Tatsuya Ishida reads my mind


It’s true. This is pretty much how I start my day, every day.

i-33e0a543a0deb00ef891fa899cfe6080-kill_god.gif

What is that little junior assistant Satan’s name, anyway? I bet it’s nothing as cool as PHARYNGULA, THE HARVESTER OF STILLBORN SOULS!”.

Comments

  1. Fareed Qureshi says

    I haven’t read Sinfest in a very long time, but I always thought the little guy’s name was “Lil’ Evil.” Not as intimidating as “PHARYNGULA, THE HARVESTER OF STILLBORN SOULS” perhaps, but he’s got his heart in the right place.

  2. mojojojo says

    So when is Darwin going to get his superhero props?

    I can see him now as his alter ego Evo Man, all muscled up and wearing tights with a big E on his chest, with his faithful sidekick Nat Selection (Alfred R Wallace in disguise) beside him. Together they will fight their nemeses Wanton Ignorance and Persistent Superstition using the power of the Invisible Hand! Oh…it’s gonna be a royal battle…

  3. says

    He doesn’t have a name. He’s sometimes referred to as ‘fanboy’, but Seymour (God’s fanboy) is also called ‘fanboy’ from time to time.

  4. Mats says

    PZ,
    Thanks for agreeing with Answers in Genesis in saying that, wherever Darwin is dominant, Christianity is moribund or dead. I hope you forward this to Ken Miller, the “Catholic”.

  5. Day says

    Darwin has been depicted as a superhero/supervillian by Reuben Bolling, creator of the comic ‘Tom the Dancing Bug’. In at least strip he’s used his super-powers of reason against the ‘protagonist’, God-man.

  6. Brian W. says

    I don’t see how Darwin’s book could be considered the “Deadliest Weapon In All Christendom”. Not when so many Christians are just completely ignoring it.

  7. Kseniya says

    Actually, I have the deadliest weapon is right here. Between my ears. You, gentle reader, have one too, between your ears. As do you, and you, and you! Even you, Mats!

  8. Jayson says

    The “and the truth shall set you free” bible passage should be listed as the definition of irony.

  9. Mats says

    Actually, I have the deadliest weapon is right here. Between my ears. You, gentle reader, have one too, between your ears. As do you, and you, and you! Even you, Mats!
    Posted by: Kseniya

    Oh yeah, I have heard about that. These guys had one of those, and it didn’t seem to affect their religious belief one bit. I guess yours must have sone “junk” (evolutionary “leftovers”).

  10. Wolfhound says

    I know I’m just feeding the troll so please forgive me but I feel compelled to ask: Mats, you come trolling here WHY, exactly? I suppose the power of Christ compels you, right? I would ask what purpose you serve but illustrating the idiot Fundie mindset might actually be of use to some. So, my first reaction to you (Fuck off!) has evolved (!!) into a bit of gratitude for giving us some entertaining tard. And you’re an absolute jewel although not as good, quality-wise, as The Champion over at Dawkins.

  11. Ichthyic says

    uh, since they didn’t actually scientifically test any idea of creationism, but rather were just scientists that also happened to be religious, I’ve always wondered why on earth idiots like yourself, mats, chose to call them

    THE WORLD’S GREATEST CREATION SCIENTISTS

    it’s just such an oxymoron, don’t you think?

  12. Ichthyic says

    I suppose the power of Christ compels you, right?

    well, that would explain my desire to twist my head around and barf when I see him post.

  13. Wolfhound says

    “well, that would explain my desire to twist my head around and barf when I see him post.”

    < *wipes Pepsi off of monitor*>

  14. woozy says

    Actually, I have the deadliest weapon is right here. Between my ears. You, gentle reader, have one too, between your ears. As do you, and you, and you! Even you, Mats! Posted by: Kseniya

    Oh yeah, I have heard about that. These guys had one of those, and it didn’t seem to affect their religious belief one bit.

    Well, if they only had one to go around, I suppose they spent more time quibbling who gets to use which part on what days then evaluating their beliefs. It’s very hard to get any serious research done when you can only schedule the frontal lobe for twenty minutes Saturday night at a time your academic rival has reserve the memory center and refuses to share.

    Sorry, couldn’t resist.

  15. Wolfhound says

    Odd… comment did not show up, just quote.

    Back to wiping the Pepsi off my monitor after reading your reply, Icky. ;)

  16. Ichthyic says

    thanks. It’s the humor on these blogs that makes the creationists not completely boring.

    there’s only so many times you can hear yourself called an “evil materialist darwinist atheist egocentric ivory-tower living enemy of Gawd” by some tub-thumping god-botherer before you feel like pulling your hair out from the monotony.

  17. tony says

    Ichthyic @31
    you forgot
    “murderous, philandering, lying, …”

    oh wait — that’s the Xians!

    Sorry… 8)

  18. woozy says

    These guys had one of those, and it didn’t seem to affect their religious belief one bit.

    The monk whose gene laws Darwinists had to obey

    Oh, my god! That’s classic!!!

    Um, doesn’t it occur to you that by discoverying the laws of genetics, he provided the mechanics of how traits are inherited, a question Darwin couldn’t answer and consider a weekness in his theory of natural selection, that Mendel strengthened the case for natural selection.

    uh, since they didn’t actually scientifically test any idea of creationism, but rather were just scientists that also happened to be religious, … why … call them “THE WORLD’S GREATEST CREATION SCIENTISTS”

    Indeed, Ichthyic.

    And why isn’t Charles Darwin on this list? As the son of a minister he had pretty conservative religious views for the time. He studied nature to understand the creators laws and methods. His observations led to his origins of species but did significantly lesson his beliefs. It was the world wide criticism that his theory of natural selction that he noticed a creator (of individual species) did not appear to be evident. True his religious conviction waned but I don’t think he ever abandoned his faith.

    Okay, I wouldn’t call Darwin a “CREATION SCIENTIST” but if your criterion is only scientists or astronauts or people vaguely associated with technology who are somewhat religious, he certainly belongs there just as much as Galileo, Francis Bacon, Kepler, Pascal, Newton (who didn’t believe in the divinity of Jesus, BTW), Maxwell, George Washington Carver (“Carver affirmed his belief that God had created man directly, but allowed for some transitional forms God might have made between other species. Another source quotes him as describing a plant having existed for millions of years. We must remember, however, that voices for a Biblical doctrine of creation were few and weak during the early twentieth century”. Jesus! You guys will stretch for anything to put people in your camp, won’t you?), Werner von Braun (a physist, not a biologist nor a cosmologist… and I can’t help digressing to this quote from the page: “Himmler’s awarding von Braun an honorary rank in the SS no more made him a Nazi than awarding Martin Luther King an honorary membership in the KKK would make him a white supremacist” except that it is utter inconcievable that the KKK would ever make MLK an honorary member as it is inconcievable the SS would give honorary membership to a vocal opponent of Nazism as MLK was a vocal opponent to racism, and if by some bizzare circumstance the KKK had made MLK an honorary member, we can be damned sure MLK would have rejected it, vocalized against it, and continue to decry the KKK’s immorality), or James Irwin (??? an astronaut??? since when are astronauts scientists?)

  19. Graculus says

    True his religious conviction waned but I don’t think he ever abandoned his faith.

    And this is a damnable doctrine

    He was an agnostic.

    That’s pretty much an abandonment.

  20. woozy says

    “He was an agnostic.

    That’s pretty much an abandonment.”

    Not as much as if he had become an atheist!

    My point being that if http://www.creationsafaris.com/wgcs_toc.htm can claim Galileo (not to mention Isaac Newton, and George Washington Carver and Louis Pasteur) as “Creation Scientists”, then surely, Charles Darwin just as easily fits into the category as a “creation scientist”. The only criteria seem to be a) The are loosely connected with science b) at some time in their life they were religious whether or not that was at the time they made scientific advances or not nor whether their religious beliefs had any reflection in their scientific work. Surely Charles Darwin satisfies both. He even satisfies them more strongly then noted “creation scientists” such as Isaac Newton or Werner von Braun.

    Has any one read http://www.creationsafaris.com/wgcs_toc.htm? It is truly amazing? It is so chock full of misconceptions it is impossible to no where to begin to argue or how to argue.

    Listen to some of this!

    About Mendel:
    Mendel believed that the laws of genetics he deduced just seven years after Darwin’s Origin of Species was published posed a serious challenge to the theory of “transformism” (that one species can be transformed into another)….Darwin’s theory demanded that variations be heritable, and that traits be fluid enough to evolve so that they could be acted on by natural selection. If the traits remain unchanged, like the colored marbles, how could new variation arise? Each generation would just get a different ratio of static, unchanging characteristics…In 1901, Hugo De Vries, among others, found Mendel’s paper and was immediately impressed. He shared it with a number of important biologists. He seemed to realize, also, that it posed a challenge to Darwin’s theory of natural selection, by ostensibly not providing the variation needed on which selection could act.

    About Pasteur:
    One of his early discoveries still baffles evolutionists today. While studying crystals under polarized light, he found that certain molecules come in left- and right-handed forms that are mirror-images of each other, a phenomenon now known as chirality.

    Chirality is a hurdle to the theory of evolution?????

    The other obstacle Pasteur raised to evolution was his law of biogenesis, the principle that only life begets life.

    Yup, we evolutionists are such strong spontaneous generation advocates…

    Today, believers in spontaneous generation are back with a vengeance. They are called astrobiologists and chemical evolutionists.

    Um, and let’s not forget creationists, who believe life arose from life not just once but thousands of time as God created each species of animals.

    … Their slant is that spontaneous generation does not happen quickly, but can over millions of years, not from nutrient broth, but from primordial soup- organic molecules known to be formed naturally, like some amino acids. They believe that, given enough time and the right circumstances, life arose from simple molecules and evolved into every living thing, seahorses, giraffes, dinosaurs, roses, and humans. Do they have any evidence for this? Absolutely not.

    Uh, the fact that life exists *now* and it didn’t 4 1/2 billion years ago is evidence. It was an extreme circumstance and happens rarely but, appearantly did happen.

    Pasteur’s Law of Biogenesis, that only life begets life, stands as firm as it did in 1862.

    Uh, and ….?
    We may not know exactly how Pasteur would respond to today’s evolutionists and astrobiologists, but most likely he would not be impressed by “illusions, of ill-conducted experiments, blighted with errors that they have either been unable to perceive or unable to avoid.” Pasteur was a stickler for scientific proof and intellectual honesty.

    And he used scientific proof and intellectual honesty to proport creationsim how…?

    “The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the works of the Creator.” Despite the evolution that permeates today’s Pasteur Institute, evolutionists cannot claim Louis Pasteur as their own. We think he would be pleased at the progress in medicine but appalled at the evolutionary mindset.”

    “He said, “My philosophy comes from the heart and not from the intellect, and I adhere to that which is inspired by the natural eternal sentiments one feels at the sickbed of a beloved child breathing his last. Something deep in our soul tells us that the universe is more than an arrangement of certain compounds in a mechanical equilibrium, arisen from the chaos of elements by a gradual action of Nature’s forces” (Vallery-Radot, p. 157). This is a clear rejection of Darwinian naturalism.

    and yet he directly contradicts this with

    A maxim he liked to quote was, “It is the worst aberration of the mind to believe things because one wishes them to be so.” Prove it, he demanded. Much of modern science in the 21st century, unfortunately, rests on unproveable assumptions, unobservable causes, and wishful thinking.

    And what, other than wishful thinking, does creationism rest upon? “I believe it because the Bible says it is so”. Well, Prove it demands Pasteur.

    “Was Pasteur a born-again Christian? His son-in-law said that “he believed in the divine impulse which has created the Universe; with the yearnings of his heart he proclaimed the immortality of the soul.” His grandson said, “Pasteur respected the religion of his forefathers; he had profound Christian ideals, but he was not, as has been asserted, an observant Catholic” (Vallery-Radot, p. 159). John Hudson Tiner claims Pasteur “had devotions each morning, read the Bible and prayed before going about each day’s activity” (History of Medicine, p. 84). Henry Morris quotes him as saying, “Could I but know all, I would have the faith of a Breton peasant woman” (Men of Science, Men of God, p. 62). In some quotes Pasteur sounds mystical or indefinite in his concept of God, portraying Him as an Infinity that might be embodied in various religions. We know, however, that people grow in faith and understanding at different times in their lives, so one quote might not fairly characterize the lifetime. Tiner quotes his son-in-law as stating that at the end, “The virtues of the gospel were very present to him. He came to his Christian faith simply and naturally for spiritual help in the last stages of his life” (Founder of Modern Medicine, p. 175). Clearly he was not a materialist, but it’s hard to say for sure if Pasteur fully understood and accepted the gospel of Jesus Christ in its New Testament sense. Jesus did say that you will know men by their fruits, and Christian values and character traits were evident throughout his life. If nothing else, Pasteur stood squarely in the tradition of Boyle, Newton and Maxwell in seeing science as a godly calling for the worship of the Creator and the betterment of mankind. The fruits of the Christian world view in science were ripe and sweet in the life of Louis Pasteur, and we are all the better for it. Remember this great scientist whenever you open your refrigerator and pour from a container that says, pasteurized.”

    Good Lord! The creationists will stretch at anything to claim folks as their own!

    … and it just goes on and on like that forever…

    The early hopes of the Darwinians should have died in their tracks with discoveries of Pasteur and Mendel. Unfortunately, evolutionists persist in thinking that unguided natural forces can surmount these obstacles.