not think its a waste of time. We never know what words God will use to change a heart. We are simply commanded to speak the truth, which you are doing. That scoffers continue to scoff should not suprise any of us...we are in very good company.

Thanks, Half. I appreciate those kind words more than you know.

MM

[f.Christian]

To: f.Christian

I've struggled with this for years. First being fully indoctrinated on young earth creationism (before it had that name), then being fully indoctrinated with evolutionary naturalism.

Never have fully sorted it out, but I have reached a few conclusions.

I. The Bible is open to some limited interpretation. Day-age, for starters. Which hebrew words are used for "made"? For that matter, look at what leading Jewish theologians say about it, its vastly different that what they teach in mainstream protestant sunday school.

II. Science itself is not anti-God. It is a study of that which God has made, and can provide a multitude of lessons about the nature of God.

III. Science is limited to naturalistic assumptions. Meaning, being based on repeatable experiments, it [i]a priori[/i] excludes the miraculous. Some misunderstand this and conclude miracles are impossible. No, they are just not subject to investigation by science, because they are by their very nature non-natural, non-repeatable.

IV. The Theory of Evolution is a mixture of good and bad science, and advocated zealously by the naturalists. The naturalists seem to think that the T-of-E removes the need for a God. Ignoring the whole question of where did the universe come from in the first place.

V. The two single biggest problems for the T-of-E are macroevolution and abiogenesis.
A) Abiogenesis, that life arose from inorganic material, is, scientifically, a discipline in shambles. A lot of time and energy spent, a lot of speculations made, and so far, nothing but some impossible speculations to show for it. Oddly, the impossibilities are suppressed, the cleverness of the speculation trumpeted, and in some quarters people think its already proven.

B) Macro-evolution - perhaps a bad term. I mean to say, descent with change is proven - children differ from their parents, over time this can lead to changes in a species. But, the assumption or speculation that this accounts for the grand diveristy of all life on the planet has not been proven, and in fact, scientifically, is a huge and largely unsupported leap. Put another way: the fossil record supports this theory very poorly.


7 posted on 04/28/2003 8:03 AM PDT by FactQuest

[FactQuest]

"What we see in the "geologic column" can be explained on the basis of a worldwide flood."

Sorry, HalfFull, but I have to disagree with you. The fossil evidence in the geologic column is at odds with a global flood.

I am loathe to toss out a global flood, but this oft-repeated argument about post-flood sorting into the geological column doesn't hold up to scientific scrutiny.

[FactQuest]

My my, where to start.

There are also pictures of centaurs, pegasi, and birdmen. Are they all real too? Or, could the dragon just be another mythical beast?

Assuming some dinosaurs did survive into human times - that would just prove some species survived longer than previously thought, it wouldn't change everything.

I agree with your thoughts on macroevolution, but would word it a bit more tightly - descent with change (micro-evolution) can give rise to a new species... as defined by modern science, species is sometimes a very minor variation. But accumulated micro changes won't amount to new kinds of creatures, like elephants, or whales, or dogs, from mice. Something else is going on. Science may figure it out, or not. It may be something God did. The fossil evidence shows static types of animal existing for long stretches of time, then disappearing. And new animals springing up out of seemingly nowhere. Sure, most everything is similar to something else, and the assumption is the older similar thing gave rise to the newer similar thing, but the fossil record doesn't show the slow steady progression the Theory predicts. So they came up with Punctuated Equilibrium, which basically says that by some means unknown, big evolutionary changes happen in a short period of time. Which is a dodge, they're bashing to fit.

Dating used to be a lot worse than it is now. Now, with multiple different types of dating techniques, each targeted to different ages, its a lot more solid of a science.

A scientific theory is far more than an opinion, it is just one step removed from "law". A scientific law is a fact. A scientific theory is a very good, highly evidenced theory. I don't think evolution should be called that, I think it only rises to the level of Hypothesis.

I believe in creationism. But I don't throw out science, it is a worthy pursuit, created by Godly men. Its been twisted, but so has the Bible.

[FactQuest]

"alot of evidence for the Biblical flood"

None of your list made the cut.
The column contradicts you.
The population argument is false (disease, famine, war...), wait, I don't think man is a million years old anyway. About 40,000 to 50,000, maybe less, according to genetic research.
Coal takes too long to form.
Hmm, haven't heard the magnetic argment, do tell.

That might be the one that turns me around. I've struggled with this a long time. And I've come to the tentative conclusion that what we have is words written in Hebrew to an ancient, Eastern society, being translated spottily and then poorly interpreted in a modern, Western culture.

Meaning, I think the traditional interpretation is botched. I am not alone. There is room in the words for a limited flood, with the only assumption being that the flood occurred prior to mankind spreading across the globe.

[Nataku X]

I understand the point you are making, but remember that I believe that most (if not all) fossils we see in large formations of fossils were alive at the SAME time (at the time right before the flood described in Genesis).

Yes, that is a good conclusion to make if there is a literal worldwide flood.

Those "ancient" birds are no more ancient then other birds living at the time of the flood. In fact many fossils we see today are of species that we still have with us today.

Right, again... so, how about an example of a modern bird fossil in the same (older) strata that most ancient bird fossils are found?

For example, sponges, snails and jellyfish lived in the what geologists call the Cambirian, clams and starfish in the Ordovician, scopians and corals in the Silurian, sharks and lungfish in the Devonian, etc, etc, etc. The above are only random listings and could be considerably expanded.

Ah, but these animals you mention only represent the most advanced animals of their time for that strata. Plenty of clams, starfish, etc., are found in the upper levels, but none exist below the level where they first (supposedly) evolved.

There's still no reason that a velcroraptor (can't spell those dumb Latin names) shouldn't be able to outrun a cow or an elephant, nor is there any reason that there shouldn't be some exception somewhere where an aging elderly dog dies in the Jurassic layer.

I'm well aware of the theological arguments against evolution--six years ago I was preaching to my friends that if they believed in evolution, they rejected Jesus's testimony and all that. That sin introduced physical death into the world, and that Jesus referred to the Flood were my two main points. I still have most of the creationist books (Ken Ham, Kent Hovind, Russell Humphreys, Morris, etcetera.. have 'em all) at home and have not forgotten any of their materials.

Again, my original challenge was to present an example of an modern animal residing where they shouldn't be. Keep in mind that in addition to ancient birds vs. modern birds, there are decidedly modern fish, modern mammals, modern frogs and so on. Don't forget that there are mammalian sea-animals (dolphins, whales) so it should be fairly easy to find whale fossils with the Devonian period you mentioned or whenever fish evolved.

As for your other three evidences, I won't discuss them here out of fear of being sidetracked, nor theological arguments... my original challenge was to find a fossil matching the criteria I specified above. The fact is, if there were a literal flood, it should be easy to find an out-of-order fossil. Plants are acceptable too--flowers as we have known it have not been around that long, either.

[Nataku X]

Magnetic argument, I believe, is that the Earth's magnetic field is decaying at a rapid rate such that it can't be more than a few K years.

[FactQuest]

That sin introduced physical death into the world, and that Jesus referred to the Flood were my two main points.

I've heard that, too, and I'm unconvinced.

A great Flood that wiped out all mankind but Noah need not be able to cover Everest. The point was the destruction of sinful man, not flooding mountaintops.

But, I really struggle with the concept that death did not exist before sin. I mean, in 24 hours the bacteria in your stomach, crucial to digestion, would bury you in a ton of bacterial goo, given their reproductive rate. And, why did all the carnivores have such sharp teeth... to eat grass? Besides, wasn't the death introduced in the garden spiritual death? I mean, after all, man did not eat from the tree of life, either... that would have given eternal life, which only makes sense if they didn't already have that.

[FactQuest]

Magnetic argument, I believe, is that the Earth's magnetic field is decaying at a rapid rate such that it can't be more than a few K years.

Oh, ok, thanks. Of course, that's based on the assumption the rate of decay is constant. Which is probably unproven. I wonder which way the preponderance of evidence leans.

[Nataku X]

I agree with you with the flood.

As for the sin=death thing, look in Genesis... and see which species to whom God promised physical immortality, and specifically note which species to whom He did not promise immortality. As I posted earlier in this thread, death (of other species) isn't an issue unless you want to read immortal parakeets into Genesis.

The only evolution issue with the first few verses of Genesis is, therefore, the literal interpretation of 7 days, not with death. However, IMHO, the first few verses Genesis fulfills several purposes:

• God's Creations are good. Other prevailing creation accounts in the time (Babylonian, Greek, etc.) depict the creation of the world as a bloody, accidental outcome of fighting between gods. The Genesis account was the only one for its time and locale, I believe, that emphasized that God's creation is good and specially created with lots of love!
  
  
• In Hebrew, 7 historically means "perfect", "complete", "entire", etc. It's no wonder that 7 days are used to emphasize the perfection of God's creation. Incidentially, 6 means "incomplete" and "imperfect" (one off from 7)--the 666 number associated with the AntiChrist is kind of a superlative play on this... 666 means "REALLY, REALLY, imperfect" (or evil).
  
  
• The creation is not the most important point of Genesis. It's the destructiveness of sin, and that God does not tolerate sin.

[Nataku X]

I've forgotten everything I learned in Geology 101, but I think that some rocks carry a "signature" of the Earth's magnetic field from the time that they were formed. Do a Google search on palaeomagnetism. Basically, the Earth's magnetic field will go through periods of strengthening-weakening and also will reverse their polarity.

[Doctor Stochastic]

A great Flood that wiped out all mankind but Noah need not be able to cover Everest.

Then how did the fossils get to the summit of Mt. Everest?

[NJ Freeper]

ping

[HalfFull]

Appologize for the delay in answering...been away for a couple of days....

so it should be fairly easy to find whale fossils with the Devonian period

Asside from the fact that most whales would have survived a global flood, it is interesting that horse tracks have been found in Devonian strata....here is a link that supplies arguments by evolutionists of how this happened. Not very convincing...

Not being a fossil expert, i went to ICR's web site to see what they wrote about your points. Perhaps I mispoke about large mammel fossils being burried within rock layers but I found some good information on the subject of why more complex animal fossils are more difficult to find. I especially like John Morris' last point....makes alot of sense to me.

I also found an article by John Woodmorappe (Masters in Geology) that addresses your points: Links are provided below:

STUDIES IN CREATIONISM AND FLOOD GEOLOGY

Here is good article that shows examples of "out of order" fossil columns ...lots of good examples of fossils not being where they should be in the evolutionist model.

Anyway, here is what Dr. Morris wrote:

The fossil record abounds with the remains of past life. If the creationist interpretation of the fossil record is basically correct, most of the fossils were deposited during the Flood of Noah's day, as "the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished" (II Peter 3:6). These organisms were trapped and buried in ocean-bottom mud, which later hardened into sedimentary rock, fossilizing the organic remains.

But where are the pre-flood human remains? According to Scripture, the patriarchs lived long ages, and had large families and many years of childbearing potential. Where are their fossils?

First, we must rightly consider the nature of the fossil record. Over ninety-five percent of all fossils are marine creatures, such as clams, corals, and trilobites—mostly invertebrates with a hard outer surface. Of the remaining five percent, most are plants. Much less than one percent of all fossils are land animals. This encompasses reptiles (including dinosaurs)— amphibians, mammals, birds, and humans.

Land creatures have what we call a "low-fossilization potential." As land animals die in water, they bloat, float, and come apart. It is very difficult to trap a bloated animal under water, in order for it to be buried. Furthermore, scavengers readily devour both flesh and bone. Seawater and bacterial action destroy everything. The scouring ability of underwater mudflows, common during the Flood, would grind bone to powder.

Conversely, what land fossils are found were mostly laid down during the Ice Age— a land-oriented event following the Flood, which had the ability to bury animals in land-derived deposits. (And, by the way, there are human fossils in those sediments.)

But the purpose of Noah's Flood was to destroy the land communities—not preserve them—especially humans. Some creationists even postulate the pre-Flood continents were subducted down into the mantle, totally annihilating all remnants of the civilizations. In any scenario, what land fossils were preserved would be buried late in the Flood, near the surface, and would have been subject to erosion and destruction once again as the Floodwaters rushed off the rising continents.

Furthermore, we mustn’t over-estimate the pre-Flood population, by considering the patriarchal lives and families as typical, for "the earth (was) filled with violence" (Genesis 6:13). Bloodshed would no doubt have terminated many family lines in both humans and animals.

For purposes of discussion, let us assume 300,000,000 people died in the Flood, and that each one was preserved as a fossil evenly distributed in the sedimentary record, which consists of about 300,000,000 cubic miles. The chances of such a fossil intersecting the earth's surface, being found by someone, and then being properly and honestly identified is vanishingly small.

On the other hand, if evolution is true, and humans have lived on Earth for three million years, many trillions have lived and died. Where are their fossils? This is the more vexing question.

---

 

[HalfFull]

As you might guess....we disagree

The column contradicts you.

Column is perfectly in line with what we would expect to see with Global Flood.. See the links in my last post, and logical arguments in previous posts.

The population argument is false

Not really....if one does the math we would have wall to wall people...even accounting for some wars and disease.

Coal takes too long to form

Coal can be created in the laboratory in very short order with organic material under heat and pressure.

 

[Nataku X]

Thanks! This is the kind of response I am looking for. I'm on a break right now with a deadline soon so I'll take a critical look at it in the next 1 or 2 days.

[FactQuest]

paleomagnetism

Thanks, that's what I was looking for.

[FactQuest]

Then how did the fossils get to the summit of Mt. Everest?

They were laid down in sediment long ago. The sediment turned to sedimentary rock.

The rock was raised up as the Indian continental plate slowly smashes into the Asian plate.

On the other hand, if water had been over the top of Mt Everest for a few weeks or months, how did a those creature living there underwater briefly manage to get their bones and shells and stuff into the rock? Any sediment would have washed down...

[Segale2001]

Man,
I have not read Doonesbury in years. I now remember why. Ever notice how easy it is for any media fixed component can attack Christianity with no repercussions? Makes me mad to know that the very foundation for which I stand is easily attacked, but if any other group is attacked in the same way there would be hell to pay. So sad….. Liberal Dogma must end!

[FactQuest]

Saw your post to Nakatu X, thought I'd jump in...

Nice post, and some good links.

Well, except for the parts about the Paluxy footprints, which are discredited, even by most creationists.

Anyway, one site makes a huge deal about overthrust... yet fails to entertain any other mechnasism that might also account for it, under the standard geological model. Like folding. I mean, proving that overthrust can't account for various sites, doesn't mean there is not explanation but so-called flood geology.

Flood geology failed severely on the stratification issue.

The stuff about pollen was excellent, however. Sounds to me like science has some (more) stuff wrong. And not with just pollen. But that doesn't mean the whole thing gets thrown out. It means that more work needs to be done to figure it out - does pollen possess some property that helps it worm its way down into stone? Like, being tiny and fitting into porous rock? Or, did some plants and animals appear earlier that expected? Gosh, changing when a certain plant or animal first appears, while huge, doesn't mean the whole science would be thrown out. And timid scientists who choose to ignore or bash-to-fit, rather than take the heat to crusade to change standard thinking on when something appeared, doesn't prove that its all a crock. Just that some of it is a crock.

But I must address this: On the other hand, if evolution is true, and humans have lived on Earth for three million years, many trillions have lived and died. Where are their fossils?

I don't think evolution is "true" - particularly macroevolution. I don't think humans have lived on the earth that long. But I think the earth is old. Even so, I seriously question any model that shows an early age for humans requires trillions to have lived since then. The only thing vexing about that question is why was it ever asked.