Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login
Evolutionist vs Creationist by gatorvenom Evolutionist vs Creationist by gatorvenom
My take on the debate between evolutionists and creationists. Did this after reading [link] which explains why evolution is more guess-work than science. The most interesting point the article made was how fields of science like astronomers and archaeologists do not pay any attention to creationist ideas even though their work goes against creationist views. Other scientists have physical matter which they can actually perform real world scientific experiments on while evolutionists only have a theory and conjecture. And now we come to the heart of the matter. Evolutionists vs Creationists is not science vs religion; it's religion vs religion.

For the record, I'm a christian and I like science. Maybe someone should put that on a t-shirt. I have no interest in debating this issue. There are other places you can do that if you would like.


Update: The comic does not represent the views of any evolutionist or creationist and is not based on any facts what so ever. Evolution does not state how life began.
Add a Comment:
 
:iconmenollysagittaria:
MenollySagittaria Featured By Owner Dec 9, 2013  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Haha, this is hilarious!

As for the link, wow, the social sciences and psychology must give this guy heart palpitations. ;) It's all theoretical models and proposed frameworks. But what would we do without them? :)

If you like the hard sciences, good on you. Guess what? We cannot reproduce evolution to test it. We can't resurrect a dead species (well, we can, but on an extremely individual basis and natural selection as it operated was on large populations) and make a magic million-year-time-machine to make it breed and mutate while we observe, or re-create the environment it grew up in. A tiny sliver of fossils only ever get preserved. They have to go off less evidence than a decades old cold case murder mystery. Cut 'em some slack.

He needs to get the tight out of his wad and recognize that ecologists and biologists are working with a limited parameter here, one that grows increasingly narrow as species die off. Oh, and coming under attack by Christians and defending themselves is weird? Christians lay off astronomers nowadays, and they are intensely concerned with the origin of life because it's the origin of us. What if the proverbial bobcat has been abused by humans: wouldn't it be logical that if would try to tear you to pieces?

I agree that evolution does not explain how life got here, but think of the poor souls. They're probably jealous of how comparatively straightforward and demonstrable other science is.

By the way, "rapid" by punctual equilibrium standards is still incredibly, incredibly slow by every other measure. Each species has a different mutation rate. That we have reliably established.

For a few of the other specifics:

1. Can a mutation lead to an extra vertebrae? If you studied embryology, you'd know that the formation of the formation of the notochord and other pre-formations are open to changes in genes directing their development. Sure, looking at an adult animal it seems improbable, but that's the adult animal. If a gene can get rid of a dolphin's entire back limbs (we've found dolphins with vestigial ones) then what is the big deal in lengthening the spine? Taller peoples' spines are whole foots over shorter people's, but they're fine. The body adjusts its cellular structures accordingly, unless it's too much of a change for it to handle, and the mutation ends up negative. The body is not interlocking, rigid gears. It's flexible and adaptable in itself.

2. How does color vision evolve, if the chemistry of the eye and the brain have to adjust? Haha, that's a lot easier to swallow than the development of the eye itself from simply clumps of photosensitive cells, but okay, I'll bite. The brain, as you may or may not know, is adaptive, especially in the infantile stages of life. If neurons are getting a "new" message (a bit or the whole color spectrum, it doesn't matter) they will incorporate this information by forming different structures of dendrite webs. Simple. This animal now may have an advantage over its black and white experiencing neighbors.

3. The catepillar, I'm not sure of. I admit it's puzzling. But, if the author wants a guess, which he probably doesn't, seeing as he has a bias against the imagination which drives biological understanding, perhaps the cocoon began as a resting or hibernation state for the caterpillar. It wrapped itself to camoflage and protect from predators, then re-emerged and chowed down some more. The scales on a butterfly's wings allow it to absorb heat. Maybe that was their original purpose, before they evolved into actual wings. But, look at the abundance of larval stages of insects. Are you also going to take them each one by one and ask an expert how they got to their adult forms? That will take your whole lifetime, as they are like the most abundant land animal on the planet, so good luck.

4. The rapidity of human thought. If you study animal intelligence, you'd be less likely to say this was a "sudden" development so much as the next logical step. Why didn't it evolve earlier? Well gee, we had mass extinctions earlier. Else, velociraptors might be building some equivalent to the pyramids millions of years before this point in time. If he also lacks the imagination to realize that some advantages gained later became liability to other animals, therefore can't apply it to human circumstances, I can't do anything for him. Everything is a mix of advantage and disadvantage, including his own example of peacocks, which he correctly recognized the error of ascribing conscious thought to. Human breasts are proposed to attract mates also, since we have a relatively hidden ovulation, a negligible "in heat" cycle. Non-attraction to wide hips and waist is a narrow and specific cultural preference, not held in other parts or times of the world. Chubby females are and were sometimes considered beautiful and healthy, able to nurse and provide. Blatantly racist statements discounting the influence of environment on IQ won't get him anywhere except in the crossfire of hatred, either.

I'm not sure what he was trying to accomplish with this, besides one big long complain fest.
Reply
:icongatorvenom:
gatorvenom Featured By Owner Dec 9, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
All great points. I'm not sure why I leave this comic up on here after almost 4 years, but it's always nice to be reminded how much of an idiot I was and likely still am. I've since given up on most of my previous opinions on religion, politics, and economics.

I just like to draw now. That's all I really know.
Reply
:iconmike-the-cat:
Mike-the-cat Featured By Owner Nov 29, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
I'm religious, and a conservative, but I side with evolution.
Reply
:icongatorvenom:
gatorvenom Featured By Owner Nov 30, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
I used to be all those as well. Evolution is just change over time. Change has been the only constant in my religious and political views.
Reply
:iconynot1989:
YNot1989 Featured By Owner Nov 25, 2010  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Evolution does not suppose how life began, only how it has changed. The theory that life formed spontaniously (which we can replicate to some degree in the lab) is the theory of abiogenesis, which most of the scientific community will admit, while probable, may not have been the way life arose on Earth. There is a lot of evidence for Panspermia (also testable to some degree in the lab) as well.
Reply
:icongatorvenom:
gatorvenom Featured By Owner Dec 2, 2010  Hobbyist Digital Artist
You're late to the show but thanks for the comments.
Reply
:icontetrigon:
Tetrigon Featured By Owner Sep 8, 2011
Maybe you could just change the title to Abiogenisist vs Creationist. It would make sense then.
Reply
:icongatorvenom:
gatorvenom Featured By Owner Sep 8, 2011  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Had I been more knowledgeable about the topic, that would have been perfect. Thanks for the informed comment.
Reply
:icontetrigon:
Tetrigon Featured By Owner Sep 8, 2011
You're welcome.:)
Reply
:iconaravelle:
Aravelle Featured By Owner Sep 6, 2010
I just read the comic, and all the comments. Your views are marvelous, I like the way you look at things. :3
Reply
:icongatorvenom:
gatorvenom Featured By Owner Sep 6, 2010  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Thanks. I'm glad you think so, but I consider these comments some of my most embarrassing. I got way too caught up in trying to win the argument rather than simply conceding where I was ignorant and informing where I could. Live and learn.

Thanks for the fav on the other deviation as well. Appreciate it.
Reply
:iconaravelle:
Aravelle Featured By Owner Sep 6, 2010
Yeap, and I'm glad you learned.

You're welcome C:
Reply
:icon3819352:
3819352 Featured By Owner Aug 22, 2010   Photographer
That's an interesting idea.
Reply
:iconrosutu:
rosutu Featured By Owner May 27, 2010
I'd say something about this (i.e. evolution didn't say how life began, that's abiogenesis), but I won't.
Reply
:icongatorvenom:
gatorvenom Featured By Owner May 27, 2010  Hobbyist Digital Artist
You just did and many have said it. That's why the comments are crossed out. I simply didn't know but was enlightened by many.
Reply
:iconrosutu:
rosutu Featured By Owner May 27, 2010
Well, I'm glad that at least one person's been enlightened on the "controversy", as it were.
Reply
:iconnickjohnmon:
nickjohnmon Featured By Owner May 5, 2010
Evolution is not supposed to explain how life began. That's abiogenesis. Evolution explains how life diversifies. It's also based on science: Industrial Melanism, Dog Breeding, and others of the sort are all forms of evolution, just human induced. nature does it on longer time scales.
Reply
:iconlightlybow:
LightlyBow Featured By Owner Mar 31, 2010  Student
And then there are people like me, who believe in both: I believe that evolution was God's way of getting us here the way we are. Science and religion don't have to disprove each other when they can work so well together.

Don't listen to these guys- I thought the comic was funny.
Reply
:icongatorvenom:
gatorvenom Featured By Owner Apr 1, 2010  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Hurray!!! Someone that figured out the comic is supposed to be humorous. Thank you for not being overly PC. Appreciate it.
Reply
:iconmarsmar:
Marsmar Featured By Owner Feb 1, 2010
Your comic isn't accurate. Scientists don't know exactly how life started and they certainly don't say the universe came from nothing. Only creationists believe that.
"o not pay any attention to creationist ideas even though their work goes against creationist views"
They don't pay attention to creationists when they say "GODDIDIT". It's unscientific and has no evidence to support it. If a creationist happens to be working in astronomy and discovers a new planet, people will pay attention. When they try to say the big bang is false and don't support their claim with evidence, scientists ignore it.

"while evolutionists only have a theory and conjecture"
Yeah, just a theory. Much like gravity, heliocentrism, the germ theory, the atomic theory and the music theory. Lrn 2 identify scientific theories.

"Evolutionists vs Creationists is not science vs religion; it's religion vs religion."
Give me one way evolution is a religion and I'll refute it. Evolution isn't a religion like heliocentrism isn't a religion. It has FACTS. From DNA to the transitional fossils.

"I'm a christian and I like science."
Apparently not seeing that you make horrid misrepresentations of science and scientists. Here, I'll correct it.
'I'm christian and I don't understand the evolution theory and I believe GODDIDIT because science it too hard'.
Reply
:icongatorvenom:
gatorvenom Featured By Owner Feb 1, 2010  Hobbyist Digital Artist
One way evolution is a religion: It has religious followers scouring the internet looking for people that are casting doubt on their cause. Refute that you self righteous shit head. You remind me of a self righteous bible thumper that would tell me I'm going to hell for being a sinner. Both believe they are right and are completely close-minded and that was the point the comic was making.

I would have been a little more careful with my words if I had known the evolutionist police were going to critique every one of them.

Me saying evolution is "just a theory" was way off base, but you have to admit it ain't like astronomy with hard measurements. But your right, it is scientific and based on logical conclusions. Yet, you lack to understand the point of the comic. It is poking fun at both sides. Even an evolutionist is going to say life started from mud or something. So something that had no life is going to suddenly have life. I would call that a "Poof, there is life" moment. Creationists base there views on faith. So why do evolutionists even pick a fight with them?

Here, let me correct your comment: "I'm an evolutionist. I am above you and I'm going to tell you about it. Oh yeah, there is no God cuz I said so." Hey man, go ahead and believe it. I'm not stopping you. Your faith that evolution proves God does not exist is inspiring. I happen to be neither a creationist nor an evolutionist. I believe from the evidence that evolution is quite possible. You know, like gravity. But I am not a cult-like follower of "the cause" of evolution as you clearly are. I also believe in God, but again, I'm not going to try and stuff that down people's throats either.

The comic is making fun of the whole debate between the two sides. From your comments, I would say you guys need a little humor.
Reply
:icongatorvenom:
gatorvenom Featured By Owner Feb 1, 2010  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Sorry, I was ranting. But the comic is not about scientists or even evolutionists or creationists. It's about the followers of those groups that believe their theory or beliefs negate the others. Each group has some radicals.
Reply
:iconmarsmar:
Marsmar Featured By Owner Feb 1, 2010
"It has religious followers scouring the internet looking for people that are casting doubt on their cause."
What, people who make obvious lies/ misinterpretation about it? If I correct a flat earthier, does that make the idea of a round earth a religion or does is mean that he misrepresented science!

"You remind me of a self righteous bible thumper that would tell me I'm going to hell for being a sinner. Both believe they are right and are completely close-minded and that was the point the comic was making."
Both think they are right, one has the evidence. [link]

"
Me saying evolution is "just a theory" was way off base, but you have to admit it ain't like astronomy with hard measurements. But your right, it is scientific and based on logical conclusions"
At least it has been observed: [link]

"Even an evolutionist is going to say life started from mud or something."
Sorry, that's creationism. God made Adam from Dirt. As I said, we don't know the exact origin of life but filling in the gaps with GODDIDIT isn't going to help.

"So why do evolutionists even pick a fight with them?"
because creationists want their faith taught as fact in science classes. They have no evidence, no observed or tested cases of creation unlike evolution.

"I'm an evolutionist. I am above you and I'm going to tell you about it."
In scientific literacy yes.

"here is no God cuz I said so"
While I don't believe that there's a God, I never said that there was absolutely no God. I said there isn't any evidence for one.

"But I am not a cult-like follower of "the cause" of evolution as you clearly are."
So, correcting misrepresentations of science is now a cult. I guess all high school teachers who have to correct people's assignments on science are also in cults.

"I also believe in God, but again, I'm not going to try and stuff that down people's throats either"
and I don't give a crap. It's just the fact that you misrepresent good science is what bugs me.
Reply
:icongatorvenom:
gatorvenom Featured By Owner Feb 1, 2010  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Great for you buddy. I'm glad you rode in on your scientific high horse to rescue the cause of good science that the above comic has so heinously misrepresented. I'm sure many would have read it and changed their minds about evolution because it clearly has tons of scientific merit.

It's a freakin comic. No one cares.
Reply
:iconmarsmar:
Marsmar Featured By Owner Feb 1, 2010
I sensing butthurt. I was pointing out your flaws in your comic and the artists comments (or was that a joke too?). Face it, when you post something controversial, stuff like this happens. IF you can't figure that out, then don't post comics.
Reply
:icongatorvenom:
gatorvenom Featured By Owner Feb 1, 2010  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Point taken. Edited the artist comments.
Reply
:icontbtabby:
TBTabby Featured By Owner Feb 1, 2010
That site is creationist propaganda. The Cretinists know they have no evidence whatsoever for their faith-based claims, so they try to claim that the REAL scientists don't have any evidence either and pretend they're on equal footing.

The theory of evolution doesn't say that all life came from nothing. In fact, it doesn't say ANYTHING about where life came from, because it's not supposed to. The theory of evolution describes the FACT of evolution, which is that species change over time in adaption to their environment. And there is OVERWHELMING evidence for evolution, from the mountains of fossils showing a clear transition from earlier ancestors, to the genetic markers showing evidence of common ancestry and giving a clear time frame in how long it took. At this point, the theory of evolution has more evidence supporting it than the theory of gravity.

The origin of the universe is covered by the Big Bang theory, which is a whole other field of science from evolution. And yeah, we've got evidence for that too, such as the extrapolation of the paths of celestial bodies back through time to a singularity.

The origins of life are covered by abiogenesis, which is (again) separate from the theory of evolution. It's a newer theory, so it's not as structured as evolution or the big bang, but research is ongoing with several plausible hypotheses that DON'T requiring chalking it all up to magic.

Wanna know what the "evolutionists" are ACTUALLY saying about our origins, and the evidence for it? There's plenty of sources freely available to all if you're willing to Google it, but I'd recommend starting with this YouTube playlist:

[link]
Reply
:icongatorvenom:
gatorvenom Featured By Owner Feb 1, 2010  Hobbyist Digital Artist
You have inspired me to make a response in comic form. It is here [link]

I think you missed the point of the comic. Let me give you an example. Let's say an archeologist discovers a bone and through carbon dating he determines that it is a million years old. The archeologist will likely say something like this, "Hey, I found a bone and through carbon dating, I have determined it is a million years old." Notice anything missing? Most archeologists will not follow that up with, "and this proves that the bible is wrong and therefore God is not real."

Evolutionists have hard-ons for believing that their theory proves God does not exist. Science will never "prove" God does not exist because they are not at odds with one another. Maybe some day man will create life from dirt and know everything there is to know and yet the question will persist, "Where did it all start?"

Why do evolutionists insist on this retarded grudge with religion. Just do the scientific work and forget the rest.

As far as the video link you posted, it has lots of good info, but why does it have all the stuff about religion and god in it? I have watched a ton of science shows and they usually just explain the science rather then using it as a talking point to discount religion. The article I linked to was unbiased in my view. The author was neither a creationist or evolutionist and his points were not pot-shots aimed at evolution, but legitimate points. The video you linked to was clearly biased as it repeatedly has a God-like image popping out and sprinkling magic and the narrator is continuously derogatory towards religion. As I watched it, I was interested in the science stuff, but completely turned off by the dumb religious junk. I hate that video as much as I hate late night televangelists trying to use religion to get peoples money.

I am not a creationist or an evolutionist. I do not give a rats ass about the argument between the two. I was simply making an observation about the whole debate. Also your video does say that evolution thinks life started from nothing. Mud is lifeless. To say life came from mud is like saying "Life just started one day. Poof." So, essentially, creationists and evolutionists both think that life started from nothing. Either way, I don't care.
Reply
:icongatorvenom:
gatorvenom Featured By Owner Feb 1, 2010  Hobbyist Digital Artist
The link to my comic in response is broken above. I will try again [link]
Reply
Add a Comment:
 
×
Download JPG 1500 × 462

Featured in Collections

Politics ethics religion by Mike-the-cat




Details

Submitted on
January 29, 2010
Image Size
239 KB
Resolution
1500×462
Link
Thumb
Embed

Stats

Views
1,821 (4 today)
Favourites
17 (who?)
Comments
29
Downloads
255
×