|
skipThings posted:Asay ? I guess you meant to say Kreider. I think it's without an argument that Asay is a far, far better artist than Kreider.
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 01:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 02:11 |
|
|
 A little bit of arble garble from the usual suspects.  1But where would Mike Lester eat!?  2Nuckols finally delivered, and what a bounty it is. drat you heat, for preventing evolution!  3Galatianman updates! Stupid ivory tower eggheads, how dare they actually study and commit their lives to biblical scholarship. Meanwhile I, who watched some Ray Comfort videos on YouTube, am clearly a true man of God   4Speaking of which, we have this masterpiece from Comfort. Haha, scientists are so wacky with their evidence and data!
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 01:13
|
|
|
What's the thing about heat disproving evolution?
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 01:18
|
|
|
Rorus Raz posted:
This is Dumb and So Goddamn Crazy in a nutshell. "Here is a fact." "That fact sounds funny!" "YOU ARE A CRAZY PERSON AND I AM GOING TO PHYSICALLY HURT YOU!"
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 01:18
|
|
|
ThatPazuzu posted:What's the thing about heat disproving evolution? Creationists believe that life evolving into more complex forms violates the second law of thermodynamics so heat "proves" that entropy exists and therefore life can only get less complicated over time.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 01:20
|
|
|
ThatPazuzu posted:What's the thing about heat disproving evolution? If Evolution, why HOT?
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 01:20
|
|
|
Yeah, in order for evolution to work you'd need some source of energy constantly bombarding the Earth with huge amounts of radiation 24/7.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 01:22
|
|
|
Dr.Zeppelin posted:Creationists believe that life evolving into more complex forms violates the second law of thermodynamics so heat "proves" that entropy exists and therefore life can only get less complicated over time. But the second law of thermodynamics has its own panel? ?????
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 01:23
|
|
|
ThatPazuzu posted:What's the thing about heat disproving evolution? Creationists believe that Evolution breaks the 2nd law of Thermodynamics because there's nothing that could possibly explain where Earth has been getting heat/energy from for the last billion years. Since Earth is an obviously closed system, where it gets its energy is a still-open loophole in science that will never be fixed. Scientists refuse to address this point because it would require them conjuring up some sort of massive heat source outside of but in the local vicinity to Earth, one of such massive size and output that it would be impossible to deny.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 01:25
|
|
|
Rorus Raz posted:
There's a distinction between studying Theology and studying the Bible. Lance is not swinging at educated people, but rather at people who see taking up a ministry as a career move rather than a calling. That's why he's paraphrasing Matthew 23:5, which was Jesus criticising rabbis who felt their position made them important. Here's the whole passage: Matthew 23:1-12 posted:Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: “The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. They tie up heavy, cumbersome loads and put them on other people’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them. He's a bit "holier than thou" about it, but then being holier than those people isn't hard.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 01:32
|
|
|
Broken Loose posted:Creationists believe that Evolution breaks the 2nd law of Thermodynamics because there's nothing that could possibly explain where Earth has been getting heat/energy from for the last billion years. Since Earth is an obviously closed system, where it gets its energy is a still-open loophole in science that will never be fixed. Scientists refuse to address this point because it would require them conjuring up some sort of massive heat source outside of but in the local vicinity to Earth, one of such massive size and output that it would be impossible to deny. Psh, the sun is only out half of the time, we should all be dead by now. Your move science 
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 01:32
|
|
|
Mister Beeg posted:This is the last batch of Herblock cartoons that I saved. Hope you enjoyed them. All the Herblock's are great, but this one just made me so drat sad. Those concerns were off everyone's radar that September, sure as poo poo. Rorus Raz posted:
While all of this is amazing, the closed clam and rapid burial fossils are confounding me. How are they supposed to be evidence in any way?
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 01:33
|
|
|
cafel posted:While all of this is amazing, the closed clam and rapid burial fossils are confounding me. How are they supposed to be evidence in any way? Just...ignore that a localized flood could have easily caused rapid burial.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 01:39
|
|
|
cafel posted:While all of this is amazing, the closed clam and rapid burial fossils are confounding me. How are they supposed to be evidence in any way? Because they couldn't have formed as the theory of evolution demands, claim the creationists. In the case of closed clam fossils, clams open when they die and so creationists say that if fossil clams were real they would be open.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 01:40
|
|
|
Rorus Raz posted:
These two are great. Just point at something and call it stupid.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 01:40
|
|
|
Sunday School reminded me that Cosmos airs in 20 mins
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 01:40
|
|
|
Jedit posted:Because they couldn't have formed as the theory of evolution demands, claim the creationists. In the case of closed clam fossils, clams open when they die and so creationists say that if fossil clams were real they would be open. But I can put a rock on top of a clam and it no longer opens alive or dead, I mean.. is that all it really takes to convince these people? I'm willing to sacrifice a few clams to further the public good, is it that easy?
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 01:46
|
|
|
Thanks for explaining the heat thing. I knew that it they think the 2nd law of thermodynamics disproves evolution but I didn't understand how "heat" disproved evolution. He disproved his argument while making it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 01:47
|
|
|
Spaceman Future! posted:But I can put a rock on top of a clam and it no longer opens alive or dead, I mean.. is that all it really takes to convince these people? Hahahah, look at you, thinking that evidence or counter-examples would convince these people of anything. You're precious.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 01:49
|
|
|
Rorus Raz posted:
There are so many evidences!
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 01:57
|
|
|
Jedit posted:Because they couldn't have formed as the theory of evolution demands, claim the creationists. In the case of closed clam fossils, clams open when they die and so creationists say that if fossil clams were real they would be open. Okay, so it's a denial so shallow that it's transparent like all the others good to know. Rorus Raz posted:
Looking at this one reminded me of the episode of Alton Brown's 'Good Eats' were he explains how to break down using a toy model of a T-Rex skeleton with the head and tail removed. Their skeletal structure is a dead on match and it was really helpful way to visualize the joint locations you needed to separate. I wonder what this cartoonist would think about that?
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 02:06
|
|
|
Rorus Raz posted:
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 02:09
|
|
|
Giraffes are weird. They were use as example cases in a bunch of competitors to evolutionary theory around Darwin's time- my guess is that that's why they keep getting brought up.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 02:18
|
|
|
Even if his opinions are terrible, I still think Eric Allie is my favorite "artist" in this thread. His depiction of Obama generally isn't racist as hell unlike the McCoys or Lesters of the world. Horsey is fantastic as well, but Allie's cartoons adorable drawings of hatred.
seiferguy fucked around with this message at 02:26 on Mar 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 02:20
|
|
|
seiferguy posted:Even if his opinions are terrible, I still think Eric Allie is the best artist in this thread. His depiction of Obama generally isn't racist as hell unlike the McCoys or Lesters of the world. I don't know, he still uses gigantic ears and purple lips for some reason.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 02:25
|
|
|
Jesus I don't always like Horsey but those comics were absolutely fantastic. Like, bar none, some of the best political cartoons I've seen in a while.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 02:27
|
|
Cat Army 
|
Broken Loose posted:I don't know, he still uses gigantic ears and purple lips for some reason. True, but once in awhile he comes out with something like this:  Those eyes 
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 02:29
|
|
|
Jawidar posted:What's his argument re: giraffes? Aren't giraffes really good evidence for evolution by natural selection? No, because they're TOO unique. Evolution wouldn't suddenly give something a 10' neck like that. If evolution did it, where are the animals with 5' to 9' necks? They aren't, because God made the giraffe special.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 02:34
|
|
|
Jawidar posted:What's his argument re: giraffes? Aren't giraffes really good evidence for evolution by natural selection? I think it's "so complex it couldn't evolve." The most common example is eyes, which if they were less evolved wouldn't work and therefore wouldn't be created through evolution. It's bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 02:34
|
|
|
seiferguy posted:True, but once in awhile he comes out with something like this: I really like this and it makes me wish Allie made legit Good Cartoons more often. His complaint is legitimate, his art is great as usual, and the joke is very well delivered. It's not searing insight but it's still a glimpse at what might have been if Allie wasn't kind of a shithead.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 02:40
|
|
|
rydiafan posted:No, because they're TOO unique. Evolution wouldn't suddenly give something a 10' neck like that. If evolution did it, where are the animals with 5' to 9' necks? They aren't, because God made the giraffe special. Sort of? From what I understand, it's because the giraffe is used so commonly as an example of evolution. However, since no one has found a fossil of a proto-giraffe, clearly they did not evolve at all. e: I don't know why it's got "irreducible complexity" attached to it, though. That one is usually stuff like the eye thing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 02:41
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Not even close. Kreider and Sutton are good with their style of caricature but they don't even begin to match Horsey's grasp of classic technique. I guess Oliphant would be closest to him, but he doesn't appear very often.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 02:42
|
|
|
Since we're posting old Horsey stuff, here are few you've probably never seen before. In the 1980s David Horsey did a comic strip called "Boomer's Song". As the name implies, it's about baby boomers, who pretty much took over America in the 1980s business landscape. The strip ran 1986 to 1989. Horsey later said the strip took too much of his time and was glad when it was cancelled.           
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 02:42
|
|
|
Broken Loose posted:I don't know, he still uses gigantic ears and purple lips for some reason.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 02:44
|
|
|
Rorus Raz posted:
I have no clue what the law of biogenesis means. Or what the 2nd law of thermo has to do with anything. Or heat for that matter. The cartoons not very good, is what I'm saying.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 02:48
|
|
|
forbidden lesbian posted:The cartoons not very good, is what I'm saying. I'm usually pretty loose when it comes to creative usage of grammar, but for gently caress's sake, the plural of evidence is evidence. Taking an 's' on there either makes you sound like a 2nd grader enumerating favorite pokemen or makes me wonder what the subject of the sentence, the thing that is evidencing, is.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 02:54
|
|
|
Biogenesis basically means that living things come from other living things, they do not spontaneously arise from nonliving material. Before Pasteur and his ilk, it was not necessarily assumed that, for example, mosquito larvae came from eggs laid by other mosquitos. Many people thought that stagnant water just sort of generated mosquitoes, or food generated bacteria and mold, rather than these life forms appearing as as a result of reproduction. Obviously you don't have to believe that each generation of animals just sort of spontaneously appears in order to believe that the earliest and simplest life forms could have originally arisen from non-living material.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 02:54
|
|
|
ThatPazuzu posted:I think it's "so complex it couldn't evolve." The most common example is eyes, which if they were less evolved wouldn't work and therefore wouldn't be created through evolution. The great thing about that example is that eyes did evolve separately. We have dumb ones with a blind spot but cephalopods have their nerves attached differently so they don't.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 02:54
|
|
|
Basically, since no one has been able to prove abiogenisis in an observable sense, the use it as proof that it never occurred ever. This despite the fact that we have qutie a few plausible theories for how the first proto-life would have formed, all of which note that the conditions for it are totally wrong for it to happen now, or even if it did, for the proto-life (like a simple lipid sphere, which can arise pretty easily given the right environmental conditions) being devoured almost instantaneously after formation.Anonononomous posted:The great thing about that example is that eyes did evolve separately. We have dumb ones with a blind spot but cephalopods have their nerves attached differently so they don't. They also form in a totally different way. Ours start as a growth from the brain and move outwards during fetal development. Their's start as a growth of the skin and grow nerves in during fetal development. Not correcting you or anything, just always think that's really cool.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 02:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 02:11 |
|
|
rydiafan posted:No, because they're TOO unique. Evolution wouldn't suddenly give something a 10' neck like that. If evolution did it, where are the animals with 5' to 9' necks? They aren't, because God made the giraffe special. How does that even  , I mean even in Darwin's time there were plenty of animals with long slender necks coexisting among other species of the same family with short necks. Cranes, Geese, Flamingos etc all have super long necks and exist in the same family as ducks. Also Llamas, Gerenuk, and hell even horses have pretty long necks relative to their bodies, it is not a trait that is uncommon the giraffe is just the more extreme example of a trait that exists all over the place. I know I'm not actually arguing with anyone on this board but it just hurts my brain a bit.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 03:18
|
|