ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags evolution , Jack Chick comics

Reply
Old 6th August 2006, 04:16 PM   #1
Nihilanth
Thinker
 
Nihilanth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 131
Arguing evolution with Jack Chick

...but not really. I made fun of another Jack Chick comic on my lame little teeniebopper Myspace blog and I need you guys to help tell me if I said something crazy-stupid.

http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fu...b-2da8cdf730e7

Well, that and the fact that you guys might get a kick out of this. Unless all my favorite JREF forum peeps got replaced by wacko fundie creationists. Wait...where did that Jesus-fish come from? Oh, no, not you guys, too!
__________________
I think perhaps the most important problem is that we are trying to understand the fundamental workings of the universe via a language devised for telling one another when the best fruit is.

-- (Terry Pratchett, alt.fan.pratchett)
Nihilanth is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th August 2006, 06:13 PM   #2
Dr Adequate
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 17,766
Ho, dear. "Newton's Second Law of Thermodynamics". As discovered by Newton from beyond the grave in the mid-1860s.

Mind you, you don't know what it is either, do you?
Dr Adequate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th August 2006, 06:19 PM   #3
Horatius
NWO Kitty Wrangler
 
Horatius's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 28,170
I got a particular chuckle out of this line:

"HA! Dinosaurs and people. Inaccuracy number Whatever-we're-at. Can you imagine how many Adams God went through before he realized to keep the people and dinosaurs seperated. "Now, Adam, you may eat of any of these fruits except the tree of HOLY **** that Allosaur just COMPLETELY ate your face! HAHAHA oh **** are you okay?" "

Not bad...
Horatius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th August 2006, 06:22 PM   #4
grayman
Happy-go-lucky Heretic
 
grayman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 5,655
Quote:
Hm...Timmy, it looks like you've been a good boy. You never got into any fights, always did what your aprents said
Are aprents those voices in my head that only I can hear?
grayman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th August 2006, 06:32 PM   #5
fuelair
Banned
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 58,581
You mean Chick is short for Chickenhawk??
fuelair is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th August 2006, 07:02 PM   #6
Foster Zygote
Dental Floss Tycoon
 
Foster Zygote's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 17,128
The fatal flaw with the "second law" argument has to do with the fact that it is a half truth. If creationists really had a point about this then I'm afraid nothing would be able to develop, not even an embryo. There would be no chemistry, biology, geology, astronomy etc. Creationists who make this claim neglect to add that entropy can be counteracted by the addition of energy. We get energy from the sun (or from geological processes) which fuels things like biochemistry and thus evolution. The second law isn't violated by this because ultimately the sun will burn out and the ordering processes it sustains will come to an end. If the universe is open and continues to expand without check then everything in it will ultimately succumb to the second law and become just a diffuse field of radiation. But for now, at least, the laws of physics allow energy to be moved around within the universe to create order.

Creationists have lots of pseudo scientific "facts" that they like to trot out in an attempt to debunk evolution. One of my favorites is the "hydrogen argument". They point out that hydrogen is released into the atmosphere at a certain rate and that if the Earth was really billions of years old there should be much more hydrogen in the atmosphere than is observed even if the rate of release varies with time. Again they only provide facts that support their argument and neglect the relevant facts that sink their argument. The inconvenient fact is that hydrogen also escapes from the atmosphere at a certain rate. Because H atoms are so light they migrate to the upper atmosphere where they "boil off" into space, swept away by the solar wind. So it is little surprise that we see a small amount of H in the atmosphere.

Steven
__________________
Counterbalance in the little town of Ridgeview, Ohio. Two people permanently enslaved by the tyranny of fear and superstitution, facing the future with a kind of helpless dread. Two others facing the future with confidence - having escaped one of the darker places of the Twilight Zone.
Foster Zygote is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th August 2006, 07:09 PM   #7
qayak
Penultimate Amazing
 
qayak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 13,622
While I am sure it is not going to make one iota of difference in the battle against Creationism, I did get a big kick out of your response to the cartoon. It had me laughing out loud which doesn't usually happen unless a Creationist gets hit by a bus on their way TO confession.
qayak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th August 2006, 10:11 PM   #8
Nihilanth
Thinker
 
Nihilanth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 131
Originally Posted by Dr Adequate View Post
Ho, dear. "Newton's Second Law of Thermodynamics". As discovered by Newton from beyond the grave in the mid-1860s.

Mind you, you don't know what it is either, do you?

Yes, okay, I missed that, duly noted, but in my defense that was in the comments section, not the main blog, and anyway I was kind of burnt out on pointing out obviously wrong facts. I did work through an ENTIRE Jack Chick comic, remember? Two, if you count the anti-Jewish one where I just wrote "I HATE YOU I HATE YOU I HATE YOU!" under all the pictures.
__________________
I think perhaps the most important problem is that we are trying to understand the fundamental workings of the universe via a language devised for telling one another when the best fruit is.

-- (Terry Pratchett, alt.fan.pratchett)
Nihilanth is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th August 2006, 10:13 PM   #9
Nihilanth
Thinker
 
Nihilanth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 131
Originally Posted by Foster Zygote View Post
The fatal flaw with the "second law" argument has to do with the fact that it is a half truth. If creationists really had a point about this then I'm afraid nothing would be able to develop, not even an embryo. There would be no chemistry, biology, geology, astronomy etc. Creationists who make this claim neglect to add that entropy can be counteracted by the addition of energy. We get energy from the sun (or from geological processes) which fuels things like biochemistry and thus evolution. The second law isn't violated by this because ultimately the sun will burn out and the ordering processes it sustains will come to an end. If the universe is open and continues to expand without check then everything in it will ultimately succumb to the second law and become just a diffuse field of radiation. But for now, at least, the laws of physics allow energy to be moved around within the universe to create order.
You know, I caught that after I had already replied to everything this guy said. Like, long after we'd already gone through our arguments I was re-reading it and thought the exact same thing; by his logic, nothing would be made. Ever. But, then again, Christians can just fall back on "Yeah, unless there's GOD!"
__________________
I think perhaps the most important problem is that we are trying to understand the fundamental workings of the universe via a language devised for telling one another when the best fruit is.

-- (Terry Pratchett, alt.fan.pratchett)
Nihilanth is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th August 2006, 10:14 PM   #10
Nihilanth
Thinker
 
Nihilanth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 131
Anyway, I'm glad some of you got a kick out of this. I might do some more, but for now I just have the standard geeky thoughts, a horror movie survival guide with broken image links that I refuse to fix on moral grounds, and one other Chick thing that I already advertised.
__________________
I think perhaps the most important problem is that we are trying to understand the fundamental workings of the universe via a language devised for telling one another when the best fruit is.

-- (Terry Pratchett, alt.fan.pratchett)
Nihilanth is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2006, 07:06 PM   #11
Foster Zygote
Dental Floss Tycoon
 
Foster Zygote's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 17,128
I for one would love to see more of your running commentaries on Jack Chicken-head.

I'm actually reminded of something Mel Brooks said about The Producers.
He was asked something like:
"As a Jew, how can you make light of someone as terrible as Hitler?"
He replied that by making fun of Hitler and the Nazis he was doing far more damage to them and their evil message than if he got indignant. By making people laugh he was taking away Hitler's power.

Satire is a powerful weapon Grasshopper, always use it for good. =0)

Steven
__________________
Counterbalance in the little town of Ridgeview, Ohio. Two people permanently enslaved by the tyranny of fear and superstitution, facing the future with a kind of helpless dread. Two others facing the future with confidence - having escaped one of the darker places of the Twilight Zone.
Foster Zygote is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2006, 07:29 PM   #12
Roadtoad
Bufo Caminus Inedibilis
 
Roadtoad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Citrus Heights, CA
Posts: 15,191
Jack Chick cannot be argued with. He can only be ridiculed for denying the obvious.

Good one.
Roadtoad is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2006, 08:40 PM   #13
Miss Whiplash
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,574
I thought it was fab.

There was a time when some of my more Godly co-workers would put Chick tracts in my cubicle while I was away from my desk. I guess my fondness of black leather had "Hellbound" written all over it.
Miss Whiplash is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2006, 06:24 AM   #14
sphenisc
Philosopher
 
sphenisc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 5,236
Your first two listed inaccuracies are hyperboles. If you meant them literally then they're wrong. Evolutionists/scientists have claimed/said that humans evolved from apes/monkeys.
sphenisc is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2006, 07:55 AM   #15
Cuddles
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 18,590
Originally Posted by sphenisc View Post
Your first two listed inaccuracies are hyperboles. If you meant them literally then they're wrong. Evolutionists/scientists have claimed/said that humans evolved from apes/monkeys.
When? They claim that apes, and more distantly monkeys, are decended from a common ancestor. This ancestor probably looked more like modern apes than modern humans. Creationists take this to mean we are decended from modern apes, which no sane scientist has ever claimed.
Cuddles is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2006, 08:00 AM   #16
Nihilanth
Thinker
 
Nihilanth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 131
Originally Posted by Foster Zygote View Post
Satire is a powerful weapon Grasshopper, always use it for good. =0)
Exactly. Although I always feel a little guilty about it; I mean, it's just SO easy. It's honestly a little like stamping on kittens, although I totally have never done that on any occassion and anything you hear to the contrary is a filthy, damnable lie.
__________________
I think perhaps the most important problem is that we are trying to understand the fundamental workings of the universe via a language devised for telling one another when the best fruit is.

-- (Terry Pratchett, alt.fan.pratchett)
Nihilanth is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2006, 08:00 AM   #17
brodski
Tea-Time toad
 
brodski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 15,516
Originally Posted by Dr Adequate View Post
Ho, dear. "Newton's Second Law of Thermodynamics". As discovered by Newton from beyond the grave in the mid-1860s.

Wasn't Newton's 2nd law of thermodynamics something about meeting a man of silver (who has changed the colour of nature) in a temple made of one stone
brodski is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2006, 08:02 AM   #18
Nihilanth
Thinker
 
Nihilanth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 131
Originally Posted by The Vampire View Post
There was a time when some of my more Godly co-workers would put Chick tracts in my cubicle while I was away from my desk. I guess my fondness of black leather had "Hellbound" written all over it.
...people still CIRCULATE these damned things!?! I had no idea! I thought all his stuff just existed in his own little vaccuum-sealed world of perfect irrationality.

Anyway...yeah, you're probably hellbound, but it's really not that bad. The company'll be great. Me and a bunch of other pitiful sinners are all chipping in to get a time share on the Lake of Fire...not much, you know. Just a little cabin we can put our feet up in during the rainy season.
__________________
I think perhaps the most important problem is that we are trying to understand the fundamental workings of the universe via a language devised for telling one another when the best fruit is.

-- (Terry Pratchett, alt.fan.pratchett)
Nihilanth is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2006, 08:11 AM   #19
sphenisc
Philosopher
 
sphenisc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 5,236
Originally Posted by Cuddles View Post
When? They claim that apes, and more distantly monkeys, are decended from a common ancestor. This ancestor probably looked more like modern apes than modern humans. Creationists take this to mean we are decended from modern apes, which no sane scientist has ever claimed.
2003

http://books.google.co.uk/books?vid=...a4lkuPQrb-IF5w
sphenisc is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2006, 08:22 AM   #20
zooloo
Thinker
 
zooloo's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 247
Originally Posted by sphenisc View Post
Your first two listed inaccuracies are hyperboles. If you meant them literally then they're wrong. Evolutionists/scientists have claimed/said that humans evolved from apes/monkeys.
An individual or so may have done.

It's easier than that... we are apes
zooloo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2006, 08:48 AM   #21
Cuddles
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 18,590
Originally Posted by sphenisc View Post
This is exactly the kind of misunderstanding I'm talking about. Clearly, nothing alive today evolved from anything else alive today, related creatures evolved from common ancestors. When a scientist says "humans evolved from apes rather than, say, lizards", he is actually saying "humans evolved from something like an ape rather than, say, something like a lizard".

So, yes, technically scientists do say we evolved from apes. What they don't say is that we evolved from modern apes, which is what the creationists assume is meant. The problem comes from interpretation of words, where one group uses a specific meaning that is used as a more general word by another group. Now I think about it, the scientists are more at fault in this case, since they use the term "ape" to apply to species that aren't around now and so technically aren't apes. Unless ape is used to refer to a much wider group in which case we didn't need to evolve from apes because we still are apes.
Cuddles is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2006, 09:02 AM   #22
Ladewig
I lost an avatar bet.
 
Ladewig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 27,550
Originally Posted by Nihilanth View Post
Anyway...yeah, you're probably hellbound, but it's really not that bad. The company'll be great. Me and a bunch of other pitiful sinners are all chipping in to get a time share on the Lake of Fire...not much, you know. Just a little cabin we can put our feet up in during the rainy season.
I expect to end up there as well. If you get there before me, I'll meet you all under the big clock on the corner of Greed Blvd. and Swaggart Ave. (just up the street from Pat Robertson Square)
Ladewig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2006, 09:03 AM   #23
Ladewig
I lost an avatar bet.
 
Ladewig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 27,550
Originally Posted by Cuddles View Post
This is exactly the kind of misunderstanding I'm talking about. Clearly, nothing alive today evolved from anything else alive today, related creatures evolved from common ancestors.
That sounds a bit hinky to me; are you certain of that claim?
Ladewig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2006, 10:05 AM   #24
sphenisc
Philosopher
 
sphenisc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 5,236
Originally Posted by Cuddles View Post
This is exactly the kind of misunderstanding I'm talking about. Clearly, nothing alive today evolved from anything else alive today, related creatures evolved from common ancestors. When a scientist says "humans evolved from apes rather than, say, lizards", he is actually saying "humans evolved from something like an ape rather than, say, something like a lizard".
I'm not sure who you think is misunderstanding. There's nothing in the Chick comic, the commentary on it, my comment on the commentary, or the excerpt from Simon Conway Morris's book which suggests anyone is misunderstanding things in this way.

Quote:
So, yes, technically scientists do say we evolved from apes.
Which was the point I was making.

Quote:
What they don't say is that we evolved from modern apes, which is what the creationists assume is meant.
There's nothing in the Chick comic which suggests that. It's a strawhominid argument.

Quote:
The problem comes from interpretation of words, where one group uses a specific meaning that is used as a more general word by another group. Now I think about it, the scientists are more at fault in this case, since they use the term "ape" to apply to species that aren't around now and so technically aren't apes.

It's not really a matter of interpretation. Or at least any differences in interpretation aren't relevant to the point I was making.

If
a) Chick says " Scientists claim X".
b) Then Nihilanth says "A scientist would never, ever, ever, claim X."
c) And a scientist claims "X".
d) And then you say "When the scientist claimed "X", what he really meant was "Y"".

then I conclude that a) and c) are compatible. b) and c) are not compatible, and d) is irrelevant since a) is about what scientists claim, not what they mean.

Basically,depending on your interpretation of 'apes' either Morris is right or he's wrong. Either way Chick is right in saying that he's made a such a claim. It's equivocation to start claiming you know that Morris and Chick really meant different things. Unless of course there's other evidence within those pieces which indicate a real difference - I don't think there is.


Quote:
Unless ape is used to refer to a much wider group in which case we didn't need to evolve from apes because we still are apes.
If you're going to get all cladist on me, then yeah, if dolphins are still fish.

Last edited by sphenisc; 8th August 2006 at 10:08 AM.
sphenisc is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2006, 10:15 AM   #25
Nihilanth
Thinker
 
Nihilanth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 131
Naw, see...Chick is saying that evolutionists claim we came from MONKEYS, not apes. MONKEYS. Like, the kind that throw walnuts at you in video games. And I'm relatively sure nobody claimed we came from monkeys. I mean, apes I can see. But, like, saying we descended from something like a Rhesus monkey? That's borderlined retarded.

Sphenisc is kind of right, though. I should have made that more clear.
__________________
I think perhaps the most important problem is that we are trying to understand the fundamental workings of the universe via a language devised for telling one another when the best fruit is.

-- (Terry Pratchett, alt.fan.pratchett)
Nihilanth is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2006, 10:18 AM   #26
Nihilanth
Thinker
 
Nihilanth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 131
JESUS, I go off on one panel just to find out that people are talking about the one above it.

No, Sphenisc is right. We did kind of come from apes. I'm sure Chick means modern apes, though, which is dumb, but I guess it's not really fair to put words in the guy's mouth so I can make fun of him. The words that are already there do a good enough job.
__________________
I think perhaps the most important problem is that we are trying to understand the fundamental workings of the universe via a language devised for telling one another when the best fruit is.

-- (Terry Pratchett, alt.fan.pratchett)
Nihilanth is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2006, 10:39 AM   #27
cassis
Collector of three letter words
 
cassis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 350
uh, humans are not apes....humans along with apes, monkeys, and prosimians are primates. Within that order are several families of which ours (hominidae or hominids) contains the great apes and humans (gorillas, chimps, orangutans, and humans) both the fossil and the modern forms. The hominids are further subdivided into various genera including the aforementioned gorillas (gorilla), human (homo), chimps (pan), and orangutans (pongo). Our most recent split (i.e. our most recent common ancestor) appears to have been about 5 million years ago. Of course you don't have to take my word for it...there is lots of information from reputable sources (in this case: University of Michigan's Zoology Dept).

Sorry for the taxonomy refresher but my main point is that it is inaccurate to call ourselves apes.
__________________
"I have noticed even people who claim everything is predestined, and that we can do nothing to change it, look before they cross the road" Stephen Hawking
"A celibate clergy is an especially good idea, because it tends to suppress any hereditary propensity toward fanaticism." Carl Sagan

Last edited by cassis; 8th August 2006 at 10:41 AM.
cassis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2006, 11:30 AM   #28
Nihilanth
Thinker
 
Nihilanth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 131
Well, yeah, I understand that. I think the main point was that we were using apes as a term to cover all primates. Although, I guess that's kind of a stupid thing to do...

Wait, wait...does this mean that the Chick commentary thing about apes still works? RIGHT ON.
__________________
I think perhaps the most important problem is that we are trying to understand the fundamental workings of the universe via a language devised for telling one another when the best fruit is.

-- (Terry Pratchett, alt.fan.pratchett)
Nihilanth is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2006, 12:25 PM   #29
I'll_buy_that
Critical Thinker
 
I'll_buy_that's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 386
Are you saying Jack Chick might be your cousin?

"...I can have a cousin who's a mouth-breathing abomination that spends all day banging his retarded flippers against his Speak-N-Spell in a misguided attempt to communicate."
__________________
"Religion has convinced the world that there's an invisible man in the sky who watches everything you do. And there's 10 things he doesn't want you to do or else you'll to to a burning place with a lake of fire until the end of eternity. But he loves you! ...he loves you and he needs money! He's all powerful, all knowing, and all capable but he just can't handle money!"
-George Carlin
I'll_buy_that is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2006, 01:18 PM   #30
Nihilanth
Thinker
 
Nihilanth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 131
Originally Posted by I'll_buy_that View Post
Are you saying Jack Chick might be your cousin?

"...I can have a cousin who's a mouth-breathing abomination that spends all day banging his retarded flippers against his Speak-N-Spell in a misguided attempt to communicate."
Oh, heavens no! Perish the thought! I don't believe Jack Chick has the cognitive abilities necessary to successfully navigate a Speak-n-Spell.
__________________
I think perhaps the most important problem is that we are trying to understand the fundamental workings of the universe via a language devised for telling one another when the best fruit is.

-- (Terry Pratchett, alt.fan.pratchett)
Nihilanth is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2006, 01:37 PM   #31
chance
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 430
Originally Posted by I'll_buy_that View Post
Are you saying Jack Chick might be your cousin?
And would that be on his fathers or mothers side?
chance is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2006, 05:46 AM   #32
Cuddles
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 18,590
Originally Posted by Ladewig View Post
That sounds a bit hinky to me; are you certain of that claim?
Technically I evolved from my parents. Anything else alive today cannot have been my ancestor, because they weren't alive long enough ago. Obviously some trees can live for thousands of years, but I'm sure you see my point.

Originally Posted by sphenisc
I'm not sure who you think is misunderstanding. There's nothing in the Chick comic, the commentary on it, my comment on the commentary, or the excerpt from Simon Conway Morris's book which suggests anyone is misunderstanding things in this way.



Which was the point I was making.



There's nothing in the Chick comic which suggests that. It's a strawhominid argument.




It's not really a matter of interpretation. Or at least any differences in interpretation aren't relevant to the point I was making.

If
a) Chick says " Scientists claim X".
b) Then Nihilanth says "A scientist would never, ever, ever, claim X."
c) And a scientist claims "X".
d) And then you say "When the scientist claimed "X", what he really meant was "Y"".

then I conclude that a) and c) are compatible. b) and c) are not compatible, and d) is irrelevant since a) is about what scientists claim, not what they mean.

Basically,depending on your interpretation of 'apes' either Morris is right or he's wrong. Either way Chick is right in saying that he's made a such a claim. It's equivocation to start claiming you know that Morris and Chick really meant different things. Unless of course there's other evidence within those pieces which indicate a real difference - I don't think there is.


If you're going to get all cladist on me, then yeah, if dolphins are still fish.
I was speaking more generally about the scientific and creationist communities. While I can't speak specifically for anyone other than myself, I don't know of any scientist that would claim humans evolved from modern apes, when they say we evolved from apes they mean primates that looked more like modern apes than us, and "ape" is a useful identifier. Most creationists (and I have heard this from some) assume that this use of the word "ape" is used to mean "modern ape" and then make the claim (correctly) that we have not evolved from them. While I don't know the thoughts of the authors involved, the context implies that they were both thinking along these lines. Hence my statement that this is a misunderstanding, meaning a misunderstanding (possibly deliberate) on Chick's part in his interpretation of Morris' words.
Cuddles is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:19 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.