Jesus! vs Darwin!

Jesus Christ

Positives: Impressive stamina. Historically known for taking a beating, staying on his feet. Has history of miraculous resurrection.

Negatives: Invented Pacifism. Dangerous habit of turning the other cheek.


Charles Darwin

Positives: Invented Natural Selection. Understands what's at stake with "Survival of the Fittest".

Negatives: Theology student, nearly became an Anglican parson. Mixed feelings punching his Lord's Only Son and Savior in the face.


Inspired by the Creation Museum that opened deep in the craw of Kentucky this month. Proudly displays dinosaurs mingling with Adam and Eve, less than 6000 years ago. Noah had some on the ark, but apparently they sinned once they got here.


larger one here.

Prints, too.

  • plingman 5y

    i agree with more or less everything you say, except this:
    "My point is that these animals have a natural cycle and will continue to have one regardless of our presence."

    no they won't. it has already been proven time and again, that our species is directly and indirectly responsible for many other species complete demise. yes, this too, could indeed be considered part of the natural cycle of evolution.

    but as we are more or less unique in being a conscious and reasoning species of creatures. do we feel that we should continue on the course that we are following?

    individually, we know it is wrong. but as a species, we are selfishly driven and disconnect.

    now i'm starting to sound like a propagandist too. so thanks for returning the favour.

    i cannot help but think about the live-aid charity that was set up to help ethiopia some 25 years since. the population was 35 million then.
    now, 25 years on, they are facing the very same problems again. food shortages, etc. the main difference being that the population has more than doubled in those 25 years since the aid was given. to 74 million.

    the more i think about it, the more i realise it is quite essential to impose a birthrate cap (per childbearer) across the world. and those countries that don't agree to abide, should receive no help when their own resources start to collapse.
  • Travis 5y

    C'mon. I mentioned at least indirect effects of human activity -- melting ice. Give me more credit than that. That sentence from me that you quoted only refers to our absence, not our affect while we're present. (And aside from the occasional hunter or helicopter fly-by these caribou and wolves are basically in a human-absent environment. Alaska is HUGE, and I know being on an island that might be hard to grasp, but it's true.)

    And I also know that we kill off species. When people came to Hawaii for the first time, something like one third of the bird species there became almost immediately extinct within the first half century. New Zealand saw similar effects. Yes, the extinctions happened because these birds were docile, and possibly flightless; basically an easy resource. People are selfish, I know this.

    Here. I hate talking about Facebook on Flickr, but this quote is directly copy/pasted from my "favorite quotations" portion of my info page:

    "A simple look at the upward path of global greenhouse-gas emissions answers the question--in the affirmative--of whether we will continue to squeeze the trigger on the gun we have put to our own head. For me, the most depressing aspect of the calamity that we face is the implication that from the perspective of our Martian guest we are no different than fruit flies in our ability to contain our appetites and numbers and to avert predictable calamities. During times of good weather and abundance, we expand to and pass the limits of food and water, and when times turn bad, we crash. For all our vaunted intelligence, our track record suggests that our behavior as a species is ruled by short-term self-interest just like our dim-witted six-legged friends." -- Eugene Linden, The Winds of Change

    Yes. I know we are a selfish species. They all are. Otherwise they wouldn't last.
  • plingman 5y

    "They all are. Otherwise they wouldn't last."
    there is a huge difference between survival and "luxurious living" at the expense of others.

    and don't even get me started on the big myth of manmade "global warming". it stinks.

    "A Stanford Professor has used United Nation security officers to silence a journalist asking him “inconvenient questions” during a press briefing at the climate change conference in Copenhagen."

    "One scientist told The Times he felt under pressure to sign. “The Met Office is a major employer of scientists and has long had a policy of only appointing and working with those who subscribe to their views on man-made global warming,” he said."

    'Scientists who questioned mankind's impact on climate change have received death threats and claim to have been shunned by the scientific community.

    They say the debate on global warming has been "hijacked" by a powerful alliance of politicians, scientists and environmentalists who have stifled all questioning about the true environmental impact of carbon dioxide emissions.

    Timothy Ball, a former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg in Canada, has received five deaths threats by email since raising concerns about the degree to which man was affecting climate change.

    One of the emails warned that, if he continued to speak out, he would not live to see further global warming.

    "Western governments have pumped billions of dollars into careers and institutes and they feel threatened," said the professor.'

    Robert Ferguson, SPPI’s president, said: “From the oceans via the surface and the upper atmosphere to outer space, real-world measurements prove beyond reasonable doubt that there was not, is not, and will not be any ‘climate crisis’. All of the results we publish here are of direct relevance to the debate about “global warming”. Yet none of these results will likely be published in any mainstream news medium. The facts are not fitting the theory nor backing the scare, so the media simply suppress them.”

    "BBC Trust to review science coverage amid claims of bias over climate change, MMR vaccine and GM foods"
    The review comes after repeated criticism of the broadcaster's handling of green issues. It has been accused of acting like a cheerleader for the theory that climate change is a man-made phenomenon.

    "Copenhagen climate conference: Who will dare mention population growth?
    Inconvenient facts are being ignored in all the hot air at Copenhagen"
  • Travis 5y

    Well, yeah, but where do you draw the line? Many people say they NEED their coffee/tea in the morning. Is that a luxury or necessity? I've been saying this whole time that we need to cut down on our consumption and waste. So it seems we're on the same page there.

    Not a big fan of the global warming? So as an archaeologist, me and my colleagues go out and do these ice patch surveys (I linked to one above). Ice patches that have been known to have been there for a lifetime are now disappearing. Are you saying this is just a natural event? Personally, I think it is, but our activities probably haven't helped it much and have probably quickened the process. There is geologic activity (volcanoes) and other events such as explosions in algal blooms that could result in similar ends, but you're willing to bet that humans have no impact at all? Just in previous arguments you're saying how we're going to be the demise of the world as we know it, but global warming won't be an issue...?

    Something doesn't add up here. The only response that I'll accept (that I can think of right now) is if you think that things warming will actually flip instead to another ice age. I think the issue here isn't "warming" per se, but rather an increase in extremes of temperatures. I'm just waiting to see whether warm or cold wins out.
  • plingman 5y

    "but our activities probably haven't helped it much and have probably spread the process"

    yes, i concur.

    normarily, i believe that the planet (or more specifically as a whole 'nature') would balance things out upto a certain extent. i think the question is.. will it be able to do so with our continued, expanding and likely influential activities?

    but i think that we are currently looking for the answers in all the wrong places. in short-sighted ways that are advantageous to, and profit, certain questionable sectors.
  • Kim F 5y

    I don't think Plingman quite understands how evolution works. Evolution doesn't stand for anything. Evolution doesn't actively select for or against any trait unless that trait really, actively confers a positive or a negative on the species...and it must do it repeatedly throughout many reproducing members of that species. Being dim or even genetically disabled is never, in and of itself, enough for evolution to act on-- for or against. There are many traits in many species that are seemingly "bad" but that evolutions ignores anyway. I also agree with Travis that there is no such thing as going "backwards" in evolution. It's a misconception by many humans that evolution= progress. Evolution means only change over time....there is no good or bad, progression or digression involved. Just change.

    Also, Plingman, you seem to be giving people too much credit. No, not even credit, just exerting a pretty human sort of arrogance in terms of humans intellect and their (our) ability to use intellect to defeat our nature. Just because we have the ability of higher levels of consciousness and just because we SHOULD, ABSOLUTELY, use those abilities to think about our affect on other species doesn't mean we are any less removed from our nature than any other species. One of the most natural things in the world is selfishness. Selfishness is natural and usually confers an evolutionary advantage. I would say it's a real and reasonable struggle to overcome that, no matter how much we realize the effect our actions have on other species. There is simply nothing natural about being concerned about other species. It doesn't mean we shouldn't be, we absolutely should be. But we're just animals too, when it comes right down to it...

    And ALL ANIMALS choose their own brand of luxurious living if given the opportunity. Not just humans. Need is always relational and is always in the eye of the beholder. Without regard to the species in question.

    I don't understand all of your issues in general, given that you don't believe in at least some degree of human caused global warming. It doesn't make the least bit of sense where you are coming from.

    Travis, I fail to see how a real socialist government could enforce strict population limits. I think you're falling pray to the common American understanding of what it means to be socialist there...

    The only real fix to the population problem is NOT to enforce population/reproduction limits. It is education for all people, it is in educating and empowering women, it is providing access to quality family planning techniques and services and it is by providing all citizens of the world with a solid network of social services and support (since in many parts of the world the only way you can hope to be taken care of as you age is to have a large family, so that you will have children who survive to your old age with you, and are then able to provide for you.) You can't expect people to not reproduce at the rates they always have unless you give them the tools and means to not do so and even in doing that you can't expect them not to unless you give them a reason not.
  • plingman 5y

    "And ALL ANIMALS choose their own brand of luxurious living if given the opportunity."
    no, all animals choose to live without feeling discomfort, if the situation allows.
    we have the ability to understand and control environments like no other animals do. and understanding such things, also means we understand we have a responsibility.

    and i stopped taking you seriously at this point..

    "The only real fix to the population problem is NOT to enforce population/reproduction limits. It is education for all people, it is in educating and empowering women"

    ..a dead giveaway.

    for me, this debate has ended. and i will not be back.

    but of course, you can continue to discuss this with your kin.. Travis.
  • Travis 5y

    I suppose you're right. I was thinking of a socialist dictatorship where laws are put in place by those in power, which could happen in any economic/political structure.

    But I think the answer to this question is plainly obvious: "will [the planet] be able to [balance things out] with our continued, expanding and likely influential activities?"

    Yeah. There are reasons there are studies involving the collapse of empires. For whatever reason, generally famine or drought, communities have reached beyond their holding capacity through population growth and or selfish greed. This may not mean total obliteration of the people, but the government will collapse, and people may disperse to find shelter and resources elsewhere because their original support system is no longer intact.

    The Maya are a perfect example of this. A drought likely got to the people, they were also deforesting their lands which likely led to this drought and erosion of good top soil. To the north the Toltec nation for whatever reason collapsed and an economic trade system that involved the Maya collapsed into a vacuum. It was around 800 AD when this chaos broke out. The Maya were mostly in the heartland of Mexico but were forced to relocate and rebuild in the Yucatan area where water was still hard to come by unless you had access to one of the cenotes (sinkholes) in the area. Here they rebuilt their empire for a while establishing a trading route around the Caribbean and Gulf coasts.

    So here there wasn't a total loss of the human species (nor any noticeable other impacts on the local fauna) but there was a bit of chaos and people had to figure out another way to live. I'm sure a lot of those throughout the hierarchy didn't make it. The middle classes such as traders and craftsmen no longer had anyone to keep their business alive, farmers couldn't support these large numbers in the hard times, and who knows what happened to the elite. I'm sure someone does, but it may not have been that pretty.

    So my original assertion still stands for me. People may be selfish and short-sighted, but we're persistent as hell. (Which is a product of that selfishness).
  • Kim F 5y

    A dead giveaway to what? That I'm a woman? (because you couldn't tell that by my profile picture...) And thus not blinded by male privilege? To the fact that I am completely aware that those countries with the lowest birthrates are the very same countries in which women have the highest levels of education, social support and freedom? Here in the US there is a microsmic demonstration of that fact. Those portions of the population in which women are the most educated, with the most social support and the most freedom have extremely low birth rates while those sections of the population in which women have the lowest rates of education, social support and freedom have much higher birth rates. I've lived in your country too, and I've seen these same phenomena there.

    If that's what it's a dead giveaway to, then so be it. I'm damn proud of it too.

    If you try to deny any of the facts I stated in this first paragraph then you are delusional fool and are the one that doesn't deserve to be taken seriously.

    Just because other species have no way to define luxury does not mean they don't choose luxury when given the opportunity. Like I said, it is all relational. Moose can survive just fine by eating the crappy bark off the trees in my front yard, but it doesn't mean they won't revel in eating the pumpkins on my front porch if given the opportunity. And they don't care what those pumpkins mean to me, or how they could possibly be harming me in the process. If choosing to eat a pumpkin when it doesn't strictly need to over choosing to eat the bark off a tree isn't choosing luxury, then I don't know what is.

    I agree completely that we have the responsibility. But I think we have just as much a responsibility to accept the fact that we are animals too. And as animals we must struggle with our nature. To deny that fact is nothing more than human arrogance.

    "for me, this debate has ended. i will not be back. "

    For me, that's where I stopped taking you seriously.

    It was clear pretty early on in your points that you are a little overly arrogant without really, fully understanding the points you hope to make or the reality in which we exist. You just proved that not only do you not really truly understand the complexity of the issues you discuss, but that you really are just too caught up in your own arrogance to care about anything else.

    Good luck to you.
  • Kim F 5y

    Of course the planet will survive us. Even in the case of something as dramatic as a nuclear holocaust. We don't really have to worry about the planet as much as we have to worry about our continued existence on it, and which other species we'll wipe out along with us.
  • Travis 5y

    "no, all animals choose to live without feeling discomfort, if the situation allows. we have the ability to understand and control environments like no other animals do. and understanding such things, also means we understand we have a responsibility."

    Again I think the question is where do we draw the line. We basically have way more resources at our disposal than anything else and this makes us strive to be as comfortable (and lazy) as possible, as seen by the massive amounts of technology that we've accrued over the millenia. But if you want to have that steak dinner ready-made for you everyday and it's not just you, but EVERYONE wants it, where do you say that somebody's got to bite the bullet and people are going to have to live differently; where maybe only a few get a bit of rice or some vegetarian meal?

    From your perspective it seemed like you wanted to mandate either just the Ethiopians, or maybe everyone, from having piles of progeny, but who gets to make this call? Your quote above says that true human goodness goes to those who have no power, but now it seems like you mean this goodness to indicate that you should tell these people how to live. I guess the quote is aimed at animals, which for some reason is your fixation over the topic at hand, people, but even in the human world there are still those that have more power and say over others. This quote easily applies there as well.

    So we may have this self-purported responsibility to the planet, which I'm all for, but I'm still not sure if I know how to implement it other than by educating our young children and the women who are the carriers of these children.
  • Kim F 5y

    "but I'm still not sure if I know how to implement it other than by educating our young children and the women who are the carriers of these children. "


    Educate children of both sexes and you have children who grow up to be responsible, caring adults. Educate and empower women and they suddenly have the ability to make reproductive choices. Combine those two things (educated children that grow into educated, responsible adults with empowered, educated women.) And suddenly you've got a whole lot of people much better equipped to make choices that have a positive impact on the world.
  • (deaf mute) 5y

    I want to see a fight between Jesus and Stephen Hawking.
  • Steve's Web Hosting 4y

    There is nothing too stupid for a fundie to believe it.
  • Travis 4y

    Seraphim? Oh, wait.
  • yeshua1613 4y

    do not be foolded God cannot be mocked, you will all reap what you sow. Jesus christ has risen from the dead he is alive and he is going to pour out the wrath of the lamb on your heads if you dont repent from your sins and turn away from them and seek God. there is no proof God doesnt exist and deep down in your heart of hearts you know God exist your soul is screaming at you all to listen because it doesnt want to burn in hell for ever. Jesus can change your life liek he changed mine i have never been the same since june 2010/ when christ came to me in my room when i was crying out to him to change my life he came to me and i felt his presence and it was good and i want that feeling everdyday and i seek God all the days of my life and my life is so much better and the hole in my heart is filled with the living water repent and believe
  • Travis 4y

    The Assyrian deity Tammuz also rose from the dead, and now sadly nobody believes in him. Maybe because Jesus took his place in how we see our world. Because this crucifixion and resurrection was just an act laden in symbolism. He was the resurgence of floral life in the spring. He also did this great act right around the time Jesus was said to do it -- what is now March 28. Jesus' resurrection is just odd because it's floating, as people want this "holy day" to be remembered on a Sunday.

    And does anyone else think it's kind of funny that Jesus' birth and death reflect the solar cycle? His resurgence comes when spring hits at a time when the rest of life on this planet goes through the same process. Jesus' birth comes with what we now speak of as the new year, right around the winter solstice, the time when the days start getting longer. The funny thing about Tammuz' day of resurrection, is that it was said to fall on the day when the amount of daylight starts to last longer than the amount of night in the given day. I wonder if Easter is actually a closer approximation to this, as it is based on a solilunar calendar.

    And as for the "wrath of the lamb", that sounds kind of tasty. I might want to try some of that.
  • The Searcher 4y

    yeshua1613 "there is no proof God doesnt exist"

    Generally it isn't up to the skeptical to prove a negative, it's up to the believer to prove a positive. I can't prove the Easter Bunny doesn't exist either. According to your logic that makes him real?

    Travis There's actually a school of thought that much of the bible, especially the later new testaments, included many scholars who at the time were pagan naturists, but as they were brought into the fold of this new religion, offered much of their core beliefs and calendrical structure to the bible. Thus an ordering of major events in line with natural cycles (and this was handy for the previous generations of christian scholars, because it helped allign the messages and important days around the harvest. ie it kept the workers in line and helped everyone organize their work days.)
  • Travis 4y

    And it told them when to harvest/plant. It was a very important role for the agriculturalist.

    The Old Testament is also thought to be wrought with references to other pagan deities. I've read that Esther (from the Book of Esther) and Mordecai (her uncle) are allusions to the Babylonian gods Ishtar and Marduk.
  • NickCimini 4y

    Hi Searcher, I'm presenting a paper at an academic conference at Birmingham University, in the UK, next week. Do you think I might be able to use this image as part of my presentation? It will of course be attributed appropriately as yours, and a link will be given to the original. The conference is on the Sociology of Religion and I will be discussed the science/religion debate as it relates to the new human biologies. It would be much appreciated! Cheers ~ Nick
265 faves
Taken on June 14, 2007
  • Show EXIF
This photo is in 4 albums
This photo is in 2 galleries

Additional info

  • Viewing this photo Public
  • Safety level of this photo Safe
  • S Search
    Photo navigation
    < > Thumbnail navigation
    Z Zoom
    B Back to context