Posted on 01/05/2005 11:28:38 AM PST by Gamecock
AN FRANCISCO, CA – The creators of the notorious “Darwin Fish” car emblem have developed a controversial new product designed to win a decisive victory in a battle that has raged for a decade now. In a move hailed by supporters as “the final blow” in that battle, Ring of Fire Enterprises is set to release their newest product, a silver outline of a Tyrannosaurus Rex eating the creationist “Truth Fish.”
The ten-year clash began when Ring of Fire Enterprises released its first product, the infamous Darwin fish. Designed to counter the popularity of the Ichthus Fish, the original Christian fish symbol, the first Ring of Fire emblem featured an Ichthus Fish with evolutionary feet and the word “Darwin” emblazoned inside. The creationist response was the now-famous “Truth” emblem, a larger Ichthus fish containing the word “truth” swallowing the Darwin fish whole.
For years, the Truth fish has been the last word in automotive iconography—until now. In late 2003, the ROF board of directors commissioned a new image, one that would counter the popularity of the Truth fish.
“It’s a matter of finishing what we started, really,” says ROF co-founder Nona S. Williams with a chuckle. “The original Darwin fish stated our initial message well, but we had to admit the Christians responded pretty strongly. We don’t anticipate they can trump the new T-Rex emblem so easily!”
Indeed, the board of directors was hoping for a decisive blow when it commissioned the new piece; from the start, it was proposed to be the largest car emblem yet. For such a task, they called upon the talents of the anonymous designer of the original Darwin fish.
They were not disappointed. The new emblem is five to six times larger than its predecessor, and the dinosaur devours an actual-size Truth fish, leaving a broken fin at its feet. It is so large that it won’t fit on most compact cars. In fact, the instructions included with the new piece—which retails for $24.95—suggest purchasing an SUV or pickup truck in order to display it.
Williams admits this might deter some people from purchasing their newest product. But, she says, ROF was willing to accept that drawback on a statement that will be difficult if not impossible to thwart. “The creationists might be able to come up with something to eat our T-Rex—God knows they’re clever enough to come up with bogus theories about the primordial fossil record—but let’s see them fit it on their cars!”
The release of the T-Rex emblem has some in the Christian community worried. But the latest attack on the Ichthus fish doesn’t worry Bob Woodward, the creator of the Truth fish. In a recent press release, he argued that truth is more than a catchy slogan or trendy bumper sticker, and pointed out a fatal flaw in the Darwinists’ decision to include a dinosaur in their latest offering: extinction. “The last Tyrannosaurus Rex fell down dead over 60 million years ago. The Truth of literal biblical creationism, on the other hand, is the same yesterday, today, and forever.”
Forgive me Dr. Eckleburg, but I thought you were the road
sign in "The Great Gatsby" which figured the image of the
optomotrist -- which in the novel was highly symbolic. I
looked you up in the "About" section but drew a blank.
I also owe an apology to whom I addressed the post because
I praised his sense of humor when it doesn't apply. As
a matter of curiosity, is your nom de guerre taken from
Gatsby?
I was only making a joke because I thought you thought Lex was making a joke by pinging some literary character, joke-wise.
(Don't you hate it when the explanation of the joke takes waaay too long and ends up in a jumbled mess?)
I'm not familiar with that either, but I'm sure it isn't pretty.
Please continue the discussion. It's edifying, but not funny in the least. 8~)
Teilhard de Chardin? Perhaps we are headed towards some evolutinary Omega Point. Then there is the fact that in the section of the brain called the "reptilian cortex" we still are "red in tooth and claw" as we sleep into the deeper unconsciousness. And when we awake and see the horrors we've created we're tempted to believe in an atavistic DEvolution. Perhaps Nietzsche and Kierkegaard were right -- all truth is subjective -- even that Objective Truth that we subjectively call transcendant and universally valid. At this point I'm beginning to feel like St. Paul when he was told by the Athenians that "learning has made you mad."
Then perhaps you will belabor the part about all truth being subjective, Clergyman, and your fondness for Teilhard des Chardins and his big egg world view and idolatrous love of Gaia.
You are correct in stating that there is no inherent conflict between Christianity and evolution unless one absurdly takes Genesis and certain other texts literally.
Then perhaps you can enlighten us all, as to your Christian clergyman views on this
"evolution claims that death reigned before Adam sin." Forgive my ignorance but I havn't the foggiest notion what that purports to mean. Ive read the Gospel in Greek and studied it for years by higher critical methods and others. The creation myths are attempts to explain theologically that God is the force behind creation. Evolution is NOT a theory but a fact. What best explains the fact is Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection. To claim that the Gospel in any way rejects this reality does a disservice to religion. Besides, you'd be wasting your time fighting yesterday's battles. The vast majority of scientists and informed Christians accept evolution.
Being almost speechless at this one, I'll let you elaborate for us
If you'd like to learn more about biblical criticism (and there are many types) I'd be glad to discuss it - and I'm not being facetious, I mean it. All best,
In the infamous words of Gary Gilmore, let's do it!
Ah, the old "vast majority of scientists..."
"Trust me. I'm a doctor," Josef M. assured them, checking the twin's eyeballs.
Yes, and how much you want to bet I'll wait a longlong time for her to answer
Curious that both our posts referenced mass murderers.
Survival of the fittest, no doubt.
I do mean it but, frankly, I've received so many mails
from you that I don't know which ones to deal with first
- or to take seriously - but perhaps you can go beyond
your one-liners and actually speak in PARAGRAPHS and
complete sentences with subjects, predicates, etc. We
might actually come to know what the OTHER IS TRYING TO
SAY! God Forbid!
Start with number 80 and go from there
I'm still waiting for complete sentences and cogent
thoughts but I'm growing tired. I've tried for a long
time to communicate, but it's obviously futile. I wish
you all best with your one-liners that are apropos to
nothing and vaguely insulting - but to whom no one can
say because they are are directed towards no one specifically. Not to put too fine a point upon it, but you
are beginning to bore me. I truly wanted to communicate
but it is obvious that you would rather play your trivial
one-liner games and indulge in your phrases and grunts
rather than lucid communication.
I think the concern he's expressing is, if I understand aright your words, the notion that the Gospel is the work of man ("the Church"). While I won't deign to speak for D Edmund, I would be interested to know if you would affirm the following in light of what you had said:
* Jesus Christ was a real, historical figure, fully human and fully Divine.
* Scripture is the Word of God, written through men guided by the Holy Ghost. Scripture does not merely contain the Word of God.
* There is a supernatural component to faith. IOW the Holy Spirit plays a role in illuminating the words of Scripture to the soul of the reader.
If you think the atheists really bother with the Darwin fish just because they defend evolution...
The symbol is simply a means of expressing contempt, nothing else.
Me? I want to put that fish on feet, give it a halo, and stick "Catholic" across it. :^D
Sorry, Reuben, but the Earth simply is a LOT older than 7,000 years. You can't read the bible that way. Seriously... just how do you suppose the space shuttle poked its way through the firmament (Gen. 1:7)?
And as for the fossil record: Yes, fossils can be deposited sometime in a layer or so above where they "should" be deposited. I presume you have already read and ignored how this can occur. But on the large scale, the fossil record is fantastically consistent. While you debate minutia whether a dinosaur is indigenous above or below the K-T boundary, ever seriously explain why vertebrates dont exist in pre-Cambrian rock? Why birds and mammals dont exist in pre-Devonian rock? Why human remains don't exist as in pre-Quarternary rock?
Evolution is called a theory, not a law, because by its nature it is impossible to recreate in a laboratory setting, not because there is any degree of uncertainty among scientists. Facets of micro-evolution have been elevated to law.
What science hasn't shown are the big points: How the chain of events was started in the first place, how the phenomenon of consciousness, how rationalism emerged, why it all took place. Until you deny God, the enormity and antiquity of the universe only serve to emphasize how treasured mankind is.
Newspapers' depiction of evolution is flat-out false. Their "life-in-a-bottle" are absurd. But they do not represent the truth of science. They are twisting science to achieve their nihilistic ends. BUt science has demonstrated beyond any doubt that the Earth is older than 7,000 years.
Heck, even just simply tracing our human family tree, we find that humanity is 1,000 generations removed from a common ancestor. (But yes, we do have a common grandmother only 1,000 generations ago.)
Ok, I'll make it real simple for you: Was Jesus God?
I wonder if the people who think this is so clever would do something similar to a Star of David or to an Islamic symbol?
Yep, you said it, therefore it must be true. 'That's science for you! Just make the assertion and BAM it's true!
You can't read the bible that way.
And now a God hater that doesn't believe the Bible is going to lecture us all about Bible hermeneutics. But, wait! There is no explanation. Its Yet Another Fact By Fiat!
just how do you suppose the space shuttle poked its way through the firmament (Gen. 1:7)?
Now let's add to the good fun by an insult wrapped into a lie. (And a very poor understanding of a Scriptural passage.)
And as for the fossil record: Yes, fossils can be deposited sometime in a layer or so above where they "should" be deposited. I
And rebuttal? First it is required by all Evolutionists to change the statement because answering the real objection isn't possible. Clearly you have no intention of dealing with statement that marine fossils are found up on top of mountain ranges, rather you just say "above where they should be". This is the beauty of Evolution. It can be anything you want it to be since evolution is assumed a priori, so when fossils are found "above where they should be" you leave the safe confines of uniformitarianism and inject catastrophe or some massive geophysical anomaly in a feeble attempt to cover for it.
I presume you have already read and ignored how this can occur.
A patented Evolutionist debate tactic. Insult your opponent and hypocritically accuse them of doing what you routinely do.
But on the large scale, the fossil record is fantastically consistent.
Then make an easily demonstrable but huge lie. Clearly you have already read and ignored the thousands of statements made by evolutionary scientists who find fossils in layers where they shouldn't be. Those who haven't sold their souls to the evolutionists can see these things all the time.
While you debate minutia... <hypocritical minutia snipped>
Projection...
Evolution is called a theory, not a law, because by its nature it is impossible to recreate in a laboratory setting,
But if you were honest and used scientific terminology correctly, you wouldn't even call it theory because none of it is demonstrable in the laboratory, it is sheer speclation meriting, at best, the title "Hypothesis". But you and evolutionists aren't honest and won't use scientific terminology correctly because "it is the agenda, stupid". It has nothing to do with facts and truth, it has to do with jealously guarding evidence that would expose the lie.
What science hasn't shown are the big points:
Well, duh. I think that is usually my point. Science hasn't shown anything that would be mandatory prerequisite for accepting any part of evolution (like any example of macro-evolution). Even that crap about an earth that is billions of years old is made-up and unprovable. In the past century alone, evolutionists have changed the age of the earth by billions of years. When you have error best expressed in terms of orders of magnitude, it seems to me that something is heavily fictionalized. But to the pseudo-scientific evolutionist, it is just a matter of keeping the faith alive.
Until you deny God, the enormity and antiquity of the universe only serve to emphasize how treasured mankind is.
Blasphemer. I think I have had enough with your outrageous lies and insults. Evolution clearly teaches Goo to You Via The Zoo. The results of evolutionary thinking have given us abortion, eugenics, euthenasia, suicide, racism, genocide, and man depreciating ideologies like communism that places the role of the State far and above the individual. Your delusional statements don't have any correlation with the facts. In fact evolution is the most dehumanizing and the most condemning philosophy ever put forth - how dare you lie and blaspheme by saying otherwise.
A class troll if I ever saw one.
Oh, I'm a God-hater, am I? Anyone who disagrees with you is a God-hater?
As for the firmament line (Gen 1:17), you have an explanation for how the firmament doesn't mean a solid partition. It seems so cut and dried to you, because you've been taught that. But before our modern, scientific era, anyone would have thought tha firmament meant something solid through which the waters could not pass.
Likewise, people now hold that days means the length of time for the sun to set, rise, and return to same position. This could not be so since the sun had not been formed yet on the first day. And the bible does tell us that one day is to God like an uncountably vast number of (literally, a thousand) years. So, we can understand that one day means a period of activity, followed by the time for rest.
>>Clearly you have no intention of dealing with the fact that fossils are found on top of mountain ranges.<<
Pardon me, but I was not trying to be condescending. I did actually believe that you were familiar with the arguments of evolution, since you were so confident of your rejecting them. I thought you were familiar with the theory of plate techtonics.
See, the earth moves around. We can observe various portions of the Earth move several centimeters per year. This is not theory, but actual observation. Sometimes the earth moves faster, like it did a few weeks ago, with catastrophic results.
The result is that the portions of the Earth collide and are pushed upwards. Again, we can watch this happen. It's not theory, it's fact. Hence, stuff which was on seabeds becomes quite high.
I am aware that the flood could have caused sea creatures to be deposited on mountainsides, but that would not account for how they came to be embedded deep into rock. on the mountainsides. Again, this theory is quite well confirmed by the fact that fossils occur only in sedimentary rock (formed by accumulation of debris, which is then pressed together into rock on seabed floors) and metamporphic rock (sedimentary rock nolecularly altered into new rock), never igneous rock.
When I referred to rock found above the K-T layer, I was referring to its local, relative position. The K-T layer is a band of rock which has a very high level of unusual minerals. It's about 65 million years old, according to radio-isotope decay rates (no, not Carbon, Iridium), and corresponds with the absence of great numbers of now-extinct animals being found only "below" it.
>>While you debate minutia<<
What I meant by minutia are the slightly erratic location of certain organisms which you refer to when you say, "Clearly you have already read and ignored the thousands of statements made by evolutionary scientists who find fossils in layers where they shouldn't be."
They are not far from where they should be, often a few millimeters, unless you are talking about something completely different.
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.