Cy Cat Cartoon

Evolutionists insist that all life is the result of “millions of beneficial chance mutations” that happened over millions of years — yeah, those mutations really worked well for Cy Kitty!

Cartoon and commentary contributed by Jim Pinkoski.

See Jim Pinkoski’s book, A Creationist’s View of Dinosaurs in our museums store Click HERE

71 Responses to “Cy Cat Cartoon”

  1. John Adolfi Says:

    “To answer the last part of your post – I’ve already shown, just a few minutes ago, why there is no logic in ID and/or creationism. God is a fundamentally illogical, in fact anti-logical concept.”

    If that is so and you really are defending what is the closest thing to truth, then why do 40-60% of all americans believe in a God creating this world and the people in it some 10,000 years ago?
    How do YOU see this majority as? Misinformed? Uneducated? Stupid?

  2. six_ways Says:

    Majorities mean nothing John. Besides which it may not be a majority.

    And it doesn’t matter how I see them, just that I see things differently. How could I possibly judge all of them at once simply on the information of a few creationists?

    And again both of you seem to be missing the point that I am NOT arguing against the existence of a god, or even creationism, simply that neither can be proven through science.

    And Jim, shut up. All you have ever been to anyone opposing your opinion on this site is derisive and derogatory. Without anyone using my ‘spacey abstract logic’ as you so utterly condescendingly put it, the TVs, VCRs and everything else you hold so dear would not have been theorised, let alone invented, so you can take your pride in your ignorance and shove it.

    John, surely you can see that Jim is not helping your cause here; I’ve been reasonable and have calmly defended my point of view with logic and reasoning, whether or not you agree with it, and all Jim has done is push me to breaking point with condescension and an arrogant dismissal of all my points. You have listened to my points and argued reasonably against them, but Jim has just been straight-out pig-headed, and I’ve tried to put up with it, but I’ve had enough of it.

  3. John Adolfi Says:

    Six Ways, You have been a great witness to your philosophy.
    You have been calm and have done your best to put up with opposition and I thank you. As a Christian I can assure that this type of treatment you have received and much more is how I’m treated with the current skeptic, evolutionary folks I discuss things with. It’s not fun or funny. Thank you for reminding me how I need to further conduct myself. I cannot speak for Jim. His cartoons are a way to communicate thoughts to others and we appreciate his artistic skills and reasonable logic. Please stay tuned we appreciate you and all the others with apposing views who are watching our best attempts to share evidence and ideas on this hot topic.

  4. Cy C. Lops Says:

    I’d just like to mention that Jim’s comment from April 30th at 10:30 AM shows a clear lack of understanding of the theory of evolution as well as a lack of understanding of molecular biology and neurology. You keep talking about things evolving themselves and putting themselves together which is either a result of ignorance or an attempt at sleight of hand (or should I say sleight of words).

  5. Cy C. Lops Says:

    By the way, I noticed, John, that you refer to ID and creationism separately. I think you’ll agree with me that these are distinct, albeit related, theories. This goes to show that Jim’s false dichotomy is incorrect.

  6. independent thinker Says:

    Also in reference to Jim’s comment from 30th April, your biological concepts are all wrong. Each individual cell is NOT a single entity. Each cell has a nucleus (apart from red blood cells) and each nucleus contains the exact same genetic code; down to the last base. This is why forensic science is so good at identifying people. So each cell is the same thing but have different sections turned on or off, to code for different proteins. So each cell does not compete with its neighbours because they are the same entity. Thus if they did compete the only loss would be to that genetic entity and would not be selected for as those genes would be eliminated.

    Evolution is selection at the level of the genes.

    If you wish to ‘prove’ scientists wrong Jim, you must listen to what they are saying (as six_ways says).
    Cultural evolution has led to the belief in religion. Mayans, pagans and other religions (too numerous to mention) all existed before christianity, so if God created the world why didn’t he let these people know that they were destined for eternal damnation.

    Culture spreads in a population as humans have an affinity to conform. In-comers will often adopt the culture (language and religion) of the population that they migrate to. In simple terms they are rewarded for adopting a similar lifestyle and punished for acting uniquely (as they are not accepted). This is how culture spreads and why so many individuals in a country believe the dominant religion in that country.

    Just look at how catholicism took over many central and south American countries when they where invaded and controlled by Spain.

    Religion does not cross borders of different cultures but science does, due to its logical reasoning that all cultures understand.

  7. John Adolfi Says:

    May I take acception to the idea of religion spreading through an entire populas due to pride, force or other cultural forces, as if they alone ARE the motive force. What about islands where missionaries have given their lives for the cause of a type of Christianity that does not force but reasons from cause to affect. Where the the doctrines resounded in the Native’s mind and heart and an entire village are converted. Again can we possily consider that the weight of evidence, the power of the concepts and the self sacrificing love on the part of the missionary is the driving force to the conversion of many? And I have not evey mentioned the Holy Spirit. It seems here that both creationists and evolutionists need to familiarize themselves better with each others theories and information.
    I truly doubt anyone studying anthropology has done extensive studies in the lives of gentle reformers and missionariesof the ages but have lumped all efforts to evangelize in with the wars and force we have seen through the churches spotted history.

  8. JimSDA Says:

    My, my, my . . .

    When talking about “conflicting” fields of thought, the key word there is “conflicting” — I have a firm opinion about evolution and Creationism, and my opinions are not going to be “luke warm” —

    If you guys recall from looking at my website, back in the 1980s I did cartoons for Carl Sagan’s SPACEWATCH newsletter when I lived in D.C. — and I published my DINO/Creationism book in 1997 and other books that have sold way over a quarter of a million copies (391,000 to be exact) — so what have YOU GUYS published?

    If you really, really believe in your opinions, then publish them! Gain some credibility! The biblical archaeological discoveries I show on my website are being seen by millions of people around the world — so, as far as I see it, I’ve EARNED the priviledge of speaking my opinions!

    Six_Ways, don’t tell me to “shut up” — I have every right to speak, and I am undoubtably speaking to a much larger world-wide audience than YOU are!

    You are nothing more than a bothersome gnat buzzing around my head who’s just being irritating — oh, and seeing that you probably believe in the evolution idea of all life having a “common ancestor,” I guess you’re also related to gnats, right? On which side of the family, your mom’s or your dad’s side? . . .

  9. six_ways Says:

    Jim, I only told you to shut up because you’re doing as much to me, only not in the same words. I was not the one who stopped being civil.

  10. Cy C. Lops Says:

    *cough* *sneeze* *cough* Excuse me, I must be allergic to pomposity.

    I’m only 24, and I’m just starting my Ph.D. work. I still have plenty of time to publish. Granted it won’t be in the field of evolutionary biology.

  11. JimSDA Says:

    OK, Cy says he’s 24, and Six-Ways says he’s 19 — and I happen to know that science says that your brains won’t really “mature” until you guys are in your late 20s!

    I believe that I mentioned somewhere on this forum that it that’s TIME to gain life experiences and to see how God fits into it all — you have to give yourself enough TIME to have the experiences that will show you that God is real and come to a proper and fully “mature” world view of science and God!

    It may take the death of a family member to do it, or someone close to you having a major car accident, or you living in a really bad situation where a solution comes in such a miraculous manner that your brain finally figures out that “something is out there that cares about me”!

    TIME, guys, is what shows that God is there to us —

    Young people go around thinking they are indestructable and that they know it all — and older people know they aren’t going to live forever and that they acknowledge a Higher Power that is out there who knows LOTS more than they do!

    Right now you guys are just involved in finding “knowledge” — later on you can “find God,” because He’s most definitely out there!

  12. TwoD Says:

    JimSDA, you may have thousands and even millions of readers, but that does not prove you right or wrong. Credibility isn’t determined by the number of readers one has. It’s all about how serious the writer is, and how he/she puts forward ideas. But also how he/she treats other ideas and arguments that conflicts with thier own. (Not the actual definition, but it’s how I’ve heard many use the word) And so far, I think more people than I find you a bit too stubborn when it comes to dealing with those arguments.
    All you’ve managed to prove so far is that you are completely single-tracked when someone puts forward their theory about whatever. You keep telling people you actually know the truth, yet you have nothing but words in a book, and a feeling that a “Higher Power” exists out there, to back it up with.
    Science on the other hand has had many years to test, document, and gain knowledge about the world it studies.

    I’ve lost both close friends and family members, and I’ve been close to losing more due to major car accidents (other people did die in those accidents). I’ve had plenty of time already to think about life, death and the world around me.
    Someone does care about me out there. But it’s not a higher power, it’s my family and close friends. There’s no need for a god to blame what you can’t understand on.

    I’m 20 and from Sweden btw.

  13. six_ways Says:

    Jim, as I’ve said before, I’m not trying to argue against the existence of god. That may or may not take life experience.

    What I am doing is arguing that science cannot be used to support or disprove the existence of god as you are trying to do, and that does not take life experience – it takes a knowledge and understanding of science, which I have and you do not, regardless of age and experience.

  14. independent thinker Says:

    I am 23 and about to graduate in evolutionary and environmental biology. In these 23 years I have lost friends to cancer and recently in a car accident. I have lost family members also but none of these traumatic events have led to me ‘finding’ god.
    Infact it is the opposite, people who ‘find’ god in these situations are those unable to let go and say goodbye. It is a much nicer thought to believe that you will see them again just as they always were. However, the knowledge of science has allowed me to say goodbye to those people without clinging to a vague un-proved notion that I will see them again. Of course I grieved for their suffering and more selfishly because I will miss them.

    If god only enters people’s lives in traumatic situations, when people are emotionly vulnerable, than they are just trying to make a bad situation better and removing the feeling of loss.

    I dare say that as you are over twice my age you have seen more stuff but not always. It depends what kind of life you have, personally I do a lot of travelling and try to visit places and people far removed from my own life. This broadens the mind no matter how old you are. Age is not a good indicator of experience and neither is having something published an indicator of being right. I would prefer to have one peer reviewed paper published in a reputable journal than a book of my own thoughts, which anyone could write.

  15. snafubar Says:

    I find this site very embarrassing. Every single member of this site who supports it, is bent on assailing evolutionists. The fundamental distortion of logic that you foment – that the existence of a mutation which proves fatal therefore eliminates any possibility of any beneficial mutation should make you ashamed. Cy is dead for a reason, because his mutation did not promote survival on this planet. Cats with normal features survive for a reason.

    You cite Cy as an example of why you believe evolution must be a fraud, but you never address why this loving God who does all for good has sought to torture this poor creature. Was it all his idea of a publicity stunt? Did God need Cy to make a point?

    But I expect that I will not change a single mind on this site by making _any_ argument about evolution., because there simply are none that any of you would accept. And that is why you should all be ashamed – to believe that any society will survive when no dissent is allowed is an idea that has yet to succeed anywhere in human history.

    The dogma that the churches of our past and present have used to crush the open minds of our world is shameful enough; to know that the great astronomers of the world from Galileo to Copernicus, Brahe, and Keppler were all condemned by the religious leaders of their time for discoveries that anyone today who suggested is false would be laughed out of the room.

    And yet, unlike the Amish, most all of you live your lives quite comfortably with all that scientific innovation, exploration, experimentation, and investigation has brought to your lives while disparaging the very rigors of science that made it all possible. Shameful. Absolutely shameful.

    I support your freedom to dismiss evolution, and for that matter to ignore and refute all discoveries that the “godless” scientists have brought to the people of the world. But to benefit from those discoveries and advances while utterly dismissing the foundations of scientific thought they are based on is hypocritical to a point that God will have much to ask you about when you go to face him.

    Put down your computer, throw away your modern appliances, sell your car, and forego any further medical treatment and I will regain my respect for your faith. Otherwise, every time you assail scientists for discoveries you don’t like but still accept the ones you find favorable reveals to all the worst in human behavior. If you really want to stand on principles, stand on all of them, please.

    I expect the next set of comments will be to attack me and not my arguments. Have at it – I will be watching the Science Channel.

  16. John Adolfi Says:

    I enjoy the benefits of technology in good conscience as a creationist. However if I ever see any technology that resulted from the branch of science that dates rocks or creates theories of how a fin made it to an arm, I’ll make sure to not use the benefits of that technology and thus avoid being a hypocrite. Thanks.

  17. snafubar Says:

    To John Adolfi:

    You have seen technology that has resulted from that “branch of science” – Darwin did not use rules or logic unique to paleontology. The scientific method of acceptable theories until they are disproven is applied in all disciplines. It is the rigors of science that apply to all branches that allow meaningful and legitimate progression from primitive (and incorrect) assumptions to ones that work. “Dating rocks” is foolish to you because you want it to be foolish; study some for a while and you admit to yourself that playing the lottery would have better chances of success; taking the one exception in ten million doesn’t yield so much.

    Be honest with me – do you distrust carbon dating because you have read shelves full of scientific journals and have found copious evidence that the data just isn’t there, or did your pastor throw out a sermon one sunday that said it can’t be so? Yes, carbon dating has an error of +/- a few thousand years when talking on the scale of a few billion. That is 1/1000, or .001 or 0.1%. If you really wish to disparage something with accuacy that good, I would stay off the highway and the phone for both have higher failure rates.

    If you really do believe the science is bad and that they are willing to lie to you about carbon dating it’s likely that everything else you rely on is a fraud as well. If not, then why is carbon dating the one thing that gets under your skin so badly?

    Easy answer: it’s one scientific field of thought you can abandon without giving up all of the other things that you count on, despite the fact the rigors of scientific theory and testing that arrived at both conclusions was the same.

    Would you convict a criminal based on DNA evidence? The science that says ‘a fin made it to an arm’ says that you have more DNA in common with an ape (not monkeys) than any other species. It was the same DNA marking that allowed transplant surgery to become as effective as it has, and if you are willing to read your history book back far enough the church first banned blood transfusions and then transplants.

    All I am asking for is consistency. If you truly have so much contempt for the scientific method, then you cannot use the benefits of technology in good conscience. You would not call someone a Christian who picked and chose what Bible verses he would adhere to and dismiss the rest, as you should not with science.

  18. John Adolfi Says:

    Darwin was a theology student washout not a scientist but besides that let me say that I am interested in the scientific method. Anything that can be observed and tested with a great degree of repeatability in the lab is of interest to me. Anything believed that cannot be repeated in the lab is religion.

  19. snafubar Says:

    I thought about this site some more, and had another thought. It is a sad oversimplification to say that evolutionists ever claimed that “all life is the result of millions of beneficial chance mutations” that happened over millions of years — yeah, those mutations really worked well for Cy Kitty!”

    If I summed up the Bible by saying, “Jews used to be God’s favorite, but when they killed Jesus he turned on them. You should follow Jesus” you’d righfully say I left out a few important details. Like it’s billions of years, not just millions. You don’t just follow evolutions back to apes and give up; the DNA is there all the way back to single-cell organisms and the protiens and amino acids that they are made up with. And if you want to say “That’s not life”, then you should back off insisting that two cells in a womb are.

    Mutations do happen. Spend some time in the neo-natal ward to watch babies born with defective heart valves, cleft palates, and other deformities and you will realize that children with those conditions like that don’t survive or suffer greatly unless humans intervene. To say that all mutations are beneficial is rediculous; In a random sequence, there will be many more mistakes than improvements. Try to spill alphabet soup on the floor and see how many cans you have to empty to spell something coherent. But when a mutation occurs that proves helpful – like a fish with longer fins than others that allow it to move better on land than those who have short fins – dozens of generations later there are fish with longer fins. Those mutaitons lead to life that survives, prospers, and creates more copies with that mutation – how a fin becomes an arm.

    I really think the problem is time scale, one that will never be appreciated if you think the world is 6000 years old. Mutations don’t happen so that the grandfather can see the results in the grandchild. There was not an ape who went to sleep one night and woke up human.

    But this discussion, and Cy, is about mutations.

    Even if you want to believe that God created the mutation, that it was not random, the mortality of those that don’t work and the success of those which do still proves that God follows Darwin’s logic.

    When a mutation occurs that hinders the survival of the being that carries it – like being born with no nose and one eye, chances are not good that individual will survive, and creatures that do not live long produce few offspring to carry on the trait, which is exactly what happened in Cy’s case. Cy’s mutation, as tragic as it was, did not improve his life and it is no surprise that Cy did not survive. Nothing for Darwin to apologize for.

    If it were a beneficial mutation, Cy would live a healthy life, and mate with another cat to pass the gene on to more little cats with one eye and no nose.

    My question to you is: Did your loving god who cherishes all life create Cy simply so you could watch the animal die and drag him around to disparage evolutionists? Are all birth defects an attempt by God to prove his omnipotence? And if that is so, should we keep our surgeons away from them and let them die to show our respect for God’s purpose?

    Here’s a question to all those who believe Terry Schiavo was “killed” by a judge or her husband: Terry Schiavo fell into a coma which required human medical intervention to be fed intravenously and stay alive. If everything is God’s will, then should we have not recognized her siezure as a sign that god wished her to die and let her go? It was the doctors who saved her in the first place, for otherwise her siezure would have been fatal.

    I do respect your right to keep mistating the theory of evolution and making fun of scientists. But I would like to see how far you would get insisting that Darwin must be wrong by filling a museum with human babies that did not live because they were born with deformities, and that proves it was God’s will and not evolution.

  20. snafubar Says:

    So Darwin was a washout, and therefore his theory is junk? Einstien was a poor student who’s professors thought he would never succeed; do you believe that invalidates his discoveries as well?

  21. six_ways Says:

    Snafubar, I’d just like to say that your posts thus far seem to be excellently thought out, and you’ve raised a couple of points that are new to me.

    I would however say that John at least is more accepting of the possible validity of the evolutionist point of view, and seems to accept the true meaning of proof – in that disproving evolution does not mean proving creationism.