Alice,you're running with the wrong crowd. Careful you don't come down with a case of the narrows.

`When _I_ use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'

`The question is,' said Alice, `whether you CAN make words mean so many different things.'

`The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master - - that's all.'

-- Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass, and What Alice Found There (1871)

Alice, it shows what kind of person you are to just to sit at the table with them. At least you tried.

This is pretty funny, and this is Clay's job to be funny.

However, I don't think I could ever convince a Tea Partier that he/she is wrong about a particular issue by mocking them.

The appeal of the Tea Party, and what will make them feel justified is that have a goal that we all think is noble: they want to make America better.

Where I differ on some issues is the path to improvement.

In the end, Alice can always leave the table if she doesn't like the company. Or can she? Perhaps these folks won't be ignored.

OOPS!

A few blogs back I suggested to someone that we form a new party called, "The Humane Party" or something.

I retract that statement.

I would lose my individual ind. Ind. status.

Stupid Me!

Great art, Clay. The look on Alice's face is perfect.

But ... was it that way before you got there and what "change" did you accomplish?

Just like I always thought - Alice should have stayed at home.

And are you THE Alice B. Toklas?

We laughed and laughed at this one, in my books the funniest yet. Alice is sulking and ya gotta love that little brown guy with the "I want my country back" sign.

Now if only Clay, with his God-given talent, could emerge from his one-way looking glass just long enough to do an honest, cartoon party-expose of what goes on in Obama's White House with the likes of George (I shorted the British pound, the US dollar and was convicted of a felony in France) Soros, the SEIU (union thugs), Van Jones the Communist and Anita Dunne, the Maoist sympathizer. Well, that would be quite the Party-Toon, eh?

Canary, you have unfinished business on the Maine thread. Evidence for some claims, and a source of a statement. Let's stay on task, shall we?

How did that Tea Bagger candidate do in New York 23? Good job!

By this time I would have thought today's subject would have been renamed the "Tee-Hee, Tee-Hee Party." Due mainly to the fact it has become laughable.
Granted, when these gatherings first began they were almost bearable in the broadest sense. Lately, however, all they have become known as is everything "Anti-Obama."

Conservatives have never been the most imaginative individuals on this planet, and yet in the past 10 months most have become as 'dull' as many of their arguments.

And, yes, this observation comes from someone who has traversed across the 'aisle' a time or two in 40 years of voting.
So, it would seem to be time to change some of your outdated, more self-destructive methods, or prepare to lose a few more 'seats' beginning next year.

And, yes, I do "...have a dog in this hunt..." it's called America.

Thank you for your time and attention,
Woody

Yeah, canary! So there! lkeithlui OWNS this forum...and how he just LOVES to give orders...especially to those he considers second-class citizens.

Perhaps he should note the strategically placed mistletoe...

Suggested new line for the cartoon:

Alice: "I know guys, I agree. And I still can't believe the Cheshire Cat is now president. Talk about falling into an endless hole ...."

"Whosover shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of Hell fire" (Mt 5:22). Would Mr Bennett be allowed to draw homosexuals the way he draws conservatives? (Both involve behavior and thought [and can overlap, e.g. the "Pink Pistols," pro-gun homosexuals.])
Issue by issue, I believe our President was born in Hawaii, but whever he was born, there's no dispute he was born to an American mother, which makes him an American.
Define "socialism" before calling someone a socialist. By the 10-point definition of "Communist" in the "Communist Manifesto," the Bushes are pretty much communists, President Obama perhaps slightly more so. If we define a socialist as someone who favors more government control over people's lives, and wants to be the one doing the controlling, of course he's a socialist. And since socialism is unTrinitarian, unBiblical, unChristian--before making demands, Jesus gave his own life, and against a government verdict took it back again from death--and covetous for money and power, unconstitutional, unnatural, and destructive (hindering production and responsibility), it is quite rightly a term of abuse. "Oh, freedom! Oh, freedom! Oh, freedom over me!..." President Obama thinks he can run a better plantation than the GOP, but he has no desire to free the slaves.
As for "MY COUNTRY," well, no, it's our country. But the Constitution is the fundamental contract of America, and it's been shredded by both major parties, and I prefer the Constitution to what has replaced it. But the Constitution could be improved by making it explicitly Christian and libertarian.

"Yeah, canary! So there! lkeithlui OWNS this forum...and how he just LOVES to give orders...especially to those he considers second-class citizens.

Perhaps he should note the strategically placed mistletoe..."

To another poster who has also consistently vanished when asked for evidence: I hardly call a request to support your statements with evidence a claim of forum ownership. Do you post because you have something valuable to add, or are you another expert in MSU? (making s*** up)

Ad hominem attacks (or bolting when asked to support what you say) simply make it more and more obvious that you and canary are pulling this stuff from nowhere.

Problem is, woody, that dog don't hunt. What the Republican Party does -- or becomes -- is not really your business...unless you are a supporter, of course.

We were well on our way to becoming a one-party nation anyway so what difference does it make how we get there? After this last debacle between Hoffman and Pastafazoola, one would think the Repub Party might have learned something. Time will tell.

"Yeah, canary! So there! lkeithlui OWNS this forum...and how he just LOVES to give orders...especially to those he considers second-class citizens.

Perhaps he should note the strategically placed mistletoe..."

Asking for you to support your claims or statements on a public forum isn't owning the forum. I am beginning to think that you and canary make this stuff up, since you can't seem to stay on a thread and give any evidence, sources or links for your outrageous statements and inflammatory remarks. Spouting obvious BS in a public forum and then claiming persecution when you are asked to back it up is making it more and more obvious you have no clue what you are talking about. Other than drive-by postings, you seem to have nothing of any value to add.

Oops-double post-think I had the first one in moderation. Sorry folks.

woody wrote: "So, it would seem to be time to change some of your outdated, more self-destructive methods, or prepare to lose a few more 'seats' beginning next year."

Oh look, another plea for Republicans/Conservatives to become more like Democrats so they can be successful. No thanks.

Moderates and RINOs have consistently led to losses for the Republicans - NY-23 and John McCain being two recent examples.

In a House with a large Democrat majority, the Pelosi plan passed by 2 votes, one of those was a Republican. Hardly evidence of how well the Democrats are doing.

Clay and others on the left can ridicule all they want. As canary so aptly pointed out, there is more than enough material in the current White House crowd to keep conservative cartoonists busy for years and years.

Otmer inquired: "But ... was it that way before you got there and what "change" did you accomplish?"

What a simply silly question to ask.

It was most certainly that way before he "got" there.

The kind of "change" needed to reverse the "changes" that were made to "get" us here, requires time to achieve recognizable results. We did not get here overnight and it will most certainly take more than nine and half months to get us out of here.

There are leaders, followers, and quite a few whiners in this world. I would like to tell you a story about some that fall into the latter category.

Beckians, who inhabit a little known village of Beckestan, are a people who have a strange attraction to tea bags. Commandant Beck, their chosen leader, is worshiped like a God for his ability to draw childish images on a blackboard, for smearing goop under his eye that is so vile in nature that it promotes the production of crocodile tears for cause and effect, and for his ability to scream at a camera.

One day, Commandant Beck called upon his flock to storm other villages, to infiltrate the gatherings of those who were attempting to hold civil discussions, and to disrupt them by any means necessary to thwart that civility.

The Beckians are known for holding tea-parties that are nothing short of diversionary tactics, instituted to attempt to keep others from focusing on any goal of recovery, evidencing quite clearly that they are a people who do not want to return this nation to one of success and prosperity...for more than a select few of course.

They hold their tea-parties with tea bags in hand, never dunking them in water to create a refreshing beverage, that could be used to wash the ever-present bile that tickles the backs of their throats down to where it belongs, allowing them at least a brief moment of respite, giving them time enough to reflect and ponder their existence and to see how utterly silly and illogical that they have become.

Beckians suffer from an affliction, known as "selective memory syndrome," a horrible condition that prevents them from being able to discern and digest simple realities that occurred prior to the election of a President that they refuse to recognize as their leader.

Thankfully, Beckians are currently considered to be rather harmless. The best course of action, should you encounter any of them, is to ignore their rants and allow them to vent, for they will eventually tire and return to reality, when they get thirsty enough to use those tea bags for something other than as a symbol of irrationality.

If at any time you feel threatened by a Beckian, hand them a copy of the "Three Little Pigs." While they peruse it, you will be able to escape unnoticed and unharmed.

AndrewLohr writes, "Would Mr Bennett be allowed to draw homosexuals the way he draws conservatives?"

Since these cartoons are an expression of his own personal point of view, that would be Clay's choice to make, but having read his cartoons for many years now, I can't imagine that he would chose to do so. And despite of your admonitions of the hell fire that awaits him, I wouldn't expect Clay to relent in his criticism of conservative political philosophy.

But your question does bring up an interesting topic of what is fair game for criticism. To my way of thinking, you should never make fun of someone for something they cannot change, or something they have no control over. Making fun of someone's color, heritage, or physical attributes is in bad taste and borders on cruelty. However, making fun of what someone chooses to believe is completely different. It is something that is a creation of the choices they have made in their life, a product of their deduction and thinking, and is, therefore, a fair subject for debate, argument, and yes... ridicule.

It's fair game because your beliefs are something that you create, you control, and something that you can change. Beliefs are not a hand that fate has dealt you, rather it's a hand that you assembled from the deck yourself.

To apply this standard (admittedly, my own standard) to your question, I would say it would be unfair, and in questionable taste to ridicule someone for their physiology (homosexuals), but it's quite acceptable to mock someone for their philosophy (conservatives).

To me, the philosophy/physiology distinction is what separates fair social satire from cruel and mean-spirited caricature.

Glenn Beck is definitely the Mad Hatter.

Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid suggest the Queen and King of Hearts.

The House of Representatives most typically suggests the Caucus Race.

The corralling of midnight votes for the healthcare vote recalls the Queen's Croquet Grounds:

`Get to your places!' shouted the Queen in a voice of thunder, and people began running about in all directions, tumbling up against each other; however, they got settled down in a minute or two, and the game began. Alice thought she had never seen such a curious croquet-ground in her life; it was all ridges and furrows; the balls were live hedgehogs, the mallets live flamingoes, and the soldiers had to double themselves up and to stand on their hands and feet, to make the arches.

The chief difficulty Alice found at first was in managing her flamingo: she succeeded in getting its body tucked away, comfortably enough, under her arm, with its legs hanging down, but generally, just as she had got its neck nicely straightened out, and was going to give the hedgehog a blow with its head, it would twist itself round and look up in her face, with such a puzzled expression that she could not help bursting out laughing: and when she had got its head down, and was going to begin again, it was very provoking to find that the hedgehog had unrolled itself, and was in the act of crawling away: besides all this, there was generally a ridge or furrow in the way wherever she wanted to send the hedgehog to, and, as the doubled-up soldiers were always getting up and walking off to other parts of the ground, Alice soon came to the conclusion that it was a very difficult game indeed.

The players all played at once without waiting for turns, quarrelling all the while, and fighting for the hedgehogs; and in a very short time the Queen was in a furious passion, and went stamping about, and shouting `Off with his head!' or `Off with her head!' about once in a minute.

***

I think I can recognize President Obama as the Cheshire Cat. That just might work. He has played too well at political expediency, popping in and out of the public debate as he finds it convenient, being all things to all people. Who is he really?

Those Americans carrying Tea Party signs strike me as either naive or paranoid. A bunch of well-intentioned people hi-jacked and disrupted by Mad Hatters like the John Birchers and Birthers.

But President Obama and his White House invite that response by not being apparent in some things and by being woefully tone deaf in other things. Really, given his ability to cave in, defer, or delay action regarding healthcare reform and our wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, how could anyone know anything about President's Obama's real commitments?

Right on, Alprova. Anyone feeling humor-deprived should "do the Google on the Internets" and watch Jon Stewart do a delectable smackdown of Glen Beck. It's eight minutes of absolute truth and wonder.

"Whosover shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of Hell fire" (Mt 5:22).

I wonder who wrote that one? And no, we need not ponder the Four Sources of Matthew Hypothesis &c. to find out.

Vivid imagination, so extremely--well, extremely extreme.

And let us also grant high marks for coming off sounding very like the Queen of Hearts, with her "only one way of settling all difficulties, great or small," indeed.

***

`How do you like the Queen?' said the Cat in a low voice.

`Not at all,' said Alice: `she's so extremely--' Just then she noticed that the Queen was close behind her, listening: so she went on, `--likely to win, that it's hardly worth while finishing the game.'

The Queen smiled and passed on.

`Who are you talking to?' said the King, going up to Alice, and looking at the Cat's head with great curiosity.

`It's a friend of mine--a Cheshire Cat,' said Alice: `allow me to introduce it.'

`I don't like the look of it at all,' said the King: `however, it may kiss my hand if it likes.'

`I'd rather not,' the Cat remarked.

`Don't be impertinent,' said the King, `and don't look at me like that!' He got behind Alice as he spoke.

`A cat may look at a king,' said Alice. `I've read that in some book, but I don't remember where.'

`Well, it must be removed,' said the King very decidedly, and he called the Queen, who was passing at the moment, `My dear! I wish you would have this cat removed!'

The Queen had only one way of settling all difficulties, great or small. `Off with his head!' she said, without even looking round.

Rolando amazingly wrote: "Problem is, woody, that dog don't hunt. What the Republican Party does -- or becomes -- is not really your business...unless you are a supporter, of course."

Tell me I didn't just read the above, coming from the most critical man of anything Democratic.

I'm speechless....er...typeless.

Lightnup wrote: "Moderates and RINOs have consistently led to losses for the Republicans - NY-23 and John McCain being two recent examples."

That is for sure, one way spin things so that one can stay in complete denial of reality. Unless the Republican Party stops vilifying centrists within their own party, some of which are long term office holders, and lightens up on several issues, they are absolutely going to be trounced in 2010.

I also predict no less than five Republicans jumping ship within the next year to become Democrats. The first to make such an announcement? Rep. Anh "Joseph" Cao, the first-term representative from Louisiana's traditionally Democratic 2nd District, who voted to pass the health care reform legislation headed now for the Senate.
------
"In a House with a large Democrat majority, the Pelosi plan passed by 2 votes, one of those was a Republican. Hardly evidence of how well the Democrats are doing."

On the other hand, it is further substantiation of the fact that the Republicans are hardly committed to doing anything other than to obstruct any meaningful legislation that comes down the pike.

http://mediamattersaction.org/video/2009...
---------
"Clay and others on the left can ridicule all they want. As canary so aptly pointed out, there is more than enough material in the current White House crowd to keep conservative cartoonists busy for years and years."

Perhaps, but I, for one, have no interest in seeking out those cartoons, and don't. They are sure to be a hit with all the little right-wingers out there, who are still licking their wounds that were inflicted a year ago.

librul wrote: "Right on, Alprova. Anyone feeling humor-deprived should "do the Google on the Internets" and watch Jon Stewart do a delectable smackdown of Glen Beck. It's eight minutes of absolute truth and wonder."

I laughed for an hour after watching that.

Here's the link...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/06...

I too want to add my compliments to Clay for the artwork on this one. All politics aside, it is absolutely one of your finest 'toons to date.

The Tenniel Illustrations for Carroll's Alice in Wonderland
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/114/114-h...

alprova pontificated: "Unless the Republican Party stops vilifying centrists within their own party, some of which are long term office holders, and lightens up on several issues, they are absolutely going to be trounced in 2010."

Riiiight. By becoming Democrat-Lite, the Republican party will make itself more viable? What are you smoking? Pelosi would give anything (except maybe giving up her Botox injections) to rid her party of blue dogs so that the extreme left can proceed unfettered. But Republicans are supposed to become more moderate? In your dreams. There will be trouncing in 2010, but Republicans will be the trouncers, not the trouncees.

____________________

"On the other hand, it is further substantiation of the fact that the Republicans are hardly committed to doing anything other than to obstruct any meaningful legislation that comes down the pike."

Blah, blah, blah.....blah.....blah, to paraphrase one of your more intelligent responses. The House never would have passed a health care reform proposal of the early Pelosi/Reid/SEIU variety. Your "obstructionist" blue dogs would never have allowed it, which is why it has taken this long for Queen Nancy to cobble together a 2,000 page hodge-podge of backroom deals and quicksand compromises just to get something passed by a measly 2 votes. TWO VOTES... obviously it's an ugly pig of a bill or 40 Dems would not have voted against it. It's not obstruction to oppose a bad piece of legislation, it's doing one's duty as a representative of the people who elected them.

__________________________

"Perhaps, but I, for one, have no interest in seeking out those cartoons, and don't."

Of course not. God forbid you should be exposed to anything other than what the lamestream media provides. Can't risk having you come out from under the Rock Star ether, can we? Sheesh.

alprova wrote: "I also predict no less than five Republicans jumping ship within the next year to become Democrats."

Bye bye RINOs, goodbye. Don't let the screen door hit ya on the way out.

One gets tired of responding to the repetitive and inane demands of the weak-minded.

One MORE time, lkeithlu, exactly where did I ever tell you [YOU!] that I would provide "evidence" of ANYTHING proving ANYTHING against evolution? My original statement was the inability of Darwin's hypothesis to have any prediction come true. ANY prediction. That comment holds. Please cite where I said anything about providing ANY evidence" so we can all see it. Put up or shut up.

While you are at it, please provide YOUR proper evidence that the hypothesis of the evolution of man from a common ancestor with the ape [chimp, dinosaur, bird] has had ANY prediction come true. Observe the proper meaning of "evidence". "Probability" or "possibility" is not evidence. Show us the beef.

Now please observe proper forum etiquette and stay on-topic for a while. Cluttering up one thread with trivial leftovers from another in an attempt to score points is NOT proper etiquette.

Teabaggers on the web...

http://community.livejournal.com/ontd_po...

What a class act they are...

I'd love to stay on topic, rolando, if you'd just stay on the thread and finish what you start. I only challenge you in science, which you seem to blurt out BS on no matter what the topic is. When I ask you to support what you say, you vanish to another thread. You want evidence? Since you made the paradigm shifting claim, it is you that must provide the evidence (although canary is worse when it comes to this sort of thing)

The evidence for your questions below is summarized quite well at: www.talkorigins.org Let me know if you need something more specific.

"My original statement was the inability of Darwin's hypothesis to have any prediction come true. ANY prediction. " and "While you are at it, please provide YOUR proper evidence that the hypothesis of the evolution of man from a common ancestor with the ape [chimp, dinosaur, bird] has had ANY prediction come true"

Don't accept it? Then provide a theory that explains this (and all other) evidence better than evolutionary theory does.

Cartoon is just proof that even after ideas dry up their is still plenty of ink to stain the pages with.
Exploding debt, youth violence higher than ever before, the world on the brink of armed conflict, a "recovery" program that is a lead anchor...And this is what people want to sit around and laugh at? My, that is socially progressive.

After standing by and just reading the comments made, I've come to the conclusion that much of the left only see the tea party people as a humorous sideshow rather than those honestly concerned about the genuine spending problem by our government. Every cause will have its loonies, some more than others, but the tea parties should be a small reminder of the idiots holding office in our federal government. If these people choose to organize peacefully and make their voices heard, then so be it.

I will give credit to Clay for doing exactly what this cartoon intends - to fortify the left to continue to make a mockery of a movement that has time and again made national news. Maybe I should start to refer to Clay as Alice? I won't, but just a thought.

And for goodness sakes, no more "sources" such as MediaMatters, Huffington Post, Jon Stuart, or other left leaning outlets. This also goes for the right leaning as well, such as BigGovernment.com, Drudge Report, or Glenn Beck. If what you believe they say is true, then find their sources to verify or cross-reference against other reports. So much slant... it becomes hard to tell what is up and and what is down.

Yes, alprova, I'll throw blogs in there too. Really?

I tried to avoid the rant but this kind of dirt needs to end.

"Teabaggers on the web..."

I'll not be clicking that link as "teabagging" is a sex act and pornography is not very interesting to me.

You do know what "teabagging" is, right Alprova?

If not, perhaps you should look words up before repeating them like some second grader who just learned the word "f***er".

alprova, in an incredibly lame attempt to paint all conservatives with the antics of a few wackos, posted yet another silly link to a far-out example of some unhinged people.

If we really wanted to waste our time scouring the web for hateful entries by anonymous posters, which apparently alprova gets a thrill up his leg by doing, we can find thousand of them on the liberal side too. It's amazing the high level of hatred and intolerance that has emanated from the left over the past 8 years and continues now as a matter of course.

But finding those and posting them here thinking we're proving some kind of point would just be a silly waste of time and bandwidth.

"I will give credit to Clay for doing exactly what this cartoon intends - to fortify the left to continue to make a mockery of a movement that has time and again made national news."

One of Lewis Carroll's virtues comes from the way he targets lunacy as a _general_ human condition. No one type or party is singled out.

All of the characters that Alice meets are "mad" in some way or another, and we should see ourselves as well as others in the comedy.

And therein would be my reservation. By pinning the work exclusively to the tail of one partisan group or another, something gets lost.

It's a good thing that there aren't any loonies within the Democratic ranks, otherwise this cartoon would be hypocritical.

Wisdom of glass houses and planks in eyes comes to mind.

As I thought, lkeithlu, you have no evidence that I made any such claim of an ability to provide evidence debunking Darwin's hypothesis of evolution. It debunks itself due to its inability to accurately predict anything. So be it.

As stated, it is nothing but an idea based on a guess and accepted on faith. Sounds like other forms of faith to me...

You complain there are no other explanations for the evolution of Man -- but there are, of course. Each has its adherents just a Darwin has his.

What are a couple of them, you ask? Google ecoholism for starters. And there is always the Bible...so long as you bear in mind that things like "seven days" are undefined...that could be 250,000 or whatever years between start and God's final breathing of life into Adam -- the first modern man. Who knows, He may have started out with that ancient insectivorous creature science chose as their starting point...or not.

It is time to move on...see if you can force yourself away from a dry and boring topic, huh?

That was awfully quick, rolando. You can't have made much of a visit to that site. There is tons of evidence provided, as well as both primary and secondary literature sources, including many, many instances where predictions have been made based on evolutionary theory and they have turned out correct.

Finally, rolando, every time you make a BS statement involving science, I will be here to call your bluff. Stay away from making statements based on faulty science, I'll have nothing to say in response.

IB, my conclusion on the quote you made is based on Bennett's inclination to lean left. Almost every political cartoon paints such a picture. While I find myself disagreeing more often than agreeing with him, it at least sparks some debate offering each side much to take away. I understand political cartoons tend to favor one side over another, but to find Bennett cartoons that may favor the right is like trying to find liberals on Olbermann's "Worst Person in the World."

I am not trying to assign relations to the characters within Alice as Clay has already done that. My statement is just a commentary on what has already been portrayed through Clay's cartoon, as well as further commentary in response to previous posts.

And yet you lie, lkeithlu, about any statement of mine regarding evidence against Darwin's Guess.

You also presume much...what makes you think I looked up anything YOU recommend? So easily you poo-poo opposing ideas...typical liberal [over-]educated -- so you claim -- in today's worthless uber-liberal colleges.

So far you are scoring F, dude...no wonder you are silent.

I asked you to support your statements, and although I am not obligated in this situation (since YOU made the claim) I provided sources that you refuse to look at. That speaks volumes about your integrity, Dude. Why am I not surprised?

Well written, aces25.

My post above was an extension of your point and an appreciation of Lewis Carroll. That is, I was not commenting on what you said, but running on something like the same tack.

***

Clay is definitely one of the best cartoonists that we have here stateside.

But I wonder about the risk and feasibility of an American caricaturist or cartoonist who would be willing to lampoon Human Folly in all of its myriad form.

American audiences would perhaps be too uneasy with that sort of take-no-prisoners and spare-no-whited-sepulcher approach.

British cartoonists tend to hold more to an anarchist and satirist tradition, "taking the mickey bliss" (or taking the p***) out of all Pomp and Folly.

I am of course thinking about Steve Bell and his merciless cartoons on Brown & Blair _and_ Obama _and_ the Tories _and_ Bush & Cheney in the liberal Guardian paper.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/ca...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/ca...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/carto...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/cartoon/...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/cartoon/200...

Rolando,

I took a little time to read the talkorigins.org Q&A. While I will admit, there it way too much there for me to siphon thru at this time, it does seem to be more of a "he said she said" type of thing. The last Q&A pretty much summed it up for me. I will post it after my comment.

But I can find there to be no more physical evidence of Man coming from Apes then there is to say that Man was created by God. I believe it to be a matter of faith no matter which way you look at it.

I just choose to believe that there is an awesome God that is the creator of this magnificent universe and everything in it. I don't care how long it took Him to do it. I know and do not doubt He can do anything He chooses with just the spoken word as it says He did in Genesis. To believe evolution would take a great amount of faith as well but would seem to lead to no where. At least as a Christian that believes in creation, I have a hope of being with that creator for all eternity.

Now the Q&A:

Q: Isn't the Talk.Origins Archive just some website that has no particular credibility? Those FAQs and essays aren't peer-reviewed, and many are written by interested laymen rather than specialists, so they can be ignored, right?
A: We encourage readers not to take our word on the issues, but rather to look at the primary literature and evaluate the evidence. While materials on the Archive have not necessarily been subjected to formal peer-review, many have been subjected to several cycles of commentary in the newsgroup prior to being added to the Archive. Most of our materials provide links and/or bibliographic references to enable the reader to evaluate the evidence for themselves. While anyone can decide to ignore our materials, the Archive has been recognized as a valuable online resource by many well-known groups, magazines, and individuals. Further, a number of college courses have chosen to use materials from the Archive in their coursework.

I am glad, nurse, that you went to the website. The site is well-referenced, and scientists in the related fields have had their say on all that is posted. In addition, following the links gets you to the primary sources. Now, all of that is meaningless if you decide that these scientists are simply making it all up. However, the evidence is there. Reams of evidence from the fossil record, geology, genetics, and biochemistry.

You can believe whatever you want; the only problem comes when one makes claims that ignore the evidence. That a supernatural being is responsible for the "soul" that makes us human does not deny the evidence. (science simply cannot prove or disprove such a belief) To say that humans did not have a common ancestor with apes does deny the evidence. To ignore vast amounts of science to stay within a literal reading of Genesis is silly and childish.

Thanks for your tone, Nurseforjustice. You bring a touch of grace to an off-topic swerve.

Have you read Tennyson's long poem, _In Memoriam_? I think you would enjoy it.

In Memoriam A.H.H.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_Memoriam....

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/In_Memoria....

LIV

Oh yet we trust that somehow good
Will be the final goal of ill,
To pangs of nature, sins of will,
Defects of doubt, and taints of blood;

That nothing walks with aimless feet;
That not one life shall be destroy'd,
Or cast as rubbish to the void,
When God hath made the pile complete;

That not a worm is cloven in vain;
That not a moth with vain desire
Is shrivell'd in a fruitless fire,
Or but subserves another's gain.

Behold, we know not anything;
I can but trust that good shall fall
At last--far off--at last, to all,
And every winter change to spring.

So runs my dream: but what am I?
An infant crying in the night:
An infant crying for the light:
And with no language but a cry.

**

CXVIII

Contemplate all this work of Time,
The giant labouring in his youth;
Nor dream of human love and truth,
As dying Nature's earth and lime;

But trust that those we call the dead
Are breathers of an ampler day
For ever nobler ends. They say,
The solid earth whereon we tread

In tracts of fluent heat began,
And grew to seeming-random forms,
The seeming prey of cyclic storms,
Till at the last arose the man;

Who throve and branch'd from clime to clime,
The herald of a higher race,
And of himself in higher place,
If so he type this work of time

Within himself, from more to more;
Or, crown'd with attributes of woe
Like glories, move his course, and show
That life is not as idle ore,

But iron dug from central gloom,
And heated hot with burning fears,
And dipt in baths of hissing tears,
And batter'd with the shocks of doom

To shape and use. Arise and fly
The reeling Faun, the sensual feast;
Move upward, working out the beast,
And let the ape and tiger die.

CXX

I trust I have not wasted breath:
I think we are not wholly brain,
Magnetic mockeries; not in vain,
Like Paul with beasts, I fought with Death;

Not only cunning casts in clay:
Let Science prove we are, and then
What matters Science unto men,
At least to me? I would not stay.

Let him, the wiser man who springs
Hereafter, up from childhood shape
His action like the greater ape,
But I was born to other things.

Well Jesus did tell us to come to Him with a childlike faith, so I will consider that a compliment.

As a nurse, I have more respect for science than most here I would say. I have read and listened to scientist spout their so called evidence that we have "common ancestor with apes" and then in the same setting I have seen other scientist refute their evidence. And these were not necessarily Christian scientist. Please don't ask me where this evidence might be because it has been some time ago that I read and listened to it.

We could go on for quite sometime I am sure but we would just be "casting our pearls before the swine" on both sides. But I do enjoy a good conversation with an itelligent person. Thanks.

Thanks Inspector... Was all that poem to say it is ok for us agree to disagree?
I have a problem understanding poetry sometimes. I guess that shows a lack of something in me, just don't know what.=)

rolando,

I am not going to get into a debate on evolutionary biology.

I'll note scientists tend to believe what science can prove. When scientists cannot prove something, they tend to believe in what is probable based on observable data.

Showing genetic linkages has been far easier than proving the existence of God. Gradual and sometimes explosive changes in the genetic code, offer a plausible theory that is sometimes subjectible to objective testing.

From a scientific standpoint, God is much more elusive.

As a person who has made a living from science, I have to say I err on the side of science. But I, too have my doubts. I'm not a fundamentalist.

Thinking of alternative hypotheses:

Assuming the existence of God is plausible, then I would assume the existence of the Devil is plausible. If Satan wished to separate people from God, what would be the best way to do it? If I were Satan, I would try to lend credence to the skeptics to sow doubt. I would dissapear from view. (Proof of the devil is tacit proof of God.) And I would try to create a mirage of evidence that would lead once-God-fearing Christians to doubt.

Perhaps science is the Devil's mirage.

Sure it's an outlandish theory.

I'm egotistical enough to NOT believe it. For the most part, I trust my own eyes.

But I'm not a fundamentalist scientists.

We all have our doubts.

I have never denied that man changes, moonpie. Only that Darwin's Guess, as it applies to Man, is exactly that...a best guess.

I agree in principle with nurseforjustice's belief that God was the root creator of all, although I tend to have my own beliefs. Those who would deify Darwin and accept his Guess as their gospel do the same.

My belief system in a nutshell: Regardless of raw materials used over eons/days/hours/whatever, a Supreme Being [God] created Adam as the first modern Man. How He actually did that is not known; it is indeed a matter of personal belief.

The four groups of humans -- Negroid, Caucasoid, Mongoloid, and Australoid are essentially unchanged off-shoots of Adam and Eve's line...they are all able to cross-fertilize, after all.

Perhaps God moved in stages, developing one form before moving on to the next...He DID create all living things.

Interestingly enough, researchers in the hard sciences at the lowest subatomic and highest macro-cosmic levels are the ones most likely to attribute the creation of the universe and all in it to a supreme being -- or something very much like it. Things happening and processes occurring on those levels are much more complicated than they should be -- or need to be -- which goes against most scientific assumptions.

[Cites? Forget it. Years worth of reading/observation]

Nor am I a hardshell fundmentalist. We do indeed all have our doubts. Your thought that Satan hides for your reason given is a good one.

And so back to the main topic.......

Brilliant cartoon! Well done!

"Cites? Forget it. Years worth of reading/observation]"

translation: I made it up

As did you, lkeith, as did you. That's all anyone here does.

Your cited use of Wiki/answer.com/whatever was a rather amusing one. Nothing more than a collection of anyone's/everyone's opinions and not to be trusted as a standalone. A good source for unbelieving uber-liberals with nothing concrete to support their lies, suppositions and innuendo, though.

Or is that your self-vaunted "education" peeping out?

------------------------------

You are right, nurseforjustice -- "pearls before swine".

You were the one who cited wiki. I said I don't use it. AND I gave you a reputable source that you refused to look at. Want more sources? Name the topic and I'll give it. Try to be specific, like "cetacean evolution" or "hox genes" though.

Again you lie, lkeith. I cite Wikipedia as a joke or as a generic -- as I did the one you cited...both as accurate and dependable -- although informative, perhaps -- as Darwin's Guess.

Off to today's cartoon and a new topic. Ta Ta.

You cannot pass judgment on the site I sent you to if you didn't read any of it. What are you afraid of? Learning that you may be wrong? Learning something new?

I'll be watching you and canary, rolando. Stray into science and say claim something false, and I'll call you on it.

I am shaking in my boots, lkeith. NOT.

Your picture is in Wikipedia -- under "blowhard".

Watch away. Try to limit your lies, difficult as that may be for you...

Nurseforjustice's post was sufficient for the purpose. Their own words condemned them. As do yours.

I am still waiting for your comment re: alternates to Darwin's Guess. You sure ran from that one...too scientific for you, huh? LOL. [You are also pictured under "ridiculous"...I wonder why that is.] LOL

I provided information for Darwin's Theory, which you refused to look at. There is nothing called "Darwin's Guess" (something else you made up) You are practicing the intellectual equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling "La La La I can't hear you" You have provided NOTHING in the way of sources for your crackpot claims, and refuse to consider the sources you asked of me (once again, since you are making claims that counter accepted science, the burden is on you to provide the evidence, but hey, I'll be equitable and provide mine too)

I NEVER lie. EVER. I only comment on what I know, and my information is sound and supported, unlike yours. I'll be there, whenever YOU lie, however, and will point it out. Not to make you shake in your boots (what a silly notion) but to expose your misinformation. Of course, if you are willing to spout nonsense in this area, why should anyone believe anything you say on all the other topics?