My God-Damn Darwin Fish is Gone:

This post has 37 comments

• C. Beth
  June 5th, 2009

  I find this really funny.

  Even if I was a Creationist, which I categorically am not, I’d certainly consider the Ten Commandments (which include not stealing) to be more important than someone’s beliefs about evolution.

  [Reply]

  Reply to this comment
• Robert M. Barga
  June 5th, 2009

  why, madame Beth, do you find it so funny?

  Also, it is quite anti-christian

  [Reply]

  Reply to this comment
• C. Beth
  June 5th, 2009

  Oh, it’s totally an anti-Christian thing to do. I think it’s that irony of it that is so funny to me.

  The whole Creationism-evolution debate has so many absurdities to it already. And now someone is petty enough to steal a Darwin fish? It’s ridiculous. I just find it funny when people do stupid things to make pointless statements about their beliefs.

  [Reply]

  Reply to this comment
• barga
  June 5th, 2009

  i agree that the irony is great

  The thing is, they are not in the same realm. Creationisim is abiogenisis, which is not what evolution is… stealing my fish merely proves you are an ass

  that said, as a vegi you should go talk in the PETA thread

  [Reply]

  Reply to this comment
• C. Beth
  June 5th, 2009

  What? I’m not a vegetarian. My sister’s a vegan…. Maybe that’s what you’re thinking of? But she’s a vegan for health purposes not philosophical.

  [Reply]

  Reply to this comment
• barga
  June 5th, 2009

  hmmmm, well, she should come play on it then

  [Reply]

  Reply to this comment
• Peter O
  June 6th, 2009

  Or maybe one of your other neighbors stole it so that he could have it for his car? or someone else pried it off while drunk? or the glue got old and it fell off? or some one who disagreed (not the guy with the Jesus fish) went and pried it off as they passed by. You do live in a high-traffic area. I’d recommend not blaming someone unless you have a very good suspicion that they did it, more that just they are the nearest Jesus sticker.

  [Reply]

  Robert M. Barga Reply:
  June 7th, 2009 at 11:29 pm

  I said i thought it might be him. I have suspicions because he has bitched about it before several times and said he thinks it should be destoyed

  [Reply]

  Reply to this comment
• malone.236
  June 7th, 2009

  Whoever it is:

  A) Clearly has too much time on their hands
  B) As was said before, is definitely not working on Christian morals
  C) Was most likely inebriated
  D) All of the above

  I think I’ll go with (D) myself.

  By the way. You are on a college campus. Besides the one lonely guy across the street who voted for McCain, did you ever think it was another Darwinist who stole your fish, because he/she liked it? It’s statistically much more likely in a place where creationism is extremely rare like OSU. Plus, darwinians come up with their own morals, LOL.

  [Reply]

  Robert M. Barga Reply:
  June 7th, 2009 at 11:32 pm

  See my above reply to figure out why i think it was him

  don’t for a second think that darwin does not work with creation

  [Reply]

  malone.236 Reply:
  June 8th, 2009 at 1:14 am

  Okay, maybe Darwin works with ID, but I don’t do ID. I’m a strict textualist.

  [Reply]

  Robert M. Barga Reply:
  June 8th, 2009 at 8:23 am

  we have seen it at a micro level, so you must acknowledge that it exists at that level. Darwin is merely the ability of a creature to change to fit its habitat and thus be more likely to survive, evolution is what you have an issue with

  and, well, not really, as creationism is abiogenisis and evolution is not

  Reply to this comment
• malone.236
  June 8th, 2009

  I admit microevolution. A person would have to have never taken science class not to.

  [Reply]

  barga Reply:
  June 8th, 2009 at 9:33 am

  well then, just consider this the next logical step in that line. Darwin is merely that things change and species alter on a large scale

  [Reply]

  Reply to this comment
• C. Beth
  June 8th, 2009

  I’m an evangelical Christian, and I accept evolution. I will freely admit that one cannot be a strict textualist (assuming you mean taking Genesis 1-3 literally) and accept common descent.

  However, for those who may want to read more about how some Christians manage to believe in God and also accept evolution, I can recommend a fantastic book–”Finding Darwin’s God” by Kenneth Miller. It is an EXCELLENT introduction to evolution and also addresses various Creationist arguments. Miller is a Catholic and also talks about how he sees God reflected in evolution. He goes into a lot more depth about evolution than about theology, as science is his expertise, not theology. So I will admit I am still seeking answers to some of my theological questions. But this book is a great starting point.

  [Reply]

  malone.236 Reply:
  June 8th, 2009 at 9:22 am

  I will concede that I am no scientist, or biblical scholar. If ID is true, I have no problem with that. ID, here being defined as creation followed by evolution. I’m just not terribly worried about how the world was created, in the physical sense, because it makes very little difference whether you assume creation or ID. I’ll let the scientists worry about the ramifications.
  I guess it is in theory possible that the days in Genesis are really indefinite periods of time. That doesn’t bother me. God works how he works…

  [Reply]

  C. Beth Reply:
  June 8th, 2009 at 9:33 am

  Malone–I guess it depends what you mean by “creation followed by evolution.” Evolution doesn’t have anything to say about how life began (abiogenesis.) So there’s nothing in evolution to prevent one from believing that God was the originator of life. That’s not even ID. ID has to do with some intelligence being involved in certain aspects of life’s development (not just the original creation of the first life.)

  As someone who believes in God, I don’t disallow the possibility that he’s stepped in at various points of evolution. But I don’t think that him stepping in is REQUIRED, and if He did “tweak” things at all, there’s no way to prove that. So my acceptance of evolution doesn’t require God having been personally involved in the process, though I do believe he was the original Creator of matter and energy, and maybe the laws of the universe.

  This isn’t to say I’m a deist–I do believe that God still steps in and relates to us personally in various spiritual and even physical ways. I just think that when it comes to life’s development (from the very first, simple life; to what we have now), evolution is sufficient. I consider God to be the one who set things up so that evolution could happen, and it was a pretty cool way to do it.

  [Reply]

  barga Reply:
  June 8th, 2009 at 9:35 am

  Christian, doesn’t Beth’s responce make you think of my philosophy?
  pretty creepy

  malone.236 Reply:
  June 8th, 2009 at 10:44 am

  Well, I guess you could say that Barga, but Beth does admit God has personal regulation over our actions and spiritual lives. That’s a pretty big difference, lol.

  barga Reply:
  June 8th, 2009 at 10:46 am

  Oh, i know that, but in terms of the begening and all of that

  barga Reply:
  June 8th, 2009 at 9:34 am

  the propblem is that Genisis is not exactly the most reliable thing out there. When Moses references the creation he has a different view of it, as does Issach and Peter. So, which is it?

  [Reply]

  malone.236 Reply:
  June 8th, 2009 at 10:41 am

  What different views? I’m no Old Testament scholar. I go with Moses on this one, in Genesis.

  barga Reply:
  June 8th, 2009 at 10:45 am

  Moses of course says that it is literall

  Issach mentions that there is a message in the story (not the word story) and more of an allegory

  Peter quotes issach and discusses the allegory a bit more, as well as mentioning animals from outside of the garden

  barga Reply:
  June 8th, 2009 at 9:34 am

  i also recomend reading that book, really good

  [Reply]

  Reply to this comment
• hopelds
  June 9th, 2009

  Being somewhat a fan of bumper statements (I currently have 138 on my truck), I tried a couple of the removable magnet ones (not that I have any intention of using them overall – my truck is thoroughly and completed destroyed for any sort of re-sale value).

  The magnetic ones quickly disappeared, but not from protest, I think. I aim to keep all my statements as far from the political and religious arena as possible (a few exceptions – “What If God Is Asking Us For A Sign?” and “If You Don’t Believe God Exists, How Do You Explain Chocolate-Chip Mint Ice Cream?”).

  I like to believe they got quickly stuck on the thief’s car(s).

  Just my thought.

  [Reply]

  Robert M. Barga Reply:
  June 9th, 2009 at 8:13 pm

  my fish wasn’t a magnate, but a stick on, and they had to pull to get it off

  [Reply]

  Reply to this comment
• Eternal Lizdom
  June 10th, 2009

  I won’t toss in my opinions on Darwinism or evolution and so on…

  But I just had to say that I think it totally sucks that someone stole your sticker. Someone stole my Obama bumper sticker during the campaign season. I was in a restaurant for a business lunch. When I went in the restaurant, my Obama sticker was there. Came out and it was gone. I was pretty ticked. So I feel your pain.

  [Reply]

  Robert M. Barga Reply:
  June 10th, 2009 at 3:32 pm

  I hate it when people do that
  i voted obama but would hate to see peopel take a mccain sticker, ron paul sticker, or anything like that

  [Reply]

  Reply to this comment
• John1241
  August 3rd, 2009

  Very nice site!

  [Reply]

  Reply to this comment
• Athol
  April 8th, 2010

  I know it’s been ten months since anybody posted a comment on this one, but I just wanted to mention a different persective. The Christian fish sign was invented by first and second century Christians as a secret sign to indicate their religion to each other. They had to keep it secret because from the time of Nero until Constantine two and a half centuries later, Romans were killing Christians because of their religion. So Christians needed a way to recognize each other without getting caught. Greek was the international language of that time, much as English is today. “Fish” in Greek is Ikthus. The Greek letters in Ikthus stood for the first letters in the Greek phrase, “Jesus Christ, Son of God, Savior.” Nero impaled Christians on stakes and poured pitch on them and used them to light the streets of Rome. Sadly it’s become a cliche, but other Roman emperors really did feed living Christians to lions for the amusement of the Roman people. (I wonder if the Holocaust will become a cliche some day?) Anyway, into that atmosphere of impending torture and death, the Christian fish was born. And now along come people like you, who put that same fish on the bumper of your car and cover it with Darwin’s name and think it’s funny. Or maybe you think it’s a witty way to make a point about your own beliefs. Well. I agree it’s not right for someone to steal it, but now that you know its history maybe you’re kind of glad that Darwin fish is gone. I sure hope so, for your sake, because anyone who puts one of those things on their car with the full knowledge of its history is no better than a neo-Nazi slapping a swastica over a star of David.

  [Reply]

  Robert M. Barga Reply:
  April 17th, 2010 at 9:59 pm

  please recheck your facts, you have some problems with them

  [Reply]

  Reply to this comment
• malone.236
  April 20th, 2010

  Oooooooohhhh Barga I’d love to hear what those problems are. Besides some emotionally charged comparisons and a minor misdemeanor under Godwin’s Law, this seems to be all correct. If you want to argue that this statement has important details missing in its logical or ethical appeal such as Roman Catholic persecution of scientists and heretics, which would obviously include the godless or non-Catholic, then that’s fine. But everything up here seems fine to me unless you have some more detailed historical objections.
  malone.236´s last blog ..The Republican Party (and its great fortunes)

  [Reply]

  Robert M. Barga Reply:
  May 3rd, 2010 at 8:27 am

  Well, for starters, the Romans did not persecute the Christians for being Christian, rather for being all upity and ignoring the law.

  [Reply]

  malone.236 Reply:
  May 10th, 2010 at 1:21 pm

  Did the law you refer to have anything regarding tribute or sacrafice? If so, they couldn’t comply with it.
  malone.236´s last blog ..The Republican Party (and its great fortunes)

  [Reply]

  Robert M. Barga Reply:
  May 10th, 2010 at 1:57 pm

  actually, not required to do it, but worded in such a way that they simply recognize the roman Gods as being in the building, not that they were Gods. Furthermore, as the Jews could, why couldn’t the Christians?

  also, not being able to follow is not an excuse (see the Indians and their attemptsw with drugs)

  Reply to this comment
• malone.236
  April 20th, 2010

  By the way, I hit “Reply to this comment” and it decided to ignore my request.
  malone.236´s last blog ..The Republican Party (and its great fortunes)

  [Reply]

  Robert M. Barga Reply:
  May 3rd, 2010 at 8:26 am

  hmmm, works for me

  [Reply]

  Reply to this comment

Add a Comment

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website

Click here to cancel reply.

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail

Click to cancel reply