Inkbunny

IB Gear Latest Popular Members Search
 
Welcome to Inkbunny...
Allowed ratings
To view member-only content, create an account. ( Hide )
SUMMER COAT
« older newer »
NPC Emotions
1 of 10 next end

Medium (920px wide max)
Wide - use max window width - scroll to see page ⇅
Fit all of image in window
set default image size: small | medium | wide
Download (new tab)
page 1
page 2
page 3
page 4
page 5
page 6
page 7
page 8
page 9
page 10
GLOBAL WARNING
+12
NPC Emotions
+5
GLOBAL WARNING
+12
NPC Emotions
+5
Show 1 More Pool...
SUMMER COAT
NPC Emotions
+5
The short answer is "nope, right-wing Christians were right again"
Keywords
male 1,159,364, mouse 52,423, transformation 40,988, fat 38,258, transgender 15,749, frog 8,362, fish 8,292, weight gain 6,298, eyelashes 3,269, stoat 2,237, science 2,221, ermine 836, transgender female 685, evolution 677, sabretooth 296, npc 191, caveman 118, neanderthal 25, stalactites 13, stalactite 11, big bang 5, pasteur 2, primordial ooze 1, pasteurization 1, pasteurized 1
Details
Type: Comic
Published: 3 years, 7 months ago
Rating: General
MD5 Hash for Page 1... Show Find Identical Posts [?]
Stats
167 views
2 favorites
26 comments
BBCode Tags Show [?]
 
26 Comments on this Submission
Leave a Comment...
alistair
alistair
3 years, 7 months ago
link
I believe your argument is subtly flawed; I also believe you have interacted with people like Mr. Greyface there, who don't know enough to put up a proper defense.  But that's by-the-by, and I'm not invested enough to actually get into it.

More interestingly, I did not know that about the evolution trial; it will not surprise me if true.  It'd be great if you provided some citations with your stuff, for the benefit of those of us who like learning new/corrected info and having the proper tools to spread the word.
UnstableSable
UnstableSable
3 years, 7 months ago
link
Here you go: https://conservapedia.com/Scopes_Trial#References
The body of the article itself is admitted (even in the URL) of having a conservative bias, but they cite their sources.

Funny thing, I remember this website being literally just a worse Wikipedia back in 2005 and 2006. How times have changed...
ShamanSquirrel
ShamanSquirrel
3 years, 7 months ago
link
These are some really great arguments! Now I think I'm a cdesign proponentsist*!

*Google that.
UnstableSable
UnstableSable
3 years, 7 months ago
link
Oh my, what an insightful comment that completely invalidates all my points! Hahaha, you got me, that insult is in no way a back-handed admission that you don't have a real argument.
MarcusKoopa
MarcusKoopa
3 years, 7 months ago
link
You're thinking too small. Evolution works by essentially taking an infinite amount of shotguns and an infinite amount of time to blast away at all the targets at once. Most of the pellets are going to miss. Some of the guns are going to blow up. Some are going to shoot each other. But since you're throwing a wall of lead at your targets, you're going to hit something. The gun that hits keeps firing while the others don't. You are taking an utterly INSANE amount of random chance and batshit insane solutions to get to one that mostly works.
UnstableSable
UnstableSable
3 years, 7 months ago
link
Except you're not trying to break apart a structure, but to build a shotgun factory, the number of shotguns isn't infinite, the number of shells isn't infinite, and the span of time isn't infinite.
MarcusKoopa
MarcusKoopa
3 years, 7 months ago
link
the shotguns are carbon. We have effectively infinite amounts of that. The shells are converted energy from heat... There is a giant ball of burning gas in the sky providing all the heat and light you could ever want. Time is effectively infinite until that giant sky ball goes red giant and vaporizes the planet. My Points all still stand.
UnstableSable
UnstableSable
3 years, 7 months ago
link
Actually no, none of them stand.

Starting from the last, "Time is effectively infinite" except that it isn't. The chances of even one random misfire of all the correct chemicals bumping themselves into each other to form a protein or an amino acid are so small that the entire head death of the universe even if we take the ridiculous time scales presumed in the mainstream academic circles at face value, starting from the big bang, it's not going to happen even once much less during the much smaller window between the formation of the sun and its expiration. You don't have infinite time just because you want infinite time, since any amount of time less than infinite means you need to take actual odds and probabilities into account.

The shotgun shells are converted energy from heat and heat comes from the sun? Congrats, shine all the light you want onto graphite or a diamond, it's not going to come alive. Too much direct energy causes damage to working, fully formed machinery - ever heard of cooking, sunburn, or heat stroke? It would also prevent the components of such a thing from self-assembling. Pouring energy into the chemicals doesn't make it come alive, and again Louis Pasteur disproved abiogenesis and proved adding heat to food sterilizes it...a slab of beef both before and after cooking has DNA, proteins, water, all the things you'd need for life to come into existence, but by adding energy to it we make it less alive.

The shotguns are the carbon in your analogy, not even the fully formed protein, DNA, or amino acids? No wonder you think you can start from infinite of them; thing is, carbon isn't going to just magically assemble itself into a working amoeba out of nowhere. You have a finite number of carbon atoms, a much smaller subset of which would be in a free state instead of combined with another mineral hindering life, an even smaller would be within the energy "sweet spot" if such could be found...

You do not have infinite shotguns, do not have infinite time, and are again trying to make bullets bump into each other to assemble into the factory that makes shotguns and shells, not tear down a wall. And you need another complex machine (a human hand) to pull the shotgun triggers and can't get your first shotgun until the random bullets have built your shotgun factory for you.
MarcusKoopa
MarcusKoopa
3 years, 7 months ago
link
If you wish to simply preach for deism, which is fine, why are you fighting evolution when there are MANY perfectly god shaped holes you can easily fill? "God did it!" makes a hell of a lot more sense than "The Big Bang".
UnstableSable
UnstableSable
3 years, 7 months ago
link
Edited 3 years, 7 months ago by Owner
Theism, not deism. Deism was a specific fad religion common in the Revolutionary War era. And I'm fighting evolution because it's transparently false and was pushed early on as part of the Long March Through the Institutions to undermine Christianity's place in the culture and make it easier to shift us towards totalitarian humanism. As demonstrated in my comic here:
https://inkbunny.net/s/2386134

Here's some helpful reading material.
https://creation.com/15-questions-for-evolutionists
https://creation.com/lifes-irreducible-structure-part-1...

I'm sure you'll dismiss it entirely out of hand because your mind is already made up that God doesn't real and sin isn't exist, and evolutionary myth is the only even remotely plausible-seeming alternative to that.
MarcusKoopa
MarcusKoopa
3 years, 7 months ago
link
Woah woah woah now. That was very knee jerk of you. I'm not a Christian.. mostly because I think the church was developed by man and incredibly corrupted over time, but I DO believe in God, thank you very much. I've also studied enough of biology, particularly microbiology and virology to understand how the processes set in motion work.
MarcusKoopa
MarcusKoopa
3 years, 7 months ago
link
You are making a lot of interesting assumptions. That the universe is bounded, that the time has a beginning point, that it has an end point, and that it's a closed system. We don't KNOW any of these things. HOWEVER, you are making the same mistake that caused Christianity to be slaughtered over the last 30 years. Instead of just saying "OK? That point no one can explain where everything kicked off? There. God." then you mic drop and walk off. Instead you're attacking the process that came later and we can observe NOW. There is NOTHING that stops evolution and a creator from existing at the same time.
UnstableSable
UnstableSable
3 years, 7 months ago
link
Edited 3 years, 7 months ago by Owner
You are making a lot of even more interesting assumptions.
- That a clearly finite, clearly physical thing like the universe somehow might actually be infinite
- That if your existing model clearly doesn't work, you can just say something like "Well actually time is cyclical instead of linear, end of the universe causes creation of a new universe" or "there are infinite parallels universes and this just happens to be one that made life, but if one can make life because there's infinite there's infinite earths with life" or "add some more zeroes to our time requirements until people stop asking questions about the base mechanisms at play"
- That Christians somehow lost the debates over the past 30 years instead of winning them handily time and again ( https://conservapedia.com/Creation_vs._evolution_debates )
- That the appearance of being right to the mainstream is more important than actually being factually correct
- That something we've never observed to happen even once (evolutionary mutations adding new information rather than just destroying existing information) is "settled science" that has been observed and is now canon and beyond speculation, reproach, or disagreement

Evolution and a creator can co-exist, but not the evolutionary model of the universe (billions of years between the start of creation and the existence of the Earth, sun existing before the Earth instead of Earth and plants existing before the sun, birds and fish coming into existence simultaneously and before land animals instead of fish first, then land animals, then birds) cannot be the method used by the loving, wise, and virtuous God of Christianity.
MarcusKoopa
MarcusKoopa
3 years, 7 months ago
link
... Hold on... I've found the problem. We're talking past each other. I'm not saying I agree with the evolutionary model of the universe. I'm simply saying that I believe evolution, the THING, exists. Nothing more, nothing less... well a bit more, I'm also describing in very base terms how it functions.
UnstableSable
UnstableSable
3 years, 7 months ago
link
"We're talking past each other" is a funny way to admit I've been running circles around all your arguments.

Any organism existing or adapting to its environment isn't "evolution" in the sense people argue against. The term "evolution" as pushed in schools, as I have argued against, and as master apologists have argued against is a large scale look at the structure of all life based on numerous faulty assumptions and extrapolations from the known existence of genetic variety within a given type of creature. Some people might specify the first, actually observable and provable phenomena as "micro-evolution" while calling the presumption that it has literally no limits and can somehow explain non-life transforming into living things "macro-evolution"; using the word "evolution" by itself to point out the first has been proven and thus the second is also demonstrably true is a false equivocation.

Claiming that any trait in an organism is the result of evolution is the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy - that is, the equivalent of shooting at a wall and then painting a bullseye around wherever your bullet landed.

And if you didn't want to argue against the existence of an intelligent designer outside of the universe creating life, why would you say "There are infinite shotguns shooting at a wall, those shotguns being carbon atoms and their shells being energy from the sun"? That sure sounds like a claim that completely material processes will somehow give rise to living organisms spontaneously, a centuries-past disproved postulation, the certain veracity of its falsehood again being the basis for standard practice in the food industry in all civilized countries right now.
MarcusKoopa
MarcusKoopa
3 years, 7 months ago
link
OKay.... I was nice. Look you fundie retard, you're destroying your own credibility by attacking shit I can, myself, prove in a lab. I get it, people tried to kill your god and you're hella pissed. Don't take it out on people who otherwise like your shit.
UnstableSable
UnstableSable
3 years, 7 months ago
link
" OKay.... I was nice.

<citation needed>

" Look you fundie retard

Oh, I've never been called this before! What a clever and witty way to describe my cognitive ability and religious beliefs! What an altogether novel and well thought-out response!

" you're destroying your own credibility by attacking shit I can, myself, prove in a lab.

If you could do this in a lab,
A) you'd be instantly made wealthy for finally "proving" what has hence been impossible to do and
B) only prove that under direct, intentionally controlled conditions can you sort right from left handed sugars and left from right handed amino acids or in other ways keep the "organic" carbon compounds, acids, and so forth from destroying each other on contact and make something living...following genetic code either fabricated in the laboratory by copying and pasting sequences from already existing organisms or just straight up using the genes of an organism that already exists

" I get it, people tried to kill your god and you're hella pissed.

People did kill my God, about 1990 years ago give or take. Nailed his arms and feet to a big wooden post with a heavy crossbeam he had to carry through a town after being whipped a bunch. He then came back to life, proving Himself master over both life and death, able to welcome the souls of those who choose to lay aside their selfish sins and follow Him into a perfect afterlife.

People have tried, and failed, to kill him again in a metaphorical sense constantly ever since. His Bride, the Church, only grows stronger under persecution.

" Don't take it out on people who otherwise like your shit.

I'm not the one who made this personal, and you finding amusement in my other comics has no bearing on whether or not I should make one you disagree with. I get it, someone attacked the foundation of your belief there isn't a God and you're quite peeved.
MarcusKoopa
MarcusKoopa
3 years, 7 months ago
link
... Ok, now your rage is adorable. And I already told you, I've got a god. It's just not yours.
MarcusKoopa
MarcusKoopa
3 years, 7 months ago
link
Also, what you describe in panel 4 IS evolution. You are applying a selection pressure, the antibiotics, to the species, the bacteria. Only mutants who can overcome that selection pressure will survive and continue onward. HOWEVER, when you describe it "going backwards" and the original strain of bacteria re surging, this is perfectly fitting and logical. You are removing the antibiotic, taking the selection pressure off of the bacteria. The ORIGINAL strain evolved as perfectly as it could for its environment and is superior to the antibiotic resistant strain at living in it. Now, were you to make the antibiotic a new permanent feature of the environment, the original strain would die completely and could not return to that environment. Given enough time you would create an entirely new species this way should other colonies of the same bacteria be allowed to live in a non-altered environment.
UnstableSable
UnstableSable
3 years, 7 months ago
link
Creationists don't deny the existence of genetic adaptation within a given kind of creature, just the absurd notion that a random scrambling of information (usually one that lessens overall information in the document) can possibly lead to positive overall changes across time. There was an original, healthy form of the bacteria and a specific weaker, unhealthy strain can outnumber it only if external pressures are applied to the healthier specimens, leading to an overall loss of genetic information.

There's no mechanic by which to add new information, only to select against features; natural selection and extinction work, but "advancing" or adding new features doesn't. The original version of the microbe would have been the strongest, with its descendants' mutations leading to later generations being overall weaker from a fixed starting point.
MarcusKoopa
MarcusKoopa
3 years, 7 months ago
link
Which would explain why all life on earth shares such a massive amount of genetic information. There was a single source that has been undergoing biological data drift ever since.
UnstableSable
UnstableSable
3 years, 7 months ago
link
Except some organisms have no possible way to come from a single line of ancestry, such as vertebrates to invertebrates, multicellular to single cell, birds reptiles or mammals to any of each other...

The creationist explanation is of course that a not insignificant amount of the genetic code is the operating system to read the data, to use a basic analogy.

All dogs, wolves, jackals, and coyotes having a shared common ancestor of some sort of super canine, possibly also shared with foxes? Entirely possible; all these smaller branches of the family tree would be various isolated mutant groups and, biologically speaking, ones that can't interbreed with each other (red foxes with wolves for instance) can rightly be classified as distinct species, which isn't the same thing as the Biblical use of "kinds" of animals.

Dogs sharing ancestors with cats though? Or armadillos? Or whales? That's pretty silly before we even get out of mammalia, these creatures all have vastly different structures at a meta level no matter how many features they share, especially as there is no mechanism to add NEW information to the genome, only to select AGAINST certain mutations. You start with a super dog, some of its descendants downgrade into wolves and others into domestic dogs, maybe some feature or another in the original version is lost forever in all branches of the family tree due to natural selection. Selection can side-grade and it can downgrade, but cannot upgrade.
Matimura
Matimura
3 years, 7 months ago
link
This is really uneducated and a fabricated argument specifically designed to make the other side look as stupid as possible while setting you up for the responses you want to say. This is some crazy wish fulfillment shower argument stuff where the other side doesn't get a say and let's you preach your point in the most pointed way possible.

10/10 subscribed for more content.
DiogenesShandor
DiogenesShandor
3 years, 1 month ago
link
Even if we were to take creationism as true, many christian denominations (and abrahamic faiths in general) teach that god is not bound by mortal time. Therefore there is nothing preventing him from having created the world in medias res.

To give a scriptural proof of concept of this, the Book Of Genesis depicts him as creating sunlight and the sun out of their proper causal order. He creates the daylight first, but doesn't go back and fill in the detail of where (from a temporal perspective) the light came from until day three
UnstableSable
UnstableSable
3 years ago
link
God created light first and created the sun and stars at a later time, yes, which only further solidifies that the Christian beliefs regarding God as the almighty author of the universe and the nonsense narrative of the universe gradually creating itself from nothing are completely incompatible.

God is outside of mortal time, so why would He specifically use the terms day, morning, and evening to refer to the time span and order in which He created things later? The usage of the word "day" could make sense figuratively, but not when combined with "morning and evening".

Anyone who claims God used evolution to create life, particularly if they believe things like the sun being created before the Earth or of land animals being created before birds, is a heretic. They can go on believing this way, but it's still heresy.
DiogenesShandor
DiogenesShandor
3 years, 1 month ago
link
Edited 3 years, 1 month ago by Owner
I said to myself concerning the sons of men, “God has surely tested them in order for them to see that they are but beasts.” For the fate of the sons of men and the fate of beasts is the same. As one dies so dies the other; indeed, they all have the same breath and there is no advantage for man over beast, for all is vanity. All go to the same place. All came from the dust and all return to the dust. Who knows whether the spirit of man goes upward and the spirit of the beast goes down into the earth? -Ecclesiastes 3:18-21
New Comment:
Move reply box to top ↑
Log in or create an account to comment.
 

Help

Information

Policy & Legal

Twitter Facebook LinkedIn

All artwork and other content is copyright its respective owners.

Powered by Harmony 'Gravitation' Release 80.

Content Server: Virginia Cache - provided by Inkbunny Donors. Background: Blank Gray.

The Inkbunny web application, artwork, name and logo are copyright and trademark of their respective owners.