Shop Forum More Submit  Join Login
Putting the win in Darwin by sethness Putting the win in Darwin by sethness
evolution: putting the "win" in Darwin since 3,500,000,000 B.C.

EDIT, September 2008:
DeviantArt's licensing and popularity have a positive impact:
I permit commercial uses of this image and wording, as long as they're not altered. I like this image and the philosophy behind it, so I don't mind if others make a profit while popularizing it.

I'm pleased to announce that this doodle is now available for sale at Zazzle [link] in a few forms (hats, keychains, stickers) not available through dA, and in the DeviantArt print shop, on stuff like mousepads, cretionists' foreheads (printed in reverse, so the slow-witted cretins can read them by looking in a mirror) and coffee mugs.

Surprisingly, at least two people have had this design TATTOOED on their bodies! I say "surprisingly", because they're not tattooing the southern part of their anatomy which they'd like Creationists to kiss. They've surprisingly tattooed their arms instead. Presumably their posteriors are already covered by large lip-shaped targets. Or hickies. Whatever. I digress.
Add a Comment:
SteveTheBuck Featured By Owner Nov 19, 2018  Hobbyist General Artist
You know BC stands for "Before Christ," right?
FireIgnitus Featured By Owner Jun 9, 2018  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
not really...
Flyingfox47 Featured By Owner Apr 23, 2018
What exactly is the point of this?
florapolitis Featured By Owner Mar 12, 2016   Digital Artist
Flora Plantgirl Emoticon041 Flora and Brock Plantgirl Emoticon045 

My fish can fly
UnagiTakanashi Featured By Owner Jan 26, 2016   Artist
and then the Jesus fish came back three days later
Dylan-the-dude Featured By Owner Nov 16, 2014  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Did you know the Jesus fish was modeled after a vagina?
Now you know why I like it but not the religion~
TrilobiteCannibal Featured By Owner Sep 9, 2016  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
sethness Featured By Owner Apr 27, 2014
I wish that the copy-left agreement, which allows anyone to use but not modify this design, was more flexible. In particular, I wish that I could allow for the font to be changed at the whim of the user.

UPDATE: This image has now appeared in Stern, a popular German magazine comparable to Life or Time magazines in America. This was the lead illustration for an article about the pro-religion and anti-religion logos being used worldwide in the fight between religion & science.
JuanAtaquito Featured By Owner Jun 14, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
your Darwin fish may have eaten our Jesus fish, but your Darwin fish is now on display in the Vatican museum's paleontology department. sorry
sethness Featured By Owner Jul 7, 2013
Why are you sorry? The Vatican has been getting more liberal in its science for at least a decade. For example, I hear that the Vatican's astronomer believes there might be life on other planets... and that the alien life might have souls. It's a far cry from what they did to Galileo!
zombie-fuckulator Featured By Owner Apr 21, 2014
And what time period did Galileo live in?
sethness Featured By Owner Apr 27, 2014
LOL. I guess you're not aware that it wasn't until the late 1900s that the Vatican forgave and apologized-to Galileo for the things the church did to discredit and ostracize Galileo.

If there's anyone related to this discussion who's living in the past, it's not me; it's the church.
Religion and faith-based assumptions are in full retreat as the scientific method forces us to investigate and undermine those assumptions.
Modern religious thinkers are stuck in "ret-con" (retroactive continuity) mode, because their faith-based non-thinking does not lend itself to revealing facts.
RyanOurs77 Featured By Owner Jun 2, 2013  Professional Digital Artist
70f9 Featured By Owner Feb 18, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
woohooo go Darwin!!!
SN37 Featured By Owner Oct 27, 2012  Hobbyist Interface Designer
Actually, the age of Earth is 4.54 billions of years old instead of 3.5 though , just saying. ;)
sethness Featured By Owner Jan 20, 2013
Yes, but life didn't appear on Earth until 3.5 beeeellion years ago. Earth was more lifeless than a mortuary for the first billion years. That's why I wrote 3.5 billion years rather than 4.5
SN37 Featured By Owner Jan 21, 2013  Hobbyist Interface Designer
right. :)
SN37 Featured By Owner Oct 27, 2012  Hobbyist Interface Designer
oh never mind...
SN37 Featured By Owner Oct 27, 2012  Hobbyist Interface Designer
AsGaRDiaN28 Featured By Owner Oct 23, 2012
It's amazing to see just how far some atheists have evolved into the biggest dicks this world has seen.
sethness Featured By Owner Apr 27, 2014
To my knowledge, no atheist has been as dickish as Jimmy Swaggart, the 700 channel, celibate Catholic priests dispensing sex advice, Jerry Falwell, Sun Myung Moon, the Kool-aid brigade, Branch Davidian, Mormons, the a##holes who put "in god we trust" on our money and "under god" in our Pledge, Ted Haggerd, and evolution-deniers.

Hypocritical power-mad "dicks" like that tiny sample of Christians reminds me why "cretin" comes from the French word for "Christian person".

Nah, we can forgive atheists who act militantly because atheists and agnostics are constantly getting bad-mouthed by religious idiots. If you'd been kicked around that much by a group of idiots, with no end in sight, you'd come out swinging your fists, too.

Agnostics and atheists stand on the moral and factual high ground, and we don't use a self-contradictory, non-factual 2000 year old book of fables to get our morals.
AsGaRDiaN28 Featured By Owner Jun 7, 2014
Wow i was wondering what you were going on about until i saw a post i wrote 2 years ago. This is an art appreciation site & i am in no way going to argue or dispute anyone. However, there are plenty of aholes on both sides of this debate/issue. We dont truly know anything about the other so, its quite silly to attack eachother. When i made that comment 2 years ago it was out of frustration of personal attacks by anti-theists. Anywho, I may not agree with your message, but the art is good and thats what this site i s about. Sorry for going on so long. Have a good one!
sethness Featured By Owner Jan 20, 2013
True, but afaik life didn't appear on earth until 3.5 beeellion years ago. Earth was duller than a nursing home hoe down for the first billion years.
syence Featured By Owner Jun 18, 2012
Evolution discredits, not disproves (considering creationism was never proven) creationism and it does so quite definitively. The rest of science completely discredits the claims of all religions.

Evolution is a fact and it destroys creation myths.

Soon our understanding of the universe and beyond will allow us to definitively discount even deism as a valid concept.

In other words, there will be no place for god to hide when we prove it simply cannot exist. Impossible beings cannot exist.

Goodbye religion, it's been......well, it's sucked mostly, but hopefully you can just fuck off.
sethness Featured By Owner Jun 21, 2012
The troubling thing is, one can't prove a negative.
You say "impossible beings cannot exist" and "there will be no place for god to hide when we prove it simply cannot exist."
While I trust that we will prove the existence of god(s) highly improbable and unnecessary for the physics of the universe, I think it's impossible to prove a god that wants to hide can't simply hide. It's rather like a child's game, where the child who says there's a god simply says "he doesn't WANT to be seen. That's the mystery of faith. He wants faith, not people who know he exists." (and so on.)

To put it another way, just because you've removed all the trees in the forest and filled all the holes you've seen with portland cement, doesn't mean there aren't still bunnies in that area...hiding.

For a more real example, consider the Japanese hiding on Saipan. American soldiers near the end of WWII linked arms and walked from one end of Saipan to the other (though what they did when they came to cliffs, I can't guess). Still, they didn't find 17 Japanese soldiers in hiding.

Gods, bunnies, soldiers... take your pick. It's not possible to definitively prove a negative. The most we can do is make the likelihood of a god, a bunny, or a Japanese soldier in hiding seem very, very silly.
syence Featured By Owner Jun 21, 2012
Right, but a god is something that is described as a physical being. A male physical being at that. THAT cannot exist by it's own nature and the nature of the universe.

Kind of like the god of the bible. He's hateful and all loving, he cannot exist.

Yes, we could say that god is hiding between space itself, but this argument not only shows it's inherent weakness, but also makes finding evidence for god literally impossible. Therefore, if it's impossible to detect then it is by nature non existent.

We can detect quantum dots, if we cannot detect a huge godhead, then it doesn't exist. End of story.

Interesting analogies, though. Not really relevant to hard science, though.

First, we would have to define god, as there are thousands worshiped. Then we would have to give criteria for what would disprove a god. This is the only way we are able to confidently say whether something has good chance, any chance or probable chance of existence.

So, let's say the god of the bible. He's described in detail. We can test that hypothesis, just as we do with Thor, Zeus, etc. and come to the conclusion that, not only do we not need to posit a god to explain say thunder, and the impossibility of a man, in armor, sitting in the clouds, hanging out and creating thunder is just so obvious.

I never meant that we could find proof of the non existence of god. Since proof is something relative to math and math alone. People say 'Proof' without realizing what 'proof' actually is.

What we look for in science is evidence. There is ZERO evidence for any gods and literally MOUNTAINS of evidence discounting such theories. It's quite conclusive and keeps growing with every day.

This isn't reported on, of course. So, the average believer doesn't ever realize that what they believe has long been discredited by the findings of science.

A deity, that may be more difficult, but it's really the same premise. That's why theists, when pressed, will resort to a wishy washy sort of vague, ambiguous deity, somewhere between time and space, or even outside of time and space, which is quite literally stupid.
sethness Featured By Owner Jun 28, 2012
While I agree with some of what you say, and on an emotional level agree with the idea that there's no god / gods are a silly notion, the logic that you use to get to those conclusions is flawed.

You say, for example, "We can detect quantum dots, if we cannot detect a huge godhead, then it doesn't exist. End of story." The fact that we can't detect something does not demonstrate its nonexistence, even if it's massive. Note the lack of proof for black holes and dark matter, for example...or on a smaller scale, the missing green plaid sock that matches the one in my dresser. So... no, not "end of story", not hardly.

Steven Hawking recently did a TV special in which he merely demonstrated that a god wasn't necessary for explaining the mechanism of the universe, time, the big bang, and so on. This is not the same as demonstrating that a god couldn't have been in on it. Occam's Razor shows a tendency for the simplest explanation is usually the right one, but it's not a proof that the simplest explanation is always right. Sometimes nature really does have Rube Goldberg devices.

You also wrote "proof is something relative to math and math alone." You're undermining the strength of your writing by including something so obviously false, as attorneys, traffic cops, and the bouncer at your local bar would attest.

Proof is, also, very seldom the definitive "proof positive" that we want it to be. In geometry, for example, it relies upon logic and postulates-- but postulates are simply things we assume to be true until someone comes along and says differently. Non-Euclidean geometry, for example, was a mathematical game in the 1800s...until Einstein's time, when the Euclidean postulate that parallel lines never meet was shown to probably not quite correspond to the reality we actually live in.

We can also see that you're creating a straw man argument, or at least beating a long-dead horse, when you try to set up the "bearded, armored old man in the sky" as THE image of the judeo-cretin god of the Yes, christians and moslems and jews and animists and polytheists like to retreat behind ever sillier and vaguer ideas of where god and heaven and hell might live, what they might do, and what they might look at. Yes, each time they retreat further into those vague waterproof hypotheses they look ever-sillier to us.

However, we're working against a huge MOUNTAIN of culture stacked against us. We are, for example, constantly attacked by the silly notion that the "faith of a child"-- that is, belief without proof-- has great positive value. As Douglas Adams said, religion demands belief based on arguments that would seem very very silly if applied to any other subject.

...Except, I would interject, astrophysics. We do, for example, believe in the existence of black holes and dark matter based purely on the opinions of people we guess are smarter and better-informed than us, much as serfs in the 1300s must have believed in the flatness of the world, the existence of heaven, and the existence of Africa entirely based on the shaky proof of scholars, priests, parents, politicians, and dusty books they couldn't read personally.
syence Featured By Owner Jul 5, 2012
It isn't about not detecting. It's about discovering that it's simply impossible.

It's hard for people to simply accept the idea of impossible and it seems a bit reductionist. I'm sure you lose this feeling after dealing with probability and simply math in general. Some things are impossible, it's how we determine and discover the possible.

Gods, as defined are impossible. Every other argument you've made is simply redundant.

Go look up the word 'proof'. It pertains to mathematical theorem. It has nothing to do with the lay definition. The lay, or laymen version is something like 'evidence', but the word 'proof' only really pertains to mathematics.

This, again, is something you know if you are educated.

Complexity only arises after a very long (billions of years) of simplicity. The laws of the universe discount the hypothesis of a complex creator.

The hypothesis is literally worthless.
sethness Featured By Owner Jul 9, 2012
You wrote "Gods, as defined are impossible."
Nothing you've said-- nor are capable of saying-- can prove this absolute. You can at best show that with a series of assumptions, the likelihood is very very small and belief in gods is silly.... just as believing that a deforested area might be entirely free of rabbits, except that in this case the pro-rabbit believers have the added advantage of believing their rabbits have superpowers and mysterious reasons / reasons for remaining mysterious.

You wrote "This, again, is something you know if you are educated."
This is absurd hollow tin-plated elitism. I went to Columbia University. I've studied philosophy and computer science. I have an excellent grasp of English. I *am* educated... enough to know that you're undereducated with an ego that's oversized, trying to use one field's definition of "proof" as the only valid definition of the term. [link] Your claim that "proof" is only valid language in a mathematical context is simply hogwash.

Even in a text about mathematical language, there is a frank discussion of the word "proof" existing from its very origins outside the narrow realm of mathematics. Link: [link] ...So stop sounding like someone who just turns red and gets louder to win a debate. Your various too-broad, too-absolute claims are disproved because they overreach the reality of their inherent limitations, like a size 2 dress on a size 12 gal.

Your definition of "proof" is far too narrow, and your method of proof far too riddled with assumptions. Take this little gem:

You wrote "Complexity only arises after a very long (billions of years) of simplicity. The laws of the universe discount the hypothesis of a complex creator."
The first line is simply too generic and therefore collapses under the weight of contrary examples and contrary possibilities.
Let's poke at the largest holes in your premise.
1_ The Cambrian explosion in evolution, for example, involved radical increases in diversity and complexity over a short(ish) time.
2_ You can't generalize from one example to a universal prediction. We have only one example of life (Two, if you count computers as life). That's far too small a sample to make predictions that apply to all life.
3_ Our understanding of the physics of the universe is far from complete and self-consistent. There are obvious problems, like the lack of the expected amount of matter, and problems in finding evidence of the Big Bang-- or whether (this is me slipping into science fiction writer mode) the universe is somewhat cyclical, perhaps going into one big bang after another, and whether some matter -- even life -- might bridge the span between the end of one cycle and the big bang marking the beginning of the next cycle.
We cannot even say with certainty how many dimensions there are, nor whether the future is predetermined.

In the end, what I see is that I'm 99.9% certain, and you are leaping to 100% certainty, that a god-- christian, old bearded guy in the sky or Raelian / Scientaology alien god-- is damned silly and untrue. Where we disagree, outside of the definitions of words, is whether that tiny percentage of doubt is worth mentioning.
I think it's worth something, for the same reason that it was worth something back when all educated men thought there was a god..or gods... and that the world was flat and the sun revolved around the earth. More recently, thinking outside the box-- like non-Euclidean geometry-- has again proved that questioning our most basic assumptions is never something we should abandon.

That being said, let's not waste too much time arguing about the tiny points where you and I disagree. Let's instead spend our time more productively breaking the concrete yet foundationless stone assumptions that the religious folk ask us to believe, or at least respect without adequate proof.

(Doesn't it totally get your anger up, when some religious nutball says "respect my beliefs (even though the quality of thought and proof behind that belief is as silly as Santa Claus)"?) The most important modern examples for Americans are, I think, the Intelligent Design creationists hoping to get ID taught with equal respect in public schools alongside evolution, and the damned silly persistence of "In god we trust" as the American motto since the mid-1950s.
Dandabug Featured By Owner Jul 9, 2012
And by the way, nice artwork! It's good to see pro-evolution work who can intelligently discuss the problems of organized religion WITHOUT making ridiculously rash generalizations. I applaud every one of your responses in this lopsided discussion.
sethness Featured By Owner Jul 15, 2012
Thanks for the compliments, Dandabug.

Ditto your feelings.
Dandabug Featured By Owner Jul 9, 2012
Hey sethness, just so you know, this syence person is a documented troll & retard. :icontardvsscissorsplz:

He's been arguing with people for no real reason, claiming they are religious zealots (i.e. [link]) when they openly denounce religion, or generally being an irrational moron who claims to be a rationalist. Just thought you might find this useful.
sethness Featured By Owner Jul 15, 2012
Thanks for the warning. I was starting to realize that on my own, but would probably have wasted even more time on Syence before concluding that he's a troll.

At the risk of mixing metaphors, I'll cease rising to Syence's troll-bait.

LOL... the username "syence" reminds me of when the Sci Fi channel renamed itself the "syfy" channel and put out a lot of silly hype about how the name was somehow an improvement. It wasn't, as far as I could see, except that the new name was easier to defend in copyright court, and it might allow the Sci Fi channel to drift even further away from its SCIENCE fiction roots. (It's about half sword-and-sandals, elf-magic junk now... playing on superstition and myth, the true opposite of SCIENCE fiction. *sigh*)
(1 Reply)
syence Featured By Owner Jul 9, 2012
In short, yes, science has discredited the god hypothesis definitively.

The evidence discredited it the most definitively would probably have to be the fact that the universe began from nothing, no complexity would have been possible at the beginning, nor was there time, or space beforehand.

This completely eliminates the god hypothesis from possibility.

A god, as defined, cannot exist in the beginning, or before the big bang. This is verified by everything we know about cosmology, physics, mathematics, etc.

Science would literally have to have everything dead opposite, backwards, wrong for god to be possible.

So, you either disagree with the whole of science (good luck), or you accept what science verifies.

The Higgs particle is yet more evidence the god hypothesis is impossible.

Again, the mere fact that the universe arose from primordial simplicity (I know it sounds supernatural, let me assure you it isn't) completely makes the idea of a deity creating it IMPOSSIBLE.

Kind of like traveling back in time is impossible, due to the laws of physics. Do you contest that?

No? Why? Because it isn't believed to be evidence for god? Me thinks so.

Time travel is impossible, creators preceding the universe are impossible, married bachelors are impossible, etc.

Dense people have a problem with impossibilities. They think it's reductionist to say something is not possible. No, it's reality. Some things are simply not so, can't happen and never will. It isn't reductionist to say so. It's just a bit of non sequitur believers trot out to try to make it seem like the atheist is saying something like "No one will ever go to the moon, it's impossible", which is completely different from saying something like time travel is impossible.

I'm not just saying "OMG it's impossible", no I'm saying the math says it's impossible. Deal with the math or stfu. You can't deal with the math? Well, start realizing you don't know everything and humbly try to learn. In the meantime, stop arguing silly fallacies.

Your 'cambrian explosion' analogy is moronic.

You haven't the slightest clue what you're talking about.

There is definitive evidence that the UNIVERSE (not life on Earth) began and COULD ONLY have begun through BILLIONS of years of SIMPLICITY(IE, nothing complex, noble gasses, etc.).

The Cambrian explosion has NOTHING to do with this fact and your analogy fails completely.

Life on Earth began extremely simple, the opposite of complex, this is verified only a million different ways.

You are a complete and utter fool. Stop arguing your nonsense. Give up.

The universe was simple, the cambrian explosion happened after billions of years of simplicity. How is my argument incorrect?

It's like arguing with a kid.
sethness Featured By Owner Jul 15, 2012
"It's like arguing with a kid."

At least we can agree about SOMEthing.

As for the rest of it, STFU, troll. You're wasting my time as long as you are unable to see that science deals in postulates (where the truth of the postulate is merely assumed) and theories (where the truth of the theory is fairly well proven, but never definitively). The scientific method, by its very nature, always leaves room for doubt. It never "concludes" regarding the truth of anything. It's THAT lack of certainty which makes it better than a faith-based system like yours & religion's.

Grow up. Learn manners. Learn humility. 'Til then, stay off my thread, troll.
(1 Reply)
Steeljren Featured By Owner Feb 12, 2012  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
This is yours? Awesome! Just found it via a news article on Darwin Day ([link]) and it still makes me laugh. Great concept, lovely slogan.
sethness Featured By Owner Mar 6, 2012
Oh. My. Goodness. (I want to say "OMG" without the obvious hypocrisy that phrase would carry.)

This is a new high for me. The article Steeljren refers to is in "Der Spiegel", which for many decades has been the "Life Magazine" or "Time Magazine" of Germany. The article is in their science ("wissenschaft") section, and my illustration is both the lead illustration and the inspiration for the article's title, Fish devours Fish ("Fisch frisst Fisch").

The article is about a celebration of Darwin's 203 birthday, and how Darwin's theory of evolution, the darwinfish, and even the Flying Spaghetti Monster have become important symbols of science over faith-based thinking.

Pardon me while my chest swells with pride, and a few shirtbuttons rocket away as the strain on shirt thread makes them go *pinnnng*.

Hooray for our side.

On a selfish note, I hope I can reach this height again with my art. I love the fact that my hand can and did express the thoughts and pride of the scientific community I idolize.
swaneejuggalo Featured By Owner Feb 1, 2012  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Thank you for such a awesome image and for commercial use at that! I'm going to attempt to make some decals from it.
sethness Featured By Owner Mar 5, 2012
For personal use, or for commercial sale?

If for personal use, please send me a photo of the decal(s) in place. I'd love to see it & re-post it on my website. w00t :-D

If for commercial sale, post a photo + link here to the right page on your sales site please, so we can buy 'em that much more easily. :-)
swaneejuggalo Featured By Owner Sep 7, 2012  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Awesome thank you! I completely forgot about this but finally got around to making them and put it on ebay. Message me your shipping address and I will get you out a few of them :) [link]
sethness Featured By Owner Apr 24, 2013
Thanks for that link. Ebay lost the original auction where you sold these stickers, but is savvy software, so it now points to similar auctions, one of which I assume is yours because it's using my "Win in Darwin" pattern.

I never did get those stickers you wanted to send. If I gave you my Thai address, it's no great surprise: sending and receiving, I've had ZERO luck getting packages through the Thai postal service. They keep pocketing stuff at the Thai post office!

I live in Hawaii now.
sethness Featured By Owner Sep 20, 2012
Sweet! Thank you. Message on its way to you. :joy:
ObsadienSoul Featured By Owner Dec 31, 2011
this is funny. I enjoy your pic lol :) good job.
EllaKey Featured By Owner Dec 5, 2011  Hobbyist Writer
Evolution neither proves nor disproves Christianity. The creation week in Genesis is one of the minor doctrines in Christianity that we do not all agree on. Some believe in seven literal days; others believe that the term "day" could've been mistranslated. Either of these cases could prove true and neither detracts from the rest of the book or Christ's teachings.
Now, on to evolution itself. There are two types of evolution, macro and micro. In this case I think you were referring to macroevolution, correct? Where one species will change to another? Well, scientifically, this has not been proven, correct? It's not a fundamental law, like natural selection or genetic diversity. In fact, it goes against the laws of nature that have already been established. Mutations cut down or change the amount of information in the offspring of any two organisms. There is no increase in complexity, which is what is required to change a chimp to a man.
Also, an interesting note is that Darwin did not use the term "evolution" in his first copy of The Origin of Species. That means nothing. It's just a fun fact.
I haven't looked through your comments to see if you've gotten this already, so I apologize for duplicating information. Thank you in advance for letting me comment and if you or anyone else replies in a decent manner, then I would love to discuss my theories and beliefs at length.
sethness Featured By Owner Mar 5, 2012
You say "Evolution neither proves nor disproves Christianity." That's only partly true.

Evolution is the latest in hundreds of years' worth of hard science which Christianity has opposed, then grudgingly weaaseled out of opposing.

Christians' long claims of creationsim and opposition to Evolution are as much a revelation of Christian faith's silliness as when the Church opposed Galileo for many hundreds of years.

The huge inaccuracies in physical science which Europeans clung to for centuries-- geocentrism, flat earth, heaven as a real place in the sky, floodgates in the sky letting down water we call "rain"-- all these we consider ridiculous myths today, but were strongly supported by the learned members of the church. They learned WRONGLY, and learned untruths, pinning much of their proof on what they read literally in the Babble.

The Babble is, piece by piece, showing itself to be a long list of untruths (and a confused, unhealthy moral compass).

Modern Cretins' continual retreat into midrashes, rationalizations, and claims that the Babble is a moral guide filled with stories, not intended as hard facts about the physical world, is a last-minute unwilling RETREAT from the obvious conclusion that an objective observer would make: the Babble has no more truth in it than any other religion or creation MYTH.

Evolution points out the huge flaw in the cretin belief system's central premise: believing without proof.

So, is evolution alone proof that Christianity is false, as a whole? Nope, but it's one more important erosion in people's faith, and one more reason to look at religious epistemology and LAUGH at its inadequacy.
sethness Featured By Owner Dec 6, 2011
You're ready to discuss, but are you ready to discuss your notions objectively?
The xcuse-making evident in saying "Oh, we didn't mean 7 days LITERALLY" should be pretty obvious. It's quite evident that Christians who try to make babble...errr, bible... "truths" fit reality are retrofitting and backpedalling. It'd be a lot more convincing if the bible contained literal truths, scientific realities like "round earth", "no floodgates in the sky causing rainfall", "Heliocentric solar system", and so on... but no. Face it...really, truly face it: the babble is a flawed work of men's imagination and their understanding of the world at the time. It does not contain "revelations" in any sense, failing on even the simplest level to extend man's knowledge of the world around him beyond his flawed understanding at the time.

The babble cannot even be self-consistent in things like Jesus' ancestry: the babble contains at least two ancestries differing widely in the names and number (one is double the length of the other) of ancestors tying Jesus to other biblical figures.

The artificial distinction between "micro evolution" and "macro evolution" is a ludicrous product of fevered minds who won't face the simple reality that if 2+2=4 then 2000+2000=4000. As for whether "macro" evolution is proven, it most certainly is... by a fossil record that shows gradual change and diversification over aeons.

Please don't pretend that your beliefs are convincing. They failed to convince most Jews and other contemporaries while Jesus was alive; there is no great flaming signature of a judeo-cretin god appearing in the skies.

I'm offended at the obvious nonsense that comes from the pulpits, particularly the silly claims that belief, faith, and childlike sheeplike behavior hold some kind of value that makes them worth more than objectivity, doubt, and intense application of the scientific method.

In short, "don't be silly."
EllaKey Featured By Owner Dec 6, 2011  Hobbyist Writer
Ah, I see that you try and offend me by calling the Bible babble? I'm curious why you decided that name for it.

Now let me look through this again. I usually skim through to get the main theme of what one is saying then read through again and try to take it point by point, if it isn't too much a bother to you.

Okay, so your first problem with what I said is my example of the literal/figurative creation week problem? I know I've read on this somewhere, but I cannot quite remember which books. And a lot of my books are at home. Let me check my Bible and see what the annotations say really quick, ok? Okay, I got it. There's an article in here entitled "Are the Days of Genesis to Be Interpeted Literally?" by a Jed Cabal. It short, it talks about how the problem is mostly for old/young earth creationists. It really doesn't bother theistic evolutionists, which was why I was hoping this wouldn't spark an arguement but merely serve as an example. Anyway, the biggest problem for the literal week of creation is that the Hebrew word that gets translated into "day" here (yom) gets used in a bunch of different ways throughout Genesis. We're not retrofitting (there are still plenty of people who believe in the literal week, and I'm mostly indifferent. I mean, we're here, right? That's the biggest thing to me.). It's just a matter of interpetation for each individual.

Let's see, what's your next problem? Scientific facts in the Bible? Well, sorry to say, there doesn't seem to be much solely dedicated to science (though here's an interesting link [link]), otherwise I would've ferreted them out on my own by now. I am training in the medical field after all and am fascinated by the sciences. The Bible is more of a histroy book, a love letter, and, most obviously, a life manual for believers. How do you mean flawed? There is more and more proof that there was a man named Jesus who believed himself to be the Son of God, there are archeological findings that prove that the Bible is historically accurate, giving it a strong foundation, and the morales and lessons in the Bible (if you so desire to just ingore Jesus entirely, which I assume you do), are ways that improve the standard of living for yourself and others. In none of these ways is the Bible flawed. As for extending man's knowledge of the world around him? I must ask you, what is your basis in science? The root of it all? For me, the basis is a loving creator who enacted rules for the universe for us to discover and give thanks to Him for. Without him, life would be a meaningless chaotic, if life existed at all (and of course, I believe it wouldn't).

Your next problem is his ancestory? Well, now I'm a little amused. Mostly cause I've heard this multiple times. Let me find this scholar who states it better than me...crap, that book is too big to find quickly. I'll go back to my Bible then. You're referring to the genealogies in Matthew and Luke, right? Well, there are multiple reasons for the differences. One focuses on bloodline, one focuses on royalty. Matthew gave the legal line of descent, while Luke focused on a more physical line. And both go through Joseph of course, as he was the man. Jesus was his descendent legally through adoption. In either case, the important thing was that he came from the blood of David, to fulfill God's promise that the Messiah would be a descendent of David. I think you could do a bit of research on how geneologies were organized then. Josephus would be a good place to start. He was really into political strife.

You're third complaint is my distinction of micro and macroevolution. I must say, I've heard this before. When you show me how mutations of the same DNA, not changing in complexity at all and possibly even simplfying it further can create a totally new, more complex species within the span of a few life cycles so some of the changes don't kill the offspring before it can reproduce, then I'll consider it. Show me your missing links as well, and I might consider it. But this doesn't affect the Bible at all, as God could easily work through evolution to create what he desires.

My beliefs may not convince you, and I'm certainly not going to throw my Bible at you--I like it too much you see--but I must ask you this: how is it that out of all the religions going on at the time, all the important kings and rulers of that era, that Jesus's name stands out above all others. I mean, have you heard of Josephus before I mentioned him? How about Appollonius?
As for the God's own chosen people, my heart aches for them, especially those who still wait for the Messiah. They didn't accept Jesus because he wasn't what they expected. They wanted a conqueror, a hero! Not a servant, a simple carpetner. And many were too settled into their ways to change. But many weren't as well.

Faith like a child does not mean that you must behave like a child. I don't. I study for medical school, I read many books by many people, from all walks of faith, and I don't mind getting my foot put in my mouth at times if I learn from the experience. I'm nowhere near perfect of course. No one is. We're human after all. But I take some offense to being told I have childlike sheeplike behavoir. Is Issac Newton a sheep? And yet he said that there must be a divine being. And this guy figured out gravity!
sethness Featured By Owner Dec 7, 2011
You wrote "Ah, I see that you try and offend me by calling the Bible babble?" I call it babble because it IS babble-- and the phonetic similarity to "bible" is punny. If it offends you enough to get you to think objectively, that's just a side benefit.

You wrote "Okay, so your first problem with what I said is my example of the literal/figurative creation week problem?" That's just an example of the overall babble-defense technique which is at the heart of your problem. You and christians of the past have allowed an ever-mounting heap of rationalizations, excuses (such as the feeble "Oh, it's not science, it's history and a love note!"), reinterpretations, and so on to prop up an ever more evidently ridiculous set of beliefs. Rather than bringing yourself to a neutral, objective, humble point from which you can judge whether the babble is a whole lotta hooey, you're just working on defending those beliefs with a high wall of denial.

You wrote "My beliefs may not convince you, and I'm certainly not going to throw my Bible at you--I like it too much you see--but I must ask you this: how is it that out of all the religions going on at the time, all the important kings and rulers of that era, that Jesus's name stands out above all others. I mean, have you heard of Josephus before I mentioned him? How about Appollonius?" OK, let's look at that "proof" more objectively. Jesus failed to bring Christianity to the world-- failed even amongst the Jews, and later has failed spectacularly as Islam is the numerically dominant Judeo-cretin religion today.
As for the christian god being the most successful at the time, let's ask ourselves: "Ever hear of Buddha? Predates Jesus by 500 years, and buddhism was certainly more popular than christianity when Jesus was alive.

How about Apollo and Zeus? Ever heard of them? They were more popular during Jesus' lifetime than Jesus was. Christianity only got a boost 300 years later when the ROMAN GOVERNMENT was looking for a religion to replace the fractious polytheism they had at the time-- they wanted a single government, and a single god to give that government the stamp of authenticity. That's cynical politicking, not the truth of one religion or another, that let one expire while the other got the endorsement of government.

When it comes right down to it, the roughly 1/3 of the total tales that got final approval to be put in the bible are still so internally inconsistent about the historical person "Jesus" that there's a great deal of debate about what's real and what's storytellers' embellishment (the non-magical elements, I mean-- the magical elements are all hooey, of course, just like Santa and the Easter Bunny).

As for the babble being a "life manual" --- some kind of moral guide-- I invite you to find a book on that explores how the babble has been used to defend BOTH sides of countless historical and moral battles, from slavery to racism to protestant-versus-catholic, from "loving god" to "jealous and angry, frightening god". The babble, as a moral compass, is a hopeless self-contradictory mess.

You're so wrapped up in your cocoon of unreasoned belief that you PITY Jews for not accepting YOUR religion. It doesn't occur to you that within the framework of your religion, your god should not be allowing people to live and die without receiving some definite proof that yours is the only true flavor of religion.

...And the same defect exists in so many religions. You many religions fail to take in the reality and logical implication that your religion isn't the only, nor even the most popular, and CERTAINLY not the "provable" religion.

Frankly, the more you beat your drum without listening to the other drums, the sillier you sound.
EllaKey Featured By Owner Dec 7, 2011  Hobbyist Writer
If I'm supposed to be speaking objectively, I'd like the other person to please respect my viewpoints on certain things that I regard sacred, such as my Bible. Quite frankly, calling it babble only lowers my opinion and gives me no desire to discuss but to merely argue. As far as I know, I don't try and call you out on any preconcieved notions of athiesm. So why can't you give me a modicum of respect as a human being?

First off, the whole Bible being a bunch of hooey is proving false. By the way we objectively view other ancient documents, the Bible is very much a reliable source of history. The New Testament alone has documents centuries closer to the orignials than some other ancient works that we accept every day as completely trustworthy. On top of that, there is much evidence in the documents that the originals were written while there were still eyewitnessess that could object if what they read wasn't true. And time and time again, several debatable facts, like the existance of Nazareth are being independently verified in digs. On top of that, the Old Testemant was carefully preserved by the Jewish community as it constituted their whole lives, and once again the historical accuracy of the Old Testament is proving true with modern day science and other historical documents.

The only confusing part is when people start looking at the book. With them, they bring their own personal agendas and that does more than enough to muddle the Word. On top of that, most Christians do not read it in its original text but from carefully translated copies whose total errors never exceed .5%. There are different interpations on many secondary doctrines, but on the defining ones, there is no dispute amongst Christians.

Jesus did not fail to bring Christianity to the world: the fact that he died upon the cross for our own sins and rose again is what defines Christianity. He mentored 12 disciples, and 11 of them become apostles and spread the word despite heavy persecution from their own people and Romans who thought this new religion might get out of hand. I was well aware of Buddha, but his teachings were again written well after he and eyewitnessess died, leaving his works suspect. I do bow to that. I didn't think that all the way through. As for Apollo and Zeus, yes I remember them. I read every scrap of Greek and Roman mythology in high school, fascinated by the stuff. But they aren't worshipped today, at least, not en masse. And sure, Christianity got a boost from the Roman government 300 years after the fact. But how did it survive those 300 years of persectution? These men believed whole heartedly in what they saw and later, what they learned, that they died for their beliefs. In large numbers. Jews and Gentiles sat together and shared meals, fell in love, worked together. Would people really go against belief systems that existed for centuries or die for what they knew was a lie?

Please show me the internal inconsistency. In historical documents of the same event, there is usually some shifts in what happened when and how. So long as they all point to the same event in the main idea, the secondary points are really not so important. As well, the gospels are organized in various ways. Back when they were written, it was not important to keep things in chronological order.

It is not a self contradictory mess. The Old Testament faithfully shows how Isreal became a conflicted nation. Slavery was common back then, even used as a way to get out of bankruptcey. And there was a Jewish tradition that every seven years all the slaves were freed and out of debt. Philemon is a book in the NT that shows Paul encouraging Philemon to treat his recently converted runaway slave as a brother, not a slave, when he returns. Yes, the Bible has been used to argue both sides, but that doesn't taint it. Again, people go to it with preconcieved notions on what they want to be right or not.

God is God. I have no arguement as to why He lets so many people die, and I have so many friends that I wish I could see again in the afterlife, but they saw me when I was a hypocrite and they won't be changing their lives because of me. There are some Christians who believe that maybe God will be merciful and let us all live. I don't. If God was to do what was really fair, then we would all be condemned. It's what he did to the angels, after all. And I feel sorry for the Jews because they are waiting and waiting and if they'd go read through the prophecies, they would see. Jesus fulfilled them all.

I really am beginning to wonder how we got off track. I only wanted to discuss the theory of evolution and how it could fit into Christianity. But you seem determined to cut anyone down who's viewpoint differs from yours.

Please, give me a rational discussion on why exactly Christianity makes no sense to you, preferablly with actual proof on your part. And preferably without you trying to undermine my credibility by calling me names and disrespecting my beliefs any further than you have. I enjoy debating certain points of my beliefs. I don't take kindly to being called silly. People who actually talk to me find me quite level headed, unless I start on my Twilight-hate. And I certainly don't like being told I'm childlike.

My belief is well reasoned. I looked at other religions, major and minor during a flawed time in my life. Christianity has the most proof going for it, and everyday more and more arguements on what can be proven gets turned on its head as the Bible time and time again proves to be true on scientific and historical basis.
sethness Featured By Owner Dec 21, 2011
You said "If I'm supposed to be speaking objectively, I'd like the other person to please respect my viewpoints on certain things that I regard sacred, such as my Bible."

Well, that's really the problem at the root of our disagreement: you want automatic, unearned, undeserved respect for ideas and notions that have laughably poor proof to back'em up. You're bringing a rubber chicken to a gun fight.

You write "My belief is well reasoned."

Uhhh... NO, it's not. Your belief is, by definition, not reasoned. It's inherited, accepted on faith, by you. When you agree to use logic and scientific method, objectivity and humility, into your reasoning... THEN we can talk. Til then... all you're doing is repeating babble from an old book that is in direct competition for the claim to "reality" with other babbling books. Your bible is neither the oldest, nor the most popular, old book. It's the middle child of mythos.

You wrote "I feel sorry for the Jews because they are waiting and waiting and if they'd go read through the prophecies, they would see. Jesus fulfilled them all."
Careful, now, your subjectivity and arrogance are showing. I mean, your PREJUDICE. You are judging-- putting yourself firmly in one camp-- before you've reviewed the evidence. Do you not see how laughable your claim is, that "if only the Jews would read [blahblahblah], they'd be convinced"? Tell me, O Unobjective One, have you read the Torah and the Koran?

Your babble has been written, edited, pared down, and rewritten so many times it can't be a reliable source of any information. I'll bet you don't even know Jesus' true birthday. Hint: it's not December 25th. How do you feel about an organization that plays with its facts til they fit the holiday patterns of the community??? Want to guess when the first "All Saint's Day" was? Hint: it's not the day after Halloween.

Your babble (the book, the movie, the religious doctrine) been used as a moral justification for hundreds of contradictory claims, on both sides of countless wars, to justify dictatorships and armies of children, slavery, repression of science, repression of women's rights... and yet you cling stupidly to the notion that it's an accurate moral compass, and a factually true vision of an invisible supernatural daddy in the sky.

You want respect? Respect is earned. Go earn some using the scientific method. 'Til then, keep your rubber chicken outta my gun club.
Add a Comment:
  • Art Gifts
Download PNG 5000 × 3330

Featured in Collections

Atheism by ToxicMutagen


Submitted on
July 13, 2007
Image Size
186 KB


57,327 (4 today)
392 (who?)


Creative Commons License
Some rights reserved. This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.