A REASONABLE CASE
A discussion about religion, reality and reason
INTRODUCTION (EVOLUTION) Page 3
27th Oct 2013, 11:04 AM
INTRODUCTION, Page 1
INTRODUCTION (GROUND RULES) Page 2
INTRODUCTION (EVOLUTION) Page 3
COINCIDENCE ONE--Page 1
COINCIDENCE ONE, Page 2
COINCIDENCE ONE, Page 3 (The Briefness of Beryllium)
COINCIDENCE ONE, Page 4 (Remarkable Resonances)
COINCIDENCE ONE, Page 5 (GOLDILOCKS AND THE JUST-RIGHT RESONANCES)
COINCIDENCE ONE, Page 6 (Eliminating Aliens)
COINCIDENCE ONE, Page Seven (Qualifications and Updates)
COINCIDENCE TWO (The Setup)
COINCIDENCE TWO, Page 2 (The Ghostly particles)
COINCIDENCE TWO, Page 3 (Cooking a Supernova)
COINCIDENCE TWO, Page Four (Made Perfect in Weakness)
COINCIDENCE THREE (A Weak Grasp of Timing)
A WEAK CASE FOR A WEAKLESS UNIVERSE
COINCIDENCE FOUR: HOW STRONG A CASE?
COINCIDENCE FIVE, Page One: Two-Dimensional Characters
COINCIDENCE FIVE, Page 2: HIGHER DIMENSION DILEMMA
PAUSE FOR REFLECTION: WAP, SAP, FAP, PAP And CRAP
SETUP FOR COINCIDENCE SIX AND SEVEN
COINCIDENCE SIX: 1/1836 IS YOUR LUCKY NUMBER.
COINCIDENCE SEVEN--You'll Get a Charge Out of This.
OBJECTION ONE: The Size of the Universe
COINCIDENCE EIGHT: Neutron-Proton Mass Difference, or Sometimes it doesn't pay to be Neutral
COINCIDENCE NINE: ANTIMATTER ANGST AND ANOMALIES
OBJECTION TWO: THE PUDDLE IN THE DESERT
COINCIDENCE TEN: A FINE LINE, or THE ALPHA FAIL
COINCIDENCE ELEVEN: EXPANDING CONSTANTLY, PART ONE
COINCIDENCE ELEVEN: EXPANDING CONSTANTLY, PART TWO
COINCIDENCE TWELVE: QUANTUM OF SCIENCE or SOMETIMES BOHR-ING IS GOOD
THE PHILOSOPHER'S FIRING SQUAD
SIX COINCIDENCE CAUSES
EXPLANATION ONE: TAKE A CHANCE
EXPLANATION TWO: HIGH PROBABILITY---POSSIBLY
EXPLANATION THREE: NECESSITY IS THE MOTHER OF...CREATION?
EXPLANATION FOUR: UNIVERSES ENSEMBLE! (Or--Multiple Choice!)
EXPLANATION FOUR: UNIVERSALITY IN SPACE: BEYOND THE FIELDS WE KNOW
EXPLANATION FOUR: UNIVERSALITY IN TIME: DEJA VIEW
EXPLANATION FOUR: UNIVERSALITY IN MANY-WORLDS: PROLOGUE (IMPOSSIBLE BUT TRUE)
EXPLANATION FOUR: UNIVERSALITY IN MANY-WORLDS: INTERPRETING THEIMPOSSIBLE
EXPLANATION FOUR: UNIVERSALITY IN MANY-WORLDS: HAVING YOUR CAKE AND EATING IT TOO.
EXPLANATION FOUR: UNIVERSALITY IN MODAL REALISM: DOES EVERYTHING POSSIBLE EXIST...SOMEWHERE?
EXPLANATION FOUR: ENSEMBLES: AN OVERVIEW
EXPLANATION FIVE: SMOLIN'S SELECTION
EXPLANATION SIX: THINKING CREATIVELY OR REWINDING THE WATCHMAKER
EXPLANATION SIX: THINKING CREATIVELY: APPROACHES AND LIMITS
EXPLANATION SIX: SOMEONE ELSE'S LAB EXPERIMENT
EXPLANATION SIX: SOME IMPLICATIONS
CHOOSING AMONG THE EXPLANATIONS
TORNADO IN JUNK SCIENCE
THE PROBLEM OF EVIL (PROLOGUE)
THE PROBLEM OF VALUES
EXISTENTIAL CRISIS IN EXISTENCE
SOCIOBIOLOGY'S SHORTCOMINGS, PART ONE
SOCIOBIOLOGY'S SHORTCOMINGS, PART TWO
SOCIAL RELATIVISM ISN'T RELEVANT, PART ONE
SOCIAL RELATIVISM ISN'T RELEVANT, PART TWO
IMPLICATIONS AND SUGGESTIVE CLUES
ARROGANCE AND FAITH
DO AS I SAY, NOT AS I DO
SPECIAL CLAIMS, SPECIFIC EVIDENCE
VOICES AND PRESENCES
(A) PURPOSE FOR THE UNIVERSE
AN ORDERED UNIVERSE--MADE TO ORDER?
FREE MINDS AND FREE WILL
THE PROVIDENT REALITY AND THE EQUALITY OF RAIN
THE HIDDEN NATURE OF THE CREATOR
THE POSSIBILITY OF REVELATION
Rate this comic
27th Oct 2013, 11:04 AM
Actually, it's not true that the Bible teaches God can do everything. According to the Bible--He cannot lie.
For those who follow the Judeo-Christian tradition:
Numbers 23:19. "God is not a man, that he should lie"
Hebrews 6:18. "It was impossible for God to lie"
Titus 1:2. "God, that cannot lie"
So what would ten thousand fossils of beings who never existed in the ground be---but a lie? Like someone planting false evidence, in hopes of deceiving others?
So what is Genesis? To believers, it can be read as a parable, meant to convey spiritual truths, but not meant to be a scientific truth.
Stephen King tells a story, and it's not a lie; it's a story meant to convey a truthful meaning by means of illustration. That's far different from Stephen King planting physical evidence to mislead people into thinking something happened that didn't.
Maybe you think the Creator had nothing better to do than plant red herrings throughout strata of a world that never existed. (Not my analogy; I'm trying to find the original quote.) Most of us realize the absurdity of same.
Or the absurdity of fossil records for humankind being "deleted" from the fossil record for hundreds of millions of year.
4th Aug 2014, 7:47 AM
actually creationists believe in short term evolution, which is what is described in the comic. long term evolution is a rapid and massive change in an animal, short term evolution is gradual and minor changes in an animal. fossil records lack the amount of transitionary remains from animal form to another for the evolutionary process to be the same phenomena. the scope of change has not been observed to prove long term evolution, the connection to short term evolution is theoretical (which requires faith of sorts).
11th Jan 2015, 5:42 PM
Actually there is one massive peace of evidence to supoort 'long term evolution' (I think what you meant is macro evolution) and that is that you can take a DNA sample from any two organisms and they will share some genetic code.
For instance, humans share about a third of our DNA with trees. What more do you need to prove that both trees and humans are descended from the same organism?
TVs Mr. Neil
9th Sep 2017, 7:11 PM
Boy am I jumping in late on this one. I don't think I've ever commented on this comic before, but I was thumbing around the Comic Fury and... ah, what the heck.
Yeah, genetic similarity between species is probably the strongest case for evolution. It's not merely that we share so much. It's WHAT we share.
The fusion of our second chromosome is literally something that shouldn't even exist in a creationist worldview, and yet there it is, connecting us to our primate cousins and ancestors. It's pretty much an over-the-fence home run for science.
It's just kind of asinine at this point to draw a line between micro evolution and macro evolution. These aren't things. There's only one kind of evolution.
Actually, if I could offer one teensy criticism, I think panel three is kind of an appeal to popularity. I understand the point is that these "critics" of evolution are out of touch, but it doesn't make a case for anything.
Post a Comment