"Primal Man?"
http://www.chick.com/catalog/comics/0106.asp
Your thoughts?
2007-02-18 07:23:29 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
what a joke.
They site NO sources, they provide NO links, they discuss NO scientific opinions, they site NO scientific studies to support their claims....this cartoon is garbage. This is a PERFECT example of how "creationism" is taught. It falsely labels and stereotypes those that believe in evolution (the professor), and then makes someone appear "Christ-like" in their refusal to accept the theory of evolution and learn about science. If they really want to refute evolution, they will do so in an INTELLECTUAL way the uses SCIENTIFIC STUDIES instead of ridiculous cartoons that are only useful for polluting the minds of children.
And most importantly, they need to realize that the Bible is in NO WAY a scientific source for material and should not be quoted in a debate about evolution.
2007-02-18 07:26:55 · answer #1 · answered by ? 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋
I have seen his tracks before and I now have just seen the tract in question. I believe in a young earth but I don't believe he should use poor arguments such as the amount of dust they found on the moon when we landed there. The tract is from 1976 though so I'll cut him some slack.
2007-02-18 15:28:27 · answer #2 · answered by Matt 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
1) carbon dating techniques are used on DEAD creatures. They have to be dead in order for it to work. Using them on live animals doesn't make sense - the carbon doesn't decay until the animal is dead.
2) The amount of sediment going into the oceans is not constant. It depends greatly on weather conditions and glacier movement.
3) The 'young moon' thing has been debunked many times.
4) And Pangel, we have plenty of evidence that we landed on the moon. Rocks, video footage that CANNOT have been produced on earth (we have gravity and air, no matter where we go), and the mirror we left behind to bounce lasers off.
2007-02-18 15:31:05 · answer #3 · answered by eri 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think Chick tracts generally are one of the best tools atheism could have asked for. So while I deplore their smugness, the general wrong-headed ignorance they display towards non-Christians (and even Christians of the non-Chick stripe) and the fact that they are in a position to reach impressionable young human beings, I think on the whole, it is best to remember them as what they are than to stress out about them.
2007-02-18 15:36:04 · answer #4 · answered by mdfalco71 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I freakin' love those things! That man Jack T. Chick has
gotta be insane. Some of them are pretty brutal,graphic and gritty.
others are kinda funny. Chick definitely isn't the scientist type.
2007-02-18 15:27:45 · answer #5 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I like this part at the end...."Many are being brainwashed in the schools and through the media into believing the Bible is false"
But I guess no one is brainwashed into believing the Bible is true?
2007-02-18 15:32:03 · answer #6 · answered by KS 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I have it and love it.
For more reading material on the whole Creation vs. Evoltion debate I believe livingwaters.com has some great resources.
http://needgod.com/
2007-02-18 15:32:30 · answer #7 · answered by Shelle 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I always thought they had to have been intended to mock christianity and some churches were too dumb to figure it out
2007-02-18 15:33:03 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
the moon landing lol
even that is speculation
2007-02-18 15:26:40 · answer #9 · answered by Peace 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋